Yeah, yeah, yeah…. run along, adults are talking.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

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…

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.

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.

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…

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.

Perhaps for the 3rd debate they will take this snipping to a higher level of Butchdom . . . I mean “Bitchdom” so to speak.

Definitely not, but they don’t all try to rip you a new arsehole when you criticise them.

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.

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.

Rob . . . are heterosexuals perfect then?

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.

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.

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?

http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/sexualhealth/pages/hiv.aspx

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?