Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Schools minister Nick Gibb says lack of HIV education is ‘unforgivable’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. RUBBISH – IF THAT IS TRUE WHY HAVE YOU JUST INCLUDED A GROUP THAT SAYS HIV SHOULD BE PREVENTED BY TEACHING ONLY ABSTINENCE BEFORE HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE! WHY HAS MICHAEL GOVE BACKED THE FORMATION OF A “SEXUAL HEALTH” GROUP THAT ARGUES HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG AND MUST NOT BE MENTIONED IN ANY WAY!

    The lib dems must NOT back the tories ridiculous social conservative agenda.

    1. What?! Do you have links for these claims, I am interested?

      1. I cant be bothered to find the links again, but look o left foot forward, guardian and independent website.

        Also look at the christian institute website.
        Then search for the groups involved in michael goves new sexual ethics group and the new hiv prevention quango, some of them are – CARE, LoveWISE, family education trust and I think ones called EVALUATE.

        The group that has joined the hiv prevention quango is called LIFE, the say only abstinence before heterosexual marriage is the only way to prevent hiv. they say that condoms are like russian roulette, they say marriage as a man and a woman is a sacred and exclusive grouping. The the tories think such a group should be on the sexual health committee.

        Also search for conservatives links to evangelical organisations and see the HUGE amounts of money anti gay hate groups donate to the tories each year. Such as the founder of Alpha.

        1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/24/abortion-sexual-health-coalition?CMP=twt_gu

          http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/health-group-life-government

          I can’t believe it. Oh. Em. Gee.

          P.S. What is wrong with pink news! Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn’t. So frustrating!

        2. Spanner1960 26 May 2011, 2:44pm

          I don’t wish to comment on the bigoted attitudes of some politicians and groups, however one of their comments is correct:
          Condoms ARE a Russian roulette.
          If you notice the wording, it is defined as *safer* sex. Not safe. Condoms are designed as contraceptives ie: to prevent pregnancy, not as a method of preventing infection. The fact that in most cases they do is still a secondary factor.

          Sex education is vital for young people of all sexualities, but it is important the facts are spelt out to them, and not hearsay and old wive’s tales. They need to know the truth that sex is not without many risks.

          1. Wait thats rubbish – use of condoms has been shown consistently to be 99% effective against STI’s – when u factor in being used properly the number goes up to pretty much 100%

            Whereas in russian roullete there is either a 1 in 6 or a 1 in 8 chance of having your head blown off.

            If you use non oil based lube + proper condoms medical professionals believe you will be fine..

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 5:25pm

            Whilst your comment is mostly true condoms are effective it does depend on the STD.
            For infections that are genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid. These diseases are transmitted primarily through “skin-to-skin” contact from sores/ulcers or infected skin that looks normal. HPV infections are transmitted through contact with infected genital skin or mucosal surfaces/secretions.
            So condoms are only effective If those infected areas are covered properly.
            Overall, condoms are actually 97% effective which leaves 3% to think about.

          3. Spanner1960 26 May 2011, 8:25pm

            Scott:
            Like I said, condoms do prevent most STI’s but that is not what they were designed for.

            It’s obvious you haven’t read the instructions in a packet of Durex otherwise you would know this to be the case. They are also not designed for anal sex.

            The HIV virus is considerably smaller than a human sperm, and condoms are not tested for pores smaller than the size of one. The FDA states: “These findings demonstrated that use of latex condoms can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but it does not eliminate that risk.”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1411838

          4. While it is true that there is a small risk of HIV being transmitted by condoms – The NAT, THT, and SFAF all agree that when used properly this risk is reduced to such an extent to become basically a statistical impossibility.

            Look on the averts website, I believe they have studies which look at hiv rates amongst those with many partners with hiv who use condoms and shows that of the 122 tested none of them got HIV.

            When a condom fails it is in 99.999% of the time due to a failure of the user, not the failure of a condom.

            Your assertion about hiv being larger than the pores in latex condoms is false. Look on the avert website and it gives scientifically supported medical facts.

          5. Spanner1960 27 May 2011, 8:26am

            That’s not what I said.
            The HIV virus is *way* smaller than a human sperm, and contraceptives are only tested for pores large enough to let a sperm through. I am not saying there are smaller pores, but if there are, the virus could get through.

            I fully understand the risks are minimal, but what I am trying to get across in this argument is that there is no such thing as safe sex. There is always a possibility of something going wrong. I know one person who contracted HIV through oral sex, and that is a known fact, so young people should be aware that there is no 100% surefire way of preventing it.

          6. please ignore Spanner1960, s/he is spreading misinformation to scare teens

  2. Chutneybear 26 May 2011, 11:34am

    There should be education all across the board in all schools. We have very little over here in Ireland…flaps

  3. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 12:27pm

    This will be because of Labour’s Amendment 70 then.
    The bill that lets Religious schools opt out.
    They have no business opting out.
    Yet again we have a situation that protects the teacher not the pupil.
    It’s selfish and just plain wrong.
    Personally I would like to see an end to faith schools but I know that’s unlikely.
    Therefore those schools have a duty to help teach pupils properly so they can go into this big ol world knowing the facts not the fiction.

    1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 12:28pm

      I am please that Nick Gibb has picked up on this and highlighted it.
      Time for him to show action though not just talk.

    2. Jock for god sake stop blaming labour for everything, the tories are in govt now, the buck stops with them. Also labour pumped millions into hiv prevention strategies, which had been underfunded by the tories for years.

      COme on Jock, admit you were wrong to support the tories, Im not saying you should support labour, but at least admit you were wrong on the tories as they are now showing their true colours.

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 2:36pm

        Oh dear, Scott.
        So as it was right to blame the Tories for Section 28 it is now wrong to blame the Labour bill of Amendment 70?
        Again double standards and a hypocrite who does exactly what he accuses me of about another party.
        I don’t know what your agenda is but I’m not playing your games.
        Clearly your a very emotional person however how I voted bares no relevence to this story.
        To be honest this has no barring on any subject until the next General Election when I use MY vote again and that will only matter to me just as yours to you.
        Please stop trying to trap me into saying things to please you I have no intention of saying esp when I don’t believe them.
        I have my own mind thank you and don’t need your help working it out.
        Closed Subject.
        End of Scott!

        1. Once again Jock you have totally lied about my position.
          Labour was wrong on amendment 70. However the tories supported it to, and continue to support it! So how come they are not wrong as well.

          Jock for jesus’ sake why cant you admit that the tories have lied about being pro gay. I admit freely that labour had huge failures on gay rights, but they were the first party in power since the 1960’sthat actually pursued some gay rights legislation.

          Jock can you answer the simple question ive asked you many times – are the tories being anti gay when they allow a antigay, anti condom, pro abstinence christian right group to sit on the supposedly scientific quango for hiv prevention?

          I think everyone will notice that jock will not answer this question, and will instead attack labour, or attack me, and I believe people can draw their own conclusions from that. :)

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 2:59pm

            I think everyone will notice your agenda in attacking me for something totally irrelevent with this subject.
            Again, I will not play your games.
            End of!

          2. de Villiers 26 May 2011, 3:02pm

            Scott,

            I am not sure that you are being entirely fair with the Conservatives. They have never claimed to be “pro-gay” although recently they have become more neutral on sexuality.

            It is to be expected that a party of the Right is always likely to be less progressive in social matters than parties of the Left. That is in the nature of a party in which a large part of it appeals to tradition.

            Here, there is a suggestion that organisations with which we are likely to disagree are on government advisory panels on which there are many, many more groups with which we disagree. I cannot see that it is sustainable in a democracy to exclude such other groups from being involved in at least some small degree.

            The government has also taken steps to ensure a degree of secularity in science teaching in all schools by banning the teaching of creationism in science classes.

            All free schools, including religious schools, should follow the state curriculum.

          3. de Villiers 26 May 2011, 3:03pm

            - with which we agree. I have amended and reposted below.

    3. I have to say Jock, I agree with you completely (this doesn’t happen often!) There should be no opt out for faith schools, or any faith schools for that matter. I know growing up in a Catholic school made life a hell of a lot harder for me when the teachers were actively preaching disgusting bigoted views, with it all being ignored in the name of Catholicism.

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 2:57pm

        Thank you Daniel.
        Can I ask, how bias was the teaching you got on HIV/AIDS?
        I mean did they at all cover it in a way that made sure that HIV doesn’t discriminate.
        I only say because we have yearly figures now where new diagnosed figure show that heterosexuals higher than homosexual.
        I ask because if people are leaving school only believing it’s something only Gay people get how does that level the Straight community and can some of those increases in newly diagnosed be directly contributed because of the wrong education about HIV/AIDS?
        As someone who has had HIV for over 13 years I have heard some quite disturbing comments from young people on what can only be decscribed as complete misinformation to almost ignorance.
        Sadly I don’t feel that their fault though, it’s what they hear.
        I know we are all responsible fo rwhat we do but education does play it’s part.

        1. WHile me and you may disagree on politics quite severely Jock, I do agree with you on this.

          I left school + college 4 years ago, I went to a typical non religious comprehensive school, and I think I can remember being told that if you have unsafe sex you will get an STI or STD about 5 times in 14 years of schooling.

          Not once was HIV/AIDS described properly – beyond it will kill you.

          Many of my heterosexual friends continually have unsafe sex totally unaware of the dangers. Ive literally had to sit some down and show them internet sites to explain simple indisputable facts.

          I really dont get what people find so offensive abot telling children that sex is something for adults, but whenever you have it, you must use protection, and here is how it is used.

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 5:36pm

            I agree, there does seem to be discriminating education about HIV/AIDS and I have to question how that helps the young into society.
            As for your last comment I see what you are getting at but I think most parents just want their kids to be kids for as long as possible.
            I’ve never hidden the problems in my life and use to hopefully help others but I think because I lost my childhood to abuse it drives you rto protect and make sure your children have it better.

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 5:41pm

            Thats not to say I had a bad childhood mind.
            I think also we have so much weither it be media or even in the shops which effectively try to make children act like adults you do sometime feel you have to protect even more because there is nothing more important than childhood coz once they’ve gone, they’ve gone.
            Having said that my son grow up proud to have 2 dads in my partner and I as well as his mum and her -now- husband.
            We were always open and honest in about relationships but there never was a need to talk about sex with him, that conversation came later.
            He now is a Well adjusted, educated, Very open minded man who has a lovely girlfriend and I one I am very proud of.
            I like to think that was because we were open with him as well as having 2 sets of parents.

  4. Is it no wonder the UK Has one of the highest rates of HIV and teen pregnancy in the EU? Ignorance is bliss for some I suppose, but its an appalling situation. Sex education should be mandatory without exception including detailed discussion and instruction about Sexually Transmitted Diseases, birth control,whether parents like it or not. Its a form of child abuse when they object. They are putting their children at risk as they grow older. Knowledge is power. I understand parents’ concern about their children having sex, but really, do they think they’re not?

    As long as religious schools get funding from the state, they should not be allowed to opt out. Why should they be above the law in a democracy? Why should anybody?

    1. I agree entirely. However there is no chance of it happening. All the time liberal people continue to vote tory there is no chance of proper sex education being included.

      Remember Tory Cabinet minister Sayeeda Warsi said that sex education was a labour government attempt to recruit children to homosexuality. As long as the mail/telegraph/express/Sun have powerful links to the tories, and are able to bully labour, real sex ed will not happen.

      I honestly thought the tories had changed, but the fact they have idiots like that in their cabinet proves they have not.

    2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 2:42pm

      “Ignorance is bliss”
      It is Robert but disturbingly to those providing education not those recieving it.
      Personally I couldn’t think of anything more worthy of teaching than the dangers of boths STDs and HIV/AIDS.
      I do find it very hypocritial that we always get more on ‘them Gays and HIV’ as bad press but then forgetting the large amount of teenager girls getting pregnant.
      I agree though about funding and religious schools but I would go further by saying it should be mandatory for all schools to teach about HIV/AIDS, STDs, and relationships weither Gay or Straight, regardless of where the funding comes from.
      It is an important issue that if they don’t sort they cannot expect to improve.

    3. de Villiers 26 May 2011, 3:05pm

      > Is it no wonder the UK Has one of the highest rates of HIV and teen pregnancy in the EU?

      It seems to me that this is due to the general permissiveness of English society – which may or may not be due to the lack of religion or the nature of Protestantism. I have never seen women behave in France, Italy or Spain the way I see them behave in England. When I first moved here, I found such behaviour really shocking. Now I am used to it – although French friends who visit me similarly are shocked.

      1. How comes netherlands has a lower rate yet is much more permissive than the uk?
        Equally doesnt italy have a higher hiv rate than the uk? Maybe im wrong on that.

        Purely side note, while hating all religions, im man enough to admit that many freedoms european societies enjoy today come from the fact early protestants were brave enough to give the finger to the catholic church.

        1. de Villiers 26 May 2011, 3:23pm

          Different societies have different cultural values and shared norms. It is not easy to identify why certain policies work in one country but not in another.

          Nevertheless, I have heard on the news regularly that England has the highest teenage pregnancy rate and teenage drug taking in Europe. This does not surprise me as I find England to be much more permissive than the other European countries of which I have experience.

          Private religion or social restraint appears to be quite weak in England. The religion here seems almost to be concerned with sport, in particular football, and consumption. There is also much more casual informality, like the United States.

          1. UK also has highest rates of poverty and inequality. I think somehow that is more important than the fact we all ignore what the pope says.

            Casual informality! Its the french and italians that love to kiss and hug you when you meet!

      2. This is pretty insulting , isn’t it – general permissiveness of English society…on what do you base this on…I’ve lived around a nudist beach in France for yrs and the behaviour of both Straights and gays on that beach are outrageous. The culture is different , the permissivess of British women and men compared to French etc women is debaable. Why do you ignore the fact the sex education in the UK has and still sounds to be a non event and that this is the probable reason of HIV and teen pregancy.

      3. Spanner1960 26 May 2011, 8:33pm

        It has nothing to do with permisiveness per se, but the double standards that have been applied.

        Holland is wide open about sex and sexuality, and has no problem discussing it. Over here the likes of ‘The Sun’ continue to throw mock judgement about footballers having affairs and “disgusting three-in-a-bed-romps” yet you turn over the first page to see some bint with her tits out.

        The double standards of this country still haven’t got past Carry On innuendo and Benny Hill shows. Until people are allowed to call a spade a spade and say ‘fcuk’ when it needs to be said, nothing will change.

        (That includes this sh|tty little website that thinks it has to censor dirty words when discussing adult topics)

  5. looking at the meeting they had it sounds like the govt is dithering with loads of reviews rather than acting on what they already know …I thought the cons were supposed to cut out all this crap…sounds like the marriage equality consultation process, start in July and end in goodness knows when, NEVER I suspect!!

    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8488

  6. Well this is most definitely not true. I was taught about HIV and AIDS in my school, a good old Catholic school I might add. As my biology teacher said, and I quote “Gay means Got Aids Yet?” and “Aids means A** Injected Death Sentence” My point being the problem isn’t always that teachers aren’t talking about it, the problem can be what horrid things they are saying that is going unchecked because of the opt out for religious schools. Oh also this was only a couple of years ago, and that horrible bigoted man still teaches there.

    1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 2:48pm

      I’m glad you did get education on HIV though that fact you had such a homophobic teachers proves that schools need to be screened and checked for such discriminating people.
      They have no right to be teaching after all they preach about harming children yet harm them by there own actions.
      It’s time for schools to take responsiblity for their teachers and remove any that are unsuitable for the job.
      The “Oh well times have change since I started” excuse can no longer be a suitable comment and there must be plenty of younger open minded teachers who want to actually do the job without discriminating.

      1. It was hardly an education, they stuck with the traditional, sex should only be between a married couple. I’m lucky I have forward thinking parents that took it upon themselves to however uncomfortably for my brother and I to teach us about safe sex etc. And he wasn’t the worst by far. I remember having a very heated debate with my Physics teacher only last year. He was trying to convince me that homosexuality and pedophilia where linked and that was the reason there are so many child abusing priests in the Catholic church. That man has since gone on to be a headmaster of a private Catholic school, which thanks to the tory governments “free school” madness has taken itself out of local authority control and oversight.

        1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 5:54pm

          Pity the schools he’s headmaster of now then.
          Personally if I had my way I would rid of Religious schools and either have it that children research the subject when they felt ready or if it had to be taught done in a way that all the major ones were taught equally.
          However these schools now are gambling with their misinformation that really doesn’t contribute to any education except a bigotted one.
          I feel a sickened that you have had experience of such homophobia at a young age, it is not easy to deal with and NO person no matter how old should have to put up with it.
          Nobody should go through that weither they are LGBT or Straight.
          I would have hoped this government would have started dealing with these issues but I don’t really hold out much hope which means that another generation is being let down.
          The greatest thing now is that times have changed and the LGBT is far more visible and I hope those seeking will find the help they should be getting at school.

  7. de Villiers 26 May 2011, 3:03pm

    Scott,

    I am not sure that you are being entirely fair with the Conservatives. They have never claimed to be “pro-gay” although recently they have become more neutral on sexuality.

    It is to be expected that a party of the Right is always likely to be less progressive in social matters than parties of the Left. That is in the nature of a party in which a large part of it appeals to tradition.

    Here, there is a suggestion that organisations with which we are likely to disagree are on government advisory panels on which there are many, many more groups with which we agree. I cannot see that it is sustainable in a democracy to exclude such other groups from being involved in at least some small degree.

    The government has also taken steps to ensure a degree of secularity in science teaching in all schools by banning the teaching of creationism in science classes.

    All free schools, including religious schools, should follow the state curriculum.

    1. A few problems.
      1) The hiv prevention quango is presented as a scientific grouping, therefore to get on it you must show a scientific basis for your claims. If there was scientific evidence that teaching children that they must be abstinent before they enter a heterosexual marriage, reduced STI’sand HIV, i would entirely support them being on the panel, there is no such evidence however, so their inclusion is nothing but a propoganda piece by the tories to get more funding from evangelicals. Science is not democratic.

      2) Cameron presented himself as being against homophobia, against discrimination against gay people, and against hatred of gay people. Yet Michael Gove supported and endorsed the creation of a parliamentary group on sexual ethics which consists solely of far right xians who all say gays are bad and disordered, and children must be protected from us. Pure hypocrisy from the tories here.

      3) The government hasnt actually banned creationism, it has done what it has…

    2. … done with all social issues, said it supports the dominant societal view (pro gay, pro sex ed, pro evolution) yet then put in place concrete policies that go against such proclamations.E.g. the Fact that free schools are not bound by the curriculum at all. Which goes far beyond anything labour did.

      I dont want organisations that i disagree with to be excluded from the democratic process. But what i dont want is scientific honesty. If a panel is posited as scientific it must only include scientists. The government cannot claim to support evidence based policy, then create policies that go against the evidence.

      1. de Villiers 26 May 2011, 3:17pm

        These are not wholly scientific matters but involve matters of public policy and politics. I am also doubtful that Michael Gove has set up a group consisting solely of the Christians on the far-right – but I would be grateful to read any link to such material.

        1. Cant be bothered to find link, but some fella posted it earlier. Look on CARE website or on christian institute its on there. Or look on left foot forward or the independent.

          No it is not matters of politics. What is a matter of politics is whether you want evidenced based policy or not. Once you have decided whether you have evidenced based policy or not then policy decisions must be taken scientifically.

          Once again i would say to right wing xian groups – unless youve got a randomised control trial published in a peer reviewed journal backing up your claims, STFU!

        2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 6:07pm

          de Villiers
          The HIV prevention Quango is a combination of difference groups that also include THT and the British AIDS Association as well as other groups.
          I think it is to be more rounded but I think they will have to be careful they don’t undo the good work they have already done.
          Do I think they’ll work, depends, I can’t see why not, they just giving a broad representation.
          I don’t in any way think it is a direct attack on the LGBT community as suggest but it will be worth watching to see how it works out.
          As for the Parliamnetary group I don’t see it changing anything unfortunately so no not a positive thing.
          Having said that I don’t think it’s make things worse than it what is current.
          It’s more a shift of group than a shift in education and one which just stays still, sadly.
          Personally until I hear all the facts I don’t feel I can comment just as I couldn’t about these two til now.
          Bias can be just as guilty of being one-sidedness.

          1. But Jock the whole point of Quangos is that they are supposed to be apolitical (as is possible) and use scientific evidence. They are meant to be an expert panel.

            How on earth can a group that says only abstinence before heterosexual marriage should be taught, and who say condoms dont work, can be seen as expert, scientific and unbiased. For gods sake they are a bloody homophobic group pure and simple. And it is nothing short of a disgrace that the tories have appointed them.

            Jock leave everything else aside, will you at least admit that on this one policy, on this one appointment the tories have clearly made a mistake!

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 6:40pm

            When I am in possession of all the facts on how this affects the whole Quango I will be able to comment.

    3. Cameron said in Jan 201 – ““We do need good sex and relationship education. That education should teach people about equality, that we treat people the same whether they are gay or straight,” he said. “I think that is really important that we embed that in the ethos of our education.

      He added: “Should we teach children about relationships? Yes we should.”

      “Should we teach them about the importance of equality, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual? Yes we should.”

      “Should we teach them about civil partnerships being a way of same-sex couples showing commitment just as married couples show commitment? Yes we should.”

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 6:08pm

        And I don’t see that changing.

        1. How can you say that though Jock when groups such as life are included in the HIV prevention and sexual health Quango.
          Such groups are fundamentally unscientific. They are anti gay.

          To be fair, i believe david cameron personally believes everything he said there. But it is a provable fact that the tory party, and the 1922 committee in particular are anti gay to the extreme.

        2. But – who has the opt outs? home educated kids, faith schools, parents, any old school that doesn’t want to do a proper sex education..we can’t assume that all Catholic school girls still wear iron clad linnen knickers! And it’s not only sex education, there are vaccines for strains of HPV ( a preventive cure against cancer later on)..what are the opt out for this this , there are christian groups strongly opposed to this vaccine, since it’s a STI prevention and good Christians as we know should abstain from sex until they are married – unrealistic theory and dangerous!

  8. A quick question on HIV stats – I read somewhere recently that while HIV revalence has gone up in the gay community (number of people with hiv) hiv incidence (percentage rate at which people get hiv) has actually fallen.
    This was before the stats from 2007 – 2010 were included. Is this true does anybody know?

    1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 6:19pm

      HIV stats up to 2009 MSM (Men who have sex with men) was 46% and Heterosexual was 54%
      Up to June 2010 stat read as MSM 43% and Herterosexual 45%
      You are right that stats have slowly came down since 2007 by about 142 between 2007/2008.

  9. Sex Education is a joke in this country. I went to a Catholic school and I was taight that a penis goes into a vagina, ejaculates and then the woman gets preggars. That is it!!! Nothing on relationships, love, oral, anal, gay, lesbian, STD’s or HIV. NOTHING!

  10. Really, de Villiers? Norway and Sweden are two protestant countries, both permissive, both have marriage equality, both have no censorship regarding sexually explicit scenes in films and other media. Just exactly what is the beahviour of English women so vastly different from those in France, Italy or Spain? What about their men. Italian and French men are notorious for their philandering and adultery and fathering children outside their marriages.

  11. Really, de Villiers? Norway and Sweden are two protestant countries, both permissive, both have marriage equality, both have no censorship regarding sexually explicit scenes in films and other media. Just exactly what is the behavior of English women so vastly different from those in France, Italy or Spain? What is it they’re so shocked about? What about their men. Italian and French men are notorious for their philandering and adultery and fathering children outside their marriages. Dominique Strauss Kahn is a perfect example of French male permissiveness condoned by your countrymen.

    1. cough * berlesconi * cough

  12. Is he a homosexual degenerate also?

    1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 6:38pm

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
      oops sorry did you say something dear?

    2. Total yawn. BOOOOOORING…..

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 6:57pm

        There’s no-one in the section Will, just a bit of noisy wind blowin.
        I’ll leave you to turn the light out.

        1. Someone turned out the lights in that Rich-animal a long, long time ago….. his mother kept the afterbirth and threw away the baby.

          1. LOL. talking afterbirth.

    3. Rich, when are you going to regenerate in to some one less borish, before you degenerate beyond bigotry, and establish yourself uneqvically as the PNs longest serving village idiot

  13. So true, at school I wasn’t taught properly. I thought Oral Sex was completely safe and had no idea that unprotected anal sex was so risky. We were never even taught about Anal sex. I assumed the risks were the same as vaginal, I assumed that the rates were low so, and also assumed that you would have to have repeated sex. I therefore had unprotected sex, not realizing the risk properly. Stupidly I thought the worst I could get was Chlamydia that is easily treatable. After later on (20) learning about HIV properly I only learnt about Hep when I was 21. Ridiculous.

  14. Homosexual degeneracy spreading in UK, and that’s sad fact nowdays…. Oh…

    1. LOL! Didn’t you just post the exact same thing, expect put the word for California instead of UK, earlier on?

      Repetition is usually the last resort of the stupid.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 10:50am

        Oh look, Rich has invested in the Old English Uzbekistan Dictionary.
        Who knew.

        1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 10:51am

          I could have lent him mine but I doubt I’d see it again.

    2. Spanner1960 27 May 2011, 6:00pm

      I doubt there is an equivalent for “Homosexual” in Uzbeki anyway.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 May 2011, 8:45am

        Yeah there is… it “Rich”.

  15. Why after 28 years, is it that all the orthodoxy has in the way of prevention is a lackluster woman’s vaginal gel and giving a toxic prophylactic anti-HIV chemical compound, targeted at sexually active HIV negative gay men? Cui bono?

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all