30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society &
Society & Space
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GAY
SEX UNDER HOMONORMATIVITY:
BAREBACK, PREP AND WELFARE
PROVISION
C E SARE DI FE L ICIANT ONIO
HOM E / UNC AT EGORIZE D / T H E P OL IT IC A L E C O NO MY OF GAY SEX U N DER HOM ON O RM ATIV I TY : BAR EBA CK, P R E P A ND
WE L FARE PROVI SI ON
This essay is part of the forum on Social Reproduction
Background
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 1/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
This short intervention builds upon research work I have been conducting in several
European cities around (HIV-positive) gay migration as well as my personal experience
with (bareback) sex, HIV-prevention, PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, i.e. the taking of
a prescription drug to prevent HIV-infection), the rise of homonormativity and many
other relevant topics most gay men of my age have routinely faced in Western Europe.
As widely acknowledged by feminist and queer scholarship (e.g. Di Feliciantonio,
Gadelha and DasGupta, 2017; Rose, 1997), I think positioning myself is a crucial
preliminary step in underlining the political concerns driving this intervention. I grew up
and lived for most of my life in Italy, a country characterized by a strong homophobic
discourse and violence, my sexuality shaped by the hegemony of discourse around
personal responsibility and being a ‘good gay’ to promote safe sex, thus avoiding the
infamous association with HIV-AIDS. Since early 2016 I have lived in Ireland where, like
Italy, PrEP is not available yet, although many people get it through informal channels or
by buying it online. Both countries feature a universal free public health system that can
be accessed by anyone (although cuts in the name of austerity have been severe), this
being for me an extremely important political issue. So the concerns with some recent
positions expressed by prominent queer theorists such as Paul Preciado (2013, 2015) and
Tim Dean (2015) that I am going to discuss here need to be located in the experiences of
a working class young gay man who has always needed to rely on public services (health,
education) and for whom the desire for and practice of bareback sex was experienced as a
kind of ‘evil’ provoking a deep sense of guilt (and it still does sometimes).
Since 2014 in my research on gay migration towards ‘gay Meccas’ (such as Barcelona and
Berlin in Europe) I have started deepening the role of HIV-positivity in driving the
decision to migrate, paying attention also to the role of PrEP in ghting HIV-related
stigma, thus improving the everyday sexual experiences of HIV-positive people. I have
been regularly collecting information on the popular Facebook page of the group “PrEP
Facts: Rethinking HIV prevention and sex”, currently featuring more than 17000
members (May 2017). Through this page I have encountered hundreds of personal
narratives highlighting the persistent moral panic around HIV-AIDS and the related
sense of guilt when practicing bareback sex. Consider for instance the following ones:
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 2/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
Was with a couple guys and I just masturbated. One of the guys had his nger
up inside another guy and then tried to insert in mine. Digital sex/ ngering. I
guess its called. Im scared of the risk factor even though im on prep and have
taken it every day for month and half. Would some one be kind enough to
educate me on this ? thanks so much. [..] What about rectal uids? I still am
having a hard time relaxing and being comfortable with sex while on prep
(posted on February 2016)
I have always know how important it is to protect myself. So I voluntarily
abstain from sexual encounters of any kinds till now. I am in my early-mid 20s
now. In my county 1 in 4 gay men is positive. But I feel like such abstinence
gives me a lot of depression (posted on January 2017)
These statements give us a sense of how moral panic, anxiety and personal discomfort
around HIV-AIDS are still widespread despite the great improvements in cures and HIV-
positivity no longer representing a death sentence in medical terms. In defense of the role
of PrEP as a possible tool to open new collective political possibilities centered around the
re-appropriation of sex by gay men, the remainder of the intervention discusses two main
critical points related to the work of Preciado and Dean around PrEP and the “pharmaco-
capitalist” regime: (i) the possibility of breaking the process of subjecti cation as shaped
by this regime; and (ii) the need to re-assign a central importance to the con guration of
the welfare regime.
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 3/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
Following feminist scholarship on social reproduction and welfare regimes (e.g. Bakker,
2007; Brush, 2002; Katz, 2001), issues related to sexuality and health need to be included
when examining the changing dynamics of social reproduction under late neoliberalism;
in fact as argued by Katz, “social reproduction encompasses daily and long term
reproduction, (…). At its most basic, it hinges upon the biological reproduction of the
labor force, both generationally and on a daily basis, through the acquisition and
distribution of he means of existence, including food, shelter, clothing and health care”
(2001: 711). Given the increasing visibility and recognition gained by gay men in speci c
job markets (exempli ed by the success of models and policies around ‘diversity,’
‘tolerance,’ and ‘creativity’) and in the public sphere, it is not acceptable anymore to
conceptualize social reproduction in heteronormative terms. If we follow the
multifaceted de nition of social reproduction provided by Bakker, the issues discussed in
this intervention t with the third ‘aspect’ of social reproduction, i.e. “the reproduction
and provisioning of caring needs that may be wholly privatized within families and
kinship networks or socialized to some degree through state support” (2007: 541).
Referring to ‘welfare regimes’ as I do here aims therefore at accounting for the level of
de-commodi ed services available in a speci c country/city and how access to services is
made possible. Like any other aspect of social and political life under neoliberalism,
welfare systems have gradually changed towards a governmental model, autonomy and
self-responsibilization becoming key-principles shaping subjectivities (e.g. Brown, 2006).
Re ecting upon PrEP, bareback sex and the con guration of the welfare regime calls
therefore into question the process of subject formation and the possibilities of rupture we
envisage.
Sexuality, control and the shaping of subjectivity
The introduction and rapid di usion of PrEP, o ering the possibility of unprotected
(‘bareback’) sex without the fear of getting HIV, is producing a massive return of ‘slut
shaming’ discourses from those opposing bareback sex within gay communities. The
return of these discourses is of increasing interest among scholars (e.g. Carlo Hojilla et al,
2016; Spieldenner, 2016). Prominent critical queer scholars such as Preciado and Dean
have contributed to this debate building upon Preciado’s conceptualization of an
emerging “pharmacopower” regime, originally introduced in Testo Junkie (2013) and
furthered in Pornotopia (2014).
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 4/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
In Testo Junkie Preciado argued that the introduction and di usion of the birth control
pill during the mid-20th century marked a shift from a regime of control represented by
the Foucauldian panopticon to a “pharmacopower” regime: power no longer relies on an
external architecture but in ltrates and occupies the body (originally the female one)
through molecules. This way we see how Foucauldian ‘biopower’ does not work only
through the mechanisms of identi cation but also materially through the pharmaceutical
substances we ingest.
According to Preciado the introduction of PrEP–notably the use of Truvada as
prophylaxis against HIV–marks an extension of the “pharmacopower” logics to the male
body (but he forgets that the pioneer studies on PrEP involved West-African women, see
Peterson et al, 2007) and the management of HIV-AIDS (although he makes a similar
argument for the previous introduction of Viagra). In an editorial published in the
summer 2015 entitled “Free sex, but with drugs” Preciado attacks PrEP stating that “it is
modifying your sexual ecology: where, when, how and with whom” (my translation).
His main argument against PrEP builds a comparison with the biopolitical role played by
the birth control pill; in fact he states that “the birth control pill and Truvada share the
same way of functioning, they are chemical condoms aimed at preventing ¢risk¢ during
sexual intercourse. It matters little if this risk is an unwanted pregnancy or HIV
transmission” (ibid).
So, Preciado argues that like the pill, PrEP marks the shift towards a sexuality controlled
by pharmaco-pornographic dispositifs, giving a sense of autonomy and sexual freedom to
the user. In Preciado’s words, the main aim of PrEP is not “improving consumers” life but
optimizing their exploitation, feeding the ction about their freedom and emancipation”
(ibid). The new process of subjecti cation occurs through these molecular technologies
that the subject puts within their body under the illusion of living a ‘free’ sexuality.
Building on this work as well as Preciado’s previous work on the emergence of a
bareback subculture that opposes the hegemony of homonormativity sanitizing sex
(2009), Tim Dean has recently deepened this framework, although openly stating that
he’s not advocating against PrEP (2015). In Dean’s analysis, Truvada/PrEP highlights the
role of “pharmacopower” in shaping contemporary imageries around ‘raw’ and ‘bareback’
sex since “it promises to deliver on the magical idea of invisible condoms” (p. 239). In
general terms this shows how
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 5/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
Our sex is hypermediated by technologies—pornographic as well as
pharmaceutical—that give biopower full access to our bodies and their desires
in the service of economic pro t. Provoking our lust, this constellation of
power relations operates by making us want it. Here, power works by
prompting a libidinal investment that encourages us to feel our deepest
satisfaction lies in embracing it. Far from imposed, it is desired (ibid; emphasis
in original).
While I share some of Preciado and Dean’s concerns around the increasing role of
technologies in shaping subjectivities and desires, I aim here to highlight two political
concerns that I consider of primary importance when discussing about the introduction
of PrEP: changes in sexual practices and the increasing di usion of ‘bareback’ sex.
Which political horizons lead our efforts?
My rst concern with such kinds of theorizations is around their reading of the process of
Foucauldian subjecti cation, depicted as somehow inescapable and unidirectional,
making subjecti cation synonymous with subjection. In this respect, they appear to me
as heavily in uenced by the Agambenian perspective; indeed, for the Italian philosopher
(e.g. 1993, 1998) being subjects means being always subjected to multiple power
relations, de-subjecti cation emerging as the only way to escape power relations
(conceived for instance when theorizing the “whatever being”). As a queer activist
engaged in di erent collectives and social movements, I nd such a positioning deeply
problematic in political terms, leading me to pose a series of important questions for a
“world-making” politics (Muñoz, 2009):
Should we think the subjectifcation as inherently singular? Or completely inescapable?
Is the only alternative represented by “de-subjecti cation” as in Agamben? What does
it mean for queer politics under “pharmaco-capitalism”?
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 6/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
Taken together, Preciado and Dean’s re ections appear to me as a way to re-a rm death
as the only way for the subject to break the process of subjecti cation, this being a serious
political concern. In this respect, I’m close to Muñoz (2009) in the search of a queer
utopia that has to be imagined and built collectively, so for me the political scope is to
imagine how to build collective possibilities to reverse the process of subjecti cation
involved by “pharmacopower,” starting from the tensions within any process of
subjecti cation. To realize this I here stand with the recent contribution of certain post-
workerist thought, notably the work of Judith Revel (e.g. 2015, 2016) who, in opposition
to the Agambenian perspective on desubjecti cation, has shown how the tension
between subjection and subjecti cation can be solved through the deconstruction of
identity consisting in rejecting the idea of a unitary objecti cation as well as the idea of
the subject as the product of a dialectical and in nite relation between subjection and
“free” subjecti cation. In The Subject and Power (1982), Foucault de ned such a process as
agonism between power and freedom, between subjectivity through objectivation and
autonomous subjecti cation. However it is important to remember that this process
cannot lead to the erasure power since power can never be fully escaped. So this process
leads to “building the selves as subjects” that materializes the counter-face of
objecti cation within the process of subjecti cation. In the same work (1982), Foucault
de ned it as “invention of the self”, “transforming the chiasm of the process of
subjecti cation in a way that the ¢new¢ subject cannot be anymore absorbed by the
procedures of objecti cation” (Di Feliciantonio, 2016: 1211).
Highlighting the tensions inherent to the process of subject formation, and thus avoiding
inescapable perspectives, is in line with the analytical and political e ort to challenge
binary understandings of social reproduction and highlight both contradictions and
potentialities. In the case of PrEP, existing contradictions concern not just the role of
biopower in shaping desires and conduits as highlighted by Dean and Preciado, but also
the political economy of this drug, currently guaranteeing huge pro ts to the
pharmaceutical company having the patent (even in those contexts where access to it is
free for users). At the same time this approach o ers the potential to think about the re-
appropriation and the rediscovery of a new comfort about sex for gay men, achieved
collectively thanks to the use of Truvada. To give an idea of the political importance of
PrEP and the possibilities it opens, I here quote Bruno Maia, a well-known Portuguese
activist (part of the Portuguese Pink Panthers). Maia has launched a public campaign
supporting PreP. In an editorial explaining his choice he writes:
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 7/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
I’m from the ‘condom generation’. (…) We grew up thinking about sex and
AIDS, AIDS and sex, without separating them. (…) I’m from the ‘condom
generation’ and this means that I’m one of those always perceiving sex as
‘danger’. (…) I’m not iron-made nor always perfect. We do not get infected
because we have several unprotected intercourses–we get infected because we
have just one unprotected intercourse. Just one time is enough, a summer
night or a drink. (…) This fear makes us vulnerable and steals us the full
pleasure of an essential part of our lives: sex. (…) PrEP gives us back dignity
and power over our bodies. (…) PreEP is a unique and personal responsibility
so it gives as autonomy and self-determination over our choices. (…) I started
getting PrEP because it represents a revolution in the sexual life of each of us.
To end with fear, get autonomy and gain dignity (my translation).
Advocating for PrEP requires necessarily a critical re ection about the political economy
of pharmaceutical transnational corporations and the management and cure of HIV-
AIDS. In this respect, I think Preciado’s work is extremely important in critically
questioning the ways our sexuality is shaped by “pharmacopower.” However as a leftist
activist struggling for social justice, I think it is important to question how access to
Truvada and HIV-AIDS cures works and to ght for improving their conditions of
accessibility transnationally. Here stands my second main criticism with Preciado and
Dean’s work: their complete lack of engagement with the question of accessibility and
the con guration of the welfare regime. For me this a main political (and intellectual)
priority: what are we advocating for? What is our aim when denouncing the mechanisms
of “phamacopower”? Preciado and Dean’s political priorities remain di cult to
understand and share for me because I do not nd in their work a serious engagement
with thinking the ways di erential access to PrEP could reshape the sexual politics of
homosexualities of the last decades built upon moral panic, HIV-fear and stigma. For me
erasing the focus on the welfare regime and how access to PrEP works is a very risky
political and theoretical choice because it leaves the subject more alone and isolated than
ever, while also missing the opportunity to contribute to a more diverse, inclusive and
non-heteronormative understanding of social reproduction.
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 8/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
To conclude I want to assert the need to include gay and queer sexuality in our framing
of social reproduction since it questions hegemonic dichotomies such as private/public,
normative/transgressive, healthy/sick. What if we conceptualize the act of taking PrEP as
a form of social reproductive labor operating both individually and collectively?
Individually it gives the subject the possibility of staying healthy and being part of the
workforce, while empowering them in terms of sexual and personal comfort. Collectively
it o ers the possibility to reproduce communities of gay men that socialize and invent
themselves through sexual practices, while challenging the stigmatization they have faced
in the last decades. However these potentialities do not erase the need to denounce the
speculation-driven character of the pharmaceutical industry and the role of patents in
guaranteeing huge pro ts to transnational companies; indeed, like any other good or
aspect of life under late neoliberalism, PrEP presents fundamental contradictions.
However I think that as leftist queer activists we should engage and try to surf those
contradictions, focusing on the possibilities of collective empowerment and
subjecti cation based on the re-appropriation of our sexuality from biomedical discourse
and moral censorship while continuing to denounce the inequalities and injustice raised
by patents and the current con guration of the pharmaceutical industry.
References
Agamben G (1993 [1990]) The Coming Community (trans M Hardt). Minneapolis:
Minnesota University Press.
Agamben G (1998 [1995]) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (trans Heller-
Roazen D). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bakker I (2007) Social Reproduction and the Constitution of a Gendered Political
Economy. New Political Economy 12(4): 541-556.
Brown W (2006) Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Brush L D (2002) Changing the Subject: Gender and Welfare Regime Studies. Social
Politics 9(2): 161-186.
Carlo Hojilla J et al (2016) Sexual Behavior, Risk Compensation, and HIV Prevention
Strategies Among Participants in the San Francisco PrEP Demonstration Project: A
Qualitative Analysis of Counseling Notes. AIDS and Behavior 20(7): 1461-1469.
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 9/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
Dean T (2009) Unlimited Intimacy: Re ections on the Subculture of Barebacking. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dean T (2015) Mediated intimacies: raw sex, Truvada, and the biopolitics of
chemoprophylaxis. Sexualities 18(1/2): 224-46.
Di Feliciantonio C (2016) Subjecti cation in times of indebtedness and
neoliberal/austerity urbanism. Antipode 48(5): 1206-1227.
Di Feliciantonio C, Gadelha K B and DasGupta D (2017) Queer(y)ing Methodologies:
doing eldwork and becoming queer. Special issue of Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal
of Feminist Geography 24(3).
Foucault M (1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8(4): 777–795.
Katz C (2001) Vagabond Capitalism and the Necessity of Social Reproduction. Antipode
33(4): 709-728.
Muñoz J E (2009) Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York:
NYU Press.
Peterson L et al (2007) Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for prevention of HIV infection in
women: a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS Clin Trials
2007;2(5): e27.
Preciado B (2013) Testo Junkie: Sex, Drugs, and Biopolitics. New York: Feminist Press.
Preciado B (2014) Pornotopia. An Essay on Playboy’s Architecture and Biopoliitcs. New
York: Zone Books/MIT Press.
Preciado P (2015). Condoms chimiques, Libération 11(06).
Revel J (2015) L’Italian Theory e le sue di erenze. In: Gentili D and Stimilli E (eds)
Di erenze italiane: Politica e loso a: mappe e scon namenti. Rome: Derive Approdi, pp 47-
58.
Revel J (2016) Between ethics and politics: the question of subjectivation. In Cremonesi
L, Irrera O, Lorenzini D and Tazzioli M (eds) Foucault and the Making of Subjects.
London: Rowman & Little eld, pp 163-174.
Rose G (1997) Situated Knowledges: Positionality, Re exivity and Other Tactics. Progress
in Human Geography 21(3): 305–320.
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 10/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
Spieldenner A (2016) PrEP Whores and HIV Prevention: The Queer Communication of
HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. Journal of Homosexuality 63(12): 1685-1697.
Cesare Di Feliciantonio holds a double PhD in
Geography from KU Leuven and Sapienza-University of
Rome. He is currently post-doctoral fellow in the
department of Geography of Trinity College Dublin. His
main research interests include: urban social geography and
political economy; geographies of sexualities and political
economy of identity. His articles have been published,
among others, on Antipode, European Urban and Regional
Studies, Geoforum, Housing Policy Debate, and
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 11/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 12/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 13/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 14/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 15/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 16/17
30/12/2017 The political economy of gay sex under homonormativity: bareback, PrEP and welfare provision – Society & Space
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/31/the-political-economy-of-gay-sex-under-homonormativity-bareback-prep-and-welfare-provision/ 17/17
