Reader comments · Safe sex message for Attitude’s ‘naked issue’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Safe sex message for Attitude’s ‘naked issue’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Congratulations to Matthew Todd for saying it as it is and shaming the pitiful HIV charities (naming no names, eh, THT and GMFA?) for years of indifference and negligence when it has come to kow-towing to the “rights” of HIV-positive men not to be offended over and above the rights of negative men to be told the plain truth about the many pitfalls of living – and dying – with HIV, which as this news story vividly demonstrates remains a killer disease among our brothers.

    What a turnaround our community is now seeing with regards to the new hardline approach being adopted by the likes of Attitude and the new HIV campaign charity, Status, no doubt prompted in part by some excellent and hard-hitting HIV articles of Pink News over the last couple of years.

    And the HIV charities have the raw nerve to moan and bitch that their funding is being cut? Hmmm, wonder why that is. Really, you couldn’t make it up!

    1. Well said Rob. I’ve been completely horrified at the number of young (18-23) men that are coming out as HIV+ over recent years. It seems that the ignorance on how it’s transmitted and a “well they can treat it with drugs” attitude is pervading the gay community. Those of us with long enough memories remember those that have fallen with HIV related illness, and the ad campaigns of the 80s and 90s.

      There is still a huge stigma about being HIV+ in the gay community, and people living with it are seen as lepers. As long as this is the case, people will continue to hide, or worse, ignore HIV to the point that they unknowingly carry it.

      There needs to be a strong positive reaction to encourage men to use condoms (safe sex or no sex) and also to start fighting for HIV to be acknowledged in the community.

      Being gay isn’t a choice, but safe sex is.

    2. Rob hi, lists various accounts, details obtained from the charity commission website.

      Further information about the ASG for London and outide London can be found at

      1. Interesting figures. Thanks for posting. I just took a look at the THT web site where they post their annual report that contains a break down of where exactly their near £20 million in annual funding comes from. I think I am reading this right, but a significant donor is GlaxoSmithKline which, it says, “has been supporting THT for 15 years”, which would make it since 1996 when antivirals started being made available to UK gay men – and the precise point at which HIV charities took their finger off the pulse and considerably diluted the impact of their HIV prevention campaigns.

        I am no conspiracy theorist, but we all know GlaxoSmithKline exists to make profit at all costs, and can be quite ruthless about it. That they could be influencing through their donations a charity funded to PREVENT the spread of HIV, which it has miserably failed to do, strikes me as being highly unethical in the extreme. Anyone from THT care to comment about this clearcut conflict of interests?

        1. The GSK conspiracy theory is very original, but is probably not the reality. I think it’s important to realise that some of the most senior figures in THT are HIV positive (and leading constructive, healthy lives), and therein lies the conflict of interest in terms of declaring the less appealing aspects of living with HIV.

          1. Wasn’t there a big hoo-hah in the early nineties where the head of the THT was caught in cahoots with Glaxo whereby the pharma was giving the charity under the table payments to push the killer chemo drug AZT onto gay men in London, which accelerated the progression to full blown AIDS for many until the scandal was blown open and THT was publicly rebuked? I am sure this scandal was talked about in the national press as I have vivid memories of THT forever being embroiled in scandals during the nineties, including to do with misappropriation of its own funding…

          2. The next letter is no connection to Pete above:

          3. Pete hi, one of the issue is why then does the system allow 45% of those on benefits in a low pay thershold, whilst as you say lives healthly lives, that costs money!

        2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 10:40am

          Without the likes of THT how do you really think the numbers of HIV would be affected?

          They wouldn’t we would be having a serious problem. The numbers would be more than you could imagine as would the hate I would expect. It’s unfair to critise those that do the work, that do the good. then I guess if you’ve never used any of the charities it’s easy to critise when you clearly have no idea of the important work they do.

          It costs less to educated people than it does to treat people. Surely it’s better to fund charities while there are not cures than let the problem spiral out of control. You seem to think these group don’t get heard when I would think plenty do listen and take the message.

          Yes more needs to be done to get the message through to those who don’t want to listen but you can hardly blame those charities for that. Thats down to individuals.

          1. Yeah Jock, but it’s the quality of the work that they do, and THT have consistently been criticised for putting PC principles before common sense in their HIV prevention work. The results speak for themself.

            In fact surveys of gay men have established that HIV campaigns of recent years have served as an incentive for gay men to bareback, so oblique and confusing are the messages they have been putting across.

            Gay men today are confused more than anything because there have been no consistent “play safe always” messages, but messages that instead encourage you to NOT wear condoms but instead pull out before you cum (“yeah, like a porn star!”), to “THIVK” HIV until the thought of contracting the disease becomes inevitablity in itself, and so forth.

            Who is addressing young gay men on how, and just as importantly WHY, to remain HIV-free today? Exactly. THT are good at hoovering up funds but then squander said funds because no one polices what they do to ensure we get value for money.

          2. Jock S. Trap hi,

            A balance of service delivery and independant needs to be met, Given that only 4% is used for sirect payments as shown, , it seems the equilium of choice is not yet met!

          3. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:35pm

            I can agree with that Rob. Your comment makes little sense.

            The biggest problem is people who continue to label HIV and a Gay or Black Problem when it affects everyone. As long as we keep doing this we focus on some while giving the wrong message that others think they are immune.

            Point is I can’t get to grips with your uneasy claim that these groups somehow give incentive. That I find to be complete crap. Sorry. That just sounds like an excuse for other to ignore the problems and carry on but blaming those helping along the way.

            Fact:- It’s not a confusing message, How confusing is ‘Put A Condom On Your Willy’? I think too many people are just finding excuses instead of taking responsibilty.

            Point is groups like THT can only give all the information, it’s hardly confusing. What people do with that information is up to the individual but unless your willing to be there for everyone making sure they make their sex safer I fail to see what you expect.

          4. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:36pm

            I do agree the messages need to be different for different people prehaps but to blame these groups is just cruel and bitter and certainly not the experience I and many other have had over the years.

        3. Rob hi,

          one could say that GSK is re-investing its profits back to the HIV/AIDS sector once costs are met, it is what THT does with it income?

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:42pm

            So while there is no cure doesn’t it make sense that it costs less to prevent HIV/AIDS than it does to treat.

            THT and other charities do an excellent service providing help and information and do help get the message across. I recommend maybe going to actually find out the excellent, tireless work they do rather than assume they are the cause of the problem. Thats just wrong.

          2. Rob hi,

            A mixute of reports by the NAO differs, looks at the trading accounts of the service providers in the UK, showes the cost of treatment for 2009/2010 for London, this information is not presented by THT, NAT, GMFA buts TCell.

          3. Rob hi,

            of the estimated 92,000 people affected with HIV, 50% reside in London according to the HPA, given that about 32,000 people are supported through care and treatment, £155million pounds was spent on medication for London alone. About £5K , pharmacutical companies could lower it prices and margins.

          4. If we all are in this together why the different divides of BEM, THT, GMFA, NAT in a limited resource why then does the protectionism exist within the group that seek funding to support a select group. An encompass resource would include child, adult and all of definition of race, creade, colour or orgin.

          5. Well done on your pro-activism Kevin. So, a quarter of a billion pounds annually is spent on HIV services, including the dispensing of antivirals that will cost £350,000 to treat each person infected with HIV over an average lifetime. Well done THT and GMFA. As these figures show you are demonstrably playing your part in this country’s near-bankruptcy.

          6. Rob hi,

            This be of further interest, a FOI reponse by the DOH.

            A feature PN suggests HIV treatment is comparable with other conditons.

            If the costs of treatment is used at £5K x 25 years = £125K lifetime.

            Currently I am awaiting a reponse to a FOI request from the LSCG for the budgets spent in London.

  2. what amazes me is the lack of comments people have placed on this article yet there are lots on articles about how someone has done something against us (LGBT). It saddens me that we are so obsessed with getting our rights that we don’t seem to see the things we say about others.

    And now I’m begging to Rant, Sorry.

    Regards to this article I think it is wonderful that gay magazine’s are promoting safe sex.

  3. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 8:02am

    “In an editor’s letter, Mr Todd criticised HIV charities and accused them of seeming “nervous about explicitly telling us to use a condom”.”

    Yet, over the years I have seen plenty of pages in Gay magazines etc making the point quite clear and explicitly. I have to say if people are unable to figure out how to use a condom, I have to question if that person should be having sex at all.

  4. Rob, I wouldn’t say so much the failings of the THT and GMFA are down to neglect and indifference so much as a religious and rigid adherence to the pernicious cult of political correctness. They’ve constantly used PC as a solid reason NOT to inform negative men of what it really means to live with HIV today and the potentially lethal consequences of consuming cocktails of toxic medications day in and day out.

    In fact, having seen representatives of these organisations in action, they are cheerleaders for the pernicious cult of PC which has devastated all areas of society that have been infected with its ideology; from education, law and policing to the NHS. PC is used to stymie open and honest debate and dissuade people from speaking openly. Bullying and intimidation are the tactics it uses to beat open speakers into submission. That’s how young, disaffected young Muslim men are able to prey on underage girls for years without repurcussions, why schools are out of control, etc.

    1. I agree, but PC equates with wliful neglect and indifference because that’s exactly what PC was DESIGNED to do! Just check out this academic study of how PC originated:

      For years PC has been used by greedy Government-funded HIV charities – who sold their souls long ago in pursuit of funding – as their excuse to blot out the hard facts about HIV infection and instead strive to make HIV infection and antivirals seem almost glamorous, leading gay men into the now chronic state of complacency around safe sex.

      Many believe PC exists to protect gay men’s feelings yet they couldn’t be more wrong. We’re merely being used to push forward a creeping agenda to criminalise open thought and free speech by whipping the gay lobby into a frenzy every time even the most minor perceived slur against us is innocently uttered.

      The ultimate impact of PC is social disintegration and death, as the endless role call of AIDS deaths testifies…

  5. I wish these wankers on PN would at least try and get this right. The only safe sex is having a wank.

    It’s SAFER sex, not safe.
    Condoms still entail a risk.

  6. I’m bewildered that Attitude would need to offer advice to guys on how to use a condom or lube. If you don’t know how to put on a johnny then you’re some half wit or else too young to have sex in the first place.

  7. It took a whole issue to say ‘guys, wear a rubber when you have sex’.

    Waste. Of. Paper.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.