Gay Sexuality: Between Pleasure and Society
The sexologist Volkmar Sigusch put forward a bold thesis in the 1980s when he wrote an essay on the social situation of male homosexuals:
"That many homosexuals know how to mobilise and consume more pleasure in an hour than many heterosexuals in the course of a year, that they experience things that exceed the imaginative activity of normal people, that they not only somehow outshine the others quantitatively, but are much more imaginative and capable of adjustment - one could already know this for a while." (Sigusch 1984, p. 112)
Of course, his thesis is not unfounded, as he refers to the empirical results of US sex research and sexual medicine at the time. In addition, and this is the decisive factor, he consistently reflects on the situation of homosexual men in social terms and asks himself what tensions their sexuality is charged with. According to Volkmar Sigusch, homosexuality retains a subversive and utopian content precisely because for gay men it goes hand in hand with being brutally marginalised from "normality", but also with being comparatively outside the normative impositions. This enables some gay men to free themselves from the illusions of bourgeois society, and "that makes them freer and unhappier, if that is what it means." (ibid., p. 110).
Many of them also lead a double life: Particularly compliant and decent in their working lives in a generally bad situation, they would still receive a personal pleasure bonus. Of course, these considerations cannot be applied to the present day, 36 years later, or only in part. Rather, heterosexuals and homosexuals have adapted more and more to each other, have become mutually homosexualised and heterosexualised to a certain extent. Today, it would perhaps be rather bold to claim that social integration goes hand in hand with desexualisation.
How HIV and AIDS changed gay sexuality
However, there is a development that began at the latest at the time of publication of the aforementioned essay and is still relevant to the sexuality of all people today, and in particular to the sexuality of gay men: the AIDS and HIV complex. This continues to allow gay men to experience things that go beyond the imagination of normal people. According to sexologist Martin Dannecker, the sexuality of gay men is subject to a law of fear under the dictates of AIDS. The dictates of AIDS exacerbate fundamental fears and feelings of guilt towards sexuality and at the same time allow them to emerge in a new and transformed form. In practice, gay men changed their sexual behaviour quickly, consistently and efficiently in the face of the emergence of the disease, which was very often fatal at the time. Although they found themselves "forced to restrict their sexuality" (Dannecker 2019, p. 59), the vast majority of them followed the new "safer sex" rules with astonishing diligence and thus contributed to successful HIV prevention.
HIV prevention as a constant companion
Since then, however, the sexuality of gay men has been continuously accompanied, if not partly burdened and dominated, by this very HIV prevention and its demands, because the tragedy of gay sexuality has since then sometimes been its persistent connection with HIV and the prevention of its spread. It therefore seems obvious to me to relate the ingenuity, attitude and imaginative activity - as well as the double life mentioned above - of gay men today to how they deal with HIV and their relationship to sexuality.
What protection strategies are available when having sex?
The fact that the sexual practices and ideas of gay men continue to revolve around HIV is illustrated by the multitude of strategies for preventing infection or transmission of the virus or for reducing risk. Because the list of strategies is long and if you relate it to the sexual behaviour of gay men and the ideas that people have about the sexuality of gay men, you come across two of their outrageous and "risky" cores: anal intercourse and promiscuity. Those who talk about HIV and gay men are possibly not only referring to the risk of transmitting the virus, but are also, consciously or unconsciously, addressing the scandal that (some) gay men afford themselves: they fuck themselves in the arse and have sex with (many) changing partners.
There are now a wide variety of ways to manage HIV and the risk of transmitting it to oneself or others: condom use, PEP, PrEP and protection through treatment are likely to be the most common. Serosorting, seroguessing, therapy sorting and negotiated safety mean that the decision for or against safer sex depends on the presumed or known serostatus of the sexual partner.
Barebacking refers to the decision, for various reasons, not to use condoms; strategic positioning involves strategically choosing the active or passive role during sex in order to reduce the likelihood of infection; withdrawal refers to refraining from ejaculation during sex; bugchasing and pozzing describe the deliberate infection (or the risk-taking associated with the possibility of infection) with HIV; finally, there is (partial or complete) abstinence, that is, refraining from sex, from certain practices or from direct sexual encounters. Last but not least, another, often unnamed strategy for dealing with HIV involves choosing not to use protection – that is, on a situational, intermittent or long-term basis, making no behavioural changes or adjustments to protect against a possible infection.
HIV prevention: condoms, PrEP and protection through treatment
Since the turn of the millennium at the latest, which of the strategies is used and chosen has been negotiated under the heading of "individual risk management", which places informed decisions and risk assessment by the individual at the centre of prevention approaches. In this context, Deutsche Aidshilfe is now known to advocate the so-called "Safer Sex 3.0" position, which argues that the protection strategies of condoms, PrEP and protection through therapy are of equal value. Ironically speaking, Safer Sex 3.0. thus represents a kind of new "holy trinity" of gay prevention work. While this position advocated by Deutsche Aidshilfe, when applied correctly, emphasises the equal value and equal rights of three protection strategies - which is medically proven and correct - the users each have their own relationship to the available protection strategies.
Why defence mechanisms also trigger emotions
For individual gay men, condoms, PrEP and protection through therapy are at best equal and equivalent in terms of attitude or in the expression of their values and norms, but in many cases they naturally have clear preferences, decisive opinions and ideas about effectiveness and practicability and, in particular, very specific fantasies about the different protection strategies. The latter fantasies do not only relate to the technical dimension of protection strategies. However, prevention work - and this is due to its logic - ultimately focuses on precisely this technical dimension. Prevention is about feasibility, it addresses rational individuals who are capable of adapting their behaviour, it always refers to risks and their avoidance and prevention, it is therefore always incomplete, it dramatises (also in order to legitimise and maintain itself), it offsets costs and benefits against each other, its consequences are normalisation, individualisation, totalisation and (attempts to) tame a bad thing that lies in the future (cf. Bröckling 2008).
Desire, fear and personal experiences
However, things are very different in the individual's psychological household. Here, fantasies, ideas and feelings are of central importance, which relate to protection strategies, their users and, above all, the effects on sex life. Whether these fantasies and ideas correspond to reality or represent a wish is of secondary importance. They manifest and mobilise the sexual biography, sexual education paradigms and sexual morals of the individual men as well as their sexual desires and their ideas of and about sexuality. In a certain situation and with certain sexual partners, one decides in favour of or against a certain strategy - not only due to the mere function of protection, but rather also due to the (desired) experience of sexuality and intimacy, due to sexual needs or due to certain (fusion or demarcation) desires.
What gay and bisexual men think about HIV prevention
Against this backdrop, in a total of around a dozen sex education workshops with gay and bisexual men, I sought to draw attention to and reflect on precisely these links to HIV prevention strategies. This also seems sensible because, with the „biomedicalisation of the AIDS apparatus“ (Langer 2008, p. 239), the range of HIV prevention strategies has expanded. In the past, the rule was: put a condom on when having sex and pull out before you come. That’s no longer the case today.
This disrupts habits and the identification with protective strategies; the way in which potential safety measures are negotiated during sex changes, with either more communication taking place during the actual sexual encounter or, conversely, such communication remaining invisible and no longer requiring any direct exchange. Last but not least, current developments are causing unease amongst quite a few gay men, and the (in themselves welcome) biomedical advances in HIV treatment and prevention are, for some, also accompanied by (biographically rooted) feelings of hurt. Sometimes one has to say goodbye to the good old condom or put up with the fact that others (want to) do so.
PrEP, condoms and moral judgements
Sceptical voices about the medicalised HIV prevention that PrEP represents are in danger of being drowned out by the enthusiasm of PrEP activists. In any case, various discourses play a role in the debate surrounding PrEP: both an optimistic liberation discourse, which sees PrEP as an opportunity for democratic biopolitics and the liberation of gay sexuality from stigmatisation (Schubert 2020), and a sceptical medicalisation discourse, which also points to the risk of the development of resistance to active substances and raises medical ethical concerns (Bochow 2019). Outside of the specialist debates, highly unobjective and highly emotional contributions are also repeatedly part of the debate about the pros and cons of PrEP. PrEP users are then criticised or insulted ("PrEP whores") as irresponsible "virus spreaders" and egoists who are "only" concerned with their own sexual pleasure. In contrast, condom users are sometimes accused of being old-fashioned and conservative ("condom bourgeois").
When protection during sex becomes a source of conflict
These disputes can have concrete consequences: Many an initially tense sex date comes to an abrupt end because completely different ideas about how to deal with HIV clash. The condom as a reason for ending a sexual encounter without saying a word; PrEP as a reason to confront the other person with assumptions or accusations about their lifestyle and state of health; protection through therapy as a panic-inducing AIDS and death trigger. In these dynamics, one's own attitude towards sexuality and its possible consequences is also called into question. All of this is illustrated by the sometimes highly emotionalised and dramatic discussions within the gay scene about the respective protection strategies.
Feedback from the workshops
In the workshops mentioned above, participants wrote down or told their fantasies and associations about four strategies for protecting themselves against HIV and four ways of dealing with HIV. In all sexual education events, the gay and bisexual participants were asked to give free rein to their thoughts and - far from social desirability, meaningfulness or beliefs considered politically correct - to collect their own impulses and images regarding condoms, PrEP, protection through therapy and no protection and to make them visible (anonymously if necessary) on pinboards. The feedback was to relate to the strategy itself, its users and the effects on their sex lives. The participants then discussed and reflected on the results together. All of the following quotes, supplemented by individual sentence elements, are taken verbatim from the collections from the workshops and summarised as examples.
The condom: safe, sensible or a killjoy?
For many people, the condom represents something tried and tested, familiar and classic. It conveys a sense of security, control and the feeling of being protected – almost like a home. It is practical, tangible and gives some people the feeling that they are acting responsibly during sex. For others, however, it feels restrictive and disruptive: it can tear, pinch, feel tight, smell unpleasant or interrupt the mood.
The condom is thus seen both as protection and as a barrier. It promises safety. At the same time, it can limit spontaneity and intimacy.
Just ask my cock! Stale, half-baked, a real mood-killer.
Anyone who uses condoms is regarded as well-mannered, sensible and responsible. At the same time, they are described as uptight, stuffy or out of touch with the scene. The condom user comes across as the norm, a decent bloke, a casual shagger or a control freak. Some even say: on the verge of extinction.
Our sex life seems wholesome, normal and wholesome. It’s unspontaneous, regimented and restricted. Sometimes it feels agonisingly safe. Technical, detached – and your mind gets involved too.
PrEP: Freedom, Prejudice and Uncertainty
Some people find PrEP unnerving. It’s invisible and seems almost like magic. Some can hardly believe that it offers protection. Others see it as the devil’s work. It divides opinion, causes unease and raises questions: What’s inside me? Is it chemicals, a ‘darkroom’ or simply a modern solution?
For others, PrEP means freedom. It’s about taking matters into your own hands. It’s innovative, straightforward and changes the way we view sex. Some even see it as a sexual revolution.
PrEP is all about change, trust and flexibility. Its users are viewed in very different ways. To some, they are eternal preachers. To others, they are young, wild, part of the scene and urban. They are seen as experienced, open-minded, well-informed and privileged.
The PrEP user is reliable, responsible; he’s so brave, modern and self-reliant – yet up to his neck in STIs. PrEP is a good deed. Pioneers of gay sexuality, but: selfish and self-centred. Their sex life is spectacular; it’s spontaneous, free, relaxed, uninhibited, flexible, flexible and flexible again, wild, wilder, wildest, debauched, diverse, safer, pleasurable, here they’re just having a shag, and at orgies at that, and by the way, finally in ecstasy, though somehow it’s also a bit uncomfortable, because it puts pressure on me, it doesn’t make me any more beautiful, nobody loves me anyway, is this where the addiction kicks in?, aimless.
Protection through therapy: safety despite stigma
With protection through therapy, peace at last. You’ve reached a safe haven. TasP is practical, reliable and extremely safe. At the same time, it remains invisible and can be frightening. For many, TasP also brings with it stigma. It is the unknown world of those who are HIV-positive.
TasP is part of who I am. It makes me vulnerable. It’s time-consuming, but also impressive. There’s no alternative, because: it has to be done. Its users are both hooked and healthy at the same time. They’re in a tough spot, left to their own devices, yet they take responsibility. Some people think: ‘They’ve made a serious mistake.’ Others see them as role models. But would you sleep with them?
Being well-informed, honesty and trust play a major role here. At the same time, the question remains: can you really trust them? The sex feels liberating, authentic and challenging. It can be based on trust, but it can also be unsettling. Somewhere between tension and relaxation. Wild and confident. Concealed and hidden.
No protection: between reality and fantasy
No protection is ineffective, ignorant, uninformed, lacking front and back, nothing understood, completely extreme, worrying, irresponsible and thoughtless, that should be PUNISHED! And yet it is courageous, but also desperate, completely crazy and simply human, it can go well! Anyone who doesn't protect themselves is pretty stupid, actually fearful, repressive, has lots of problems and pretends to be tough. We can't recognise who it is! Find the host! They are disgusting, broken and also mysterious. But: they are so brave, they do what we would all like to do, they are dreamers, they live in the here and now, they are totally enviable, daredevils, naive and happy, they jeopardise our community, crisis! Their sex is spontaneous, carefree, dangerous but maximally pleasurable, irresponsible and PURE freedom!
What HIV prevention has to do with pleasure and morality
It can now be concluded – though this is hardly surprising – that people’s perceptions of the four protection strategies mentioned and their approaches to HIV are contradictory. Promises and hopes are pinned on them and projected onto them; norms are negotiated and exorcised; and they are met with both admiration and contempt. The condom is associated with conservatism, sexual barrenness, the familiar, nostalgia and safety. PrEP, on the other hand, is primarily associated with innovation, revolution and a pioneering spirit. What is striking here is the emphasis on sexual freedom and the assumption that users will enrich their sex lives and have a lot of sex. At the same time, concerns about the far-reaching consequences of unbridled sexuality and medicalisation are emerging.
TasP is generally associated above all with a sense of responsibility, being well-informed, control and an increase in life satisfaction. At the same time, feelings of pity, unease, guilt and envy are expressed. Very vivid and powerful images emerge in relation to the decision not to take protective measures. The presumed escalation of desire is sharply condemned, admired, pathologised and envied. This is hardly surprising, given that the decision to forgo protective measures (apparently) gives rise to a seemingly impossible state of affairs: freedom from the demands, impositions and burdens of prevention – and thus also a sexuality untroubled by HIV and AIDS.
Why carefree sex remains difficult
All protective measures and ways of dealing with HIV ultimately remind us that this carefree sexuality does not exist. At the same time, the feelings and fantasies mobilised in the face of protection strategies have much less to do with HIV and AIDS than one might think. Rather, they are also an expression of the ongoing double life of gay men: they struggle to maintain a decent health balance while still hoping for their pleasure bonus. If they were less identified with protective strategies and had to discipline themselves and others less, the pleasure bonus could possibly be quite different.
