AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 1488–1498 | Cite as

The Effects of Gay Sexually Explicit Media on the HIV Risk Behavior of Men Who Have Sex with Men

  • B. R. Simon RosserEmail author
  • Derek J. Smolenski
  • Darin Erickson
  • Alex Iantaffi
  • Sonya S. Brady
  • Jeremy A. Grey
  • Gert Martin Hald
  • Keith J. Horvath
  • Gunna Kilian
  • Bente Træen
  • J. Michael Wilkerson
Original Paper


This study sought to study consumption patterns of gay-oriented sexually explicit media (SEM) by men who have sex with men (MSM); and to investigate a hypothesized relationship between gay SEM consumption and HIV risk behavior. Participants were 1,391 MSM living in the US, recruited online to complete a SEM consumption and sexual risk survey. Almost all (98.5 %) reported some gay SEM exposure over the last 90 days. While 41 % reported a preference to watch actors perform anal sex without condoms (termed “bareback SEM”), 17 % preferred to actors perform anal sex with condoms (termed “safer sex SEM”) and 42 % reported no preference. Overall SEM consumption was not associated with HIV risk; however participants who watched more bareback SEM reported significantly greater odds of engaging in risk behavior. The results suggest that a preference for bareback SEM is associated with engaging in risk behavior. More research to understand how MSM develop and maintain preferences in viewing SEM, and to identify new ways to use SEM in HIV prevention, is recommended.


Gay Pornography Cyberpornography HIV prevention Internet Unsafe sex 


Este estudio trató de estudiar a los hombres que practican sexo con otros hombres (HSH) y sus patrones de consumo de los medios de comunicación consistiendo en contenido sexualmente explícito con una orientación homosexual (SEM); y de investigar una relación conjeturada entre el consumo homosexual de SEM y el riesgo de VIH. Había 1,391 participantes HSH que vivían en los EE.UU., cuales fueron reclutados por Internet para rellenar una encuesta sobre su consumo de SEM y su riesgo sexual. Casi todos (98.5 %) comunicaron algo exposición a SEM en los últimos 90 días. Mientras el 41 % declaró una preferencia para ver a los actores desempeñando el sexo anal sin preservativo (se da en llamar “bareback SEM”), el 17 % prefirió ver a los actores desempeñando el sexo anal con preservativo (se da en llamar “sexo seguro SEM”) y el 42 % expresó una falta de preferencia. En general, el consumo de SEM no se relacionó con el riesgo de VIH; sin embargo, los participantes que miraron más de el “bareback SEM” informaron una probabilidad significativamente más elevada de participar en conductas de alto riesgo. Los resultados sugieren que una preferencia por bareback SEM está asociado con la participación en el comportamiento de alto riesgo. Se recomienda más estudios para entender cómo los HSH desarrollan y mantienen sus preferencias de ver el SEM, e identificar nuevas maneras de utilizar SEM para la prevención del VIH.

Palabras claves

Pornografía gay/homosexual Cyberpornography Prevención del VIH Internet Relaciones sexuales sin protección 



Understanding Effects of Web-based Media on Virtual Populations was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health Center for Medical Health Research on AIDS, Grant number 5R01MH087231. All research was carried out with the approval of the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board, study number 0906S68801.


  1. 1.
    Watney S. Policing desire—pornography, AIDS and the media. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linz D. Exposure to sexually explicit materials and attitudes towards rape. J Sex Res. 1989;26:50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosser BRS, Grey JA, Wilkerson JM, et al. A commentary on the role of sexually explicit media (SEM) in the transmission and prevention of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM). AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hald GM. Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Arch Sex Behav. 2006;35:577–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Souli S. Love life of the ancient Greeks. Athens: Toubi’s; 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas JA. Gay male video pornography: Past, present and future. In: Weitzer R, editor. Sex for sale: prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry. New York: Routledge; 2000. p. 49–66.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hooper S, Rosser BRS, Horvath KJ, Oakes JM, Danilenko G. Men’s internet sex II (MINTS-II) team. An online needs assessment of a virtual community: what men who use the Internet to seek sex with men want in internet-based HIV prevention. AIDS Behav. 2008;12:867–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morrison TG, Morrison MA, Bradley BA. Correlates of gay men’s self-reported exposure to pornography. Intl J Sex Health. 2007;19(2):33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rich F. Naked capitalists. New York Times Magazine. 2001 May 20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lucas M. On gay porn. Yale JL Fem. 2006;18:299–302.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kubicek K, Carpineto J, McDavitt B, Weiss G, Kipke M. Use and perceptions of the internet for sexual information and partners: a study of young men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;40(4):803–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kubicek K, Beyer WJ, Weiss G, Iverson E, Kipke MD. In the dark: young men’s stories of sexual initiation in the absence of relevant sexual health information. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37(2):243–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morrison TG. “He was treating me like trash, and I was loving it…”: perspectives in gay male pornography. J Homosex. 2004;47(3–4):167–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mustanski B, Lyons T, Garcia SC. Internet use and sexual health of young men who have sex with men: a mixed-methods study. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40:289–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tyden T, Rogala C. Sexual behaviour among men in Sweden and the impact of pornography. Int J STD AIDS. 2004;15:590–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grudzen CR, Elliot MN, Kerndt PR, Shuster MA, Brook RH, Gelberg L. Condom use and high-risk sexual acts in adult films: a comparison of heterosexual and homosexual films. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(S1):S152–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calvert C, Richards RD. Gay pornography and the first amendment: unique, first-person perspectives on free experession, sexual censorship, and cultural images. Am U J Gender Soc Pol’y L. 2007;15(4):688.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark-Flory T. Must porn stars get tested? Salon. 2012 8 Sep 8, 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holt M. HIV scandal in the gay porn industry. BBC two: newsnight [Internet]. 2008 Accessesed 30 Nov 2012.
  20. 20.
    McNeil J, D.G. Unlikely model in HIV efforts: sex film industry. New York Times [Internet]. 2012 Accessed 30 Nov 2012.
  21. 21.
    Duggan S, McCreary DR. Body image, eating disorders, and the drive for muscularity in gay and heterosexual men: the influence of media images. J Homosex. 2004;47(3/4):45–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsons JT, Kelly BC, Bimbi DS, Muench F, Morgenstern J. Accounting for the social triggers of sexual compulsivity. J Addict Dis. 2007;26:5–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stein D, Silvera R, Hagerty R, Marmor M. Viewing pornography depicting unprotected anal intercourse: are there implications for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41(1):411–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Træen B, Daneback K. The use of pornography and sexual behavior among Norwegian men and women of differing sexual orientation. Sexologie [Internet]. 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon W, Gagnon JH. Sexual scripts: permanence and change. Arch Sex Behav. 1986;15(2):97–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harawa NT, Williams JK, Ramamurthi HC, Bingham TA. Perceptions towards condom use, sexual activity, and HIV disclosure among HIV-positive African American men who have sex with men: implications for heterosexual transmission. J Urban Health. 2006;83(4):682–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Caballo-Dieguez A, Bauermeister J. “Barebacking”: intentional condomless anal sex in HIV-risk contexts. Reasons for and against it. J Homosex. 2004;47(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brennan DJ, Welles SL, Ross MW, Miner MH, Mayer KH, Rosser BRS. Development of a treatment optimism scale for HIV-positive gay and bisexual men. AIDS Care. 2009;21(9):42–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Offir JT, Fisher JD, Williams SS, Fisher WA. Reasons for inconsistent AIDS-preventive behaviors among gay men. J Sex Res. 1993;30(1):62–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Valdiserri RO, Lyter D, Leviton LC, Callahan CM, Kingsley LA, Rinaldo CR. Variables influencing condom use in a cohort of gay and bisexual men. Am J Public Health. 1988;78:801–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thompson ER. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). J Cross Cult Psychol. 2007;38(2):227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scale. J Clin Psychol. 1972;28:191–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coleman E, Miner M, Ohlerking F, Raymond N. Compulsive sexual behavior inventory: a preliminary study of reliability and validity. J Sex Marital Ther. 2001;27(2):325–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smolenski DJ, Diamond P, Ross MW, Rosser BRS. Revision, criterion validity, and multi-group assessment of the reactions to homosexuality scale. J Pers Assess. 2010;92(6):568–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Muthén B, Muthén L. Mplus (version 6.1). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2009.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosser BRS, Oakes JM, Horvath KJ, Konstan JA, Danilenko GP, Peterson JL. HIV sexual risk behavior by men who use the Internet to seek sex with men: results of the men’s internet sex study-II (MINTS-II). AIDS Behav. 2009;13(3):488–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosser BRS, Wilkerson JM, Smolenski D, et al. The future of internet-based HIV prevention: a report on key findings from the men’s internet sex (MINTS-I, II) studies. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(1):91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gagnon JH. The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annu Rev Sex Res. 1990;1:1–43.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gagnon JH, Simon W. Sexual conduct. Chicago: Aldine; 1973.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilkerson JM, Iantaffi A, Smolenski DJ, et al. The SEM risk behavior (SRB) model: a new conceptual model of how pornography influences the sexual intentions and HIV risk behavior of MSM. Sex Relation Ther. 2012;27(3):217–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Iantaffi A, Wilkerson JM, Grey JA, Rosser BRS. The acceptability of sexually explicit messages in HIV prevention among men who have sex with men. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. R. Simon Rosser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Derek J. Smolenski
    • 1
  • Darin Erickson
    • 1
  • Alex Iantaffi
    • 1
  • Sonya S. Brady
    • 1
  • Jeremy A. Grey
    • 1
  • Gert Martin Hald
    • 2
  • Keith J. Horvath
    • 3
  • Gunna Kilian
    • 1
  • Bente Træen
    • 4
  • J. Michael Wilkerson
    • 5
  1. 1.HIV/STI Intervention & Prevention Studies (HIPS) Program, Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, Department of Epidemiology and Community HealthUniversity of Minnesota School of Public HealthMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral MedicineMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøDenmark
  5. 5.School of Public HealthUniversity of TexasHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations