Unprotected sex more likely in serious gay relationships

Study shows new prevention efforts need to address young gay couples

Source.


Gay young men in serious relationships are six times more likely to have unprotected sex than those who hook up with casual partners, according to new Northwestern Medicine research.

The findings provide a new direction for prevention efforts in this population who account for nearly 70 percent of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in adolescents and young adults in the United States and who also have the highest increase in new infections.

"Being in a serious relationship provides a number of mental and physical health benefits, but it also increases behaviors that put you at risk for HIV transmission," said Brian Mustanski, associate professor in medical social sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of a paper on the research, published online in the journal Health Psychology. "Men who believe a relationship is serious mistakenly think they don't need to protect themselves."

About 80 percent of gay young men who are HIV positive don't know it, because they aren't being tested frequently enough, he noted. "It isn't enough to ask your partner his HIV status," Mustanski said. "Instead, both people in a serious, monogamous couple relationship should go and receive at least two HIV tests before deciding to stop using condoms."

The new Northwestern research shows HIV prevention programs should be directed toward serious relationships rather than the current focus on individuals who hook up in casual relationships.

"We need to do greater outreach to young male couples," said Mustanski, who conducted the research when he was at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "This is one population that has really been left behind. We should be focusing on serious relationships."

To help reach this group, Mustanski plans to produce two videos for gay youth this summer that discuss having healthy relationships and HIV prevention. The videos will be available on www.impactprogram.org.

The study findings dovetail with recent Centers for Disease Control data showing the majority of HIV transmissions occur in serious relationships. Being in a committed relationship more strongly influenced whether a gay man had unprotected sex than using drugs with a partner, the latter doubling the risk. A new shift to focus research on committed gay couples is partly a result of the burgeoning same-sex marriage movement, Mustanski said.

The Northwestern study looked at the behaviors of a diverse population of 122 young men (16 to 20 years old when the study began) over two years in Chicago and the suburbs. The men are a subset of participants in Mustanski's ongoing longitudinal study on the sexual and mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth. The study, named Project Q2, is the longest running longitudinal study of LGBT youth ever conducted.

Studying the health of sexual and gender minorities has become a new priority for the federal government. In March, the Institute of Medicine issued a report stating researchers need to engage LGBT populations in health studies.

To meet that goal, Northwestern has just entered a partnership with the Center on Halsted, the largest social service center in the Midwest for the LGBT community. Mustanski's research program on the sexual and physical health of sexual minorities – called the IMPACT Program-- will now reside in the Center on Halsted, which has a large HIV testing program and youth program. The move will facilitate research with the LGBT community.

"This collaboration gives us a chance to learn from the staff of the Center about emerging issues in the community, so that we can make those issues a research priority," Mustanski said. "And we can share our latest findings on prevention and healthy relationships with the staff, so they can immediately apply that to their services. There is a lot that we can learn from each other."

"We are thrilled to have the IMPACT program at Center on Halsted," said Modesto Tico Valle, the chief executive officer of the Center. "LGBT people are often excluded from major research endeavors, and IMPACT's focus on our community's health and development is vital. By embedding itself in the Center, IMPACT will have firsthand access to a diverse array of LGBT people to inform their research. We, in turn, have an invaluable opportunity to put IMPACT's research findings into practice, improving our programs to better meet the needs of our clients."

How is D'Ontace Keyes healthy?

Knowing when to make that moment a teachable one…….

Day after day, I log into a network of Gay and Bi-Sexual men, from many different social networks, right through my Mac computer. I log into BGCLive, Adam4Adam and several others, honestly as a health care professional but also for the interest of meeting an attractive Black or Latino male. This is the objective of many different other men all over the United States. 

 

Do I chat with other attractive men? Yes!! Do I eventually have sex with some of these men? Maybe….

It is true that I’m a Black, Gay Male with sexual needs and desires. But I consistently find myself in situations where I am faced with risky dilemmas. At that point, a conversation needs to be had. 

 

“Do you wanna have sex?” 

 

“Are you aware of my status?”

“Do you know of your status”

“Have you been tested in the last 6 months?”

“Do you know the risk if we don’t use a condom?”

It might sound difficult or uncomfortable to ask those questions of someone you plan to have nothing serious with besides sex, but my health is serious enough that I should.

I have had my share of these kinds of awkward situations, but my education and training have brought me to a point where I’m comfortable with that.

In the end, it is a teachable moment for both of us. He got a talk that probably had him rethink his sexual behavior and I was once again reminded that men of color are engaging in unprotected activity.

Does raw sex feel good? Yes!

Is good for our health? No?

So, stick in there (using protection); it pays off in the long run…..

-- D'Ontace Keyes
Chicago

 

How are you healthy?
Join in the conversation.
Tell us HERE. Send a pic to the same place.
And we'll blog it, right here.
Gay men and all allies welcome to participate.
Read past posts.
Learn more about the campaign

Colorlines: I Am HIV Positive and I Don’t Blame Anybody—Including Myself

via Colorlines, by Kirk Grisham

 People I love and talk to about my status do not always have the language or tools to express their grief and worry. They ask things like, “How could you be so irresponsible?” Or, “How could you fuck up like this?”

I am HIV positive, and I don’t blame anybody for it—not myself or anybody else.

He didn’t rape me and he did not trick me. It was through our unprotected sex that I became HIV positive. Since seroconverting, I have been very conscious of the language I use to discuss transmission, particularly my own. To say “he gave me HIV” obscures the truth, it was through a mutual act, consensual sex, that I became HIV positive. When speaking to him a couple months after my diagnosis I gathered that he knew he was positive when we had sex. But that is beside the point; my sexual health is mine to control, not his.

We are encouraged to think about prevention and transmission in terms of responsibility. Someone must be at fault. Culturally, we hunt for secret villains. Today’s “down low” black man is but the latest boogeyman at which we’ve pointed our fingers—the latest of the so-often racialized monsters at which we can direct HIV blame rather than have honest conversations about sex and relationships.

Read the rest.

Daily Kos - You Can't Handle the Truth! What's Wrong With HIV Education for Gay Men?

by GLBT and Friends (FogCityJohn) at Daily Kos

Why is it that public health and AIDS educators seem to assume that gay men can't handle the truth?

 

Excerpt:

I.  Sex Has Emotional and Social Value for Gay Men.

First, HIV education should begin by acknowledging what I consider the most fundamental truth of all — that gay men's sex lives have both emotional meaning and social value.  In other words, HIV education must proceed from the basic assumption that sex has the same value for gay men as it has for all human beings.  HIV education should recognize that gay men are the moral and social equals of straight people.  The simple truth is that our sex lives are not some kind of lesser version of "real" (i.e., straight) sexuality.

The reason HIV education sometimes fails to recognize this basic truth is, as Odets pointed out, that homophobia devalues gay male sexuality.  To reduce the risk of HIV transmission, gay men are often advised to severely restrict their sexual practices or even to abandon certain practices altogether.  We've been told to just give up anal sex because it's too risky, and we've been advised that if we have oral sex, we should do so only with condoms. 

Does anybody seriously think straight people would be asked to give up vaginal intercourse as a preventive measure?  Why is so much more demanded of gay men?  Why do so many fail to recognize that our sex lives aren't just matters of physical pleasure?  Sex has deep emotional and psychological value to us, just as it does for straight people.  It's how we express love and achieve intimacy.  So it pains me that HIV education sometimes treats gay men's sex lives almost as if they're superfluous.

This is especially hard for me to accept as an HIV+ gay man, because I think sex may be even more important for poz guys than for gay men in general.  The stigma of HIV infection can create feelings of unworthiness and undesirability in poz men.  For those of us afflicted with such emotions, sex can be tremendously affirming and validating.  It can serve as an antidote to the isolation caused by the disease.  For a time after my diagnosis, sex certainly served that function for me.  That a man still desired me despite my serostatus was proof that HIV did not necessarily mean an end to my romantic life.

So I guess I'd ask that HIV education acknowledge as a basic truth that sex for gay men isn't just a collection of physical practices to be modified.  It's how we relate, connect, and yes, love.  Understanding that is where HIV education needs to start. 

This isn't to say that gay men don't need to modify their sexual practices in the face of HIV.  It is, of course, absolutely critical that we do so, and most of us have.  But gay men are far less likely to listen to HIV education that treats their sex lives as nothing but a set of dispensable behaviors.  HIV educators and public health officials therefore would do well to acknowledge the emotional and social importance of what they are asking gay men to change or give up. 

Read the whole thing.

Mark S. King - Sex while HIV Positive: The New Criminals

Mark S. King (My Fabulous Disease) interviews Sean Strub of the Positive Justice Project regarding the criminalization of HIV, and how these laws actually undermine HIV prevention, create an illusion of safety, and place a disproportionate burden on the poz person. Importantly, some of the cases that have resulted in convictions dealt with non-disclosure of status, and NOT  unsafe sex or the transmission of HIV. Sean tells Mark that  a quarter of criminal prosecutions in the U.S. involve things like spitting, which carries NO risk of HIV transmission.

Watch and listen for more of this very interesting conversation.

"In the heat of the moment, he allows me to have my way"

via TheBody.com, by Terron J. Cook

[Powerful, piercingly honest story regarding this man's struggle to use condoms, and the intense attraction and pleasure of sex without them. Many of us will relate.]

Excerpt:

Wearing condoms always has been extremely tough for me. First, I ask myself, "Why the fuck would I use a condom when I'm the top man?" But knowing that the majority of men who contract HIV play the bottom role is absolutely no excuse for my behavior. Second, I can't maintain an erection in a condom, or at least, that's what I've convinced myself of. I use this as an excuse to not use them.

When I partake in a sexual escapade with another man, I need it to be fulfilling in all aspects, and utilizing a condom simply does not afford me that pleasure. In my earnest opinion, safe sex is absolutely ridiculous, yet necessary. It creates rigidity, as well as a wall in the middle of what is designed to be so beautiful. There is something about barebacking that allows me to feel close to the man directly in front of me.

Read the whole thing.

Didn't use a condom? PEP 411

PEP 411 if you didn't use a condom

Discussion: Laying It Bare: Gay Men and Unprotected Sex in the Age of HIV/AIDS

TheBody.com recently hosted a panel discussion - via teleconference - on unprotected sex among gay men.Absolutely fascinating, engaging and illuminating - a must for any and all interested in gay men's health.

Click here for the audio and a transcript.

The call was moderated by fogcityjohn and included Walt Odets, Rashad Burgess and Jeffrey Parsons.

- Select quotes -

Walt Odets: It's a natural behavior, and it's of emotional significance. And I think gay men naturally engage in it. We have liked to feel that it was somehow dispensable -- and it's really not, emotionally. So, again, we haven't helped men to think about what they are doing. It's a very narrow range in which HIV is transmitted. Anal sex has the emotional import for gay men that vaginal intercourse has for heterosexuals. And it can't be dismissed. And we can't expect that that's going to done all the time, under any circumstances, with a condom. It's compelling. It's emotionally compelling. 

Rashad Burgess: We, as Americans, [need to] recognize the value of gay men, in all of our lives, in the many facets of our lives -- whether it be the business owners, whether it be folks' uncles, or family members, other types of family members, the partners that gay men have. Because it is a community that, it's imperative, understands that their lives -- and as a gay man, that our lives, and my life -- is worth saving. 

Jeffrey Parsons: We do sometimes forget about the group of gay men who are out there -- and it's a large group -- who are very happy, very satisfied. They're not depressed. They're not lonely. They're not engaged in risk behaviors. They're not seroconverting. They're actually doing very well. And I think -- and I can certainly say this as a researcher -- that too often we don't get to focus on that group. We don't get to actually talk to them and research them and find out: What are they doing to stay safe, and to stay healthy, and to stay well adjusted?

Read, listen to the whole thing here.

Was the condom MIA? PEP 411.

When you find a boyfriend, can you lose the condoms?

New campaign from Terrence Higgins Trust urges gay men in relationships to 'play it safe'

via Pink News, by Christopher Brocklebank

Excerpt:

Alan Wardle, Head of Health Promotion for Terrence Higgins Trust said, "We know that for some men in a relationship, condoms can be one of the first things to go. Why do you need them if you’re in a relationship? Yet the fact is, if you’ve not talked to your partner about their sexual history and yours before you ditch the condoms, you could be at risk. We know that some men may find it difficult to discuss their sex life with their partner, but if you don’t talk about it how will you know?"

Read the whole thing. 

So, you didn't use a condom - now what?

Canada judge: Insertive unprotected anal sex does not create 'significant risk of serious bodily harm'

via Aidsmap, by Edwin J. Bernard

A Canadian judge has ruled for the first time that an HIV-negative person is not placed at 'a significant risk of serious bodily harm' if they are the insertive partner in unprotected anal intercourse with an HIV-positive man.

According to a statement from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network this "reinforces the basic point that not every risk of transmission will be considered 'significant', and illustrates the importance of ensuring that courts consider carefully the scientific evidence before them in determining when there is a 'significant risk' of harm, rather than simply criminalising non-disclosure in all circumstances."

Read the rest.

Time for porn stars to self-organise

via guardian.co.uk, by Thierry Schaffauser

The gay porn industry, like its straight counterpart, is normalising unsafe sexual practice and ripping off its actors

I  have been working in the British gay porn industry for almost two years now. On average, we earn £300 for a scene, which may seem a lot based on other jobs' hourly rates, but given that you're not shooting films often, you can't really make porn your main occupation. Unless they are famous and popular, most porn actors have to do other jobs within or outside the sex industry.

Read the rest.

The Barebacker’s Delusion

via Melbourne Community Voice, by Daniel G. Taylor

‘Jacob’ says he probably took thousands of loads of cum, starting when he was 14 years old – from partners who were HIV-negative, HIV-positive, or unknown status – before he became HIV-positive 15 years later.

“There were some periods of weeks or months where I was getting fucked every day, two or three times a day,” Jacob says. “By the time I was in my twenties, I started topping as well and that was nearly always bareback. After that much activity, and a lot of it unsafe, you start to think, ‘Am I immune?’ or ‘What the hell’s going on?’”

Surf bareback blogs and you’ll see other gay men who have had repeated exposure to HIV and stayed negative. Some come to believe they are immune. Is anyone immune to HIV?

Read the rest.

And come back and share what you think.

Does “internalized homophobia” still matter?

via The Sexual Continuum, by Brian Mustanski

One of the most widely studied topics in the decades of research on LGBT health has been the concept of "internalized homophobia." Although definitions of IH differ somewhat depending on the theorist, the concept generally refers to the internalization of society's homophobic attitudes within a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) person. Over the years, researchers have found internalized homophobia to correlate with a variety of psychological, behavioral, and medical outcomes like depression, substance use, and sexual behaviors that put one at risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Research on internalized homophobia and sexual risk taking began in the late 1980s in the midst of the HIV/AIDS crisis centered in the gay community. The goal was to understand how anti-gay stigma and victimization affect the health and behaviors of sexual minorities. Ultimately the hope was to use this understanding to help prevent HIV transmission. Since that time many studies have been published on this topic, but the results have been inconsistent.


Read the rest.

If gay guys use condoms more than straight people, why do they get infected with HIV at much higher rates?

via rabble.ca, by nico little of ickaprick and ironpussy

While working in the prevention team of a Canadian AIDS service organisation, I was part of an inter-agency group that offered training to local social workers, nurses, shelter employees, etc on how to offer better services to sexual minorities.

To get the ball rolling in training sessions, I often start by saying:
 
Studies show that gay guys consistently use condoms with casual sex partners at rates way higher than do heterosexuals. In one study conducted at Toronto Pride in 2006, 75-80% of gay guys reported consistent condom use with casual partners. And even if that number is inflated, it's still much higher than the rate for heterosexuals. Yet in Ottawa, gay guys still account for more new HIV infections than any other population and, in the US, gay men are the only group among whom HIV infections are currently on the rise.

If we are going to provide effective health services to men who have sex with men, it's essential that we understand what's going on. It seems totally illogical: gay guys use condoms more often, yet are infected with HIV more often. 

So as professionals who are paid to serve this community, I'm asking you: why?

Read the rest.

Data Dump - research of interest to gay men's health advocates

The minions behind LifeLube (your gay, sexy, healthy field guide to gay men's health) read a LOT of literature of interest to our community - and we'd just like to clue you in on some important/interesting articles we have recently checked out - abstracts below. If you are interested in getting the full paper of any one of these - please send an e-mail to lifelube@gmail.com and we will try to hook you up.


Accounts of HIV Seroconversion Among Substance-Using Gay and Bisexual Men   

Childhood Sexual Abuse and the Sociocultural Context of Sexual Risk Among Adult Latino Gay and Bisexual Men 

Factors associated with unprotected anal intercourse between HIV-positive men and regular male partners in a Sydney cohort

HIV Prevalence and Unrecognized HIV Infection Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Chicago HIV Behavioral Surveillance, 2008 (this links to the full paper)

Social Support Moderates the Relationship Between Gay Community Integration and Sexual Risk Behavior Among Gay Male Couples

Pleasure and Risk

Garrett Prestage gave the following talk at the Australasian Society for HIV Medicine conference held in Brisbane, Australia in September 9 - 11, 2009 as part of a community organization (ACON) panel. Please give it a read. (Thanks to Michael Hurley for putting this on the LifeLube radar.)


For 25 years I’ve noted various attempts to ‘sell’ condoms to gay men as though they could be erotic or fun, usually using bright colours or a sexy pose or some cutesy addition – the latest being a banana. But it’s never worked – it just seemed to because most gay men have practised safe sex throughout the epidemic.

What do they really think about condoms?

Like most straight men, they hate them – they’ll use them because the circumstances require it but if they had some other option they’d go for it.

In PASH (Pleasure and Sexual Health - a survey conducted in Australia) two thirds of men (including 81% of men who did UAIC - unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners) said that if there was no longer any need to worry about HIV it’d be unlikely they’d continue using condoms. Less than a third (29%) of men who did UAIC agreed that condoms can ever be fun or erotic – even among those who ALWAYS used condoms with casual partners only half could agree with the statement. Three quarters – 78% (including almost all – 93% – of the men who did UAIC) said that sex just feels better without condoms. Over half the men who did UAIC said that condoms are a hassle, they slow down the sex & are a nuisance.

Lots of the men in PASH noted that using a condom makes it harder to keep their erection, or makes getting fucked less comfortable, but they also spoke about the sheer pleasure of sex without a condom & how a condom just gets in the way.

So what’s the point? Well, I would argue that gay men appreciate honest and realistic information that enables them to make up their own minds – and they don’t automatically buy what we tell them. Although I know that most organizations have tried to respond to changes in HIV and changes in how gay men think about risk, we basically continue to give them a message that can be reduced down to ‘but really, you should just use a condom’.

In PASH, the majority (59%) think HIV messages are all the same, and that they never say anything new (58%), & three quarters (75%) say that all HIV messages tell you is to use condoms. So do they have any impact: Well, half the men who did UAIC say they see HIV messages but don’t pay much attention. But that doesn’t mean they’re ineffective. Of course condom reinforcement works in a more subliminal way to reinforce a safe sex culture – and we should retain that. And even though large numbers probably ignore much of the content of the messages, they mostly appreciate their value. Despite their general hostility to condoms, almost all men in PASH, whether they used condoms consistently or not, agreed that condoms provided a sense of security either from infection or from the possibility of infecting their partners and so they agreed they were necessary for this reason.

They’re not idiots and they’re not irresponsible. They know how useful condoms are – but that doesn’t mean we ever fooled them into liking them.

However, as I’ve said on previous occasions, at the beginning of this epidemic, when we had to start promoting condoms & safe sex, the common feeling was that once there was a cure, we’d throw one huge orgy to celebrate. And the reality is that some men have quietly begun to celebrate. Not all men: Some men remain locked into a morbid fear of HIV and couldn’t possibly contemplate taking any sort of risk; But others, still just a minority, but undoubtedly growing, are reassessing the situation. They’re not quite ready to throw caution to the wind – they know it isn’t quite over yet – but they feel the risk has decreased enough that they can relax a bit.

In PASH, one third (31%) including a little under half (41%) the men who did UAIC feel that HIV has become controllable, similar to diabetes, & one in six (18%) including a third (32%) of the men who did UAIC say they’re now willing to try some things that they used to think were too much of a risk.

The sorts of things that some men said in PASH about the risk of HIV transmission are the same as what I’ve heard many of us say quietly as well: For example, one PASH respondent said, “I guess I genuinely believe there's a very low chance of passing on my HIV as a bottom, and because I take my own meds so regularly, I believe there is next to no chance of passing on HIV to another partner."



So, my question is how much longer we think we can get away with treating gay men like children and trying to frighten the minority into submission with a boogie-man that even we don’t really believe in any more?

Sure, HIV is still quantitatively different to other STIs and we all think we should avoid getting infected or infecting anyone else – but it’s now no longer an absolute. It’s a question of how much do I want to avoid it.

People tell me I should eat more healthily. Probably I should if all I cared about was getting all my health indicators into perfect alignment. But, really, if my health is generally pretty good and I have other things in place that make me think the risk of anything really bad happening is probably fairly low, why should I sacrifice eating things that give me so much pleasure? It’s pretty unlikely.

In life we all judge relative risks and pleasures, and pleasure always wins unless the risk is judged to be relatively great.

Until the mid-90s, the risks posed by HIV appeared very great indeed, especially to gay men, and so, of course, they mostly sacrificed their pleasure, at least to a significant extent. But nowadays an increasing number of gay men – still a minority, but definitely increasing – are coming to a different conclusion. They’re not abandoning all caution – they mostly still practice some sort of risk-minimisation. But condoms are no longer an automatic part of that.

I’m going to quote something from Elizabeth Pisani’s writing in the Guardian a couple of days ago to put this in context. She’s talking about the tension between trying to promote HIV-prevention at the same time as let people know that if they get HIV they’ll still be able to live a normal life. I’m selectively quoting from a fairly long article.

She says: “If there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having AIDS then why should be bother with HIV prevention messages? … AIDS industry dinosaurs like myself know that AIDS really is something bad. What we’re not so good at admitting is that it is practically non-existent in rich countries… Treatment readily available means you can have HIV without getting AIDS for decades, maybe forever. And the treatment is free for patients (LifeLube note - not in the USA), if not for the taxpayers… HIV is no longer a mass murderer in rich countries. It’s an inconvenient disease that will have you taking pills for the rest of your life, cost taxpayers lots of money and make big pharma rich… ‘HIV increases your tax bills. Protect yourself!’ Not really a line that’ll get you reaching for the condoms is it?”

And, really, plenty of gay men know this is the reality. They still try to reduce risk, but it isn’t a life-or-death priority any more.

What is a big part of gay men’s decision making though is the question of trust. How well they know someone, how well they can trust the situation they’re in, how much they can trust their sexual networks. And key to this is knowing someone’s HIV status.

Most men when asked will recite what we’ve all been taught is the correct line: In PASH 93% agreed that you can never really be sure of someone’s HIV status – but two thirds (66%) also believed that there are some men whose HIV status they could be sure of, plus three quarters (72%) felt that knowing someone’s HIV status is a way to reduce HIV risk. And when they were asked about the casual partner that they’d last engaged in UAI (unprotected anal intercourse) with, nearly half said they were very confident that they knew his HIV status.

So, all these serosorting campaigns that are based on telling men that they can’t really be sure of knowing someone’s HIV status are probably fairly meaningless. Yes, gay men nod approvingly to this statement, but for many the statement is only meaningful in the abstract. And then it simply doesn’t apply to this particular guy, because I know him, or I trust him, or I trust this situation.

We don’t provide him with any tools to minimise his risk in these situations – other than to imply that he’s a fool for trusting anyone. And we mostly justify this because the Seroconversion Study is full of stories where this trust was misplaced – but of course it is. These are the stories of the men who were unlucky enough for it to go wrong.

But when we look at data from our other research what we see is that many others are doing the same thing and not seroconverting: A substantial proportion of men are engaging in UAIC with partners they believe they know, and mostly with partners they believe they can trust. And the HIM data (Health in Men study in Sydney) tell us that while these sorts of decisions may be riskier than using condoms, they’re significantly more protective than when they have UAI with men whose HIV status they don’t know.

Nonetheless, we know from the Seroconversion Study that often this trust can go awry. This statement from a PASH respondent tells us a lot about why it can go awry: “He asked me if I was neg. If he'd been positive I would have assumed he wouldn’t have cared."

So, he’s placing his trust in the situation. His logic was that a pos man wouldn’t have bothered asking if he was neg & then proceed to have UAI with him. His implication about the irresponsibility of pos men is clearly misplaced but his assumption that this guy was neg based on the interaction was probably a reasonable one but even so a pos man might have used that information to decide whether he should be top or bottom.

When we look at the Seroconversion Study data, the lesson we need to learn from them is not that we need to get gay men to behave like they did a decade ago and return to absolutely consistent universal condom use with casual partners. Not because it’s not a worthy ambition to get gay men to take up condom use in the same way again – but it’s simply not reality. It won’t happen.



The lesson from the Seroconversion Study is that we need to provide gay men with some practical tools so they can make informed decisions about the safest circumstances for them to discard the condoms, and so they start to reflect on what’s really going on for them when they feel they can trust the situation they’re in.

When is that trust rational and when is it misplaced?

Mostly, gay men still want to protect themselves and their partners from HIV, but not at the expense of enjoying themselves. It’s not our job to decide for them that there’s only one way they should behave, or that virtually no degree of risk is acceptable. Our job is to provide them with the tools to enable them to put into practice their perfectly reasonable decisions about relative risk and pleasure.

After 25 years I think we can trust them to get it right.

Lost generation: Are modern HIV campaigns failing younger gays?

via Pink News, by Ramsey Dehani

As someone reminded me recently, people born in the early nineties are now reaching adulthood. It is safe to say that these younger gays will not remember the images of the AIDS scare in the 1980s and 1990s.

With modern HIV advertising focusing less on condom use, are the younger generation being ill-advised on the dangers of unsafe sex?

The Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), Britain's largest sexual health charity, has recently launched a campaign called 'THIVK' aimed at knowing your HIV status and getting tested. It is the first 'testing' campaign in ten years.

Advertising advocating condom use has become harder to find, with many gay magazines containing none at all.

THT itself has come under scrutiny over its refusal to use hard-hitting campaigns because it does not want to "demonise" HIV sufferers.

The modern promotions are a world apart from the infamous 'tombstone' and 'iceberg' ads of the 1980s.

But it appears many people still "die of ignorance". With infection rates among gay men climbing 110 per cent between 1999-2007 (1,450 cases to 3,050), there is an argument for more hard-hitting campaigns.

I spoke to a 20-year-old gay student about his views on safe sex. He said: "Condoms are really important. I always try to use them." But he added: "Sometimes I forget though, especially when I'm drunk."

Read the rest.

***Interested in how porn, and bareback porn, affects our sexual desires and practices? Are videos depicitng edgy sex a hot but safe way to get off, or does condomless porn signal a dangerous normalizing of risk? Join us for "Risky Business - Reclaiming Pleasure" - a live podcast forum at the Center on Halsted this coming Monday, August 17. Click here for more info, and to RSVP for this free event. We will talk about the kind of sex, intimacy, fantasies and pleasure we crave, and how we can get there.