Response to commentaries for `Making sense of `barebacking': Gay men's narratives, unsafe sex and resistance `habitus''

Author: Crossley, Michele L.¹

Source: British Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 46, Number 3, September 2007 , pp. 691-695(5)

Publisher: British Psychological Society

Key:

- Free Content

- New Content

- Subscribed Content

- Free Trial Content

Abstract:

Responding to the two articles criticizing my paper, Making sense of `barebacking' (Crossley, 2004), there are three main important debatable issues that need to be addressed and clarified. The first relates to methodology and centres around the question of whether it is valid to use published texts (fictional, biographical, and autobiographical) as I did in my article. The second relates to issues of definition and the claim that I have used the term `barebacking' too loosely. The third regards the claim that I have constructed a simplistic `straw model' version of health promotion. I will address each of these in turn before turning to the alleged `deconstruction' of my text presented in the first article. Finally, I will address the claim made by both critics that I engage in insufficient critical reflection and relatedly, that my paper is unethical.

Document Type: Regular paper

DOI: 10.1348/014466607X220516

Affiliations: 1: Liverpool JMU Institute for Health, Liverpool, UK

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$24.40 plus tax Refund Policy