Premium
Response to commentaries for ‘Making sense of ‘barebacking’: Gay men's narratives, unsafe sex and ‘resistance habitus'’
Author(s) -
Crossley Michele L.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
british journal of social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.855
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 2044-8309
pISSN - 0144-6665
DOI - 10.1348/014466607x220516
Subject(s) - resistance (ecology) , deconstruction (building) , narrative , psychology , habitus , social psychology , promotion (chess) , epistemology , sociology , linguistics , social science , philosophy , ecology , biology , politics , cultural capital , political science , law
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.