“Travelling POZ delivery service who prefers other poz guys, but will do it with consenting and sober neg dudes who want to enlist in our ranks. . . [I plan] to make de-poz-its in eleven cities in four countries between now and October and [am] looking for sex partners at every stop.” [Actual Classified Ad]. [1]

“Attention neg men! Why stay locked in a boring world of sterile sex when you can join the ranks of the AIDS Freedom Fighters? Let me give you my gift and set you free.” [Actual Classified Ad]. [2]

I consider myself a giving person who receives compliments and gifts unapologetically (note to readers: especially big gifts, likes cars, trips – hum). One kind of giving and receiving is difficult to understand, however – the so called “gift” of HIV infection. Gift givers are those individuals who are willing, with varying degrees of intent, to infect HIV negative individuals. Bug chasers are those individuals who are wanting, with varying degrees of intent, to become infected with the HIV virus. Although I define this proclivity in gender-neutral terms – thus allowing for the possibility that women and straight men fall into either category as well – I am only aware of research concerning this practice as it relates to gay men. In either case, gift givers and bug chasers, both colloquial terms, comprise a sub-community of barebackers, the topic of last month’s Queer Quest (available online at www.gaycalgary.com).

In some places, gift givers and bug chasers hold HIV transmission parties – the intent is to share the virus to those in attendance. [3] I hope you are already asking yourself, “Why on earth would anyone want to do this?” Let me explain what I have learned.

The most comprehensive study reported in the literature analyzed one Web site targeted at barebackers hosting 24,000 Internet profiles in 2004. Of these, approximately 1,600 indicated they were either a bug chaser or gift giver (6-7% of total). Only a small percentage of this group were considered “committed,” in the sense that they were exclusively looking for a serodiscordant (meaning not of the same HIV status) sexual partner. That is, 1.1% of HIV positive men and 21% of HIV negative men – of the 1,600 sub-sample – were seeking HIV serodiscordant partners. In other words, the vast majority of barebackers were not literally chasing or giving the bug with serious intent. However, much of this sample of barebackers were referred to as “opportunistic” bug chasers and gift givers, meaning that they were willing to engage in serodiscordant bareback sex if the opportunity arose, but they were not exclusively pursuing it (i.e., 72% of HIV positive men and 35% of HIV negative men of the 1,600 sub-sample). [4] It should be clear from this study that only a very small percentage of hardcore gift givers (1.1% of the 1,600 sub-sample) and a significantly higher percentage of hardcore bug chasers (21% of the 1,600 sub-sample) advertise on bareback websites looking for infection.

I was unable to find research that describes the reasons why hardcore gift givers are looking to infect others. They are a rare group, and that is likely the reason no studies have been done about them specifically to date. Is it because they wish to reclaim the sexual freedom – with its sense of irresponsibility – that existed before AIDS in the gay community? Is it that they wish to share something of themselves with others that will continue to be felt by the ones who become infected by them long after their own deaths? Is that they are simply the worst kind of hedonistic psychopaths who don’t give a damn about others and only care about their own pleasure? These are purely some of my speculations – we need to know the reasons why, however, if we are to do something constructive with this group of dangerous gay rebels.

We know far more about the more prevalent group here, that of the bug chasers. Two researchers defined four motives for bug chasing, including:

1. Fear and Relief – these individuals seek out infection because they worry about contracting the virus, so rather than continue to worry about it, they pursue it. Once infected, their anxiety ends because they have created their own self-fulfilling prophecy.

2. Risk-Taking – These people eroticize engaging in risky behaviours, like those who play “Russian Roulette” for fun.

3. Loneliness and Group Solidarity – This group pursues infection because they feel “left out” by others who have already become infected, and they believe that they will become part of the group by becoming infected themselves.

4. Political Action – These men believe that because gay and bisexual men are stigmatized, becoming infected will bring the negative labelling closer to them. In turn, something about this labelling is viewed by them as empowering. [5]

In summary, the four reasons for bug chasing is that they “gain in self-respect, sense of purpose, [experience] heightened group solidarity, and [have] improved perception in quality of life.” [6]

If you are a bug chaser, please read these four reasons carefully: do any of them really make sense? As I wrote last month, nearly everyone who is HIV positive knows how living with the disease is onerous. [7] If you need to ask why your life is worth saving, then honey, you need to be calling a psychologist to get some help. Do so and learn about how your life is the most precious gift ever given to you.

I also decided in this issue to write about harm reduction, which includes the strategies that can be used to reduce the likelihood of harm for those who refuse to wear condoms for whatever reason. It is a bit like using the withdrawal method of birth control – some women will still get pregnant using this method and they will not be protected from the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). I do beseech you to use condoms if you are the inserter during anal intercourse. It is the safest method of avoiding HIV and several other STDs. If you will not listen to the best advice regarding safer sex, however, then at least know about harm reduction strategies and use them.

Negotiated safety is the idea of two men in an open relationship who are both HIV negative agreeing to have unprotected anal sex between themselves, but practicing only safer sex outside their relationship. This approach has been widely promoted in Australia, and it requires five conditions:

1. The two are in an ongoing primary relationship;

2. Both partners are HIV negative and both are aware of each other’s HIV status;

3. Both partners have agreed in unambiguous terms what behaviours will be permitted outside the relationship;

4. Their agreement is clear that safer sex will be practiced outside of their relationship; and

5. Both partners actually keep the agreement. [8]

Serosorting is the method whereby you only engage in risk behaviours with those who are believed to have the same serostatus (i.e., HIV positive or negative). This method is based on trust, but besides its reliance on honesty, not everyone knows their serostatus at any given time. [9]

Strategic positioning is a third harm reduction strategy, and it requires that partners agree to engage in certain sexual behaviours based on the perceived serostatus of their partners. For example, if one member of the pair is HIV negative and the other is HIV positive, then the HIV positive person becomes the insertee instead of the inserter in anal intercourse. Note that the possibility of HIV transmission is still present for the HIV negative inserter, but the risk is less than if the insertee became the inserter and vice versa. [10]

In one study among young men who have sex with men, “77% of those who tested HIV positive incorrectly believed that they were uninfected.” [11] Remember to love hard but always to play safe sexually.

Dr. Alderson is an associate professor of counselling psychology at the University of Calgary who specializes in gay and lesbian studies. He also maintains a private practice. He can be contacted by confidential email at alderson@ucalgary.ca, or by confidential voice mail at 605-5234.

References:

1) Gauthier, D. K., & Forsyth, C. J. (1999). Bareback sex, bug chasers, and the gift of death. Deviant Behavior, 20(1), 85 100. [quote from p. 92].

2) Ibid [quote from p. 92].

3) Ibid.

4) Grov, C., & Parsons, J. T. (2006). Bug chasing and gift giving: The potential for HIV transmission among barebackers on the Internet. AIDS Education and Prevention, 18(6), 490 503.

5) Gauthier & Forsyth (1999).

6) Ibid [quote from p. 97].

7) Adam, B. D. (2005). Constructing the neoliberal sexual actor: Responsibility and care of the self in the discourse of barebackers. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7(4), 333 346.

8) Wolitski, R. J. (2005). The emergence of barebacking among gay and bisexual men in the United States: A public health perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 9(3 4), 9 34. [quote from p. 13].

9) Shernoff, M. (2006). Condomless sex: Gay men, barebacking, and harm reduction. Social Work, 51(2), 106 113.

10) Grov & Parsons (2006).

11) Wolitski (2005). [quote from p. 26]..