A Discursive Approach to Disinhibition Theory: The Normalization of Unsafe Sex Among Gay Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV research and prevention commonly cite disinhibition theory as an explanation for HIV infection among gay men. Analyzing qualitative interview data in which men talk about recreational substance use and their safer sex practices, we interrogate the concept of disinhibition theory from a discursive perspective. From this perspective, we treat talk not as a route or resource to something presumed to lie beyond the talk, but as a form of action designed for its interactional context. We demonstrate how the men normalize unsafe sex through constructions of disinhibition as common and widespread. In doing so, the men manage accountability for their own experiences with foregoing condom use while using substances. Our analysis demonstrates the men's displayed concerns to avoid individualized explanations for having engaged in unprotected sex. This may explain why some gay men may resist HIV prevention campaigns, based on these very individualized explanations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".