How boring LU is back.
^^^ Not sure what’s funny about it.
Such a frustrating news story, whether it’s amongst straight people or gay people, how difficult is it to understand safe sex?
LU is a past nasty Troll.
Unfortunately Emma our sex ed is crap and there will always be people who refuse to wear condoms.
Please insert excuses such as “Straights go dogging as well” and “If you disapprove of gay saunas you are either up your own arse, self-loathing, or both”.
When are gay men going to get it into their thick, selfish heads that they are personally liable for their own health, and fcuking around unprotected is going to at least give you major crotch-itch and at worst will send you to an early grave.
The stupid whores think it’s never going to be them.
Like your mum. I bet she never though a punk like you would fall out her rancid pussy
LU2, aka Lou aka Lulu aka Lou Lou. You’re also not Lola Olson are you? Just wondering.
Think thats a bit unfair CMYB
Stranger things have happened Jock. Lu or LouLou or whatever he/she calls themselves this week went thru’ a spate of aliases gravitating around the same name. I just offering it up as a suggestion. Where has Lu2 or whatever been in the past few months and now all of a sudden he/she is back on a story about gay men. I’ve said it elsewhere- Pink News needs to get mobile phone or landline numbers from people and register us properly.
Whilst I would be very surprised to see LU2 and Lulu being the same as Lola Olsen … the only way of being sure is for PN to seek proper registration and a level of monitoring where people can be barred
You can’t blame tracy morgan or the muslims for this. Its quite shameful too
I’ve got sores all over my body, and I’m barely fifty.
Have just reported the second comment James.
Tell a black child in a getto that he will grow up to be a gangster, and he will be. Tell a gay child growing up in a homophobic household or school or community that he will be a whore, and he will be.
Education needs to start with the scumbags that keep brainwashing gay kids into believing they will have unsafe sex if they don’t try to avoid being gay.
And yes, I blame Tracy Morgan – if my dad says he will kill me if I’m gay, I will not value my life, thus I can take risks.
Firstly, lets rehearse the old arguments that we always have when these issues come up …
Yes – there needs to be much better education on the risks of unsafe and of safer sex both to people of all orientations.
Yes – Promiscuity has a role in passing some infections.
No – not everyone who goes to a gay sauna is into unsafe sex
No – Porn does not make you catch as STI
Yes – some hard hitting public eduction on HIV and other STIs is well overdue
No – Preaching does not work
Stu areyou telling me that you havent seen something in porn that you wantedto do for real?
Anything to take away responsibilty, eh, James!
Whether I choose to copy what is in porn or not is my responsibility not that of the porn producers.
I have the ability to differentiate between real life and fantasy.
James!, I watched sin city last night, it doesn’t mean I’m gonna go and chop someones head off.
I watched Thor last night, I want to kill everyone associated with that awful film and I WILL take responsibility.
Doesnt mean you will carry out the act though, CMYB
Unrelated point – Thor was awesome. Fact. You clearly are an anti thor bigot and hence should be ignored! :)
If I see Anthony Hopkins in one more film this year playing a crotchety old timer I’ll smear the cinema screen with lighter fluid and throw a molotov cocktail at it. And Scott you only went to se that Aussie lad playing Thor get his shirt off!
I can see the attraction of the young Aussie getting his shirt off, haven’t seen the film itself yet so will hold on my critique of it. Such a waste smearing you TV in lighter fluid … Such a nice TV I bet …
I have to say I know a lot of Gay people who like straight porn but it’s doesn’t mean they all want to go out and have sex with women.
I watched a good thriller at the weekend but I have no desire to go out and kill anyone.
Your argument is seriously flawed James! and only contributes to the problem if you think porn has anything to do with it.
The internet has a whole load of porn for impressionable minds. I can’t beleive that you don’t think it will have an effect on some peoples behaviour. I am truly shocked that you guys don’t see it
To bet honest James! if people let what they see like this effect their behaviour then I would question if they are mature enough to have sex at all.
The logical progression of your argument is for censorship. I can’t support that – the reason people contract STIs is because either they choose a particular course of action or are sexually assaulted.
There may be porn involved with some people that highlights some risky behaviour that they find interesting and intrigued by – but that does not mean we should ban porn.
In the same way, watching crimewatch does not make me want to commit an armed robbery, watching trainspotting does not make me want to go an try heroin, watching Trumpton does not make me want to be a firefighter – but I suspect for some rare people they all do … but that doesnt mean we should censor them
I do not agree with censorship. It works both ways. HIV ads were censored to show only healthy looking HIV+ people. No lesions sores or gaunt appearances. Don’t censor porn but don’t censor HIV ads either
But then it works both ways – people with HIV do live healthy lives without gaunt appearances or lesion sores – some dont – the liklihood of AIDS related deaths has decreased – there is a responsibility amongst health education professionals to present their facts in a factual manner and not manufacture fear which is disproportionate to the reality. Don’t get me wrong HIV is an infection we should all try not to get, it can lead to AIDS and kill. However, it is not the same scenario as we had in the early 1980s where that was inevitable and thus the same style of health promotion is not appropriate. I do think a more dynamic and direct approach would be beneficial – but it needs to be balanced and real.
If you don’t think porn is the problem – then why do you hark on about it all the time?
James made a good point about AIDs ads and the people they show as opposed to the actuality of what having AIDs would do to your body. We see plenty of ads warning of the dangers of anoerxia and they show skeletal people to shock us into acknowledging how dreadful that illness is. The only ad I’ve seen with an AIDs sufferer was that Benetton ad of the dying man and his gay partner at his bedside and I’m not sure what Benetton’s motives were exactly with that piece.
I think porn doesn’t help and I don’t want it censored.
I want the fact that it may influence behavior and may be a factor in the rise in cases of HIV to be acknowledged
Thanks CMYB we can see diseased lungs cancerous tumors on fag packets, But we can’t show the effects of HIV and Aids for fear of stigmatising gay men. We want equality but only when it suits us.
Trouble with that kind of censorship is it pushes up demand.
There’s two sides to that argument about who to use for HIV ads.
Whats more effective:-
Someone you see with lesions, sores or/and gaunt appearances looking like they may have HIV and does (or doesn’t) have HIV
Someone, healthy looking, buff, overweight, balanced, tanned that doesn’t look like they have HIV but Does have HIV?
Looking just like every other healthy human being.
Which do you think people will sit up and listen to, the expected or the unexpected?
I’ve heard the arguements why I couldn’t have HIV.
When I was overweight I couldn’t have it because (and I quote) “coz I was fat!” ( I actually wasn’t that much at that point)
Because I work out I couldn’t have it because I “look too healthy.
People assume they can tell, they can’t and it’s that that needs to be gotten out there.
If people keep going on “I can tell bu appearances” they are doomed to failure.
I do get your point that there needs to be some more thought provoking advertising and education.
I do not see that porn has any influence on STI rates – thats to do with behaviour and if you can’t see there is a gap between watching something and copying it where the individual who copies actually makes a choice – then you aren’t considering the entire cognitive process.
I fully endorse all that Jock S Trap says about how HIV+ people appear and the entrenched views. There are hundreds of reasons why people may appear emaciated or have ulcerations etc – it is much less common these days that HIV is the cause of that.
Anything to take away responsibilty, eh, James!
Jock I’m not impressionable, how about some compassion for those who are. If only we could all be as smart as you lot
Whose responsibilty is it to put on a condom?
That not being smart but if that what you think then yes we have a problem.
Lets not forget that STD are caught orally too.
There are too many people who just don’t get themselves checked.
I have met several people in the past who have been told they reckon they’ve caught something from them and they just shrug their shoulders and carry on.
They only go when it becomes evident to them.
Trouble is they don’t realise the consequences of leaving infections like this.
It’s not just the others they infect it’s the health problems of leaving such infections and the damage they end up doing.
@Jock S Trap
Absolutely. STIs can be caught through a variety of transmission methods. It is not purely through bareback sex – although that does significantly increase the risk.
The reason for continued increase in STIs is a lack of personal responsibility in many.
Oh yeah it does but it’s important not to forget that it’s just not limited to.
Syphillis is a tricky one because once you’ve touched a sort you pretty much got it sex or no sex.
What I don’t get is these can be fatal if left yet people just don’t care to themselves checked.
Why would people deliberately carry on having sex knowing they are infecting others? weither Gay, Straight or otherwise take care this is when people should be selfish and think of themselves first.
And blame Section 28 for the huge number of young people in their twenties that were not educated about the risks they are taking.
And thank bareback porn for infliencing behaviour of the impressionable
No sorry I don’t think you can blame section 28 for that either.
Sure yes it should have been taught but how come it’s all ages.
So whats to blame since Section 28 was removed?
These days an improvement in medication for those who become infected. Back in the 80s and 90s receiving a diagnosis of HIV was tantamount to a death sentence as medical treatment wasn’t at the level it is today so I’m assuming anyone shagging bareback now probably has it at the back of their mind that ‘there’s always a cure’. A different generation Jock.
A different generation yes but the same illness, just controlled better.
Although still means your more prone to other illnesses and diseases, more so than people without and the side effects of the medication and the HIV are still quite nasty for some.
Thats not knowing the long term effect of such long use of very strong medication.
I do agree though there is a feeling today that it is curable, a worrying tend and one they don’t seem to be getting the message on.
I suspect there is something in that argument. There is,, rightly, a knowledge that treatment regimes are better and that HIV is more akin to diabetes than to a death sentence. However, that is a simplistic argument and takes no account of the problems associated with HIV infection, medically, socially and emotionally. Also, it doesn’t take into account the issues of other STIs such as chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, LGV etc – all which have significant impacts on the patients if not treated appropriately.
Wow,ANOTHER report into what most of us have known,suspected,or quite frankly just couldn’t give a stuff about for decades! Rather than simply churning out the same ruddy statistics fecking well do something a tad more productive with your time! Seems to me the likes of Stonewall & The Terence Higgins Trust have got their priorities slightly wrong.Stop bleeding well telling us we’re all doomed & DO something to resolve,or reduce the fricking problem! Get back to us when you can say,”Sorted,job done”!
“Seems to me the likes of Stonewall & The Terence Higgins Trust have got their priorities slightly wrong.Stop bleeding well telling us we’re all doomed & DO something to resolve,or reduce the fricking problem! ”
What would you have Stonewall give a lower priority?
What would you have Terrence Higgins Trust give a lower priority? Where and when have either organisation told us we’re all doomed?
‘Do something’, eh? Got more ideas than them? The trouble with this kind of rant is that it lacks specifics or focus. The reality is that THT is there precisely to put forward sexual health education messages. Stonewall is campaigning for equality. As it happens it also has a number of sexual health education publications but I understand Stonewall does not see this area as its proper highest priority and I agree with that. Sexual health education is the responsibility of the Health Education Council, a public body, and Terrence Higgins Trust, a charity dependent on grants and donations.
I think you will find the report was produced by the HPA – the surveillance agency.
How depressing, wish these stats didn’t have to be by sexual orientation, I presume they want to target the message to various groups.. Sadly it will be just another report to be used by the extreme Christians on how gays spread STIs..
Why aren’t the “young adults” getting the message? Are the gay ones who are getting STI from this “young adult” group and older gays not getting STIs?
Thank goodness they do give the results by sexual education as this enables focussing sexual health education in the right areas. However, there is a risk that the bisexual group get overlooked in all this. I am sure that there are many bisexual men out there who are “straight by day and gay by night” and who seek anonymous gay sex in risky ways. Whether that transmits HIV and other STIs from the heterosexual community to the gay one or vice versa, I don’t know, but it at least seems possible. And I’ll bet this is a group less likely to be 100% honest when asked, even in conditions of confidentiality, who their sexual partners are than a wholly gay or wholly straight group; because they may not be being honest even with themselves as to their sexuality.
As to why young adults don’t get the message, firstly every generation thinks it discovered sex first and that their forebears didn’t do it; and secondly, nobody gets to see someone seriously ill with HIV or other sexual STIs.
…and I would have served them with utmost compassion, truth and integrity.
I have experienced compassion, integrity, honesty and empathy from THT on many occasions
Let’s see now, not far off £25 million in THT’s last audited year end accounts alone. As I said, hundreds of millions and not an awful lot to show for it where HIV and STI prevention is concerned, so quite what your point is about the great support they have showed you is (I presume you are a “client” of their HIV services?) I have not a clue.
I am not a client of their HIV services.
THT audited year end accounts are not purely for sex education issues – they work in a variety of settings – so it is disingenuous to suggest that they have spent or received £25m purely for sex education in the last audited year.
As I said previously, it is not just about THT work – they give the message, responding to it is an individual choice.
THT can not be held responsible for the choices of men who contract STIs
Hang on. Was the THT not set up to fight HIV in the first place? What is it doing these days applying for grants to teach sex education to 10 year olds?! Wherever there is a sex-related grant to be chased, THT will be there with its palms out-stretched. HIV/STI prevention has for years now taken second place to the myriad other services around HIV THT now provides. But that is what happens when you forget your charitable roots and become a sprawling bureaucracy, with self-preservation trumping all other considerations.
Stu suggests who is to know whether HIV and STIs may have been reduced any other way. The point is, we are where we are today, and maintaining the status quo as it is will only guarantee the same appalling results year after year, and Nick Partridges same old pathetic excuses. Why the complacency and indifference and the blind toadying to someone who has presided over this health disaster that touches all of us in some way?
THT have a multi faceted role as I have said. It is simplistic and wrong to say theat their pure focus is on sexual health education. There is also focus on supporting people with HIV, increase access to sexual health services and public and political campaigning on sexual health and HIV issues. All these areas neatly fit together – and its irrational to suggest that they do not.
Its interesting that the one area you pick out for comment is THT applying for a grant for sex education with 10 year olds – could it be that your concern is more to do with censoring what young people hear on sex and your comments on THT “failing” are a fog to cover your biased views?
Perhaps THT need to actually put the condoms on for gay men -as there seems very little will for gay men to act responsibly and make informed decisions about thier sexual health.
I may be being cynical here as it is difficult to accurately determine nuance and tone on message boards.
However, your sentence of “I presume you are a client of their HIV services” sounds condescending, arrogant and judgemental. I am not a client of their services. Whether or not I was is irrelevant to my argument. Also, whether or not I was HIV positive or negative is irrelevant to my argument.
It appears to speak volumes of your prejudice which undoubtedly informs your opinion the manner in which you phrase your comment.
“I have experienced compassion, integrity, honesty and empathy from THT on many occasions”
How is my presumption that you are an HIV service user in any way condescending or judgemental? Or is that you just opting to play the victim card? From your comment above in response to my previous posting it is clear that you did not receive their compassion for a grazed knee…
So how do we define compassion then? Getting into bed with Glaxo and pushing gay men onto the deadly chemo drug AZT, as THT did back in the 1990s, which only hastened progression to full-blown Aids among men who put their trust in the Trust? It was only when this scandal was investigated by the gay and mainstream press that it was discovered that THT was receiving kickbacks from Glaxo for each course of AZT it prescribed, all with the approval of chief exec Nick Partridge who continues to have a revolving door into Glaxo to this day. Do you really call that serving gay men?
Stu, if THT wants to bid for every sexual aid service going that’s absolutely fine. But at least have the good grace to surrender the HIV prevention remit to an organisation set up solely with the goal of preventing the ongoing spread of the virus. Otherwise you are going to invite constant accusations of conflicts of interest and the observation that you can’t possibly give HIV prevention the time and devotion it needs when you have your fingers in too many other pies. A new organisation, Status, is already making excellent groundwork in getting harder-hitting campaigns out there to young men via QX and Boyz, but the fact is THT hogs the HIV prevention budget – vital funds that could be used far more effectively by others. THT doesn’t know how to do an effective HIV campaign, it wouldn’t know where to start. It is stuck in the same old same old way of doing things with so many layers of bureaucracy getting in the way of the mission at hand, as borne out by the latest figures.
For your information – although it is irrelevant, I am not HIV+. There was a underlying view within your comment that suggested you believed that I was and continues in your debate. Its a presumption on your part that is wrong. The fact that you believed it necessary to highlight the word “client” made me perceive that you were being disparaging about someone who you believed to be HIV+ and I found that offensive – even though it did not factually apply to me.
HIV support and STI and HIV education are strands that fit perfectly well together and legitimately many organisations in the UK and internationally take on board both roles. THT is an easy target as it is the largest in the UK. However, whilst they can campaign and educate it is for individuals to decide what behaviour choices they wish to make – THT nor GMFA, Status or any other organisation can not make the decisions on the behalf of individuals. The statistics are full of flaws and can not be seen as a ….
… totally honest and accurate portrayal of the entire level of STI infection throughout all of society, as many will not identify their orientation, some clinics omit orientation and men who have sex with men are one of only two groups encouraged by the HPA to regularly have STI testing – there is therefore going to be a bias in the level of reporting there. That in itself is an indication of the success of the NHS, THT, HPA, Status, GMFA and assorted others involved in the health promotion message to get tested. We have no idea what the comparitor is for the heterosexual population aged over 25 … we just dont know. So your protrayal as THT as failing is both wrong, invalid and biased. I do accept there have been some errors of judgement in THTs work – sometimes for the best of motives, sometimes perhaps not … all organisations with humans in them have such events. The reality is many have received the safer sex message from THT and considered it, many have had support ….
… in various guises from THT and benefitted. If someone can do better, then put up and bid for the funding and demonstrate with a business plan that they can do better.
“I do get your point that there needs to be some more thought provoking advertising and education.”
You said it yourself, Stu. More thought provoking advertising and education IS urgently needed, particularly aimed at under 25s who are not getting any form of message telling them that HIV is to be avoided at all costs. All they get from THT as to HIV’s seriousness are lies such as HIV is a “manageable condition” on a par with diabetes. Aside from the fact that HIV remains a chronic terminal disease that will eventually kill you if the meds don’t first, who in their right mind would contract diabetes knowing that it, too, is avoidable?
“Clients” is the word THT uses to refer to its service users, just as it bases its business plan on the projection of the HIV conversion rate over the next 12 month. The more conversions, the more funding it applies for to service the new tidal wave of infected. As I said, THT preoccupies itself with everything, it seems, except preventing HIV itself.
It ain’t rocket science, Stu. Just follow the money trail and ask yourself who benefits from HIV rates remaining sky high? In this insane world of ours its the same people who are funded to educate people properly with impactful campaigns but who use political correctness as their excuse not to do so, and in effect as their weapon against us. Like so much of the so-called healthcare profession today which has become overrun by ego-driven sociopaths, THT has become an advocate for sustaining disease instead of battling to safeguard public health, cos there’s no profit in the latter…
Oh, I get you now … its all a conspiracy of sociopaths pretending to be health care professionals and having no interest in the patient or client group.
For the record “client” is a recognised term throughout the caring professions and not unique to THT. Also, your highlighting of it and referring it to me earlier, does tend to imply that you presumed my HIV status.
Every health professional I have worked with and most respected HIV consultants worldwide acknowledge that HIV is no longer a death sentence provided the correct treatment can be given. It is a chronic condition that is treatable and has side effects either due to the condition or the medication – very similar to diabetes in that respect. WHO argues HIV in terms of classification should be regarded similarly to diabetes.
You may not agree with this – but THT are thinking along the same lines as most eminent and respected clinicians in terms of perceptions and views (based on academic studies – including …
… some NOT funded by pharmaceutical companies. They demonstrate the changed reality for many HIV patients compared to that 20-30 years ago.
In terms of education – the direction and methods must be informed by the reality of the condition. Sitting in the past with what it used to be is neither honest nor beneficial to the patient or potential patient.
I believe THT have acted well in supporting the LGBT communities fight against HIV. Their education has resulted in many taking preventative measures that will have stopped them contracting the condition. Their work with HIV patients is first class and regarded internationally as a beacon of success. Yes I am sure THT can reflect and acknowledge some areas could be improved – and I am confident that an organisation with the integrity, care and honour of THT will respond to that reflection and any honest constructive criticism effectively/
“You may not agree with this – but THT are thinking along the same lines as most eminent and respected clinicians in terms of perceptions and views (based on academic studies – including …”
You seem to be rather overly familiar with how the THT works, Stu. Care to state your credentials beyond being their unofficial cheerleader? To set the record straight, HIV infection remains a terminal disease. There remains no cure. The drugs will prolong your life, sure, but in time will themselves create grim complications we are only just discovering about. Age 50 may seem a long way off for a 20 year old, but the prospect that a body fed antiretrovirals on a daily basis by that time will function like an 80-year-old’s is a horrific prospect, not to mention the potential for heart failure, liver disease, cognitive impairment… the list is endless. Different drug regimes will affect different people in different ways. There are still too many unknowns associated with HIV for…
…THT et al to be transmitting the signal to gay men that it worth taking a calculated risk to play Russian Roulette with their health and lives on the basis that they can manage their chronic condition with toxic drugs. What sort of a message, and future, is that? And what the hell are the THT playing at in this respect? There are no excuses. The facts are simple. THT have actively encouraged the sexualisation and normalisation of HIV and contributed to the cultural upswing in barebacking with their upside down, back to front approach to sexual health, in which PEP is flogged like soap powder in QX and Boyz for those preparing a weekend of premeditated unsafe sex when it used to be dispensed only for incidents of accidental exposure. It is clear to any sane person who is benefitting from the ongoing – preventable – epidemic of disease in our community.
No I have no connection with THT other than having attended a course of theirs for health care professionals.
Your comments about THT and their approach to HIV are fine as criticisms – but then you also have to criticise the Health Protection Agency, World Health Organisation, and various other eminent clinical and academic bodies.
In the past people with HIV would expect to die within 10-15 years – that is no longer the case – people are living 40 years plus beyond diagnosis.
Yes, different people are affected differently by different medications – Yes, there is no cure. Yes – there are lots of complex and difficult side effects of some of the RTVs or condition. Most of these factors could apply to diabetes (there is no cure, it can be life limiting, some people respond very badly to some of the drugs and there are horrifc side effects and complications including amputations, blindness and nerve damage). No – HIV is no longer regarded as a terminal prognosis.
So would you suggest PEP be withheld or not publicised? The reality is that it does exist and is beneficial – although has horrific side effects of its own. These have been publshed in articles in Attitude, GT and other gay publications with THT staff and staff from others – for every piece of publicity that you find distasteful there will be another (you may not have seen) which is balanced and fair addressing the issues you are concerned about. Barebacking is not the responsibility of THT – they do not have sex on behalf of people and they clearly and decisively promote safer sex.
Oh yawn. Gay men are sluts. Not all gay men, but a lot. They know the dangers, it’s merely irresponsible behaviour which is encouraged by the media I might add. I don’t even care anymore, as long as I don’t get an STI, which I won’t, everyone can go fcuk themselves. Literally.
What is the point, if any, of your post? How does it add to the discussion?
Such confidence regarding not getting an STI – I wonder when you last tested???
It is individuals who say they will never get an STI that are either in denial, stupid, or both.
Try blaming this one on the Catholic Church or some other bogey-man.
It’s about time homosexuals realised that for such a small percentage of society they can seem to be the cause of a huge proportion of STI transmissions.
With the cost to the NHS and the cut-backs we’re facing, it’s about time that all those who contract STIs and HIV through sex are forced to pay for their treatment. It might make a few think again before acting out on their lust.
Interesting point actually. The average combination therapy drugs alone cost over £600 a month on the NHS. In the US they may have to pay over $2000 a month if they don’t have medical insurance, and even then they often have to pay a percentage.
One wonders if many gay men don’t care about their health, if maybe do about their wallets.
Should greedy people pay for the increased cost of diabetes and chemotherapy? Should parents who are known carriers of a genetic illness be forced to pay more for their disabled child? How far do we want to take this logic?
Also your example of the USA actually proves your argument is false, people there have to pay a huge amount of money for medicine, yet the have a much higher HIV rate.
How about we blame those who block real sex ed in schools? Or those that block helpful public information campaigns?
By greedy people you clearly mean overweight?
The most acceptable discrimination of all.
Coz being overweight can only ever be because of food.
Being overweight make you ill, right?
You can’t be ill which makes some people overweight?
Well I was actually trying to make the point that if you take Michalangelo’s point to the logical conclusion then you must surely agree that those people whose illness is caused by an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise (as many illnesses are) should be forced to pay as well.
It’s your choice of word I object to, Scott.
People choose Not to eat which is still an eating disorder like some being overweight yet is it no different apart from one is far more acceptable to bully and one isn’t.
What about slim people who can eat and eat and eat without putting on weight?
I have know several to go on to having serious health problems, yet no-one picks on them.
The media uses overweight people as an acceptable excuse to bully and intimidate.
There are plenty of perfectly health overwieght people who are happy, what right does that give anyone to discriminate?
On the other side of it, if a problem to overweight is food addiction well I have to ask those who smoke, smoke too much and drink how easy it is to give up an addiction?
Of course the difference with smoking and drinking addictions is they are not essential needs (eventually) but unfortunately food is.
It is not something people can just stop and people seem to forget that.
I’m fortunate enough not to have to worry about much, only when very ill like at the moment but I get fed up with seeing the way some people treat a human being just because they are overweight.
It’s not far and it certainly isn’t necessary.
Maybe if people were more concerned about their own lives for a change and got their own affairs in order.
Sorry to change the subject but felt the need.
Scott you have shown that certain discriminations are clearly acceptable to you, how can you expect to be treated any differently?
Ok i feel ive explained myself badly.
Im saying no one should be condemned or demonised for being ill, ever! I was merely saying if you start down the road of picking on people with HIV, you will very quickly end up picking on other groups as well.
I feel i should have said obese rather than overweight, my dad is obese and he smokes, do I feel it is fair to say to him he is damaging himself by this behaviour, yes! Do i also agree that stopping overeating and smoking is extremely hard and needs support not demonisation, also yes!
I know exactly what your saying Scott, read my comments.
It’s your discrimination of others I’ve picked up on, thats what I’M pointing out!
You content is right but your choice of discrimination while arguing them isn’t.
“obese rather than overweight”
So your either taking the piss or just plain discriminating.
How about replacing the word “Greedy” with overweight, Scott?
There was no need to put “Greedy” as you clearly meant it to bully and discriminate.
How can you expect others to treat you with repect is you can’t do the same?
“…my dad is obese and he smokes do I feel it is fair to say to him he is damaging himself by this behaviour, yes”
Do you say that to every person living on a busy road?? Esp in a city like London? People Choose to live their after all so…
I’m a type I diabetic, are you saying I am greedy?
People who have known genetic illnesses simply should not have children. Sad, but practical.
All I am saying is I think the message IS getting through, but people continue to choose to ignore it. The only time I ever saw people worried was back in the 80′s when virtually every gay man had lost somebody they knew personally.
I am of ‘that certain age’ of the group that were having unsafe sex when AIDS exploded, but nobody knew what was causing it. There was a massive ‘hole’ of people around my age missing because they were all dead. There by the grace of God and all that I didn’t catch it because I wasn’t on the gay scene at the time or I would have been another statistic myself.
Those poor bastards never knew how to prevent it, today everybody does, so they have no excuses. This has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with personal responsibility.
Not at all, i was merely saying that an increase in diabetes in the western world has been due to unhealthy eating.
I think that it is of course true that some people simply ignore the message, but I do think that many people do not understand how dangerous unsafe sex is.
I agree with your argument – as I read it – that we either have the NHS free at the point of care regardless of ability to pay or we don’t.
When you get into emotional issues such as being overweight (whether due to lifestyle choice or illness), smoking, STI etc etc then some people will be offended (understandably sometimes) by suggesting that they may be excluded from the NHS due to their situation – behavioural or not. I don’t think you were advocating that, merely pointing out that it is the logical extension of a particular argument.
I think the free universal NHS is an excellent (albeit at time flawed) system which serves us well.
No I blame it on the same thing that the massive rise in chlamydia in the heterosexual population has been caused by – or the massive rise in teenage pregnancies (hardly a LGBT issue)
The causes are the same – choices made by individuals …
Exactly and will carry on being the choices made by the individuals..
err, yeah, that kind of defeats the object of the NHS. All alcohol related, smoking related diseases are what one might argue as self inflicted. Smokers know the dangers. Let’s make lung cancer treatment unavailable on the NHS now shall we? Oh, and homosexuals pay their national insurance like everyone else. I don’t think condemning people to death who can’t afford treatments is the way forward.
Which is why smokers on average pay £9.3billion a year when buying cigarettes through tax on packets which contributes to the NHS.
I was just about to say that I smoke and when people say I’m costing the NHS they often get a similar rant, I pay tax on my cigarettes on the chance that I may cost the NHS extra money however due to the large amount of smokers and the numbers of people who don’t die of smoking related disease we actually pay more towards the NHS than we cost.
I take on board what you’re saying – but there are still the smoking related diseases of people who stop smoking when say 30 and get Lung CA at 55 – they do exist and need paying for.
It’s true, smokers rack in about £9.3b in revenue.
Cancer costs something around £3b so in effect smokers do pay for their treatment and some.
But regardless of that if every smoker did stop then how long will it take most of the non smokers to start whinging about higher taxes?
I mean are people that gulible that they don’t think that that £9.3b will have to come from somewhere coz they sure as hell want want to loose it.
PS I’m an ex-smoker but not the waving hand in the air at the smoke type but the one who sees people have that right to choose if they want to smoke.
I think the £6b hangover pays for it Stu.
Thats true often people who quit can still get smoking related deaths, but the only way of avoiding that would be to force people to carry on smoking so as to keep them paying tax. By them quitting smoking they are lowering the chances that they will have any smoking related issues so they should not still have to pay tax on things they no longer use we all make mistakes, one cigarette can give you cancer and saying as how alot of non smokers also get illnesses usually counted as smoking related illnesses such as throat cancer it is an impossible problem to solve.
Oh its a complex argument – and I actually dont think the tax on smoking is just about either paying for the cost of smoking related disease (which it is in part) or about fiscal generation (which it is in part) – it is also about acting as a disincentive to try and persuade people not to smoke in the first place and improve their health and reduce NHS costs.
Maybe but if some are like me then bullying people to give up gets the one or two finger salute and carry on even more.
You may be right – but whilst some regard it as persuasion others will see it as bullying. Effectively though by a continued and sustained harsh fiscal regime on tobacco (as seen since the 1980s regardless of political complexion of the government) then there comes a point where people are priced out of the tobacco market. Of course, some will circumvent this legally and illegally. But not policy is completely fully effective – but this does hugely benefit public health.
It’s all a bit of a farce thought really.
If the governments combination of health education and exorbitant taxing on tobacco were to work and every smoker stopped tomorrow, I am sure all the anti-smoking lobby would be immediately screaming blue murder about the massive hike on their income tax to cover the deficit.
I mean, that extra £9.5bn will have to come from somewhere else, won’t it?
The reality is its not going to stop tomorrow though
Indeed Spanner, I agree with you.
There is no way they would want to lose that money.
People may not suddenly stop tomorrow but truth is the more people that give up (which, yes is a good thing) the less revenue the government gets.
That decrease will have to be covered from somewhere.
I doubt they say “Oh well less people smoking so we don’t need it.”
But if we listen to health economists then we can see that if less people are smoking then the incidence of smoking related illnesses will decrease and the majority of those will over time become more healthy and not have the long term conditions associated with smoking. This will be much more likely if they are less exposed to passive smoking – which is what is happening in the transformation of UK cultural appraoches to smoking. Thus, the £9.3 bn gap will not be a £9.3 bn gap and its blatant scaremongering from the likes of FOREST to suggest the gap would be equal.
It’s naive to think any government would just leave £9.3b in revenue esp for the NHS.
If that was the case then taxes would be less now but that just ain’t the case.
Any government would have to find other ways to find that amount of money.
If less people were smoking the gap to fill would be less than £9.3 bn – thats my point
Charging for cures for STIs would be the surest way of ensuring people did not visit GMU clinics, did not seek cures for their STIs and of achieving a steep rise in STIs. Bright thinking!
Transmission of STIs is on the increase. Molly-coddling people obviously isn’t helping. If men can’t keep control of their lust, then sadly they run the risk of catching something nasty. If people wish to play Russian roulette with sex, then then must take the consequences when the risk doesn’t pay off. No one forces people to have sex, and maybe when they find out that Nanny State is not going to lick their wounds for them, they’ll start taking responsibility for their own actions.
Oh, and yes, those who eat too much and those who drink too much should be forced to pay for their own treatments – it might make them think again, too… Or do you want a nation of selfish, irresponsible hedonists who think that others should automatically pick up the bill?
The gay scene and culture can be self-centred and irresponsible at best. Time for gay men to stop pinning the blame on others and look to their own beahviour.
People pay “Russian roulette” with their lives every day weither it’s sex, smoking, drinking, walking to work, sky diving, going to the Space Station…
All of which are a persons choice.
The biggest problem is people believing things won’t happen to them.
Treatment should always be avaliable.
Why should we deny smokers treatment when they actually pay more into the NHS than any other group And more than cancer treatments cost over the year.
Both drinkers and smokers contribute and yet have to follow strict guidelines If that patient requires an organ.
If they don’t follow they don’t get but at least they have the chance to prove themselves.
Most people, including the LGBTQI community pay taxes equally so Why should people be denied?
You argument shows no logic.
It just shows cold heartedness for cold heartedness sake.
Interesting view point Michelangelo but sadly a dangerous path.
Once you start charging for certain groups for NHS treatment, where next?
Where does it end?
Plus you don’t take into account people that have these but not through choice, should people of rape, like myself, have to pay for treatment?
Should children born with HIV be forced to pay?
Sure easy words but at what cost?
Because of a separate illness, 3 years ago I should have died but thanks to meds I am alive.
By withdrawing treatment we become savages ourselves by just sitting by and allowing people to become ill and dying.
Not very humane, Michelangelo.
Also the argument has been proven not to work, in the USA people have to pay a great deal for there meds, yet they still have a higher rate of hiv infections.
Enforcing poverty on people with HIV in no way reduces the incidence.
All forcing people to pay will do is increase infections, I believe, because people will carry on regardless.
Many will carry on know they won’t get treatment so you deliberately make the cause and effect worse.
Shame people like Michelangelo don’t see it.
Yeah michelandelo, that’s called private health care. Or do you think anyone who has smoked and gets cancer should pay for their treatment? Should overweight people pay for their own heart surgery? Should straight people pay for their own HIV treatment as well, or is it just gay guys? Should people who have car accidents when speeding have to pay for their own treatment and everyone elses.
You’re comment is homophobic, so fukc off. I can tell from your comment you’re not even gay, so what are you doing on here? Go and pray at your local catholic church (and try and keep your hands off the children)
Gay people dont seem to want safe sexy they are all into ‘bare backing’ you see it all over gaydar.
Try putting the word SOME in front of the word gay in that sentence James, in fact try putting A SMALL PERCENTAGE. They are not ALL into barebacking, no more than straight people. You’re a self loathing homophobe. Get your head together.
yeah its akin to accusing all white gay guys of being racist.
Just forget her now CMYB. She’s had her 15 mins of fame. I’ve told her to write a comment about homophobia. I’m not holding my breath.
Some gay men are into barebacking … not all.
Some gay men are more responsible than others.
Some also can put some balance, sensitivity and proportion into their comments as well as their behaviour.
Time to give up SEX, full stop. It has become a health hazard.
Mutual Masturbation is the only way for gay men now. Safer too.
For my mental health, no thanks …
Some of us do try to be responsible in our sex lives …
Or try safe sex? That’s safe too.
Well safer sex …
Safer sex is indeed.
Lets face is I’m HIV but my partner of 18 years isn’t so the argument to stop having sex = flawed.
Maybe back at your place radical, I’m sure mutual masturbation hasn’t been ‘practised’ since straight guys at boarding school needed something to do to pass the time.
Not a surprise.
Too many people
a) just keep it in their pants until they’ve taken the medication and checked it has worked.
b) too many just don’t care and go around spreading regardless of their own health let alone others.
Though I have know plenty of straight men that are the same.
As a young gay man I would like to put my own perspective on this. While I have only ever had safe sex, i can see why people my age would not.
It is assumed that people my age (just leaving college/uni) now the dangers of unsafe sex, this is in no way the case.
Also i think many older gay people on here think it has become easy to come out, it has not, it is a very stressful experience, indeed I imagine many young gay people end up having sex without condoms because they are vulnerable and more suggestible when they were first coming out.
So I think people should stop with the condemnation and actually try to understand the many reasons why some people have unsafe sex.
Scott: You seem like a bright young man, so how *did* you find out about the risks of unsafe sex? Are you telling me that schools, colleges and unis don’t push all this stuff around with posters and leaflets etc? Are all you people living in some kind of bubble away from the rest of the world?
At my school underage pregnancy was the big issue, while they did mention HIV and other serious sexual illnesses, it was done in such an extreme manner that no one really took it seriously. There was never any mention of gay sex, the need to use lube, different condoms or anything.
I would also say that when I first realised i was gay i was in a bubble away from everyone else, I had no one to talk to, I did not want to look on internet sites in case my parents looked at the history – so i can see why people engage in destructive behaviour, and are open to manipulation by older men when they first come onto the “scene”.
Are you saying that older gays are giving younger ones STIs? I don’t understand if you are living in a bubble then how are young people meeting these manipulative older men (what is old ?). Is the rise in STIs among young gays mostly and from what backgrounds? I went to uni in the 80s and got leaflets etc from gay clubs and there were guys giving lecture about HIV etc in night clubs, what happens now? I ddn’t meet guys on the internet etc…I don’t know how if you live in a bubble , how you would get any info..how do people in bubbles get contacted? It has to be on the internet or thru schools and unis…you’re not going to contact them thru the usual gay media?
I am not suggesting that older gay men in general are giving sti’s to younger ones.
But, when i last had an sti check Ireceived a very long lecture from the gay 40-50 year old doctor who said that I should be wary of the fact that there are a small minority of older men who try to convince younger gay men to have unprotected gay sex with them.
I agree that contact is needed in schools, i was merely saying current education strategies are not sufficient.
A doctor told you this? A witch doctor most likely. What is his experience of older men persuading younger guys to have unprotected sex? Was he trying that line himself. Has he unearthed a coven of older guys sh@gging bareback? He sounds like a crank and any ‘professional’ who told me what he told you would get laughed at.
Well he seemed pretty genuine to me. He Spent about forty minutes explaining his work for over 20 years in sexual health, and how he was upset at seeing young guys coming in who had contracted HIV. He said I must be wary of a small minority who ignore sexual health advice and instead try to convince others to have unprotected sex.
Are you seriously saying that younger gay men are not more vulnerable to being convinced to have unprotected sex than others?
If a young guy is that easily persuaded by an older partner to indulge in barebacking then he’s too young to have sex or has learning difficulties or something. People should take responsibility for their own actions. I think its a bit of a cop out to say “well an older guy told me it would be ok” or “well in that porn I just watched there wasn’t a johnny to be seen”. I’m sure the doctor you met was genuinely upset by the amount of guys he’s still treating after all these years who come to him with an infection but at some point you have to say people need to wise up and stop laying the blame for their own mistakes at other people’s doors. And if a younger guy doesn’t know what a condom is for he should just stay indoors and play with himself.
Not being funny but if the doctor was a GUM doctor then he will undoubtedly be aware of events that have occurred in their area recently – including if a number of young men attending the sexual health clinic have reported predatory behaviour from older men and arguably he has a duty of care to protect those young men who attend.
But also GUM doctors should know that one of the first things people do with any STD is blame anybody else.
HIV even more so.
Sorry should have finish that comment with
even if it is a false claim.
You of course are right – there is (whether justified or not) a need to blame in many when diagnosed with any STI
That said, I have investigated predatory sexual offenders who sought to infect young gay men. We failed to gather sufficient evidence to ensure successful prosecution but worked with various agencies including sexual health, LGBT organisations, social services and others to try and support young men who could be targetted.
I’m not saying what your saying Stu isn’t true but I do find that while this is probably a small number we are yet again singling out certain groups and not actually dealing with the issue of STD and there increase in number.
I have met several youngsters Very ignorant to the facts about STDs and HIV and all we’re doing here is finding something acceptable to blame when in many not all, the blame stops with the one person, yourself.
(Not yourself as in you Stu, I mean where the buck stops.)
If I went out took risks and got an infection, there’s no point in me blaming anybody else when I failed to take responsibilty for myself and others.
It just doesn’t work like that.
Absolutely. Ultimately (with the exception of those sexually assaulted and maybe some other very rare cases), the cause of infection is a decision made by the individual who was infected. There is indeed too little acceptance of personal responisbility in this area.
That said, there needs to be sustained realistic and reasonable health promotion education throughout age ranges. We need to make sexual decision making an informed process.
I really think people are being a tad harsh here.
yes of course people need to take personal responsibility.
but it must also be recognised that when your young and you first come out, life is hard, you often feel alone, and in this situation one can make bad choices. Its not a case of going “an older guy made me do it”, its more that when you are young and you are worried about what your life is going to be like, and you are pretty nervous about sex as you know nothing about it, when an experienced fella who seems to be living an out and normal life is nice to you, you are liable to be easily manipulated.
Well the common statistical consensus in recent years is that it is the younger gay guys that are both contracting and spreading STIs around, rather than the myth that it is older men, (although I am sure it does happen.)
Wow, again I agree with you.
It is a larger number of youngsters that are being irresponsible.
Blame education if you like but truth is I’m willing to bet many of those people aren’t first timers with any STD, the point of which they should have learnt most.
Back in the 80s there was a big TV campaign, I honestly don’t really see any public campaign. We don’t all go to gay clubs/saunas etc and we don’t all pick up leaflets. We’re all mostly sadly clued to the TV at least for part of the night. If STI are on the up then the public campaign should be on the up. Gay cruisers aren’t always the most social and they won’t alway be the ones in pubs etc. Straight/Bis who sex with other men don’t visit these places. From these stats I still don’t know what types of gays are getting STIs , those who visit pubs/clubs or loners/cruisers/sauna goers??? Which types of gays is the focus on, since it’s not all of us…
There’s a lot top be said for monogamy. Speaking from personal experience over more than 20 years now it has its challenges but there are huge advantages not just in safety but emotionally and in sense of commitment.
Admitedly I am temperamentally inclined that way – I hated my brief foray into casual sex when I first came out – though I was also led to believe that there was little realistic alternative if you were gay.
Even so, I think younger people in particular are always going to want to experiment, and need to be told of the risks, psychological as well as physical, and at the very least to take precautions.
Much of the gay scene doesn’t seem very well geared towards lasting relationships, so changing and challenging that could make a difference.
Well no there isn’t a lot to be said for monogamy. If you disliked casual sex and brief relationships that’s your choice, if a guy can’t put a condom on his wang or if a guy can’t make whoever is going to fcuk him put a condom on his wang that’s his/their choice.
I think there is something to be said for monogamy – but only for the individuals who choose that to be right for them.
There may be the tendency for some who favour monogamy to assume that those who do not will be inevitably more risky – whilst there is probably a slight statistical increase in risk due to the potentially increased number of partners, it does not inevitably follow that there is an evidential increased risk. If a non mongamous person engages in safer sex and a monogamous person does not (particularly if the monogamous persons partner cheats) there is the potential for STI in the ‘monogamous’ relationship.
Thats not to decry monogamy but it needs to be seen in the context of a bigger picture.
I had similar experiences when I first came out, and found bed-hopping a frustrating dead-end. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about absolute monogamy, but fewer and more loving and more careful relationships I think are better for most. However, I think the general problem of rising HIV and STIs amongst gays is largely down to three things.
One is that many think of STIs as easily curable and no big deal, and have begun to think of HIV in similar terms, or at least that it is ‘manageable’. Another is that younger men think that HIV is an older guys’ problem from back in the ’80s. I also think that booze and pills just stop some people thinking, full stop. A lot of big educational challenges, I fear.
I mean I agreed with Caspar!
I didn’t say people don’t or shouldn’t have a choice.
That doesn’t mean that people can’t express opinions as to what is better or worse.
I suppose I don’t totally buy the arch libertarian line that provided something is consensual (whether it’s sex or anything else), it really is nobody else’s business even to comment on it.
Sex and sexual relationships is one of the cornerstones on which our society is built. If people are predominantly monogamous or predominantly not then it has potentially huge implications for the structure of, say the family, how children are brought up, how realtionships work.
It is also going to be one of the things that influences the spread of STIs.
Hence whatever your views I think it’s a relevant subject for debate here, and you can’t just see STI prevention as an issue of practical mechanics, any more than wearing a seatbelt and driving a solidly built means that you don’t have to worry about your driving…
Most treatment is straight forward but it means two weeks to a month not having sex or several months for Syphillis.
Why can’t people see that and follow that?
Why do people feel the need to take the risk with other people’s health?
Your right Riondo though, I think most do.
They not only need the education on prevention but also this ‘manageable’ part of HIV because for many it can be a long time before it becomes some kind of manageable even on med plus the side effects once you are on medication can make life for some intolerable.
The education needs to be extensive really esp amongst young adults.
@ Caspar: just to pick you up on one point, when you say ‘the gay scene’ presumably you mean the bar/club world; well, its non-gay equivalent is really no different, and is little different when it comes to the longevity of relationships (as is today’s non-gay married world, judging by the UK’s divorce statistics). I think encouraging people to consider lasting relationships as a desirable possibility and giving them an awareness of STIs are not really related issues.
I agree that my comments could apply to much of the straight bar/club world – I think society as a whole has a big problem. – Though the stats quoted in the main article suggest that STDs are proportionately a bigger problem for the gay population.
I do think it is good to work on building more alternatives to the bar club scene. I know these exists in fact I’ve been involved in trying to build some. It is still harder to meet potential partners in a more low key environment if you’re gay than if you’re straight, if only because statistically 95%+ of people you meet in everyday life are not going to be interested in you romantically – and then only a small number of the remaining 5%.
While divorce stats in the UK are high, c. 50% of marriages still last until death, which is probably the most durable form of relationship currently around – one reason I support marriage both hetero and same sex (quite apart from the equality issues).
I suppose the problem is that, once espoused, people both gay and straight tend to drift into a more domestic, private world – as opposed to the public aspect of the ‘scene’ – of socialising mainly with other couples. Speaking for myself, most of the over-40 gay men I know are in long-term relationships and, except for those who are happy to socialise independently, it can be a little limiting from my point of view as someone middle-aged and single. I would also say that single women over a certain age have similar difficulties meeting partners, but I’m aware I’m derailing this discussion into something unrelated – sorry!
Rehan attractiveness does not diminish with age. It’s all about attitude
Eh? What makes you think I meant to imply that?
James!”Rehan attractiveness does not diminish with age. It’s all about attitude”
Total bollocks. The entire gay world revolves around youth, looks and virility. Even 25+ guys are considered old-hat by a great deal of the gay scene. Yes, it is a bad attitude, but nonetheless it exists everywhere.
@Spanner1960: (a) you’re conflating the ‘gay world’ with the ‘gay scene’ – are you sure they’re the same thing? And (b) yes, ageism is widespread: is the ‘straight world’ that much different? I’d say most straight women and many straight men (especially those who aren’t rich) would say not.
I guess it is all about the eye of the beholder. I have to say age is not a major factor in my deciding if someone is someone I am attracted to or not.
I suspect orientation is not a factor in whether someone is ageist or not. I also suspect that particular sexual attraction based on age ranges (in general) is not ageism in itself but personal preference. I prefer men because I am gay – it doesnt mean I am sexist.
The statistics are not fully accurate in that it only reflects those men who identified themselves as men who had sex with men – many will either have chosen not to identify and some clinical staff will not have supplied this information to the HPA or labs. So the real figure could be worse or better.
Also, men who have sex with men was one of only two groups who were recommended to have regular STI testing – the other being under 25s (who also have seen significant rises in STI infections). One could argue the increase in detection is evidence of good practice in people testing and the reason for lack of evidence of increased infection in older heterosexual groups may be because they are not testing.
Its a difficult one really. Straight people fear pregnancy and we fear HIV.
Maybe the rise is in relation to more people being tested.
Sexually educate yourself.
no excuses for not practicing safe sex! we can’t balme anyone for our own mistakes (except in some cases of course ie: in relationship but boyf/gf/wife/husband shagged some one else without a condom behind your back).
scary the number of “open relationships” out there. not passing on judgment BUT it can’t be a good thing
people just need to wake up & do more to teach kids & teens about safe sex..
I have to say that we do not know whether the prevalence of HIV and STI infection would be worse, better or the same if THT had approached their work in a different manner. It could be THT have been remarkably successful. I do think it is easy to lay into THT and others when they have an incredibly difficult job to do. Their work in supporting people with HIV is amazing.
The rate of STI infection is increasing in all areas of the population. It is increasing internationally. Part of that is due to an increased willingness of people to seek sexual health checks – but equally part of it is due to a lack of safer sex and due to promiscuity. Some STIs will still occur whether or not safer sex is practiced.
How would you have done the work differently if you had been at the helm of THT?
I don’t get your rant at this Nick fella. What do you want him to do? There’s free condoms in every gay place I ever go in, there’s safe sex literature. Do you think he should go and put condoms on everyone’s c0ck? THT condom fitters? Shouldn’t guys just start accepting responsibility for themselves instead of blaming THT? How many times do you have to tell someone to have safe sex ffs? You don’t want to catch STI, have safe sex, it’s that fukcin simple. Everyone knows it. It’s just that some CHOOSE to ignore it. It’s their own fault, isn’t it?
Why so venomous against Sir Nick Partridge? What have you got against him to make you so bitter and twisted against him?
Spot on! THT have done loads of work which is constructive and appropriate in the promotion of safer sex and education about HIV and STIs – ultimately whether or not people choose to take that advice or use the condoms that are distributed is up to the individuals concerned, there has to be an element of personal responsibility.
Oh Here! Here eddy two!!
“How would you have done the work differently if you had been at the helm of THT?”
Good question, Stu, and I will tell you exactly what I would have done. I would have used all those hundreds of millions – and counting – of pounds that have passed through the THT’s coffers in that time to serve gay men, and not the system. That’s what I would have done.
How would you have served gay men then? What would that have meant practically?
Personally, I have experienced great support from THT
I think hundreds of millions is an exaggeration somewhat – check THTs accounts.
Thats a very lazy answer with no actual answer behind it THT do alot to support gay men STI checks free condoms they have counselling for gay men etc. And as for working for the system how exactly do they do that?
He caught the clap off him……. I’M JOKING!!
Firstly I cant comment on the Boyz report because I havent seen it and am not in London at the moment.
I am surprised at the HPA openly criticizing THT and Sigma as they are joint funders and authors of many of the pieces of research directed via Sigma at Portsmouth University.
I can also see numerous media releases and media stories over the last two days where the HPA and THT are very much singing from the same hymn sheet.
Please do not distort what I have said. I have not said diabetes is a good condition to have – far from it. In the same way (if given a choice) I would not want to have diabetes, i also do not want HIV (and will do all I can to try and ensure that I do not contract it). I do however, recognise the irresponsibility of claiming it is the death sentence it used to be.
You are starting to sound paranoid Rob, I have never read any THT literature on PEP nor was it mentioned on my course – so if my comment is similar its because they are thinking logically.
I agree PEP was initially intended for healthcare workers accidentally exposed to a risk of HIV. However, the MAP was never initially designed to be such a flexible option of contraception that it is today. I’m not saying that makes either morally correct and I have my own views but as a health care professional if I was in the position of issuing PEP (which I am not) then I would find it hard to not offer it to sometime who was exposed regardless of the cause of the exposure – my ethics would then be in question as I am not meant to be judgemental.
I can’t answer for THT and their marketing and advertising strategies – if you have a concern there I suggest you liaise with THT rather than merely castigate them publically. I would guess that they have to respond to the real world – the real world where some gay men do engage in unsafe sex – its unwise and should be educated against (which THT do) but denial that there is another option is not reasonable or realistic.
You clearly havent read my previous comment because your vitriolic response about PEP and THT bears no correlation to my previous comment and you jump to conclusions about my views which are untrue and clearly based on your bias.
It makes me wonder what your motivation is – do you have an axe to grind against THT for some particular reason, were you not afforded some support you think you should have been?, are you linked to an alternative organisation which would benefit from THT’s demise?, would you be so draconian in your views if it were another organisation doing what THT is doing and this will continue ad infinitum with you because you just dont like sex education particularly that aimed at LGBT people? – all these are possible but in the same way you do not know me and my motiviations – I do not know yours …
What remains is that PEP can be given by health care professionals to anyone exposed to a HIV risky scenario – that was not THTs decision – that was a decision of DH
It was healthcare professionals who actually warned the then Chief Medical Officer Sir Donald Liamson AGAINST authorising PEP for general use based on the experience of what occurred when in America when it was mandated for use beyond accidental exposure to HIV. Overnight demand soared and incidences of HIV actually increased as it was marketed to gay men as a quick fix against HIV and many abandoned condoms in the process. Of course PEP’s efficacy is unproven, so many who put their faith into PEP as a form of gay contraceptive (against HIV) ended up positive – a pattern that inevitably repeated itself here with STI clinics reporting the same groups of gay men requesting PEP in a vain attempt to manage their HIV status. You really need to stop reading THT’s propaganda, sorry, press releases, and clue yourself up more on the hard facts before gushing forth about how wonderful and selfless the THT is. The information is out there.
… as it is an option available to health care professionals then ethically I could not refuse it to patients at potential risk. There are different kinds of PEP and the ones involved in the US issues are rarely used in the UK currently. There have been significant successes with PEP – if it was as unsafe as you would suggest with your rhetoric then we would not have initially considered it for health care and emergency workers – and the regime is much more tested now with varied options – yes they are not pleasant medications and yes avoiding risky situations is better than resorting to PEP – but that option is there, whether you like it or not and that is not a decision THT made – it was made by DH and MHRA and compliments most similar western countries approaches and that advised by WHO