Most people don't know that there are not only condoms to protect oneself from HIV but also two other methods. Why? Because many believe it would be dangerous to provide people with that information. However it seems rather that the taboo and the demonization of sex without condoms leads to people being turned on by it. A sociological exploration of the "fetishization of bareback sex."
[Dieser Artikel existiert auch auf deutsch.]
As the author of this article lives in Berlin, the following history of HIV/AIDS focuses mainly on Germany. However the history of the AIDS crises in other parts of the (Western) world is very similar and lead to equally similar if not almost the same implications (as shown in the British studies cited below) described in this article.
1982 saw the first person to die of AIDS related diseases in Germany (more precisely: in Frankfurt/Main). Shortly after the panic started. No other infection or disease was and still is so bound to stigma than HIV and AIDS. In 1983 the origin of AIDS – the virus named HIV – was discovered. Very quickly the general population had its scapegoat: Gay men! Whatever the gay rights movement had achieved within the last years, it all got destroyed within days. Indeed men having sex with other men were affected more than most other social groups. One of the reasons for this is that they have generally more sex and often changing sexual partners. The other reason is that the virus is especially easily transmitted via anal sex. Within the gay community one person after the other died. Some people lost half of their friends within just a few years. It seemed that gays were finally getting "God's just revenge" for a life that many homophobes were secretly envious of. After all homophobia was also a result of the fact, that gay men could more easily experience more liberated sexuality within their subculture.
In 1985 Rock Hudson died of AIDS related diseases and the world was in shock. Suddenly "the gays" were not any longer "those sick perverts" in hidden darkrooms and bathhouses but the disease had arrived in mainstream society as well as in Hollywood. But still: After an initial shock the homophobic climate continued and was mixed with fear of being infected. To drink out of the same glas, to swim in the same pool, a hand shake, everything was suddenly attached to the fear of getting infected. Very fast claims were postulated to have HIV-positive or even all gay people excluded from society. Peter Gauweiler, politician of the christian-conservative German-Bavarian party CSU and State Secretary of the Bavarian State Ministry for Internal Affairs from 1986 until 1990 demanded that groups at risk like gay and bisexual men, sex workers, drug users and immigrants wanting permanent residency should be forcibly tested – in worst case with the help of the police. Additionally he wanted every person with HIV to be registered by name. There were even claims of singling them out. Horst Seehofer (also from the CSU), who only a few weeks ago became Germany's new Minister for Internal Affairs, demanded in the 80s that people having contracted AIDS should be "concentrated in special homes." Today he does not want to comment on this use of words anymore and only said in 2012 – when asked by a big national newspaper – that politics was simply trying to "find the right way" regarding the AIDS crises (1).
A lot of the press – especially Germany's "Der Spiegel" also contributed to stiring panic and by that depicting people living with HIV more and more as angels of death. Solidarity got replaced by marginalization and hate. Within that negative social climate there was however one woman whom many people today are grateful for: Rita Süssmuth (politician of the German christian conservative party CDU) was German Minister for Health from 1985 to 1988 and saw herself confronted with a crises that she was not prepared for. Because of her sober-minded politics she was awarded an honorary membership from the German AIDS Service Organization in 2016. Nothing has marked her political career as much as her humane AIDS politics in close relationship with the quickly emerging AIDS service organizations.
Different cover pictures of German magazine "Der Spiegel" in the 80s and early 90s. Upper left: "Deadly plague AIDS: The mysterious disease." Upper right: "Protection from the plague: Compulsory registration for AIDS? – SPIEGEL discussion with Health Minister Rita Süssmuth" (depicting her covered in a condom). Lower left: "AIDS: The Germans love dangerously." Lower right: "Dirty business with blood: AIDS fear."
The "salvation": Marriage, monogamy and sexual abstinence – instead of condoms as a sign of perverted degeneration
The German Chancelor of that time, Helmut Kohl, initially asked Süssmuth to not anger their related party CSU by avoiding a confrontation within the HIV/AIDS politics. However she managed to persuade him and went to directly confront Gauweiler's policy. Her goal: To educate the German population about HIV and AIDS in a sober way while working closely together with the local German AIDS service organizations as well as with those affected with HIV. One of her main goals was to promote safer sex with condoms. It was especially this which lead to a strong opposition from the CSU, but also within her own party. Many believed the promotion of condoms to be the wrong thing to do. They were afraid it would lead people to have wild, casual and carefree sex and preferred to promote sexual abstinence and monogamous marriage. Very quickly Süssmuth was represented on the Spiegel Magazine cover dressed in a condom.
It's important to understand the history of HIV, AIDS and how society dealt with it in order to comprehend if, and if yes, how and why sex without condoms is fetishized today. Stigma, fear, taboo, (supposed) danger, and sex-negativity played and still play an important role. Condoms not only gained social acceptance over time but also advanced to become a moral imperative today; a moralization that reflects the moral outrage felt in the 80s that lead people to initially fight condoms and promote marriage, monogamy and sexual abstinence. A moralization that shapes the perception and discussion of people that decide (for whatever reasons and whether with or without other safer sex strategies) to not use condoms. And this influence goes along with a massive social-psychological influence on Western people's sex lives, as well as on the fetishization of sex without condoms (called "bareback" within the gay subculture).
Safer Sex 2.0: Condoms, Treatment as Prevention, and PrEP
The acceptance and the moral imperative of condoms also turned sex without condoms into a taboo and even demonized it. In the heterosexual world the condom mostly stands for the prevention of pregnancies. However among men having sex with men (i.g. homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, curious and non-defined men – in short: MSM) the condom became the symbol of preventing an HIV infection, but also other STIs (= Sexually Transmitted Infections), as MSM have been especially affected by HIV/AIDS. As such it is not surprising that this taboo is mostly prevalent among (but not limited to) male-homosexual and other MSM cultures.
The condom became a morale imperative especially within MSM subcultures, even if one could also observe this among the (heterosexual) general population. As soon as the condom had achieved its necessary social acceptance as safer sex method society quickly turned sex without condoms into a perceived dangerous thing, a taboo. This remains true until today, even though we have already acquired additional safer sex methods that protect at least against an HIV infection. What many scientists knew already before became confirmed truth in 2008: A successful HIV therapy which keeps the viral load constantly undetectable prevents the virus from being passed on. This statement was a bombshell and liberated many people living with HIV from the constant fear and the stigma of being "dangerous" to others. However this knowledge had never been accepted as much by general population as the usage of condoms. Most don't even know about it today as many people are against promoting it. But medical advancement continued. In 2012 the WHO released official guidelines for the usage of PrEP. PrEP – or Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis – consists of taking a certain HIV medical agent that prevents an HIV-infection among HIV-negative people at least as well as condoms. Again this is mostly unknown among the general population. And again many people saw this as dangerous if too many people would know. Their fear: People would start to "wildly and irresponsibly fuck around." Additionally Treatment as Prevention (TasP) and PrEP only protect against HIV but not against other STIs, so why should it be used? People in favor of TasP and PrEP however claim that condoms do also not completely protect you against other STIs. Additionally they state that people using TasP or PrEP go to medical check-ups much more regularly which results in STIs being diagnosed and treated earlier which leads to them not being passed on anymore. In fact many locations offering PrEP saw a decline in new STI diagnosis – even if this should be read carefully, as it is only a correlation but not yet a causality (2).
However sex without condoms – whether with or without TasP or PrEP – remains a taboo. All too often safe sex equals condoms. (Strictly speaking one should not call it safe sex, but safer sex, as there is no 100% protection when it comes to sex.) Bareback sex is labeled with danger, wildness, lawlessness, impulses, instincts, etc.. And it are those attributes that contain the potential of fetishization.
The condom as a social symbol of instinct control
Some people enjoy sex without condoms because it physically feels better to them. Some also react allergically to condoms. This is of course not a fetish. It only becomes a fetish when the idea itself of having sex without a condom leads to sexual arousal. If the thought "I am having sex without a condom right now“ or "those people are fucking without condoms" makes one feel sexually aroused then it is correct to talk about a sexual fetish.
It is hard to say how many people actually have this fetish as it is very difficult to do scientific research on that due to the taboo. However there are very clear signs that this fetish exists, for example on MSM dating apps or on pornographic websites which promote bareback porn categories. This suggests that it can not be a small number of people. So how does this fetish come into existence?
To answer this question I will mostly use my article on the sociology of sexual fetishes: "Sexuality in Western culture is linked to numerous symbols. To yearning and to fear, to taboos and to phantasies, to desire and to greed, to corporality, to primitivity, to horror, to the abyss of the soul, to the forbidden, to evil, to darkness, to the animal within, to addiction, to temptation, to weakness, to danger, to perversion, to sickness, to savageness, to instincts, and to impulses to only name a few. All this symbolism creates – to use Butler's words – a complex of simultaneously feared and desired phantasies. Phantasies of the forbidden that attracts us a lot. Of the danger that arouses us, that makes us feel alive. Of the temptation of darkness that makes our heart beat faster, partly because of fear, partly because of excitement. Of that pressure to constantly conform to that image of 'normality.' And the short liberation from it when we just let go." (3)
More than that sexuality in Western culture is also very strongly linked to dualisms, i.e. to two opposing categories where one is considered better than the other. This had also been very well demonstrated by Rubin's sex hierarchy which showed that there is a "charmed circle" of socially accepted and some "bad outer limits" of socially sanctioned and tabooed sexual behaviors (4). These socially accepted and tabooed sexualities move along culturally very influential dualisms that shaped the history of Western philosophy and thought patterns, like for example:
The Sex Hierarchy according to Gayle Rubin [own depiction]; cf. Rubin, Gayle (1992): Thinking Sex – Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, https://www.ipce.info/library_3/pdf/rubin_thinking_sex.pdf, p. 13.
The limits between socially accepted and socially tabooed sexualities can shift historically but they always remain anchored within the above mentioned dualisms. For example during the times of a strong Christian influence in Europe sex for reproduction was socially accepted but sex for lust or passion was socially tabooed. This has changed over time, however separations between sexual practices that are socially accepted and those that are socially tabooed remain nonetheless. For example during the AIDS crises in the 80s sex out of passion moved more towards a taboo again. This changed again in the 90s, sex for fun was socially liberated, but only if lust remained under control and tamed, if – to come back to above mentioned dualisms – humans remained under control over their "animal within", if mind controlled bodies, reason controlled emotions, ratio controlled instincts, and civilization controlled the wild. The condom gained here a very important symbolic role as it became the materialization of that control, the visible symbolic act of that cultural-ideological belief. By slipping a condom over a cock one wraps up and controls this "wild sexuality", this urge, this instinct of the body. Condoms are much more than just a mean to protect against an HIV infection (or other STIs). In a culture with above mentioned dualisms the condom is mostly also a symbol, a materialization of a cultural ideology. In that specific moment, as the condom if put onto a cock, the mind is fulfilling the act of control over the body, the reason is controlling the sinful emotions, ratio is taming the instincts, the civilized human being is domesticating the wild animal within. By having a condom over a cock the danger is tamed, controlled and domesticated. And so sex with condoms became in alignment with the social, dualistic ideology and was introduced into the charmed circle of socially accepted sexual practices within Rubin's sex hierarchy.
In opposition sex without condoms has been seen as a failure of the control of the mind, of reason, ratio and human civilization over bodies, emotions, instincts and animalistic wilderness. The social assessment of a dangerous situation when not using condoms is not only linked to the risk of an HIV infection, but actually also (maybe even more so) to this loss of control. For the Western socialized man it is considered one of the biggest taboos to fall back into an existence of a wild animal after the great efforts they have done to "free" themselves from their natural prison (5). To prevent this from happening mind and ratio have to control body and instincts. Because after all humans are, culturally seen, not one animal species among many, but the exact opposite of them. And because Western humans define themselves like that they have to try with all might to control and suppress everything that reminds them of their own animal being.
This is – as a side remark – also the reason, why many people living with HIV are said to be responsible for their own HIV infection. Because after all they did not control themselves, their instincts, their "animal within". How else could they have become HIV-positive?
The fetishization of bareback sex
"I discovered there were people against [bareback pornography], arguing it was degrading and dangerous. This fiendish side of it attracted me. And I started buying some."
- Quote from an interview with a MSM for a study on bareback pornography consumption in the United Kingdom (6)
These dualisms and the symbolic power of condoms are engrained into our subconsciousness via our socialization. Within the social construction of reality one can agree that they are a social construct, a social product. They have much less to do with true naturalness and and much more with how we perceive and classify nature. Humans as opposite of animals is not a law by nature but rather a human made construct. With Berger und Luckmann's theory of the social construction of reality one can differentiate between externalization, objectification, and internalization:
Humans create (externalize) the construct of human beings as the opposite of animals (as well as of mind being the opposite of body, reason being the opposite and controlling instance of instincts, and of sex with condoms as the only mean of proper safer sex). With this construction and externalization "humans/mind/ratio vs. animals/bodies/instincts", as well as with the symbolic charging of sex with condoms as good and sex without condoms as bad/dangerous human beings have at the same time created the first step to give birth to the bareback fetish. Without this symbolic charging of condoms a fetishization of bareback sex would not be possible.
Afterwards the objectification begins: The belief that humans are the opposite of animals, that the "animal within" as well as instincts and bodies have to be controlled by humans, by the mind and by rationality, that sex with condoms is always safer sex, always controlled and healthy, and that sex without condoms is always dangerous, wild and sickening, becomes a universal social "truth." Even if this has nothing to do with medical facts it still becomes an invisible matter of course, "the way things are," a law that will not be questioned anymore. And even more importantly which will put pressure on humans to adhere to this belief.
This finally results in the internalization of all these beliefs. They are encoded into every human being's subconsciousness during their socialization. The outer pressure turns into an inner pressure. Human beings will now start to control themselves to act and think in accordance to these beliefs. In the back of their heads there will always be that internalized pressure that the naked skin of a cock shall never touch the naked skin of a vagina or an ass, but that there should always be the protective barrier of a condom in between. Slowly the protection of condoms evolved from a real protection against HIV towards a symbolic protection against the instincts, the wilderness and the animal within.
The symbolic power of condoms banishing danger can be seen especially on those instances when people classify sex without condoms as "bareback" and when they do not. This is especially true for social groups where condoms had this symbolic power the most, for example among MSM. Before the AIDS crises sex without condoms was not so much a taboo and was considered normal among MSM-pornography. As a result bareback sex was therefor not a very common fetish. This however rapidly changed with the emergence of the AIDS crises in the 80s. (MSM-)Pornography producers demanded their actors to wear condoms. Sex without condoms became a rare sight. The first "bareback" porn developed then in the 90s as a separate category which emphasizes the then emerging fetish character. Heavily criticized by what it seemed almost everybody one might wonder how it was possible for that pornography to become so successful if apparently everybody was rejecting it. Because very fast bareback porn evolved into a huge business.
But even though bareback porn describes penetrating pornography which does not involve condoms, studies did show that not every pornographic movie where actors are not using condoms is actually labeled by viewers as bareback. For example there are different genres within gay pornography. As soon as participants of a study were confronted with porn depicting twinks (boyish-looking, younger men) "who are perhaps boyfriends, having unprotected anal intercourse, the focus group participants consistently refused to acknowledge it as ‘bareback’. Sometimes they ignored the lack of condoms or explained it away. Scenes which were seen as ‘bareback’ tended to be transgressive in some way, an aspect often emphasised in marketing materials. Pornography involving a noticeable age difference between the performers, or of sex between men of different ethnic groups, or emphasising power imbalances (dominant ‘tops’ and a submissive ‘bottom’), was more likely to be labelled as ‘bareback’. Depictions of anonymous sex away from domestic settings were often considered ‘bareback’.Pornography which drew attention to the exchange of semen between performers was also understood to be ‘bareback’" (7).
What do these last kinds of porn have in common? They all play with the symbolic danger of not using a condom. Since the condom does not only offer the real protection from HIV, but especially also the symbolic protection from the dangerous wilderness of the sexual animal within, people consequently only classified condomless sex as bareback where one could clearly see that danger. This is not the case for two twinks having sex, however it is very well the case with aggressive sex between a dominant top and a submissive bottom, with sex between partners with a big age gap (which often involves a (sometimes subtle) abuse role play), with sex between partners of different ethnic groups (see my article on the fetishization of black men), with public sex (which is usually forbidden), with anonymous sex (one never knows with whom one is currently exactly fucking), and of course with sex that involves spurting cum into holes.
This internalization of this symbolism happens mainly through what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls biopower – a very diffusing form of power. Power used to be very linearly from a ruler to those being ruled. Now power is woven throughout the whole of society like a network – by the critical gazes of our fellow human beings. At the same time this power is also much more profound and pervasive since the monitoring and surveillance comes from every direction at the same time. The power is everywhere not because it involves everything but because it comes from everywhere (8). According to Foucault this biopower, i.e. the governing over the human bodies, also explains the contemporary compulsion of Western societies on bodily discipline and the urge to be seen as "normal." We are constantly controlling ourselves related to what is considered as normal in our society.
The potential critical gaze of the people around one that Foucault described plays an important role in the internalization of the taboo of sex without condoms, as well as of the belief of the opposition of humans/culture and animals/nature. Everybody polices themselves and controls their "animal within" and everything that has been described as belonging to that animal out of fear of being punished, ridiculed or rejected. This also includes what has been labeled as bad, evil and dangerous: sex without condoms. Since the biopower is so pervasive and profound it strengthens the pressure to be considered as "normal" in the eyes of other people. And in this case "normal" means to act in a way to conform to all these requirements of controlling the inner animal and to wrap a dick in a condom. In no way is one supposed to act "like an animal" and just "wildly start fucking".
The biopower will eventually inscribe this behavior into the habitus of each person. These patterns of acting, thinking and behaving which are based on the world view of the human/culture-animal/nature-dualism become a "second nature." They become the habitus of the Western socialized individual. The objectification in the social construction of reality turns the belief in a human-animal-opposition into a socially constructed "truth." It is this truth, this certainty, and this self-evidence that becomes our doxa, i.e. our core beliefs and core values of the control of nature by human culture. This doxa that had been inscribed into our subconsciousness by an internalization through biopower will guide our nature, animal, and rampant sexuality controlling thinking, seeing, and acting.
This inevitably leads to an enormous inner pressure. But the human being can't constantly control the tensions between what they are and what they should be. Therefore these tensions have the potential to release themselves during arousal and sexuality by falling exactly into what one is actually supposed to avoid. To put into other words: It turns us on to allow what we are supposed to suppress. The forbidden, the danger, the taboo generates an incredible strong potential of arousal just because it is a taboo. Because humans constantly have to control their "animal within", and because they always have to "prove" that control by slipping a condom over a cock, it can offer an incredible excitement to allow the forbidden, to let oneself fall, to "become an animal", and to simply not use a condom. And the bareback fetish is born.
Because people turn sex without condoms into a taboo and because they condemn it wholesale they simultaneously create the bareback fetish. This had also been observed in the bareback porn study, as "several interviewees said that the ‘hotness’ of bareback porn often lay in the fact that it was representing something that was taboo. It was something that they thought they should not be doing, watching, talking about or enjoying." (9)
We are constantly surrounded by a permanent, profound, pervasive, comprehensive control of outer but especially also inner nature – symbolically embodied in condoms. The biopower internalizes the doxa of controlling nature via condoms in our subconsciousness so that we constantly and profoundly control ourselves and our "animal within." This pressure remains even if it acts subconsciously most of the times. It lingers upon us like an oppressing shadow. This is especially true for the MSM community that has been affected by HIV/AIDS even more. What liberation, what salvation to just briefly release oneself from it. To finally let oneself fall. To vent unbridled which we control and suppress... To let that "animal within" be free and fuck in exactly that way that one has always suppressed.
This is how the anti-habitus is formed. The biopower's pressure and the internalized doxa have to be deflected. On one hand the doxa creates the habitus of the control of nature, animals, bodies and instincts via condoms. But on the other hand, because of the tensions that result from this, it needs a deflection: the anti-habitus. The bareback fetish takes over the role of the anti-habitus. The anti-habitus (in this case: arrousal at the thought of having sex without condoms) is the opposite of the habitus (in this case to control the "animal within" with a condom). "To do the opposite (anti-habitus) of what we have learned to do (habitus) turns us on. The anti-habitus is the inevitable other part of the habitus. It is its shadow. The stronger the pressure of the habitus the bigger will be the satisfaction of the anti-habitus, i.e. fetish. Habitus and anti-habitus are two sides of the same coin. The one cannot exist without the other. Each attempt to suppress the anti-habitus is therefore predestined to fail. Each attempt to suppress [the bareback-] fetish will not only remain unsuccessful but will even increase the desire for it." (10)
However, it remains unimportant whether the human/culture/mind/ratio-animal/nature/body/instinct-dualism, the "animal within", and the blanket danger of sex without condoms is a scientific reality or whether it is a social construct. It just comes down to the sociological Thomas theorem (11) which states that every human action has real consequences not matter how unreal the situation was that lead to this action:
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."
The "animal within", all these dualisms, and the unexceptional danger of sex without condoms are social constructs that don't exist in objective reality. But because they are perceived as real the consequence of the inner tensions are real. And by that also the bareback kink that result from it.
So society creates the bareback fetish as an "accidental byproduct" of socialization. It creates it by trying to suppress it. The more it tries to suppress it the stronger it becomes. The more we try to control the animal within us by forcing others and us to use a condom (instead of choosing freely), the more exciting it becomes to let that animal take over, and simply feel skin on skin.
What to learn from this
The more we try to forbid sex without condoms, to turn it into a taboo, or to stigmatize those people that do it, the more we will push the bareback fetish. However one should add that nothing is wrong with having this fetish. Whether people not using condoms do it because it feels better to them or because they experience it as their kink: There are ways to have sex without condoms while still remaining protected against HIV. PrEP and Treatment as Prevention are at least equally as reliable as condoms. And though they don't protect against other STIs one must add here that condoms do also only reduce the risks more or less.
It is also important to turn away from that belief of having to force people to protect themselves. One can not force people to protect themselves. This is especially true when it comes to sexuality and its highly complex, deeply psychological background. Every compulsion – even if subtle – will eventually lead to unwanted side effects. If one believes one can force people to use condoms by moralizing sexuality and safer sex, they will not only remain ineffective, but actually achieve the exact opposite.
Contemporary sexual prevention efforts therefore have to leave it to every person's own decision to choose over their body, their sexuality and their own health. Furthermore it must offer all important information that people need in order to make independent choices reflecting all possible consequences. Nothing should be concealed or turned into a taboo just because one personally thinks it is morally wrong. As long as sexuality happens with mutual consent, pre-determined morality from someone else should not play any role. This is true for the anti-condom-moralizers from the 80s as well as for the anti-PrEP-moralizers from today.
*Comment: One objection one could make: Truly consensual sexuality implies that sexual partners meet on one level. However this is not always the case in a society with a power imbalance in favor of men (especially but not only of heterosexual, white, cisgendered, abled men). Sexual prevention efforts therefore should also always question power imbalances within their society.
(1) Stroh, K. (2012): Maßnahmenkatalog gegen HIV – Als die CSU in den Krieg gegen Aids zog, SZ.de, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/massnahmenkatalog-gegen-hiv-als-die-csu-in-den-krieg-gegen-aids-zog-1.1292107, viewed on 18.03.2018.
(2) Cairns, G. (2017): London gonorrhoea rates fall, and HIV rates falling in Australia as more join PrEP demo, aidsmap.com, http://www.aidsmap.com/page/3158470, viewed on 15.04.2018.
(3) Mannes, J. (2018): How Sexual Fetishes Come into Existence, orgysmic.com, https://www.orgysmic.com/single-post/The-Origins-of-BDSM-Exhibitionism-and-Piss-Sex, viewed on 15.04.2018.
(4) Rubin, Gayle (1992): Thinking Sex – Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, https://www.ipce.info/library_3/pdf/rubin_thinking_sex.pdf, p. 13.
(5) Cf. Sebastian, Marcel; Gutjahr, Julia (2013): Das Mensch-Tier-Verhältnis in der kritischen Theorie der Frankfurter Schule, p. 105, in: Buschka, Sonja; Pfau-Effinger, Birgit (publishers): Gesellschaft und Tiere – Soziologische Analysen zu einem ambivalenten Verhältnis, Wiesbaden, p. 97-119.
(6) Pebody, R. (2013): Many gay men enjoy bareback porn, but are concerned about its possible effects on sexual behaviour, aidsmap.com, http://www.aidsmap.com/Many-gay-men-enjoy-bareback-porn-but-are-concerned-about-its-possible-effects-on-sexual-behaviour/page/2704451/, viewed on 21.03.2018.
(8) Foucault, Michel (2017): Der Wille zum Wissen – Sexualität und Wahrheit I, 21st edition, Frankfurt am Main, p. 94.
(9) Pebody, R. (2013): Many gay men enjoy bareback porn, but are concerned about its possible effects on sexual behaviour, aidsmap.com, http://www.aidsmap.com/Many-gay-men-enjoy-bareback-porn-but-are-concerned-about-its-possible-effects-on-sexual-behaviour/page/2704451/, viewed on 21.03.2018.
(10) Mannes, Jeff (2018): How Sexual Fetishes Come into Existence, orgysmic.com, https://www.orgysmic.com/single-post/The-Origins-of-BDSM-Exhibitionism-and-Piss-Sex, viewed on 15.04.2018.
(11) Cf. Thomas, William Isaac (1928): The Methodology of Behavior Study, in: Knopf, Alfred: The Child in America – Behavior Problems and Programs, New York, p. 553–576.