Utter fool. That is all.
Aren’t the Conservatives not suppose to be the party of small government?
If so, then how do these vile people justify holding such homophobic views? Why do members of a party which supposedly prefer personal responsiiblity and oppose Big Brother support a higher age of consent for gay people?
It is clear that these people are pro-small government when it suits them.
If he’s really committed to protecting those poor, vulnerable kids, why not raise both straight and gay male sex to 18 and leave lesbian sex at 16? That would make far more sense. The difference between HIV rates for straight people and gay men is infinitesimal compared to difference between either of them and lesbians.
I think the age of consent should be equal for all, regardless of risk (ain’t nobody ever heard of safe sex? sex education?), but my proposal above still made infinitely more sense than his proposal. So why is it that none of these “not homophobes” ever makes that proposal? Because they are homophobes, that’s why. They’re trying to warn children away from our “unnatural” “lifestyle”.
All that eduacation and so little common sense!”
He seems to have forgotten that women can be gay too, or does that not count because it’s “hot”?
Time for him to go, Mr Cameron. Expect more if the conservatives win the General Election. Only the Millionaires will benefit, whilst the rest of us will pay through the nose for less.
I beleive what he says, in essence, is true. I also believe in equality. So raise the age of consent for everyone. There are probably a hundred unwanted children born to teenage mothers as there are 16yo gay lads contracting HIV.
They are both risky, and both have their repercussions. This prat Tindall is talking out of his arse, because it has been proven time and again that anal sex is far more likely to be transmitted through unprotected anal sex than by any other means.
That said, does he thing by raising the age, it is going to prevent kids from shagging? Taking drugs, getting pissed and driving uninsured vehicles are also illegal, but they still do it.
What a moron! So the conservative have changed have they? God help us if they get in next month.
But the stupid sod has contradicted himself with his army analogy; you can join the army at 16, you just won’t be in a position to be shot at until you’re 18. Technically, the minimum recruitment age is 15.9 what with adjudication of applications.
And on the subject, minors who become parents at the age of 16 have a greater chance of screwing their kids lives up (as well as their own) so perhaps we should review the heterosexual age of consent. Of course I don’t have any statistics to prove this and it would be a project to obtain them.
Perhaps it should be pointed out that health statistics point to a trend where HIV transmission rates have also been rising in the heterosexual population – you couldn’t revise one age of consent without the other.
Well I had gay sex illegally in 1999 – and had no problems with it.
To be honest I would be all in favour of barring penetrative sex till the age of 18 for EVERYONE so we are all on an equal playing field. I disagree with his comments as regards HIV but so many birds get up the Damien Duff at such a young age its unbelieveable that nothing has been done about it. So am I going to be castigated for taking the middle ground?
Ryan, whilst I disagree with raising the age at all, I can respect those who want to see those raised across the board. The unacceptable beliefs, fuelled by homophobia, of Julian Lewis, are on the other hand unjustifiable.
ah, my mistake. I attributed the comment there (not used to this site) My comment is in response to ChutneyBear.
“This prat Tindall is talking out of his arse, because it has been proven time and again that anal sex is far more likely to be transmitted through unprotected anal sex than by any other means.”
Are you making the assumption here that heterosexuals never engage in anal sex?
why wont he just say it STRIGHT, what he really think, that gay sex is wrong.
and anyway, does anyone in tory party agrees with camreon’s idea of gay equality, me thinks not
Having worked in sexual health for several years I would dismantle Dr Lewis’s case as such:
1. ordinarily the easiest sexual routes of transmission for HIV from are unprotected anal and vaginal sex (protected anal or vaginal sex poses little risk to properly educated 16 year olds, gay male or otherwise)
2. the highest rate of new infections in the UK result from unprotected vaginal sex between a man and woman therefore singling out gay males in nonsensical
3. although a higher proportion of gay males are affected by HIV, the gap is narrowing, and they are by no means the only at risk group, therefore the logical conclusion of Dr Lewis’s point is that we should also have a separate age of consent for immigrants from HIV hot spots.
Dr Lewis misses the point. HIV affects different groups in different ways and the age of consent is a very crude mechanism for tackling it. He unwittingly makes the case for better sex education for everyone.
I very much hope that some of his constituents, perhaps with the aid of the Terrance Higgins Trust with fact checking, will write to Dr Lewis and point out the inconsistencies in his arguments.
Another bit of proof that the Tories are no friend of any LGB or T person. no matter what David Cameron says, its made clear almost every day that the rest of his party are as backward-thinking and bigoted as ever.
The age of consent is a red herring. Criminalising teenagers for having sex at 16 will not make them stop having sex.
In the Netherlands the age of consent for both gay and straight sex is 14. The Netherlands has far lower rates of teenage pregnancy and HIV transmission than the UK. The Netherlands also has sex education in schools at a much younger age than in the UK.
Could there be a link? Well of course.
So what is this revolting bigot babbling on about?
This moron is another example of the monstrous, bigotted reality of the Tory Law and Justice Party.
It will be noted that those European countries with the lowest HIV rates – The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden – all have equal ages of consent for straight and gay people, often at 15 years. They also have much, much better sex education, and, crucially, a sensible, grown-up, non-stigmatized attitude toward sex in general. Because, ultimately, it is not one’s sexuality that determines one’s risk, it is one’s propensity for engaging in unprotected sex with people who have the condition. To say that gay teenagers are more likely to do this than any other group is not only untrue but deeply offensive towards them.
It is a fact that there is a greater risk of HIV among black people, especially those born in Africa. It would be more logical to ban inter-racial sex. If he wants to ban gay sex for 16 and 17 year olds he cannot justifiably argue in favour of that unless he also argues to ban inter-racial sex for the same age group.
He is utterly ridiculous.
Chlamydia is out of control in the heterosexual population yet this prospective MP has no plans to increase the age of consent for hetros too!
Yes, indeed, expect more of the same if we vote so as to allow the Tories to get back into power.
Vote tactically. Vote so that the Tories don’t win IN YOUR LOCALITY.
If that means LibDem, Labour, Green, or whoever is the most likely to beat the Tories in your area, THEN VOTE FOR THAT PARTY. The priority is to not let those nasty Tories back in power. If they DO get back in, then Window-Dressing Dave will be quickly told what to do by the Norman Tebbits OR they’ll replace him with a genuine old-fashioned Tory.
Sex education is a complete red-herring.
Everyone over the age of twelve (arbitrary I concede) knows how you get knocked up or infected with an STD, it’s just that in the UK both situations have been rendered consequence free.
Comparisons with our continental friends and neighbours are unhelpful as they have been very careful not to develope a tax-payer funded under class groomed for the specific purpose of propping up a comedy/parody version of a socialist political party.
This is tory party double speak. On the same day you have one tory MP apologising for homophobia, then they send another out to prove to the christians and puritans that they really are homophobic.
And to think that there is someone who could soon have power in the UK that is so uneducated that he thinks HIV is spread by anal sex alone. It is embarassing for the tory party.
What is more worrying though is that there are some pink new readers who continue to defend the homophobic tory party, and taunt the other pink news readers who reveal this fact. Why?
Sex education is most emphatically NOT a red herring – it is utterly central to the entire issue. All the statistics show that the countries with the most, and the best, sex education have the lowest incidences of STDs and unplanned pregnancies. This is an indisputable fact, and the causal logic behind it is not hard to see.
Good sex education is so much more than simply imparting a mechanistic knowledge of the pneumatics involved in the sex act. It is about inculcating a healthy, informed, confident attitude towards all matters of sex and relationships. It is about dispelling misinformation and equipping young people with the tools and confidence they need to resist things like peer pressure, social stigma and religious indoctrination. It is about building a culture that understands the psychological aspects of sex, values life-affirming relationships appropriately, is aware of the dangers involved in sex and realises the importance of taking them seriously. If these things are not achieved then you do not have good sex education, and treating it as purely a dispassionate biology lesson in what goes where is a surefire way to fail.
In this we most certainly can and should take a leaf from our European neighbours’ books – because they’re doing it right and we aren’t. Talk of a “taxpayer-funded underclass” or of STDs and pregnancy being “consequence-free” in Britain is just paranoid Daily Mail-esque conspiracy nonsense of the highest order. Compared to countries like Sweden we have a paltry and pathetic welfare state, and yet do the Swedes have more STD infections and unwanted pregnancies than us? No, quite the opposite. If these things truly were “consequence-free” in Britain, they would not be a problem and nobody would be having this discussion. People suffer from these afflictions because they are ignorant, irresponsible and do not take the consequences at all seriously. The only certain remedy for ignorance and irresponsibility is good education, plain and simple.
Conservatives have “changed” folks. They’re older.
Where are all the pro tories on this thread.
“One of the criticisms commonly made of gay relationships is that very often they do not last.” Well my partner and I have been legal for 2 years and together for 26. I think that’s a hell of a lot longer than a lot of hetty marriages (especially Royal ones) last. which goes to prove, if two queens marry it last longer than a prince and princess(!)
I think you should all stop being over-sensitive. Yes he is wrong but it is just his opinion, one he is entitled to. It’s not policy and it won’t be either. Some of you are in fear of over doing the ‘drama queen’ acts. It does the rest of us no favours!
Squidy get real! Politicians opinions shape policy. In the case of Dr Lewis he chooses to ignore the facts of HIV transmission. In 1999, heterosexually acquired HIV became the largest category, and has continued to be so ever since.
Africans in the UK are diagnosed with HIV at a far higher rate than other ethnic groups, having comparable number of diagnoses to white people, despite being a far smaller percentage of the overall population.
He wouldn’t dare argue against having sex with a particular nationality or race but instead goes for the soft target which is gay men rather then acknowledge the positive steps the GLBT community has taken to curb the spread of HIV. Today the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses is greater then the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men.
In the case of Dr Lewis prejudice masquerading as concern is usually exposed by facts.
And yet under Labour cases of HIV and STD, hetero or homo, has risen beyond anyones expectations. Yes this man is wrong, naive maybe, definiately ignorant sure but it is just an opinion.
David Cameron has already said it is not Conservative policy and never wuld be. Plus I have to say this man and his view are Not new news. His views are well documented and have been for years.
I wouldn’t surrender to such scaremongering. I still believe under the Tories we will Not loose any right now or at any time soon.
Why does this Squidgy keep sticking up for the homophobic tory party whenever they are homophobic? Yes Squidgy everyone is entitled to their opinion. Like the pope, or nick griffin, or Mugabe, or David Bahati. Do you think no one should be over sensitive about them? You really are the most naive pink news reader. I hope you are in your late teens, because that would make you cute, but if you are not, you are stupid. And that goes for the rest of the pro tory voters on pink news, wake up, you are voting for a party which WILL take your rights away.
“Why does this Squidgy keep sticking up for the homophobic tory party whenever they are homophobic?”
Because voting Tory is like a religion to him, or so it seems… don’t question them, unwavering loyalty, and shunning logical argument to the contrary. He chooses to ignore what is obvious to him.
Basically, he’s a blinkered idiot. A unwavering opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion at all, its stupidity.
“I wouldn’t surrender to such scaremongering. I still believe under the Tories we will Not loose any right now or at any time soon.” – Squidgy
Have you forgotten Squidgy, that your Tory party want to remove the human rights act. This European wide bit of legislation has been the biggest instrument in helping the LGBT gain basic human rights ever.
Without it government would never of acted to help us and if its not in place our rights could be removed by act of parliament.
“Sex education is a complete red-herring.”
What a load of old s*** Vulpus Rex spouts.
Britain had section 28 (thanks to the Tory Law and Justice Party) and a gay age of consent at 21.
The Netherlands did not have Section 28, had decent sex education in schools and an equal age of consent at 14.
In the Netherlands the HIV infection rates among gay men and the rates of teenage pregnancy are FAR lower than in the UK.
That moron Vulpus Rex does not think these are linked.
Then again he’s a Tory robot. He will ignore common sense and support homophobia if it means defending the Tories.
Has Julian Lewis been fired yet?
if not then why not?
Squidgy says: “Yes he is wrong but it is just his opinion, one he is entitled to. It’s not policy and it won’t be either.”
Don’t be so goddamned naive.
It is not just this moron Lewis who is a disgusting bigot in the Tories.
Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling and Julian Lewis are all in the Shadow Cabinet and all are homophobic scum.
If you think these vile bigots won’t try to include their sleazy bigotry in Tory policy, then it’s quite clear that if the Tories were to announce that homosexuality was to be banned, you’d be supporting them (like those Tory village idiots Philippa Stroud and Andrew Brigden)
Oh, thanks comment #37!!!!!! Now the paranoid gimp is going to think I did that.
(I did laugh out loud though)
“Because, ultimately, it is not one’s sexuality that determines one’s risk, it is one’s propensity for engaging in unprotected sex with people who have the condition. To say that gay teenagers are more likely to do this than any other group is not only untrue but deeply offensive towards them”
What matters is *why* people engage in unprotected sex – and it isnt just about school age sex education. its also about rebellion, subversion, risk taking, expression of trust, effect of alcohol, sense of obligation, coercion, stigma.. multiple reasons. To single out one group and assume age has anything to do with it is plain ignorance. I do hope a THT/similar statement to refute point blank is issued soon.
A vote for Tory is a vote for Homophobia.
to all those on here who support something that is so anti gay is digusting, and you should be ashamed of yourseleves. Think of all those people before you that have suffered and stuck their necks out for you to be able to proudly announce you are a gay person. THey have sat on dirty roads , marched in the rain and sacficed their own time. They have stood in docks and suffered prision sentences, just becuase they were gay. But in their time when things were different, they carried on and were never beaten down. Thank god. Other wise we wouldnt have pink news, civil partnerships, or any other right that we all take for granted and expect. Those on here voting for a party that if they had their way would recriminalise us in a second. They are homphobic to the core always have been and always will be. Mr Cameron said himself gay votes in there party would be a free vote. Wonder which way that will go. Hold your heads in shame, you are a disgrace. Becuase all those laws that have been in place, they you grasp so readily, you now want to turn your back on. All I can do is public apoligise to all those who suffered for mine and your freedom.
No exceptions or concessions are made for taxpayers in this so called democracy – total EQUALITY should be afforded to ALL people who contribute – HIV is transmitted when people are engaging in covert sex, guilt ridden sex where more risks are likely to be taken due to ignorance or a desire to be wanted, accepted – Equality equals self worth and self respect. Unlike the Conservatives HIV DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE!
Teenage pregancy is Lower in the Netherlands because children are also taught that there is more to life than going out on a Friday and getting off your head and securing sexual congress with the first chav who will have you.
Take a trip to the holiday Island of Ibiza and visit San Antonio – if you can find one P8ssed up Dutch girl among the thousands of intoxicated Brits desperately trying to secure some sex then I’ll be very surprised and even more astounded if you can point to any resort round the Mediterranean where any other Nationality exhibits this behaviour.
The few Dutch people I know are horrified by the way British youth are encouraged to drink and no amount of sex education is going to change that pattern of sexual incontinence until there is an end to the boozing.
Now, Simon, some statistical theory for you – correlation is not causation, and there is nothing moronic about knowing that.
“Teenage pregancy is Lower in the Netherlands because children are also taught that there is more to life than going out on a Friday and getting off your head and securing sexual congress with the first chav who will have you.”
Where is your proof of this?
“Now, Simon, some statistical theory for you – correlation is not causation, and there is nothing moronic about knowing that.”
Oh, dear, Vulpus Rex is back with his erudite statements. Well, sorry, you’re wrong.
The reality is, age of consent does little to affect the prevalence of HIV.
Lets take two EU countries:
Age of Consent: 14
Adult prevalence % 2007: 0.1
AIDS deaths 2007: <500
England and Wales
Age of Consent: 16
Adult prevalence % 2007: 0.2
AIDS deaths 2007: <500
[Statistics: 2008 HIV/AIDS surveillance report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe]
As you can see there is NO correlation between age of consent and HIV infection rates, in fact the evidence points to the very opposite.
This Tory MP is just doing what Tories, and all conservatives in general, do best:- grasp as straws to validate homophobia. He must have found his medical diploma in a dumpster, as he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. And it seems neither do you in your desperation to defend the Tory Party.
I am fascinated in the way you'll support the Tory party even when they're showing blatant homophobia and lies…. makes we wonder how little self respect you must have, and how pathetic your intelligence is, vulpus rex, to be so blindly loyal to one party that pisses on your back and then tells you that its raining.
Being that I have just returned from hospital from tests for Cancer I find the person who has used my name on comment 22 in extremely bad taste. If this isn’t bullying I don’t know what is.
You are a pathetic sad lonely individual who need to stop STEAL other peoples lives and try and get one for yourself!
Sorry comment 37
One thing we all can agree on about Squidgy is that he is good for a belly laugh…..i also laughed out loud at #37
Thank you PinkNews. Now go one step further and stop people using multipal names.
I have come to the conclusion some of you want far from Equal rights. You want to deny other gay people freedoms who don’t agree with you so you bully them. You want to be more special than anybody else not equal. Well your not so get real and deal with it.
It’s a shame because most of us just want to be Equal and in many ways we are. Some of you just choose to be victims.
I WON’T be bullied. I WON’T be intimidated. I will vote for my choice. I WILL vote Tory. And I truly hope some of you get what you REALLY deserve!
As Charming and confused as ever Willy (Dick by name etc…)
I have merely contended that more sex education is not the cure for teenage pregnancy and STD infection that some believe it to be. I further contend that because two events did or did not happen at the same time (Clause 28 and sexual health in the Netherlands) that they are not necessarily linked.
Now what in the above is either a) supportive of Julian Lewis or b) a suggestion that the age of consent is linked to infection rates or c) somehow supportive of Homophobia (Tory, real or imagined)?
The answer is nothing so I have little notion what you are cr*pping on about.
Quite clearly an equal age of consent has nothing to do with teen pregnancy or HIV transmission rates as evidenced by the fact that across Europe – in Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands etc have equal ages of consent but far lower teen pregnancy and HIV transmission rates.
So Vulpus – do you agree with Julian Lewis’s comments?
“I WON’T be bullied. I WON’T be intimidated. I will vote for my choice. I WILL vote Tory. And I truly hope some of you get what you REALLY deserve!”
Yawn. Yeah, we know. Victim, bullied, opinions, yadda, yadda.
“The answer is nothing so I have little notion what you are cr*pping on about.”
Why does that not surprise me. If you can’t answer a direct question, best stick to your “countdown of doom” or whatever you’re calling it these days, or even a “clever” word play on Labour…. whatever. I noticed you provided zero poof of your statements.
And I truly hope some of you get what you REALLY deserve!
But do you not realise that if we get , as a gay man , so will you. Stupid
ps I WON’T be bullied. I WON’T be intimidated
If you vote tory , you will have big helpings of both
I cant stop laughing , the mans a fool
“But do you not realise that if we get , as a gay man , so will you. Stupid”
You know I couldn’t give a toss what you think. Once maybe. I have Never felt unequal and no-one around my hubby and I has ever made us feel unequal. We have all we want and all we need. Most of all we have each other. I will help and support total equality for most of the people here that want it and truly know what equality is. Nothing will change that not even your bitchy scaremongering. To put it another way I’m now kind of thinking on the lines ‘I’m alright dave!’ OK Stupid?!
Ugh! Please! Have some self respect, man, you’re behaving like a child!
“Being that I have just returned from hospital from tests for Cancer I find the person who has used my name on comment 22 in extremely bad taste”
And this?!?!?!? Oh, good lord, please, stop it! You’re only short of getting in a string quartet to backsrop your Shakespearean tragedy. Lets you comments stand up for themselves, and stop playing the bleeding heart victim, its truly pathetic and nauseating.
Being that PinkNews saw fit to remove the comment, an usual step, I think your out of your depth. No doubt your idea would be to resort to violence. Clearly there are those of us that just want equality and some of you that just want to be above the rest and be specially protected flowers.
Get a grip. Grow up and learn about Equality before you go spouting it. I might be helpful for you to actually KNOW what it is your truly fighting for.
“So Vulpus – do you agree with Julian Lewis’s comments?”
I neither agree nor disagree as I have no direct relevant knowledge or experience of the subject (which of course, is not always a barrier to expressing an opinion) but I will say this:
If he is correct and can support his claims with evidence then he should be congratulated for taking a principled stand on a difficult subject.
If he is incorrect and merely trotting out ill-informed biggotry he should be exposed and deselected.
However, it is naive and unrealistic in the extreme to expect any political party in the middle of a general election campaign to suspend all other operations and focus on this, and that a failure to do so is evidence of more widespread homophobia. It isn’t.
And Willy – I have scrutinised your post and the only question I can see is “Where is your proof?”.
I have none – it is an opinion based on observation and experience of living in both the UK and France, and as I say the input of two Dutch friends.
Now just for you – only 14 days to go till it’s over for Liebour
“No doubt your idea would be to resort to violence.”
What the F?????? You really are a piece of work. Look, you got issues, mate. Serious issues. Get of the internet and see a doctor instead of complaining like the sad bitch victim in this comments section.
Well at least I keep to one name and don’t feel the need to change it to try and score points. It’s very sad and if you really feel the need to have mass-debates all by yourself I wish you would do it in private and stop Exposing to all who have no wish to see it.
A 5 year stint of the Tories I think would us all good as some of you need to start to appreicate what we do have and also equality means.
gays should be culled at 21, not let them go around spreading HIV and AIDS
It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder how you could ever have voted for a non-Tory party. This didactic need to put others in their place and punish them for their wrong-doings (even en masse, as a demographic rather than as individuals) is typical Toryism.
Your typical anti-Tory doesn’t actually tend to respond in kind on this issue. Think about it. The Tories want to punish us, whereas we just hope their nefarious plans fail. That’s all. It’s a typical Tory thing, you see. They want to reward those who have been “well behaved” and punish the “uppity” ones, whereas we want full equality for all, regardless of whether or not we like them. Not the same thing in the slightest.
I know you’re just pissed off here, but you have said similar things in the past. It’s the dreaded taint of Toryism seeping into your veins. Don’t let it take your soul! Don’t let personal grievances have any impact on your moral beliefs. Equality for most people? That’s Tory speak, that is! Ignore those who give you grief. You take your vision of equality and you ram it down everyone‘s throat, no matter who they are. Because if others goad you into discriminating, then you’ve already lost.
A 5 year stint of the Tories I think would us all good as some of you need to start to appreicate what we do have and also equality means.
Jesus, I could have just quoted this one. Where’s a “roll eyes” emote when you need one? That’ll teach me to F5 before responding.
“Well at least I keep to one name and don’t feel the need to change it to try and score points.”
So, now I’m using different names. Right. Why exactly would I want to do that, and does it detract from the utter nonsense you write? No. Not too mentally balanced there, are we, Squidgy?
You’re as paranoid as you are pathetic. Go seek help. Really. Its awful to watch what you write in here.
“Equality for most people? That’s Tory speak, that is!”
And yet some on here Deny other gay people the Equality of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Expression. If you don’t agree your not ‘gay’ enough. Equality means for all not some like some on here believe because they clearly feel they deserve more. They are the ones who let everybody down and ultimately they will be the ones who will loose every LGBT people their Equal Rights and that will scream “it’s not my fault” when the hatred is shown to them for the damage they do because they don’t want unity or equality.
Is THIS you idea of freedom of speech????
A histrionic breakdown followed by a threat?
Not too bright, are you? Why are you talking about equality all the time. You making stupid statements, and silly threats, boo-hoo stories, and paranoid acquisitions is not about equality, its about you being a severely emotionally damaged individual.
Go. Get. Help.
The fact you have to use mental illness as a weapon of shame says it all about you really and how much of a lowlife you truly are Paul. As gay people aren’t we supposed to get away from using in a bad light something that can for some be a devastating condition into something of acceptance that most of us will have to cope with at some stage in our lifes.
Aren’t we supposed to fight being told that gay as a mental illness is wrong, yet you brand it around clearly with no respect for those who truly suffer from this condition?
The fact you keep resorting to such nasty, vicious comments involving mental illness suggests you have very low intelligence and really have nothing at all to say.
You have no respect for life, for being gay or for Equality. You are a disgrace.
Deal with it.
Nuff said…End Of!
Being that PinkNews saw fit to REMOVE the comment you clearly show you are again talking out of your a**e! But then you’d know that wouldn’t you, knowing Full well what it said and that it wasn’t me that wrote it!
Aaaaaand back again to the you’re-all-the-same-person-out-to-get-me-lark? Ha Ha! Sorry Paul, you’ve been added to a list of about 10 names that out resident drama queen Squidgy thinks we all are. Apparently, you’re me. And so are a few others such as Jay and other’s I can’t remember…. that’s pretty messed up if we can’t even remember our own multiple personalities :)
How deluded and full of self importance does one have to be to think that everyone there is the same person out to get you?
Paul, you’ll learn that Squidgy will say loads of silly unfounded sweeping statements, but rarely backs them up, and when cornered for an answer, he does the same thing always: (1) play the victim of a conspiracy of persecution, and then (2) kick up a childish tantrum, or threat, about how we’re all destroying “equality” or the Tory party or something stupid like that. Like clockwork.
“You have no respect for life, for being gay or for Equality. You are a disgrace.”
And he’s just proven point (2) above beautifully…. what did I tell you? Like clockwork.
JohnK: “Are you making the assumption here that heterosexuals never engage in anal sex?”
Certainly not. That wasn’t my point. They stand an equal risk.
Abi1975 “Chlamydia is out of control in the heterosexual population yet this prospective MP has no plans to increase the age of consent for hetros too!”
Get some fvcking perspective. Chlamydia doesn’t kill you, it just gives you an itchy dick.
Alan: “Ordinarily the easiest sexual routes of transmission for HIV from are unprotected anal and vaginal sex”.
Oh so like everyone else picks it up via fvcking osmosis.
Unprotected anal intercourse does carry a considerably higher risk than most other forms of sexual activity. The lining of the rectum has fewer cells than that of the vagina, and therefore can be damaged more easily, causing bleeding during intercourse. This can then be a route into the bloodstream for infected sexual fluids or blood. There is also a risk to the insertive partner during anal intercourse, though this is lower than the risk to the receptive partner. FACT.
I do not support Lewis’s motives in this, but the grounding is solid. I don’t know what it is about gay people trying to deny facts like this, equality is one thing, but none of us are perfect, and knowing oneself means admitting to our problems, as well as championing our assets. Crap like this is not only divisive, it’s downright bloody dangerous.
Squidigy, fcukoff. You’re a total basket case. You clearly do have a mental illness. Nothing to do with being gay, its blatantly obvious form your deranged postings.
So predictable are your lunatic posts that even someone else was able to predict your tiresome responses. Go figure.
So, how’s about you “deal with it” you ignorant freak.
You’re pathetic – and I’ll say no more on this.
“I do not support Lewis’s motives in this, but the grounding is solid”
No its not. There’s is no scientifically proven correlation between age of consent and increased HIV transmission rates. In fact the opposite is shown from the figures. Try keep your own prejudices against gay men out of the equation and you might be able to understand.
When people start saying things like fcukoff it means they lack imagination and clearly have lost the arguement.
I Thank You!!!
“When people start saying things like fcukoff it means they lack imagination and clearly have lost the arguement.”
No, in order to lose an argument the other must have an opposing view. You just have silly tantrums an make stupid threats. You don’t deserve anything but to be told to fcukoff. Sorry, I had to lover myself to your level there.
Must be awful for you wi5th your condition on top of a learning difficulty, and all the woes in life you carry, what with the cancer and the equality and terrible burdens you have. I see why you moan and whine a lot. I pity you enormously.
Medication time, is it yet squidgy?
For the love of jesus, squiggles, give it a rest. Enough alredy.
33, JonnyKC said that for Squidgy “voting Tory is like a religion to him, or so it seems. Don’t question them, unwavering loyalty, and shunning logical argument to the contrary. He chooses to ignore what is obvious to him.”
I think you’ve put that very succinctly, JonnyKC. I’ve been thinking exactly the same thing myself. It’s like faith to him. And the sad thing is that so many Daily Mail and Telegraph readers I have met ARE just like religious people although they may not be religious.
Conservatism and Religionism are sad and strange bed-fellows, in my observations.
And yet some on here Deny other gay people the Equality of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Expression
But squidgy, the reason that we question your beliefs is that is it had to understand some one who wants so much equailty and yet defends a party that has in the past , recent , and possibly the future has suppressed us , gay people, so much, and taken away or held back those very things that you state. Check out their past voting record. Well in my case that is why I question your comments. I was brought up in a very tory household, and all I can say is , it was racist, bigoted and compassionless. I have many tory friends and I am afraid, they are the same. They sit around their tables in large houses, with loads of money and they moan about the man down the road who lives in a council house, with a flat screen telly. That all he might have mind you, nothing else. But still they go on. They really comes across as the only people that diserve anything in this country, are if you are white, well, straight and working. No grey areas. I sit in my house and llook at what I have and are just well, grateful. Sod the flat sceen telly. But that is why we question you. I really believe that your heart and passion are in the right passion, but your argument and your answers are flawed
Will: “There’s is no scientifically proven correlation between age of consent and increased HIV transmission rates.”
That was never my argument. I think the connection is tenuous at best. My argument was that people are trying to say vaginal and anal sex are equivalently risky, and all accurate scientific studies and statistics blatantly demonstrate they are not.
I think this man is using a correct piece of advice to promote a rather inaccurate assumption.
“My argument was that people are trying to say vaginal and anal sex are equivalently risky, and all accurate scientific studies and statistics blatantly demonstrate they are not.”
Then I stand corrected.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation and poor thinking in the comments above. The NHS website states: “of the 7,734 new cases of HIV in 2007, more than half (55%) got infected through heterosexual sex, and 41% through sex between men.”
Surely that would suggest that vaginal sex is less risky than anal sex?
“Surely that would suggest that vaginal sex is less risky than anal sex?”
No, it only suggests unsafe practices being adopted by people who engage in heterosexual intercourse. Rob N is correct, anal sex carries a higher likelihood of transmission, for the reasons he gives. The reason for the difference you cite is down to the fact that unsafe practices are on the rise among heterosexuals, and possibly a drop in awareness about transmission in general.
“But squidgy, the reason that we question your beliefs is that is it had to understand some one who wants so much equailty and yet defends a party that has in the past , recent , and possibly the future has suppressed us , gay people, so much, and taken away or held back those very things that you state. Check out their past voting record.”
“Possibly the future”? So no certainty then? I honest don’t see them taking anything away from us. It’s not in their interests to do so.
As for the past, I’ve said before the past should stay there in the past. I have no interest in reliving it. I’m well aware of whats happened I lived through it but I’m not scared to give the Tories a chance. They have so much mess to sort out doing anything to disadvantage ‘gay people’ just ain’t going to happen.
I’m voting for the 2010 election Not the 1980 election. If you all wish to stay in the past, I feel sorry for you, I for one have no interest in it.
My life is very much in the present and the future. That is what I’ll be voting for.
“My life is very much in the present and the future. That is what I’ll be voting for.”
A man that ignores history is doomed to repeat it.
g7uk: “…more than half (55%) got infected through heterosexual sex, and 41% through sex between men.” Surely that would suggest that vaginal sex is less risky than anal sex?”
That is precisely how statistics get misinterpreted. “Heterosexual sex” does not necessarily mean vaginal sex.
Cabbages are green, but not everything that is green is a cabbage.
“Possibly the future”? So no certainty then
But you have not certainty either that they will not resort to the past.So your using your vote as you would placing a bet on a horse. A total gamble. I want a certain winnner on gay rights , not a might be.
My Gay rights come with human rights of a better economy, better housing, better jobs, better industry, better health service etc.
Thats where my vote goes.
dave:- Cameron isn’t going to change gay rights so don’t really see your point unless your saying he’s going to stop them? Not heard anything like that.
I’m voting because I know we will still have our gay right but I am also voting because I want a better life with my gay rights.
@ Will who wrote: “No, it only suggests unsafe practices being adopted by people who engage in heterosexual intercourse.”
Aren’t you forgetting that, going by the government figures, only about 3.25% of the UK population is a gay man whereas 93.5% is a straight man or woman (I don’t know where bisexuals fit in)?
So, whatever heterosexuals are doing – whether vaginal or anal and with or without a condom – gay men in the UK are many, many more times (by a factor of 30x? in fact) more likely to become HIV+ than straight men and women in the UK?
And that’s leaving aside the Terrence Higgins Trust stats that seem to suggest that a large number of heterosexual cases in the UK are among black Africans:
“Around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV are among gay men and people from black African communities.”
All of this worries me. I sense that a lot of it is driven by a desire to portray the gay community in a favourable light as much as possible and whatever stats will do that are presented while leaving out those bits that may detract. It’s sinister because it means we end up not recognising and addressing the real issues that we face.
“Aren’t you forgetting that, going by the government figures, only about 3.25% of the UK population is a gay man whereas 93.5% is a straight man or woman (I don’t know where bisexuals fit in)?”
Yes, so work out the math. Where’s the biggest increase in HIV transmission rates? Heterosexual sex. Who are the largest group infected? The heterosexuals. This is fact – no PC nonsense, not protecting the gay community – just fact, regardless of how you want to portray it.
Ergo, numerically, they are now the largest vector for the disease. This is critical for HIV prevention. Focusing on one group as “perpetrators” is not only stupid, its ineffective and biased science. Focus on the growth areas is how we beat the disease, and yes, that includes Sub-Saharan Africa – but the so-called Christian churches have a lot to answer for on their policies in that areas causing this pandemic.
Why do you seem hell bent on victimising the gay community anyway as the No.1 HIV risk when figures clearly state they are not? Would you prefer that gay people are more susceptible to HIV?
@ Will – you need to forget politically correct posturing and words like ‘victimising’ and consider the misleading message you are sending out to gay men in Britain.
This isn’t some kind of pop chart of who is the number one ‘HIV risk’. It’s about telling people here in the UK about the actual degree of risk they face so they will protect themselves.
If you are a gay man in the UK you are something like 30x more likely to become HIV+ than if you are a heterosexual man or woman. That is obvious from the figures. About 9.35 out of 10 of the population is straight, about 0.325 out of 10 are lesbian and about 0.325 out of 10 are gay men. Yet in 2007 heterosexuals accounted for just 55% of new cases and 41% of cases were due to sex between men. Furthermore “around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV are among gay men and people from black African communities”.
The reason gay men are at high risk is is because anal sex is the most risky activity, because such a high proportion of gay men are already positive, because we are a relatively small percentage of the population (ie. there is a much smaller pool of partners to choose from) and because so many don’t use condoms now.
If you are a gay man you are much more likely have sex with someone who is positive than if you are a straight man or woman (other than perhaps a UK-based black African). In some cities 10% of visible gay men are positive. So there is a giant risk out there if you are a gay man.
Furthermore, if you aren’t heterosexual but not a black African the risk is further massively reduced for you because:
“The largest number of new cases in the UK currently occurs in two main groups. “Around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV are among gay men and people from black African communities,” says Paul Ward, deputy chief executive at the Terrence Higgins Trust.”
So, just to be clear, will you please admit that by far the greatest risk in the UK is among gay men and among (and from) heterosexual black Africans?
I understand you don’t want to demonise gay men but wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so.
That should have read:
“Furthermore, if you ARE heterosexual but not a black African the risk is further massively reduced for you because:”
“I understand you don’t want to demonise gay men but wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so.”
I’m sorry, you clearly have some agenda here, and I’m not engaging in science with someone who is misinterpreting the figures to demonise gay men for your own agenda.
The reality is, in the UK: “The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. The peak was 4,921 in 2004, since when there has been a moderate decline. A total of 45,947 cases had been reported by the end of June 2009.” [Health Protection Agency: HIV in the United Kingdom: 2009 Report, November 2009]
You are in error, and what’s worse, you are promoting the usual flawed myth that gay=hiv. I have no idea why, but I find it reprehensible. But your agenda is irrelevant, your are flawed ion your assessment. As I said, the figures and facts say a different picture. You’re probably some religious nut, given your previous “question” about vaginal sex compared to anal sex…. wouldn’t be the first time on this site.
Nice one Will: So anyone that counters your argument is either a “self-hating homophobe” (me), or a “religious nut” (g7uk).
PROPORTIONALLY gay men are still WAY above straights. So 10 or 20 of them have to die to equate to one of us. Stop spinning stats to fit your own agenda. Gay men have been, and probably always will be, a high risk category. You are just another spin doctor wrapping up bad news as good to keep the pro-gay image up.
Not only is this damaging, it also leads people into a false sense of security, which is ultimately irresponsible and dangerous. So gay men have problems. Big deal. Better to live with it than brush it under the carpet or bamboozle people with conflicting statistics so they think it’s perfectly safe to shag around because “most straights are negative, and they do it all the time”.
Rob, I’m not going to address that rant, as that’s all it is. My job is not to address the obvious shortfall in your understanding of the facts as you have never demonstrated an ability to learn or improve from your anger ridden and bigoted point of view….. so its beneath me to try. You’re legendary on this site for your aversion to gay men and your illogical near homophobic prejudicial hate. Hardly says anything positive for your state of mind. If you had an iota of an education in that diseased head of yours, you’re be aware of the importance of trending in the epidemiology of pandemics. As you clearly don’t, off you go then, it won’t change the reality of the science or the figures.
@ Will – we’re talking about the RISK. There may be slightly more heterosexuals who become HIV+ in the UK each year now, but if you are a gay man you are at much greater RISK of becoming positive.
Surely the risk that people face comes into it as well as sheer numbers of UK cases?
Your attitude is peculiar. You seem to be saying we should downplay the threat HIV poses to gay men because more heterosexuals now have it. As I said, I estimate gay men are 30x more likely to become positive than the average heterosexual. So HIV is more of a threat for gay men.
Also, isn’t it the case that the number of black Africans in Britain has increased greatly over the last 15 years? Could that perhaps have something to do with the increase in heterosexual cases? Seeing as the Terrence Higgins Trust itself says “around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV are among gay men and people from black African communities”. Just asking… I don’t have the stats on that.
The figures I quoted are from the NHS and THT and I gave the link. You say I have misinterpreted the figures but you don’t explain how.
I have no desire to ‘demonise’ gay men (or black Africans for that matter) and no agenda other than spreading awareness of the reality we all face about HIV and the need for safer sex. If you think you are doing gay men any favours by distorting the situation to make everyone feel better about themselves then you aren’t. Quite the opposite: by downplaying the risk men face you are increasing the likelihood that they will be lulled into a false sense of security and will engage in risky activities through ignorance.
Gosh that’s the first time I’ve ever been called a ‘religious nut’. The only times I’ve ever been in a church are for weddings, funerals, christenings and taking photographs.
People like you are a great threat to the gay community. You select those aspects that suit your agenda which is ‘gay men mustn’t be “demonised” at all costs’. By doing so you distort the situation for cosmetic and political purposes and you try to undermine and discredit anyone who gives more of the facts and points out what you are up to. Anyone who disagrees with you – even if they are an openly gay man – is smeared as a homophobe or religious nut.
Meanwhile all around us the safer sex message is being ignored like never before. That is the key thing.
Are Gay men at higer risk of HIV and AIDS?
Lets continue this dicussion in light of the above research evidence!
“People like you are a great threat to the gay community.”
Of course we are…. ones engages in science of fact, not biased interpretation, yeah, we’re a real risk all right. I have answered the questions, I have given you the facts on trends and growth areas of HIV. You chose to ignore them and twist what I have said to the stage you’re actually making um stuff I have not actually said – so this conversation is over as far as I’m concerned – I’ve met idiots like you before who chose to warp HIV into the gay disease it no longer is. Yes, gay men are still a risk – but the reality is that is not where bulk the battle is any more, you are ignoring the obvious vectors of bi-sexual sex. You silly crocodile example shows your tunnelled vision and simplistic interpretation of the figures with risk groups, if you have any understand of HIV vectors, you’d see the groups are not self contained, geographically or otherwise. Either way, its irrelevant what you think, its of no consequence to the reality.
@ JohnK – what happens in New York isn’t necessarily representative of anywhere else.
In some UK cities 10% of men who identify as gay are apparently HIV+. So that is a one in ten chance of coming into contact with the HIV virus if you bareback with someone from that group.
I’d guess 10% of straight men in New York are not HIV+! Then there is the issue of number of different partners. Do gay men have more?
As I said in a comment under that article, in some US cities almost 50% of black gay men are HIV+ and very likely New York is one of them. So that is a 50% chance of coming into contact with the virus if you are a gay man and meet someone from that group and bareback.
So yes gay men are more at risk in many situations. But obviously everyone should consider using a condom as there is nearly always some degree of risk (even in relationships).
“JohnK – what happens in New York isn’t necessarily representative of anywhere else.”
We do not have any evidence yet which disproves this is not representative!
@ Will – people can see you are a threat because you ignore any facts that don’t suit your ‘right on’ agenda. That creates a false sense of what the risks are and that puts some people in danger. For instance when you try to play down the risk that gay men face.
People (including in some comments on Pink News) are parroting this idea that all heterosexuals in the UK are at equal risk and actually at more risk than gay men, because there are now more heterosexual cases. But in fact the stats seem to show that many heterosexual cases in the UK are among black Africans.
Still you don’t make any reference to the statistic quoted on the NHS website (from the Terrence Higgins Trust) that “around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV are among gay men and people from black African communities”. It further states that in 2007 55% got infected through heterosexual sex, and 41% through sex between men. So what is the percentage who became HIV+ through heterosexual sex and who are not a black African or who did not have sex with a black African? It must be a small number?
How have I given this a ‘biased interpretation’? I am quoting from the NHS website and reaching obvious conclusions. Are you questiong the ‘science of fact’ behind figures from THT and the NHS?
Great to know that people like you have decided that the ‘bulk of the the battle’ is not with gay men anymore, despite us still making up 41% of new cases in 2007 when we are just 3.25% of the UK population.
If I were to go out to Manchester’s gay village tonight, pick up someone and have bareback sex, I believe I have something like a 10% chance of them being HIV+. Outside of possibly the black African community (and I don’t have figures for how large that community is and what the percentage who are HIV+ is), where else does a heterosexual in the UK face that level of risk?
G7UK: Don’t bother. As soon as Will starts to lose an argument, he just reverts to personal insults to deflect the possibility of answering the question, and admitting he is wrong.
He like so many others, does not want to give any indication that gay men are anything below perfection, and that anyone that says otherwise is either homophobic, self-hating, or slightly right of Goebells.
@ Rob-N – two things really concern me about this.
Firstly that young gay men see these stupid comments and headlines and due to the political correctness aren’t given the full story (which is that most heterosexual cases seem to involve black Africans). As a result they get the impression that HIV is now more of a heterosexual problem.
So maybe tonight one of those gay men will go out with his straight friends and see that they don’t bother with condoms and perhaps later he’ll head on down to the gay village, hook up with someone, and also not bother with condoms because his straight mates don’t. When, in fact, he may have a one in ten chance of having sex with someone who is HIV+.
Secondly, as people eagerly play down the risks that gay men face, to avoid ‘demonising’ them supposedly, this will be used by politicians to justify reducing funding and for there being no safer sex health education for gay men.
When I was young the gay scene was much more of a mix of ages and the older ones very much acted as older brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles to us. They gave advice and looked after us. Sadly young people on the scene today don’t have that network to fall back on to such an extent.
“He like so many others, does not want to give any indication that gay men are anything below perfection, and that anyone that says otherwise is either homophobic, self-hating, or slightly right of Goebells.”
Well done, Rob-n… Godwin’s law – something so close to your damaged little heart – so much so you use it as a link to you name. Such a two faced hypocrite, Mr. Neal. Not surprising given your lack of knowledge on nearly everything. But honestly, you’re purile insults and tantrums means so little to me, I have already such a low opinion of you, it can actually get any worse.
In fact, there are things stuck to my shoe that I consider more worthwhile forms of life than an ugly and debase creature like you. Run along now, I’m sure you need to catch that immigrant stole your day care lunch money.
“Sadly young people on the scene today don’t have that network to fall back on to such an extent”
Ah, here we have it… the “my day was different” nonsense. No I’m beginning to see why you don’t see, or what to see the reality of the figures in front of you… living in the past. And old fool with nostalgic memories to the GRIDS problems.
Sorry, I stupidly believed I was discussion with a rational adult. When you have to side with the likes of irrational angst ridden racists, like Rob-N, to believe you have “won” sometime, when in fact your desperate to discredit and ignore UN statistics, it kinda puts it all in perspective.
You sir, like Mr Neal, are a buffoon. Good day to you.
“He like so many others, does not want to give any indication that gay men are anything below perfection, and that anyone that says otherwise is either homophobic, self-hating, or slightly right of Goebells.
Rob . . . are heterosexuals perfect then?
@ Will – you constantly refer to stats elsewhere, in your latest reply ‘UN stats’, but you never provide any links. Are the stats from the NHS and the Terence Higgins Trust (which I linked to) wrong? I keep asking you that question but you don’t answer.
At least 20 years ago we had effective safer sex campaigns. People like you are undermining that now with your desperate focus on not demonising gay men. Would you rather hundreds of young men end up HIV+ so that you and your ‘right on’ buddies feel a little bit less stigmatised? Dear me. How would you have coped 30 years ago?
If you’re too immature to have a discussion without resorting to abuse then yes you should stop.
My god Will is an incredibly bad loser!! Clearly someone with no self-respect and everything he throws at people are really how he describes himself. To resort to such abuse at people just because they don’t share your views… seriously my 4 year old nephew has passed those kind of tantrums and thankfully is showing more intelligence.
Sam Price: “My god Will is an incredibly bad loser!!”
Tell us some thing we don’t know. His last post was just one long personal attack at me, but as usual, he said NOTHING. He even quoted me for saying something that wasn’t even my post!
Oh, and it’s Gay-related immune deficiency (GRID), not GRIDS, you retard.
He obviously has a massive chip on his shoulder and finds it necessary to attack people in a feeble attempt to win an argument by slurring his opponent, because it is quite obvious he is incapable of stitching together the most basic of retorts without including some kind of put-down.
I think he should go back to his potato fields. A simpler life, and probably a happier one.
JohnK : “Rob . . . are heterosexuals perfect then?”
Definitely not, but they don’t all try to rip you a new arsehole when you criticise them.
Rob thanks for the amusing turn of phrase . . . but seriously did you not watch the pre-election leaders debate . . . a lot of undermining, underhand “behind” tactics I thought going on between Brown Glegg Cameron. . . I am assuming that they are all heterosexual!
Perhaps for the 3rd debate they will take this snipping to a higher level of Butchdom . . . I mean “Bitchdom” so to speak.
JohnK: It seems that slagging off your opponent seems to be the order of the day everywhere. The pro-Labourites on here constantly attack the Tories, who I agree are no better, but somehow “They are crap, so QED we must be better.” That is NOT the point!
From my short spell in marketing, I learnt one thing: NEVER slag off your opponent, it’s bad form and it makes you look petty. In fact go as far as to say how *wonderful* your opponent is, (it demonstrates your magnanimity), – but then go on to explain why your product / service / party etc. is so much better.
That is, unless you are some Guinness-addled Mick that just enjoys a good rant by hurling spurious unsupported “statistical evidence” around. ;)
“That is, unless you are some Guinness-addled Mick that just enjoys a good rant by hurling spurious unsupported “statistical evidence” around”
And this is supposed to upset me? LOL! Woooo – a racist is picking on the Irish, oh, no, help, help! Yeah, I really tend to get offended by racist pieces of inbred filth like you, Rob! Please, don’t make me laugh. You are truly one of the worst examples of a human this site has seen…. even Skinner has more redeeming qualities than an ageing and ugly bitchy little queen like you. But you do one thing very well, you make us laugh…. you’re blood pressure must be trough the roof, and I just love watching your spit your desperate angst ridden bile all over this site for other to have a good giggle at your expense. You’re a parody of a human being Rob…
It seems Will can dish it out but not good at all when it’s dish back at him. How very typical. Guess truth hurts eh Will?
“It seems Will can dish it out but not good at all when it’s dish back at him. How very typical. Guess truth hurts eh Will?”
No, Sam, it not truth. The fact you have to side with Rob -, our resident intellectual turnip and racist, says it all. That’s why you’re not really worth the response. When you can say something of substance, other then a lame insult that is, I’ll be sure to get back to you.
I’m somewhat baffled by the bullying here. Will’s assertion that gay men are not longer the largest growth risk in HIV carriers is quite right. He never said that gay man are not a risk. I can only assume the three of you who chose to throw insults around rather then acknowledge this are here for a personal reason. If you cannot be civilised in discourse, then what do you think you can achieve with your insults?
And g7UK, taking the THT data as you suggest, the following is stated in their reports:
“The majority of people actually diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2008 (58 %) had been infected through heterosexual sex, Two thirds of those infected heterosexually were black African and the vast majority (87%) of these people had probably acquired HIV overseas. However, the numbers of heterosexual HIV infections that were probably acquired here in the UK have been rising steadily in recent years. Over a quarter of heterosexual HIV infections that were diagnosed in 2008 were probably acquired in the UK.”
This is a cut an paste from their site.
This correlates with what Will has said. So, I can only assume you do not know what you are talking about, or you are only here to aggravate? Perhaps you can confirm.
I am ignoring Rob-N has his he historically insults rather than choose to debate with reason, and have encountered his type here before.
@Jonny – I never ‘bullied’ Will. He is the one who is resorting to personal abuse. All along I have been talking about risk. The stats are being used for political purposes to try and ‘de-gay’ HIV. The aim being to present gay men in a better light.
Some aspects of the stats are being omitted by people like Will for politically correct reasons. Indeed his eagerness not to mention black Africans is all too apparent.
The danger of this pussy-footing about and cherry-picking of stats is that gay men (and black Africans) get a false impression of what the risks actually are. I have seen people state that straight people are now ‘more at risk’ than gay men. Which shows the extremely misleading effect this is having.
The figures you have quoted speak for themselves. Isn’t the truth that heterosexuals in the UK who are black African or who have sex with black Africans are at high risk and the rest of the heterosexual population is at an incredibly low risk in comparison to that specific group and also in comparision to gay men?
In 2007 41% of HIV diagnoses were due to sex between men. When according to government figures ‘gay’ men only make up 3.25% of the UK population. Obviously there are bi-men too (and I’ve said before that I think these labels are ridiculous and artificial).
I’d be interested to know how rapidly HIV will spread outside of the black African community in the UK because I know some black Africans and it strikes me that it is a close-knit community and people probably pair up within it? Or maybe I’m completely wrong…
“In 2007 41% of HIV diagnoses were due to sex between men. When according to government figures ‘gay’ men only make up 3.25% of the UK population. Obviously there are bi-men too (and I’ve said before that I think these labels are ridiculous and artificial).”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I agree this is curious and interesting, but I disagree that labels are ridiculous; although I agree they may be artificial. Instead I prefer to view them as capturing the full range of same sex sexuality, and I do not think that same sexuality is limited only to gay and bisexual men.
More recently a plethorary of labels have emerged for same sex sexuality, and have been used by those who do not wish to identitfy as either gay or bisexual . . . a brief snap shot include some of the following:
* Bicurious men
* Post heterosexual men
(Men not identifying as gay or bisexual, but have sex with men)
* Meterosexual men
(Men who are open to a range of sexual expression, but retain a
flexible heterosexual identity)
* Predominantly hetersexual men
(Men who have some ocassional sexual feelings for men)
The point I am making is that “sex between men” may be taking place, but it does not necesarily make if gay or bisexual sex which is going on between men.
Will: Yet again, “Insulting everyone but effectively saying fvck all.”
“Will: Yet again, “Insulting everyone but effectively saying fvck all.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah…. run along, adults are talking.
I find it sad that voting intentions seem to be driven purely by sexuality and a feeling that rights will be removed. There are far more important things to worry about, otherwise there will be no viable country in which to practise your rights.