There needs to be another serious attempt at education made. The younger generation don’t remember the 80s so maybe just don’t realise how risky unsafe sex with multiple partners actually is. Even with the various drug cocktails now available to manage HIV it’s got to be preferable that men do their best to avoid catching it at all.
Christ. This brings it all back. Too many missing faces. Please guys, do your absolute best to stay safe.
Being gay or bisexual does NOT put you at high risk. Being promsicuous, however, does put you at high risk. It’s the promiscuity, not the sexual orientation, that is to blame.
It’s not a correlation that we can ignore though. It’s dangerous to dismiss the high number of gay men who have HIV and lay it simply at the door of promiscuity. Gay men need to be aware this IS an issue that disproportionately affects them. I fear a large part of the often unreported rise in HIV infections has been down to this attitude that it’s somehow not correct to make it a ‘gay’ issue. Maybe it should be a gay issue a bit more so that gay men are more aware of it. You can be as careful and as monogamous as you like but most people sometimes have sex with other people and if you’re a gay man the chances of the other person having HIV (compared with the realities facing a straight male) is alarmingly high. Of course sexual orientation isn’t to ‘blame’ but this is something that cannot be unlinked to sexuality because to do such would deny young gay men the very important issue of awareness. The last thing we need is another ‘it doesn’t affect me’ generation.
It’s a bit moralistic to equate promiscuity with high riskiness. While there may be a correlation between being ‘promiscuous’ and high risk of getting infected with HIV, not all those who are ‘promiscuous’ are having unsafe sex. This is exactly the argument that most conservative commentators go to when they talk about gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men and the increasing rates of new HIV infections. It is wrong to assume that gay men are promiscuous. To an extent, it is also wrong to assume that promiscuity leads to a higher risk of getting infected. It is more right to assume that unsafe sex puts a person at a higher risk. You can be promiscuous but always having safe sex which puts you in a lower risk. You may only have a few partners but not always practising safe sex, that puts you at a higher risk.
I am sick and tired of the CDC and its homophobic references to our sexuality as being high risk. How can our sexuality be high risk if AIDS is not a homophobic illness?
The CDC needs to state that it is promiscuity which puts one at high risk and not one’s sexuality. It’s the promiscuous behavior, not the sexuality.
Why are references to MSM “homophobic”? There is no denying that MSM in the US are at a much greater risk of contracting HIV than the general population. 63% of all new HIV infections in 2010 were amongst MSM, so it is very difficult to defend the notion that sexuality is not somehow linked to high risk.
I think even the use of term “MSM” is homophobic.
How would you prefer men who have sex with men to be described in the context of statistical data ceem? Surely it is a mere descriptor when used in this context? Do you have any particular views of new HIV infection rates both here or in the US?
Why there are no “men who have sex with women”?
They are called Heterosexuals -I really do not get why these descriptors are such an issue? These are conventions that are used to describe different population groups for epidemiological studies, which is important to ensure resources & services are targeted at the most in need.
… and bisexuals, and homosexuals in closet. So why only same-sex oriented men described that way?
Looking at the CDC figures up to 2010 provides some perspective in terms of new infection rates amongst MSM here in the UK.
In the States MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, the same figure for the UK was 45%
HIV prevalence rates amongst the population in the US are running at 0.6%, whereas in the UK it is 0.2%
There is often a great deal of disquiet about the rates of new infections here in the UK – and whilst they continue to be stubbornly high compared to the US I believe it is fair to say that we must be doing something right here in the UK.
There were 28,500 new HIV infections in the US amongst MSM in 2010 – nearly 10 times as many as were newly diagnosed in the UK, yet the US prevalence is only 3 times that of the UK.
This suggests to me that the various agencies involved in HIV prevention amongst MSM in the UK are not doing such a bad job!
Since HIV “prevention” in the US adheres to the same blinkered ideologically insane PC policies as occur in the UK, this is hardy a surprise…
Samuel with all due respect surely we must be doing something different here in the UK as the metrics are somewhat better than they are in the US………even you must concede this?
Agreed W6, the practices employed here are slightly less worse than in the US, granted.
But nothing less than a wholesale change of strategy under-pinned to a common sense approach will reverse today’s epidemic of HIV conversions.
Calling references to MSM homophobic is like screaming that the portrayal of women in breast cancer awareness adverts sexist. Surely it’s time we actually dealt with the issue rather than pretending to get outraged about the semantics. I don’t see how anyone is well served by pretending that gay men aren’t more at risk than others.