The cover of David M. Halperin's recent study implies an answer to the title question that is sentimental and much less serious than the book itself proposes. Beneath the title, What do Gay Men Want? , there is an image of a single, lush red rose against a field of white--the symbol of love and romance. Yet that image, like the arguments within the book itself, is much subtler in its potential complexity. Halperin is concerned with a subject more closely allied to the rose as a symbol for death. Recently there has been a renewed interest in scrutinizing the sexual practices of gay men and attempts to associate such practices as barebacking with mental illness and abnormal perversion, in addition to suggestions that such men have an inherent desire for death. Given the fact that there has not been a significant decline in the rate of HIV infection in recent years, such critics would seem to have a valid case. But David Halperin makes a compelling argument against their detrimental logic.

Halperin's book is comparatively short: 110 pages with an additional 46 pages of notes, followed by a reprint of an article by Michael Warner that appeared in the Village Voice in 1995 titled "Unsafe: Why Gay Men Are Having Risky Sex." Warner's article forms a central thesis for Halperin's study. Fearing a new wave of AIDS infection in the mid-90s, researchers at a variety of institutions attempted to explain an increase in unsafe sex practices among gay men. Warner offered a series of potential explanations for this behavior: individuals who are seeking love expect a relationship based on trust, and using a condom creates suspicion; positive individuals are often ashamed and unable to communicate their HIV status; many gay men act out of despair or a need to share in the positive culture that has become a gay identity. Warner shared his own unsafe practices and feelings of danger associated with his encounters, while also considering the importance of "desire and the conditions that make life worthwhile." Culling from Warner's theories, Halperin focuses on the notion of homosexual desire as a form of abjection. Abjection, according to Halperin, provides a way of understanding the motivation behind actions that can neither be labeled intentional or unintentional, those "transgressive impulses" inherent in gay decision making.

Although the prose is sometimes dense, that is understandable--Halperin draws upon the ideas of some of the world's most influential thinkers: Freud, Lacan, Sartre, and Foucault, as well as contemporary theorists like Lauren Berlant, whose works are often fraught with contradiction and open to interpretation. At its heart, Halperin's book is concerned with finding a way to eradicate the language of psychology from any discourse over gay desire and life choices. Efforts at HIV/AIDS prevention are insufficient because they try to appeal to what is "proper and good," and it is just that kind of language Halperin insists we must change.

Halperin, who teaches history and theory of sexuality, English language and literature, women's studies, comparative literature, and classical studies at the University of Michigan, has authored a provocative treatise that challenges us all to participate in this important and timely debate. He does not propose abjection as the only solution to the problem of discussing homosexual subjectivity, but offers it as one available alternative.