‘I did not have sex outside of our bubble’: changes in sexual practices and risk reduction strategies among sexual minority men in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19, jurisdictions across the globe, including Canada, enacted containment measures that affected intimacy and sexual relations. This article examines how public health measures during COVID-19 impacted the sexual practices of sexual minority men— gay, bisexual, queer and other men who have sex with men—and how they adopted and modified guidelines to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We conducted 93 semi-structured interviews with men (n = 93) in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, Canada, between November 2020 to February 2021 (n = 42) and June to October 2021 (n = 51). Across jurisdictions, participants reported changes to sexual practices in response to public health measures and shifting pandemic contexts. Many men indicated that they applied their HIV/STI risk mitigation experiences and adapted COVID-19 prevention strategies to continue engaging in casual sexual behaviours and ensure sexual safety. ‘Social bubbles’ were changed to ‘sex bubbles’. Masks were turned into ‘safer’ sex tools. ‘Outdoor gathering’ and ‘physical distancing’ were transformed into ‘outdoor sex’ and ‘voyeuristic masturbation’. These strategies are examined in connection to the notion of ‘reflexive mediation’ to illustrate how sexual minority men are simultaneously self-responsibilising and resistant, self-monitoring and creative.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".