Florida State University Libraries

Home , Bear (gay culture), Bugchasing, Gay beat, Party and play, Queen (slang), Single person

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2009 Little Death: Locating the Motivations of Bug Chasers Through Interview, Analysis, and Creative Work Joshua L. Potter

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

LITTLE DEATH:

LOCATING THE MOTIVATIONS OF BUG CHASERS

THROUGH INTERVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND CREATIVE WORK

JOSHUA L. POTTER

A Thesis submitted to the School of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2009

The members of the committee approve the thesis of Joshua L. Potter defended on July 8, 2009.

______Donna Marie Nudd Professor Directing Thesis

______Gary R. Heald Committee Member

______Jeanette Castillo Committee Member

______Bruce Henderson Committee Member

______Carrie Sandahl Committee Member

Approved:

______Stephen D. McDowell, Director, School of Communication

______Lawrence Dennis, Dean, College of Communication and Information

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to my thesis committee, Dr. Donna Marie Nudd, Dr. Gary Heald, Dr. Jeanette Castillo, Dr. Bruce Henderson, and Dr. Carrie Sandahl. Thank you all for the input, drafts, and meetings through out this process. I would especially like to thank Donna Marie Nudd for helping me become a better writer, critical thinker, teacher, and most of all a better performer. I could not ask for a better mentor over the last two years. I would also like to recognize Bruce Henderson who has been a mentor and a friend for the last five years. Thank you for your guidance and your confidence in me. My thanks also go to my friends, Joe, Alison, Ki, Rachel, Autumn, Shawn, Dylan, and Tim. Though we have only known each other for a short time, the late-night talks on the porch helped me in ways you cannot imagine. This work certainly would not be possible without the support of my family. Grandma, you have always been my biggest fan and I want to thank you for that. Mom and Dad, thank your for the emotional (and financial) support over the years. You have taught me that although Potters take the more difficult paths in life, we manage always to make it through. This thesis is certainly evidence of that.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... vi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Theoretical Considerations ...... 2 1.1.1 Dramatism ...... 2 1.1.2 Pentad ...... 3 1.1.3 Ratios ...... 3 1.1.4 Frames and Style ...... 4 1.1.5 Motive ...... 5 1.2 Theoretical Considerations for Performance ...... 5 1.2.1 Anna Deavere Smith ...... 6 1.2.2 The Tectonic Theatre Project ...... 6 1.2.3 Caryl Churchill and Postmodern Theatre ...... 6 1.3 Literature Review...... 7 1.3.1 Sexual Deviance and Homosexuality ...... 7 1.3.2 Barebacking and Intentional Unprotected Anal Intercourse ...... 9 1.3.3 Bug Chasing ...... 9 1.4 Methodology/Research Plan ...... 13 1.4.1 Participants ...... 13 1.4.2 Interviews ...... 14 1.4.3 Analysis...... 14 1.5 Performance Methodology ...... 14 1.5.1 Audience ...... 14 1.5.2 Performers ...... 15 1.5.3 Performative Time-table ...... 15 1.5.4 Evaluation ...... 16 1.6 Preview ...... 16 CHAPTER TWO TRACKING The Gift ...... 17 2.1 Opening Sequence ...... 17 2.2 Defining Jargon ...... 19 2.3 Bill and John’s Sex Dungeon ...... 21 2.4 Dr. Walt Odets and the Gay Community ...... 22 2.5 HIV Support Group...... 25 2.6 Doug’s Narrative ...... 27 2.7 Kenboy’s Narrative ...... 28 2.8 Conclusion ...... 30 CHAPTER THREE INTERVIEWS TO STAGE ...... 31 3.1 Interview One: Adam ...... 31 3.2 Interview Two: Brian ...... 33 3.3 Interview Three: Christopher ...... 35 3.4 Interview Four: Flotsam ...... 37 3.5 Adapting and Revising ...... 40 3.6 Casting and Rehearsing...... 43 3.7 Venue and Staging ...... 43

3.8 The Performance ...... 44 Chapter Four Evaluation, Limitations, and Conclusion ...... 46 4.1 Goal One: Critical Analysis of The Gift ...... 46 4.2 Goal Two: Adding to the Conversation ...... 47 4.3 Goal Three: Burkean Analysis ...... 48 4.4 Goal Four: Presenting a Creative Work ...... 49 4.5 Avenues for Future Academic Research ...... 54 4.6 Avenues for Future Creative Work ...... 55 4.7 Discussion and Conclusion ...... 55 APPENDICES ...... 57 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 57 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 60 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ONE: ADAM ...... 62 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT TWO: BRIAN...... 72 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT THREE: CHRISTOPHER ...... 84 APPENDIX F INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT FOUR: FLOTSAM ...... 100 APPENDIX G Little Death SCRIPT ...... 134 APPENDIX H Little Death PROGRAM ...... 161 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 163 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 167

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to add to the discourse about the motivations of bug chasers, or gay men who actively seek human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. There are three phases for this study. First, this thesis examines the narratives and representations of bug chasers in Louise Hogarth’s 2003 documentary The Gift using Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic analysis. Second, four interviews were conducted from gay men who are involved with the bug chasing phenomenon. These interviews were analyzed and compared to those found in the Hogarth documentary also using the theories of Kenneth Burke. Finally, the thesis chronicles the researcher’s process of adapting these interviews into a playscript and staging a performance to an invited audience.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION More than 20 years ago, the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was once known as “GRID”, or gay-related immunodeficiency disease, a short-lived yet powerful term (Shilts, 1988, p. 121). While this early connection was a source of scorn for the gay community, gays have since struggled to mitigate the social stigma caused by the history of AIDS in the United States. However, in 2003, Gregory Freeman from Rolling Stone published a controversial article called, “Bug Chasers: The Men who Long to be HIV+.” In this article, Freeman profiles a bug chaser under the pseudonym, “Carlos.” According to Freeman, within this gay micro-culture are “bug chasers” and “gift givers.” Bug chasers, like “Carlos,” will participate in unprotected sex as a means to become infected with HIV. In contrast, gift givers are HIV-positive men who either find enjoyment in or actively seek to infect bug chasers with HIV by participating in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), a process known within the gay community as “barebacking.” According to Dr. Bob Cabaj, as quoted in Rolling Stone, nearly 25 percent of all new infections in the United States, 40,000 per year on average, are attributable to bug chasing or those who “are just as actively seeking HIV but are in denial and wouldn’t call themselves bug chasers” (Freeman, 2003, p. 3). While this article was one of the first to give exposure to bug chasers, it received heavy scrutiny for this statistic. Several news reporters (Sorokin, 2003; Mnookin, 2003; Templeton, 2003) determined that some of Freeman’s (2003) sources were exaggerated. Many of these articles claimed Freeman either misquoted sources or printed some statistical information out of context. These articles justified their claims by citing doctors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Specifically, Ellen Sorokin’s article in the Washington Times cites Jessica Frikey, spokeswoman for the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention as stating that there is no way to determine how many bug chasers exist as, “‘No studies have been done to see how many “bug chasers” there are’” (p. A01). After contacting Dr. Cabaj, who was cited in Freeman’s (2003) article, Cabaj stated that he was misquoted. There were five goals for this study. First, this study examined one of the only cultural texts about bug chasing and gift giving, Louise Hogarth’s 2003 documentary,

The Gift. The documentary was analyzed using dramatistic analysis (specifically, Kenneth Burke’s pentad and dramatistic frames). Second, this study attempted to document more complicated narratives of bug chasers. By interviewing current bug chasers (i.e. gay men who are actively seeking infection of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), past bug chasers (i.e. gay men who have already sought and acquired HIV), gift givers (i.e. gay men who are HIV positive and are willing to infect their bug chasing sexual partners), and a nurse who is familiar with the phenomenon, this study documented four in-depth narratives about HIV and sexual behaviors. Third, I attempted to understand the underlying structure and style of the interviewees’ narratives as a way to understand possible motivations for engaging in the behavior. This phase was achieved by analyzing the interviews through Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic analysis. Fourth, the interview text and Burkean analysis was used to create a playscript and finally, present a performance that shares these narratives with the public. Understanding the motivations behind why gay men choose to expose themselves to HIV is critically important to maintaining public health. By researching, closely examining, revising, and creating a cultural text this thesis seeks to add to the discourse about the bug chasing micro-culture. While this study might not provide specific solutions or a clear understanding why all bug chasers seek HIV infection, it will however provide new information in an area that is relatively unexplored in academic literature and in creative work. 1.1 Theoretical Considerations 1.1.1 Dramatism Notable literary critic Kenneth Burke developed a way in which narrative can be analyzed to understand how a culture makes choices, particularly in times of crisis. In order to understand the relationship between narrative and decision, Burke suggested that a principle, called dramatism be engaged (Sillars & Gronbeck, 2001, p. 229). Burke stated that with dramatism, “all our psychological ideas are derived from physical ones— all mental from corporeal ones” (Burke, 1978, p. 812). Dramatism thus, is the process a person engages in to understand reasons for an action (Conrad & Macom, 1995). Burke (1952) in his book A Rhetoric of Motives exemplifies the importance of using dramatism to understand a text:

Since imagery [builds] about the active, reflexive, and passive forms . . . ([example:] killing, self-killing, and being killed) [it] so obviously contributes to dramatic intensity. . . . But there is also an ultimate “Grammatical” incentive behind such imagery. [T]hose who distinguish between a tragedy and a comedy by the outcome alone . . . [could] transform ‘tragedy’ into a ‘comedy’ merely by changing the last few moments of the last act. (p. 13) Burke indicates that a change to structure of a text can create vastly different meaning to the text. By understanding how narratives are constructed, deeper meaning can be inferred. 1.1.2 Pentad While the pentad is only the grouping of principles to engage in dramatistic analysis, it is the fundamental framework for understanding meaning within a text using the dramatistic method. Burke states that, “all statements that assign motives can be shown to arise out of [the elements of the pentad] and to terminate in them” (1969, p. xvi). This analytical tool is comprised of five elements, act (the action that occurred), scene (the either physical or temporal location of where the action occurred), agent (the one who committed the action), agency (how the action was committed) and purpose (the reason for the action) (Burke, 1969, p. xv). For each of the elements, Burke notes that “[m]en may violently disagree about the purposes behind a given act, or about the character of the person who did it, or in what kind of situation he acted; or they may even insist upon totally different words to name the act itself” (Burke, 1969, p. xv). Thus, examining motive by using the pentad allows one to understand the individual’s perception of the universe. 1.1.3 Ratios Identifying the elements of the pentad within a text, discourse, or narrative only places a complex narrative within a framework that allows it to be manipulated. The true analytical work of dramatism occurs in pentadic ratios, Burke (1969) notes: We want to inquire into the purely internal relationships which the five terms bear to one another, considering their possibilities of transformation, their range of permutations and combinations and then to see how these various resources figure into in actual statements about human motives. (p. xvi)

Two out of the five terms are grouped together where one term influences or modifies the other. The purpose of creating ratios is to eventually find a central or overarching relationship in the narrative. By identifying this overarching relationship, a researcher should be able to make a critical claim about the narrative. While there are ten possible combinations of ratios, Kenneth Burke’s book (1969), The Grammar of Motives only describes in detail the importance of: scene-act, scene-agent, scene-purpose, and agency-purpose. Burke then places particular emphasis on scene-act and scene-agent. Burke argues that because “[b]oth act and agent [require] scenes that “contain” them . . . the scene-act and scene-agent are in the fullest sense positive (or “positional”)” (Burke, 1969, pp. 15-16). 1.1.4 Frames and Style Beyond structure, another method in understanding motive is the use of Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic frames as described in his book Attitudes Toward History. These frames operate on the assumption that, “[o]ne constructs his notion of the universe or history, and shapes attitudes in keeping” (Burke, 1959 p. 3). A person constructs narratives about his or her existence in concert with or in opposition to the social order. The construction of personal narrative thus is juxtaposed with master narratives in society. Burke’s frames suggest that social forces have an effect on the personal psyche, “[they] illustrate some major psychological devices whereby the mind equips itself to name and confront its situation” (Burke, 1959 p. 99). When accepting the social order, one organizes one’s experiences within the “frame of acceptance.” Thus, when an individual rejects this narrative, he or she falls within the “frame of rejection.” According to Burke (1959), people within each dramatistic frame utilize particular styles of narratives attributed to a corresponding frame, which Burke calls genres. Typical genres or poetic categories that fall within the acceptance frame are epic, tragedy, and comedy. Each of these affirms the social order and locates the actor within one of these styles. In contrast, grotesque, burlesque, satire, and elegy, each place the actor against the social order, challenging the way things are in the universe. Like the pentad, the use of dramatistic frames allows the researcher to understand the choices an individual makes via the narrative he or she expresses.

1.1.5 Motive Because the goal of the pentad and dramatistic analysis is to locate and identify possible motives for a culture to act, Burke’s concept of motive is particularly important. However, William Benoit’s (1996) article “A Note on Burke on ‘Motive’,” implies that scholars of Burke find that motive has several meanings. After analyzing and considering several interpretations of motive, Benoit argues that a motive is, “located in discourses about actions, not as a mental state (or situational or other forces) driving those actions . . . Humans tend to believe that one’s goals or intentions (purpose), the situation (scene) in which one lives, and the tools, means or resources available (agency) all influence one’s behavior or actions” (1996, p. 75). One of the main criticisms of Burke and use of the pentad to understand motive is that there is little justification for actions that occur irrationally. Critics argue (Conrad & Macom, 1995; Jameson, 1978) that Burke assumes that all action occurs by conscious choice, despite their belief that humans are capable of making irrational or subconscious choices. However, countering these criticisms, Burke (1952) argues that an irrational choice or action is just the product of an irrational motive that must be located (p.14). In any case, Burke’s pentad, or any one analytical tool, cannot fully analyze the motivations of a culture. However, when the pentad is used in concert with Burke’s dramatistic frames, there is a deeper analysis of the justifications of bug chasers. Because the frames suggest that social order affects the personal narrative, examining which frames are present in bug chasers and gift givers mitigates some of the controversy over Burke’s dramatistic analysis. 1.2 Theoretical Considerations for Performance Performance studies, within the field of communication, traces its theoretical principles to the speech-act theory, attributed to the work of John Langshaw Austin (2004) and has been informed and expanded by post-modern philosophy, feminism, and queer theory (Schechner, 2004). The key principle in utilizing performance for the creative project is that it allows for the incorporation of many theoretical principles, including the dramatistic theory used in the analytical chapters of this thesis, as a means to express the seriousness of this issue to a wider audience through an aesthetic form.

There are several styles of performance that were considered when I adapted the narratives to a creative format. For the sake of brevity, the considerations have been narrowed to the styles of Anna Deavere Smith, the Tectonic Theatre Project, and elements of postmodern theatre as seen in the selective works of Caryl Churchill. 1.2.1 Anna Deavere Smith There are several elements from Smith’s creative work that initially seemed conducive to the final creative performance. Anna Deavere Smith is especially noted for her award winning performance Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 (Smith, 1994), which explores the community dynamic in Los Angeles during the Rodney King incident, the subsequent jury verdict and the LA uprising. Deavere Smith’s performances are typically one-woman shows, which seamlessly transition from one distinct character to another. Smith’s overall style of performance can best be described as conforming to a documentary style or mimetic performance. As Schechner (1993) notes, Smith’s performance counters typical Western acting techniques and follows Asian and African ritual techniques. By mimicking her interview subjects, she engages in “deep mimesis . . . Meeting people face-to-face made it possible for Smith to move like them, sound like them, and allow what they were to enter her own body” (Schechner, 1993, pp 63-64). 1.2.2 The Tectonic Theatre Project The Tectonic Theatre Project, an experimental theatre group, was responsible for the play (and later film) The Laramie Project (Kaufman & The Tectonic Theatre Project, 2001). Theatre members of the New York based company interviewed townspeople of Laramie, Wyoming, to create a play, which chronicles the town’s reaction after the brutal beating and death of Matthew Shepherd, a gay college student. Several members of the theatre group conducted over 200 interviews to create the final script. The overall goal of the performance was to understand the reactions of community members, but it also incorporates the reactions of the theatre group as they conducted the interviews (Tigner, 2002). 1.2.3 Caryl Churchill and Postmodern Theatre Churchill’s work tends to draw influence from Bertolt Brecht, especially from the standpoint that theatre should have both an aesthetic or entertaining function in addition to creating critical discourse (Aston, 1997). In Churchill’s plays, underrepresented voices

become expressed. Churchill’s work (eg. Traps, Top Girls) is at times considered part of postmodern theatre, a catchall term for essentially any theatrical style that tends to avoid discrete structure (Aston, 1997). Overall, postmodern performances tend to incorporate many different forms of media within a performance. I wanted to be open to the works of various postmodern and absurdist artists, but Traps (Churchill, 1978) and Top Girls (Churchill, 1982) are especially referenced because of their popularity and because they are exemplars of postmodern performance. Rather than be bound to a specific play text, postmodern performances at times create a montage of different art forms (including, but not limited to poetry, optical art, dance, and film) (Holzapfel, 2008). Although different from theatre of the absurd, narrative within postmodern theatre can lack the typical dramatic arc (exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement) creating a broken narrative. One of the key features of this style is the sense that the audience more actively participates in creating meaning of the text. Engaged critical dialogue is especially appealing to the project as awareness of bugchasers is a primary goal of conducting this research. Additionally, aspects of pastiche could also be useful in creating an interesting aesthetic. Because this thesis solicited interview respondents online, I initially considered the complex nature of bugchaser narratives by perhaps projecting a respondent’s online profile or chat text while a monologue is performed. However, restrictions from the websites where I approached interviewees prevented me from showing this information. Instead, I chose to integrate choreographed movement behind a scrim to achieve a pastiche. 1.3 Literature Review 1.3.1 Sexual Deviance and Homosexuality Throughout history, homosexuality has been linked with aberrant sexual behaviors dating back to Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, published in 1886 (Plante, 2006). This view of the homosexuality as against the natural order has, until very recently, been classified as a mental disorder (Spitzer, 1981). As recently as 1967, Kenneth Ginsburg linked homosexuality to prostitution and ultimately asserted that both are a function of socioeconomic status and are also encouraged by psychological imbalances. Spitzer (1981) notes that the historical view of homosexuals as mentally ill or linked with other sexual dysfunction (ex. impotence, sexual addition, etc.) was

increasingly challenged until the 1980 release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Revision (p. 210). Despite the reclassification of homosexuality away from a mental illness, the social stigma ascribed to gay men has continued and influences other academic work. Specifically, Greg Graham-Smith’s study (2004) argued that bug chasing and other risky practices are linked to heteronormative culture and its associations among gay men, death, and AIDS. Through recognition of the link between homosexuality and AIDS, Graham-Smith argues that some gay men eroticize the virus and wish to play into the perceived social expectation that all gay men are HIV positive. It is important to note that there is not a reliable statistic available to quantify the number of homosexual men in the United States. Sociologist Rebecca Plante (2006) notes that homosexuality is a fluid self-identity that is made up of fantasies, feeling, and behavior. Any person can use one or more of these criteria to label oneself as homosexual and this label can often be in opposition to what others perceive. Thus, depending on a person’s definition of what makes a person a homosexual, a different statistic may arise. In terms of quantifying the homosexual population within the United States, many individuals (Hewitt, 1998; Plante, 2006) refer to the work of Alfred Kinsey and reduce his findings to what is now a colloquial estimate of ten percent of adults as being homosexual. In Hewitt’s (1998) meta-study of homosexual male demographics, he found that homosexuality in men can be divided into several categories, making up five different types of homosexual identity which are, open preferential, repressed preferential, bisexual, experimental, or situational. Each of these types exist on a continuum of self-identity with open preferential and bisexual being the only two categories where men identify as being gay or bisexual. Based on his analysis of 12 studies between 1970 and 1994, Hewitt estimates that approximately 3 percent of the adult male population is gay or bisexual. However this study is now over 10 years old, and very few studies have continued to postulate a statistically valid number of gay men in the adult population. Bogaert (2004) argues that the population of gay men living in the United States cannot be certain, as there is no universal definition for what constitutes a gay man, which prevents an accurate count. Clearly there is no reliable way to measure how many gay men exist in the United States. Because of this, it is similarly impossible to estimate how many gay men are bug chasers.

1.3.2 Barebacking and Intentional Unprotected Anal Intercourse Grov, et al. (2007) determined that there appears to be a formation of a “barebacker identity” within the gay community. Although this identification is supported by others (Halkitis & Parsons, 2003; Bolding, Davis, Hart, Sherr, & Elford, 2005), Grov, et al. (2007) found that gay men who identified as barebacker were 7.7 times more likely to be HIV positive (95% CI = 5.14-11.43) in a series of questions asked of 1,178 men who have sex with men (MSM). Additionally, the study seems to suggest that the anonymity of the Internet allows these subgroups, such as barebacking, bug chasing, and sadomasochism to form and thrive with limited risk of social rejection (pp. 533-34). Because the primary vehicle for HIV infection in bug chasers is via intentional unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), commonly referred to as barebacking (Grov & Parsons, 2006), many bug chasers, by extension, use the Internet as a means for seeking sexual partners. Grov and Parsons’ study of bug chasers and gift givers determined that 22 percent of users from a sample (n = 1,228) on a website that caters to men who wish to bareback were seeking partners of a different HIV status. While this conclusion indicates that gift givers and bug chasers are a very small minority within the gay community, Grov and Parsons among other researchers (Elford, Bolding, Davis, Sherr, & Hart, 2007; Moskowitz & Roloff, 2007b) emphasize that the study does indicate that bug chasers and gift givers make up a specific micro-culture or subgroup. The study then attempted to breakdown bug chasers and gift givers into six specific categories based on their knowledge of their and their partner’s HIV status and their desire to change the HIV status of others, a process known as seroconversion. 1.3.3 Bug Chasing While the continued study of this topic seems to stem from the popular magazine, Rolling Stone (Freeman, 2003), there has been relatively little academic research conducted on bug chasers and gift givers. In somewhat popular media, Louise Hogarth’s documentary The Gift (2003), examines some motives for gay men engaging in bug chasing behaviors. While the documentary attempts to gain an understanding of HIV within the gay community, and specifically the subject of gift giving and bug chasing, only two bug chasers are interviewed in the film (Kenboy and Doug). In the film, HIV positive men and other gay men vilify bug chasing, claiming that it stems from ignorance

about the serious nature of HIV. Rather than attempting to understand why some men fall within the bug chasing and gift giving microculture, the film labels the individuals as either having low self esteem to the point of self-destruction or being sexually promiscuous, both stereotypes the gay community continues to fight. Prior to Freeman and Hogarth’s work, most studies of the bug chaser phenomena come from articles stating that gay men do not always practice safer sex (Gauthier & Forsyth, 1999; Botnick, 2000). Botnick’s identification of HIV/AIDS issues in the gay community focused on how the gay community makes dissonant issues consonant, while Gauthier and Forsyth seek to describe barebacking and bug chasing. Gauthier and Forsyth, determined that some gay men felt that because drug therapy increased life expectancy, there was less risk. These men feel that the pleasure of uninhibited bareback sex outweighed the risk of death. These men, however, neglect to have regular testing for any sexually transmitted infection including HIV. Gauthier and Forsyth label these individuals as passive-aggressive bug chasers. Other types of bug chasers include those who wish to be infected so that they can mitigate their fear of infection by becoming HIV positive. By controlling their status, these chasers eliminate their fear. In other bug chasers, Gauthier and Forsyth determined that fear becomes a kind of fetish; the risk involved in not knowing when or if infection will occur is an erotic component. Others desire to be part of the HIV positive group because these bug chasers believe the gay community neglects them because they are HIV negative. HIV then becomes a way of feeling included in the community (1999, 89-96). Tomso (2004) examined how barebacking and bug chasing are discussed in larger discourses of healthcare, mass and queer media. The study essentially identifies the condemnation of barebacking across discourses all primarily due to the health risks. However, Tomso (2004) postulates that gay men may participate in sex with HIV positive men because it is life affirming. Risky behavior is thrilling and gives life meaning. Tomso also points to the social discourse that links homosexuality with death as a potential reason why gay men may be bug chasers. If gay men are told that being gay is linked to HIV and death, it may prompt people to fulfill this expectation. However, given that Tomso’s study examines media depictions of barebacking and bug chasing and not personal narratives, there remains a need to confirm Tomso’s claims.

There appears to only be two other academic studies (Crossley, 2004; Graydon, 2007) that share similarities to this proposal. However, neither deal specifically with the structure and motive present within bug chasers. Most recently, Graydon (2007) examined how the narratives found on online newsgroups use a language of gifts to communicate about the desire for HIV infection. This study examined specific themes present within approximately 500 online messages selected. Some of their findings were that the use of language like gift to represent HIV and unwrapping to represent the absence of condom use signifies that HIV is something that can metaphorically “transform” an individual. The use of these words indicates a positive state that improves social relationships. The term bug chaser, Graydon (2007) speculates, is a way of avoiding a “social faux pas” because seeking or asking for a gift is impolite (p. 282). Although this study concentrates on how the specific thematic and linguistic choices are unique to this gay male micro-culture, Graydon’s article is nevertheless important, as it is one of the first to perform an analysis of bug chaser narratives. In what was an initial analysis of this research, presented at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference in Philadelphia, Graydon (2004) thematically categorized 281 internet postings dated between September 1998 to February 2003 that were posted on 17 different websites that cater to bug chasing and gift giving. What Graydon determined was that there were nine predominant rationales within these narratives: 1. Condom-less sex is more natural, real, or intimate 2. Risk-takers are essentially masculine or are hypermasculine 3. It is an individual choice 4. It is an act of rebellion or resistance 5. HIV infection is inevitable 6. New breakthroughs in treatment reduce the amount of risk 7. HIV, AIDS, and other STDs are eroticized 8. Ejaculate is fetishized 9. It creates gendered sex roles (someone who is penetrated is seen as feminine) This conference paper is of particular importance because it is one of the few studies that attempts to locate the potential motivations of bug chasers. However, unlike this thesis, Graydon’s research is now five to six years old and is limited to online narratives.

Additionally, Crossley (2004) performed a historical analysis of gay literature as a way to offer possible future avenues to explain the bug chaser and gift giver phenomenon. One of these points to explore identified by Crossley in his study is gay culture as a “victim culture” and themes of resistance and transgression present in the history of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) community. While Crossley presents no specific research on the narratives of bug chasers, like other research (Botnick 2000), Crossley’s (2004) study does provide information useful in understanding or interpreting why a person might engage in bug chasing. In an article by Moskowitz and Roloff (2007b) specific to bug chasing, they suggest that bug chasers tend to participate in or tolerate more fetish activities and score significantly higher on behavioral and psychological measures of sexual addiction compared to barebackers who did not identify as bug chasers (p = .04). No scholarly research found was able to link motives of bug chasers to personal oral narratives of bug chasers. What research does exist tends to focus solely on the Internet postings of bug chasers and gift givers, rather than conducting interviews or creating ethnographies. The only work that focuses on oral narratives is a creative work, Louise Hogarth’s The Gift, which offers a very limited view. Given that there has been little research about bug chasers, the following research questions are suggested: RQ 1: How are the motivations of narratives of bug chasers in The Gift portrayed? RQ 2: How are the motivations of bug chasers articulated by the interviewees in this study? RQ 3: In what ways do the structure of the interviewees’ narratives explain their motives? RQ 4: How can the interviewee’s narratives be best translated into a dramatic script? RQ 5: Did the stage production, based on the interviewees’ narratives, offer a more complex understanding of the “bugchasing” phenomenon than The Gift and if so, how?

1.4 Methodology/Research Plan In order to complete this study, several stages of research were required. First, Louise Hogarth’s 2003 documentary, The Gift was analyzed using Burkean analysis. This documentary was important to examine first as it is one of the only forms of social discourse about bug chasing. Second, a series of ethnographic interviews were conducted and analyzed in the same manner as the documentary. The analysis of the interviews served as a way to compare how gay men and bug chasers are presented in Hogarth’s film to ones that were interviewed. After analysis, the interview transcripts were adapted into a playscript, staged, and were presented to a live audience. Following the show, a question and answer session was conducted to aid in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the performance. A Caucasian gay male interviewer in his mid-20s conducted the ethnographic interviews, adapted, staged, and directed the performance. In order to locate participants, users from Internet chat rooms (ex. http://www.gay.com) were asked to participate in this study. Gay.com in particular was chosen as it contains many freely accessible chat rooms that cater to the barebacking community. The entire research proposal was submitted and approved by the Human Subjects Committee at Florida State University (see Appendix A). 1.4.1 Participants This study included the participation of three gay men who self report as having unprotected anal intercourse with the intent of becoming HIV positive or self identify as being a bug chaser. Additionally, one health professional familiar with bug chasing and HIV was interviewed. Specifically, I attempted to locate users who appear in chat rooms themed around unprotected sex and through use of specific words (i.e. pozzing, bug chasing, gift giving, etc.) as noted by Graydon’s (2007) study. All interviews with bug chasers and gift givers were conducted over the phone, while the interview with the medical professional was face-to-face. While online, electronic messages were sent to users asking them if they would be willing to be interviewed anonymously for the purposes of academic research and that a portion on their interview may be performed by actors for a small, invited audience. Each participant was informed that his participation is voluntary and that anything said will be kept anonymous. In order to protect the

privacy of participants, subjects were given pseudonyms, which were used in this thesis and the dramatic performance. 1.4.2 Interviews The goal of this study was to conduct interviews in settings familiar to participants, for the purpose of participant comfort and to ensure that a sufficient number of interviews are conducted. Telephone interviews provided both privacy and comfort for the research participant, with less risk than a face-to-face interview. Each interview was tape recorded and transcribed for dramatistic analysis. Because the goal of the study is to determine how bug chasers construct narratives, interviews did not have a set structure. Fine (1993), notes that one of the principle objectives of ethnography is for the researcher to remain the observer and not participate in or influence the interview. Questions by the researcher only included a few topical questions to keep the interview about their behaviors and motives. Each question, however, was tailored to the word choice used by the participant as they were designed to engage the respondent in constructing the narrative. For example, words such as HIV+ could be replaced with “poz” and sex may include any one of the many possible euphemisms. Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to 2 hours so that interviewees could give as much detail as possible for the purposes of dramatistic analysis. 1.4.3 Analysis After interviews were conducted and transcribed, each interview transcript was analyzed using principles of dramatism. First, an overall assessment of which genre or dramatistic frame is employed within each narrative was determined. Pentadic elements in each narrative were identified. Possible pentadic ratios were then discussed and related to the dramatistic frame each interviewee employed. Arguments about these ratios and dramatistic frames will be made as a way to understand the motivations for engaging in unsafe sexual practices. 1.5 Performance Methodology 1.5.1 Audience The interviews produced narratives of a sexual nature that would be both inappropriate and possibly offensive to a general audience. With the narrative content in mind, a somewhat selective audience for the performance was considered. Although not

known for certain, the typical audience of Mickee Faust shows includes many people with a high educational level and a progressive social ideology based on observations of the audience demographics at various shows. These two features were integral to the target audience of this performance. Additionally, because of the content in many Faust performances, it is presumed that Faust audience members who feel especially at ease with queer, dark, or feminist humor and who possess progressive political leanings are members of the Faust Fan Listserve. Thus, members of this listserve were invited to the final performance. The invitation on the listserve described the show’s content as clearly as possible, so that only those who are comfortable with the subject matter would attend. Tallahassee’s Family Tree and volunteers at Big Bend Cares, a local HIV/AIDS outreach organization, were also invited. 1.5.2 Performers Because I obtained narratives from individuals from very different ages and socioeconomic backgrounds, enlisting multiple performers seemed to be the best approach to this project. I solicited students within Florida State University’s School of Theatre and performers with the Mickee Faust company. Ultimately however, the entire cast of the final performance were members of the Mickee Faust Club. While my role was the writer and director of this performance, I initially considered performing in the piece. However, I felt that it would be more challenging to focus on the direction of the piece. 1.5.3 Performative Time-table Because interviews took approximately four months to complete, work on the script did not begin until early February 2009, with a final performance date of April 17, 2009. Adaptation of an initial script, including a decision on the performance concept, took approximately one month. After this initial script was written, I formed a small group of actors and directors from the Mickee Faust Club to give me feedback on various drafts of the script. Auditions for performers occurred immediately after the script was finalized, which allowed for a 5 week rehearsal period, which culminated in one performance on the 17th of April, lasting about 45 minutes.

1.5.4 Evaluation To help gauge the effectiveness of this performance I had a post show audience discussion. This allowed for instant feedback of the performance, and also served to engage the audience in the subject matter. Additionally post show meetings with the thesis committee and post show meetings with the cast and crew were crucial for evaluating this project. 1.6 Preview The following chapters of this thesis follow the methodology in section 1.5. Chapter two begins with an analysis of Louise Hogarth’s 2003 documentary entitled The Gift. The opening scene along with each major interviewee was analyzed using Kenneth Burke’s pentad and dramatistic frames. Chapter three examines each interview transcript that I conducted using the same theoretical analysis as in chapter two. Additionally, chapter three also chronicles the adaptation and development of the performance I created from the interviews, entitled Little Death. Finally, chapter four is an evaluation of Little Death, discussion, and a conclusion for the thesis.

CHAPTER TWO TRACKING The Gift In 2003, Louise Hogarth’s documentary The Gift debuted. Running at approximately one hour, this documentary represents one of the first and only mainstream texts that broach the subject of bug chasing and gift giving. By following two bug chasers, Doug and Kenboy, Hogarth presents an argument regarding the motivation of bug chasers through the juxtaposition of their narratives with a support group comprised of middle-aged HIV positive men and others in the gay community. In doing so, Hogarth inadvertently creates a detrimental image of gay men primarily because there are very limited viewpoints expressed in the documentary. This chapter will analyze selections from Hogarth’s documentary via dramatism as a means to explain how The Gift creates harmful images of the gay male community while simultaneously reducing the motivations of bug chaser to being a function of promiscuity. Each subsection within this chapter explores either a particular scene or interviewee in the documentary. 2.1 Opening Sequence At the start of the opening sequence the screen is black as electronic dance music plays in the background with a soprano singing an eerie arpeggio, while images of San Francisco fly across the screen. Hogarth’s intentions are made clear within the opening scene of the documentary, by immediately starting the documentary this way, an audience member is prepared for frightening imagery or subject matter. The camera then focuses in on a young gay man named Doug, in tears. Doug talks about his regret about being HIV positive by stating, “When I thought being positive was a positive thing, I thought I would just want to have a lot of un -- promiscuous, unsafe sex. I didn't know it was going to change fast. No one told me.” The camera then cuts to Doug walking down the street with a voice over of him stating that HIV negative people view HIV as an important and beautiful gift that a person would want over anything else. Continuing this analogy, Doug states that when opened, the gift of HIV is a huge disappointment, an empty box. This section can be analyzed in two ways through dramatism. First, in terms of Burke’s pentad, Doug’s narrative falls within an “agent-purpose” ratio. Doug never

defines or describes the act or the process in which he becomes infected. Rather, Doug only describes the purpose for HIV infection as a means to have limitless unprotected sex. The inherent naïveté within Doug can be inferred from the relation between agent and purpose in Doug’s initial interview. By saying that he was unaware or that he was never told that he would be disappointed, Doug defines himself as a naïve victim. Simultaneously, the agent or actor in this scene is somewhat tragic in the sense that Doug defines himself as unaware. Immediately the “agent-purpose” ratio seen in Doug’s first narrative can also be identified as falling within a Burkean “frame of acceptance” and specifically within the poetic category of tragedy. As Burke notes in Attitudes Towards History, the tragic frame contains “patterns of fatality, magnification, and humility” (1959, p. 37). When Doug casts himself an unaware victim, he essentially states that he lacked agency and the act occurred upon him. By maintaining that HIV was an unexpected consequence and by claiming he is a victim, Doug essentially defines his situation as fatalistic. When Hogarth displays this narrative for others, the narrative becomes increasingly more tragic because it represents a warning to others not to be like him. Burke notes, “people are necessarily mistaken [. . .] all people are exposed to situations in which they must act as fools, that every insight contains its own special blindness, you complete the comic circle, returning again to the lesson of humility that underlies great tragedy” (1959, p. 41). Utilizing what Burke states about the relationship between tragedy and comedy, we can see the absurdity of Doug’s actions that would be perceived as comic, but because Doug acknowledges his transgressions, we pity him. In the second half of the opening sequence, the documentary switches to an interview with Kenboy. While playing pool he says assuredly, “gimme the gift, then I won't have to worry about it anymore.” Kenboy appears to be ambivalent to the consequences of HIV infection, which is a stark contrast to the earlier narrative from Doug. These two viewpoints of Doug and Kenboy are juxtaposed with the beliefs of others within the gay community. The screen quickly flashes with several HIV positive men countering some of the attitudes they believe bug chasers have toward HIV. These HIV positive men reject the idea of HIV being a gift by stating that it would be a gift to remain HIV negative. Another HIV positive man states that HIV is not the entrance to a

social group and is not a method to meet men. The screen then goes black and a large computer generated gift box adored with a red AIDS ribbon for a bow is seen on screen. The camera pans across the parcel and focuses in on a gift tag at the bottom where there is a penis superimposed on the image of a gun that has fired and the opening credits are displayed. The second half of the opening scene reinforces the consequences of Doug’s behavior. Both Kenboy and Doug’s narratives are presented as negative consequences of the social order. However, unlike Doug, Kenboy lacks remorse for his behavior. He is foolish and thus exemplifies the comic frame. This distinction will become clearer later in the documentary as Kenboy is interviewed further. However, what is particularly interesting in the second part of the opening scene is the image of the penis superimposed on the image of a smoking gun. Hogarth equates the practice of bug chasing and gift giving to violence, murder, and death through the image of the smoking gun. However, as the documentary continues, it becomes unclear to the viewer if this message of death is solely connected to bug chasers and gift givers. 2.2 Defining Jargon The film proper begins at a gay rodeo. An HIV positive man in a cowboy hat expresses his disgust at the thought of barebacking parties. Another HIV positive man says HIV is a silent killer because the subject is never addressed in the larger social discourse or macro-culture of America. Finally, a third man says sexual partners rarely ask him about his status. Each of these testimonies is interwoven with images of gay men embracing and dancing at the rodeo. The documentary then begins to define some terminology, through interviews. Two different drag queens are interviewed who work through the various terms associated with the bug chasing phenomenon. One drag queen appears to be well informed, while the other, like the presumed audience, is relatively uninformed. After each definition, the interview stops, the term, and its definition are displayed in large red letters on the screen: “Barebacking – Having Sex without a Condom” “Bugchaser – a person deliberately becoming infected with HIV” “Gift Giver – a person who is willing to give the Gift of HIV”

When the term gift giver is then defined one drag queen says, “There are people who are evil, ‘Bitter table for one,’” but then she admits to having unprotected sex “80 percent of the time” and notes she does not wish to be labeled as a “hypocrite.” The documentary then quickly switches to an interview with Dr. Greg Cason who talks about his research on bareback sex. Cason claims that the anonymity of the Internet provides a space that allows some gay men to easily find sexually compatible partners, while still remaining anonymous. Cason then compares Internet chat rooms and dating websites to gay bars. The film returns to the two drag queens talking about bareback sex. One states that the majority of her friends participate in bareback sex and the other concurs by saying, “Everybody I know does bareback. I think in the gay community um, realistically 80 to 90 percent do bareback” as the camera pans in slowly, freezing on her face as eerie music fades in. By defining these terms, Hogarth is able to educate her audience on the jargon used within the gay community surrounding the bug chasing phenomenon. However, by including the word barebacking, or the process by which a person has unprotected anal sex, the viewer of this documentary may become confused and assume that anyone who practices unsafe sex is related or similar to a bug chaser. Additionally, the documentary lacks context forcing the audience to make assumptions. Within the opening scene, not a single person is given a name or their relationship to the bug chasing phenomenon. What an uninformed audience member would see is a group of gay men and cross dressers each talking about their sexual behaviors. This confusion could have been mitigated by explaining that barebacking is not necessarily an indicator of bug chasing behavior or reinforcing that bug chasers represent a small group within the gay community. Even by simply explaining to the audience that Doug and Kenboy were bug chasers while the others are just members of the gay community, the audience may be able to distinguish between a gay man and a bug chaser. However, by leaving out this distinction and including the rate in which the interviewees practice unsafe sex operates as a synecdoche. Bug chasers and gay men as a whole group are represented interchangeably. Synecdoche represents one of the four basic tropes in Burkean analysis. These tropes as defined in Kenneth Burke’s A Grammar

of Motives function as a means of “discovery and description ‘of the truth’” (1969, p. 503) and notes that the synecdoche is, “[a] terminology of conceptual analysis, if it is not to lead to misrepresentation, [it] must be constructed in conformity with a representative anecdote” (p. 510). Essentially Burke is stating that the synecdoche must be a true representation of the whole and not function metaphorically. Because sexual promiscuity and unsafe sexual practices are not representative of gay men as a whole, outside of cultural stereotyping, Hogarth is misrepresenting gay men. Moreover, this synecdoche equates gay men with both promiscuous unsafe sex and death (referring back to the initial image of the smoking gun in the opening scene). By misrepresenting gay men this way, Hogarth reinforces cultural stereotypes regarding gay men. 2.3 Bill and John’s Sex Dungeon After Hogarth defines the bug chasing terminology to her audience, the film interviews Bill and his partner John. These men own a sex dungeon, which they rent out for sex parties. Images of sex swings, sex toys, medical devices, beds, and pillows around the dungeon fill the screen. Bill finds his sex dungeon to be a popular venue because he thinks it is unique. Bill believes the dungeon is one of the only spaces in which men can enact their sexual fantasies. He claims that he has had men as young as 20 and as old as 70 come because it is a place where sex can be performed safely, without condoms. He also states that because everyone at the party is HIV positive, that there is no risk as he believes he cannot become reinfected with the virus. He further justifies his safety by saying that people who work for HIV/AIDS outreach organizations come to his sex parties. Logical fallacies aside, Bill’s interview falls within the comic frame. Burke’s clearest definition of the comic frame comes by the comparison to the tragic. In Attitudes Toward History Burke writes, “Like tragedy, comedy warns us against the dangers of pride, but its emphasis shifts from crime to stupidity [. . .] the intervention of fools” (1959, p. 41). Earlier in the documentary, HIV positive men educate the viewer that reinfection of HIV can occur because there are different strains of HIV. Equipped with this knowledge the viewer of the documentary can judge Bill for his foolishness. By saying that he is safe because HIV/AIDS outreach workers attend is not only an absurd logical fallacy, but also further underscores the foolishness within Bill’s narrative.

Because this narrative is being presented to an audience, the narrative works as a comic corrective. Hogarth is presenting these narratives as a means to educate her audience. As the goal of the frame is to, “enable people to be observers of themselves, while acting. Its ultimate goal would not be passiveness, but maximum consciousness,” for Bill’s narrative to be an effective persuasive or learning tool, the audience must be the ones to draw the conclusions that Bill is acting foolishly (Burke, 1959, p. 171). When the viewer of this documentary does this, they are then able to evaluate their own experiences and try not to be like Bill. However, what is most disconcerting in this section is Bill’s claim that many HIV/AIDS outreach workers go to his sex parties. Because neither Hogarth, nor anyone else in the documentary addresses their appearance at the sex dungeon as an isolated incident or non-representative, Hogarth continues to misrepresent, through the trope of synecdoche, most gay men as participants in unsafe and foolish sexual practices. When combined with a comic corrective, Hogarth appears to be arguing that gay men as a whole class are foolish. 2.4 Dr. Walt Odets and the Gay Community The Gift then cuts to an interview with Dr. Walt Odets, an openly gay psychologist and author. Throughout the documentary, Odets talks about how men fantasize about HIV. He explains how there are conflicting messages within the gay community. Toward the end of the film, Odets explains that HIV positive men are told that their lives are full of possibilities and are not immediate death sentences, while HIV negative men are told not to become HIV positive. Odets says that the gay community initially had one clear message about the consequences of HIV, portraying the virus as a death sentence. However, Odets said the message began to change because it, “was frightening to positives and it induced guilt in negative men. It felt rejecting.” Odets says that this leads to the objective of HIV prevention and outreach to become unclear. Odets appears to be arguing that in an attempt to keep HIV positive men happy and included in gay society that mixed messages are being delivered and that one of the major consequences of these mixed messages are bug chasers. Hogarth illustrates Odets’ claim with one particular HIV prevention campaign. As Odets is being interviewed, images from a public health campaign in San Francisco entitled “How Do You Know What You Know” flash across the screen. One of these ads

features two men lying next to each other on a bed in sexual positions. The text beside each body reads, “He’d tell me if he’s positive” and “He’d tell me if he’s negative.” Odets addresses this campaign saying that the cultural message surrounding HIV/AIDS is confused and that the campaign’s message makes no sense. The film cuts back to images of San Francisco while techno music plays. Several gay men are asked about the “How Do You Know What You Know” campaign. One man says that the campaign is ineffective and that while both men would probably be honest if asked, neither would choose to disclose. Others interviewed share their stories about men they know who were either infected or died because they thought they knew the other person’s status. While this scene talks about HIV/AIDS prevention, it does not differentiate between gay men in general and bug chasers. The critique of the AIDS prevention advertisement seems to fall within the frame of Elegy (or Plaint). This frame (within acceptance) seems to exist between tragedy and comedy. One of the key features of this frame is the notion that narratives within this frame, “[do] not properly gauge the situation: when under its spell, one does not tend to size up his own resources accurately – but in contrast with humor, it really spreads the disproportion between the weakness of the self and the magnitude of the situation” (Burke, 1959, p. 44). Essentially narratives within this frame expect misfortune or faults in the status quo because of some weakness on the actor’s part. The gay men critiquing the AIDS prevention ad are merely complaining about its ineffectiveness, rather than recognizing that the advertisement is commenting on their own behavior. One gay man interviewed believes that most gay men do not disclose their HIV status. Despite this recognition, he states that the advertisement is ineffective because partners would be willing to admit their HIV status if they were asked. He then reiterates that he is never asked about his HIV status with sexual partners. The situation described by the interviewee appears to be exactly what the example advertisement addresses; yet he says that the advertisement is ineffective. Rather than deciding to ask a sexual partner about their HIV status, the gay men who are interviewed find examples within their own lives where the situation of being told about a partner’s HIV status does not occur. Moreover, because this scene has very little to do with bug chasers, Hogarth further misrepresents all gay men as bug chasers.

By inserting an HIV prevention advertisement that is designed for the gay community as a whole and not bug chasers audience members are more likely to have difficulty distinguishing between a bug chaser and any other gay man. It appears that Hogarth is arguing that because gay men accept their situation and do not ask sexual partners about HIV status, that they must inevitably all be bug chasers. Later in the documentary, Dr. Odets reveals his own personal narrative. Odets begins to talk about 1980s and early 1990s where many HIV positive men died from the disease creating guilt and fear among HIV negative men. Now that there are medications for the HIV virus, Odets believes it is no longer talked about and is no longer as fearful. Odets then explains how his partner tested positive 15 years ago and at that time Odets assumed that he was also positive, primarily because he loved his partner and could not imagine being any different. He begins to cry as he continues to tell his story. He admits that he wanted to be HIV positive because he loved his partner. Dr. Odets states that he wanted to become HIV positive following the infection of his partner saying that, “you feel you’ve failed someone when you let them die [. . .] if you can’t prevent them from dying, the next best thing is to do it with them.” After his partner’s death, Odets said he eventually lost the desire to become infected with HIV. This narrative seems to also fall within the elegiac frame. Though dealing with the loss of a loved one does represent tragic elements. If Odets had become HIV positive or decided to kill himself, the narrative would indeed be tragic. Burke notes that the elegy frame is a, “way of ‘accepting’ life even while symbolizing its ‘rejection.’ In such cases, ‘acceptance’ does come very close to ‘passiveness’” (Burke, 1959, p. 44). Because Odets did not act, instead calling HIV a “shadow that follows” him everywhere, he is accepting his situation and employing the frame of elegy. Again, Hogarth’s inclusion of this narrative as part of the bug chasing phenomenon can be used to argue that all gay men, even well established medical professionals who are in seemingly monogamous, long term relationships, are potentially bug chasers. This narrative may be used to imply that HIV haunts all gay men. Tragic circumstances lead to Odets considering intentional HIV infection, thus any gay man who lives through a traumatic situation may question and decide to become infected with HIV.

2.5 HIV Support Group Toward the middle of the documentary a group of HIV positive men, sitting on comfortable chairs in what looks like a contemporarily designed living room, are being interviewed. Each person begins telling parts of stories from their past about the stigma they receive from society and loved ones for being HIV positive and some make fun of men today who become infected with HIV. One man, Jim, says that it is foolish for people to test HIV positive today because of what is known about the virus. He explains that nobody in the room chose to be HIV positive and that he is nonplussed by the fact that there are men who would choose to be HIV positive like him. However, Jim then says that it is understandable that people would still test positive because the virus is glamorized and misperceived by HIV negative individuals. Because people live longer once they are infected and because HIV positive men do not look ill, HIV negative men do not see the virus as much as a threat as it was once perceived. Jim says that during the height of the AIDS crisis, the rate of infection began to decrease because the fear of death outweighed libido. However, Jim states that this fear does not exist anymore, causing infection rates to rise. Another member of the group, Chris speculates that some no longer see being HIV positive as a scary illness anymore, lending itself to a rise in infection rates. The entire group then agrees that it is not something talked about in mainstream media. The group then talks about the side effects of their medication. Each member of the group describes how their medication has given them various medical problems. Jim then says that death certificates will continue to show people dying from the side effects of their medicine and not HIV which will in turn make HIV negative men see the disease as less threatening. Later in the documentary, Jim struggles to think of any gay man that is middle aged and HIV negative. The other members of the group all claim that there is no such thing as a middle aged gay man who is HIV negative. Jim declares that this man must exist, despite not being able to think of any 45-year-old gay man that has stayed HIV negative. He then claims that any man who is HIV negative believes that being gay and HIV negative is somehow a non-desirable status, justifying why he has a hard time thinking of any middle aged gay men who are HIV negative. The group then agrees that this person should be seen as heroic, if he exists at all.

After some time, Jim brings in Deej, a 37-year-old African-American gay man who is HIV negative. The group then marvels at Deej for being HIV negative given his age and being a gay African-American man. Jim then states that one in three African- American gay men are HIV positive. Deej then says that, “just knowing that statistic [. . .] it just feels like that this [group] has my name written all over it. And it’s only a matter of time before I’m the next statistic.” Deej then admits that he only has sex with a condom because he is afraid of becoming infected and dying. These men portray themselves as victims on the one hand, but simultaneously as superior beings. Because these men are middle-aged and contracted the virus at a time when little was known about HIV, they are not within the same category as Kenboy or Doug. In fact, they seem to be portraying themselves as heroes, despite their attempts to valorize Deej. These men stand as examples to what the virus can do. Essentially the narratives of the men in the support group seem to fall within the epic frame. According to Burke, “The epic [. . .] ‘accepts’ the rigors of war (the basis of the tribe’s success) [. . .] It lends dignity to the necessities of existence, ‘advertising’ courage and individual sacrifices for group advantage” (Burke, 1959, p. 35-36). For Burke, a clear example of this is found in Christianity. The narrative of Jesus dying to take away the sins of humanity is an epic one. Blasphemy aside, these white middle-aged men contracted HIV early in history and thus exist for the betterment of gay society. When Jim judges younger gay men, he is establishing his superiority and referencing that he contracted HIV without being aware of its consequences. One of the features of the epic is that the protagonist must maintain courage and humility. The HIV positive members of the support group do this, but Deej fails to demonstrate courage. By admitting his fear and believing that it was only a matter of time before he too was infected prevents him from being seen as a heroic figure. In fact, by believing that HIV will happen regardless of his actions, Deej appears to be framing his personal experiences within the tragic frame. As stated earlier, the tragic frame represents something that the audience pities or decides not to be like. It is an example of what happens when the social order has been violated. By having no strong heroic HIV negative gay male figures within this documentary, Hogarth may have unintentionally framed homosexuality in general as a violation of social expectations.

2.6 Doug’s Narrative The film returns to an interview with the first man seen in the documentary, Doug Hitzel. One of the first things he says is: “It just doesn’t seem fair. I was 19. I was lost. I wanted help and I didn’t have it. If someone comes to a party and wants to use condoms [. . .] they were stigmatized [. . .] Shouldn’t growing up in DARE and AIDS awareness make me smarter than this [. . .] After spending my sexed-out year here all I could admit that the pressure is no longer to have safe sex. Instead the focus lies on, to simply inquire on the lubricants someone’s using” Doug explains that he was initially unable to find sexual partners when he arrived in San Francisco, so he began searching for partners online. Even there, Doug stated that he was having difficulty finding sexual partners because he believed that being from a small town made him different. Once he began to be willing to have unprotected sex with HIV positive men, he claimed he was immediately able to find men who would be willing to be his sexual partner. Throughout his interviews, Doug states that he was initially perceived as more sexually attractive, fun, nice, and funny when he began to practice unsafe sex as a young man. He believed that he was more socially accepted when he practiced unsafe sex. He claimed that more people would talk about him and would invite him to parties because he barebacked. While Doug never explains the moment in which he identified as a bug chaser, he says that he was convinced, over the phone, to have sex with an HIV positive man. Doug then explains that the man he talked to on the phone felt control over him because he had power over Doug’s health. Doug said that prior to infection, he believed that becoming HIV positive would make him a happier person, but now that he is infected, he is very unhappy and regrets his decision. Doug believed that HIV was a taboo subject. He did not want to approach the subject because he was, “desperate to make gay male friends” because he felt so different from the men around him. He felt that he was not as sexually attractive as others and determined that by participating in bareback sex he could be accepted by the community.

As with the opening sequence of the documentary, the subsequent interviews with Doug still fall within the “agent-purpose” ratio. Doug describes himself as a lost individual whose upbringing failed to keep him safe from HIV. His actions were done so that he could make friends and fit within social groups in San Francisco. No other aspects of his narrative are emphasized quite as much as agent and purpose. As stated by Burke, these two aspects of the pentad work together. The purpose helps to inform or further describes the agent, while the purpose comes from aspects within the agent. Just like with the opening scene, Doug’s narrative is framed as a tragedy. He consistently frames himself as a victim of his own naïve upbringing. Being a young man from a small town desperate to fit in was what led to his status as a victim. Throughout the documentary, he appears consistently remorseful of his actions by crying and by wishing he could have changed his decision to have unprotected sex. Through Hogarth’s documentary, Doug’s narrative gives power to the privileged institutions and discourses. In other words, Doug violated the social expectation to have safe sex and he was punished. The audience watching this documentary will accept the social order, practicing safer sex, because Doug is used as an example of what happens when social expectations are violated. 2.7 Kenboy’s Narrative Kenboy’s story begins by explaining that he answered an advertisement for a sex house in Los Angeles, California. He was one of the first men to move into the sex house where there were frequent sex parties. He said he estimated that there were 20,000 visitors to the house with eight sex parties per month. Ninety percent of the parties involved unprotected sex. He also claimed that the policy of the house was to not tell or know about anyone’s HIV status, but to assume that everyone was HIV positive. Later, Kenboy then states that after living in the sex house for a couple months he began to feel ill. He underwent an HIV test, but was still negative. Kenboy felt that the experience of feeling ill and being unaware of his HIV status was too terrifying so he wanted to become infected with HIV in order to no longer be unsure. He says that by having a conversion party he will not “get so worked up over” the anxiety of not knowing about his status. He views HIV as an inevitability and wanted a party to make the experience fun, in his eyes. The film then cuts to a list of his justifications for the party:

All the men will be sexually attractive, he hates condoms, he is unafraid of AIDS, and he won’t have to worry anymore. Towards the end of the film, Kenboy describes when he first tested HIV positive. He says he feels relieved and happy because he does not have to worry about being careful with sexual partners. He then begins to talk about medication, saying that he does not know of anyone who is on any HIV medication and that nobody would talk about it at a sex party. Kenboy then states that he does not know anyone outside of sex parties who is HIV positive because the subject is not talked about. In fact, Kenboy has not even told his closest friend that he is HIV positive, nor does he know what his friend’s status is. He then says if this close friend did disclose an HIV positive status, Kenboy would assume the person would feel just as relieved as he is. The documentary then cuts to a different interview with Kenboy where he states that, “if I get sick, then I’ll take medications, but I don’t see that happening for at least 5, 10, 15 years.” Kenboy’s narrative is rather peculiar because it seems to fall within the “scene- purpose” ratio. This ratio emphasizes the context of the situation and the reasons for the act occurring. The scenes Kenboy emphasize in his narrative are the sex parties and the sex house, while his purpose is to continue having sex without fear. By employing this ratio, it appears that Kenboy wants to remain static, within his current context at the sex house. Therefore, by acting (becoming HIV positive) to maintain the status quo (continued sex parties), he is seen as somewhat comedic. However, Kenboy’s narrative falls within the grotesque frame. This frame, neither within acceptance or rejection is emphasized by incongruity or dissonance. Burke argues that in various situations society expects specific responses. When an unanticipated response occurs, the scene is deemed as grotesque (Burke, 1959). Therefore, when Kenboy chooses to remain at the sex house after being afraid of HIV, he is within the grotesque. Kenboy’s story then falls within the frame of rejection by employing burlesque qualities by deciding to become HIV positive. When Kenboy “deliberately suppresses any consideration of the ‘mitigating circumstances’ that would put [himself] in a better light” by choosing HIV infection over leaving the house or using condoms, Kenboy is framing his experience as burlesque (Burke, 1959, p. 55). Kenboy has consciously chosen to ignore obvious avenues to correct his situation in favor of

preserving the status quo. By incorporating Kenboy’s narrative Hogarth can use Kenboy as a scapegoat. Kenboy can be blamed or discounted because he knowingly rejects the social order. 2.8 Conclusion In order to coherently analyze each interviewee, this chapter did not follow the documentary chronologically. By analyzing the interviewees this way, certain aesthetic or argumentative choices may have been omitted. The selections I chose in this analysis only serve as a sample of the negative representations of gay men found within The Gift. Because The Gift is one of the first cultural texts designed for a mainline audience, the issues highlighted in this chapter are especially problematic. Reducing (through synecdoche) the experiences of bug chasers to the plight of all gay men serves to neither explain the bug chasing phenomenon nor does it help the gay community. By creating a text that can be interpreted in this manner, lacking qualifiers that preclude an audience member from assuming that all gay men are bug chasers, Hogarth’s The Gift represents a text of negativity. If the overall goal of a documentary is to find truth or to explore an issue, one must question the efficacy of this particular documentary.

CHAPTER THREE INTERVIEWS TO STAGE The creation of a dramatic text about the bug chasing micro culture involved several phases. First, I conducted four interviews with men who were somehow connected with bug chasers. Second, these interviews were adapted into a playscript. Finally, the playscript was turned into a live performance. Initially, I intended to only interview men who described themselves as bug chasers, however, a limited number of bug chasers were willing to participate in this project. Therefore, I decided to expand this project to include various perspectives familiar with the bug chasing phenomenon. Thus, there were two interviews from men who are bug chasers, one was conducted with a gift giver, and one was with a health professional with an expertise in HIV/AIDS. Each interviewee was given a pseudonym and any personally identifiable information was omitted from both the interview transcript and the playscript. This chapter will first examine selections from the interview transcripts of each interviewee through a dramatistic analysis. Second, this chapter will provide an account of the entire adaptation and performance process. 3.1 Interview One: Adam Adam is a middle-aged gay man who self-identifies as a gift giver, or a person who is willing to transmit HIV. He lives in a rural Southern town and claims that he finds difficulty in finding sexual partners. When asked about any specific experiences with bug chasers Adam stated, “there’s a couple of them that they say they want me to uh have sex with them and uh they want to uh get my poz cum so they can get uh try to be infected” (see Appendix C, p. 63). Adam continues by speculating on the motives of bug chasers by stating, “They didn’t give no particular reason uh of why they wanted to uh be infected or anything uh some of them said uh they wanted to be like other guys uh that were positive . . . I figure if that’s what they want to do it’s their business” (see Appendix C, p. 64). Throughout the majority of the interview, Adam appeared to clearly emphasize purpose. Adam’s use of purpose appears throughout the bulk of the first half of the interview, however, towards the end, Adam begins to utilize scene in the structure of his narrative:

I think my views are probably a bit more liberal than some guys . . . most people around me uh they don’t . . . know that I uh have it or anything like that. There’s a few I have told ‘nn uh there’re a few I haven’t told but uh there’s a few I uh haven’t told for the simple reason that they are so biggerted [sic] and so negative attitude about everything . . . prob’ly a couple ‘round here where I live, if they knew I had HIV they would cut the tires on my car . . . maybe even set my house on fire. That’s how negative they are, if somebody is different than they are. (see Appendix C, p. 67-68) Overall, the main ratio emphasized within the interview with Adam was purpose-scene. It seems that within Adam, he argues that because of his rural surroundings that the best way for him to find any sexual partners is through being willing to have sex with bug chasers. Adam focuses his narrative almost completely on how his surroundings are incredibly difficult. Therefore, this ratio seems to extend to the Burkean frame of elegy, a frame of rejection. Adam must reject the world as it is because he creates alienation in his own narrative. By claiming that quite literally the world is out to get him, if his HIV status (and perhaps his sexual orientation) were revealed to his neighbors, he essentially uses his narrative, “to designate that state of affairs wherein a man no longer ‘owns’ his world because, for one reason or another, it seems basically unreasonable” (Burke, 1959, p. 216). By creating alienation, and forming an elegiac frame, Adam rejects the social order around him because he is essentially alienated. At times, Adam’s narrative can be interpreted even as somewhat grotesque because he seeks out HIV negative men to have sex with as a method of coping with his situation. Rather than choosing to move to a more accepting location, Adam appears to find ways of continuing to make himself more socially unacceptable via having unprotected sex with HIV negative men. Because a grotesque narrative is, “incongruity without the laughter,” it is clear that there are elements of Adam’s narrative that fall within the grotesque frame (Burke, 1959, p. 58). However, the fixation on and maintenance of the Adam’s self-identified socially unacceptable behavior also is elegiac in that Adam is, “exploiting [his situation] to a point where more and more good reasons for complaint are provided, until the physical limits of the attitude are reached” (Burke, 1959, p. 44). What this essentially means, that

by Adam’s willingness to be a gift giver, he draws more attention to the social inequities of being a middle aged, HIV positive man living in the rural South. 3.2 Interview Two: Brian Brian is a young man living in a major metropolitan city. He states that he is HIV positive, but also states that he contracted the virus intentionally. Much of the interview with Brian focused on the purpose-agency pentadic ratio. When asked why he desired to have sexual relations with an HIV positive man he stated, “most of the guys who I met who were poz were very happy to fuck me uh knowing that I was neg at that time and they did fuck harder. It was obvious that they were fucking harder and that gave me a lot more pleasure” (see Appendix D, p. 73). Immediately in this response Brian identifies the purpose of having sex with HIV positive men is specific pleasure and that can only be attained by a specific set of circumstances. By claiming that HIV positive men have sex differently than other men, Brian is valuing the specific means or agency in which he can achieve his objective, pleasure. In Kenneth Burke’s A Grammar of Motives, he describes the purpose-agency ratio. While stating that this specific ratio may be called the ends-means ratio, Burke also notes that agency can, “[overlap] upon our term act” (1969, p. 229). While “fucking hard” can be perceived as the act itself, Brian appears to be emphasizing the way the act occurs (the how of the act, “hard” sex) over the act itself (anal sex). For example, Brian states that, “[HIV positive tops] just like to fuck harder . . . that I was hurt – that there was pain from the fucking if they –they they didn’t use much lube . . . that would hurt and I –I was happy with but I would never describe it that I would go out and get pozzed, I went out to meet poz tops because they fuck harder” (see Appendix D, p. 73-74). Brian’s reluctance to define himself as a bug chaser despite his actions indicates that he wishes to clearly define both his purpose of attaining happiness or sexual pleasure, and his agency, the pain that he can only receive from an HIV positive man. Later in the interview, I asked Brian to further explain why having sex with HIV positive men makes him happy. While Brian continues to describe agency in his narrative, he also starts to shift to describing the act. Brian states that, I’ve been fisted hard. I’ve been palm-fisted, I’ve been taken to the elbow. Um that’s a good feeling for me. I’ve had electro. I’ve been whipped. I’ve been

kicked. I’ve had ribs broken a couple of times. Um being used is I mean I’m a sub. I’m a bottom. Being used – you accept what happens. The tops who like to do it and um if there’s a connection between me and the top – it can happen . . . There’s a difference between the pleasure in SM and violent SM where the – to me it still has to be pleasurable even if I’m getting damaged in the process. (see Appendix D, p. 81) Brian states that there is a difference between violence and pleasure in his behavior, despite having had physical harm happen. However, it appears the biggest distinction occurs with the actors involved in the situation. He claims that when there is a “connection” with his sexual partner, sex is more enjoyable. Brian sees pleasure in the act only when he finds a “connection” with his sexual partner and the act, in general, is meaningless. Brian is distinguishing between sex and sex with a particular partner or done in a particular way. Therefore, the greatest term being utilized in Brian’s narrative is agency. The method in which he has sex also provides internal agency for Brian. Overall, Brian’s interview appears to take aspects from various different Burkean frames. In the largest sense, Brian ignores the social order completely, implying that he frames his experience from within a frame of rejection. When asked about social judgment, Brian states, “I don’t get angry – there are few people who anger me . . . There’s no point. Ever – everybody has a different view and I’ve been called names and stuff . . .” (see Appendix D, p. 81). Brian is ambivalent towards social judgment, which would tend to imply that this rejection is present in all of his narratives. A person reading the interview would be likely to interpret Brian’s narrative as grotesque, a transitional frame that is neither acceptance nor rejection. Brian’s narrative is potentially grotesque because his actions violate social norms, specifically in the way in which Brian defines a pleasurable sexual act. Pain as a form of pleasure is inherently incongruous. However, because he ignores the social order, it is unlikely that he solely employing the grotesque frame. Burke notes in Attitudes Toward History that sometimes a narrative employs a no- lose scenario, “A device whereby, if things turn out one way, your system accounts for them – and if they turn out the opposite way, your system also accounts for them . . . ‘heads I win, tails you lose’” (1959, p. 260). Brian appears to be employing this scenario

within his own narrative by saying things like, “I like being poz, it’s to me, it’s just it – there’s been no negatives. I didn’t get ill, I haven’t been ill. I’m still nice and healthy. I don’t have to take meds. If I have to take meds then maybe my view will change, but I don’t really want to take meds . . . I can go out and get fucked by anybody . . . (see Appendix D, p. 77). Burke does not link “heads I win, tails you lose” to any specific frame, but Brian’s focus on personal agency suggests that Brian is employing this technique somewhere within the frame of rejection. 3.3 Interview Three: Christopher Christopher is a middle-aged man living in a large Northern city. He is a self- described bug chaser who has been actively seeking HIV infection for approximately six months. Christopher’s narratives tend to focus on romance and finding a desirable sexual partner. In the beginning of the interview Christopher states that HIV entails, “a sense of belonging and it’s certainly not the worst thing you could catch um . . . they’ll come up with a – a vaccine or treatment” (see Appendix E, p. 85). This immediately suggests that Christopher is framing his experiences from within a tragic frame. By stating that a treatment for HIV will soon appear, Christopher seems to employ what Burke would call, “magical patterns of fatality, magnification, and humility . . .” (Burke 1959, p. 37). The belief that a cure or treatment will come is somewhat fatalistic as, “In the tragic plot the deus ex machina is always lurking” (Burke, 1959, p. 42). This tragic frame seems to continue as Christopher continues to justify why he seeks HIV infection, “I think that um people living with AIDS shouldn’t just be consigned to only having sex with themselves . . .” (see Appendix E, p. 86). While Burke does not mention martyrdom or self-sacrifice as a product of the tragic frame, there is a sense of tragedy in the protagonist who is willing to sacrifice himself for love. In fact, self-sacrifice, according to Attitudes Toward History appears to fall within the epic frame. Although “courage and individual sacrifice for group advantage” exists in Christopher’s narrative, there is a lack of a “hero, real or legendary, [. . . so] that others may be vicariously heroic” (Burke 1959, p. 36). Essentially, the distinction between Christopher’s narrative and an epic one would be via the purpose of action. In terms of Burke’s pentad, Christopher focuses a lot on agent, himself. In A Grammar of Motives, Burke writes that, “For the featuring of agent the corresponding terminology is idealism”

and it is quite clear that Christopher is focusing on his own idealism, painting himself as a more sympathetic human being because he is willing to be with HIV positive men (1969, p. 128). Although Christopher states that he does not think HIV positive men should be alone, his purpose is not completely selfless. When asked about an ideal encounter with an HIV positive man, Christopher states, “sort of the usual stuff – soft romantic thing that a lot of the guys, like you know, fireplace, glass of wine, um sort of a slow seduction, that sort of thing, you know” (see Appendix E, p. 87). This description suggests that his desire to be with HIV positive men is more about his own sexual and romantic satisfaction than self-sacrifice for the greater good. Later in the interview, Christopher describes one encounter he had with an HIV positive man, “it was a friend I’d gone hiking with and I knew he was positive and um we had gone out for for drinks and we ended up going back to his place and um [pause] and well one thing sort of led to another and we ended up in bed but um he wasn’t particularly interested in giving so um I didn’t push the point – I didn’t go into into very much detail about me . . .” (see Appendix E, p. 89). Christopher glosses over the act itself, by stating, “one thing sort of led to another,” but predominantly focuses on scene. He continues the narrative by calling it a “positive experience,” but when asked about if he makes a habit of not telling partners about his HIV status, Christopher states, “It’s not something that I would automatically blurt out no. Just because it – in some respe—in some circles would have a bit of a negative connotation um um but I think by any –by implication if you’re, if you’re interested in it and willing to do bareback, then you’re willing to – you’re in – you’re willing enough to take the risks . . .” (see Appendix E, p. 90). Within this segment, he explains the scene surrounding not telling someone about his HIV status and the reasons why. Thus, it appears that Christopher is employing a scene- purpose pentadic ratio in this section of the interview. This particular ratio seems to reinforce the tragic frame that Christopher employs earlier in the interview. Christopher does not tell his HIV status or his willingness to become HIV positive because he is afraid of rejection by the men he wants. The emotional draw towards the group that would reject you seems to imply a tragic, self-sacrificing quality. Christopher, towards the end of the interview, shifts from a tragic frame to both the grotesque and the comic corrective. He describes liking the term bug chaser because

he finds the term to be shocking, “it just makes you know to see if people are paying attention as opposed to you know going blindly through their lives with half blinders on . . . not necessarily paying attention to me just, you know, paying attention to what’s going on around them. Um, it’s I don’t know, I think every now and then people need a bit of a jolt to wake them up every now and then . . .” (see Appendix E, p. 96). It is important to note that the comic frame is not necessarily the same as humor. Burke makes this distinction clear in Attitudes Toward History. Because the main function of the comic frame is to have the audience evaluate themselves, by wanting others around him to “pay attention,” Christopher uses aspects of the comic corrective. Additionally, because his actions are outside of the social norm, there are aspects of the interview that fall within the grotesque frame. Burke states that this particular frame is difficult to define, yet “the grotesque comes to the fore when confusion in the forensic pattern gives more prominence to the subjective elements of imagery than to the objective, or public, elements” (Burke, 1959, p. 60). Christopher recognizes his behavior as socially aberrant by stating, “it’s [bug chasing/gift giving] um amoral behavior . . . it’s considered dangerous” (see Appendix E, p. 90). His desire to produce discomfort or shock, while simultaneously recognizing that his behavior is “amoral” suggests that Christopher is using the grotesque frame because there he is trying to get people around him to have a different reaction to his own behavior. 3.4 Interview Four: Flotsam This last interview was conducted with a nurse who works at a clinic in a major city specializing in HIV/AIDS cases. He is also an AIDS activist who worked with several outreach organizations early during the AIDS crisis. The majority of our interview focused on what other interviewees stated; however, Flotsam’s narratives provide an interesting viewpoint on how bug chasing is perceived by the gay community. Flotsam remarks that bug chasing results from the inability to keep a fetish within the confines of a person’s fantasy: You’ve romanticized HIV. You’ve romanticized what you fear is is just the inevitability -- that you’re going to get HIV positive, you may as well just get over . . . on your own terms. Um, I remember being at some forum or other uh where one of the speakers, I don’t remember what the topic was, but one of the

speakers was a young man from somewhere in the Midwest who had just come to New York. He couldn’t have been more than 23 and he had sex for the first time in New York City with someone else who came from some small town and it never occurred to him that this person could possibly could be HIV positive and the next thing this new guy. This kid knew was that he seroconverted and he wasn’t out looking for it. Now that he had it, he was having to deal with those those consequences. The failure of imagination, in some ways is the failure to to imagine the consequences of this. (see Appendix F, p. 101) There are several interesting features within this narrative from Flotsam. Throughout most of the interview, whenever bug chasing was discussed, Flotsam would use the second-person voice. When conducting the interview and when reading the transcript, it appears as if Flotsam is directing this message to a bug chaser. By directing his message to someone not in the room, the narrative is somewhat tragic. One of the key features of a tragic narrative is the notion that the actor does not heed the warnings from a deity or society and is thereby punished (Burke, 1959). Thus, by delivering this warning to an audience that does not hear him, Flotsam creates a tragic structure. This is one of many available readings of the second person. DelConte (2003) notes that there are several definitions and functions of the second person narrative that literary critics and authors have tended to redefine throughout history. In his article, DelConte provides a more comprehensive categorization of the second person narrative as, “a narrative mode in which a narrator tells a story to a (sometimes undefined, shifting, and/or hypothetical) narratee – delineated by you – who is also the (sometimes undefined, shifting, and/or hypothetical) principal actant in that story” (pp. 207-08). Using literary examples, DelConte argues that the second person narrative is either a first-person or third-person narrative and the definition argues that the second-person narrative is in actuality either a more common first person or third person narrative. The fact that Flotsam’s narrative switches back and forth between first and second person seems to imply that some “other” is being addressed, however, if Flotsam is talking about his own experiences through the second person, it appears that he may be attempting to appeal to a past self, maintaining the tragic frame. This narrative also performs a synecdoche similar to the one found in Louise Hogarth’s documentary The Gift. In A Grammar of

Motives, Kenneth Burke (1969) notes that narratives, life experiences, and any other type of story require the use of literary language to analyze its function. Specifically, Burke created four tropes that allow a critic to uncover the truth found in a narrative, metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. As was present in Hogarth’s documentary, so too does synecdoche appear in this interview. By using the example of the young gay man who contracts HIV after having sex for the first time, Flotsam conflates bug chasing with having unprotected sex. This imprecise example can create confusion for a listener and may imply that anyone who does not practice safe sex is no different than someone who wants HIV. If “Tragedy deals in crime . . . [and] we are made to feel that his offense is our offense” then by extension, a synecdoche conflating bug chasing with any unsafe sexual act further reinforces a tragic narrative (Burke, 1959, p. 39). Flotsam’s bug chasing-barebacking synecdoche remains constant throughout the interview. Flotsam continues this synecdoche further and begins to shift his narrative from the tragic frame to the didactic frame: AIDS already existed before you even had sex. You’ve known about AIDS. You’re in the 5th grade and you’re getting a lecture about AIDS and so it’s perfectly reasonable to me that people would be jealous that they’ve never ever ever had the opportunity to experience sex without this like I said veneer of latex between themselves and another and that’s what’s antithetical about sex. The point of sex is to have nothing yourself and your partner and so if that means that if I have to – If the price of that is the virus then bring it on and let me let me have control of how that happens. (see Appendix E, p. 102). This frame is rather unique in that it is an active form of an acceptance frame. Narratives within the didactic frame work, “by coaching the imagination in obedience to critical postulates. Insofar as the imagination cannot be coached . . . the attempt to coerce the imagination leads to the problems of ‘will’ . . .” (Burke, 1959, p. 75). The synecdoche present in Flotsam’s narrative continues and grows larger to encompass any gay man, forcing me as the interviewer to put myself within the synecdoche. Although there is the risk of contracting HIV from unprotected sex, it is not inevitable that one will contract (or want to contract) HIV from unprotected sex, just as the use of a condom during sex is not a guarantee of safety. Thus, Flotsam is still employing a synecdoche by conflating bug

chasing with barebacking. In doing so, my imagination and my experiences are being “coached”. Essentially, Burke notes that this particular frame is rhetorical, even using propaganda as an example of a didactic text. Given that Flotsam is a nurse, it is not particularly surprising that the didactic frame would be employed, bug chasing and unsafe sexual behavior are things he works to prevent. Each of the selections highlighted in this chapter all utilized vastly different narrative structure and strategy, and thus were important to showcase in my own creative work on this subject. The following segment of the chapter will describe the process in which the theoretical underpinnings within the first half of this chapter became a creative performance, called Little Death. As is the case of this thesis as a whole, there were several goals for adapting these interviews into a live performance. First, the creative component of the thesis was designed to bridge the theoretical analysis of interviews with the aesthetic qualities of performance. The second goal of this project was to present a deeper and more complex account of the bug chasing phenomenon than what was presented in Hogarth’s The Gift. Finally, the third goal of the project was to present this to a wider audience than the academic community. Turning the interviews I conducted into Little Death involved several phases. This project started by determining a rationale, an audience, and a venue. Chapter one of this thesis describes my rationale and hypothesizes about audience, production concepts and venue, all of which were integral to my beginning this creative process. Although a goal of this project was to present this information to a wider audience than the academic community, given the sensitive and adult nature of the bug chasing phenomenon, I decided that a smaller invited audience was the most appropriate. This choice allowed me, as a director, to focus on maintaining a genuine portrayal of the men that I interviewed without the worry of the content becoming offensive. 3.5 Adapting and Revising Once this initial phase was complete, I began with transcribing the audio recordings of each interview and selecting passages that described sexual behaviors or attitudes toward HIV. In general, the passages analyzed earlier in this chapter were ultimately used in the final version of Little Death. After interviewing Christopher, I thought that the best performance concept would be the interview process itself, with

each interview becoming a small monologue. I also created a character, Jetsam, based on my own observations and the questions I asked during the interviews in keeping with this interview concept. Once I selected the sections that I wanted to present to an audience, I began to consult with Terry Galloway and Donna Marie Nudd, founders of the Mickee Faust Club, a queer and disability themed community theatre in Tallahassee, Florida. Galloway and Nudd suggested that I form a focus group from the Mickee Faust Club to examine my script and concept to suggest improvements. Over several meetings, Jimmers Micallef, Shirin Leclere, Dona Milinkovich, Terry Galloway, and Donna Marie Nudd, all seasoned performers and directors in the company, examined my initial draft of the script. After reviewing, the group came up with several suggestions. The following are only a small selection of what the focus group discussed along with the changes I made to the initial drafts: 1. Make the performance more visually interesting by literally showing some of these men’s behaviors in the bedroom. An audience may get bored with just static monologues. In order to attempt to make the performance more interesting, I included two more characters in the performance, Lucky and Pozzo. These two characters have no lines, but mimic the sexual behaviors that each character does from behind a scrim. I wanted these characters to be in silhouette because it has a dream-like or imaginary quality. As the monologues are occurring, other characters and even the audience are imagining what these men do sexually. Thus, Lucky and Pozzo were designed to be a concretized imagination that bridges what every one is likely thinking as characters perform monologues. 2. The script and performance should make it clear that the bug chasing phenomenon represents a very small segment of the gay community. This particular suggestion seemed important to incorporate within the performance. I did not want my own script to misrepresent the entire gay community as bug chasers. In order to make it clear that bug chasers represent a very small population, I added a few lines of dialogue between Flotsam and Jetsam in the second scene. To do this, I used some of the statistical information found in chapter one of this thesis and had

the Jetsam character state that roughly one percent of the gay community is a bug chaser. Although chapter one makes it clear that there cannot be an accurate demographic for the bug chasing micro-culture, it was important to make at least an educated guess so that the audience was not misled. 3. Audience interest may be lost if the script contains the original natural language found in the interview transcripts. Removing the vocal segregates would maintain audience interest and help actors in their portrayal of the characters. This suggestion was a struggle for me throughout the writing and rehearsal process. I wanted the script to be as true to the interviews as possible, keeping with an Anna Deavere Smith style performance. Because the actors would not have access to the original recordings I made, ultimately I removed approximately 80 percent of the vocal segregates from the script. As I was directing the piece, however, I attempted to make sure that each actor was capturing the spirit of the interviewees’ vocal idiosyncrasies as much as possible. 4. Consider using the Flotsam character as an anchor, demonstrating through the course of the performance his movement from apathy to caring. 5. Consider breaking up the monologues by having all of the characters introduced at the beginning of the performance, thus making it more interesting to the audience. 6. Break up the monologues by making them part of a conversation between Flotsam and Jestsam. These last three suggestions all focused on the same issue with the original script. Because the initial script had only four monologues, there was no dramatic arc. This original choice made it difficult for an audience to pay attention for a long period of time. Additionally, it ran the risk of the audience misinterpreting or drawing unintended conclusions from the work. By having the play focus on the conversation between Flotsam and Jetsam, the performance gained a dramatic structure and allowed more variety in staging, thus making it more engaging for an audience.

7. Consider that the audience may need more direct or simple dialogue because the audience may never have heard the terms “bug chaser” or “gift giver”. 8. If however, the play becomes too direct the audience may lose interest because it is too didactic. Given my issues with Louise Hogarth’s The Gift, these somewhat paradoxical suggestions were especially difficult to incorporate into the script. After seeing the ways the documentary presented terminology in a very didactic way, I desired to teach the audience by placing subtle bits of context in the dialogue instead. At various points in the script I had characters naturally define their own slang. For example, Flotsam says in the first scene of the performance, “So you just liked to have bareback sex, unprotected sex . . .” which defines the term “bareback” for the audience in a natural way (Script Page 8). Most terminology that an audience would have difficulty understanding was defined in a similar way. By choosing to do this, the performance prompts the audience to actively listen for context. 3.6 Casting and Rehearsing After I revised the script, I began open casting from within the Mickee Faust Club. I asked for volunteers who were interested in the project to come to a reading of the script and I cast the play based on who was able to commit to a three-week rehearsal schedule. There was a limited amount of time for rehearsal; only two three-hour rehearsals were scheduled per week, with one dress rehearsal before the final performance. The first week focused on character development. In addition to giving the actors a copy of Little Death, I also gave each lead actor a full interview transcript of his particular character. As director, I focused on each actor’s understanding of the complexity of their characters as well as making sure that each actor sounded as close to the original interview as possible. The remaining weeks for rehearsal involved staging, blocking, and rehearsing Little Death. 3.7 Venue and Staging The Mickee Faust Club’s Executive Committee graciously allowed me to use their newly constructed The Maryanne Ward Stage for Little Death. This fully accessible stage, built in the proscenium style, allows for a large audience to attend a cabaret

performance, however, it was not configured for an intimate and small production for invited guests. Thus, with the help of Dona Milinkovich, I reoriented the house at a 45- degree angle towards stage right, making the usable stage area smaller, and allowing for some audience members to sit on the stage. In addition, I had an eight-by-eight foot platform constructed to extend out from stage right. These two modifications allowed for actors to be much closer to the audience, creating somewhat of a thrust stage with two different levels. Not only did these changes make for a more intimate performance, but also because the platform was at a different height than the stage, the performance was more visually interesting to the audience. 3.8 The Performance Initially as I wrote the proposal for this project, I considered basing a performance concept from either the work of Anna Deavere Smith, The Tectonic Theatre Project, or post-modern theatre, in the vein of Caryl Churchill. I found that after working on the project, I incorporated aspects from each of these styles within Little Death. Obviously, my work to preserve the original integrity of the interviewees is indicative of the work of Anna Deavere Smith. Like Smith’s Fires in the Mirror, this process was simultaneously about discovering how characters and story meet and discovering how performance can reveal things about characters (Myers, 1998, p. 52). However because this performance was a conversation, I included my own reactions and observations through the character of Jetsam, in the style of The Laramie Project, created by the Tectonic Theatre Project in February 2000. Common to both the Tectonic Theatre Project and post-modern theatre, especially the work of Caryl Churchill, is untraditional or fragmented structure. Little Death follows in these traditions by breaking the “fourth wall” that separates the stage from the audience. Specifically, Christopher breaks this traditional convention by addressing audience members when he asks for attention. Flotsam breaks realistic conventions by addressing Adam and Brian, despite not being in the same room as them. Additionally, the choreographed movement of the two actors behind the scrim also breaks any semblance of realism. Overall, taking this project from idea to stage required over a year’s work. This chapter outlined the dramatistic analysis of the interviews and how they formed the basis for the playscript. On April 17, 2009, Little Death was performed for approximately 55

audience members. The performance lasted nearly 45 minutes and was followed by an open discussion between the audience and the cast. The following chapter of the thesis will describe this conversation and evaluate the efficacy and limitations of this creative project.

Chapter Four Evaluation, Limitations, and Conclusion As stated in chapter one, the study of the bug chasing and gift giving micro- culture is incredibly important to maintaining public health. More importantly, this research was designed to explore the motivations of bug chasers and to share the findings with an audience through a creative work. This thesis had five initial goals. First, it sought to critically analyze one of the only artistic products about bug chasers. Second, this thesis added to the discourse about bug chasing through collecting new interviews. Third, it analyzed these interviews through dramatistic analysis to speculate on potential motivations. Fourth, the interview text and Burkean analysis was used to create a 45- minute play. And finally, a fully staged production of that play, called Little Death, was shared with the public. These goals parallel the major research questions in the thesis. This chapter will discuss my findings, articulate the limitations of this study, and will end by providing suggestions for future research. 4.1 Goal One: Critical Analysis of The Gift Louise Hogarth’s 2003 documentary about bug chasing represents one of the only artistic texts about this phenomenon. My analysis of this film showed some of the shortcomings of this product. Specifically, I argue that as important as discussing this subject is, The Gift ultimately conflates all gay men with bug chasers. By framing the bug chasers this way, the documentary has the potential to make an audience think that most gay men wish to be infected with HIV. Given the past negative representations of homosexuality as noted in chapter one, The Gift not only presents a negative image of gay men, it has the potential to foster pejoratives and stereotypes of gay men, while simultaneously failing to explore the complexity of the bug chasing micro-culture. In terms of my first research question, the motivations of bug chasers are presented in The Gift as being inevitable. When the support group of HIV positive men tries to think of a middle-aged gay man who has remained HIV negative, they struggle. Toward the end of the documentary the support group finds a 37-year-old gay man who has remained negative, but even he says he thinks his infection may be inevitable. This inevitability also stems from the promiscuity present in Kenboy’s and Doug’s personal narratives.

4.2 Goal Two: Adding to the Conversation When I began this project, I wanted to gain five face-to-face interviews with bug chasers. This goal initially seemed manageable, but I believe that the restrictions (eg. where interviews could be conducted, the use of recruitment scripts) placed on me by the university’s human subjects committee prevented me from achieving this initial goal. After months of trying to interview bug chasers face-to-face, I ultimately had to change my research methodology to telephone interviews. Even with this change I faced many difficulties in finding men who would be willing to be interviewed. Part of this had to do with limiting myself to finding interviewees from one website. Had I chose to find participants from several different websites that cater to bug chasers, it is possible I may have found more interviewees. Additionally, if I were to do this study again, I may consider proposing a covert ethnographic approach. As I was online asking men for interviews, some men online were extremely hostile towards having a researcher looking at their sexual behavior. Although I may not have received the specific information I wanted, I wonder how different the interviewees’ responses would be if I were not perceived as a researcher. However, this strategy may be altogether unethical for an artist creating a public performance closely based on those interviews. It also could be potentially dangerous as it could lead a researcher down the path of participation. Another potential change I may do in future research is to travel to larger metropolitan areas. Being located in a small city in the Southern part of the United States limited my ability to find many bug chasers locally. If this study were conducted in cities like Chicago or New York City, I would suspect that a researcher would have less difficulty in gaining face-to-face interviews with bug chasers. Both cities have large established gay communities. By conducting research in one of these larger cities may produce a “snowball effect.” Bug chasers could put me in contact with others they know, which in turn could quickly increase the population size. In Fine’s (1993) article “Ten Lies of Ethnography,” Fine noted that many people performing ethnographic work feel that their work is both the perfect method of inquiry and above reproach. However, as may be the case in this thesis, Fine states “misunderstandings [can] stem not from incompetence but from competencies in other domains” (Fine, 1993, p. 279). While I share many of the same domains as the

population being studied, there is a possibility that misunderstandings occurred. Although I, as the researcher, am familiar with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer and questioning (LGBTQ) community, I am not altogether familiar with the bug chasing micro-culture. Additionally, because interviews in this study were primarily conducted over the telephone and not face-to-face, there remains the possibility for misinterpretation or misunderstandings to occur primarily because some aspects of non-verbal communication could not be observed, such as facial expressions and posture. However, closely reviewing audio recordings, and by spending considerable time observing, or “lurking” in the community’s discourse online, I did my best to mitigate possible misunderstandings. Another limitation noted in Fine’s (1993) article references researchers’ attempts to be ethical. Because this study is bound by the guidelines set by an institutional review board, this study must include disclosure that participant data will be used in a study and that their online profiles may be used. This disclosure of research intent leads to one of the main limitations of ethnography, reactance, which exists when research participants who are aware that they are being studied perform differently than they would in a naturalist setting. Essentially, because my interviewees knew that they were interviewed, they may have changed some of their answers or behaviors. Even though this is a naturalist study that attempts to observe the world as it exists, the process of interviewing bug chasers may unexpectedly alter the interviews. A way to minimize this potential issue would be through doing a covert, observer as participant or complete participation study. This level of ethnography would eliminate the chance that bug chasers may know that they are being studied; however, an observer as participant study of bug chasers is not only impractical, but also potentially dangerous for a researcher. 4.3 Goal Three: Burkean Analysis When I initially proposed using Kenneth Burke to analyze these narratives, I only thought about employing the pentad. My reason for making this choice was to help concretize the complexity of each narrative. Upon further consideration, I realized by adding other principles of dramatism, I had the ability to offer a richer analysis. Despite these choices, Kenneth Burke is a difficult theorist to use, regardless of the study. If I

were to do this project over again, I may consider examining other theories (e.g. queer theory, critical/cultural theory), but I still think the Burkean analysis was a useful tool in analyzing the narratives. Research questions three and four were both sought to explore how the structure explained the motivations of the interviewees. Ultimately, I think that there is no simple answer to these research questions. Burkean analysis provides a way of seeing that each interviewee has a different worldview and a different way of framing their experiences. 4.4 Goal Four: Presenting a Creative Work Developing a performance from academic work was one of the more challenging and most rewarding parts of this project. Admittedly, I had some difficulty initially in creating a performance concept. In my consultation meetings, a group of writers, performers, and directors from the Mickee Faust Club, however offered several welcomed suggestions that helped improve my script. After revising the script, however, I had a very tight time frame, four weeks, to completely cast, produce, and direct the piece. In all, I was immediately impressed at how quickly my cast was able to capture each character even at the very first rehearsal. Having worked with members of the Mickee Faust Club before, these actors have not typically performed a lot of serious dramatic work. In fact, two members of the cast, Keith and Jimmers, told me that this was an extreme departure from the comic performances they have done in the past. However, I am unsure of the timetable I set for myself. I am certain that with another month the overall performance could have been more polished, though I doubt the cast could live with the material for much more than the four-week rehearsal period. I chose to use the Mickee Faust performance space for this show as it has been my creative home for the last two years in Tallahassee, but also the space has a minimalist feel that I felt helps accentuates the narrative. Additionally, using that particular space allowed me to be more creative with space. Had this performance been staged on the Florida State University campus, I doubt I would have been allowed to build a platform, reorient the house, and make any other changes I wanted. The only difficulty with this space was with lighting. Had this performance been in a different venue, I may have been

able to have more lighting effects, which could have in turn enhanced the drama of the performance. During the question and answer session after the show, I approached the audience by saying that it was my assumption that many of them would leave the performance with questions about the show and about the topic. This assumption was based primarily on the reaction that several of my actors had after first reading the script. I then gave a brief description of this thesis and the work involved bringing the interviews to the stage. Along with numerous personal stories and comments, the audience asked over 35 questions in an hour after the performance of Little Death. After watching a recording of the entire audience response session, I felt there were five audience questions/comments that I would like to reflect further on in this thesis. 1. “What brought you to this altogether? What did you know about bug chasers before you did your interviews? How did this all happen?” This question, in particular, is important to address in the concluding chapter of this thesis as it addresses the entirety of the research project. While I stated throughout this thesis that there are public health implications to the bug chasing phenomenon, this question also asked me what my personal investment was in the subject. Honestly, this project started as a challenge by a professor my first semester. Given no restrictions, I was told to create a research proposal. I looked for subjects that were provocative and that the academy has not researched in depth before. As a gay man, I had vaguely heard of men who wanted to become infected with HIV, but it was not until reading Freeman’s (2003) Rolling Stone article, that I found a micro-culture within the gay community with its own language and a voice. 2. “How difficult was it to find people who were willing to be interviewed? Was it like pulling teeth?” Indeed, finding research participants was the most difficult aspect of this project. Initially, I wanted face-to-face interviews with bug chasers, but ultimately I found that many potential participants were unwilling to be interviewed in person. I had to change the protocol of this study and try with telephone interviews. Even with this protocol change, I spent countless hours online searching for the right interviewees. Studying anything of a sexual nature leads to many uncomfortable conversations online.

Eventually, I learned that I had to pre-interview each potential interviewee to be certain that they were willing to talk about their motivations for seeking HIV infection. The pre- interviews often were a few closed-ended questions I would have with a potential subject online. These questions typically asked if and how often the subject goes out searching for HIV positive partners and determined their willingness to discuss their experiences with me. 3. “It was a lot like looking at a really affecting picture from a war correspondent, which you look at and say, ‘That’s an amazing picture of something I would never want to experience in person, but how can that person not put down the camera and do something about it instead of taking a picture?’ Now, was that a struggle for you? Did you have the temptation to become activist or educator?” I like this question for two reasons. One, it is quite an eloquent metaphor to describe my show. Two, it also says something about the way in which I approached this project. After watching Hogarth’s documentary, I was left with a visceral reaction to its didactic way of explaining the bug chasing phenomenon. Certainly Little Death was about educating and being an activist. The Flotsam and Jetsam characters function as a way to educate the audience and to tie the interviews to the larger gay community. However, because I chose to keep the teaching moments of the show subtle, there lacked a moralistic tone that hopefully humanized each interviewee. 4. (From one of the performers in the show) “Each character has got a different why and I found myself, somewhere in the process of figuring out how to do these people’s words whatever justice we could, paying more attention to the sentences they didn’t finish than the ones they did. And there’s a lot of them in there. And I found myself, for my own attempts at coming up with a why on this one, was that these are individuals. They’re going to be as complicated and uncertain and confusing and confused on this as anybody is on any one thing. We’re not going to get a why.” Jimmers, the actor who played the character of Flotsam offered this observation during the audience feedback session. I think this is perhaps the most important observation that was stated that night. Part of the goal of this thesis was to complicate narratives, and by recognizing the individual and unique motivations of each person,

Jimmers was able to see how incredibly complex the narratives and the characters are. Through out the rehearsal and performance process Jimmers seemed to focus on the unfinished thoughts of the characters. Initially, he said found them to be incredibly frustrating to perform because they were so indirect. One of the things that I think makes the unfinished sentence so powerful and challenging in performance is that it allows a myriad of interpretations. It also forces the actor to think about the experiences of the interviewee and the words they do say as a means to fill in the unfinished sentence. As an academic, these interviewees may have self-censored themselves because they are uncomfortable. However, they may also be unsure themselves of why they engage in their sexual behavior. 5. “Why did you decide to do this as a play?” I enjoy this particular question because I have heard it from some of my friends, my family, and even interviewees. As much as I like to think that an academic work has the power to change the world, not many people in that audience would have taken the time to read a thesis on the subject of bug chasing and gift giving. There is a much greater accessibility in a live performance than in a written analysis. Immediately following the question and answer session, two audience members, a faculty member at Florida State University and an employee of Big Bend Cares, approached a member of my cast and me. Both these audience members each were so moved by the piece that they wanted to know if I was willing to present this production again. These two comments are indicative of the biggest failure of this creative project, the show run. Because I had anticipated a small invited audience, I anticipated only needing one night for the show. However, after listening to the comments afterwards, I realize that there should have been several nights to this show. After the question and answer session, I met with several faculty members at Florida State University, cast members, and audience members at an informal gathering. One of the prominent criticisms of the performance was that the use sexual vignettes behind the scrim were not altogether useful in the performance. Several people noted that the piece would not have lost any emotional power by omitting the scrim action and that they generally ignored it throughout the performance. Although I initially added this

scrim at the suggestion of the initial reviews of the playscript, I would seriously consider revamping it or omitting it if I choose to stage Little Death in the future. I think the failure of the scrim came from a variety of sources. Given the lack of male actors who attended the audition, I asked females to play these roles. Despite working with these actors on movement and looking more masculine, they still managed to read as women to some audience members. If the scrim were to be used again for a reprisal of this piece, I may consider casting these parts with male actors. Additionally, the scrim was too small. The actors only had a three-by-three foot square to move in, limiting the choreography. Another factor was the scrim’s weight. The fabric used for the scrim was quite transparent and allowed too much light to show through. This could have added to the audience reading these actors as female, but it also limited movement because more of each actor could be seen. After further reflection, I think some of the success of Little Death comes from the differences between the overarching dramatistic frames present in Hogarth’s The Gift (2003) and my performance. Throughout much of the documentary, Hogarth frames the narratives of bug chasers, especially Doug’s narrative, within the tragic frame. Unlike Hogarth’s documentary however, Little Death, with the inclusion of the Flotsam and Jetsam characters, employs Burke’s comic frame. These two different frames have very different affects on an audience. As stated in chapter two, the tragic frame causes an audience to fear the act or the transgression that was caused. After watching The Gift (Hogarth, 2003), an audience might fear being a bug chaser (or being gay) because of the outcome it has on Doug. This is certainly a legitimate strategy, but it inevitably makes Doug an object of ridicule or pity by an audience and ultimately may not cause an audience to think about their similarities with him. Unlike the tragic frame, Burke notes that the comic frame is more effective, stating that it is, “the most serviceable for the handling of human relationships” (1959, p. 106). Little Death clearly employs this frame throughout because it reveals the faults of society. When I wrote the script for Little Death, I thought about what prejudicial thoughts an audience member might bring to a play about intentional infection of HIV. These thoughts all manifested themselves in the Flotsam character. Thus an audience

member would be encouraged to change or reevaluate his or her beliefs because they are being enacted on stage. Rather than pushing an audience to fear the behavior of a bug chaser, Little Death ultimately asks the audience to be open minded and to reconsider their own beliefs they had when the performance started. I find the difference between the frame I employed in Little Death and Hogarth’s tragic frame to be a point of success because I believe the comic frame allows the audience to be personally invested in the performance. Thus, by being personally invested, audience members were able and quite willing to discuss their thoughts on the subject matter in Little Death for nearly an hour after the performance ended. 4.5 Avenues for Future Academic Research As I watched the recording of questions from the performance of Little Death, I took note at how many of the topics discussed would be helpful in creating a more comprehensive look at bug chasers and gift givers. In particular, several questions that were asked dealt with the historical prevalence of bug chasing and gift giving, especially during the 1980s. Future research that looks at the historical foundations of the bug chasing and gift giving practice may be helpful in determining everything from the motivations employed to the formation of the jargon within the bug chasing community. As I now reflect on the analysis of the narratives, I am stuck with the similarities between Graydon’s 2004 paper to the National STD Prevention Conference. Each interview in this thesis seemed to confirm many of the rationales found within Graydon’s work. In seeing these similarities between my oral narratives and the online narratives, I believe there is a great opportunity for future research to both confirm and expand upon Graydon’s research by comparing oral and online narratives of bug chasers. In the initial drafts of my research prospectus, I included research questions that compared the oral narratives of bug chasers with their online profiles and narratives. Given the amount that was covered in this thesis, I removed these questions. It is my hope that future research would examine the connections between online and offline narratives. Overall, the serious lack of scholarly research currently done with regard to the bug chasing and gift giving phenomenon creates a need for various qualitative and quantitative studies. Specifically, a psychology or disability studies scholar may want to examine the correlation between Body Identity Integrity Disorder and bug chasing, as both deal with acquiring a disability.

It is the hope that this thesis, despite its interdisciplinary and experimental nature, encourages researchers to consider ways in which social forces may create the motivation for some gay men to actively seek HIV infection. 4.6 Avenues for Future Creative Work There were several different approaches the performance for this thesis could have taken. During some initial discussions of Little Death, it was suggested that the entire performance be recorded and shared with others online, so that it might reach an even larger audience. Additionally, I could have adapted the script to become a video, which would have allowed Little Death to be submitted at queer themed conferences and film festivals. While a live performance in just one community for just one night reaches a small audience, I wonder what the differences in the audience reaction may be if this project were a film. One reason why I chose to make this into a live performance was that I am more comfortable with this medium than with film, but it makes for a different experience than video. There is a certain intimacy in a live performance that I do not think can be completely reproduced on a video. Filmmakers and videographers interested in continuing work on this subject should consider ways in making the narratives and subject matter as intimate and honest as what occurred with Little Death. Those considering restaging Little Death or creating an original piece should consider a much longer show run than the one-night Little Death was performed. 4.7 Discussion and Conclusion This project was altogether an experiment in two ways. First, this thesis attempted to determine whether dramatistic theories of Kenneth Burke, usually applied to literary analysis, can be used to extrapolate and evaluate the motives within the bug chasing community. Additionally, this project sought to create an aesthetic text utilizing dramatistic analysis and to present this otherwise uncomfortable subject to an audience. As a qualitative study, this thesis cannot make a generalizable conclusion, however, chapter three demonstrates that people are individuals, each possessing their own unique motivations that affect their actions. Thus, the main implication of this study challenges other research that only frames the bug chasing community as one that simply eroticizes risk. Another implication of this project is the creation of a performance. I was asked at the end of my performance why I would choose to couple ethnographic research

with a performance. Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the richness of the question and answer session after the performance, which as a testimonial to a community trying to work through the complexity of this phenomenon. Previous research involving bug chasing and gift giving seldom seeks to simply ask the why questions that researchers and even general members of the public ask when confronted with this subject. While this study can be used to help health practitioners and communication scholars develop HIV education campaigns, I leave this project with a reluctance to endorse this research direction. The simple question, “why?” has been the informal research question that has guided my research on this subject and I would encourage others in the field to take the position of simply understanding. If after this study there still is no singular, overarching answer to this question, there is no way that a particular campaign can be developed. More research must be done to explore the motivation of these men before we seek to change their behavior.

APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 6/12/2009

To: Joshua Potter [[email protected]]

Address: 161 Crenshaw Drive Apt. 1 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Dept.: COMMUNICATION

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research Motives for Sexual Behavior in Gay Male Bug Chasers

Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by 6/9/2010, you are must request renewed approval by the Committee.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor are reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

Cc: Donna Nudd, Advisor [[email protected]] HSC No. 2009.2777

Moti·tes for Sexual Behavior in Gay Male Sugchasers Informed Consent Form

I HAVE BEEU ｉｉｾｆｏｒｍｅｏ＠ THAT: My participation in a project has been requested by Joshua Potter, a. master's student at Ftorija State ｕｮｩｶ･ｲｳｩｾ［ｹ＠ in the Department of Communication. The purpose of the project is to imervie""' individuals who identify as bug chasers or are ｾ｡ｹ＠ or bise>:ual men ••,;ho seek HIV (Human ImmunodeficiEnCy Virus). Content from this intervie•.v may be performed on stage by an actor and may be used i 111 a J:hesis by Joshua. Potter.

I understand that this intervie•.v will discus; subjects of a sexual nature which may cause me psychological harm or distress. If at any point in time I feet ｵｮ｣ｯｭｦｯｲｴ｡｢ｬｾｴｲ･ｳｳ･､Ｌ＠ or ｯｴｨ･ｲｾｯｩｳ･＠ in harm or danger, I may discontinue participation \lo.•Khout penalty. •,.'lb, My participation will invoh·e ans•.vering questions ""'hich will be ｲ･｣ｯｲ､ｾｸ｟＠ a digital a.ud o recorder. Mv ontine orofile(s) or intemet communi:ation (if available) ma.v be usiel · a pe1form.1nce and /or in a ｷｲｩｴｾ［＠ en thesis. I may \lo.•ithdra•.v from the imervie""' at any time. Lffi"Wtsav y interr.et ｣ｯｭｾｮｵｮｩ｣｡Ｎｴｩｯｮｳ＠ \l.

I understand that excerpts from my intervi?W ｭｾｹ＠ e perf ed ｡ｾｾ｡Ｎｹ＠ be pubtished. I understand that both the performance and the thesis il1 aVai!aBl to the public f ree of charge. My nanw or identity will only be revealed to the ｩｮｴ･ｲｪｪ･Ｎｾｾｯｳｦｩ＠ ott . The imervie.,.•er will imure confidentiality by omitting my name or other ｩ､･ｲｾﾷ･ｲｳ＠ o . a ｾ＠ ""'ritte 1anscript of the intetview and usin; a pseudonym in any stage performance;;,!os Patte ｾ･ｮｳｵｲ･＠ confidentiality by destroying the cudio recording at the end of 1 year. J9s{!Cia Po ter a.!so ｧｵｾ｡ｮｴ･･ｳ＠ that a pseudonym for me will be U$ed if an excerpt of my interview is ver. erfornt_.¥ ｰｾ･､Ｎ＠ I will not be paid for my participation. , ｾ＠ atJY. Any questions I have concerning ｾｴﾷｾ＠ pattictpation in it, before or after my consent will

::s:::wp::rby either: ｾＢｦ＠ｄｲｾ＠ｾ［Ｎ＠ ar1e " udd Department of ｃｯｭｭｾﾷ＠ｾ＠ｄ･ｰ｡ｴｾ･ｲｴ＠ of Communication l='lori:l.::t St.::tte ｕｮｩＮＬＮ･ｲｾＺ＠ ••, ｾｾｲﾣ､＠ｓｴＮＺｾＮｴ･＠ Univer::ity ｔ｡ｈ｡ｨ｡ｳｾ･Ｌ＠ Fl l230 Ta hasset, f l 32306 ｪｬｰｏｩｨ｀ｦＮｳｾ･､ｵ＠ｾ＠ﾷﾷｾ＠ dmnudd@f;u.edu (85'0) ＵＹｾＱｬＮｾＮ＠ｾ＠ (850) ｾﾷＸＷＰＰ＠ If I h:we ｱｵ･ｳＮｴｩｾｳｾｾｹ＠ rlglil;s as a subject/pa'tkipant in this research, or if I feel I have ｢ｾｮ＠ placed at ｲｩｳｫＬｾ｣｡ｮＱＶｮﾷｴ｡ｴＮ｜ＡＺｴｑ･＠ｴＧｾＧｲ＠ of the Humon Subjects Committee, Institutional Review 8ca.rd, throggh the ｏｦｦｬｬｾｾｲｴｨ･＠ｶｩ｣Ｇ･ｦｐｲ･ｳｩｏｾｴ＠ of Resear

I have ｲ･ｾ＠ e above informed consent form. I understand that I \lo.•ilt be ｡ｵ､ｾｯ＠ recorded by the intervie•..:er, ｊｯｳＺｵｾｴｴ･ｲＮ＠ I understand that only the intervie•.ver •.vi ti have access to the audio recording and that the record:ng will be erased/destroyed one (1} year from this date. I underst.tnd that my publically vie•.vabte intemet profile or intErnet communication may be used in a performance or in academic research. I understand that I may withdraw my consent and discontinue participation at any time without pena'!ty or toss of benefits to ""'hich I may ｯｴｨ･ｮｾｾｩｳ＿＠ be entitled. In ｳｩｩｮｾｮｧ＠ this consent fonn, I am not \lo.•aiving any legal claims, rights or remedies. I cop)· of this consent form will be offered and/or given to me.

Subject's Signature ------Date,____ _

FSU Htunau Subjects Conuuiltee. Approved on 11/14/08 Void After 11/11/09 HSC# 200!.1 885

APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Guiding Interview Questions for HIV Negative Men (Bug Chasers) 1. What got you into having sex with HIV positive men? 2. What is appealing about having sex with an HIV positive man? 3. When did you first want to have sex with a positive guy? 4. How long have you been trying to get infected? 5. Do you think you would want to “share the gift” with others after you are infected? 6. How do you find sexual partners willing to give you HIV? 7. Have you ever attended barebacking or conversion parties? 8. How easy or difficult is it to find people willing to participate? 9. How different are you when you talk online versus with me in person? 10. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about bugchasing?

Guiding Interview Questions for HIV Positive Men (Gift Givers) 1. What do you think is the main reason why bugcahsers want to be infected? 2. Are there any unique stories you could tell me about why some bugchasers want to be infected? 3. How frequently are you approached by bugchasers to have sex? 4. Is there anything specifically appealing about having sex with an HIV negative man? 5. Were you a bugchaser prior to your HIV infection? 6. Do you think bugchasers want to “share the gift” with others after infection? 7. How do you meet sexual partners who are bugchasers? 8. Have you ever attended barebacking or conversion parties? 9. How easy or difficult is it to find people willing to participate in unprotected sex? 10. How different are you when you talk online versus with me in person? 11. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about bugchasing or gift giving?

Note: Each question should be tailored to the word choice used by the participant and are only designed to engage the respondent in constructing the narrative. Words such as HIV+ might be replaced with “poz” and sex may include any one of the many possible euphemisms. Interviews are expected to last for 20 to 30 minutes. In order to do a thorough analysis, it is imperative that interviewees give as much detail as possible. The potential interview questions are designed to promote the desired length of narrative

APPENDIX C INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ONE: ADAM

I: I’m doing good. How’re you? R: Oh just tired from work and evr’ythin’ like that. But other than that I’m doin’ pretty good. I: Alright well, before we get started I want to make sure you agree to everything we’ve talked about on the consent form and you know we’re being recorded right now. R: Okay, yes. That’s okay. I: Okay. um Why don’t we just start with, you know, kind of a -- a broad question. Um what do you think is one of the main reasons why um bug chasers want to be infected? R: Oh I’ve never really thought too much about it. Uh I don’t really know if there is a particular reason that people would want to be infected or not maybe some of them uh think well that’s a a way to get out of all their problems and troubles that they have in the world and e’rything like that. That could be one of the reasons and that could probably be a thousand others who knows, you know. I: Wh-- what—what do you mean specifically by um “getting away from their [their] troubles”? R: Well they, I think, that some of them figure that uh if they get infected uh that it will shorten their life aaand that uh instead of uh havin the problems with their finances, their girlfriends, their boyfriends, and troubles with work, and anything like that uh they’ll get uh they’ll get uh able to get rid of them quicker. [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] I: Ok. How frequently are you approached by bug chasers to have sex? R: Oh, Probably maybe once a month. I’m kinda in an isolated area. So uh I don’t uh see a lot of people so uh most if it anything that anybody that does say anything about it is uh [online] I: Are there any unique stories you could tell me about your experiences with bug chasers? R: Um no, [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] other than there’s a couple of them that they say they want me to uh have sex with them and uh they want to uh get my poz cum so they can get uh try to be infected. I: So you’ve never attended any kind sex parties or anything like that?

R: No, I haven’t. I’ve been invited to one and because of work uh I couldn’t go. It wasn’t uh as it wasn’t uh per se as uh party to uh for bug chasers or uh people trying to get somebody infected or anything like that but probably 90 about 90 percent of the guys that would’ve been there were positive. And they said it would all be bareback, no uh no uh rubbers allowed. I: Okay, have you ever talked to any any chasers on the phone? R: Not on the phone I haven’t. I have [online] I: And have any of them shared any of their reasons with you why they might be interested? R: They didn’t give no particular reason uh of why they wanted to uh be infected or anything uh some of them said uh they wanted to be like other guys uh that were positive. You know. I: And what’s your feeling on that. I mean how does, how does this you know.. if a bug chaser comes to you. How does that make you feel? R: Well I’ve not thought really a whole lot about that. Uh, I figure if that’s what they want to do it’s their business. If they want to uh find somebody that’s infected then uh try to get infected then that’s their business you know. And uh if other people shouldn’t uh try to influence them one way or another, you know. Uh, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t say well uh tell them disadvantages of being infected and anything like that uh but not uh go tryin to persuade them not to uh get somebody who has you know… I: And what are your feelings on HIV overall? R: Well, uh for the most part it’s uh like a lot of other diseases. Uh that people get uh whether they uh are contagious diseases or uh whether they’re something that uh comes by because of hereditary problems or whatever. The main thing is uh when you uh have a disease be it, HIV or uh one of the forms of cancer or whatever, you don’t worry about it and you don’t let it get you down and uh get depressed about it. You get depressed about it whether it’s HIV or cancer or whatever then uh the depression adds the other problems of the HIV and it could uh cause you to be a lot a lot sicker than uh what you would normally be uh if you live your life you know I mean you don’t think about it or anything like that because you got to think about it but you don’t worry about it to the point where

it causes you to be depressed and everything like that. In other words you live with it and you try to control it and you don’t let it control you. I: So what do you think of guys that um don’t take either medication for HIV or uh don’t take care of themselves – that you know just know that they have HIV but do nothing about it? R: Oh it I think uh if they don’t take care of themselves then they are asking for problems and everything like that I try to uh eat the way I should I rest the way I should and everything like that and I take my medicine when I’m supposed to and everything like that uh of course once in awhile I’ll I’ll forget to take medicine but I’m sure that happens to everybody that has to take medicine be it for HIV or blood pressure or whatever the case may it might be. Uh, something causes you to – you get some kind of interruption in whatever you’re doing and you forget to take your medicine when you’re supposed to but uh if you have you’ve been to the doctor and you got medicine you’re supposed to take for uh your HIV infection or uh blood pressure or whatever the case might be uh you should take it when you’re supposed to or as near to the time as you should uh uh to try to uh keep yourself going so that you don’t get sick and have to have somebody else take care of you. I: Uh huh When you talk to bug chasers online, do you get the sense that they’re for real or they’re just pretending – that they’re just trying to get off. R: Well sometimes I get the feeling that some of them uh are pretending and sometimes uh I’m sure that uh they’re uh being for real and that is one of those things that’s hard to say uh because it’s just one of those uh just by the words they say sometimes uh or the way they say it is will make you think well he’s for real and this guy over here he’s not for real, you know. I: Could you give an example? R: Uh well, uh let me think a minute and see, if I can think of something. Uh one guy uh I was talking to at the other day he said uh he wanted to get infected uh so that he could infect other people but uh he – his tone didn’t seem like it was uh. It was more like a put on. So I didn’t think he was really real uh he was acting like he was uh putting on and he was more like a fantasy than anything and then the uh other guy that I talked to he said uh he was negative but he had been uh he had been with HIV guys. He wasn’t going out to

uh – trying to ensure that he got HIV, but if he got it he wasn’t going to make a big deal of it and I thought he was more real than the other guy was. I: So do you think that there’s a difference between those that really want HIV and those that are just out there and don’t care either way? R: There’s a difference in the ones who really want that and the ones who uh they want uh sex for the enjoyment of sex. Uh the want just pure natural sex with nothin’ no protection no anything and all they want it for the enjoyment for sex, If they get HIV it’s not really going to affect they way they live other than that they will sure continue to take care of themselves the way they should everything like that. Ones who want – the ones who really want HIV uh I’ve almost got the feeling that uh once they find out they got it they are going to worry about it and drag they selves down and maybe try to drag other people down too and uh just mope about it. I: Mmhmm Is there anything that’s attractive in – in your experience from talking to HIV negative guys – is there anything that’s attractive or erotic about having sex with HIV negative men? R: Is there anything attractive about what? I: About having sex with HIV negative men in particular? R: Oh uh to me it’s a nothing attractive whether a guy’s HIV negative or positive to me there’s nothing attractive about it one way or the other. No I: And what do you think about guys that are – will only have sex with HIV negative men who are positive? R: Uh that I don’t think is right. Uh, I think uh if – If they want to have sex they should uh try to look for guys that are positive and uh want sex with positive er with other positive guys. Uh, If they want sex with an HIV negative guy uh If they – They should uh tell the guy that they’re positive and uh let it be up to the negative guy if he wants to have sex with him. I: Is there anything else that you’d like to tell me, either about your experience with HIV or about bug chasing or even gift giving? R: Well uh to me uh I’ve never tried to find anybody to give it to uh and before I found out about it I never tried to – never went after guys that had it. Uh, I know I uh had sex with a couple guys that had it before I found out about it uh but I’m – I was mostly a top

guy so I wasn’t too worried about getting it uh but I thought well if I get it – I get it. I don’t I don’t. and I do I do think that if a negative guy wants to uh have sex with somebody and not use uh a condom, a rubber or whatever you want to call it and he’s uh got some apprehension about uh catching HIV then he needs to ask the guy he’s going to – or he’s anticipating to have sex with uh and ask the guy if he is positive or negative and then uh once the guy has given him an answer – let’s say the guy’s positive and he tells the negative guy that he is negative even though he’s positive. Then the negative guy needs to determine for hisself well is the guy telling me the truth or is he telling me a lie just so he can have sex with me and everything and if a guy wants to ensure that he’s uh never going to be uh in contact with an HIV guy uh an HIV top positive guy then he’s gonna have a pretty darn hard time uh to know for sure uh if he’s gonna have sex with guys uh that he’s not going to come in contact with HIV somewhere along the line. I: Well what are your feelings about just uh bareback sex in general? R: Well I love it. I love the way it feels and everything, but I think it needs to be uh both parties needs to determine that that’s what they want I: Mmhmm R: They say – they say uh put it this way let’s say uh you met me at a bar or you met me at a restaurant or I met you doesn’t matter either way uh and uh we decided we wanted to have sex together and uh let’s say I wanted to go bareback and you didn’t or the other way around then it would have to be determined between the two guys that are involved uh whether they go bareback or not. I: Uh huh How – do you know any HIV positive guys that – that share your same views or do you think it’s pretty common – the view that you have? R: I’m not sure that I – what I think is the most common view um I think my views are probably a bit more liberal than some guys uh but I have talked to a few guys that uh pretty much uh share the same feelings as I do uh like if the guy’s negative and he uh wants to uh have uh sex with a guy uh and uh he wants to go bareback and he uh asked he uh asked the guy uh if he’s negative or not uh it’s his responsibility to ask and then he’s got to hope that uh the guy he’s approaching uh is telling uh the truth or if he’s not telling the truth and everything like that

I: How hard do you think it is for anyone, bugchaser or not, once they have HIV to live uh – to live a so called, “normal life” ? R: If if they’ve for the most part I think it’s a pretty uh it’s not too uh awful hard to live a normal life uh if you if you live if you go and uh live a normal li-uh well I’m not sure the words I wanna say uh you live uh good ev’ry day life you take care your self like you should and uh everything like that – like a normal person would ordinarily do and when I say “normal person” I’m talkin’ ‘bout the av’rage people I’m not talking about somebody that goes and works uh 22 hours a day out of a 24 hour day, they go and party 5 nights a week or and things like that those people are kinda off to the side or something ‘nother but just the average person uh that uh works a normal ordinary 8 hour day job maybe goes to the bar once or twice a month or something like that I don’t think that it’s a too awful hard to for them to uh live a good normal life once they have become infected with HIV uh most people around me uh they don’t they don’t uh uh they don’t uh know that I uh have it or anything like that. There’s a few I have told ‘nn uh there’re a few I haven’t told but uh there’s a few I uh haven’t told for the simple reason that they are so biggerted and so negative attitude about everything uh that I don’t want ‘em to know. Because their attitude would be such as well there’re prob’ly a couple ‘round here where I live, if they knew I had HIV they would cut the tires on my car uh beat they’d knock the windshield in, the windows maybe even try to set my house on fire. That’s how negative they are, if somebody is different than they are. I: What’s the sense you get as being an HIV positive man in the entire gay community? Do you think people with HIV are more accepted, less accepted? R: Uh it probably depends on uh who you with uh you might be with one group of people and you be just a ‘sceptible with them as what anybody else would be then you be with another group and they would shun you and everything like that and then there might be another group over here uh that would be more recepable to you uh just like uh bein uh like a black guy goin in with a group of white guys or uh one white guy being with a group of black guys the one white guy with this group of black guys would be as acceptable as all as could be but the group of black guys over there wouldn’t accept him at all. Same way with the uh uh black guy with this group over here he’d be very

acceptable but there’d be another group of white guys over here that wouldn’t accept him at all. I: So you don’t think that the gay community as a whole treats people who have HIV any different than other groups in the gay community? R: Probably not much different. There’s going to be they odd balls uh that you find throughout all of society whether gay or not gay uh that would treat you this you know uh treat you uh very neg—very negative because you’re HIV uh be uh you’re – whether you be uh in the gay community or where you’re not in the gay community. I: Well I think this pretty much wraps up all the questions I had. Do you have anything that – that you want to share with me that we didn’t get to? R: Uh no, not that I know of uh and if you think of anything else that you’d like to ask me at a later time uh feel free to give me a call uh try to [omitted text] and if it’ll help anybody somewhere along the line uh that’s great. [omitted text] well oh uh there is one thing uh I don’t know uh. Do you know anything about uh disease they call leukemia? I: Yes R: Okay, uh it affects your immune system very similar to the way the HIV virus does. I mean it’s not exactly, but its uh very similar it basically it kills your immune system, it’s what it does and this HIV is the same way uh and may, may not be just the exact same uh process or anything like that I don’t know all the details of it or anything like that and all but I know quite a bit about leukemia because I had a brother that died of leukemia and I know there’s different types of leukemia some types that you can live with for years and years and years uh without it really affecting you very much and then there’s uh the one type that uh once you get it uh it’s uh you have a very short life now uh I had been told that leukemia is not catchin’ uh I wouldn’t go so far as to say it wasn’t catchin’ especially if the blood uh got mixed with somebody else’s blood that had it you know I’m not saying you could get it that way or not maybe you could or maybe you couldn’t I think that leukemia has probably caused by a uh mutation in the blood cells uh maybe caused by some kind of chemical that you have been exposed to or something like that and everything and all but leukemia is. It’s a very nasty disease uh no matter put it and if especially the uh aggressive types of it and uh course I’ve been told there’s different

types of HIV too and some that’s more aggressive than others now how true that is I don’t know. I: Uh huh. That’s really interesting. Do you – what – what kind of connections do you that that—that kind of has with HIV. Does it change your perception of it – or others, when you talk about it in relationship to leukemia? R: Well I think knowin’ about leukemia has made me more uh [pause] acceptable [pause] of what the HIV virus can do knowin’ what leukemia can do and everything and all so I think that it’s uh made me more uh uh more liberal to it I guess you would say. I don’t know if liberal’s the right word to use or not uh uh. [Inaudible] Maybe comfortable, uh maybe that would be the word to use, more comfortable with it. I know that uh with me havin’ the HIV uh there’s I’m gonna meet up with people that would uh be very very uncomfortable bein around me and there’s gonna be there’s other people that uh probably wouldn’t affect them at all and uh all. I’ve uh I guess uh nother thing too uh bein’ in the army bein’ in Germany, Saudi Arabia, and uh places like that too uh I’m a little bit more open minded to uh the different things that goes on in the world so maybe uh maybe that’s another reason uh I’m more accepting of uh bein’ uh HIV positive and uh everything. I just take I my medicine and uh when I say I tell people I have to take medicine I don’t tell them what kind of medicine I have to take uh and everything like that just have to take this medicine and uh I had a heart attack [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] years ago so uh I just tell ‘em that I have to take heart medicine and uh I don’t tell them that I have to take medicine for other things or anything and uh I just have – I just tell them I have to take my heart medicine and all my other medicine I just take with it and uh nobody questions anything else about it so and it – it’s not not that they have to know that uh I take medicine for HIV or anything like that you know it’s not uh anybody else’s business that I take movuhsay—I take lipitor or uh zocor for my cholesterol or whether I take uh uh my blood pressure medicine called metha-topo-er-er- something like that and there’s four or five other blood pressure medicines uh they don’t have to know which particular brand I take or anything like that. I: Is there anything else you want to share before we wrap up? R: There’s nothing else that I know about, or that I can think of

I: Okay well if you think of anything uh you, uh you have my email address so you can certainly send me an email um as I said before thank you so much for helping me out, by agreeing to be interviewed. R: No, you know you’re most welcome and anytime that if you think of something other that you can [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy].

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT TWO: BRIAN

I: Well uh before we get started I just uh need to make sure that you’re aware we’re being recorded and – R: Who’s going to listen to this? I: Uh just me I’ll transcribe it and I’ll omit anything that uh may have anything that could be used to identify who you are. R: Okay I: and I also want to confirm that you’ve read over that consent form and that we’ve talked about it. R: Yep I: Okay great. Uh so let’s just get started with a couple of kind of a bigger question. What’s one of the reasons that you think that uh bug chasers want to be infected with HIV? R: Uh let me say uh it’s a feeling of completeness. I: What do you mean by completeness? R: Uh having something in you forever given to you in – in sex. I: Okay How frequently are you approached by bug chasers who who want to have sex with you? R: Uh not that often because I’m mostly a bottom I: Okay and were you uh a “bug chaser” at one point? R: I never wanted to describe myself as a bug chaser but I chose to go with poz tops cause from my experience they fuck harder. I: Is that the only reason that you – you would choose to have sex with somebody who is HIV positive? R: Um it – um the most—a lot of well most, a lot, I don’t know most most of the guys who I met who were poz were very happy to fuck me uh knowing that I was neg at that time and they did fuck harder. It was obvious that they were fucking harder and that gave me a lot more pleasure and a lot of the tops like to fuck hard. I: So do you think that they – knowing that you were negative – changed their behavior just because of your HIV status? R: They knew I was negative at that time and um and they just like to fuck harder and they uh they make sure that I was in – that I was hurt – that there was pain from the

fucking if they – they they didn’t use much lube they would just use spit um and they would put me in positions that I would I would be – that would hurt and I – I was happy with but I would never describe it that I would go out and get pozzed, I went out to meet poz tops because they fuck harder. I: Mmhmm well what are you r opinions on guys that that go out and try to get HIV? R: [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] Um I have no issue with that um I --- I think that sex is better without a condom um and getting cum inside is is part of that um you know that there’s a risk and you accept the risk and then eventually you start to crave the risk I: Okay, and how – how do you normally find --- when you are looking – for partners do you usually go online? Where do you find partners? R: I meet guys online I meet guys with friends in bars clubs sex clubs obviously, in the baths, uh but anywhere and everywhere is where I meet guys I meet a lot of guys online uh but even even though they know that I only bareback uh they some guys still say that they want to use a condom and I say no. I: And is that just because you enjoy the feeling? R: I love – I enjoy having cum in me and there’s a special connection when you’re going with a poz guy apart from the fact he’s fucking you harder uh when you look in his eyes as he comes it’s it’s it’s something special there – it’s a good connection because you know that his shooting inside you – the cum. That can affect you the rest of your life. [sigh] I like that. I: And is it – is it just with one or two positive men or is it – it is just anyone, or is it HIV in general that you get that feeling? R: I would do it with anyone. I really enjoy getting fucked, I really enjoy being used in groups I really enjoy having a lot of cum in me. Um in groups I’ve been known to just look the other way and just let guys fuck me and I mean I’m I’m [in my mid twenties] now, but I mean obviously I was younger before and I’m quite thin and they like slim twinky guys. I: So how, so I guess it’s pretty easy to find people with HIV to have sex with? R: It’s very easy – very easy. Very easy. It’s become – I mean I also I’m into SM and stuff like that so because I like pain and being hurt it’s quite easy to find guys who want

to do stuff like that to me and uh I mean I have to say that not all the SM stuff – scenes I participate in involve sex a lot of it is just SM amd torture and I don’t cum and the guy who’s working on me doesn’t cum but also a lot of it is just getting put into the position where I’m fucked and that’s always bare. I: So in terms of – of S and M is there something particularly appealing about that – about the pain? R: Um, I like giving up control and uh I mean even when I’m receiving cum I’m giving up my body to what the cum can do to me and being used in an SM scene is pretty similar, giving up control of my body I let the guy do stuff that he enjoys doing and he can do it to my body. I like pain – I like being in pain and I like seeing a guy get off on seeing me in pain. I: Is there something about HIV that’s part of that control? R: Not really in SM no, but being – I mean I like to get fucked and I like cum in me and and because that’s risky – I like the risk. But would I do it if there’s no risk? I can’t answer that. I: So even though that you’re poz now is it – is it still appealing? I mean the risk isn’t there any more is it? R: The risk is different now – it’s a different sort of risk um it’s a difference. I mean I still go with poz guys but I also go with neg guys and they fuck me and they know that I’m poz. And if it’s in a group um then uh poz guys will have fucked me before and they may fuck me again. I: Have you ever attended a barebacking or a conversion party? R: I’ve been to parties where guys have been uh converted uh I wouldn’t like to use the word converted I’ve been to gu—parties where neg guys have been fucked and they’ve been fucked willingly, bare and um it’s usually they get tied down or put in a sling and they know they’re going to get filled with cum and I like those sorts of scenes I: Are there any stories you could tell me about those parties? Or any bug chasers you know? R: I mean it – if it’s in a club or and at the baths you never know what the condition of a guy is but if it’s at a private party or somebody’s house you know that – if they say that there’s a neg guy, you’ve got to take their word for it. They may be neg, they may be poz

but they’re saying, look there’s this guy whoever’s going to fuck him and I mean I have to say that in those situations I also fuck because I like to fuck a young guy who they say is neg but has also got his hole filled with cum. I: Is there one kind of unique experience like that? Or that you had when you --- when you were neg when you were looking for poz tops? R: [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] I mean most guys knew that I was a slut um and that I was specifically only going with guys who I guessed were or who I knew were poz and they knew that I was neg and they wanted to fuck me and I wanted them to fuck me and there wasn’t – I mean I’ve been to parties where I’ve been fucked by large numbers um you know that in that situation um even if it’s not a specific poz party it is all bareback and you know you’re gonna receive some poz cum if not other cum as well. But that’s – for me part of the pleasure um knowing that I’m getting loaded up with different cum um and different stuff um I like having cum in me I like sometimes I put a plug in me afterwards and other times I just let it leak out. I: So what- what are your opinions on guys that just go online and and like to talk – like to put on a show and pretend to either be – to either chase or to give? R: Um personally I support everybody, If they want to gift I support them in that. I – I think they understand um what they have in them um that it’s powerful and a lot of guys like to use that power um those who chase or those who ask to get fucked by poz tops they uh I support them too because I think that um everybody has a right to make the choice for themselves. Um it’s a – it’s just a powerful feeling when you know what is happening to your body when you know it’s all because of what a man did to you. I: And – and what do you think about um men who – who just pretend online – really aren’t interested in – fantasize [online] R: Well I chat with a lot of guys who are – who I encourage um to believe in themselves and have the confidence to do what they want to do. Um because it – to me getting pozzed was a good thing to me. I like it. Um because it means that I have – I don’t even know who the guy was who converted me – took me a long time to convert um but I’m just happy. Um I’m happy knowing that I have it in me. And a lot of guys want that. Want what I have and I support that. I: Why does it make you happy?

R: Why does it make me what, happy? Because I know it’s given people pleasure and that what I enjoy most in sex. Giving other people pleasure. Um and [sigh] they know that I gift – I – I take any cum and that gives pleasure and I get my pleasure when other people are happy when they use me. When they fuck me, when they tie me up or when they hurt me or whatever. I: And and do you – do you have a specific reason why that is? Or is it – it’s just is because it is. R: Probably because it is. I mean I like being poz, it’s to me it’s just it – there’s been no negatives I didn’t get ill, I haven’t been ill. I’m still nice and healthy I don’t have to take meds. If I have to take meds then maybe my view will change, but I don’t really want to take meds um I’m really happy being pozzed um it means I can go out and get fucked by anybody and if I want to fuck somebody I can do that um and I can give them what I have in my body. I mean whenever you fuck somebody that’s bare doesn’t mean you’re gonna make them poz it doesn’t work like that. Buy uh I know guys who – who specifically set out to gift people and they and they meet people who want to be made poz and the guys go for sessions and they leave pozzed because it CAN be done in one go. It can be done so that it works. I: Have you ever seen that happened? Or been around anything like that? R: I know guys who do that, They use toothbrushes um they “prepare’ the hole um so there’s a little bit of blood and then they fuck hard. Um and these guys are not on meds so they’re got a lot of virus and the guy leaves the session pozzed and I think that’s I mean that ritual is quite fun – you give your body completely and and whatever happens, happens. I: Okay well I’m going to switch topics a bit, what are your opinions on how – guys like you or bug chasers or even gift givers are seen by the gay community as a whole? R: Well there – a lot of people don’t use a lot of guys use condoms and a lot of guys don’t use condoms. There are a lot of republicans and there are a lot of democrats it’s the same. It’s um there are—everybody’s in a different group. Um I have I mean I mean I don’t think. I don’t really meet guys who use condoms so I don’t meet guys who fuck safe because it’s just not what I want to do I: Do you feel like you’re – pressured by anyone in the gay community or judged?

R: I’m asked this every so often. To fuck guys – to convert them. I tell them well first of all it may not happen and um and I am mainly a bottom without. I only fuck really in group situations where there’s somebody that actually wants to be fucked. So I don’t think so. I surround myself with people – that understand and support me. I: And how does that happen? R: Not that often to be honest. I get fucked most of the time. I don’t go to that many parties where there’s somebody who either I want to fuck – who’s in the sling or being held down and being fucked. I like to fuck a guy who is receiving poz cum for the first time. Um but I’m not the first one to do it. But I like to see him and look in his face as he takes cum. I: What is – what specifically is um exciting or pleasurable about that? R: Um for me knowing that life changing stuff is important and it’s life changing. Because suddenly you are poz. You got it you have it inside you. And you can then do different things I mean um fucking bare isn’t just about poz it’s about lots of other stuff too.it’s having a connection it’s having a connection – having somebody cum inside you and knowing that it’s inside you um in group situations – having lots of cum inside you um and people like to see it and I like that too. I: What’s – what’s your kind of feeling about – just being gay in general? R: I’ve always been gay so I don’t know – If I look at a picture of a group of people. My eyes go to the men so – so I’m gay so I don’t know I: Right R: I don’t find anything unappealing about being gay. I: Do you feel at all – any kind of judgement from society just from being gay? R: Um it’s not what everybody likes um but I’m totally confident in my sexuality. I like being gay. I was – I’ve always been very open about being gay and if other people don’t like it they can lump it. It’s not my issue – it’s their issue if they don’t like it. I: Do you feel the same way about your HIV status? R: Well yes. I mean I – there are a lot of guys who message me on the web and it’s very clear in all my profiles that I never do safe sex and that I’m almost certainly poz just from the wording I use though I don’t put it in my profile. But I still get people who say

they want to use condoms – they ask if I’m poz. But then again people only read what they want to read. I: What kind of wording do you use when you talk about yourself being poz. R: I say, never means never. I say I never do safe sex um because I don’t I don’t use rubbers um but um I still get people who ask “are you poz?” and I say, “well of course I am” I: So do you think anyone who doesn’t practice safe sex is poz? R: No no no there are a lot of guys who I know who don’t use condoms um all ages. These guys, up to their seventies they’ve never used condoms they’ve had boyfriends with HIV and these guys are still negative – because it doesn’t hit everybody. And they’re the lucky guys because they know they can fuck and not get it. I: So there’s not— R: It’s not an – no it’s not an issue if guys get it. It’s not an issue if I get it. It’s – it’s a decision I’ve chosen. I made – I chose to fuck bare and use – and if you – if you make a decision you accept the consequences. If you cross the road and don’t look for the traffic and you get knocked down then well that’s what happens. I: Do you have any other friends that are in a similar situation to you? R: Being poz or being – with my attitude to it? I: Um your attitude. R: Um there are lots of guys who are poz but some of them aren’t my friends some of them like to poz other guys they’re mostly tops um my attitude is probably the more liberal of everybody. I encourage guys to bareback um I say it’s more natural and um and most people when they talk to me – they agree. I: What’s some of the more conservative opinions that you’ve heard of? R: Well some guys make the decision to never do – do unsafe sex again and well that’s their choice – clearly I respect that. Well I won’t have sex with them. [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] Well I mean some guys – there are a lot of guys who don’t do unsafe sex but there are a lot of guys who do. I: Well do you have anything that you want to share with me in general about anything we’ve talked about?

R: Um no. Um it’s being being I’m just I’m I like I mean I like I can’t say – and I can say this again. I like being poz. I’m happy. It’s been good um I enjoy the sex that I have um I like the sense of the talk the power the top has when they fuck me um I like that a lot. And I get.. I have no regrets um I mean clearly there’s a risk um and I’ve um and I’ve picked up other stuff when you get fucked bare but I mean that’s part and parcel of sex. I: Do you think that you somehow feel better because you know your status and you don’t have to think about it. R: I don’t worry about being poz. I don’t I don’t I mean I was having tests uh because I was going with poz guys – so in a sense I wanted to get it. But I wasn’t chasing but -- I’ve been poz for three years and I’ve been fucking was fucking bareback since I was eighteen so it’s been about five years til I got pozzed um for four years um so it’s not an instant thing um but everybody’s different some people get it very quickly and others never get it but I mean I – once I realized the difference of getting fucked by a poz top compared to a negative top – how different it was um I knew that was what I wanted. I: So is that the main difference you see between you and and chasers that it’s just just – you’re after it because of the feeling and they’re after it because of the outcome? R: Yeah. I – I accept it as a consequence of what I chose and chase chase is… want it. They – and I never particularly wanted it per se but I knew it was going to happen one day. Um I wanted to go with poz tops because I wanted it’s just a different sort of fuck. I: And you didn’t think you could get that any other way? R: It’s not just the pain – it’s knowing that this could be the fuck that does you. Um and you never know. I mean – you do it because of the risk involved as well and most people have risk cut out of their lives. I mean a lot of people live anodyne lives – with so little risk. And I wanted – I wanted to add more risk. I: Do you – do you think that adding more risk kind of goes into other aspects of what you do – of your life in general? R: I mean – probably. As I get older I want more pain I want more extreme SM stuff um and I allow more extreme stuff to happen to me but that is a sign of getting old [laugh] no I mean I’m fine I like pain and I’ve seen some hard stuff and I’ve had hard stuff happen to me. I: Can you describe like one instance?

R: I’ve been fisted hard. I’ve been palm-fisted, I’ve been taken to the elbow. Um that’s a good feeling for me I’ve had electro. I’ve been whipped. I’ve been kicked. I’ve had ribs broken a couple of times. Um being used is I mean I’m a sub. I’m a bottom. Being used – you accept what happens. The tops who like to do it and um if there’s a connection between me and the top – it can happen. I mean clearly if there’s no connection then I don’t want it to happen and there and I know there are a lot of weird guys out there and people may think I’m weird but um. There’s a difference between the pleasure in SM and violent SM where the – to me it still has to be pleasurable even if I’m getting damaged in the process. I: So what would you say to someone who – who who think that you know that’s there’s something wrong with you or that you might be weird or crazy. R: You know I haven’t ever come across anybody like that. I but if I did I’d just say, “well each to their own, you’ve you live your live. I live mine. You don’t like certain things I like other diff—I like other things. Um Accept it.” Um and most people don’t mind when I put it like that but they’re not going to be people I’m going to have sex with. They may be people I know and mix socially with but they’re not people I’m going to fuck with because we do different things. I mean it’s there – I don’t I don’t do vanilla sex. I don’t find it interesting or pleasurable or um I don’t get anything out of it. I: So you don’t get angry if someone judges what you do? R: Um no I don’t get angry – there are few people who anger me but um and it’s not Bush [laugh] um uh no I don’t get angry about stuff like that. There’s no point. Ever— everybody has a different view and I’ve been called names and stuff but um I meet guys – I sometimes put myself in tricky situations um and I quite like that. Um uh and there’s risk is something important in my life as I’ve been saying a few times risk – risk is good. Um most people don’t do risk and because they don’t do risk I’m not going to really mix with them. I: What do you say to people who think HIV isn’t very risky compared to it say 15- 20 years ago? R: Um well if you start getting ill – you have to start taking meds for the rest of your life. That costs money and um it’s – you—there’s still it’s it’s you do it because you

know that may happen. And you have to accept it. There’s no cure so you have to – you’re gonna need the medication. I: So you think the risk is more about getting ill at some point? R: Getting poz is about doing risky things and choosing to do risky things and people who don’t fuck bare choose not to do those risky things. Um I’ve always done risk. I: Well I think that kind of wraps up the questions I have. Um R: Okay I: Before we finish – if there’s anything else you want to talk about. R: Well what have other people said? I: Um, I mean I’ve heard you a number of different things – from my experience online some of the things are a little bit wilder than – I mean there are – some men for example that I’ve talked to online that don’t want to be interviewed that will say um are – are into bears are – or are daddy/son scene that are trying to get HIV specifically one guy that some of the more extreme things I’ve heard. I think probably the the most interesting um things that I hear are – those that relate HIV to Satanism but – I have not encountered any of them that want to be interviewed that – that has that same kind of story. R: There are a lot of fantasists out there. I mean obviously I’m [foreign] and I’m not really into this loll of daddies and boys and um and bears and chubbies and whatever. Um a guy is a guy is a guy. Um yeah, I’m a sub and some people call that a slave and yes in sessions I’ve called people sir. But it’s very easy to call people sir when you’re chatting to them online it’s just three letters to be typed on the keyboard. um I’m not really one for –authority but um if I decide I meet people who say to me look how come you’re still looking why aren’t you somebody’s slave um – Probably because I’m – can’t be asked to um to give in to one specific person um and they want me to cuddle up at the bottom of their bed and that’s what I call slave – that slave is a fantasy. Getting fucked bare isn’t a fantasy it’s a – the most real thing you can do. I: So do you – do you have any problem with guys who live in fantasy – or is it just another thing that people do? R: It’s – it’s easier on the internet to live on fantasy. I: Do you think that there are a lot more guys that are living in fantasy – than actual chasers.

R: You can you can – it’s just easy – it’s easier if that’s what you want to do but I mean um uh there are guys who message me and uh really and they give their eimail addresses are just their names their real names and they have no no idea what sort of people are on the internet – you don’t use your name. I mean my email address is not my name. [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] I: Is that a way to tell if someone is for real? R: Naïve is what I’d call those people. I: Why would you say naïve? R: Because they are completely unaware of what the internet is and how open it is and by googling someone you can find them – everyone can be found. I: You’ve got me a little worried. I’ve given you my real name. R: [laugh] and I’m not going to google you. Um it is pretty frightening how much you give away when everything you type on a web page or when you post a comment – it get’s found. Google finds it or another search engine finds it. And it’s there and so you google yourself and you’ll be horrified what turns up. You got a facebook page? I: I do. R: Well then if you google yourself you’ll find yourself. It’s um – it’s a pretty astonishing when you google yourself – when you google anybody. I mean people tell you where they live! And the town and the address and it’s not difficult. People give out their names and addresses pretty easily. Oh an phone numbers! Oh and phone numbers and this [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] that’s what I do! That’s what I do. You’ll get deleted and I’ll sign out and I very rarely use this account. I: Well are there any other things you want to talk about before we finish? R: Nope. I hope you find what I said to be relevant or interesting or amusing or will help you and if you use it in a reading well I’m .. if I was only a fly on the wall to listen to the audience. Well you got my email address. I: Absolutely. Thank you so much for -- for your time. R: Cool, cool I: Well have a good evening. R: [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy]

APPENDIX E INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT THREE: CHRISTOPHER

R: Hello I: Hi [Christopher, pseudonym] R: Hey, how’s it going I: Great how’re you doing So um --- R: I’m just finishing my dishes I: Oh so, is now not a good time? R: Oh, no. Now’s fine I: Oh okay – great. Just, before we get started I want to double check, make sure that you’re aware this is being recorded and that you’re read and agree to the consent form I gave you – R: Yeah and I faxed that to you this morning actually I: Wow, thank you so much. Alright, well just to get started I want to get your answer to a very basic question – If you were to describe bug chasing to someone who has never heard of it before, how might you do that? R: Oh um, well it’s actually somebody who’s -- comfortable with unprotected sex um and he’s looking to get infected. I: And what do you think are the main reasons why bug chasers want to be infected? R: Part of it might be wanting a sense of belonging um there also might be – ‘specially now-a-days more and more a feeling that it’s not serious than it used to be say, twenty years ago? Um certainly um the life expectancy you know is can be um 10, 15, 20 years as opposed to – when it first started coming out it was like 5 years or less. It’s not seen as a death sentence anymore. I: So even if it’s not a death sentence, why – why do it? R: [long pause] I really don’t know what—[laugh] I: I know it’s a tough question. R: Um again – it’s a – it’s a sense of belonging and it’s certainly not the worst thing you could catch um indeed there’s some research that is suggesting that um in next little while, but of course it’s always been “the next little while” – they’ve said that for the last 20 years – that they’ll come up with a – a vaccine or a treatment. I: Mmhm what got you into having sex with poz guys.

R: Well part of it is – I have no objections to bareback at all and to be honest I find I find poz guys to be more health conscious. I know it sounds silly but I: When, when was the first time that you know you made that decision to start chasing? R: Um I guess about six or night months ago. Um part of it was because I don’t really – for all the things that poz – I think that um people living with AIDS shouldn’t just be consigned to only having sex with themselves um I’ve gone out with poz guys before and you know um I’m comfortable with that you know I’m not sure there was actually ever me sort of sitting there and going “well oh today is the day I’m going to” – you can’t. You sort of slide into it. I: So you just started out barebacking and then it kind of evolved? R: Yeah um well I sort of figured that you know I didn’t have to necessarily confine myself to guys who self-identify as being negative. I: Uh huh. If you you were to to ever become infected would you be willing to to “share the gift” with others? R: If asked, yes. But they’d have to be [pause] I wouldn’t say very insistent but they’d have to be you know – they’d have to be aware of what’s happening. It’s not like you know – it’s not like catching a cold. I: So if it – is there a difference between guys that that that call themselves chasers. Ones that are serious and ones that aren’t? R: I suppose there is a difference um I mean as opposed to people who are earnestly looking to get infected and those who will go, it happens it happens. Um on a very basic level I don’t suppose there is because both of both of them are aware of the risks. Like there’s enough information out there and that um there is a growing movement to destigmatize being positive um which I think is a – I wouldn’t say a push but it would be certainly something that would would be rattling in the back of people’s minds when they’re thinking about it, yeah. That isn’t – like that isn’t it’s not as bad as it used to be. I: Okay. Have you ever attended either a barebacking party or conversion party? R: No. I: Would you if you were ever invited? R: I’d consider it. I: What kind of considerations would you have to make?

R: Well if --- I’d have to see if I were attracted to the person who’s asking.um yes It’s like when I’ve gone and you know attended like threesomes and foursomes and that if you’re if you’re not attracted to – like if I’m not attracted to the person it’s not gonna really do anything for me at all so. I: How how easy or difficult is it finding guys to to poz guys to have sex with? R: It’s not that hard. Um like there’s any number of chatting websites and um basically it’s just you know going to – going through the list and you know asking questions. Law of averages says sooner or later you’re you know gonna come across somebody who’s okay with it. I: Well last night you said that you would that you would chat online but you would never hook up with a guy from online um why is that? R: Well maybe I was exaggerating slightly. Um I would certainly prefer to speak to them first um I find that to – chatting online that basically that just shows you know how to type. But it doesn’t – I don’t get a feel for the person at all that way. [pause] and [pause] for all that you know are quite okay with it, getting converted you know it’s not it’s not the primary goal of going online anyway. I: What what is your primary goal when you go online. R: Uh to get laid? – um yeah email and porn are the two major things for the internet. Chatting comes a close third. Um Ideally with somebody who’s who’s who’s into bareback, um if they’re positive even better. I: I know last night you said that you you haven’t haven’t met a lot of guys fairly recently – why why do you think that is? R: Well actually I’m kind of busy – I tend to only end up online um later than I would prefer um on days that aren’t usually the best um I found that I was actually online more in the summers and summers and the early fall. I: If if you could have like the the perfect um I guess the – the perfect scene for for being with an HIV positive guy, what would that look like? R: Um I guess it’s sort of the usual stuff – soft romantic thing that a lot of guys, like you know, fireplace, glass of wine um sort of a slow seduction, that sort of thing, you know as opposed of being in the back of a car and being raped.

I: When when you’ve gone out with with guys have you had any moments where you’ve been concerned? R: Concerned. [pause] Concerned about? I: Either had reservations about something or or or thought back on the experience or reflected on something? R: Hmm you mean insofar as what I’ve done? Hmm not generally. Um but then I but then I also don’t don’t tend to get terribly um wild and crazy when I go out anyway so um I guess that’s another thing that I find um more reassuring say about the poz rooms [online] than the bareback rooms [online] is the bareback rooms is a almost a first or second question is, “Do you party and play?” Wheras I am – when I’m in the poz room they don’t ask that. Well at least not the first or second question. They’re sort of looking for saner heads. I: How many misconceptions do you think there are about bug chasing? R: Probably a couple um [sigh, pause] I don’t necessarily consider it a personality fault. If that’s what you mean. I: No. no, no, no I mean you know the the general public out there – or even the guys that have that that fantasy are is there something they don’t know or get wrong? R: Um. Well I think there’s probably one misconception if er sort of popular idea that it’s immediate that there isn’t—it isn’t necessarily immediate any um I don’t think the general public thinks very much about bug chasing. I: Why is that? R: [pause] I that –that it’s a concept that’s I wouldn’t say that’s foreign but unusual like to – you like to say that there’s no one who would willingly put yourself at risk like you know like playing in the highway blindfolded you know. That that has to do also with um the public’s cons—concern still that um being diagnosed as positive is is is automatically a death sentence. I: Aside from from the health concerns or or the medication how how will being HIV positive change your life? R: Hmm It will make me more aware of the fragility of it um certainly [pause] any serious medical issue will make you more appreciative of you know what’s happening

around you and um how you handle it. Um [pause] might actually make me more appreciative of of and..concern for my health I: And is that why you you think um HIV positive guys take better care of themselves? R: Oh I think they have to. Just because their immune system is compromised so they have to take better care of themselves they have to be more careful of um what they do, how they do it, and who they do it with. [pause] I: There there there are some chasers who who recently found out they are positive that don’t take um any medication --- what what is your feeling about guys like that? R: [pause] I don’t know if I’d agree with that um although some of the medication that’s available uh is almost is bad as uh what people are saying about AIDS itself. Um certain combinations are certainly – severe adverse side effects. Which would certainly be a disincentive to take them you know um other people shy away from medication as a general rule for whatever reason or another. Um but I don’t think that in in my particular case that that would be an issue. I: When you were last with with a poz guy um what was was his reaction when you told him that you you were chasing. R: I didn’t actually. [pause] I: Well could you describe that encounter? R: Um well it’s it was a friend I’d gone hiking with and I knew he was positive and um and we had gone out for for drinks and we ended up going back to his place and um [pause] and well one thing sort of led to another and we ended up in bed but um he wasn’t particularly interested in giving so um I didn’t push the point – I didn’t go into very much detail about me and at—at the time I really wasn’t well [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] the last time I was with anyone I knew was positive at least. I: What did you do after that encounter? R: Do, well I woke up the next morning, we had breakfast. Um I still run into him every now and then so yeah um more or overall very very forgive the pun but a very positive experience. [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] I: Would you ever consider not telling someone –someone that you’re neg or that you’re chasing?

R: It’s not something that I would automatically blurt out no. just because it – in some respe—in some circles would have a bit of a negative connotation um um but I think by any –by implication if you’re if you’re interested in it and willing to do bareback, then you’re willing to – you’re in – you’re willing enough to take the risks so [pause] I: Have you ever uh received a um um judgement from others in in the gay community? R: Hmm well it’s not like I’m exactly out about it. Um like I said it’s still a very – a bit of a stigma attached to it um but the closest thing I could say is is.. in chat rooms. You do tend to—you get snubbed for it. [pause] I: And is it is it primarily from HIV positive guys or? R: Generally, yeah. I: Why do you think they might do that? R: Again it just might be the idea that um the idea of knowingly infecting yourself is is considered bad. Uh it’s um amoral behavior um that basically it’s it’s um well it’s it’s considered dangerous but it’s also—up here [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] there have been cases where um people have been um charged with for uh knowingly willingly infecting people without telling them so there might be some constraints like that that they just don’t want to – they want to avoid any legal entanglements. [pause] I: Do you think that you you primarily want to uh get the gift from just one person, a partner or is it more about kind of experiencing things and not worrying about protection at all? R: I would say it’s the latter. Um although having having said that if I was going out with somebody I felt very strongly about and he and he was positive um I would have no you know no problem with that either. – one sounds like more a sort of an individual case as opposed to a you know – the second half sounds more long term or drawn out. I: How do you think a relationship with someone might change with a partner if he was the one that infected you? R: Um well if he did it knowingly it wouldn’t change it much. Um if after going out that I was going into the relationship negative and coming out positive he’d probably feel quite bad about it but again a lot of if might just be gay cultural baggage, you know

I: There are are some men who who say online that they they feel like HIV acts as a symbolic way of of solidifying a bond between between partners do you think if you were in a relationship and you did get infected that it might act the same way? R: It might um [pause] it might um I don’t personally believe it, but it might. I: Why don’t you believe that R: Um because it’s only a single thing and a relationship based on you know a single instance or a single – one thing happening once uh is not going to strength—well it shouldn’t strengthen or tear things apart um like since relationships are basically built on compromise it’s sort of a like layered one thing on top of another to to say that you know, “yes this is the one thing that’s brought us together” sounds more like a crutch like you’re basing it all on one single thing. [pause] I: So are there are there other appealing things about having sex with guys who are positive? R: Well like I said, I find they like to take better care of themselves um they also seem to be a bit more compromising – able to compromise um then say the usual people I meet online um I’m not sayin it makes them a better person but it certainly changes their attitude. I: Mmhmm why do you consider yourself a bug chaser as opposed to someone who is just uninhibited? R: Part of it is the shock value in the name. Um it also implies a more active role in in research um it’s not something uh like you know um oh if it happens it happens it’s something you know it’s not the first thing, but it’s certainly on the list – of things to look for um and certainly who’s who says they were into it would certainly get my interest. But yeah uninhibited just it’s a bit um I wouldn’t say it implies a lack of control it um it implies a lack of purpose. I: Could you elaborate? What do you mean by “lack of purpose”? R: Well saying you’re uninhibited means you’re open to all things and everything or it could um whereas you know using the term bug chaser impl—comes with the understanding that there’s – it’s something very high up on the list of things you’re looking for. I: What is the highest thing on your list of things to look for?

R: Um well I think first and foremost a guy that barebacks um and it would also well for me uh a guy who’s I wouldn’t say moderately aggressive but I would say some and then his status would could like third or fourth on the list. I: [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] Well I know you’ve said guys with HIV take better care of themselves and you’re attracted to that. Does their attitude or capacity to be aggressive come from their status? R: I mean I don’t necessarily think they’re more attractive because they’re positive. I: But I mean if you are HIV positive and you end up taking better care of yourself, that might make you more physically attractive. R: True enough I: Might it also make you more self aware or R: Well certainly more self-aware I: And in a certain respect wouldn’t that make you more confident or might lend itself to being an aggressive or assertive person? R: Yeah I see your point um yeah it could be – certainly a factor um but it wouldn’t um it wouldn’t necessarily a manifested characteristic of – that you could actually point to and say, well that’s because of that – A leads to B. I: How how different do you think you are online versus talking to me [here]? R: Um I’d like to say none or not much but that’s probably not true um especially at [this time] um certainly I’m or comfortable online than on the phone or face-to-face um I think I might um – I might be more uninhibited online. For much of the same reason why I’m – I make disparaging remarks about people online because you only see that they – you can only find out that they can type. Um but it’s for that exact same reason that people are more uninhibited because they don’t have to have a face or a voice or anything. I: Are you are you out at work or with your family? R: As a gay man, yeah. I: And I know you you said earlier that bug chasing is not something that you broadcast, do you feel a sense of being in the closet about it? R: Not exactly um I don’t know if I was confronted by it? I don’t know um but um it hasn’t really come up in conversation – among my family I’m not well because in the

straight community one it’s it’s a fairly forei—it’s a strang—it’s a foreign concept and what little I have read about it in the straight media it’s almost considered amoral. I: And how do you view it – versus it being amoral? R: Mm [pause] risky, but a choice um if it’s a choice um freely made um that’s just a choice. Like I wouldn’t trivialize it by saying that it’s about the same as well deciding well to get ears pierced but um it’s the same idea of choice like you decide – like you know like you decide that if you know like if you’re going to get your ears pierced. I: Uh huh. R: And it might be that you know – it’s gonna hurt like hell and it might get infected and you know and all the rest of the stuff but you know it you know you you you still chose to get your ears pierced. I: There – there are some that are in the straight community that um have a problem with the –with the view of it being a choice because they feel that in some respects chasers who who end up becoming positive – end up becoming a burden on the state in terms of healthcare, medicine – what might your response be to that? R: You know we actually don’t hear that argument much up here. Um [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] I: Well even so that’s – that’s funded by tax payers R: Um myself um I pay taxes when I buy cigarettes, I pay taxes when I buy wine, I pay taxes on just about anything um you know – it’s it’s my heathcare system too.. That you know um it would be different perhaps if um the healthcare system were like say home or auto insurance if you knowningly get yourself involved in an accident then they don’t pay uh if you set your house on fire then they don’t pay um but um like I said [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] the healthcare system is set up differently so uh even for things people consider self-inflicted um you might get tut-tutted over and that sort of thing but the system is there to take care of people when they’re ill. And um living with HIV does – does not mean you’re ill. At least not automatically and not right away I: Mmhmm Do you feel that – that that the straight culture uh has a a particular view about the gay community. R: Well yes, um perhaps not as bad as it was when I first came out – this is like 25, 30 years ago but um but there’s still very much of you that um we’re more promiscuous, we

take more risks, that um and certain the numbers do sort of suggest that there are um a lot more issues involving say substance abuses in the gay community than in the general population but part of that just might be because of the pressures that are imposed by – BY the general population on the gay community um but no I think that that that the straight community generally views the gay community as as – having you know maybe having too much fun. I: Do you feel like there might be more attention paid to to people who are HIV positive? R: More attention paid? I: Well like the focus of advertisements or just the general focus in media or culture? R: Um well I know that at least the AIDS organizations that I’ve dealt with up here do try to uh try very hard to uh – integrate the straight community um there was this study I saw that said that uh the largest number – largest –largest cohort [here] where the numbers are increasing is actually uh 20-25 year old women um but um none –certainly up here there is a strong sense of involving the greater community uh partly to make them aware of partly um so that they become um um more involved in the groups themselves um so that it’s not stigmatized as a gay disease like this is usually when they trot out the fact like for instance um in Africa for instance it’s very much a straight disease.

I: Mm hmm What about within the gay community do you feel like there is a division between men who are positive and men who are negative? R: Yes, but certainly nowhere near as pronounced as it once was 20 years ago um you don’t get the same disassociation that you used to have um again part of it is because people are um sticking around longer um and people don’t you know they don’t uh it’s kind of hard to explain but they don’t stand quite so far away? You know they gradually you know come to the conclusion that you can’t catch it just by being in the same room and you can’t catch it by shaking hands and you know all this other stuff. I: Yeah but you don’t feel like it’s – like it’s exclusive, like a club or or or that there’ s that there’s a special HIV community that is that is separate? R: Mm I don’t but you’d be better to ask somebody who is positive. They would probably have a radically different idea. Like their point of view might be quite – quite opposite to mine. And it again it depends on how you define um community some people

um the community is just the clubs um others are involved in community groups um or social groups or whatever it is – there community is much different um you know others live in a small town where the community is like three other people I: I know last night you were talking about the baths and you you had said that you tend to uh only only do oral or um watch. Do you -- why do you think that’s all you do R: Well I started going to the baths about a year ago. Um I think it’s just for me – it’s just a lack of nerve [laugh] um I’m still um sort of getting used to the ins and outs of bathhouse culture. Like you know so far as what signals to throw out and that sort of thing. [pause] I: How different do you think baths are from kind of the the impression that you know it has been given in the gay community? R: The impression in the gay community? I: Yeah, if you watch Queer as Folk or or you know or even talk to older gay men who experienced the baths in the 80s and and describe it as uh uh seedy dangerous dirty do you --- R: Yeah and now and now a days it’s not considered quite that seedy not quite that dirty – that dangerous um but unlike Queer as Folk um there are not that many attractive people from experience [laugh] at least not as many. Um I – I think yeah the generally the gay community is is they’re certainly accepting of bathhouses I know in the state of – in California they’re actually there was a movement to actually get rid of them that never actually made it here. Um just because it was sort of seen sort of seen as part of the culture um but having said that there’s a strong sense of what.. some .. uh safety promoted at least here in [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] um you know like bowls of condoms you know just about everywhere um you know you know alternating with bowls of bowls of little tubes of lube um actually the one I’ve gone to most often, you can actually get flip flops so you don’t slide in the shower so – [pause] I: So with with all of the – with with condoms there and what that promotion of safe sex is it more difficult do you think finding someone who is who is willing to bareback there? R: Well generally um one or the other will ask like um he will ask about wearing a condom, but if neither will ask about it then – then it would happen. Um I wouldn’t turn somebody down if they insisted on wearing a condom. Not just for that.

I: Have you ever seen the – the documentary The Gift R: No I: Oh okay. Um just to briefly tell you about it it was made in 2003, two or three interviews with bug chasers and it it paints kind of a very negative or or naïve view about bug chasers that – that it’s a way of coping with with problems in in their lives and I was wondering if you feel like those stories are either told to to foster a negative opinion in the straight community or that it might be legitimate for some R: It might be legitimate for some but it also might be uh what the director or the producer is trying to promote um because I also recall when the movie Cruising came out – people were all up in arms about it because it showed the gay community being just just addle-headed leather-clad sex maniacs um and they thought that was terribly unkind to to to to portray the community as um yeah a lot depends on what the director’s intent was. Obviously if he’s wanting to portray um bugchasers in a negative like than you know out of the people who answer the cattle call, you pick the ones that um you know fit the description – yeah it would definitely have an impact on the general population as well as the gay community as far as how they view things. I: Um just to go back – cause something you said kind of stuck out in my mind – was how you said that bug chasers are – you like the term as “shock value” do you feel like that kind of view carries over into to other parts of of of who you are? R: Yes and no um I’m getting more comfortable using the word queer at least outside of the gay community um but again when that first --- when I first heard that used by another gay man I was quite surprised and quite shocked um yeah in some respects yeah I tend to like things because of shock value. Um maybe it just makes you know to see if people are paying attention as opposed to you know going blindly through their lives with half blinders on. I: Um could could you elaborate on paying attention? R: Well not necessarily paying attention to me just you know paying attention to what’s going on around them. Um, it’s I don’t know, I think every now and then I think people need a bit of a jolt to wake them up every now and then anyway you know and ref—it’s and especially when it’s something like well hey not everybody likes just that. It’s much

the same reason that that the gay community has decided to take back the word “queer” it’s just you know to wake people up a bit. I: Do you use the word queer to describe – for for shock value? R: Not really, but then it doesn’t shock me anymore um yeah I yeah I very rarely tend to use the word at all anymore – sometimes but it’s one of a number of different synonyms. I: What kind of things have you done to to shock someone? R: Um Well I took place in a kiss-in in a mall. Um um [pause] Other than that? To shock people [pause] I would say that I tend to to surprise them, but not shock them but um like when when they find out I belong to a choir and that I like ballroom dancing or that I like bridr—or whatever they’re just sort of sort of surprised, rarely shocked. Shock also implies that I’m telling them something that they don’t particularly like um [pause] so again it would have to be you know kind of something maybe they don’t they don’t know but that they would tend to react positively to. I: Well I think that pretty much covers all the questions that I had, but before we finish up is is there anything that you’d like to tell me about bug chasing? R: Um It’s a lot harder than it l—than you think it is um I know that not – and I haven’t heard this for awhile but for instance there were a couple of cases up here where uh straight men have been arrested – charged uh arrested found guilty of assult uh because they have knowingly infected women uh without their knowledge I get – sometimes I get the impression that the the community at large think that uh people who are positive are basically like that um that they’re not on—that they’re not only in in in bug chasers but you know wanting to rap—you know wanting to take over the world um about bug chasing itself? Is that—yeah it’s harder than you would expect because you have to find somebody who is actually willing and it’s not something that –that people with HIV are willing – willing to do. It’s like a lot of stuff on the internet – makes great fantasy, bit harder in practice. I: Do you feel like well um do you have problems with guys who go online and um fantasize – do you think it makes it harder for you? R: Well um [pause] well I was going to say it’s sort of like background noise um but no part of it is um – the thing about chat rooms is part of it is fantasy um like that why it’s –

that’s why you only type [laugh] but I don’t it it I don’t know if it makes it harder it’s just something else you have to keep in mind. I: Keep in mind for? R: Well if it looks like something potential it’s just something to – you have to keep in mind well it’s sort of the same thing with any relationship online um Will they actually be six foot tall with blue eyes or instead turn out to be five foot eight and turn out to be 300 pounds like it’s just something you have to be aware of. I: Okay R: I don’t know if I helped your questions [laugh] at all but I: [laugh] R: Hopefully uh I: Well it was more about – to get you to to talk and to share so I really do appreciate you know you know everything you have shared with me I want to reiterate that it’s anonymous R: Yeah yeah, I read the waiver and I’m actually kind of intrgued um so this for a thesis and a performance piece? I: It will have both a written and creative component um R: That that’s that’s the kind of oral they should have in university more often um [laugh] and it’s going to get published right? Well I suppose it would have to be with it I: With it being a thesis it’s automatically published R: Yeah but if it’s really good they’ll make more than three copies [laugh] I: [laugh] R: Sorry that came out wrong [laugh] I: I’m just hoping for the three copies [laugh] R: But I would be kind of interested to see what it looks like in the end but I: Well great well you certainly have my email and I have yours so we can keep in touch I’d be more than happy to share whatever uh the the final product is R: Yeah sure yeah – you know having participated it’d be interesting to see what happens nest so. I: Alright R: Okay well, hopefully you got something out of this

I: Oh I think so R: Okay then I: Alright well then if you have any more questions or concerns you’ve got my email you’ve got my contact information – feel free to contact me if you need to R: Okay I: Alright well have a great evening R: You too Joshua

APPENDIX F INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT FOUR: FLOTSAM

100

I: We’ll talk about the R: Please! I: And you’ll sign the piece of paper at the end but R: Oh I’ll sign it now. I: Oh okay R: It’s it’s there’s nothing. There’s I mean. I’ve been talking a lot. So you talk for awhile. I: I mean, well I’m kind of fascinated by by the R: What’s today’s date? [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy]? I: Yes. By the uh whole “lack of imagination” with. That that idea that that chasers don’t -- That they don’t have an active enough imagination. Do you think that it’s, that if if they were as imaginative as this author was R: Genet? I: As Genet R: G-E-N-E-T I: Do you think that they would just fantasize? That they wouldn’t – R: Well apparently that’s a uh uh um a corollary or a whatever --- how do you say, you know that seems to, to logically follow what I’m saying. Um That if you have enough imagination then you don’t actually have to act this out. You can fantasize about it and get whatever masturbatory satisfaction you need from it. Now I mean it’s a romanticization. You’ve romanticized HIV. You’ve romanticized what you fear is is just the inevitability – that you’re going to get HIV positive, you may as well just get over – you may as just get it over with on your own terms. Um, I remember being at some um forum or other uh where one of the speakers I don’t remember what the topic was, but one of the speakers was a young man from somewhere in the Midwest who had just come to New York. He couldn’t have been more than 23 and he had sex for the first time in New York City with someone else who came from some small town and it never occurred to him that this person could possibly could be HIV positive and the next thing this new guy. This kid knew was that he seroconverted and he wasn’t out looking for it. Now that he had it, he was having to deal with those those consequences. The failure of imagination, in some ways is the failure to to imagine the consequences of this. Could I

101

imagine the entire realm of consequences. I’m so fixated on the the the the sexual um uh you know locus um I’m I you know I’ve put all my eggs in that basket. Like What’s most important to me is my sexuality. What’s most important to me is the the sexual interaction with another. That that’s going to become the be all and the end all and the central piece of my life. That I don’t think of my life other than like what about the times when I’m just eating breakfast and I have to put something in my stomach before I take pills. Like I don’t think about that. Um Now you know this is—this is not. This is within some larger context in society none of these things happen you know jus t spring forth un-unrelated to anything else and there are certainly people in there’s a there’s a huge strain in our culture that puts sex at the middle of the culture. Everything that’s advertised and that’s being sol—that’s trying to be sold to us. Sex is the is the tool by which it’s trying to be sold so you know this is nothing new. You know and that sex is what is forbidden in our culture so you know it just compounds all that with HIV and um I: It’s kind of a great irony. Sex is forbidden yet it’s in advertisements. I mean it’s all around you. R: I mean that’s exactly. That’s exactly why because it’s it’s so forbidden and it becomes desirable. It’s so tempting and that’s what sex without a condom is. It’s so forbidden that it becomes the object of my desire. Plus you feel left out. I grew up in the s—I came of age in that period of time that’s known as the sexual revolution. No one thought about HIV. It didn’t exist! You barely thought about sexually transmitted disease. Um And if you got one you could go get it cured and if there was Hepatitis C around then nobody--- there wasn’t! Nobody knew about it um and the degree of risk wasn’t it’s just not the same and things were innocent and things always start out innocent and then become more complicated and so there so there’s anybody who came of age right after me grew up. AIDS already existed before you even had sex. You’ve known about AIDS. You’re in the 5th grade and you’re getting a lecture about AIDS and so it’s perfectly reasonable to me that people would be jealous that they’ve never ever ever had the opportunity to experience sex without this like I said veneer of latex between themselves and another and that’s what’s antithetical about sex. The point of sex is to have nothing yourself and your partner and so if that means that if I have to – If the price of that is the virus then bring it on and let me let me have control of how that happens. And that’s going to give

102

me entrée into this this secret society. Gay life when I grew up was a secret society. I came of age before gay liberation. I mean I was 18 when gay liberation occurred and when stone—when the stonewall riots occurred and you know but I I had a sexual identity when I was a younger teenager and um one day I didn’t know anything about it I wasn’t aware that there were people around me who were gay men and the next day I did and so you’re walking down the street and you lock eyes with somebody for a second and something passes between you some um you know as Walt Whitman said, “some electricity would pass” and you would know that you too are a member of this secret society and it was thrilling that in the midst of like we know something that nobody else knows. So it you know – As I’m talking to you it occurs to me that there’s a similarity like there’s gay culture and there’s secret society within gay culture that not only acknowledges the existence of HIV but has romanticized it – romanticisizes it and wants to transmit it – to share that secret society with others or be part of – aspires to be part of that secret society. For ill thought out reasons – as they imagine it one thing and we imagine it as something other. I: It’s really funny because the men I’ve interviewed all talk about – they find partners online and so they they talk about men that are on there and they can tell are just fantasizing and one of them describes them as just noise. They’re noise that gets in the way of finding what I want and you’ve got to weed them out and just you know you – eventually he describes them as white noise it just kind of fades and it’s easier to just tell who’s serious and who isn’t and I think it’s interesting because you’ve flipped the other way around. The men who are fantacising in some ways are better in that they have a more fulfilling imagination – they have an imagination. R: Yeah I mean I mean you know I mean I think I can see the other person’s perspective too that um. When you leave it all in the realm of imagination then do you um do you lack the courage of your conviction and are are you all talk and no action. Which is basically what he’s saying. Yes, I’m saying that at at – I draw the conclusion that it’s a failure of imagination from the from what I recognize as being this need to be so concrete – that in order to participate in something secret I actually have to literally transmit and receive the virus. It’s not It’s it’s not it’s not a metaphor – the whole thing is a metaphor to my mind the whole like to the need to transmit the need to receive is metaphorical for

103

what I hunger for I hunger for companionship I hunger not to be alone. To have to concretize that to my mind must be a failure of imagination cause otherwise I wouldn’t have to do it so clearly. Does that make sense? I: Yeah but I mean do you do you think that that that the that people with HIV that that are gay are are in some ways restricted – I mean you’ve described it as a secret society in what was once in some ways still is a secret society. It’s that desire to belong – do you think that in some ways it’s the inability to understand or or to be part of a –this longing to be part of a secret society because they feel that that being gay is no longer secret enough R: Perhaps, perhaps that seems to be what I’m saying Uh whether or not that’s conscious? I mean it’s certainly a fact that being gay is not a secret society anymore you know you don’t have to be secret to be gay – you certainly can I mean there are some places you know Matthew Shepard in Wyoming it was it was not safe to be out so you have to remain secret um there’s a certain comradery that exists in that exists in that really just wholly what the gay world was. It’s like you’re gay, I’m gay shh Isn’t this fabulous that we have this thing that nobody else knows about it’s like we immediately have something in common. We may not have ANYTHING in common right? I’m like a dumb brick and you’re like a super intellectual but we hold this one thing in common and that makes us companions and now in in society where it where we’re both out – we’ve nothing in common. So what if we both like to suck dicks who cares? You know you’re a braniac and I’m an idiot –we don’t have anything in common um I took this one thing and it seems so insignificant to us um. I: I mean, I grew up in Colorado – less than 2 hours away from Laramie, Wyoming It’s kind of interesting cause it’s being gay was still you know this “secret society” in the sense that it was secret ‘til you went to the one gay bar in town then it was still – I mean it it it’s still a secret society in the sense that 80 percent of your life and it feels that way too now living in the South of it still I mean it is a little awkward being out in the same way. I mean I’d describe myself as out, but R: When it feels necessary I: When you R: When you feel guarded

104

I: Yeah R: I think that’s true everywhere. Um you know watching a black man be nominated— be elected pres—be sworn in as president. When will we have a gay man be elected as president like will that ever happen? It just occurs to me watching him be sworn in um but you know to call somebody a faggot on the street is the one acceptable slur. You can’t call somebody a nigger you can’t call somebody a ‘spic you can’t call somebody a wop, but you can still call somebody a faggot and it’s it’s there’s no social opprobrium. Um, so being gay is a is a it’s not for sissies. It’s a tough life, it can be a lonely life it can be a hard life So, different people deal with that differently and uh uh so maybe I want maybe I want to focus that so exclusively so that I make that the locus of my attention and then you know so then you know what is secret within something that is not so secret anymore. Well, S and M. You know and in the context of S and M um then perhaps there’s this gift giving and seeking um I don’t think S and M is about giving and receiving HIV I: No R: At all. Um, the perhaps the corroloary and where they overlap is that people get into S – I think you know that the appetite for being humiliated or being so dominant or so uh uh passive or or – it’s perhaps another form of concretization so maybe it’s another form of of of lack of imagination. What becomes imaginative is more of what I was I was talking about with Genet. Like the the other perfect perversion so that I’ve I’ve I I now take pleasure in that which is not pleasurable under ordinary circumstances. I have made it pleasurable um and I’ve taken that which is just so sad and risky to be HIV positive. It’s an enormous risk to your health it’s you know. It can kill you and so to to incorporate that to make that central to my sexual identity is a triumph in a way. I mean both simultaneously I’m just list—I’m just talking off the top of my head, so it yes perhaps it is perhaps it is a failure of imagination to concretize it but at the same time then to maintain the fiction that this is des—Now I’ve done it to myself so that this is a good things. This is – This is a good thing it remains a motivation in me in in inspirational thing that takes a great deal of willpower of commitment to some perverted perfectly perverted – perfectly achieved perversion. To make it into a romantic ideal so it’s it’s concretizing something I’ve imagined into reality and that’s kind of a creative act.

105

That’s what The Miracle of the Rose is. He’s he’s taken this masturbatory fantasy to the extent that he actually sees it happening. That is a –a an incredibly powerful act of will So it’s a very very complicated thing. I: Well I see two things going on. One is going back to this you know “secret society”. I think just from talking to you is that – I feel there is a realization that, Okay so I’m out well being out is now socially acceptable R: Relatively I: Yeah, there’s Ellen, Rosie O’ Donnell R: There was a gay and lesbian marching band in the parade [Text omitted to protect interviewee privacy] for Barack Obama I: So I think that for some there’s probably for some there’s the sense that, Well I’m out, there are people that know I’m gay it’s it’s not secret. Then why am I still alone? R: Exactly I: Because R: Exactly I: Because everyone I see around me is in a relationship you it’s so easy for you know heterosexuals who are out R: It’s so normative, yeah I: That they can form a relationship R: Yes I: And what’s wrong? R: Yeah I: That there must be some other way of right probably when it was still in the closet as you were saying before of well we have something in common so so let’s date. R: Right I: Then it becomes and I think part of it is the the narrative within the gay community is that HIV positive men will only date HIV positive men and so I think probably subconsciously there’s the the rationalization of well if I get it too then I have to find someone because I’m I’m now now in the group R: And it becomes what we have in common

106

I: Yeah, it becomes what we have in common and and the pool of people is so much small that has to gravitate towards me and I mean there’s Big Bend Cares right down the street here that caters specifically and in different ways than going to a gay bar R: Mmhmm and once again you could be a brainiac and I could be dumb as bricks but we have this thing in common we’re both HIV positive and we can bond around that. Very interesting I: So that’s one half of the picture that I’m seeing and the other half is that it seems from the interviews that I’ve done so far, just listening, watching is that there are all these other cultures, sub cultures, micro cultures within gay life that are then kind of used as vehicles for um chasing and giving R: Talk to me about that. I’m not sure what you mean. I: Well there’s the S&M, like there’s S&M culture but then it gets superimposed on giving and and chasing and it it it really has not that much to do with S&M but this whole “how do we participate in in bug chasing and gift giving” they superimpose S&M on top of it saying and it may not be just S&M it could be the daddy boy son thing that’s superimposed on top of chasing and giving uh the the whole romanticicism right? That we just talked about that’s superimposed on chasing and giving and that really makes it clear that the lack of imagination is that you’re just pulling at different aspects or fantasies as a way of it it really shows a lack of imagination its nothing new its nothing – separate as its own culture there’s no specific chasing and giving narrative or or R: Well there’s a bunch of different ones I: Right and I feel like there are other cultures that are superimposed on top of it R: Or the other way around they’ve superimposed chasing and giving on top of that daddy culture that S&M culture and see I think there’s something else about certainly S&M that daddy son is a different thing but but perhaps but they overlap but um you know when you have vanilla sex enough it no longer becomes pleasurable it’s too vanilla and so you need something a little spicier you need to kick it up a notch and that takes you towards something more um in the direction of S&M it doesn’t necessarily have to be pain and pleasure but it’s becomes more more pleasurable it’s more than just the missionary style and there’s there’s you know once I’ve fucked you doggie style and um you know I’ve I’ve um uh you know put sex toys up your ass which you’ve willing

107

you’ve wanted but you didn’t necessarily want them at first and I didn’t necessarily want to do it didn’t want want to do those things at first and you know just having good old gay mis—whatever gay missionary sex style – position is for gay men um uh I need—it’s not stimulating enough – doesn’t stim – I mean look sex all happens in the imagination right? And so you know I’ve imagined it I’ve experienced it so much so there’s no imaginative frisson to it so I need some I need a little friction so I need something a little you know more spicy as I said um so we’re all ready leaning in that direction as I think we get older is a fairly common narrative perhaps uh and the daddy son thing there’s something about taking care of the partner I’m not sure what that acts – what that acts out something I don’t know but within the certainly you can transcribe that into this giving and receiving of HIV because you know I’m I’m giving it to you boy I’m marking you as mine yeah you know and you are giving yourself up to me you’re surrendering yourself up to me and so we can do that as equals but there’s an inequality there there’s a power differential there I: And I wish I could find some that would be willing to be interviewed, but you’d be surprised how many people are like oh I’m fine talking about it online where it feels more anonymous but anything beyond that they can’t do there’s this sense that I’ve seen online is that oh okay for the daddy that’s giving the HIV there’s that sense that he owns the boy but on the flip side I feel like from from my understanding the son or the boy sees it as an obligation – you’ve done something to me you now have to take care of me for the rest of my life and it and it R: Well I’m yours, you own me therefore pony up dad I: Yeah and it’s it’s it prevents from you having a clean break it it bondage right it bonds you in the most literal sense you know you’ve been marked by that one person and if you if you’re probably smart enough or aware enough you know of the different strains you could come up with some kind of narrative or fantasy about how that particular strain is particular to that daddy and you know R: And if I stay with that daddy then I mean you might go that far um I: I mean it kind of like the the the ultimate you know wedding ring you know the the the R: Uh huh I: In the sense that being a literal vow, a tangible vow.

108

R: Well yeah and again to the degree that if you you you have to literalize it, concretize it there is some lack of imagination here and I mean the the the you know it’s one thing to play at something sex is play to the extent that I actually have to truly believe the play to to to really like I can play at being your daddy you can play at being my son but to actually have to act that out? I don’t know is that I don’t know if that’s a lack of imagination or a or a or a a a a triumph of imagination it’s sort of both simultaneously I: I think there’s a difference between playing daddy and son without any consequence right? R: Right I’m not talking I’m not talking about you mean – let’s not talk about transmission, you know chasers and givers, just daddy and son. We’re yeah, we’re playing at these roles. It gives us pleasure to play. I: Yeah and I think that’s still kind of within the imagination the second you have a lasting permanent consequence. Right if you the son were to get tattooed and and you know to you know R: With your name on it I: Right R: I mean I mean but there’s other that like you know you take care of me like um you know I um I uh lock you in the house or in your room and I expect to come home and I uh go to the office and I you know bring home the bacon and I expect you to uh clean I expect you –you know I expect my pipe and slippers and cocktail ready when I get home. I mean there are people who actually live that way. I: Mmhmm R: And that to me is a failure of imagination I: Because you can’t end it. R: You can’t step outside of it. There’s no flexibility in it it becomes so restrictive you have to act this thing out so concretely and so and so doing it – all of these things we’re talking about to my mind are all different versions of failures of imagination. I can’t imagine anything other than to concretize it. I: I was trying to draw the distinction between role-play and R: Exactly! I: It’s a Tuesday night and let’s try something different

109

R: Right I: How about daddy and son versus I want that to be my lifestyle R: Exactly! Exact same thing. I was thinking the exact same thing um. I: I also think it’s funny you know you described the the June Cleaver figure as daddy and son and it’s kind of funny with the way that plays out. Watching it online it’s like it’s described as a 1950s sitcom and you’re not June Cleaver you’re some 20-something twinky boy and he’s a bear. R: Right Right Right I mean and some of this is also like what are you attracted to? Am I … I: Are you attracted to that very traditional stereotypical heteronormative narrative or are you attracted to the power differential or am i? R: Or am I a twink attracted to other twinks or am I for whatever reason am am attracted to older men, attracted to hairy men as opposed to smooth men and then these these and because gay society is so stratified in some ways that um you know if I’m attracted to an older hairy man then I’m pretty much will find him within the bear community because he’s kind of excluded from any other community and if I’m attracted to a twink I’m going to find him in a certain bar at a certain kind of online chat room and that’s just all there is to it and that’s why I’m attracted to them and there’s no accounting for what we’re attracted to but then the the what all comes along with that you know within like if I’m in the bear society and whatever what goes along with that like the saying in for a dime in for a dollar um I would imagine that within that that the wor—that I mean you’ve told me you’ve seen this in in your small sample that the the the the givers and chaser phenomenon is you have found a locus for that in the S&M community I: One of them yeah. He was particular but he he he’s used it as a way of saying men who are HIV positive fuck differently fuck better in in his opinion that when he identifies himself as a chaser or HIV negative and finds a guy who’s HIV positive he knows or can tell a difference in the way that his partner has sex with him it’s like he’s he has a fantasy for the gift giver because he believes that the gift giver has a fantasy about giving and he’s attracted to that – of the gift giver fantasizing about him. R: So then who knows if that person is actually more more sexually adept or does this kid just um is willing to like experience it that way because that’s how he imagines it to

110

be and therefore you know it’s he’s more turned down so it’s better so he thinks it’s the other guy’s fault but really it’s – it’s sort of – it’s a mutual thing going on. Maybe the guy actually is a better um er more sexually inventive character because he doesn’t care enough to take care of this person. I: Yeah. I mean it it it makes you wonder if it’s objective at all if he’s imagin—if he’s – it’s a placebo effect he’s invented R: Yeah exactly there’s got to be some component of that it’s likely I: The funny thing was is that now that he has HIV he still goes around saying he’s HIV negative to find tops that are HIV positive that are gift givers to fuck the same way. Cause he believes that lying about his HIV status will get him tops that will fuck him differently R: So he believes the person who wants to transmit the virus is actually going to fuck differently than the person who is comfortable with the fact that they both have the virus. I: Right and that’s why saying he’s he’s fantasizing about the gift giver that I mean R: He just doesn’t know how to say what he wants to somebody. That’s all. He could he could have – he could meet somebody who’s HIV positive and they could go to their doctor and get their genotypes done and find out that their viruses are compatible enough that they could trade them back and forth and it’s no harm to their medications and then he could say I want you to fuck me just like this. I want you to I want you to cum on my ass and shove it back in and use your sperm as lubricant. He could say that. I: But it goes back to lack of imagination R: Exactly, if he can’t say that then he can’t get what he wants except from this person he’s imagined to be so much this one way this so this guy yes I want to give the virus that’s my intention in the world now there were laws – I don’t know if they still exist – there was at one point in the the in the HIV positive world in the gay world a particular mindset of people who are HIV positive that I’ve got it, I’m pissed off and I’m give it to as many fucking people as I—I’m going to bring down as many people as I: I think he’s attracted to that – this vindictive R: Well I mean you know the French call climax le petite morte, the little death so does this guy have death wish? I mean this guy is seeking a virus that’s fatal does he is he just acting out his death wish. In which case it’s just a failure of imagination. To be able to

111

contain that fantasy and to be able to play that fantasy and not have to actually act out that fantasy. I: It’s funny you talk to him and and for whatever strange reason he believes you don’t actually have to take medicine until you start feeling bad. R: Well that’s just a misunderstanding. I: Well I mean but that plays into his whole – I – it’s okay for me to be a chaser to be HIV positive because I haven’t gotten sick yet. I’m HIV positive but I’m not on any meds. R: I don’t need to be on any meds, yeah well I: Because I haven’t passed out yet or R: Well you know there’s different – I’m a nurse who’s a specialist in HIV. It’s not 100 percent conclusive. There’s not 100 percent agreement about when a person ought to go on HIV medications. There are some people who have are called um “slow progressors” whose HIV load remains very low and their T-Cells remain very high for years. There are some people who have been HIV positive for fifteen years and their their viral load is load and their T-Cells are very high and so there’s no reason for them to go on medications. There are some people whose T-Cells rapidly decline and their viral load rapidly escalates and clearly those people need to be on medication. There uh there’s the great unwashed masses in the middle who you know their virus as their virus declines they keep an eye on it. There have been at other times – and so it’s like and when your T- Cells get like below 500 we’ll get – that’s when we’ll start medications, when they get below 400 or 250 that’s when we’ll start medications and then there’s another strain of thought that says we’ll hit – hit early hit hard. The reason being the longer we wait to give you medication the more likely you are to develop the most um uh undesirable side effect from the medications. If you wait. I: I mean I that’s that’s what I’ve been reading and seeing the most common and that I think part of part of that may come from pharmaceutical literature so. R: That’s not inaccurate I mean pharmaceutical literature is as far as HIV medications are concerned are accurate. I: But I mean I think part of the whole we’ve got to treat it early for everyone I think comes probably from you know reading that on the back of a doctor’s wall or in the back

112

of the Advocate or whatever That’s what I’ve seen more and more out in the open of the second you get HIV you need to start taking the newer drugs that prevent the virus from replicating for a period of time because it – at least it prevents the progression regardless of if if you yourself are slow or fast. It buys you time. R: Yes, that’s right at the very beginning. If you’re if you if you have a sexual encounter and you know you don’t want to become HIV positive and you know you just exposed yourself to the HIV virus and you start or if you do a needle—if you start medication within four hours or something or eight hours then there’s an—and you take them for three months then there is a um better than even chance that you will not seroconvert. Um but it’s a really short window of time um and really the first thing you do when you’re when you walk into the doctor and you take an HIV test and you’re positive the next thing you’re going to do is take a genotype to see what strains of virus your virus is— what strains of medic—what strains of [raspberry] what medications is your strain of virus is sensitive to. That’s what they’re going to find out before they start you on medication. I: From my understanding and this is just tangential curiosity, when they do the HIV test they see if there’s anything there and then they do a Western Blot to R: Confirm I: Confirm it, do they also do a viral load at the same time? R: No no because they can’t use that same sample and it – that test is too expensive to do before I establish conclusively that you’re HIV positive there’s no sense that by doing that test um I: Unless they know R: Unless they know but then there’s come caveats there too but we’re getting distracted because the person who’s chasing doesn’t even care about any of this. They just want to be positive. I think in some ways they just want to be you know uh and I think in some cases they want to be part of this secret society and I think the givers have identified as members of this secret society and I think that that at at its most ultimate this secret society is um defined by their –whether consciously or unconsciously as this as this perfect perversion which has its own purity um that’s um that’s what I think.

113

I: So do you think that the that the if you were to describe bug chasing as a community do you think that that’s separate or within just a barebacking – if you even think a barebacking community exists? R: I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know the answer to that, I mean I think that [pause] this is sheer speculation I think that again I think that recreational drugs uh are a big lubricant to all of this because it suspends your inhibitions. And in that context you’re much more likely to bareback and I’ve known plenty of people who who um under the influence of drugs with their inhibitions really lowered have unprotected sex and then are racked with fear and guilt that they’ve infected themselves or that they’ve infected others. And I think that within and I know that there is a uh certainly in large metropolitan areas there is a non-insignificant um minority of gay men sexually active gay men who are on a regular basis using so—these um recreational drugs as sexual lubricants that lower their inhibitions and whether or not they transmit the virus they’re going to have unprotected sex more likely than not and so the the whether uh the whether it’s completely intentional? That that uh you know I’m intentionally giving you the virus or I’m intentionally seeking to have you give me the virus I’m willing to take that risk and then it’s not such a big leap to say if I’m willing to take that risk it’s because it’s an inevitability so I’ll just get it over with and then if I’m—if it’s an inevitability let me get it over with then let me let me control the circumstances under which that occurs and then if I’m going to control the circumstances under which that occurs, what are the circumstances in which that occurs? So what is my romantic ideal? Um well then let me go out and seek my romantic ideal who wants to give me that I now want that and I want it within the contexts of what I find romantic and sexually attractive I: So are you saying that-- R: So I’m saying that it’s a continuum. I: Okay okay. So on the one end it’s drug use and on – R: Well I think drug use is like the um the agar plate that um that that uh um can sort of encourage – it’s like the fertilizer uh and then the the actual impact of it is that it lowers your inhibitions. I: But if it’s something that – going back to the failure of imagination, if it’s something that you’ve been fantasizing about—

114

R: What is something you’ve been fantasizing about? I: Bug chasing, gift giving. You’ve been eroticizing and you’ve been—you’ve had unprotected sex before because it really isn’t that difficult to to bareback you know. R: It’s preferable I: Right R: It feels better! I: And I don’t think you need a—any kind of lubricant for that R: No, I mean everybody knows that it feels better I: Yeah, so.. R: And it’s forbidden and therefore it’s more desirable I: So do you think that it – it seems to me that that drug use doesn’t necessarily for for some – I think that that it doesn’t have to R: It doesn’t have to, but to make it more likely that it’s going to happen I: But I mean— R: I might know that it feels more comfortable and I might let you stick it into me for just a second but then I’m gonna get so freaked out that I’ll be like pull it out and put a condom on. I: But I mean if it’s something you’ve kind of trained yourself to fantasize about.. R: Well then I have a question for you. I abhor the phrase bug chasers bug um I’m going to use seeker, but whatever those who are seeking – intentionally act, want, are chasing the bug they want to become HIV positive. How sexually experienced are these people, to begin with? Do they start off with this fantasy? I: From from observation it seems to me like they’ve been barebacking for awhile and to me I mean it R: Well but barebacking and wanting to be HIV positive aren’t necessarily the same thing I: Right! It seems to me, going back to that failure of imagination it’s that their fantasies have run wild in the sense that they’ve they start out having regular hook ups protected, safe sex. R: Okay, alright I: That evolves into barebacking.

115

R: Okay, that’s what I wanted to know. I: And it— R: That’s exactly what I wanted to know. You don’t just start out when you’re 13, 14, or 15 and you’re recognizing that you have this desire to actually have sex much less – I’m actually realizing that I wanted to have sex with someone who is genitally identical to me uh I want to do that without any protection – you don’t just start out that way. I: Some do. That’s the interesting thing and I’ve not seen this online but talking with– dating men who have never used a condom once. R: And why is that? Because they think that they’re only going to have sex with other people who are HIV pos—er HIV negative because they’re all in the same age cohort? I: No! This this is HIV negative men who who want to remain HIV negative R: I understand that I: And they go well the first time that I had sex with somebody was with somebody who it was also their first time so there was no risk. So, that was the norm – and it becomes the norm R: As long as you’re not lying to me. I: It becomes what my ex describes as “pinky swear and tell me you don’t have AIDS” R: Right I: I’ll just not even think about it, divorce any kind of logic or belief that any person could be lying or not know what their status is. R: I don’t want to go there I don’t want to think about it. Okay but but I: But then there are some that probably get to that phase and actually go wait a second, let me think about that. And R: And isn’t it easier just to want that. I: I think that could be one path. R: It could be hm it could be. There could be more than one path I: I think, to me – the sense of drug use would be for those that still have that this is wrong R: Yeah, pinky swear and tell me you’re not and I don’t have –uh

116

I: But it’s for people who jump from you know Sister Mary Magdalene’s Sex Ed. Class of abstinence only going “I don’t want HIV” – going zero to sixty. I think they need the drugs as a way to lower the inhibitions R: It’s not that, it’s not that—I think it’s a little more complex than that. I think that uh okay here’s the scenario I will create in my head here’s the the narrative I’ll create in my head um I’m 20 years old I’m 18 and I –I’m in – I want to have sex because when you’re 18 you want to have sex. You want to get it over with for one thing and you’re really curious and you have all of these burgeoning feelings in your body and so you want to have sex. I want—I really want to have that in the context of a relationship that’s most preferable and so I meet somebody else that tells me he’s HIV negative and I really believe him and so we both have sex and it’s great and then I have sex a couple of times with people with condoms and I realize it’s much more pleasurable without and so then by now I’m like 21 or 23 and um okay so there’s an option so do we want to use condoms or do we not and so of course I say to myself well I always use condoms, it’s just stupid not to use latex – I don’t have a death wish I – I want to stay HIV negative so when we get into bed okay do you promise me you’re HIV negative? You know – pinky swear and tell me you’re HIV negative? Okay then we can have sex. But then one day you offer me the hit of some drug off a pipe and suddenly I don’t need to ask you to pinky swear and tell me I’m so disinhibited now that my anxieties about that are so far back in my mind that I barely hear them and my desire becomes so predominant that it’s so easy now. I’m so disinhibited now. I feel fantastic! And I can now have twelve hours of unconcentrated really focused delightful! drug I mean sex I mean like Oh my God I’ve had sex-- I’ve had my dick and my testicles up inside your anus for the last 3 hours while we were smoking cigarettes and watching Oprah! Isn’t this fabulous!? I: I think we’re describing— R: So it’s a continuum. Go ahead. I: I think we’re describing like a fork in the road. I think I think that’s one path for for some people but let’s say the partner doesn’t offer you a hit but instead you think you have a good fantasy life –and so you just start jacking off and you start chatting with people online because you can’t find anyone else in your community because you’re so alone.

117

R: Well everyone’s chatting online. I: Right and but then you start exploring these communities and letting your mind go where it goes R: And there are people there talking about the advantages of having sex using a condom or not, the advantages or disadvantages of HIV this is what you’re saying to me? I: Yeah and I think that for some people they kind of train themselves to not be inhibited because if they jack off to it enough times then it’s— R: Mmhmm I agree. I: It’s quasi-pavlovian. R: I agree with you. I see very much where you’re going. Yes. Yes, I’m not saying that that um that recreational drugs are a necessary component I’m just saying that they facilitate it in this really profoundly um intense way. And in the big cities where um you know where I’m familiar with I think that it’s more predominant than not. I think that it’s – although I agree with you I’ve – I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth because this pinky swear and tell me you’re negative is very much the norm. I: In fact, I think there’s a facebook group that’s – yeah, “Pinky swear that you don’t have AIDS” and the thing, it’s not even HIV it’s AIDS. It’s – R: Oh, it’s AIDS? If you tell me you’re just HIV positive then that’s fine— I: Well I think it’s it’s I mean I think there is no HIV to some people. R: It’s a misnomer I: It’s that one you have the virus, you have AIDS. And I think some of that might be horrible education I mean growing up in Colorado where I did the – I could – thinking back on my health education they said that well condoms aren’t 100 percent effective you know the HIV virus could get through R: Well that’s true I: Statistically, yeah there’s the possibility but they R: They sure help! I: They twisted it in such a way that it’s a 50/50 shot so you should be abstinent R: Of course, of course I: Of making abstinence only the preferred option because heck even with a condom

118

R: You’re going to get pregnant and you’re going to have – going to have HIV. You aught not to, that’s right. I: And I wonder if – yeah I wonder if that bad education may end up facilitating some--- R: Yeah. I doubt it I kind of doubt it. I actually think it’s more the the I think it’s more the prohibition against it – makes it more tempting whatever is forbidden. I: Right but if it’s forbidden – if sex is forbidden because of pregnancy and HIV then you’re – it’s this pulling of both sides of well I know sex feels good and it’s forbidden and it’s forbidden because of pregnancy and HIV then it it gets into this grey area and if anything I do can lead to – and if condoms are only 50 percent effective because of the way my teacher put it then hell we’re all gonna die or somebody’s lying to me and you get rationalizations for R: Yeah. I don’t disagree with you. When I said it’s forbidden I mean having sex without condoms is forbidden within the gay world the party line is I should only use – I should only have sex with condoms. It’s forbidden to have sex without condoms. What is forbidden becomes more tempting so you know the consequences are secondary um until and except for this subset that you’re talking about for whom the consequences become the whole point. Right? And it’s my theory that those people whether consciously or not are engaging in this pursuit of this perfected perversion that that’s going to be the context that supports this in time. I: Have you ever encountered anyone who is a seeker – I kind of don’t like that term because it’s very Harry Potter-esque R: [laughter] The bug chaser um I: I mean you said you brush up against R: Not to my not to my knowledge. And if they have I’m HIV negative so they wouldn’t be interested in me I: I mean as a health professional R: Well see no that’s something you wouldn’t – If you’re seeking a – If you’re going to a doctor regularly then you’re much less likely to be someone who is wanting to go get the virus. You’re much more likely to be someone who’s conflicted about the possibility that I gave somebody the virus. Right? Or conflicted about your desire to have sex without a condom. If you can talk about it. If you’re somebody who comes in repeatedly with

119

sexually transmitted diseases you don’t want to engage in the conversation about using condoms then you’re perhaps that certainly you’re more likely to fit the profile of somebody who’s out there trying to get sick and not everybody who’s trying to become HIV positive who’s acting out their uh death wish is aware that they’re doing that. I mean that’s kind of fascinating. Most people are unconscious of what they’re doing and for someone to actually bring this into consciousness um it is again I have to go back to it being so concrete that it’s it’s – it lacks imagination in some way. Uh I mean it—I guess part of the imagination is there’s also there’s – they say the brain is the ultimate sexual organ. It’s what I’m imagining and then do I have to imagine that I’m having sex with you know uh Jeff Stryker or whoever to be able to cum. You know? So – I: So it hasn’t been your experience of you know having a patient that has admitted to or – R: No. “I’m out there trying to get the virus, what do you think?” No. I: No No. I mean, now that I have it either what the hell was I thinking or. R: Sure I have that. I: I mean they they none of them had said I was originally seeking it and now that I have it. R: Maybe if they did I can’t remember. If they did I can’t remember that. So I just can’t remember. I can remember hearing people say, what was I thinking to to have unprotected sex. And if I could go back and change that I would. That I know I have had conversations about. That’s a difficult conversation. If I – I to imagine having a conversation with someone who – I intentionally did that to myself – this to myself – what is there to talk about? Okay so if it’s not a problem how can I help? What are.. you know? I: Yeah, I’m also thinking – I went to school in New York and I’m thinking about that state law – whenever you get an HIV test they – you have a mini therapy session with you know whoever ordered the test and it’s – it always feels like a mini therapy – like a psychological exam. Well how did you get into the position of needing a test in the first place? And and.. R: Well that’s not so much the point as to – are you prepared for the consequences of a potential positive result? That’s really the intent of the test. There’s two intentions. One,

120

to try to establish that you are psychologically stable enough that you could handle the bad news. And two, understand then that without any name attached the results of your test will be given to the state department of health because they’re trying to track how many people in New York State have – are HIV positive and you have to sign that consent form for us to draw your blood – stating that you understand these conditions before I’m legally able to draw it from you. Um I: I was just thinking afterwards, when you’re getting your result. You have to sit down and it’s a – you still get the— R: Then you get another counseling I: Yeah, it feels in some certain ways kind of like an interrogation of – let’s revisit why did you have this test ordered in the first place and how – and it becomes almost accusatory. And it’s like – well wait a second, I’m I’m being told – this is me just thinking as I’ve gone through that. R: It depends on who’s doing it. If they’re doing it and they’re making you feel accused of something then they’re not doing it as well as they ought to is what I would say. So if that’s your experience, I’m sorry [laughter] I: [laughter] I mean it’s the whole – wait a second, I get this done every six months to a year because – like a good gay boy I’m doing what I’m told and you know [laughter] condoms aren’t 100 percent effective. R: And I want to know because I want to know and you don’t want to remain ignorant. I: It’s – the other part of it too – is you feel like crap when you’re there in the first place. R: Well you’re scared. You’re scared. I: Yeah. And I wonder if you know if that policy in New York may have something to do with wanting to get it. Well at least I won’t have to go through those – R: Well I don’t know about that, but I won’t have to be scared anymore I: And I wonder if that’s – If the terror of the test result is – if that’s another reason to add to your house of cards – R: I don’t know I mean it it then you know your motivation for getting your test is to know you’ve achieved your result. Your desired result. I: Well I mean if you flip it in on itself. Where – oh did I get it or not – it’s like well – they used a toothbrush it’s pretty much inevitable – you can pretty much just not get

121

tested and believe that you are and then you know – well I’ll just go to the doctor when I pass out or whatever – when I’ve go the “fuck flu” or when I feel sick. R: Yeah, I mean I don’t think you’re going to rush right out. Are you going to rush right out and get a pregnancy test to find out if you’ve gotten the virus? You know – I helped so we can throw a shower? I don’t know. I: That’s that’s kind of the sentiment that I see in people who describe these parties it’s that – you know in a certain way it’s like a baby shower. R: Yeah Yeah I: It’s an S and M baby shower. R: Well, I’ve actually – in I mean – In porno there will—you will hear people say I’ve heard people say it. “Give me your sperm – make me pregnant with the virus – let me make babies with the virus” I’ve heard people say that. Um and I’m just like – that is just such a turn off. Don’t talk to me like that. Um. I: But it goes back to the daddy son . R: It does. No, it does, absolutely. Absolutely. I: Trying to find some kind of completeness because you’re viewing homosexuality as incomplete because you can’t reproduce? R: Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps. Um I: Cause I mean it’s one of the things Donna was talking about was this whole – there’s an underlying theme of of pregnancy and femininity that’s in there. R: Mmmhmm that I yeah it becomes very complicated certainly. Um, yeah something went through my mind. It was something brilliant and now I can’t remember what it was. I don’t know. I don’t know. Oh! Okay so, here’s a few things I think you need – here’s a few names I think you need to google. Get out your pencil. Stephen Gendin. G-E-N-D-I- N, Stephen with a P-H. Michelangelo Signorelli – yeah um, Gabriel Rotello and of course Larry Kramer. And now Stephen you’re going to get a um sort of a cri de coeur for all this. Michael you’re going to get more or less um reportage. Michael had a had a pointed view. He’s judgmental but he’s not he’s no censorious as Gabriel and certainly not as much as Larry. But they’re all important people in this in this discussion um. And for background and if you read Genet. I think you might find that—may help you with – may or may not but it might give you some ideas about your performance piece.

122

I: Yeah – that kind of piqued my interest. R: Yeah it’s sort of you know required gay reading anyway. It’s sort of – it’s rather dense but it’s worth tackling. I: I kind of have an odd question and it’s it’s from your experiences being a nurse. Do you – if you were to meet someone or if you could meet someone – go out into the community and find bug chasers, what might you say to them? R: Well assume that they’re willing to sit down and talk about it. I: Right, yeah. Suspend your disbelief for a moment. R: No that’s the first thing – that’s something like you’d be willing to talk about with me? If you allow me to put on my nurse’s cap. Okay so you are? Um, talk to me about what your motivations are. And talk to me about – and I mean that’s going to open up a lot of inquiries and then that might further give me ideas about – that I want to pursue with you. For you—I mean my overall point of view is would be – the thrust of my conversation would be: [pause] I’m going to start from the from the with the assumption that you really haven’t thought this through as carefully as one would hope – anybody would. Um, there are consequences beyond whatever it is you imagine whatever liberation that you would imagine you’re going to experience. Yes you will – if you’ve constructed reality this way then you will experience a kind of liberation. You will know – you will be free of the anxiety of worrying about condoms or not or whether or not you’re going to become HIV positive because you will. And you don’t have to worry about it anymore and you can then –. While there are reasons not to think this way then you can think you know -- as long as you continue to have sex just with people who are HIV positive then that’s a way that you can have a sex life that doesn’t involve condoms anymore which I understand why that’s desirable. So yeah you will be liberated, but then you will also be constrained and have you thought about those constraints? I mean let’s just say – suppose you meet someone who’s negative and you really like them a lot. Have you thought about that? Have you thought about the consequences that will have on the rest of your life for the rest of your life? That you may well face a situation where you have to take a lot of pills for the rest of your life and you might get sick of it. Or that you might wake up one day and you might like regret the decision that you made? Are you willing to even entertain those possibilities that those could be future inevitabilities um

123

and you’re probably not because if you’re if you’re dead set on this if you have any ambivalence let me like blow some oxygen and try to spark that flame if but if you’re just dead set in your way then you’re probably not going to want to have this conversation anyway so like I don’t know – maybe you’ll just be dismissive of me and my concerns. Um I don’t know if you believe me but I actually um have my own version of this from – of being willing to take some risk that um I then can really marvel at and question and be sort of shocked by but um I’m not so judgmental – I’m not particularly judgmental. I’m concerned. I care. Um, uh be careful what you do and just I mean just—I don’t mean just in terms of chasing the bug I mean be careful of—with whom you chase this bug. Be careful of he who is so intentional – intentionally wanting to give the “gift”. It’s a misnomer. It’s a perversion it’s not a gift. It’s a burden and so be – be skeptical of the person who wants to do that to you. Um, they don’t care about you. It’s a very selfish thing. They don’t care about you um this is not a one off conversation. Come back and talk to me again go out and talk to somebody about this. Go talk to somebody you know loves you –about this. Let other information in. You don’t have to do this – like your mother said -- you don’t have to have sex today you can put this off. You know, you don’t have to do this today. Think about it. Think carefully about what you’re going to do. You owe that to yourself. Respect yourself enough to just go – like is – there’s some inherent contradiction between having self respect and being willing to do this to yourself. You’ve romanticized something that is not worthy of being romanticized. Although we can romanticize anything – where you’ve gotten, how you’ve gotten there—it’s your business, but I care about you and I don’t know you. There’s other people who do care about and they do know you and you should just like let them in. I: That’s a lot. What about – I know we had talked earlier and you had said that you feel like that’s something that’s not talked about – do you – do you feel – R: What’s not talked about? I: Chasing and Giving or seeking and giving. R: Did I say that? I: Very early on, before I started recording. You’d you’d said that’s something not – not talked about enough.

124

R: OH! Oh oh oh oh. Okay, what I meant was that it’s not talked about within the gay community within the context of the larger community. It’s talked about –ad infinitium— in these websites that you’ve stumbled on to. It’s talked about, but it’s not talked about in the the the real world and the straight world, it’s not talked about. This is a secret society. So you’re going to be shedding light on something that people don’t even know about. This is going to be shocking to people. I: What kind of role do you think that straight society should play into this? R: None. None. Their role is to learn. Their role is to understand. Their role is to not judge. Their role is to care. Their role is to have compassion. Their role is not to be judgmental. Their role is not to be censorious. None. I: So someone seeing a performance based on this that’s straight that’s no even peripheral awareness what should they take away from from either learning or seeing – R: I’ll be damned! How ‘bout that? What does that tell me about humanity that I didn’t know before How much more um uh varied is the human experience than I’ve even appreciated. Um Don’t pity me because this is my lot. Don’t pity me. Understand me. Care about me Have compassion for me. Don’t gossip about this. Don’t be shocked about this Don’t be disgusted about this That I degrade myself? Don’t be disgusted that I degrade myself. How do you degrade yourself? How do you discount yourself? What version of this exists in your life? I: What about within the gay community? Is there something that should be done? R: No I think the same questions apply. Um Don’t don’t don’t be angry at me that I’m that I’m I’m sharing this with the broader world that I’m telling this straight I’m revealing our dirty little secrets to the straight world. Don’t be angry with me. Trust – worst case they’re not going to care. Worst case they’re going to say they get what they deserve. Um, there’s nobody that’s going to take any actions to stop us. Now, in New York and in some places it’s been criminalized that if I intentionally go out and try to infect somebody I can be found guilty of attempted murder. Probably something else that makes it tempting. Perhaps um. Let’s engage in a con—within the gay community, let’s engage in a conversation about this let’s cast light on this within our own community. Let’s peel back that – the the the lid off of whatever is hidden and and and I mean this is you know this is – there’s some – we had the the uh inauguration [Text omitted to protect

125

interviewee privacy] so I’m thinking in political terms but there’s something about it – freedom of speech – it rarely creates – it casts more light on you know – the more you can talk about anything – the less you restrict speech you know anything objectionable more speech is what what you know um combats that you know defeats. Speech, so um let’s talk about this in the community. Let’s not hide this. Uh you know and that means that we have to we have to not be censorious first we have to we have to accept that this is part of – this is one strain this is off the target but um off the topic but related – in New York City, at one point there was an attempt by the National Association of Man boy Love to march in the gay and lesbian parade. I: Mmhmm R: And it was why is obvious – it was a controversy as to whether or not they should be allowed to march. I don’t remember how it was resolved. I think perhaps they were allowed to march. Um, and I think I mean I can go back and forth on that but I think it was good to allow them to march because then they have to withstand the the the the judgement of people who think that what they’re doing is reprehensible and the the same would be – specially people who would want to intentionally go out and and infect people? That’s really pretty reprehensible. For me to encourage you to romanticize something that if I don’t that if I’m not ambivalent about it in my own life – If I’m not ambivalent about my own status I’m lying to myself I’m fooling myself. Um, for me not to admit that to you? To not admit it to myself means I can’t admit it to you. So, if the larger gay community challenges me on that. Maybe they’ll bring my ambivalence to consciousness and then maybe I would won’t act out my rage. Because really I – maybe – it occurs to me maybe what I’m doing is acting out my rage when I – when I I want to infect everybody. My sorrow and my rage and you as the person who wants to be infected. You’re acting out your fears and everything – your fear of lonliness. I: I think one of the reasons why I’m not interviewing um – R: Givers? I: Givers um – for one it’s – you run into uh potential legal issues. The university wouldn’t sign off on on me doing research where there’s the possibility that someone could say Hey I’m committing a crime I mean I would have to report it um. R: Hmm

126

I: You know as a – I’m seen as an agent of the university so I would have to report it although one of my interviewees is a uh gift giver but his view is that – eh I’m positive if if if you’re negative and and you want to have sex and don’t use a condom, you’ve been warned. R: I’m telling you that I’m HIV positive. I: Yeah R: That’s a different scenario. I: Because he – I’m not going to lie. There’s something remotely attractive about that – I think he can probably see the fantasy, recognizes that he probably has the fantasy of of that but it’s not like – I think. R: It’s not as such where it takes him to the point where he will say I can only have sex without a condom—I don’t want to transmit this virus to you – it’s like whatever it’s your choice. And on some level it’s – it’s your choice. I: He doesn’t – he doesn’t have the same agency as as someone who’s seeking because it’s like I’ll have sex with an HIV positive person I’ll have sex with – R: If I’m a giver who wants to give the gift that means I’m intentionally seeking out those people who want the gift. That’s a little bit different than somebody who’s um – you know I’ve told you that I’m positive if you don’t – if you’re telling me you’re negative and you don’t want to use a condom then – that’s different than you telling me I want the virus and I’m saying I’m looking for just you. That’s—you’re exactly who I’m looking for. I: Yeah I – from kind of looking at what’s going on – at least online. They – at least most people in that group are in that whatever goes category. You know considers themselves gift givers because they’re willing to give it. R: No, that makes sense. I: And the distinction against people that— R: They’re not going to use condoms? I: They’re not going to use condoms either way. And if you come to them you know asking for sex, you know that he’s positive, he’s completely up front and open about it. He considers himself a gift giver because he’s willing to fulfill whatever fantasy the HIV negative person has but he doesn’t have that desire that fantasy to go out – the people that

127

do, from what I’ve seen in the community call themselves – they don’t call themselves gift givers, they call themselves “stealthers” R: Stealthers? I: Because they’ll R: Because they’re stalking I: That that they will give HIV in in stealth. They will they will claim they are HIV negative and they will go out and R: Oh so they’re not seeking seekers. They’re not seeking bug chasers they’re seeking negatives. I: They’re seeking nega—that’s the thing it it’s a it’s a continuum of agency. If you want that same agency. R: How are you going to do a piece – I: That’s why I’m not looking at. R: But how are you going to do a piece about the the chaser and not acknowledge that there’s --- he who wants to be the giver or doesn’t care whether or not he’s a giver. I don’t understand how you can talk about the one and not the other. I: That I mean – I can’t get those those narrative. They are academically beyond my reach. I can’t do it. R: I understand. Can you do them anonymously? Online? I: University would never sign off on it. R: Really? I: Really R: Have you asked? I: The university demanded that I – go into – I started asking these people to talk with me on the phone but first I would go [online] and find these men there and say hey, would you like to be telephone interviewed. Florida State required me to contact [the website’s corporate entity] and originally they wanted the CEO R: Who? Contact whom? I: The company that owns [the website in question] R: Oh okay

128

I: They wanted me to get a letter from the CEO of that company, signed that said that they’re aware that I’m doing research on their website that – you know everything that’s going on. And it really involved nothing on their website. I was saying Hey, -- R: You were meeting people online I: Really what I wanted to do is – Hey let’s take this onto the phone. R: And the CEO signed the paper? I: No, but I got some VP of --- R: So somebody signed the paper that met the crit—University. I: Well I went back and forth with the university and said it’s not a violation of their rules. It’s actually – exactly what R: What they’re set up to do. I: Yeah. It’s to meet and to talk to people. That’s what a chat room does. So I gave them the rules while I still tried to get this letter from the CEO and I eventually got some VP to send me some – an email saying, “yeah it’s fine with us you’re not breaking any rules. If you break a rule we’re going to – you know – block you from our website” R: Very interesting I: So I t—to find someone who stealths. It – it the university would never let me do it because I’m bound to report a criminal act. Unless I were to apply for some something I think through NIH to get um – there’s some there’s some research credential I can get that would make me the same as a doctor or a priest – that everything they would say would be— R: Confidential I: Protected R: In which case you can’t reveal it. I: Which would defeat the purpose of doing it in the first place. R: So so so your profile of the giver is constructed fro- from the imagination of or the experience of the seeker. The the – chaser. I: Yeah, I mean the I I deal with that perspective of the one gift giver – it’s not so much his experience it’s him talking about – his view – how he views HIV why he interacts with with chasers and and him painting that picture of chasers and other chasers that talk about their motive.

129

R: So you have talked to one of them. I: I’ve talked to chasers, yes. I’ven’t talked to any stealth – R: I see so it’s the differentiation that’s made. I: Yeah that’s and then I think that that’s what the secret society. That’s the distinction that they make you know. The gift giver’s any HIV positive person that’s willing to have s— R: Hmmm I don’t think that’s true I: That’s from what I’ve seen because they make the the semantic distinction between someone who is you know – attracted to HIV negative men. Those are people who are seen more as stealth and I’ve not seen I’ve not encounterd anyone that’s any any giver that is attracted to a chaser. I’ve not encountered those R: But but but it’s so you’re—uh the use of the word “gift” as I’ve understood it. Those people who identify themselves as gift givers – who identify that HIV is a gift that I have to give away is categorically different even if it’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness is different than that person who says, yes I’m positive. I’m telling you right up front that I’m positive. It’s your choice as to whether or not to use the condom. Does that person use the word gift? I: He – he says, “I describe myself as a gift giver” that – the man that says, “Yeah I’m HIV positive I’m – I will have sex with someone who’s HIV positive –“ R: But what’s a gift about it—but what’s the gift that he’s giving? I: I think entrance into what he wants – I think he – R: Entrance into that world I: Entrance into that world or I think for that particular guy – person is that that he – he views gift as the fulfillment of the other person’s desire not HIV being the gift. R: Oh. That’s not – I: That’s that’s why I don’t want to even get into the the gift giving. It’s – just as much as there’s the continuum of chasing, seeking – there’s a continuum on the other side too. And I can only do so much. R: No of course. I was just questioning the actual word gift. The only the only context that I’ve heard of that – the only meaning that I’ve heard for that is someone who perceives HIV as the gift that I am giving.

130

I: And that – I’m sure there are people – I have not encountered them. I’m certain they’re out there – there’s R: Now to tell you the truth – this is an old conversation – in my experience. When you research Michelangelo and Stephen and Michelangelo you’re going to get a date for when these words were first coined and I believe that it’s at least 10 years ago if not 15 years ago. So, I heard this nomenclature of the gift giver and it was presented to me in thumbnail sketch as that person who perceives his --- he perceives HIV – the virus specifically as the gift and – a—to open that up a bit. The entrée into this world it was not nearly just as casual as yeah I’m negative, yeah I’m positive take it or leave it. I’m not going to use condoms so if you don’t want to get fucked by – if you don’t want to get fucked with – if you need to use a condom to get fucked then I’m not your guy. That was a – is a – in my mind a clear cut differentiation between someone who’s giving the gift. I: I mean—my speculation is that there’s been a change in the perception – R: Perhaps so I: Of—within the chasing-seeking-giving-gift community because HIV – I mean, major culture is not – it isn’t fatal anymore. It’s perceived that way. R: It’s perceived as a – chronic manageable disease. Wasn’t it reclassified? Wasn’t it recently reclassified as chronic, manageable disease? R: I don’t know if it’s officially classified as that. I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know I: I thought it was but – R: I don’t know HIV is a chronic manageable disease – I don’t know. You might be right. I don’t know where that differentiation would be made. I don’t know um. But okay so but I mean I do understand why it is that you don’t want to uh uh actually engage in interviewing the the gift gi-giver or the stealth candidate or wha—the stealther – um I mean that really sounds like it’s from Harry Potter [laughter] um but uh I but there’s got to be some – it would seem to me I can’t imagine how you would present the phenomenon of the gift seeker without acknowledging there is – there’s a recipient so there’s got to be a giver and let’s I mean – it sounds like to me – what you said is the way that you’re going to present that is through the perspective of how the seeker describes that person.

131

I: Mmhmm yeah. [Text Omitted – Conversation Not Relevant/Conversation of a Personal Nature] I: I think the academic hat I’m putting on here – that I have to see it. To for it to make sense to me is that from my understanding is that – this is such a secret society that none of them want to talk about um chasing, giving, whatever. R: None of whom? I: None of these men that I’ve interviewed or even online. R: Really. I: That they don’t want to talk about what they do in larger society and— R: In public. They don’t want it to be public. I: It’s for—for all of them it was extraordinarily difficult for them to agree to have a telephone interview. With me saying— R: And how easy was it for them to talk about – I: It was—it was easy once I assured them that—look everything – I’m going to omit everything that’s got your name on it— R: Then they actually had a lot to say I: Yeah then they were actually like— R: Do they talk to each other? I: Online. I think that there’s this kind of – shadow of anonymity of being online. R: Yeah, inside, outside. [Text Omitted – Conversation Not Relevant/Personal Nature] R: I can picture the performance already – myself. What I’d rather see is like if you’re going to have like – say like there’s like a talking head. Okay here like just – you know. Some very talented talking who actually inhabit these people and have – like really as Anna Deavere Smith – really become these people. Let’s just say that’s going on and if in the back ground the entire time there’s a silhouette of people coupling on – the entire time. Then it becomes so many things I can read into that over that period of time. Like what they’re doing like you know is um hideous. What they’re doing is beautiful. What they’re doing is ridiculous, but I have to watch it over time. It’s I mean some people do fuck like jack rabbits but but see one of the things this guy says – people who are HIV positive are better lovers, what he’s talking about is that they take their time.

132

I: Mmhmm R: They’re not inhibited. So don’t show me something – like what – is so. I: So I’m just wondering if it’s distracting if they’re if there’s simulated sex going on R: I can look at 2 things at the same time. I can listen and look and go back and forth and not lose the train. The two things are reinforcing each other, ideally otherwise I don’t need to see it. [Text Omitted Conversation Not Relevant]

133

APPENDIX G Little Death SCRIPT

134

Little Death by Joshua Potter

17 April 2009

135

SETTING: The audience has voyeuristically entered an interview already in progress. The stage should represent the division between desire/imagination (behind scrim) and an interview.

CHARACTERS:

Lucky. Man who pantomimes sex sequences behind scrim. He is the “bottom” in the relationship. The character may be played by a convincing woman in drag. Pozzo. Man who pantomimes sex sequence behind scrim. He is the “top” in the relationship. The character may be played by a convincing woman in drag. Flotsam. A disaffected gay man. May be middle aged, his looks are irrelevant. He is judgmental because he’s seen it all before and is quick to give his opinion He will sit on the wing of the stage perhaps smoking the entire time in a chair with his back to the audience. Jetsam. The academic. The antithesis of Flotsam. He has a serious desire to understand and really reserves any judgment, if he has any at all. Like Flotsam though, this character will blurt out questions to probe characters for more information. Adam. 55, single. He lives in a rural area of the “Deep South” and struggles with being both a “good ol’ boy” and gay. He considers himself a gift giver, but seems more preoccupied with his own sexuality. He thinks he’s worldly and sophisticated despite getting some facts wrong. He speaks slowly and with a drawl which also roughens up his sense of sophistication. He’s dressed in denim overalls and a stained wifebeater wearing either a trucker hat or a cowboy hat and wearing dirty boots (either construction or cowboy). Brian. 23, single. He lives in Montreal where it’s not clear if he’s a prostitute or if he just lives off his parent’s money. Either way he is very sexually experienced and is quite confident in his skill. He finds most people to be boring in the bedroom. He’s not really part of the “party scene” because it’s beneath him, but he knows where to find it. He just has a hint of a Canadian accent, not really book smart, but certainly street-smart. Not only is he self-confident, but he’s almost cocky. He is dressed as a ballet dancer is after a class, wearing either a leotard or a tight fitting T-shirt, cut-off sweat pants about 5 inches below the knee. He may be wearing either character shoes or practice shoes. Christopher. 45, single. He lives in the Upper East Side or the West Village of New York City. He’s the epitome of a yuppie, if it were 15 years ago. He’s the kind of person who would use a dating service if there were one for bug chasers. He’s a successful and smart businessman that is looking for the perfect guy to grow old with. He tends to over plan and overanalyze everything. He’s a serial monogamist, and is conflicted about having one night stands because it goes against the picture he painted in his mind about romance. He buys into a very stereotypical idea of what a relationship looks like and has more traditional values.

Note: Throughout the piece LUCKY and POZZO enact sexual encounters behind the scrim. In the script this is marked in stage directions. Unless noted otherwise, all scrim action occurs simultaneously with the dialogue in that scene.

136

[The stage is set with a folding chair on one side where ADAM is sitting, relaxed and perhaps holding a beer. Two Chairs, Table set off to STAGE RIGHT, perhaps in front of a wing or proscenium wall. A large tape recorder or reel-to-reel is sitting prominently in the middle. FLOTSAM sits with his back to the stage. There is an ashtray to the side perhaps a bottle of alcohol is next to the ashtray.]

[There is a scrim behind the main action where Lucky and Pozzo simulate sex.]

[As the audience enters, Jetsam is asking questions from a binder or clip board which he holds throughout the performance. JETSAM is sitting atop a chair in the first row of the house or walking around the house.]

[Scene One: Adam]

[Scrim action: As the audience enters, Lucky and Pozzo are silently setting props and furniture for the start of the show Everything behind scrim for this first scene should be meant to look as identical to what is in front of the scrim as possible.] JETSAM:

(reading from the binder, almost monotone. May walk through the house,

but is unaware of anyone around him)

I will ensure confidentiality and your privacy by omitting your name or anything that may identify you from my research. If your narrative is chosen, I will make sure that a fake name is used. Your narrative may be slightly changed and a final performance may be based on what you say to me. The only persons who have access to the audio recording of your interview will be myself and one consulting medical professional.

[holds up a tape recorder] This consent form, give consent form to subject – OH! [gives consent form to Adam] THAT consent form goes over everything I’ve just said. Do you have any questions?

ADAM:

Nope

JETSAM:

(still reading, questions are read faster and faster, almost

absurdly/comical)

What questions or concerns do you have about the interview?

137

ADAM: (puzzled) I, uh … Don’t have-- JETSAM:

What questions or concerns do you have about this research study? ADAM:

(really confused)

Didn’t you just --

JETSAM:

(now bored from the questions)

Is there anything that you think might jeopardize your privacy?

ADAM:(shakes his head)

If you’re going to change my name then I don’t think there’s anything that—

FLOTSAM: (perturbed)

I can’t believe they make you ask that shit. That’s more complicated than a health insurance form. Just sign the stupid thing and let’s get on with it.

[Adam signs the paper and gives it back to Jetsam.]

JETSAM: (happy the questions are over)

Fantastic! Let’s start with the questions.

[By this point the audience must be seated and all props should be set behind the scrim. Lucky and Pozzo are out of the sight line until Adam starts]

[Scrim action, as ADAM speaks, until lights out: Pozzo lays on a chaise lounge. There’s a side table with a glass of wine and a laptop next to him, he occasionally takes a sip and alternates between that and surfing the internet on a laptop. Eventually the man relaxes on the chaise lounge and places the laptop on his chest and begins to pleasure himself. The action gets more and more intense, towards the end of the monologue being said the man nearly reaches climax, however just before that moment a telephone rings and the man sits up quickly and gets the phone, which is affixed to the wall nearby]

138

JETSAM:

Do you think it is easy live a “normal life” being both gay and HIV positive?

ADAM: (slightly defensive) They don’t know that I -- have it or anything like that. There’s a few

I have told, there’re a few I haven’t told just for the simple reason that they are so biggerted. Such a negative attitude about everything,

That’s why I don’t want ‘em to know. [Pause] There’re prob’ly a couple

‘round here where I live, if they knew I had HIV they would cut the tires on my car -- they’d knock the windshield in, the windows, maybe even try to set my house on fire. That’s how negative they are, if somebody is different than they are.

FLOTSAM:

(turns around in his chair, looks at someone in the audience)

Wait, wait -- Did he seriously just say “biggerted”? [chortle] Oh he sounds like a real winner.

[Flotsam shakes his head and turns back around to look at Adam]

ADAM: (hesitant at first) If you take care yourself, like you should. Like a normal person would ordinarily do. Now, when I say “normal person” I’m talkin’ ‘bout the av’rage people I’m not somebody that goes and works uh all day and then goes out to party 5 nights a week. Those people are kinda off to the side or something ‘nother. The average person: works a normal ordinary

8 hour day job maybe goes to the bar once or twice a month or something. If you’re like that, then I don’t think that it’s a too awful hard to live a good normal life once they have become infected with HIV.

FLOTSAM: (starts laughing as ADAM finishes)

There’s nothing about this guy that’s “normal”!

139

JETSAM:

Have you ever talked to anyone about gift giving, or about liking chasers?

ADAM:

I’ve never tried to go out and find anybody to give it to -- the HIV.

FLOTSAM: (giggling)

The hiv? [said as if it were a word and not an acronym]

ADAM:

Before I found out about being positive or poz, I never tried to

[pause] I never went after guys that had the virus. I never was a bug chaser. But I uh had sex with a couple guys that were poz before I found out I had it. I’m – I was mostly a top guy so I wasn’t too worried about getting infected. But, I thought well if I get it – I get it. If I don’t, I don’t.

FLOTSAM:

So you just liked to have bareback sex, unprotected sex. Big deal!

ADAM:

So, I think that if a negative guy wants to uh have sex with somebody, like me, and not use uh a condom, you know, a chaser – then why not.

But if he’s got some -- apprehension about catching HIV, well –

FLOTSAM:

So, this guy’s an ethical gift giver. I wasn’t aware there were any out there. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s lying.

JETSAM:

Ok. So, how frequently are you approached by bug chasers to have sex?

ADAM:

Oh, Probably maybe once a month. I’m kinda in an isolated area. So I don’t see a lot of people. But, most of the time they just say they

140

want me to uh have sex with them. You know, they want to get my poz cum so they can get or try to get infected.

FLOTSAM:

Well of course, those guys who just talk a good talk, it just means they have a good fantasy life – a good imagination.

JETSAM:

And what’s your feeling on that. I mean how does, how does this [pause, collects thoughts] if a bug chaser comes to you. How does that make you feel?

ADAM:

I figure if that’s what they want to do it’s their business. Other people shouldn’t try to influence them one way or another, you know?

That’s why I guess I’m a “gift giver” Uh, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t tell them disadvantages of being infected and anything like that. But I’m not gonna go tryin to persuade them not to uh get with somebody who has you know.

FLOTSAM: (angry)

Oh of course not! Why would you do that!?

JETSAM:

Is there anything else that---

ADAM: (with some certainty) There is one thing [pause] Do you know anything about uh disease they call leukemia?

FLOTSAM: (still angry)

Yeah, I do. I’m a nurse.

141

ADAM:

[ADAM is very sincere. FLOTSAM will giggle, laugh or outburst throughout monologue]

Okay, uh it affects your immune system very similar to the way the HIV virus does. I mean not exactly, but it’s very similar. [pause] Well I think knowin’ about leukemia has made me more uh [pause] acceptable

[pause] of what the HIV virus can do. Knowin’ what leukemia can do, I think it’s made me more, more liberal to it I guess you’d say. I don’t know if liberal’s the right word to use or not. [pause] Maybe comfortable?

FLOTSAM:

I wonder what it would be like to play scrabble with this guy.

ADAM:

That would be the word to use, I’m more comfortable with it. I know that uh with me havin’ the HIV, I’m gonna meet up with people that would be very very uncomfortable bein around me. There’s other people, that uh -- it wouldn’t affect them at all.

FLOTSAM: (condescendingly)

Yes, people are like that. They have different opinions on things.

ADAM:

I guess another thing too, bein’ in the army bein’ in Germany, in Saudi

Arabia, and places like that too. I’m a little bit more open minded to the different things that goes on in the world so maybe that’s another reason I’m more accepting of bein’ HIV positive and everything. I just take I my medicine.

[Phone Rings]

Excuse me.

[JETSAM should be walking towards FLOTSAM as ADAM Exits on the same side as the phone is on behind the scrim, Pozzo gets up to answer the phone as Adam is exiting stage.]

142

[Lights out. Lights up as Jetsam is in front of Flotsam, arguing. As this is occurring, Lucky and Pozzo are setting props and chains behind the scrim]

[Lights are focused only on the table and chairs, scrim light should be dim. JETSAM walks in and takes a seat at the table. JETSAM is across from FLOTSAM.]

[SCENE TWO: After Adam] JETSAM: I really appreciate you doing this. FLOTSAM: Sure. JETSAM: I mean, I know that you don’t hear about this stuff everyday. FLOTSAM: Well I am a nurse at an AIDS clinic. [almost jokingly, but not quite]

Besides everything I say is brilliant.

JETSAM: Right, but they’re not the kind of people – Well, they wouldn’t be your clients. I’m just curious what you think of all of this.

FLOTSAM: You have to realize this isn’t something people encounter every day.

This is something that seems so unfathomable to most people.

JETSAM: If one-in-ten people are gay [rolls eyes] and chasers and givers are like one percent of that – you’re not going to encounter one really often, but I’m curious, as a health professional – what’s your perspective on all of this?

FLOTSAM: This is all an old conversation. These words, “bug chaser”, “gift giver” they were coined 10, 15 years ago. So I’m not shocked, I’m not horrified. I certainly care—[pause] I abhor the phrase bug chasers. I’m going to use seeker. Those who are seeking, intentionally. Act, want, are seeking [with air quotes] “the bug”. [Disgusted and dismisses the euphemism] These men, they just want to become HIV positive. [pause]

No, I’m not going to judge them.

143

JETSAM: Good. If I wanted someone’s judgment, I wouldn’t have needed your opinion. The whole point of this project is to understand, you know?

FLOTSAM: [pause] Hm. Well, how sexually experienced are these people? JETSAM: From what they’ve said, they’ve been barebacking for awhile and-

FLOTSAM: Well but barebacking and wanting to be HIV positive aren’t necessarily the same thing.

JETSAM: Right, but you have to have unprotected sex to be a successful bug chaser.

FLOTSAM: Okay, but how do you move from having unprotected sex, to seeking infection?

[Lights out on STAGE RIGHT and up on STAGE LEFT. JETSAM’s next line may be delivered as a walking line to get near BRIAN]

[Scene Three: Brian] [Scrim action: Chains or a sex swing adorn the stage behind scrim. There’s a side table with sex toys and a large bottle of lotion. Two men enter from the side, they appear to reenact the characters Lucky and Pozzo in a pornographic version of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot:

“Enter Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo drives Lucky by means of a rope passed round his neck, so that Lucky is the first to enter, followed by the rope which is long enough to let him reach the middle of the stage before Pozzo appears. Lucky carries a heavy bag, a folding stool, a picnic basket and a greatcoat, Pozzo a whip.”

The “Pozzo” character pulls “Lucky” onstage. Once “Lucky” is seen through the scrim, he begins to pull away a bit. “Pozzo” grabs “Lucky” and cops a feel of his package before throwing him against the wall with Lucky facing the audience. “Pozzo” begins to whip “Lucky’s” chest lightly, occasionally returning to the table for nipple clamps, dildos, etc. About midway through, “Pozzo” flips “Lucky” around and begins to have anal sex with him, hard.”Lucky’s” head and other body parts hit the wall as both moan and make various other noises made during sex. These sounds may be prerecorded or come from a pornographic film. It must be clear that, despite the treatment from “Pozzo”, “Lucky” is enjoying this intensely. Toward the end of the monologue on the other side of the scrim, “Pozzo” is nearing climax. At the end of the monologue, “Pozzo” reaches climax and says: Pozzo: PPPOZZZO!! (pronounced: potttzzzzo said as if at the moment of climax)

144

Lucky (with a satisfied sigh): Poz? Oh. [Pozzo smacks Lucky] Pozzo (angrily): That’s sir to you!

Lights Out]

JETSAM: (Walks towards Brian)

Okay, ready to start?

BRIAN:

Yeah

JETSAM:

How frequently are you approached by bug chasers who want to have sex with you?

BRIAN:

Uh not that often because I’m mostly a bottom

JETSAM:

Okay and weren’t you a “bug chaser” at one point?

BRIAN:

(says nonchalantly as he puts water bottle and other props in his bag)

I never wanted to describe myself as a bug chaser but I chose to go with poz tops cause, from my experience, they fuck harder. um the most— a lot--I don’t know. Most of the guys who I met who were poz were very happy to fuck me uh knowing that I was neg at that time. [smiles] They did fuck harder. It was obvious that they were fucking harder and that gave me a lot more [says quasi-erotically] pleasure and a lot of the tops they like to fuck hard.

JETSAM:

So I guess it’s pretty easy to find people with HIV to have sex with?

BRIAN:(with a smirk)

It’s very easy – very easy.

145

FLOTSAM: (with a sigh)

If you’ve constructed reality this way then you will experience a kind of [pause] liberation. You will be free of the anxiety of worrying about condoms or not or whether or not you’re going to become HIV positive because you will.

BRIAN:

Very easy. It’s become – I mean I’m into SM and stuff like that. So, because I like pain and being hurt, it’s quite easy to find guys who want to do stuff like that to me. I mean I have to say that not all the

SM scenes and stuff I participate in involve sex. A lot of it is just

SM and torture and I don’t cum and the guy who’s working on me doesn’t cum but also a lot of it is just getting put into the position where

I’m fucked and that’s always bare.

JETSAM:

So in terms of S and M is there something particularly appealing about that – about the pain?

BRIAN:

Um, I like giving up control. I mean even when I’m receiving cum, I’m giving up my body to what the cum can do to me and being used in an SM scene is pretty similar. Giving up control of my body I let the guy do stuff that he enjoys doing and he can do it to my body. I like pain – I like being in pain and I like seeing a guy get off on seeing me in pain.

JETSAM:

Is there something about HIV that’s part of that control?

BRIAN:

Not really in SM no, but being – I mean I like to get fucked and I like cum in me and because that’s risky. I like the risk. But would I do it if there’s no risk? I can’t answer that.

146

JETSAM:

So even though you’re poz now is it – is it still appealing? I mean the risk isn’t there anymore, is it?

BRIAN:

The risk is different now – it’s a different sort of risk um it’s a difference. I mean I still go with poz guys but I also go with neg guys and they fuck me and they know that I’m poz. And if it’s in a group um then uh poz guys will have fucked me hard before and they may fuck me hard again.

JETSAM:

And – and what do you think about um men who – who just pretend online

– really aren’t interested in getting infected, just fantasize online?

BRIAN:

Well I chat with a lot of guys who are – who I encourage um to believe in themselves and have the confidence to do what they want to do.

[FLOTSAM presses button on tape recorder]

FLOTSAM:

Okay, I need to stop for a second.

[Lights off on scrim and bright on Table and Chairs.]

JETSAM:

Is everything alright?

[FLOTSAM walks towards JETSAM. Lights off where FLOTSAM was sitting.]

FLOTSAM:

Of course not. These people, they’ve just – they just don’t understand.

I wish I could just talk to them, make them realize—

JETSAM:

So what, you’d go out and try to convince them not to expose themselves to HIV?

147

FLOTSAM:

If they’d actually sit down with me

JETSAM:

And if they were?

[JETSAM offers Flotsam the inteviewer’s chair in the house]

FLOTSAM:

I’d say something like,

[FLOTSAM walks back stage and ushers ADAM on as if it were a psychologist inviting a patient in his office]

[BRIAN is aware of his presence, but does not react to FLOTSAM]

Is this something you’d be willing to talk about with me? If you allow me to put on my nurse’s cap.

[BRIAN still frozen, no reaction]

Okay so you would be? Um, talk to me about what your motivations are.

Talk to me! [pause]

I’m going to start from the from the with the assumption that you

[Glares at ADAM] really haven’t thought this through as carefully as one would hope – anybody would.

[Looks at BRIAN and ADAM goes off stage]

As long as you continue to have sex with just people who are HIV positive then that’s a way that you can have a sex life that doesn’t involve condoms anymore. I can understand why that’s desirable.

JETSAM:

Calm down, they’re just interviews. [JETSAM presses play, FLOTSAM continues to yell at BRIAN while JETSAM still sits at the table.]

148

BRIAN:

To me getting pozzed was a good thing to me. I like it. Um because it means that I have – I don’t even know who the guy was who converted me

– took me a long time to convert um but I’m just happy.

FLOTSAM:

There are consequences beyond whatever liberation you imagine you’re going to experience.

BRIAN:

Um I’m happy knowing that I have it in me. And a lot of guys want that

-- Want what I have and I support that. I know it’s given people pleasure and that what I enjoy most in sex. Giving other people pleasure. Um and [sigh] they know that I gift – I – I take any cum and that gives pleasure and I get my pleasure when other people are happy when they use me. When they fuck me, when they tie me up or when they hurt me or whatever.

FLOTSAM:

So yeah you will be liberated, but then you will also be constrained and have you thought about those constraints?

BRIAN:

I mean I like being poz it’s to me it’s just it – there’s been no negatives I didn’t get ill, I haven’t been ill. I’m still nice and healthy I don’t have to take meds. If I have to take meds then maybe my view will change but I don’t really want to take meds um I’m really happy being pozzed um it means I can go out and get fucked by anybody and if I want to fuck somebody I can do that um and I can give them what I have in my body.

FLOTSAM:

I mean let’s just say – suppose you meet someone who’s negative and you really like them a lot. Have you thought about that? Have you thought

149

about the consequences that will have on the rest of your life, for the rest of your life? That you may well face a situation where you have to take a lot of pills for the rest of your life, and you might get sick of it? Or that you might wake up one day and you might like regret the decision that you made? Are you willing to even entertain those possibilities that those could be future inevitabilities?

BRIAN:

[JETSAM walks over to STAGE LEFT to address BRIAN]

I mean whenever you fuck somebody that’s bare doesn’t mean you’re gonna make them poz it doesn’t work like that. But uh I know guys who – who specifically set out to gift people and they and they meet people who want to be made poz and the guys go for sessions and they leave pozzed because it CAN be done in one go. It can be done so that it works.

JETSAM:

Have you ever seen that happen? Or been around anything like that?

BRIAN:

I know guys who do that. They [grabs toothbrush from his bag] use toothbrushes um they “prepare” the hole um so there’s a little bit of blood and then they fuck hard. Um and these guys are not on meds so they’ve got a lot of virus. And the guy leaves the session pozzed and I think that ritual is quite fun – you give your body completely and whatever happens, happens.

[LIGHTS OFF BRIAN and he exits as LUCKY and POZZO finish their action FLOTSAM stands towards center, visibly angry and pauses]

[FLOTSAM shouts out of frustration as Pozzo climaxes. JETSAM is still sitting at the table. Flotsam is still at center stage.

LIGHTS OUT. END SCENE. Lucky and Pozzo remove the chains rather loudly in the black. ADAM returns to Upstage, Brian changes position in the chair. Both do not react to FLOTSAM in Scene Four, but as FLOTSAM talks, each will make eye contact.

LUCKY and POZZO bring on a couch in the back. LIGHTS UP]

150

[Scene Four: Persuasion]

JETSAM:

I thought you said you were going to try to be less judgmental. To try to understand – have compassion?

FLOTSAM:

I don’t know if you believe me but I actually um have my own version of this from –of being willing to take some risk that um I can really marvel at and question and be sort of shocked by but um I’m not so judgmental – I’m not particularly judgmental. I’m concerned. I care.

[FLOTSAM alternates pleading with Adam and Brian. A spot light should come on and go off when he addresses each interviewee] Just be careful what you do and just, I don’t mean just in terms of chasing the bug. I mean be careful of—with whom you chase this bug. Be careful of “he who is so intentional” – intentionally wanting to give the “gift”. It’s a misnomer. It’s a perversion, it’s not a gift. It’s a burden and so be – be skeptical of the person who wants to do that to you. They don’t care about you. It’s a very selfish thing. They don’t care about you.

JETSAM:

I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I think it’s clear they know it’s not the be all and end all of their existence – besides what’s this going to accomplish?

FLOTSAM: (To BRIAN and ADAM, ignores JETSAM)

Come back and talk to me. Go out and talk to somebody about this. Go talk to somebody you know loves you –about this.

Let other information in. You don’t have to do this

[ADAM Exeunt]

– like your mother said -- you don’t have to have sex today. You can put this off. You know, you don’t have to do this today. Think about

151

it. Think carefully about what you’re going to do. You owe that to yourself. Respect yourself

[BRIAN Exeunt. FLOTSAM sits in a chair in the audience and addresses the empty chair where BRIAN was sitting]

There’s some inherent contradiction between having self respect and being willing to do this to yourself. You’ve romanticized something that is not worthy of being romanticized. Although we can romanticize anything – where you’ve gotten, how you’ve gotten there—it’s your business, but I care about you and I don’t even know you. There are other people who do care about and they do know you and you should just like let them in.

[FLOTSAM nervously lights a cigarette]

JETSAM:

It’s not a matter of them not caring for themselves or being irrational. I think there are other forces involved. Think about it.

Why do you smoke? Is it because you want to kill yourself? Do you like being addicted or is it to remind yourself you’re still alive? What irrationalities do you have in your own life? How are you similar? The same as them? – ‘cause you are. [pause] Seriously, where is all of this coming from?

FLOTSAM:

If you have enough imagination then you don’t actually have to act this stuff out! You can fantasize about it and get whatever masturbatory satisfaction you need from it. It’s a romanticization!

JETSAM: (Very Angry)

No, no! Look, I asked you here for your opinion as a medical professional, not your judgment as a gay man. Your role is to understand. You’re not here to judge. When anyonereads these interviews, your role is to care, to have compassion.

152

FLOTSAM:

He’s romanticized HIV.

[JETSAM sits next to FLOTSAM]

They’ve all romanticized that what they fear is just the inevitability.

They’re convinced they’re going to become HIV positive anyway! They think they may as well just get it over with on their own terms.

JETSAM: (Still Angry)

Is it really so simple, so easy? Think of it this way: Life is hard when you’re gay. It’s a lonely life. You think that once you come out it’ll be so easy to find other gay men – because it’s the only thing we have in common so we must love each other. But that doesn’t work, so you look for something else that binds you to another person.

Inevitably you turn to whatever help you can find – Look, I’m not saying I agree or condone, but at least I understand.

FLOTSAM:

I remember being at some um forum or other uh where one of the speakers

I don’t remember what the topic was, but one of the speakers was a young man from somewhere in the Midwest who had just come to New York.

[FLOTSAM and JETSAM freeze, LUCKY and POZZO dance behind the scrim dressed in sailor outfits as the chorus of Berstein’s “New York, New York” begins to play. LUCKY and POZZO mimic the choreography from On The Town as they lipsync. When the chorus ends, the two freeze]

FLOTSAM:

He couldn’t have been more than 23 and he had sex for the first time in

New York City with someone else who came from some small town and it never occurred to him that this person could possibly could be HIV positive and the next thing this new guy,

[FLOTSAM and JETSAM freeze, LUCKY and POZZO unfreeze, about 6 bars of Bernstein’s “Come Up To My Place” Begins to play. POZZO seductively grabs LUCKY, kisses him before pulling him off stage. FLOTSAM and JETSAM unfreeze]

153

FLOTSAM: this kid, knew was that he sero-converted, he was positive and he wasn’t out looking for it. Now that he had it, he was having to deal with those, those consequences. The failure of imagination. In some ways it’s the failure to -- to imagine the consequences of this. Could

I imagine the entire realm of consequences? If I’m so fixated on sex,

If I’ve put all my eggs in that basket then what’s most important to me is my sexuality. What’s most important to me is the sexual interaction with some guy. That’s going to become – that is the central piece of my life. Chasers, they don’t think about anything beyond that -- like what about the times when I’m just eating breakfast and I have to put something in my stomach before I take pills. I know I don’t think about that. Now, you know, this is within some larger context in society.

None of these things just spring forth unrelated to anything else.

There’s a huge strain in our culture that puts sex at the middle of the culture.

JETSAM:

I’m certain there’s got to be some that do.

[LIGHTS OUT. FLOTSAM returns to the table and chairs. JETSAM returns to his seat in the audience]

[CHRISTOPHER holds a cordless phone while sitting on the interviewee chair]

[SCENE FIVE: Christopher]

[Scrim action: a bed or couch is present. Two men enter holding hands. One man sits and gestures to the other to join him. The scene plays out like it’s a high schooler’s first real date. The two play footsie before one eventually places his hand on the knee cap. The other guy slyly moves his arm around the other and the two embrace. The hand on the knee begins to stroke the thigh. Everything moves rather slowly. The two begin to kiss, first quickly on the cheek, then once on the lip. As the monologue begins to end the two are making out rather passionately. At the last line, the two fall back on the bed or couch and continue as the lights go out]

154

[LIGHTS UP] CHRISTOPHER:

Yeah, I faxed that consent form to you this morning.

JETSAM:

Great!

JETSAM:

When, when was the first time that you know you made that decision to start chasing?

CHRISTOPHER:

Um I guess about six or nine months ago. Part of it was because I don’t really – for all the things that poz – I think that um people living with AIDS shouldn’t just be consigned to only having sex with themselves um I’ve gone out with poz guys before and you know um I’m comfortable with that, you know? I’m not sure there was actually a moment of sitting just there and going “well oh today is the day I’m going to do it” – you can’t. You sort of slide into it.

JETSAM:

Well could you describe that encounter?

CHRISTOPHER:

Um well it’s it was a friend I’d gone hiking with and I knew he was positive. We had gone out for drinks and we ended up going back to his place and um [pause]. Well one thing sort of led to another and we ended up in bed but um he wasn’t particularly interested in giving.

FLOTSAM:

Well at least the tables weren’t turned and he was trying to infect someone who’s negative.

155

CHRISTOPHER:

So um I didn’t push the point – I didn’t go into very much detail about me and at—at the time I really wasn’t [pause] I just didn’t tell him I was negative.

JETSAM:

What did you do after that encounter?

CHRISTOPHER:

Do? well I woke up the next morning, we had breakfast. Um I still run into him every now and then so yeah um more or overall very very, forgive the pun, but a very positive experience. [Pause] See, saying you’re uninhibited means you’re open to all things and everything or it could. You know using the term bug chaser — comes with the understanding that it is something very high up on the list of things you’re looking for.

JETSAM: (puzzled)

What is the highest thing on your list of things to look for?

CHRISTOPHER:

Um well I think first and foremost a guy that barebacks um and it would also well for me uh a guy who’s I wouldn’t say moderately aggressive but I would say some and then his status would be like third or fourth on the list. I mean I don’t necessarily think they’re more attractive because they’re positive.

JETSAM:

But I mean if you are HIV positive and you end up taking better care of yourself that might make you more physically attractive.

CHRISTOPHER:

True enough

JETSAM:

Might it also make you more self aware or

156

CHRISTOPHER:

Well certainly more self-aware

JETSAM:

And in a certain respect wouldn’t that make you more confident or might lend itself to being an aggressive or assertive person?

CHRISTOPHER:

Yeah I see your point um yeah it could be – certainly a factor um but it wouldn’t um it wouldn’t necessarily be a manifested characteristic of – that you could actually point to and say, well that’s because of that – A leads to B.

JETSAM:

So are there other appealing things about having sex with guys who are positive?

CHRISTOPHER:

Well like I said, I find they like to take better care of themselves um they also seem to be a bit more compromising – able to compromise um then say the usual people I meet online um I’m not sayin it makes them a better person but it certainly changes their attitude.

JETSAM:

Why do you consider yourself a bug chaser as opposed to –

CHRISTOPHER:

Part of it is the shock value in the name. It also implies a more active role in in researching -- it’s not something uh like you know um oh if it happens it happens. It’s something, you know it’s not the first thing, but it’s certainly on the list – of things to look for and certainly anyone who says they were into it would certainly get my interest. But yeah uninhibited just it’s a bit um I wouldn’t say it implies a lack of control it um it implies a lack of purpose.

157

FLOTSAM:

Either way they’re both failures of imagination

CHRISTOPHER:

Well it’s not like I’m exactly out about it. There’s still a bit of a stigma attached to it. Being positive will make me more aware of the fragility of life, certainly [pause]. Any serious medical issue will make you more appreciative of you know what’s happening around you and how you handle it. The reason why I’m talking to you is to get people

[Gestures to FLOTSAM] to pay attention. Well not necessarily paying attention to me. Just, you know, paying attention to what’s going on around them um it’s I don’t know I think every now and then I think people need a bit of a jolt to wake them up every now and then. Anyway, you know, something like well, ‘hey not everybody likes just that’.

It’s much the same reason that that the gay community has decided to take back the word “queer” it’s just you know to wake people up a bit.

[LIGHTS OUT, CHRISTOPHER EXITS. END SCENE.] [LIGHTS AT 3/4 LIGHTS BEHIND SCRIM HAVE DIMMED]

[SCENE SIX: Secret Societies]

[JETSAM grabs chair behind the desk and sits next to FLOTSAM]

FLOTSAM: It’s so forbidden and it becomes desirable. That’s what sex without a condom is. It’s so forbidden that it becomes the object of desire. Plus you feel left out. I came of age in that period of time that’s known as the sexual revolution. No one thought about HIV. It didn’t exist! You barely thought about sexually transmitted disease. AIDS already existed before you even had sex. I guess it’s perfectly reasonable that people would be jealous that they’ve never had the opportunity to experience sex without this veneer of latex between themselves and another and that’s what’s antithetical about sex.

158

JETSAM: Yeah, the point of sex is to have nothing yourself and your partner

FLOTSAM: If the price of that is the virus then bring it on. Some just want control of how that happens.

JETSAM: Well that last guy, Christopher, he doesn't want to control when that happens, he's honestly attracted to it.

FLOTSAM: Gay life when I grew up was a secret society. I came of age before gay liberation. When I was a teenager, you'd be walking down the street and you lock eyes with somebody for a second and something passes between you and you would know that you two are members of this secret society and it was thrilling that in the midst of like we know something that nobody else knows.

JETSAM: You don't think that's still true today?

FLOTSAM: I still draw the conclusion that it’s a failure of imagination from the from what I recognize as being this need to be so literal – literally transmit and receive the virus. The need to transmit, the need to receive, It’s metaphorical for what I hunger for. I hunger for companionship. I hunger not to be alone. To have to concretize that, to my mind, must be a failure of imagination. ‘Cause otherwise, I wouldn’t have to do it so literally.

JETSAM: I get what you're saying, but don't you think it's a function of being in a secret society? I grew up in Colorado. Being gay, even 10 years ago, was still a “secret society” It was secret ‘til you went to the one gay bar in town. 80 percent of your life is secret and it feels that way too now living in the South -- it is a little awkward being out in the same way. I’d describe myself as out, but

159

FLOTSAM: When it feels necessary

JETSAM: When you feel guarded

FLOTSAM: To call somebody a faggot on the street is the one acceptable slur. You can still call somebody a faggot and there’s no social opprobrium. So being gay is not for sissies. It’s a tough life, it can be a lonely life it can be a hard life. So, different people deal with that differently. Okay, I can see what you mean. These men focus so exclusively on HIV. They make that the locus of their attention and then [pause] what is secret is within something that is not so secret anymore.

160

APPENDIX H Little Death PROGRAM

161

162

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aston, E. (1997). Caryl Churchill. Plymouth, U.K.: Northcote House.

Austin, J. L. (2004). How to do things with words: Lecture II. In H. Bial (Ed.), The Performance Studies Reader (147-153). New York: Routledge.

Benoit, W. (1996). A note on Burke on "motive". Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26(2), 67- 79.

Bogaert, A. F. (2004). The prevalence of male homosexuality: The effect of fraternal birth order and variation in family size. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230(1), 33– 37.

Botnick, M. R. (2000). Part 2: Fear of contagion, fear of intimacy. Journal of Homosexuality, 38(4), 77-101.

Bolding, G., Davis, M., Hart, G., Sherr, L., Elford, J. (2005). Gay men who look for sex on the internet: Is there more HIV STI risk with online partners? AIDS, 19(9), 961- 968.

Burke, K. (1952). A rhetoric of motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Burke, K. (1959). Attitudes toward history ([2d ., rev.] ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1978). (Nonsymbolic) motion/(symbolic) action. Critical Inquiry, 4(4), 809- 838.

Churchill, C. (1978). Traps. London: Pluto Press.

Churchill, C. (1982). Top Girls. London: Methuen.

Conley, T. D., & Collins, B. E. (2002). Gender, relationship status, and stereotyping about sexual risk. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11) 1483-1494.

Conrad, C., & Macom, E. A. (1995). Re-visiting Kenneth Burke: Dramatism/logology and the problem of agency. The Southern Communication Journal, 61(1), 11-28.

Crossley, M. L. (2004). Making sense of 'barebacking': Gay men's narratives, unsafe sex and the 'resistance habitus'. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(2), 225-244.

DelConte, M. (2003). Why you can’t speak: Second-person narration, voice, and a new model for understanding narrative. Style, 37 (2), 204-252.

163

Elford, J., Bolding, G., Davis, M., Sherr, L., & Hart, G. (2007). Barebacking among HIV- positive gay men in London. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 34(2), 93-98.

Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267-294.

Freeman, G. A. (2003, January 23). Bug chasers: The men who long to be HIV+. Rolling Stone.

Gauthier, D. K. & Forsyth, C. J. (1999). Bareback sex, bug chasers, and the gift of death. Deviant Behavior, 20(1), 85-100.

Ginsburg, K. N. (1967). The meat rack: A study of the male homosexual prostitute. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 21(2), 170-185.

Gowen, L. K. (2004). A comparison of the sexual behaviors and attitudes of adolescent girls with older vs. similar-aged boyfriends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(2), 167-175.

Graydon, M. E. (2004). No need to wrap it: HIV gift-giver newsgroups, gift theory and exchanging HIV as a gift. Paper presented at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2004 National STD Prevention Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Graydon, M. E. (2007). Don't bother to wrap it: Online giftgiver and bugchaser newsgroups, the social impact of gift exchanges and the 'carnivalesque'. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 9(3), 277-292.

Graham-Smith, G. (2004). 'Half in love with easeful death': The Sex/Death dialectic and the eroticization of the aids virus. Scrutiny2, 9(2), 28.

Grov, C., Debusk, J., Bimbi, D. S., Golub, S. A., Nanin, J. E., & Parsons, J. T. (2007). Barebacking, the internet, and harm reduction: An intercept survey with gay and bisexual men in Los Angeles and New York City. AIDS and Behavior, 11(4), 527- 536.

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.

Halkitis, P. & Parsons, JT. (2003). Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV- positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the internet. AIDS Care, 15(3), 367- 378.

Hewitt, C. (1998). Homosexual demography: implications for the spread of AIDS. Journal of Sex Research 35(4), 390-397.

164

Hogarth, L. (Director). (2003). The gift [Motion Picture]. United States: Dream Out Loud Films.

Holzapfel, A. S. (2008). The body in pieces: Contemporary anatomy theatres. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 30(2), 1-16.

Jameson, F. R. (1978). Ideology and symbolic action. Critical Inquiry, 5(2), 417-422.

Kaufman, M. & Tectonic Theatre Project. (2001). The Laramie project. New York: Vintage.

Krafft-Ebing, R. v., & Robinson, V. (1939). Psychopathia sexualis: A medico-forensic study. New York: Pioneer Publications.

Kuther, T. L., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2000). Bridging the gap between moral reasoning and adolescent engagement in risky behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 23(4), 409-422.

Meadows, P. (1957). The semiotic of Kenneth Burke. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 18(1), 80-87.

Mnookin, S. (2003, January 23). Is rolling stone's HIV story wildly exaggerated? Newsweek.

Moskowitz, D. A., & Roloff, M. E. (2007a). The existence of a bug chasing subculture. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9(4), 347-357.

Moskowitz, D. A. & Roloff, M. E. (2007b). The ultimate high: Sexual addiction and the bug chasing phenomenon. Sexual Addition & Compulsivity, 14(1), 21-40.

Myers, E. M. (1998). Performing personal narrative: Anna Deavere Smith’s “Fires in the Mirror.” English Journal, 87(2), 52-58.

Nudd, D. M., Schriver, K., & Galloway, T. (2001). Is this theatre queer: Mickee Faust and the performance of community. In S. C. Haedicke & T. Nellhaus (Eds.), Performing community, performing democracy: International perspectives on urban community-based performance (pp. 104-116). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Plante, R.F. (2006). Sexualities in context: A social perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ridge, D., Ziebland, S., Anderson, J., Williams, I., & Elford, J. (2007). Positive prevention: Contemporary issues facing HIV positive people negotiating sex in the UK. Social Science & Medicine, 65(4), 755-770.

165

Schechner, R. (1993). Anna Deavere Smith: Acting as incorporation. TDR: The Drama Review, 37(4), 63-64.

Schechner, R. (2004). Performance studies: the broad spectrum approach. In H. Bial (Ed.), The Performance Studies Reader (7-9). New York: Routledge.

Selwin, P. A., Goulet, J. L., Molde, S., Constantino, J., Fennie, K. P., Wetherill, P., et al. (2000). HIV as a chronic disease: Implications for long-term care at an AIDS- dedicated skilled nursing facility. Journal of Urban Health, 77(2), 1468-1479.

Shilts, R. (1988). And the band played on. New York: Penguin Books.

Sillars, M. O., & Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Dramatistic analysis of cultural narratives. Communication criticism: Rhetoric, social codes, cultural studies (pp. 229-233). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Smith, A. D. (1994). Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992. New York: Anchor.

Sorokin, E. (2003, January 24). 'Bug chaser' AIDS story disputed; doctors acknowledge some men pursue 'gift' of HIV. The Washington Times, p. A01.

Spitzer, R. (1981). The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: A reformulation of the issues. American Journal of Psychiatry, 138(2), 210-215.

Stone, J., Aronson, E., Crain, A. L., Winslow, M. P., & Fried, C. B. (1994). Inducing hypocrisy as a means of encouraging young adults to use condoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 116-128.

Templeton, S. (2003, January 26). Gay fringe 'contract HIV deliberately'; fury at secret subculture claim in leading magazine. The Sunday Herald, p. 12.

Tewksbury, R. (2006). ‘Click here for HIV’: An analysis of internet-based bug chasers and gift givers. Deviant Behavior, 27(4), 379-395.

Tigner, A. L. (2002). The Laramie Project: Western pastoral. Modern Drama, 45(1), 138-156.

Tomso, G. (2004). Bug chasing, barebacking, and the risks of care. Literature and Medicine, 23(1), 88-111.

Yeather, E. A. & O’Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual revictimization: The relationship among knowledge, risk perception, and ability to respond to high-risk situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(11), 1135-1144.

166

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joshua Loren Potter was born on February 1, 1985 to Willis and Robin Potter in Oscoda, Michigan. He graduated Summa cum Laude with departmental honors with a B.A. in Speech Communication from Ithaca College in 2007. Joshua entered in the master’s program in Media and Communication Studies at Florida State University in the summer of 2007 where he was awarded the Outstanding Master’s Teaching Assistant Award in 2009.

167