“I provide the pleasure, I control it”: sexual pleasure and “bottom” identity constructs amongst gay youth in a Stepping Stones workshop

Abstract

This paper explores the meanings attached to gay sexuality through the self-labelling practices of a group of young gay-identified students in focus group and individual interviews in Johannesburg, South Africa. These meanings include constructs of the dynamics surrounding safe sex negotiation and risk related to “top-bottom” subject positioning as well as the erotics of power and desire that are imbued in these practices and positioning. Using performativity theory as a theoretical tool of analysis, I argue that constructs of “top-bottom” subjectivities can be seen to meet certain erotic needs for LGBTI youth, including reasons related to physical safety for LGBTI people living in dangerous spaces. The performance of “bottom” identities in sexual intimacy and behaviour is further deployed in the expression and performance of power that the participants construct as erotic. The implications for sexual health intervention include understanding the gendered performance influences of sexual behaviour including safe sex, exploring creative ways that practices of sexual health can be engaged with this population group in a way that accommodates the erotic pleasure interfaced with sexual identity identifications and performances of “bottom” identities.

Résumé

Cet article étudie les acceptations liées à la sexualité homosexuelle par les pratiques d’autolabellisation d’un groupe de jeunes étudiants gays dans des entretiens individuels et par groupes d’intérêt à Johannesburg, Afrique du Sud. Ces acceptations incluent des concepts des dynamiques entourant la négociation pour des rapports sexuels surs et le risque relatif au positionnement des sujets en « actif/passif », ainsi que l’érotisme du pouvoir et du désir qui imprègne ces pratiques et ces positions. En utilisant la théorie de la performativité comme outil théorique d’analyse, j’avance qu’il est possible de considérer que les concepts des subjectivités d’« actif-passif » répondent à certains besoins érotiques des jeunes LHBT, notamment des raisons se rapportant à la sécurité physique des LHBT qui vivent dans des espaces dangereux. L’adoption d’identités « passives » dans l’intimité et le comportement sexuel est encore affichée dans l’expression et l’exercice du pouvoir que les participants considèrent comme érotiques. Les conséquences pour les interventions de santé sexuelle incluent de saisir les influences sexospécifiques du comportement sexuel, notamment les rapports sexuels sûrs, d’étudier des manières créatives dont les pratiques de santé sexuelle peuvent être mises en łuvre dans ce groupe de population d’une manière associant le plaisir érotique avec les identifications sexuelles et la performance des identités « passives ».

Resumen

Este artículo explora los significados asociados con la sexualidad homosexual por medio de las prácticas de autoetiquetado de un grupo de jóvenes estudiantes que se identificaron como homosexuales en grupos focales y en entrevistas individuales en Johannesburgo, Sudáfrica. Estos significados incluyen constructos de la dinámica en torno a la negociación de sexo con protección y el riesgo relacionado con el posicionamiento del sujeto ‘arriba-abajo’, así como el erotismo del poder y deseo que están imbuidos en estas prácticas y posicionamiento. Utilizando la Teoría de la Performatividad como una herramienta teórica de análisis, arguyo que los constructos de las subjetividades ‘arriba-abajo’ pueden ser vistos como que cubren ciertas necesidades eróticas para jóvenes LGBT, incluidas las razones relacionadas con la seguridad física de LGBT que viven en espacios peligrosos. El desempeño de identidades de ‘abajo’ en la intimidad y conducta sexuales se manifiesta en la expresión y rendimiento de poder que los participantes construyen como erótico. Las implicaciones para la intervención en salud sexual incluyen entender las influencias del comportamiento sexual en el desempeño diferenciado en función al género, tales como sexo con protección, y explorar maneras creativas de cambiar las prácticas de salud sexual en este grupo de población de una manera que incluya el placer erótico interconectado con identificaciones de identidad sexual y el desempeño de identidades del sujeto de abajo.

Key words:

• gay youth
• sexual scripts
• pleasure
• safety
• South Africa

Reading sexual scripts: invoking heteronormative gendered norms

Top/Bottom identities are usually attached to sexual practices amongst gay men (although not restricted to gay men only) that describe active roles such as an insertive sexual position during anal and/or oral intercourse (top) as well as so-called passive receptive roles (bottom identity). These labelling practices are not only restricted to sexual intercourse but may extend to other facets of subjectivity, behaviour, lifestyle and other interactions and performances.^1,2 Also important to note is that both these labels connote a labelling practice that may not resemble the way many gay men experience pleasure, practice sexual health and even identify. Researchers³ have noted that many gay-identifying men not only do not identify with these labels but also may simultaneously perform these identities in different moments and contexts. In other words, the top/bottom distinction is not always as rigid in practice but may be characterized by different contexts of being or performing “top” or “bottom”. Furthermore, these identity distinctions do not stereotypically characterize many gay relationships and interactions but should in fact be seen as a social construct. Some researchers have further argued that both top and bottom identities are constitutive of multiple aspects of sexual position, behaviour, identity and other developmental influences.³ Such fluidity in identification and performance demonstrates the importance of challenging binary (re)productions of gendered and sexual subjectivities more generally.

In exploring constructs of top/bottom identities amongst gay men, researchers have highlighted the role of heteronormative sexual scripts in structuring how gay men’s identification and sexual practices are “read”.³ Seidman appropriately talks about this as the “sex/gender/sexuality system”.⁴ These heteronormative scripts have been argued to be reading non-heterosexual practices and subjectivities through the a heteronormative lens, which is not ideal in its reiteration of the very hegemonic norm that it seeks to destabilize. Still yet, other researchers⁵ argue for a more nuanced approach that both engages the moments of reproduction and reiteration of the hegemonic norm and yet also acknowledges the sites for re-imaginings and resistances. Early research⁶ discusses sexual scripts as embodiments of social and not biological processes. In other words, sexual scripts are tied to the sexual codes of behaviour and identification that individuals in a society may learn and internalize as natural and specific to particular genders.⁷ It is thus not surprising that these sexual codes of behaviour are replicated in how intimate and sexual practices are “read” amongst non-heterosexual couples. More recently the role of gendered stereotypes of masculinity and femininity in how gay men both negotiate and label potential partners as “top” or “bottom” has been explored.^8,9 Sexual scripts may operate on three different levels: intrapsychic (within the individual); interpersonal (between two people) and cultural (as a cultural and social construct).¹⁰ The value of understanding and analysing the sexual scripts that are reproduced in speech is that we are able to get a clearer sense of both the individual engagement and internalization of broader discourse as well as the significance of the latter on individual psyche.¹¹

In further elucidating the conundrums of sexual scripting, researchers have drawn distinctions between heteronormativity and homonormativity as hegemonic practices that inform how gay male intimate and sexual practices are read. Heteronormativity refers to those sexualities that broader society deems both natural and acceptable and which therefore occupy a naturalized hierarchical position in sexualities.¹² This naturalized hierarchy includes those practices of sexuality that are heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative and so on.¹³ Such performances of sexuality that have been deemed acceptable by society in turn come to function in hegemonic ways that dictate how other sexualities may be read and performed.¹ More often than not, these other performances of sexuality fall short of the ideal and are marginalized accordingly.¹⁴ Ironically, practices of marginalization also exist within many same-sex relationships that sometimes invoke and reproduce heteronormative categories of identification and behaviour, but also at other times, reproduce matrices of intersectionality that are functional in the marginalization of particular groups of LGBTI-identified groups within the community. For example research shows that fear and threat of violence affects black lesbian women more than other LGBTI-identified groups living in South Africa.¹⁵ Enjoyment of rights to sexual and gender expression intersects with other socio-historical and cultural privileges both in terms of access to basic sexual and reproductive resources as well as protection of bodily integrity.

Researchers further note that cultural norms have been influential in the equating of penetration during sex with gendered sex roles. These sex role prescriptions define in rigid ways identifications of masculinity and femininity in men and women as well as amongst gay men. The labels of “top” versus “bottom” come to be associated with particular practices of penetration whereby the penetrating partner is assumed to be the more active, aggressive and therefore “masculine” individual. This is in direct contrast with the partner who is penetrated, constructed as the “feminine” partner – that is, passive and effeminate. These heterosexual gendered norms are not only deployed in “reading” sexual practices of gay men but also function in stigmatizing ways that construct many “bottoms” as lesser than and lacking sexual agency.^12,16 On the other hand, the intricate ways that these normalizing practices of sexuality come to be invoked and reproduced within same-sex relationships and interactions have been explored.¹⁷ Using the term “homonormativity” some researchers²⁰ describe those practices that actively reproduce the heteronormative ideal in same-sex relationships as embodying same regulatory function. The self-categorization as “top” or “bottom” for example, reproduces particular sexual scripts that reinforce heteronormative notions of masculine vs feminine and gender roles.

In a South African context research has shown that cultural scripts inform how sexuality and sexual behaviours are performed and practiced.¹⁸ This research demonstrates the importance of intervention at the level of cultural sexual scripts that influence how sexualities are expressed and performed. More recently, sexual scripts have been shown to be not only important to understanding of sexuality in South Africa, but also to understanding of how sexual scripts intersect with other social categories of race, gender and class to influence practices of safe and unsafe sex.¹⁹ In other research focused on how black men living in South African townships negotiate practices of anal sex, partner characteristics and interpersonal dynamics were identified as one of the key aspects to ability to negotiate use of lubrication, amongst other practices²⁰. The research further argues for concerted focus on cultural specific interventions that address the importance of cultural sexual scripts in health education. Understanding the different cultural and sexual scripts amongst black men who have sex with men (MSM) in South Africa requires a critical engagement with the narrative scripts informing many discriminatory practices against homosexuality more generally. It is in this regard that researchers have challenged the narrative tendency to situate homosexual practice and identities outside of an African cosmology²¹ that denies the legitimacy and rights of many homosexual black bodies. Indeed, part of the discursive assault of these bodies amongst many African leaders has been situating homosexuality as a western import that is essentially un-African.^22–24 South African research on MSM further highlights the importance of unpacking the nuanced and complex relationships and partnerships in which MSM participate.²⁵ Other researchers note that academic writing on black sexuality in South Africa has tended to be over-determined by interfacing discourses and concerns of HIV.²⁶ This trend, I argue, has inadvertently sidelined any serious discussions on the politics and erotics of sexual pleasure.

The current paper takes as its point of departure, and in line with Butler’s performativity theory, the idea that all repudiations and claiming of identities is a performance of sorts. For Butler sex and gender is both formed and sustained via matrices of heterosexual hegemonic norms.²⁷ This means that any reading or exploration of gender and sexuality must commence with the awareness that (re)productions of gender and sexuality are interfaced with broader and often commonsense understandings of gender roles. Performances of gender must be read not only via the cultural inscriptions that they invoke, but also the repetitive performances through practice and language of gendered bodies. Individuals repetitively perform (and by so doing give meaning to and thus produce as natural) particular gendered ways of being that do not imply an internal authentic or natural subject but rather demonstrate the role of practice and discourse in how identities come to take hold – and both constrain and enable particular behaviours and agency. It is therefore important to explore and engage the different ways that sexual identities are being constructed, imagined and performed. This is especially important in the context of sexual health interventions, that attempt to address practices of unsafe sex for example, as well as understanding different attachments to identity and sexual pleasure – how people experience pleasure in relation to assuming or performing certain sexual identities. The current research attempts to engage such a process by exploring the sexual scripts of a small group of gay self-identified young men, who actively construct particular meanings of sexual identities (as “bottoms”) as part of their sexual practice.

Methods

The Stepping Stones Workshop

The Stepping Stones training manual, developed in Uganda by Alice Welbourn²⁸ and later adapted for a South African context by Rachel Jewkes and Andrea Cornwall,²⁹ is designed to address HIV prevention strategies and improve the sexual health and well-being of participants by facilitating stronger and healthier relationships. Focusing on issues of sexual knowledge and allowing participants space to reflect and share their knowledge and motivations for behaviour, the workshops promote open discussions between members. The training workshop is ideally suitable for single-sex groups. Through role play, drawing diagrams, and discussions, thematic issues are covered each week by the members, facilitated ideally by a gender and sexual health expert.^30,31 The Stepping Stones training manual has not been widely used for an LGBTI population group, and the workshops were an attempt to address this gap by assessing its utility for LGBTI youth. In this study, the workshops focused on thematic aspects of relationships, sexual health practice, and knowledge, and were facilitated by one of the researchers.

Research methodology

Participants

Participants were recruited via open invite for volunteers to take part in the training process during a focus group session run weekly at the Gay and Lesbian Memory in Action (GALA) Unit. About twenty black, LGBTI-identifying^** young men and women (aged between 18-25) responded to the invite and participated in the weekly focus group sessions. Thereafter eight gay self-identified men from the group, all students, were invited to participate in in-depth individual interviews. Two of the participants were living in student residences at the time of the study, while six were commuting to campus every day.^† All focus group and individual interviews were conducted on campus. Pseudonyms have been used to avoid identification of participants.

Design

A qualitative research design was used, allowing open-ended thematic explorations to emerge that further explore the subjective meanings that participants attach to behaviour and practice.³² Over a period of seven weeks we conducted a Stepping Stones workshop in Johannesburg. Given the manual’s primary focus on heterosexual relationships and sexual behaviour, this focus was part of a broader interest in engaging LGBTI youth in issues of sexual and reproductive health relevant to their lives. The focus group discussions centred on weekly themes on sexual practice, intimate relationships, identity and sexual health practices as presented in the manual. The themes discussed each week were structured according to the thematic focus presented in the manual; for example, week 1 focused broadly on “sexual identity”, week 2 on “relationships”, and so on. Constructs of “top/bottom” identities were brought up by the participants without prompting by the facilitators. Preliminary analysis of the group discussions highlighted the importance of these identities for how the participants negotiated safe sex and other aspects of their relationships. These identifications emerged spontaneously during the focus group discussions on relationships, whereby participants discussed choosing potential partners on the basis of whether they were perceived as “tops” or “bottoms”. Interview questions included open-ended questions such as: “what does it mean to be a top/bottom?” All interviews were transcribed and coded by the researcher.

Identification of themes

The interview data were transcribed and coded by the researcher. The first step of the thematic analysis of the data involved reading through the texts sequentially, to become familiar with the data set as a whole and in relation to the research questions. The reading of the texts was theory-driven³³ and informed by Butler’s performativity theory framework. Through this process, preliminary codes from the data were generated that were used to identify different processes of sexual identity performance in the participants’ accounts. Data extracts were selected and matched together with relevant codes, guided by the research questions and theoretical framework. This approach also meant that data was coded with the specific aim of identifying only particular aspects of the data that addressed issues of sexual identity and labelling in relation to sexual behaviour and performance. The data was coded manually by the researcher and further coded in relation to two overarching thematic questions: 1) what does it means to be a bottom, and 2) how does a bottom identity influence decisions and practices related to sexual behaviour?

An illustration of this extraction and multiple coding processes is shown below:

Table

Data extract	Coded for
“It depends with whom I am having sex. Sometimes I am a bottom. Other times I am not. The dynamics of who we are dictate most of that. When I am top, I want to be top with this person. When I am bottom I want to be bottom. Nobody tells me that I have to be. I want to be” (Sibusiso)	Sexual Fluidity Sexual Choice and Performance of bottom identity Interpersonal dynamics of sexual behaviour and performance

Findings and discussion

Intersections of pleasure and power as a “bottom”

The participants frequently discussed the identity of “bottom” as one of power and not weakness, as generally perceived. Both in the focus groups and the individual interviews, constructs of being a “bottom” circulated that affirmed not only “bottom” as about more than sexual position but also one that included other personal facets of one’s being and movement in different social contexts, such as being in the rural township vs more urban geographical contexts. In these constructs, it would seem that one performs an internalized identity as “bottom” differently.

Even more prominent was the notion of a bottom identity as one from which pleasure can be controlled in the relationship or sexual encounter. Participants (who all identified as “bottoms” during the interviews) discussed their own personal sense of power derived from different aspects of intimacy and sexual enjoyment. Thabo, for example, describes his identification and performance of a “bottom” identity during sex as intricately tied to the physical act of being a “bottom”:

“I think what you have missed out on is the erotic aspect of assuming specific positions in the relationship – whether top or bottom – for me, I definitely get so much pleasure from seeing how much my partner, who is inserting me at the time, is enjoying the moment. That’s what it is for me.”

The emphasis on the erotic function of assuming particular sexual positions is here presented as a significant and meaningful moment in sexual interaction. The connection between sexual positioning and the enjoyment of power is argued to be one of the defining features of understanding the interplay of power dynamics between gay men.³⁴ They, however, engage Foucault’s distinction between power as domination and power as negotiated. In the case of the latter, space is opened up for shared intimacy and mutual pleasure, while in the case of the former, pleasure is predominantly one-sided and hierarchical.²¹ This is a sentiment one participant, Adam, similarly echoes in his rejection of the interviewer’s equation of bottom identity with reduced power and agency:

“I definitely don’t see any denial of power there. In fact I feel so powerful in that moment because I provide the pleasure, I control it. He may be a top but it is me controlling the entire experience.”

“Well, I must say I have never really thought about as a loss of power or that I am weak in the relationship. I see how people who are not gay may interpret it as that. But that is never how I have experienced it. We both feel what we feel in terms of our identities and whatever position we take during sex. For me, I just feel a sense of being the one that determines the extent of his pleasure. So, ironically, you could say that his pleasure depends on me. So to me that actually says I have the power.” (Buhle)

In some significant ways, such expression of pleasure and power can be argued to be an inversion of the traditional power dynamics that are attached to labels of being a “top” or “bottom”.^12,21 Assuming bottom positions and identification within the relationship and sexual interaction has often tended to include notions of re-inscriptions of the heteronormative gendered norm. This norm is understood to re-inscribe hegemonic and often patriarchal practices of gender that limit particular non-gender conforming identities and practice. Within same-sex relationships, this assumption has been applied in how many gay relationships are “read” more broadly. And yet, a more nuanced perspective that acknowledges the multiple and different aspects of bottom identity is necessary.³ Studies further indicate the sexual labelling practices of gay men are by no means rigid and may often demonstrate fluidity in identification and performance.¹⁰ This fluidity is characterized by shifts between being a self-characterized “bottom” to performing other traits and behaviour categorized as “top”. Participants discussed these different performances in relation to sexual pleasure and not as reproductions of traditional heteronormative gender scripts (as implied by the researcher in the interview). As one of the participants in the current study asserts:

“…we are not invoking heteronormativity at all, it is about the sensual pleasure of it.” (Adam)

Researchers have argued that there is an element of self-emancipation as well as processes of cognitive appraisals that most bottom-identifying men engage in.^35,36 For others, the assumption of the label and performance of a bottom identity is dependent on the nature of the relationship, i.e. casual vs romantic.¹⁰ This reflective practice is evident in how another participant, Sifiso, defends against any notion of powerlessness:

“…this ‘top’ vs ‘bottom’ identity thing is really missing the point. For us, it’s about enjoying being with someone in particular way. There is no power game. It’s just two people enjoying each other. I enjoy being with my partner as a ‘bottom’. What that means to me is that I enjoy sex in a particular way; I enjoy intimacy in a particular way and so on. And that way, for me, is that I enjoy being penetrated. But I am not powerless, I just enjoy the feeling of it, it’s about pleasure and how we get it.”

This emphasis on pleasure and power is further tied to feelings of personal control with regards to how sexual pleasure is both provided and managed during sex:

“…and I can see how much he is so lost in the moment, and he has completely let go of everything. And I feel so powerful. I make that happen. I give him that pleasure. He is at my mercy.” (Philip)

Philip in the above excerpt not only engages a different sexual script in turning notions of “bottoms” as lacking agency in determining the parameters of sexual pleasure. This reclaiming of agency is evident not only in how but also when sexual identities and positions are taken up and performed in the relationship and by whom:

“For me, it’s about choosing to be receptive and not because you have to be.” (Philip)

“It depends with whom I am having sex. Sometimes I am a bottom. Other times I am not. The dynamics of who we are dictate most of that. When I am top, I want to be top with this person. When I am bottom I want to be bottom. Nobody tells me that I have to be. I want to be.” (Sibusiso)

Yet, researchers have importantly critiqued the pleasure/power discourse in much bottom-identifying talk of gay men, arguing that this should be treated with caution.¹⁴ On the one hand, such discourse allows for the possibility of resistance and challenging of stereotypical sexual scripts that can only conceive pleasure in such binary terms. And yet such discourse and performance also inadvertently constrain the possibilities for how sexual desire may be performed.¹⁴

Figure 1 Pretoria, South Africa. A group of gay men at a concert.

Physical safety concerns

Participants did not only construct pleasure and power in the relationship as well as in sexual intercourse through recourse of the dynamics of being a “bottom”. They also discussed this identity and performance as intricately tied up with other personal concerns around a sense of their physical safety and general well-being. For the participants, choosing to enter intimate and sexual relationships with other men not identified as “bottom” was directly related to notions around what it means to be safe in a particular context. Here, participants discussed the implications of particular sexual identities within different geographical contexts that either enabled or hindered the exercise of one’s gender and sexual expression:

“…as an effeminate gay man living in the township, I feel safer walking around with my hyper-masculine boyfriend.” (Buhle)

“Not many people in the township where I live know that I am gay. Some people do, like those people I go to varsity with. They know because I am active on campus in the student organisation. But I guess, I do think about that. Think about what if word gets out, you know. And then what? One day, I am waiting in the taxi rank and people are hostile to me. What do I do? So, yes, to some extent, that is how I have kinda been with someone – someone who was not so obvious that he is gay. Because me I am not so obvious, and I don’t want to invite that kind of speculation if my partner is seen to be gay.” (Sizwe)

“I am definitely attracted to men that you would consider as ‘tops’. Even though I do not always take on the ‘bottom’ position during sex. For me, it’s also about do I feel safe with this person? People are less likely to pick on you if they know so and so is your man…” (Adam)

The importance of geographical space to how one is able to express and live one’s gender and sexual identity is made salient in the above excerpts. These excerpts highlight the differential spaces of privilege related to race and class for many lesbian and gay-identified individuals living in South Africa. Many LGBTI-identified persons living in South Africa continue to experience stigmatization and victimization, sometimes even at the hands of health service providers.³⁷ Despite the liberal and progressive equalizing of same-sex relationships in the country’s young democracy, the realization of these rights remains reflective of the broader inequalities of race and social class in the society.,^38,18 Research also indicates that mental health issues affect lesbian and gay populations significantly in addition to other generic concerns of personal safety and well-being.^18,39 Researchers have noted that same-sex desires and practices within a South African context characterize similar features to elsewhere in the world – namely the intersections of race, ethnicity, class, networks etc. in the performance and expressions of sexuality.⁴⁰ These intersections are important in understanding the concerns of safety for some of the participants living in the townships and also potentially being more visible for victimization in their daily commute to campus. What does remain of important concern in the above narratives of being and feeling safe is the degree to which many “bottoms” will exercise less agency in sexual behaviour practice with their partners in exchange for safety.⁴¹ This is an issue that most of the participants failed to fully answer in the individual interviews, preferring to point out the primary benefit of being in a relationship with a masculine-presenting partner. Clearly, this is an issue that needs further exploration. Elsewhere, the implications of decisions on matters of safe sex and other sexual behaviour from this cohort are discussed.²⁹ In other research ,⁴² it is argued that internalized homophobia amongst many black South African men who have sex with men may impact the full effect of discrimination and other physical safety concerns for mental health.

Limitations of the study and future directions

This study’s focus on the sexual identifications of a group of self-identified gay men is part of a broader discursive dialogue on understanding the dynamics of sexual health behaviour and practice amongst LGBTI-identifying individuals. Nonetheless several limitations are important to note here: primarily the utility of dialogue with a much larger cohort of individuals. This would allow for a much more in-depth and thorough understanding of the multiple ways that gay men both identify and perform their sexual identities. While the findings in this study are significant for some gay men living in South Africa, this cannot be generalized to many black, African LGBTI-identified men and other populations. In addition, such an increase in cohort size would allow for more nuanced understanding of the different contextual environments that influence how different gay men perform these identities, such as geographical contexts. Post-apartheid South Africa’s diverse contextual milieu – including economic factors – influences how many LGBTI individuals both experience and practice their sexual and gendered identities. A broader scale and scope of this diversity is necessary. With regards to the process of analysis, a cross-checking verification process or “free association” with other researchers might be useful to engage fully with the meanings and interpretations of the data interviews. This would further allow for more and multiple understandings and explorations of identities and practice. What is important to note in this paper is the importance of engaging and taking seriously both the discursive erotic constructs attached to sexual identities and performances of behaviour in addition to the more dominant concerns of sexual health practice and attitudes. These two foci are important and cannot be separated from each other if intervention strategies are to be more effective. How people experience and perform sexual pleasure is central to understanding what strategies of intervention will and will not work.

Conclusions and reflections

This paper has argued that a more nuanced understanding of how gay men experience and self-label as “bottoms” in particular is important not only to understanding the broad matrix of pleasure and desire but also to how we intervene and attempt to engage issues of sexual and reproductive health with this population. The constructs of relational pleasure and power that characterize many bottom-identified gay men’s performance of sex need to be treated with more critical understanding of the enabling and constraining effects of such constructs. Furthermore, the added interplay of race and social class means that for many South African black-identified gay men living in contexts where homophobic violence is prevalent, understanding the dynamics of how and why relationships are formed is crucial to understanding related issues of sexual behaviour and health practice. While the assertions of bottom identities as embodying power may indeed be indicative of a self-serving bias characterized by the desire to maintain a positive self-identity, it is important that we remain open to how young men are identifying with these categories and to what end. This will mean engaging with the ways that these identities are experienced beyond stereotypical framings of powerlessness and vulnerability. Lastly, sexual health and reproductive health promotion initiatives must incorporate the diversity and complexities of gender performances and expressions, and be careful not to engage the self-labelling practices of gay men in rigid and binary ways. Paying attention to the multiplicity of contexts, type of relationships and so on is crucial to how we intervene and what discursive repertoires we employ in doing so. The growing body of work on youth identities in a changing post-apartheid context demonstrates the multiple, dynamic and complex resistances, attachments and identifications of young people growing up today. Re-articulations of identities and sexualities, amongst others, attest to the need to engage the ever-changing contexts of identity and sexuality. More than this, intersectionality (of different identity and social categories) is an important guiding frame to understanding these identifications and behaviour practices. Clearly more research is needed that explores some of these complexities for sexual and reproductive health of LGBTI populations.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof Mzikazi Nduna for her role in the initial focus group discussions that formed the backdrop to the individual interviews presented and discussed here. I also thank the participants who took part. Lastly, I thank the sponsorship of the African Gender Institute for this research.

Notes

* Not all participants were living openly as gay men both on and outside campus at the time of the interviews.

† Geographical location of participants is not included to protect participants’ identities.