This attracted the attention of researchers who saw in most cases the need to define the term. Early debates within the gay community focused on the risk of HIV transmission that the practice entailed for both HIV-seroconcordant and serodiscordant partners (see Carballo-Diéguez and Bauermeister 2004, for an earlier review see also Junge 2002). However, by the time Silverstein and Picano published a new edition of the iconic The Joy of Gay Sex in 2003, bareback was defined simply as condomless gay sex. It initially referred to intentional condomless anal intercourse, mainly among HIV-infected gay men ( Gendin 1997). The term ‘bareback’ appeared in the gay press in the mid-1990s.
![gay cum in me bareback no oull out gay cum in me bareback no oull out](https://ei.phncdn.com/videos/202107/15/391275581/original/(m=eWdTGgaaaa)(mh=D7CXj-Getdd_bhai)16.jpg)
To help focus HIV-prevention efforts, we propose a re-conceptualisation that contextualises risky condomless anal intercourse and distinguishing between behaviours that are intentional and may result in HIV-primary transmission from those that are not. Any identification as barebacker appeared too loose to be of use from a public health prevention perspective. Results showed overall agreement with a basic definition of bareback sex as condomless anal intercourse, but considerable variation on other elements. Using in-depth, face-to-face interviews with an ethnically diverse sample of 120 HIV infected and uninfected men, mainly gay-identifying, and recruited online in New York City, this study explored respondents’ definitions of bareback sex, the role that intentionality and risk played in those definitions, and whether respondents identified as ‘barebackers’.
![gay cum in me bareback no oull out gay cum in me bareback no oull out](http://4.tube4cum.com/th/2/3992/84854697.jpg)
The terms bareback and bareback identity are increasingly being used in academic discourse on HIV/AIDS without clear operationalisation.