IML and Barebacking...

Some polls are complicated and some are straightforward. Occasionally they present unexpected surprises and sometimes they confirm preexisting conceptions. The latest poll posed by Leatherati asked the question of whether or not the policy change by IML to bar vendors whose products promote or encourage barebacking would have an impact on the incidence of barebacking within the leather community.

This was one of those polls which I expected to see a strong sense of agreement on.
To a certain degree, my expectation was confirmed.  Fully 80% of respondents felt that the policy change would have no effect. 20% indicated that it would in fact help reduce barebacking.

To me, this was actually a bit of a surprise.  I expected to see an even greater number of people expressing that there would be no effect.  I think this is indicative of a few different things:

• There are those who believe that IML is widely known and that there has been significant enough publicity over the organization's decision. They are of a mind that this will have impacted some members of the leather community who do not necessarily bareback as a matter of course and will give second thought to doing so.  Not necessarily to abstain completely from barebacking, but perhaps instead to consciously choose whether or not to use condoms.
• The visibility of the policy and the amount of talk about it at the vendor market and in the context of the contest itself has sensitized some event attendees.  As a result some will choose not to bareback when they may have otherwise at IML itself.  This may not have a lasting effect on the amount of barebacking, but it would still be a reduction versus what would otherwise have been going on.
• That there are some who will feel strongly enough about this issue that they will not support organizations or events that do support or promote barebacking and that, down the line, this will have some additional effect of turning some guys away from barebacking as a practice.

My feelings about each of these effects, which I think are are reinforced by the overwhelming vote of No on this poll can be described as a slap-in-the-face reaction.  The impact of the initial response by Chuck was a harsh one which caused a strong wave of discussion throughout the community.  But, like a slap in the face, once the initial shock passes, it leaves not much in the way of lasting impact.  Without the reinforcement of repeated exposure and the strength of others following with a similar boycott, Chuck's impassioned stance will be a respected, but silent call to action.

I think that there are many in the community who are leaning toward a more 'be responsible for yourself" attitude.  This is more in line with the plan set forth by Dave Watt with his Mr. Friendly campaign.  This argument is one less built from a "this is wrong and must not be done" attitude and more from an "understand when and how this is safe or not" frame of mind.  I think that yes, there are a lot of men who simply don't care about their status, but that there is an every growing group that plays according to their status.

There are two major forces which confront any action taken to reduce barebacking.  One is that there is a perception of "well everyone's infected, aren't they", leading to an assumption that it doesn't matter if one transmits an STD.  It also contributes to the feeling of "Well, I'm going to get infected eventually anyway." This combines with the second, base urge.  Barebacking feels good.  It feels carefree.  It feels natural.  It feels spontaneous.  Choosing not to be concerned about whether or not to use a condom brings with it a degree of liberation about sex that is VERY alluring.

Fundamentally, I think the question about how to reduce barebacking will be answered by no longer needing to be concerned about answering the question.