I bet the homophobes will ignore these results
Yes, I bet they will.
Growing up in Northern Ireland I remember it was always said that anal sex amongst heterosexual couple in Ireland was very high because of the highly restricted access to condoms or any form of contraception at that time in the Republic.
I don’t know if any survey was performed on this conjecture, and I’m almost certain it wasn’t because the Irish government would not have been wanting this information.
However it does make sense to me at least that if you restrict the distribution of condoms then heterosexuals are more likely to have anal sex because they can’t access contraception.
In many parts of the world we have no idea of the sexual activity of the population because the incumbent governments will not make any effort to find out as it doesn’t want results which contradict the ideological doctrine of the national Church/Churches.
I think that it is important to know if anal sex is common amongst heterosexuals and that if so, then making contraception freely available might reduced this sexual activity or provide protection from HIV.
Never engage in unprotected vaginal sex too. The world doesn’t need more unwanted children and teenager mothers.
Not that straights come out well in these stats, but still… 4 out of 10 gay/bi are having bareback sex? That’s shocking.
Doesn’t surprise me at all. Its been well established for quite some time that a high percentage of straight couples enjoy anal sex on a regular basis. As others say though, the homophobes will ignore these findings…as if homophobes have ever listened to evidence-based logic.
That was certainly shocking for me to read and i can’t believe it…
45-65 year old women have anal sex?
Well i suppose both holes would be dry and in need of lube ;]
Take that Dr Julian Lewis.
Why is this surprising? And yet the bigots still see fit to ignore it. Isn’t that the biggest dander?
sorry should have said “biggest danger”
It’s New York which I’d suggest isn’t typical of other places and nor is the US as a whole typical either. For instance in some US cities (and I expect New York is one of them) nearly 50% of black gay men are HIV+, which isn’t the case in Britain.
How charming , not very ladylike…
AIDS is a man made virus, injected and tested on the gay community during the late 70′s by the American government.
The point of me saying this – be careful if the government ever want you as a community to be innocculated against something, like the hepatitis-B trials in 1979 Manhattan.
Hetero women are such slags…..though there is nowt better than an uncapped member in the pantry.
Thats insane. There’s POO up there.
#12 “Aids is a man made virus” has got to be the most idiotic and ignorant statement ever posted on Pink News.
HIV, a varient of SIV an anti immune virus found in monkeys and several species of chimp in central Congo, was brought to the Carribean in the 1960/70s in infected bush meat.
It also is thought to have crossed to humans in Polio Vaccine administered in Congo and other western African states.however this is as of now unproven as only macaques are used in the developement of Polio vacc and they are not suseptable to SIV. The virus was then brought to New York in the mid 70s by gay men who holidayed in the Carribean and the rest as they say is history.
The conspiracy theory has been disproven by numerous studies, many carried out in the Soviet Union, which would have been only too glad to pin it on the US government.
I really do think Pink News should take a more active editorial action to stop this sort of mis information being bandied about by ignoramouses.
This is as ignorant as the theory that only Gay men could get it and that it was caused by Gay men engaging in Anal sex.
@ Patrick – “I really do think Pink News should take a more active editorial action to stop this sort of mis information being bandied about by ignoramouses.”
Really? What else would be on your personal list of topics and opinions to be banned from being mentioned or discussed?
They should be stopped from giving blood!!
It’s easy to understand why heterosexual women did it bareback, they are listening to the church, and the church only want more babies to baptize them.
Whether done by hetero’s or homo’s, “barebacking” is unnatural and
perverted. The anus should be used for its natural purpose –
to rid the human body of excrement — any other usage is a
perverted usage regardless of any excuse/reason you try to give it.
I’m very concerned about:
Anal membranes are easily damaged during sex, facilitating the spread of infection. Past studies suggest that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk than vaginal exposure.
As I recall the anus HAS a membrane (plus the mucus needed to lubricate it to pass solids) but the vagina only has its mucus, which is always damaged in vaginal intercourse. But none of them is a barrier to HIV.
When I was on an HIV helpline the stats suggested that both anal and vaginal intercourse were about equal risk – so “30 times” is very suspect, and needs serious justification. Perhaps someone can correct my medical ignorance.
Not a very well edited article this one – and I heard anal sex had about 2 and a half to five times as likely to be transmitted, not 30.
And ffs commenters – stop calling women who have unprotected sex slags – there’s quite unsettling vitriol about it.
“Never engage in unprotected anal sex.”
Are we assuming everyone who has anal sex wont stay in long relationships here or stay faithful? If two people are virgins when they first get together, and then stay together, surely they are unable to get the virus, or even if someone had tests at the start of a long relationship. Ok, maybe I am just being pedantic and the truth is they didn’t include the exceptions because it will lose some of it’s effect but I really hate the implication that this stereotype is true.
Oh, it’s not pedantic! In fact, there is nothing unreasonable about expecting people to state the whole truth, and not omit certain facts because of fear that some people will misinterpret what is meant. This failure to explore nuance occurs almost consistently in present-day discussions about sex and stds’s (especially among reactionary gay men), and it causes me to seethe. By omitting the fact that it’s entirely possible to remain disease free while having unprotected sex, and certain actions are required, one not only suggests that anyone engaging in a so-called inherently dangerous activity must be some kind of irresponsible perv, one implies that other common behaviors and contexts (eg. one night stands with total strangers) are inevitable, therefore there is no reason to even address the former. Meanwhile, in a twist of EXTREME irony, the same people fail to assume that a practice that people have not previously conformed to – using condoms – will be magically adopted by that population. Either people can control their actions or they can’t, and in the a world of the former, std’s cannot be conveniently narrowed down to a simple failure to use condoms.