Understanding how gay men construct ‘good’ chemsex participation using critical discursive psychology

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Alias	Age Group	Country of Birth	Living with HIV	Preferred Drugs	Drugs Used in Past Year
Pablo	30–35	Argentina	No	Cannabis, Cocaine	Cannabis; Cocaine; Ketamine; Crystal Meth; G
Ayo	30–35	Kenya	No	Cocaine	Cocaine; Crystal Meth; G
Simon	40–45	Cork	No	Cocaine	MDMA; Cocaine; Ketamine; Crystal Meth; G
Dan	40–45	South Africa	Yes	Cannabis	Cannabis; MDMA; Cocaine; Crystal Meth
Brian	30–35	Ireland	Yes	G	Cannabis; MDMA; Cocaine; Ketamine; Crystal Meth; G; Heroin
Alonso	30–35	Costa Rica	No	MDMDA, Cocaine	MDMA; Cocaine; G
James	40–45	Ireland	No	G	Cocaine; Ketamine; Crystal Meth; G
John	30–35	Ireland	No	MDMA	Cannabis; MDMA; Cocaine

Table 2. Analytical tools.

Interpretative repertoires	Discursive construction	Position	Discursive accomplishment
Chemsex is inherently risky and harmful	Chemsex is always ruinous and noxious	The informed, enlightened and shrewd chemsex participant	‘Other’ chemsex participants are flippant and uninformed
Chemsex participants have essentialised traits	Some chemsex participants are ‘naturally’ predisposed to destructive chemsex practices	The infallible chemsex participant	‘Other’ participants have essentialised characteristics that render them fallible
‘Good’ chemsex participants uphold an ethical ethos	There are conventionalities and implicit ethical criteria for engaging in chemsex that centre around decency, constructing chemsex as an ethical practise.	The ethically and morally astute chemsex participant	‘Other’ participants have less moral fibre/do not understand the ethical culture

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, CN. The data are not publicly available as they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.