From the analysis of data it would seem that desire and lust for the physicality of the partner's body was a major factor in the levels of control exhibited by the respondents in the sexual encounter. Within the data there were also several examples of respondents who were in relationships over a longer period of time having low levels of control in unsafe sexual encounters, loosing control in these sexual encounters due to the influence of various macro and micro conditions. These conditions included desire for the partner's body image, physicality and personality but also included such conditions as abuse, money, environment, age, experience and the negotiation of power within the relationship. For Stuart there was the desire for and abuse by his partner, and the paradox between the two.
"So this guy was a perfect body image ideal for Stuart at that time, and the look was rough. Stuart had a relationship with this guy for 2 years and during this time he tied Stuart up, he was abusive, aggressive and not a nice person. This was a throw back to his father - Stuart had no control in most of these abusive sessions - had lost control of the situation and the scenes were not consensual. Unsafe sex happened nearly all the time in this 2 year relationship - Stuart still desired the guys body a lot - like a touch would just get him sexually excited. Desire and abuse and the paradox between the two."2

For Michael, the loss of control that lead to unsafe sex may have been caused by the difficulty he had in negotiating power from a position of equality within the relationship. This loss of control may have been influenced by Michael's vulnerability and the degree of trust that he placed in his partner. Michael felt he had no control due to such conditions as age, environment (Michael had moved in with his partner), experience, low overall self-esteem, low body image self-esteem and lack of money. Realisation of his position in relationship to these conditions may have led to him eventually realising that he was being exploited and violated through unsafe sexual activity. The first time he had unsafe sex his partner said they could trust each other - Michael did not have a test and the other guy said he had been tested. His partner said he wanted unsafe sex because he said it felt better because it was more physical.
One respondent, Gavin, equated different interactions within a sexual encounter to different levels of control. For him, being active was equated with being in control, a situational context in which he was more likely to wear a condom. On the other hand Gavin saw being the passive partner as enabling him to go on a journey, to achieve ecstatic states, for which he did not insist his partner wear a condom because of the energies involved in this interaction, his passionate desire to be with his partner and the sense of intimacy and connection he had with them. In other words he equated being passive with going on a journey through a loss of control of his self, giving himself up to a different state of being.
Some respondents noted different levels of control within the same sexual encounter and the passing of control from one participant to another that lead to unsafe sex. Kieran, for example, said that he made a decision to hand over control to his partner because he was enjoying himself and then he lost control of the situation and unsafe sex occurred. In another example respondent David willingly relinquished control in a sexual encounter that lead to unsafe sex because he wasn't confident in his abilities in the areas of communication and sexual experience.
"David's self-esteem was low at the time because he wanted to have a relationship with the guy - and the guy didn't. He was younger than most older Caucasian men who found Asian men attractive - early 30's. David didn't want to disagree with him, it just happened. David fucked him, but he [his partner] was on top, so he had control of the situation - David relinquished control of the situation willingly because he wasn't confident in his sexual experience and communication skills in regards to sexual activities. The other guy didn't say anything to David though. David realised when he penetrated him, that he hadn't put a condom on David. He was shocked, but he thought it should be OK because he was the active partner, and that the other guy would know what he as doing, and that David hadn't cum and would withdraw before ejaculation."3

Physically and visually it is usually the active male that is seen to be in control in a sexual encounter, but in this case control has willingly passed from the active partner to the passive partner because of conditions such as David's levels of experience, his low self-esteem, his desire for a relationship, and the lack of availability of young Caucasian sexual partners for Asian males. Unlike many respondents David did not claim that loss of control happened 'in the heat of the moment', the justification that many respondents used to explain the loss of control that lead to unsafe sexual activity in a sexual encounter. Only one respondent, Marcus, stated that his level of control was high in a sexual encounter in which unsafe sex occurred, that he did not loose control of the situation. Even though Marcus still wanted to take in the physicality of his partner through the passion and energy (heat) of the moment, here the action was almost planned according to the respondent and 'in the heat of the moment' was not used as a justification for his actions or the level of his control.
"There have been a few times when he has been tempted to fuck without a condom - nearly penetrating but suddenly thinking what the hell am I doing. This was with guys with good bodies - almost like an impulse that pushes right through you. Normally all the checks did not feature until its partially in. Consciously the checks did not feature as prominently because of possession through desire. The whole act becomes an act of taking in the person - not a loss of control, but I want this so I am going to take it into me ... at Mardi Gras last year - this boy, a body image ideal, Marcus did allow him a few strokes more of unsafe sex because he wanted to feel him inside of Marcus - a taking in, the physicality of his whole body - his look, the energy of the moment, passion. He didn't loose control of the situation - it as almost planned that Marcus would do this. Fuck it, he wouldn't worry about it, a soul decision and not a cerebral thing. Wouldn't this feel great if I didn't have to worry about condoms."4

Although the range of variability of levels of control in unsafe sexual encounters among the respondents was large (varying from 'in control' to 'lost control') I found that the overwhelming majority of the respondents felt that they had low levels of control in a sexual encounter in which unsafe sex occurred and had lost control of the situation. This loss of control was due to a variety of conditions but I believe one of the main conditions to be possession through desire of the respondent. As one respondent said, "Lust has a lot to answer for."
From the evidence of the data it would seem that a desire for the physicality of the partner's body and the need to take in that physicality 'in the heat of the moment' affects levels of control within a sexual encounter and is one of the main conditions that appears to contribute to the occurrence of unsafe sex among the respondents. This desire did cause some of the respondents to loose control of the sexual encounter. Whether this desire caused them to make a (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex which then influenced levels of control or whether levels of control influenced the (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex through desire is an interesting question.
As John McLeod and Phil Nott have noted, "A common explanation for having condoms but not using them is that the person 'got carried away by the heat of the moment'. This explanation tends to see unsafe sex as irrational and unpredictable, (subconscious decision?) particularly in relation to the very rational approach to providing information about AIDS and safe sex, and having condoms available ... For Michael (a respondent in their survey), unsafe sex was not irrational, nor did itcome 'out of the blue'. Unsafe sex was a logical extension of the reasons why he had sex. Sex was about intimacy, about asserting his gayness and about transcending the ordinary and everyday."5 (In other words, for Michael, having unsafe sex was a conscious decision based on rational thoughts).

The above quotation and the evidence of the data raises the question as to whether the loss of control in sexual encounter can ever be justified and defended by such phrases as 'it just happened', 'in the heat of the moment', or 'you are just there and you do it'. Is the loss of control that leads to fucking without a condom the result of a subconscious or a conscious decision to have unsafe sex, or is it a combination of both the conscious and the subconscious that influences the interactions of the participant involved in the sexual encounter? Does desire for the partner and their body image impact on levels of control gay men exhibit in sexual encounters, and the decision (whether conscious, subconscious or both) to allow unsafe sex to occur? Personally I believe that many conditions affect the (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex which then has a profound effect upon levels of control that occurs prior to or during the sex act. Conversely, I also believe that levels of control that gay men exhibit in sexual encounters (influenced by such conditions as desire for the partner and their body image) do influence the (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex by a gay man. (The issue of a (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex I will address in further detail in the next subcategory).

It is enough for me to comment here that I believe the evidence in the respondents data shows that a (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex because of levels of self-esteem and a desire for a partner's body image does have a major impact on the degree of control that respondents exhibit during a sexual encounter. Here it is really important to note the connection between lack of intimacy in gay men and the fear of loosing control - as happens in instances of unsafe sex when the lid of their emotions is blown off. The paradox is that gay men both desire intimacy and fear the loss of control that it may bring at one and the same time. Through emotional intimacy gay men may begin to feel themselves and their partners and attain a level of connection that is otherwise lacking in everyday life but with this intimacy comes the fear of loosing control6 of the self, of others, and of situational contexts such as sexual encounters. Being sexually aroused and liberated from normal states of existence has an affect on the boundaries of the body and of the cognitive aspects of a persons reasoning which may lead to a loss of control during a sexual encounter. Experiencing 'connection' may become a validation of their lives, for however brief a moment, and this can lead to a loss of self control and a loss of rational thought which, when (sub)consciously acted upon, may lead to the incidence of unsafe sex. (Please see the subcategory on 'Intimacy, connection and trust' for more information on the effects of intimacy on gay men).

Respondent Gavin noted that his decision to have unsafe sex was a subconscious decision influenced (subconsciously or consciously at the time?) by such conditions as his levels of self-esteem, his attraction and desire for his partner's body image and their personality, their dick size, and the lack of communication about the use of condoms. Gavin's post-coital verbalisation of these (sub)conscious influences could be seen as his rationalisation of these influences, as justifications for what happened in the encounter after the event. As Gavin says, "The mind is switched off to all warnings." Switched off to all warnings perhaps, but not to the (sub)conscious influence of desire, flirtation, flattery, body image, physicality, and the size of the partner's penis! In his passionate desire to be with them he blindly trusts them and consciously lets himself go, but if Gavin's conscience is pricked, if he becomes aware that he is crossing the taboo of unsafe sex and he feels guilty in these actions, then, as he says, "Safe sex will occur" because his mind becomes conscious to the warnings about the possible consequences of his actions. (I will discuss justifications for actions and guilt emanating from those actions in greater detail in the later 'Consequences of unsafe sex' subcategory).
Another respondent, Marcus, stated that his decision to have unsafe sex was a soul decision not a cerebral one and that he wouldn't worry about it. His interview raises the question as to whether 'possession through desire' negates consciousness to the extent that rational or conscious thought about intended actions is subsumed by subconscious desires. As Marcus says, "Consciously the checks did not feature as prominently because of possession through desire."8

Does this mean that 'possession through desire' is a subconscious or a conscious state of being that negates the conscious reality checks of safe sex? Is desire ever just a subconscious state of being? Personally, I do not think so. In general I believe that when we desire something we have to have consciously thought about what we desire prior to that thought of desire seemingly emanating from the subconscious at the time. For example, if I desire beautiful cars then within my identity there is the general condition of desiring beautiful cars even though I do not know I will desire a specific model until I see it for the first time. This particular model can awaken my desire for the first time even though that desire is based on a more general understanding that I like all beautiful cars. Another example would be that of falling in love. The general rule is that people do not fall in love on first sight, because love is built up from a recognition of all aspects of that person fitting the (sub)conscious desires of the person who falls in love. When people do fall in love 'on first sight' perhaps it is because subliminal desires awaken, perhaps for the first time, a passionate longing to love the other person for seemingly unknown reasons which are, in fact, based on generalised sets of desires built up over many years which form part of that person's overall identity which, of course includes his subconscious.
When thinking consciously we order our thoughts through their relative importance to us in any given situational context (in this case the context of a sexual encounter). Consciously, if desire to have sex with a body image ideal is higher on our list of priorities than personal safety for example, then we may well be more likely to participate in unsafe sexual activities to attain our goal. But if the (sub)conscious justification 'possession through desire' takes over from rational thought, this does not necessarily mean that conscious thought has not taken place weeks, months or years before the interaction about what a gay man is prepared to do to get what they want in a male2male sexual encounter. I believe that conscious thought about our desires help to form the basis for our identity and may very well impact on supposedly subconscious desires prior to the (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex. Whether conscious thoughts of desire present within our identity form the basis of subliminal desire is an interesting question, for how can we know about subliminal desires if they are unknown to our conscious mind, are part of the 'noumenal'?9 We have knowledge of our subconscious through such things as our dreams (and sexually speaking our 'wet' dreams in adolescence) and our anima and their interaction with our conscious mind, but can we have knowledge of the subliminal when we can never 'know' it as such, because it is not part of the phenomena of the world? How can our conscious desires (in)form subliminal desires if we have no real knowledge of it? In Marcus' case, "It was almost planned that Marcus would do this," an act of conscious thought prior to his soul decision to have unsafe sex. Marcus wanted to feel him inside, the conscious act taking place prior to the taking in of the partner through the (sub)conscious passion and 'energy of the moment' during sex. I believe this is an enactment, in reality, of previous conscious thoughts about the wants, needs and desires that form part of the respondents identity through subconscious desires.
With respondent David we see another example of a respondent justifying his initial unsafe actions, after the (f)act, as a subconscious decision to have unsafe sex which then changes to a conscious decision during the course of the sexual encounter. I believe that his unsafe actions within the sexual encounter were based on prior rational conscious thought about his desires, wants, needs and their implementation through his (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex. Contrary to what David says I believe that despite his inexperience in fucking and surprise when it went in David was consciously aware of the implications of his actions at the time his penis went into the guy's arse. David said that in the beginning it was a subconscious decision to have unsafe sex but I believe that this is not the case - he knew (subconsciously or consciously?) that he was the hottest guy that he had ever had sex with, that he didn't want to pass up the opportunity, that the guy specifically wanted him over men who had better bodies and bigger dicks (this he must have known consciously for he must have seen the bodies and dicks of other guys around in the orgy room and known that his partner had specifically chosen him). The supposed subconscious expression of his desire through unsafe sex is based on a lifetime of thinking about those desires which form part of his overall identity. It is both conscious and subconscious at one and the same time.
Personally, I do not think there is ever such a thing as just a subconscious decision to have unsafe sex. The after the (f)act justifications for a subconscious decision to have unsafe sex ('in the heat of the moment', 'I was there and it just happened', for example) are blind to the reality that desire is embedded within identity and that this identity is formed through life experience and historicity, this historicity intersecting and forming boundaries with the varied conditions and hierarchical power relations in the world, the many (sub)conscious thoughts of the person, and the various materialities of the body. For example, what we believe is good for the care and responsibility of our self (e.g. that we should have safe sex), is determined within boundaries that are based on both individual and culturally learnt behaviours that may exclude other positions, discourses and perspectives that may be closer to the true desires of our identity. Consciously doing what is good for us does not eliminate these desires from our psyche, and when the opportunity comes to physically express those desires all at once, in reality, then I believe this can lead gay men into dangerous situations.

From my analysis of the interview data I found that the range of variability of consciousness present in the respondents decision to have unsafe sex during male2male sexual encounters is large, ranging from what the respondents said was just a conscious decision to what they said was just a subconscious decision with various combinations of both consciousness' in-between. Most of the respondents who said they had unsafe sex because of levels of self-esteem and desire for body image ideals made it quite clear that they thought their decision to have unsafe sex was a subconscious decision but from my analysis of the interview data I believe that the decision to have unsafe sex is never just a conscious or a subconscious decision but always a (sub)conscious decision, a decision made by a combination of both the conscious and subconscious minds. This decision is influenced by the presence of many macro and micro conditions which vary under different situational contexts, from person to person. I believe this is a very complex philosophical area of concern that has important implications in the (sub)conscious decision of gay men to have unsafe sex for it involves the interactions of the conscious and the subconscious which varies from person to person; furthermore I believe that the effect of personal levels of self-esteem and desire for the ideal body image of a partner are initiated into the actual physical action of unsafe sex through the mental process that is the (sub)conscious decision to have unsafe sex.

I believe that 'possession through desire' is a crucial condition in the (sub)conscious decision of the respondents to have unsafe sex. The critical question is whether desire can be awakened only by the needs of the subconscious mind which therefore makes the respondents decision to have unsafe sex only a subconscious decision, or whether desires are formulated in the conscious mind at an earlier stage in the historicity of the respondent and the formation of their identity and these conscious desires then influence the supposedly subconscious decision of the respondents to have unsafe sex. I believe it is the latter case. I believe that conscious thinking about these desires may take place weeks, months or years before a specific sexual encounter and form part of a gay men's identity. I think that these conscious thoughts embedded as desires within an identity may then influence and interact with the seemingly subconscious decision to have unsafe sex 'in the heat of the moment' which allows unsafe sex to proceed, much as I believe that 'off-line' (ie., everyday) thinking about what a gay man desires is embedded in his identity and may influence and interact with 'on-line' (ie., during sex) thinking to a significant degree, both lines of thinking acting together to allow unsafe sex to proceed. As Judith Butler has said of the 'materialities' of the body so I believe the same can be said of the subconscious and conscious minds.
"It must be possible to concede and affirm an array of "materialities" that pertain to the body, that which is signified by the domains of biology, anatomy, physiology, hormonal and chemical composition, illness, age, weight, metabolism, life and death. None of this can be denied. But the undeniability of these "materialities" in no way implies what it means to affirm them, indeed, what interpretative matrices condition, enable and limit that necessary affirmation. That each of those categories have a history and a historicity, that each of them is constituted through the boundary lines that distinguish them and, hence, by what they exclude, that relations of discourse and power produce hierarchies and overlappings among them and challenge those boundaries, implies that these are both persistent and contested regions."10

I believe that both the subconscious and the conscious are defined and affirmed in their existence through interpretative matrices and are dependent on certain conditions of understanding (both individual and cultural) for their definition, that enable them to operate but which, conversely, limit their very field of operation. Both the subconscious and the conscious have a history and historicity that is constituted by boundary lines that are both inclusive and exclusive at one and the same time. Both the conscious and the subconscious overlap and interact in their hierarchical relations of discourse and power which may cause one state of mind to have power over the other, to be in control in certain contextual situations, but I believe that relations between the two categories are always in a state of flux dependent on the variable overlappings and shifting boundaries of the categories and the priorities of the person involved. This produces a contested area between the subconscious and the conscious that challenges the boundaries of both, influences the interactions of one upon the other, and then affects the (sub)conscious decision by the respondents to have unsafe sex in this example. In the interactions between the conscious and subconscious, conscious thoughts may be deliberately put away by the individual who becomes oblivious their warnings, but this does not mean that the conscious thoughts are not present, only that they have been relegated in importance by the person concerned under these particular circumstances. When talking to respondent Anthony, he wondered how any gay man could not be conscious of when his unclad cock was going into an arse hole, or when an unclad cock was going up your arse. You visually see it and you sensuously feel it; even if you don't see it you still can feel it. The feeling of an unclad cock going up your arse is totally different from one that has a condom on it; one is rubber and the other is flesh and you can tell the difference. Of course you have to be aware that there is a difference and what that difference is; some gay men are not so well informed and are not so skilled in fucking to be able to tell the difference. But the question still remains, under what circumstances do gay men not consciously know, have not seen or felt that they are about to have or are having unsafe sex?
I believe that there are only two circumstances under which this may happen.
The first may occur during incidences of unsafe sex when the hierarchical power relations in the contested area of the conscious and the subconscious are unbalanced as the subconscious takes control of the individual through emotions and impulses. Conscious thoughts may be put away during the act of unsafe sex. This statement does not mean that the conscious mind is not present or has no power, but that it has less significance under certain circumstances. It also does not mean that conscious thinking about desires, wants, and needs by the person prior to the act of unsafe sex that are integrated and form part of a respondents overall identity do not act to influence his subconscious desires at the time of the sexual activity and the decisions that are taken that emanate from those desires that cause him to participate in unsafe sex. The power of the subconscious over the conscious in the minds of the respondents that affects his decision to have unsafe sex may be the result of the (sub)conscious influence of personal levels of self-esteem and desire for the body image ideal of the partner, along with a host of other numerous macro and micro conditions.
The second may occur due to the influence of drugs. This may cause the person to totally forget what happens in a sexual encounter. After being on drugs friends of mine have woken up in rooms in a sauna with two other men and have had no idea what has happened in the sexual encounter with them. They have no idea who has fucked who and whether condoms were used at all. There has been a total lack of awareness on the part of the conscious mind of the circumstances under which the sexual encounter took place due to the influence of the drugs. They have no memory of what took place at all.

Footnotes

1. Interview with Ben, 27, 6'2", 86kg, Greek, middle-class. Melbourne. 15/10/1997.

2. Interview with Stuart, 29, 5'7", 11st, white, middle-class. Melbourne. 18/11/1997.

3. Interview with David, 26, 169 cm, 50kg, Malaysian/Chinese, middle-class. Melbourne. 15/10/1997.

4. Interview with Marcus, 27, 6'2", 74kg, Chinese, medical graduate, middle-class. Melbourne. 15/10/1997.

5. McLeod, John and Nott, Phil. A Place to Belong. Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations. Sydney: AFAO, 1994, pp.37-38.

6. The Dangers of Intimacy: "d. The Fear of Loss of Control.
Men and women are sometimes afraid to risk becoming intimate for yet another reason - they fear losing control. Some theorists have speculated that men may be particularly afraid of intimacy and the loss of control it brings (Hatfield, Elaine. "What Do Women and Men Want From Love and Sex?" in Allgeier, E. and McCormick, N. Gender Roles and Sexual Behaviour. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing, 1982). Traditionally, men are supposed to be in control - of themselves, of other people, and of the situation. The ideal man carefully controls his thoughts, is logical, objective, and unemotional. He hides his feelings, of if he does express any feelings, he carefully telescopes the complex array of human emotions into a single powerful emotion: anger. A "real man" is even supposed to dominate nature."

Hatfield, Elaine and Sprecher, Susan. Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986, pp.330-335.

7. Hill, Robert. Dictionary of Difficult Words. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1993, p.314.

8. Interview with Marcus, 27, 6'2", 74kg, Chinese, medical graduate, middle-class. Melbourne. 15/10/1997.

9. "The philosopher Schopenhauer defined the non-material, non-conceptual and experience outside all possibility of time and space as the noumenal. He argued that we can have no real knowledge of our inner self because we can never 'know' it as such; we can only have real 'knowledge' of something if there is something to be grasped and something to grasp it and this only exists in the 'phenomenal' world - the world of causal relationships, the world of material substances, the world of phenomena. He illustrated that the greater part of our inner lives are repressed, because to challenge our idealised image of ourselves would be to disturb the boundaries of personality, ego and identity."

Bunyan, Marcus. Trans(a)gressions and the Body-Image. Unpublished paper from the 2nd National Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual Health Conference, Melbourne, 22-24th January 1998, p.1. For a discussion of Schopenhauer's idea of the 'noumenal' please see Magee, Bryan. Confessions of a Philosopher. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997, pp.405-406.

10. Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge, 1993, pp.66-67.