Reader comments · Exclusive: 70% of gay men believe that sex without condoms is more pleasurable · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Exclusive: 70% of gay men believe that sex without condoms is more pleasurable

  • TomSatsuma

    “8 out of 10 young men in London do not use a condom during sex.”

    This is chilling

    • michaelsnaith


  • spiritbody

    Does that mean that 30% of gay men believe that sex with condoms is more pleasurable?! I would have thought that 100% of gay men believe that sex without condoms is more pleasurable. Cos it is. But of course the risks of STI/STD’s outweighs the slight loss in pleasure.

    • Rehan

      Maybe, just maybe, that 30% have not had penetrative sex without a condom? We can but hope.

    • James!

      All it would take is for someone to fetishise condoms and then everyone will think its better with them on

    • VP

      I think that sex with condoms is by far the more pleasurable experience. In fact I think that sex without condoms isn’t pleasurable at all, because of the anxiety it causes about one’s health. So you’re wrong – many gay men prefer it.

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Astounding that young people could be so ignorant and laid back. Of course, sex is more pleasurable without a condom but in this day and age of HIV/AIDS, have they not learned that instant gratification is extremely dangerous and life threatening? This only proves how badly our education system is in dire need of mandatory sex education with strong emphasis on STDs whether parents like it or not.

    • gabriel_syme

      It doesn’t say anything about the sex education system Robert. It say plenty about homosexual men and their casual attitudes to incurable disease, their own health and the health of others.

      For a start what homosexual men do together is not sex – sex(ual intercourse) occurs when two people combine their sex organs. Same sex couples cannot do this because – obviously – their bodies are not physical compatible.

      So the problem isn’t linked to the education system and it isn’t linked to sex. Its linked to homosexual men, their behaviours and their attitudes.

      Time to stop the equivocation and escapism.

      • WillowFish

        You might want to stop talking, Gabriel. Your bigotry is hanging out.

        • gabriel_syme

          You display perfectly why the gay community cannot overcome – or even begin to address this problem.

          You are uncomfortable with the truth and prefer to hide behind erroneous accusations of bigotry, than face it.

          It is sad – it is peoples health we are talking about. I think gay men deserve better than being abandoned to HIV – either by partners who do not disclose their status, or by communiuties who cant face the truth.

          • Jock S.Trap

            Actually gabriel… it’s people like you that are main cause of serious health problems with all that bigotry, discrimination and assumptions.

          • gabriel_syme

            Yes I can see that – I can see that its somehow my fault that gay men – who I have never – met choose to have unprotected physical activity with strangers, and also fail to inform partners that they are HIV+.

            HA HA HA.

          • Carl

            Your argument is like saying that teenage pregnancy rates have nothing to do with education, it is the fault of these pervert teenagers that don’t care about their lives. R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s!

          • gabriel_syme

            I don’t agree my argument is like that.

            Pregnancy is the natural outcome of sexual intercourse.

            HIV is the outcome of misusing the human body. You cant teach people to “misuse the human body properly” – that makes no sense.

            The reason HIV is so closely linked to homosexuality is because of this misuse. The anus is not meant to be penetrated and its delicate lining is easily damaged – cut or torn. This can happen even if artificial lubrication is applied.

            This exposure of the bloodstream is why gay men at at such high risk. This is the kind of education which should be given, but some people call it “homophobia”,

          • Paul

            Gabriel… So by your theory you are saying it is perfectly safe for a woman to have unprotected penatrative sex with a HIV positive man? Giving that you think HIV is only contracted by “misuse” of the body.

            Then you are naive and you too are at risk. To naively think you are safe from STI’s because you are heterosexual is very dangerous. The simple truth is you are only at risk if the person you are performing any sexual act with is HIV positive. It does not matter which orientation or act you perform.

            There is a risk to any form of sex where there is a transfer seminal/vaginal fuids. HIV is not biased to which hosts it will infect. Humans are prone to this. Hence why the H in HIV means Human andf not Gays.

            Two gay men can have sex unprotected for as long as they like and will never contract HIV if neither of them have the infection. Gay sex does not create the virus, it transmits it as does heteroxexual sex.

          • speedgeek

            Have you ever read a proper newspaper, or watched the news? Africa, especially the more homophobic nations, rife with AIDS? Spread through “normal” heterosexual intercourse?
            How dare you accuse others of being “uneducated” when you are so ignorant of basic facts?

          • Astral Au

            Again Gabriel, there is some truth to what you are saying. By members of the GLBT community slamming any idea they don’t like with the generic “Homophobia” (or in this case, bigotry) comeback is a great detriment to the overall desire for GLBT people to simply be viewed as equal, everyday people by the heterosexual community.

            However, it is how you convey yourself that makes the difference. For example, if I were to simply say:
            “Fk you Gabriel you homophobic c_n+” it would not convey any meaningful message.

            The issue is you are conveying what you are saying with flippancy and disregard. This is why you are being challenged.

          • gabriel_syme

            I didn’t not intend to appear flippant and I am sorry if I did.

            This – peoples health – is a serious issue and I think everyone would benefit from some straight talking (no pun intended) on it.

          • Paul

            What truth have you spoke of? Your selective definition of sex does not cover all of the definitions. Sex also includes vaginal/anal and oral. Just because you add “ual intercourse” after the word sex it doesn’t give it this sole definition.

            Explain the term Oral sex then if the complete definition in your theory involves combining sexual organs? Also believe it or not all gays do not perform anal sex and heterosexuals also do perform anal sex. So @WillowFish:disqus is right.. you are being blinded by your bigotry and narrowmindedness.

          • speedgeek

            Do you get Emmerdale where you live? The current storyline (backed up, I understand by medical advisors) concerns a woman in late middle age who has contracted HIV from a heterosexual, married man.

      • Rehan

        Your quaint definition of sex is not shared by the OED (and most people, for that matter): sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man’s erect penis into a woman’s vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.

        Note ‘especially’. It doesn’t mean ‘uniquely’. I take it you believe oral sex “is not sex” too – I believe many persons use that as an excuse. I’m sure many women will be entertained, if nothing else, by the notion that what they have together “is not sex” too – perhaps you model your attitudes on our own dear Queen Victoria.

        • gabriel_syme

          Cant say I have heard of the OED. I define what sex is via being informed about human biology.

          I agree with you that many people consider anal “sex” to be actual sex – but the fact remains that it is not.

          The anus is not a sex organ.

          • Rehan

            Bless. I think it’s fairly evident you’ve never heard of the Oxford English Dictionary, and that indicates quite precisely your general level of information.

          • gabriel_syme

            Thank you for the definition.

            But we both know that the OED is being rather PC there (likely to avoid litigation or moaning).

            Anal penetration is not “sex” and in fact mocks the sexual functions of the human body.

          • Rehan

            Of course, Gabriel, you know better. I daresay you think that a great deal of the time.

          • Jock S.Trap

            Typical… ‘diss’ the facts in favour of your own bigoted discrimination.

            As for the latter comment… grow up.

          • Carl

            I think you should try anal sex before talking about it. You might change your mind ;)
            In fact, something tells me that you are desperate to try it.

          • Paul

            It doesn’t matter what your opinion is. This is the definition.. you cannot just go around maiking up your own definition then acting like a child denying the fact that you are wrong by definition because it interferes with your personal agenda!

          • Jock S.Trap

            You’ve not heard of the Oxford English Dictionary? Well I think that says it all.

            As for The anus is not a sex organ… do you even know where the male g-spot is? One has to question if you know what a g-spot is male or female which might make you wanna step back a see your problems.

            To me it’s sex… and it feels blooming marvelous!!

          • James!

            The anus is not a sex organ.
            True in your case its your mouth.
            Now fúck off

          • barry

            What a very RUDE thing to say to a gentleman – but it made me howl with mirth!

          • speedgeek

            You have never heard of the Oxford English Dictionary? In case you are American, it is the superior predecessor of Webster’s, and the definitive resource for the English language. It is used in programmes as diverse as “University Challenge” and “Countdown”

      • Bobbleobble

        People are not born with the attitudes you describe. They learn them from people with similar attitudes because of the lack of proper sex education aimed at gay youngsters. It isn’t equivocation to point that out, to solve a problem it is absolutely necessary to be totally honest about it’s causes. Attitudes are a problem but changing them can only come through education.

        And please don’t generalise about gay men. Some, not all, hold these attitudes. I also think you’re allowing your obvious dislike of gay men to cloud any helpful observations you might be trying to make.

        • gabriel_syme

          I don’t think its credible for a second to claim that – in 2014 – people (regardless of sexuality) are ignorant about condoms and STDs. Not for a second. There are even schemes where gay men can have free condoms posted to their own home, for free. Yet many of them still choose to risk their health and that of others.

          The thing about sex education is that it describes how the human body works in a sexual sense. The problem about applying this to homosexuality is that homosexual acts misuse the body in a sexual sense. Accordingly, its not really education you are giving people, but an opinion (“propaganda” even). What you would be teaching them would in at loggerheads with the form and the function of their bodies. People don’t want their kids taught such stuff.

          If an educator can falsely present a penis entering an anus as being “sex”, then so too can a penis entering an eye socket or ear hole be “sex”. In reality, there is only one type of “sex” and it is that which is in concert with both the physical form and biological functions of all human bodies – and only a man and woman can do this.

          • Rehan

            In reality, there is only one type of “sex”

            Great. So the laws against same-sex sexual activity are invalid, because it’s not sex that same-sex couples are having? Priceless.

          • gabriel_syme

            It isn’t sex, you pretend and offer sophistry all you want, but you know I am right. You only call it sex to normalise it.

            This isn’t difficult – its early high school level biology.

          • Rehan

            Some of us have got rather beyond early high school, pet. Still, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt – maybe something was just lost in translation.

          • Lee W Dalgleish

            Yes and in school we learnt that sex isn’t just vaginal penetration… There is oral sex, there is anal. We could also go on to discuss foreplay as that can be tantalising or we could go a step further and talk kink/fetish and all the different ways humans (gay/straight) can get their sexual pleasures.

            So no it’s not difficult… One would assume you failed at high school education Gabriel

          • Staircase2

            Lol aha! ‘Sophistry’ (of which you clearly know so much…!)

            Fcvk off and take your ignorant bigotry disguised as neutral concern with you

            Bloody idiot!

          • TiggyTiger

            So anal sex between two hetero people isn’t sex? It has always been referred to as sex. You seem to be forgetting how many heteo people catch stds through not using condoms.

          • Paul

            I have already responded to your ill informed definition of sex elsewhere. I do feel for you if your penis is small enough to fit in a human earhole, i really do. Please read up on the definition a little more so you can realise it is not limited to “penis meets vagina”.

          • Staircase2

            You’re talking out of your arse…
            Why are you here pretending to be neutral when you clearly have an evangelical agenda…?

      • Mark Y

        HA HA HA. The only thing to do when you read inane comments like yours is laugh. What a clown.

      • Astral Au


        Sexual Intercourse refers to a penetrative sex involving a penis. I believe the phrase you were after is Vaginal Intercourse.

        SNAP Mo Fo! ;)

        As a gay male, I so won’t be doing that anytime soon. I do agree with you that the sexual behaviour of SOME gay men does increase their chance of contracting HIV. I disagree that this problem is not linked with education.

        The lack of education of the dangers of combining drugs with sex usually increases the occurrence of unsafe sex. The lack of education also increases the chance of men (gay, bi or straight) engaging in unsafe sex.

        Finally, HIV is most capable of being transmitted during Vaginal Intercourse. In fact, VI has been listed as a “moderate risk” behaviour, higher than oral sex, which is “lower risk”.

        So much for “physical incompatibility”, because I am sure that many straight girls give many straight guys blow jobs.

        Double SNAP! :)

        • gabriel_syme

          Homosexual men across “the west” typically account for 2/3 – 3/4 of all new cases of HIV per annum, despite being perhaps 0.5% of the population themselves. Check the stats – I did. The situation repeats everywhere – US, UK, Aus etc.

          They alone are at very specific risk from HIV. In the west, HIV is very rare among heterosexuals, even intravenous drug users.

          The fashion is to portray homosexual acts as being a different – but equally valid – variant of sexuality. In fact this is not true – there is only one sexual use of the human body which is in proper concert with the form and functions of all human bodies.

          For example, if gay men’s bodies really were “intended” for homosexual acts – then they would not need to apply artificial lubrication to the anus, nor would their bodies produce semen (which is entirely erroneous in the context of homosexual acts).

          I agree with you that drugs increase the chance of risk taking, but then that should surely be education about the dangers of drugs, not sex education.

          • Astral Au

            Gabriel re check your facts. HIV is not rare amongst heterosexuals in the West. If it were, then VI would be low risk. As I stated, it is classed as a moderate risk. And globally, it is most often found in heterosexuals.

            You are adding variables to your statements which were NOT factored into your original statement. You were not limiting it to western countries only. You also clearly stated that non genital to genital sex was high risk as it was unnatural. VI is natural, and had a moderate risk. Oral sex is unnatural, by your definition, and it is low risk.

          • Rehan

            Homosexual men across “the west” typically account for 2/3 – 3/4 of all new cases of HIV per annum, despite being perhaps 0.5% of the population themselves.

            (1) 0.5%, seriously? Kindly direct us to your “stats” that support that figure.

            (2) Do the “stats” you’ve checked stipulate the methodology used in respect of HIV in Africa? We’re told it’s a serious problem in many African countries, but perhaps your statistics, showing it to be primarily a ‘Western’ problem now, are more reliable?

            Would I be wrong in assuming that the statistics you rely on are the product of religiously-funded organisations?

          • Paul

            Maybe this has something to do with the fact gay men are proactive and get screened regularly. When was the last time you or any of your straight fellows were tested for STI’s?

          • steviesun

            The stats I can find for the UK are that 1.5% of men identify as gay. That doesn’t include bisexual men and men who identify as straight but also have sex with men (according to one sex and gender expert that I know the number of men who’ve had sex with another man at least once is actually much much higher, although I can’t remember the figure he gave). Also, it is only an estimate as the nation as a whole has never been asked to record their sexuality. The UK treasury apparently estimated there to be about 6%.

            As for HIV being a specific risk for gay men – the stats say otherwise. To quite the Terence Higgins Trust “Heterosexual infections accounted for 45 per cent of new diagnoses in 2012.”

            Your stats are basically wrong, so I do wonder what your source is. Mine are the Office of National Statistics (via the Guardian online) and the Terence Higgins Trust.

          • gabriel_syme

            Hi Stevie

            In 2012, the Office for National Statistics found that – in the largest survey ever to include the question – that 1.0% of the UK population identified as gay and a further 0.5% as bisexual. (It was reported by the BBC and is easily found via google search).

            I think you are interpreting the HIV statistics wrongly. Heterosexual people are 98.5% of the population, yet you say they accounted for only 45% of new HIV cases. So, they are vastly under-represented in the figures.

            Clearly then, the remaining 55% must have occured among homosexual people, who make up only 1.0% of the population – so we can see that homosexual people are massively over-represented in the figures.

            Accordingly HIV is a particular threat for gay people – it must be, or how else do you explain the vast over-representation among HIV+ cases?

          • Rehan

            Heterosexual people are 98.5% of the population

            As I have pointed out above, that is a mistaken assumption. The document you yourself have referred to quite clearly and unequivocally states 93.9 per cent of adults identified themselves as Heterosexual/Straight

          • gabriel_syme

            From the survey:

            1.0% ID as gay.
            0.5% ID as bisexual.
            You say only (!) 94% ID as heterosexual.

            Presumably the small remainder did not answer the question for whatever reason. I apologise for the neglibile % difference, I was not deliberately trying to mislead you.

            Ultimately, my arguments wrt stats are based on the fact that gay people make up a tiny fraction of society yet wholly dominate HIV stats.

            Its clear that the common suggestions of up to 10% of people being gay are a gross exaggeration.

          • steviesun

            This article?
            “A total of 1.5% of men said they were gay”.

            If a different article please post a link.

            So you have revised the figure from 0.5% to 1% of the population?

            Actually I decided to go back to the original source – the ONS.

            Check out the table – 1.5% of men identify as gay. 0.3% as bi. 0.3% as Other and 3.5% refused to answer.

            So your stats are wrong and you’re inconsistent about the figures you use.

            To answer your point that 90+% of the population represents only 45% of those diagnosed in 2012.
            6,390 people were diagnosed with HIV in 2012. That’s still a lot of people who identify as straight being diagnosed with HIV. So when you say “They alone are at very specific risk from HIV” I take that to mean you think that no other group is at risk from HIV. The statistics show that not to be the case. Yes gay men as a group are at greater risk of contracting HIV than most heterosexuals but that doesn’t mean that the risk is theirs alone.

      • docM

        Aha. The Bill Clinton definition. He didn’t think he had sexual relations with Monica – but everyone else thought so.

      • rcdcr

        What an odd comment.

        My husband and I have been in a monogamous relationship for 24 years. Neither of us has ever had any disease.

        For the record, the parts fit just fine, dude.

        Your certainly a big enough asshole to give the anal a go, aren’t you, tough guy?

      • BobSF_94117

        I can tell you’ve given this issue a lot of thought…

    • gabriel_syme

      I would also pick up on what you said about “instant gratification” – as an observer looking in, it seems to me that homosexual men are bombarded with offers of such gratification – it is completely normalised within the homosexual community, with gaydar and grinder and things like that all available to facilitate meaningless encounters between strangers.

      Additionally, what major town or city does not (these days) have various, ahem, grotty “saunas” where homosexual men meet strangers for meaningless gratification?

      A problem is that gratification will always be a main feature of the
      identity of a group of people who identify mainly by expressing how they
      like to be physically gratified.

      It seems to me that the reality of homosexuality in 2014 Britian is very different from the impression you would get from all the “gay marriage” promotions.

      • Rehan

        It seems to me you’re addicted to seeing everything in terms of simplistic generalisations. Perhaps it’s a side-effect of being “an observer” as you claim.

        • Jock S.Trap

          Assumptions you mean, Rehan?

          • Rehan

            Yes – as if “homosexuality in 2014 Britain” could ever be any one thing. That sort of inability to recognise shades of grey rather than sharply contrasted black or white seems to be a characteristic of the unquestioningly religious, particularly in the US.

      • Jock S.Trap

        I’m guessing your old, sad and lonely… am I right?

      • Astral Au

        Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel! I feel as though we are sitting in the same classroom having a debate! :)

        I agree that the sexual landscape has changed. Apps such as Grindr, Scruff etc do allow GLBT people (more aimed at the G, B & T sections) to hook up easily. There are also apps and websites catering for the heterosexual segment of society. RHP (red hot pie) is one I can think of off hand.

        There is a reason that these sites do so well. Society is still, for the most part, heterosexist. Everything is geared for heterosexuals. Straight people don’t have to come out, it is assumed they are str8. Str8 people don’t get abused for holding their lovers hand in public, kissing in public, expressing a desire to get married. We do.

        This is why these apps and sites are so popular. People can log in and meet other GLBT people discretely for sex or whatever, without the worry of encountering abuse from other people by associating with other GLBT people. Please note str8 people do hook up for sex too!

        The problem is that a lot of young GLBT people are having all of this access without having earned it. By earned, I mean having had to take the time to become educated and informed on both the dangers and benefits of it. Young people are contracting STIs at an alarmingly high rate.

        Sexuality in 2014 Britain IS very different, as you said. But saying SS marriage promotes a different picture from hooking up is ridiculous. Str8 people have been getting married, in the Christian sense, since at least 1066 in Britain. And some of those spouses had multiple affairs, had sex before marriage – the works.

        So you cannot realistically & honestly say that this is a new phenomena that is only experienced by the GLBT community.

        • gabriel_syme

          I largely agree with what you say here.

          I would only point out that the existence of “hook up” culture is largely exaggerated amongst heterosexuals – because, that can result in unwanted pregnancy, which no one wants (especially not the women who may be left holding the baby alone).

          Whereas there is no end result from gay activity, other than individual gratification.

          I think this difference is absolutely crucial when understanding the behaviours of different groups of people. It reflects the fact that there is an important point and purpose behind heterosexual sex, which gay activity lacks.

          Finally, its true that society is “heterosexist” – but I would argue that reality is heterosexist. How could it ever not be? The ONS figure for the UK states that 98.5% of people identify as heterosexual and indeed the human race directly depends on heterosexuality to survive and grow.

          Reality is heterosexist and always will be (though of course there should be space and tolerance in society for others).

          • Astral Au

            Of course heterosexims will remain, as you said, the majority of people identify as being hetero. Mind you, 98.5% sounds too high. 90% is as high as I would go, remember it is not just being gay or les, the whole GLBT section is incorporated.

            Also not all MSM (men having sex with men) identify as gay or bi. They identify as being hetero. This further dilutes the truth from any survey.

            There is also no end result from hetero sex if:
            1) the woman has gone through menopause
            2) 1 or both of the people are infertile
            3) A form of contraception is being utilised
            4) The hetero couple has non VI sex

            Yet these activities occur daily. This strongly puts your statement of the importance of end result in a weakened state.

            One thing that is universal is the end result is pleasure, hopefully for both party’s.

          • Rehan

            ONS figure for the UK states that 98.5% of people identify as heterosexual

            I simply don’t believe that’s true. Please provide a link to this purported statistic.

          • Paul

            Whatever the percentage is it is a statistic. The reality would be so much different especially when taking into account how many people do not dare come out. How many people are still in denial due to the pressures in society to be straight. Gabriel can try to justify his bigotry with unreliable facts, blurred deifiniton as much as he likes. It’s clear he has the bigoted view on gays and is brain washed. He also fails to realise that gay people are fertile and can reproduce. Granted not with the gender we are attracted to but just like infertile heterosexuals we have options. Only we can use our own sperm. He fails to really provide a credible fact to back up his empty talk. Again he is probably reciting what he has heard rather than what he knows.

          • gabriel_syme
          • Rehan

            Thank you. You said above The ONS figure for the UK states that 98.5% of people identify as heterosexuals; however, you can see for yourself that on the second page it says:

            The IHS data in the survey period April 2011 to March 2012 indicate that:

            • 93.9 per cent of adults identified themselves as Heterosexual/Straight

            It would seem you have a rather poor understanding of the statistics you seek to rely upon, wouldn’t you say?

          • gabriel_syme

            1.0% ID as gay.
            0.5% ID as bisexual.
            You say only (!) 94% ID as heterosexual.

            Presumably the small remainder did not answer the question for whatever reason.

            Ultimately, my arguments wrt stats are based on the fact that gay people make up a tiny fraction of society yet wholly dominate HIV stats.

            Its clear that the common suggestions of up to 10% of people being gay are a gross exaggeration.

          • Rehan

            Is that your way of admitting that you wholly misread the statistics you were quoting? Very mature.

            The “small remainder” you speak of is 4.6% – quite something to overlook, wouldn’t you say? And wouldn’t you say it’s fairly likely that the people who refuse to answer the question are gay/bi, especially of the older generations (I note you don’t comment on the fact more young people than old identify as gay)?

            And actually a great many people accept 6% is a credible percentage of gay people in any given population. I do, anyway.

          • Colin

            The United Nations accepts that 6% of the world are gay.

          • gabriel_syme

            Surveys from around the world generally show (at most) up to 3 or 4%. In Britain the biggest survey showed 1.0%.

            Activists, of course, have a vested interest in inflating the number as much as possible.

          • Colin

            You need to take into account that certain professions are nervous about the issue of gayness. Teachers, Police, Social workers, Some carers etc. I know 4 gay teachers and none of them either fill in surveys as gay nor have on their census forms that they are gay or living with another man. My ex would not fill in anything as gay which meant me lied on the last census.

            You can deny anything you like but the United Nations recognises 6%. Simply look on their website.

            Gay haters and religious nuts have a vested interest in lowering the numbers.

            How about an inclusive world and boys can stop playing with numbers and get on with lifting everyone up. Religion is simply something I want nothing to do with, cant think why anyone needs a god. To me it’s a mental illness. Live well. Die well.

          • gabriel_syme

            I will be happy to accept 6% if the best information and research we have shows 6%. As it is, the best info and research we have – based on gays peoples own answers – is 1.0%.

            I don’t buy the fact that some people would have felt uncomfortable answering an anonymous survey about sexuality. Look at the behaviour at the typical pride parade and we are supposed to believe people are suddenly coy over an anonymous survey?

          • Rehan

            Look at the behaviour at the typical pride parade

            You absurd creature – I bet you do look, intensely I’m sure, but you clearly have an extraordinarily limited and simplistic view of gay people if that’s the only benchmark you use. I suggest you get to know some older people at least, for starters: it might expand your mind even a little, and that could only be good.

          • speedgeek

            That is an unjustifiable statement, since even in 2014, many men will not actively identify themselves as gay, especially if they are sexually inactive. This is even true of anonymous surveys. Many are wary of sensitive details “leaking”, or websites being hacked.

          • Ad Schuring

            who cares if it’s 1 % or 12? intolerance is justified by numbers ?

      • PaulBrownsey

        “homosexual men meet strangers for meaningless gratification”

        You may not find meaning in it but some people do. It’s not for you to say what other people do or don’t find meaning in.

      • Colin

        I also think a lot of gay men move to cities and feel very lonely. They go to pubs, get slightly pissed for dutch courage and wanting human contact. The next thing is someone gives them half an E and having a good time takes over from being safe.

        It is hard for most young people moving away from home and discovering themselves.

        We need 24 hour gay drop in centers attached to medical facilities and education video’s in all the major cities. Surely amonst our youth who love YouTube someone has the talent to devise a clever video and song to get the issue across.

      • speedgeek

        I would never frequent one of those “saunas”, but are they simply the equivalent of the dogging sites of straight people? Straight teenagers have clubs, pubs, and holiday resorts like Magaluf to go out and find a shag, and very many do, but it is not so simple for a gay lad, who has no gay friends (that happens in the smaller towns in the shires), and may be nervous of entering a gay bar or club on his own.
        Grindr is a way of hooking up with people, like any other social network, or web-site. It is just a stripped down platform.

    • James!

      Really? I think you are a dangerous idiot. Each person will have a different idea of pleasure. the best sex I’ve had is with a condom it no big deal. I think people like you perpetuiate this myth of bareback is better . You should be ashamed

    • Jesus_Mohammed

      “Astounding!” was my initial reaction too, upon reaching the end of the article. At first though, the headline annoyed me, with it’s “gay men believe”, because as you say, it should be “gay men KNOW” – just as straight men KNOW that sex without a condom is more pleasurable. But that such a proportion of young gay men are having such regular sex without condoms is truly ASTOUNDING. On the other hand, human kind burying its head in the sand and ignoring realities is common! Look at climate change! Look at the flooding. Already the media are turning their backs on the flooding and turning back to “Business as normal” stories, with reports along the lines of “The UK economy is beginning to flourish!”, so we can all start consuming like hogs again and screwing up the planet (to produce catastrophes far worse than our recent floods).

    • David H

      So true. I think most people if asked for an honest would say that sex is more pleasurable without a condom. Would people risk their lives for a more pleasurable experience? Some would, (hopefully) the majority would use common sense. Robert’s summary is spot on.

    • Chris

      Not so astounding when youve had a look at the experiments done on mice a while back. They put a mouse in a little room with 2 buttons, one gives food, and the other gives pleasure by means of a special system they managed to hook into the mouse’s brain. The end result was a lot of dead mice that died from starvation.

  • Rehan

    94% said they were more likely to have unprotected sex with a good looking guy.

    The extraordinary stupidity implied by this statistic is so very depressing.

  • Chaopeng Lovetosleep

    Well i mean they might believe its more pleasurable but it does not mean they actually go without condom right.. But anyways I was thinking, what should I do if I happened to have a boyfriend and we were about to have sex? Am I suppose to ask him to go for a screening with me together or should i just use condom because I believe condom does not prevent all kinds of STD’s. Anyone encountered with this dillema before? It would be great if you would share your opinion with me thanks!

    • WillowFish

      The rule of thumb is to always use a condom unless you have both been screened and are found to be clean and to continue getting screened on a regular basis even if you are in a monogamous relationship.

      • gabriel_syme

        If someones behaviour requires regular “screening” to check that it has not caused them to catch incurable disease yet, isnt that an indicator that they should really change their behaviour?

        • Lee W Dalgleish

          EVERYONE who has unprotected vaginal or anal sex who are not in a relationship or are cheating SHOULD be screened! Regular screening for any sexual activity outside a monogamous relationship should be tested whether gay or straight… A nurse at my local clinic told me that when I used to go when single. It’s called being safe. Oral sex I should also mention carries risks too if you are sleeping with more than one person (gay or straight)

        • kg

          Many hetrosexual women have regular screening for cervical cancer caused by plain old hetrosexual sex without a condom!! what do you suggest?

      • Chaopeng Lovetosleep

        But what if he feels that I dont trust him by asking him to screen? Wouldn’t it be hard to you know..persuade him to go?

        • Paul

          Then he is not right for you. Anyone who has nothing to hide would have no problem in both being screened. It should form the basis of any relationship. It is your health… do not put saving face above staying healthy and risk free. Its stupid to put your own safety last! It’s not about trust it’s about being sensible and precautious.

        • Paul

          and if he doesn’t go you have every right to ask why. It is your choice to take the risk but only YOU will live with the consequences.

  • gabriel_syme

    This 70% figure tallys very well with the US Government CDC figures, which found that 62% of HIV+ homosexual men have anal “sex” without using a condom and without informing their partner of their HIV+ status.

    Such widespread recklessness seems unbelievable, but is borne out once you examine the infection rates and increasingly significant numbers of homosexual men living with HIV.

    It is time for homosexual men to take proper responsibility for their sexual health. Its time to drop the escapism that “homophobia” or inadequate sex education is responsible for rising HIV rates. Its time to admit that reckless, promiscuous and selfish conduct – often when high on illegal drugs – is what is responsible for the rising HIV among homosexual men. Also time to admit that anal “sex” – which is fundamentally a misuse of the human body – puts its practitioners at a specific and elevated risk of HIV.

    • WillowFish

      Wow. You must be real fun at parties.

      Dude, the level of ignorance and assumption in your argument undermines any validity your points may have. You come off as a bigot and a homophobe. Attitudes like yours don’t help the situation. Putting the word sex in quotes as if it’s somehow not “legitimate” sex because you don’t like gay people is ridiculous and calling it a “misuse of the human body” is also ridiculous. Not only is anal sex a common practice among people of ALL orientations but it’s a common practice among many animal species as well. It’s perfectly natural so acting like it’s some perversion of nature is just silly and ignorant.

      • gabriel_syme

        I do not dislike gay people.

        I use brackets for anal “sex” because it isn’t really sex. Indeed the act renders the sexual functions of the human body completely erroneous. What more proof do you need?

        I know many people like to pretend that its sex, but it isn’t. And pointing this out doesn’t make me a bigot.

        • Rehan

          No, but it makes you seem inordinately foolish. Do you consider oral sex “not sex” too? How Clintonian.

        • Bobbleobble

          What proof of anything have you sought to provide. You’re attempting to suggest that sex and sexual intercourse are the same thing. That is erroneous. Sexual intercourse is one type of sex which includes oral, anal etc.

          • gabriel_syme

            That isn’`t true.

            There is only one genuine type of sex – and its heterosexual sex.

            This is the only type which uses the human body in accordance with its physical form and biological functions – the way ALL human bodies are meant to be used.

          • Paul

            Change the record Gabriel. You are talking absolute rubbish. I can reference numerous deifinitions of sexual intercourse including vaginal, oral and anal including the Oxford English Dictionary. You however fail to provide one. It is defined in English so you cannot argue agaisnt it I’m afraid. Accept that your “facts” as you claim are your personal opinion and nothing more. The stats you quote are fictional in the lame hope that someone might believe what you type.

          • PaulBrownsey

            Meant by whom or what? Are you alluding to some god?

          • Guest

            Does that mean that if a person has a womb they should be trying to get pregnant – since that’s what evolution designed a womb for? Because I got to say that I don’t think I could rock the pregnant man thing.

          • Mr Thomas

            You sound really dim. You have no understanding of sex and no understanding of homosexuals. You have either chosen to be a moron or you are a moron. Nothing you say makes any sense because of your failure to see the bigger picture. You should just go away because we have heard this nonsense before and we find it disgusting. We have dealt with ignorance and prejudice from people a lot more intelligent than you.
            I find you to be a prat.

        • Jock S.Trap

          If you don’t think it’s “sex” girl you bin doin it wrong!

        • kg

          are you on the autism spectrum by any chance as you seem particularly obsessed with “sex” and its definition. I’m not saying this to offend as I myself have some autistic traits

    • James!

      Who is this cúnt?

    • Jimbob

      And what shall we blame for the alarming increase in infection rates for heterosexual people??

  • Jock S.Trap

    I find this ‘survey’ very questionable. It’s 70% of 160 men. It cannot be taken as the populous surely? Hardly a staggering amount.

    I would have said that 95% of men reckon sex without condoms is more pleasurable whether giving or receiving but I don’t very much most would be anything other than safer.

    What I will say is that this is very reason sex education is schools, esp with the issue of HIV, Hep C etc is when it’s the most effective to teach, as compulsory. Sadly out politicians rejected that. With that they will have to shoulder some of the blame of why numbers don’t get better.

    • androphiles

      Exactly. And where were those 160 gay men? In bars? At a disco? In college? The lack of specifics and of any source makes the whole thing questionable enough to ignore.

  • James!

    Authors claim the increasing availability of Bareback pornography could also be seen to encourage and normalise unsafe behaviour
    I’ve been saying this for years porn affects behaviour. Young people will be influenced and we should be ashamed that after the years of watching people die this generation are being sacrificed for pornographers profit.
    We have nothing to be proud of

    • Rehan

      Agreed. I find the prevalence – and popularity – of BB porn disturbing.

  • Astral Au

    If people are silly enough to engage in unsafe random sex, it is their own fault. “Jason” in the article acknowledged this. In this day and age, the information about HIV and other STIs is easily accessible, and most GLBT dating sites have safe sex messages prominently displayed. Of course sex without a condom is more pleasurable. But I would never allow a guy to fk me without a condom unless he was my boyfriend and we had both been tested for HIV (and other STIs). It may seem harsh of me to say, but the reality of HIV is much harsher.

  • Lee W Dalgleish

    Gabriel your obsession is borderline disturbing/funny… I must admit you have done a great job in highlighting your ignorance and bigotry.
    Many of your comments highlight exactly why better sex education is needed in school. it would hopefully curb the increase in HIV status’ amongst gay men and also educate gay/straight people about risks that can be avoided. People like you like to bang on about these figures but at the same time get up in arms when education is suggested. You blame it solely on gay people. The reality is that attitude does play a part but so does education. The attitude from people like you are what can also stifle people from being more aware, more safe.

    As a gay man in a healthy relationship, I have never had an STI, I don’t have HIV. I’ve never even tried drugs or smoked a cigarette. I have always been careful and so has my partner. I have always used protection in terms of anal sex. But It wasn’t down to the education I received at school as it was poor. Things need to be improved rather than trying to demonise gay people or imply that being gay means you are most likely to catch something. The reality is you are most likely to catch something if you fail to respect your body and don’t take the proper precautions (gay or straight).

    But then you seem to think that all gay people have anal sex which isn’t true. it’s not a staple of my relationship. it’s not an act that is done very regularly. There are other ways to pleasure each other. Much like a straight couple don’t just have vaginal sex

    • Astral Au

      Well said Lee, I completely agree with your second and third paragraphs.

    • gabriel_syme

      your ignorance and bigotry.


      blah blah blah – throw enough insults and some might stick huh?

      I have never had an STI, I don’t have HIV.


      1 in 7 gay men in London have HIV. The US Government forecast recently that >50% of US gay men will have HIV in 2 or 3 decades. Already 1 in 2 have HIV in San Francisco. They are killing themselves through these behaviours.

      But It wasn’t down to the education I received at school as it was poor.


      I don’t agree that a fundamental misuse of the human body should be taught to school children. What is it exactly you wish to teach them, 99% of whom will be heterosexual?

      But then you seem to think that all gay people have anal sex which isn’t true

      Actually, I don’t. I will agree that my knowledge of gay mens habits is likely limited and that gay men will be in a better place to describe them – of course.

      At the end of the day, what forms my opinion is the health statistics and I don’t think anyone (regardless of who they are attracted to) could claim they were anything other than highly concerning for gay men and indicative of serious problems with regard to attitudes to health and what constitutes proper sexual use of the human body.

      • Lee W Dalgleish

        So what are your thoughts on better sex education the Gabriel? Do you not think that better education would better inform the youth of today?

        You are aware of the male G spot and where it is placed no?
        You can be gay, have anal sex and still be perfectly safe. This is what you can’t seem to grasp. Statistics don’t tell the full story. They are an indication of the situation but they offer no detail other than what they state. With statistics you need to look at WHY the numbers are as they are. HOW can you minimise these figures? Statistics are just numbers. Yes not using a condom is more pleasurable but it doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t use one.

        If I wanted to insult you I would use much more colourful and creative language. Bigot and ignorance are merely a description of you and your attitude.

      • Rehan

        99% of whom will be heterosexual

        Are you making up statistics as you go along now?

        • Lee W Dalgleish

          The man complains about a sex act that both gay/straight men take part in yet doesn’t want all facts taught at school. Sounds completely stupid doesn’t it? How can you educate if you completely ignore the issues. Especially since the issue isn’t just about unsafe anal sex. There are plenty of ways gay and straight people can get infected without having anal sex

          • Paul

            Yep… so he only wants heterosexuals to be educated on vaginal intercourse… so this means all heteros and gays who do partake in oral or anal sex remain uneducated. Yeah this sounds like the solution to prevent the spread of STI’s Gabriel… well done! I was being ironic also before you try to claim some glory from that!

      • Paul

        1 in 7 blah blah blah…. So has it been confirmed by tests who is and who isn’t gay in these places? Even if this stat was true… this is out of the “known” gay men. Do you think every gay man has been counted? Unless they invent a gay test there is no way to determine what percentage of a population is gay purely because some don’t feel a need to declare their sexuality for personal reasons or simply because they don’t feel it is anyone’s business. You need to stop plucking figures from the air to try to make it sound like your argument carries weight. You are yet to provide anyone with any scrap of evidence of these “STATS”. Go away and come back when you have proof. I’m guessing you are more likely to come back with more proof heaven exists!

      • androphiles

        Please produce a source for the “U.S. Government forecast” that 50% of gay men will have HIV “in 2 or 3 decades.” I doubt you can. As an American gay man who keeps thoroughly abreast of the situation, I can tell you such sensationalism was common 2 or 3 decades ago. It’s even been used as a scare-tactic to persuade gay men to be more aware. Only opponents of gay rights even mention such statistical nonsense today.

        • gabriel_syme

          “According to the CDC, if HIV continues to spread at its current rates, more than half of college-aged gay men will have HIV by the age of 50.”

          You obviously do not keep abreast of things as well as you think you do.

          I do not live in the USA, but presume college aged men are in their 20s (?). So this scenario is about 3 decades away, based on current infection rates.

          To be honest I have been quite shocked by the levels of ignorance and denial among gay men here, on this subject. Many do not seem to realise that homosexual men are at the very epicentre of the HIV issue – more at risk than even intravenous drug users – or that infection rates are rising rapidly:

          “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.”

          I suppose there is a resistance to the truth, because to accept these statistics means accepting that the “bigots” who claim homosexual behaviour is harmful have been right all along.

          However, as this issue affects people lives and health – the “head in the sand” approach cant continue too much longer.

          • androphiles

            You made a statement. “The US Government forecast recently that >50% of US gay men will have HIV in 2 or 3 decades.”

            I asked you for a source. You gave me one that says “IF HIV continues to spread at its current rates,” [emphasis added] and is only talking about college-age gay men, NOT “US gay men.” Clearly, that doesn’t back up your statement.

            I do keep abreast of this, and have done for the past 35 years. Don’t try to snow me. If you say something, back it up with something that proves you’re right. This doesn’t.

  • Just like jumping out of a plane without a parachute is more thrilling.

    • androphiles

      That’s an inaccurate metaphor; jumping out of a plane without a parachute is guaranteed suicide. Going condomless is just extremely life-threatening. I believe there’s a direct correlation between a man’s sense of self-worth and his willingness to take such a risk.

      • Not a metaphor, but a simile. If you insist on correcting me, allow me to correct you right back.

        • androphiles

          I stand corrected.

  • Ricardo Lobo-Morell

    Is there a link to the published research?

  • JOHN


  • Ichi Bear

    This is crazy! Why would you put yourself at risk like this?! It’s depressing.

  • Ray123

    I have no problem with people risking their own welfare as much as they want. The problem is that the whole community is dragged down with them, and of course the naive people who believe them when they say they are H.I.V. negative.

  • Velvet Steele

    Why are we using the term “gay” men think this ALL men think this!!!!!!

    • VP

      I don’t.

    • androphiles

      No, “ALL men” do not think this. You can only speak for yourself.

  • qv

    I wonder if the figures in such surveys for straight men are much different?

  • SamB

    To the stupid homophobe:

    Homosexuality does not equal anal sex. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Anal sex is an act. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can engage and refrain from anal sex.

  • Gus Cairns

    I’d like to read the data and re-write this piece. At the moment it reads a bit like a satire of the sort of ‘all gay men go to London and get addicted to meth and have loads of group sex and get HIV and isn’t it dreadful?’ article we’ve seen a lot of. The survey sounds interesting but the hysteria with which this is written makes me wonder what the survey really found.

  • Old Poz Bloke

    of a deeply unrepresentative sample of 160 of their fellow students may
    at some point have had sex without a condom – not regularly. This is very poor research it is not peer reviewed or published in a HIV Journal Pink News really should know better.

  • Commander Thor

    As a victim of male genital mutilation in the name of the religion of peace, I can’t keep an erection with a condom as I can’t feel anything. I might as well stick the condom on my finger and use that, it’d be equally boring.

  • Clive

    A really poor state of affairs, as a young guy who grew up and came out in the 80s with the government Iceburg HIV/Aids tv adverts it really is so sad. It seems that just because HIV/Aids is no longer a death sentence guys through the medication that is available, young guys seem to not worry.
    How I remember the numerous friends who died often dreadful deaths and how regulars used to disappear from the local pub, only to find out later they had died of Aids. Thankfully with medication that does not happen now but isn’t it time we have another big campaign targeting people to be safe rather than sorry.

  • Colin

    Guess I’ll get hammered for this BUT…

    In today’s society, we are responsible for our well being as an adult, not the state. Each one of us define ourselves by the way we act, interact with society, earn our income and contribute.

    In the 80’s gay people did not know about HIV and AIDS and my heart goes out to them. Today its different. Bareback rooms on gay sites are full, magazines project sex, drugs and clubs. Have fun but have fun responsibly.

    A few years ago it cost £7,000 a year for HIV drugs. Catch it at 25 live to 75 costs the country £350,000 more than the average house costs in the UK (£250,000) by far.

    I am now converted to charging for this medication. Even a percentage of income but a mechanism must be found to connect action with result. HIV drugs are not free. Young gay men are happy to spend £100 on alcohol and drugs at weekends so therefore they also pay for their HIV drugs.

    The gay community needs to grow up now and take responsibility for this. I’m no angel be assured of that but I have never had unprotected sex even when within a long term relationship. I know gay men!

    • androphiles

      The “gay community” does not “need” to take responsibility for this. Individual gay men need to take responsibility for themselves. That’s the only way the situation will ever change.

      • Colin

        Sorry sent to self above. Meant that I agree with you. Good point.

    • Colin

      Very good point. I agreed.

  • Sean H

    This goes all sorts of directions. I forget I have Grindr on half the time, and I certainly wouldn’t if it commonly led to drug fueled orgies. I think most gay men would agree having sex with Ryan Gosling would be more pleasurable than their current partner, does this mean they do it? Is NSA really an unsafe code word, or does it simply mean – as I believe – I don’t want a relationship.

  • Jeremy Wright

    It’s common knowledge that sex is much more pleasurable without a condom. It’s the fact that so many gay men our willing to do it with perfect strangers and prepared to play roulette with their partner’s HIV status that is much more frightening and do it. Personally, I see nothing wrong with being in a monogamous relationship and testing regularly but being aware of your partner’s status too and being unprotected – this is perfectly normal, but perfect strangers not in a million years.

  • truthpro

    Sex without condoms is definitely more pleasurable during the barebacking. It is also a real exchange of fluids since semen and other things (AIDS for example) pass through the wall of the colon into the blood with the absorption of water — a natural function of the colon. This being so, you either use condoms and continue the “modified rapture” of non-bareback (safe sex), or you form a monogamous relationship with a person you can totally trust, get yourselves tested twice before coition, get yourselves tested regularly to keep up the trust, and pray that your relationship is open enough to accommodate admission of error followed by quick retesting regimen. Bareback sex in the 70’s was unlike anything you can possibly picture with respect to pleasure, intimacy and action. It was also the incubator for the HIV first attack (the worst) which hit in the early 80’s.

    Back in that time, men did not want monogamous relationships; they wanted what was called “numbers.” Only when full awareness of HIV and AIDS became common street knowledge did sensible men turn to monogamy, testing, and trust — out of which comes the Gay marriage initiative. It does absolutely no good to shake a finger in someone’s face to tell him he is imperiling himself and everyone he has sex with. It’s worth saying, continually, to keep some kind of handle on the rudder which guides you through the rapids of pleasure and safety. A medical partner to a monogamous relationship, regularly tested, is the only way to have the pleasure, the intimacy, the growth of trust in one other, the release of addiction to numbers.

    One other point. It is really dangerous when someone infected with HIV does not tell a potential partner his status; equally dangerous to have bareback sex with another HIV positive man. I am sorry to say that, however they live with themselves, there are a lot of HIV positives who are angry and rebellious about the limitations of reason and prudence put on their freedom, they do not tell partners their status, they consciously transmit the virus because “they rolled the dice and lost” so that ought to be the outcome for anyone who is still like they were when they became infected.

    Anything is possible, included safe sex without a condom, if the entire encounter and relationship is structured and sustained by justifiable trust. But never trust a man who says “I’ve been tested; I’m negative.” Tell him “great. Now let’s both get tested twice over six weeks and use the time to get to know each other’s trustworthiness.

  • VP

    Well this truly is surprising. I guess I must be in the minority who believe that sex with condoms is by far the more pleasurable experience.

    After all, nothing kills the amorous mood more thoroughly than a crippling anxiety about catching something nasty. How can people enjoy sex when they know it might lead to STDs? How can they not take effective precautions? To me it’s a quite frankly baffling state of affairs. How can one even maintain an erection (or sufficient muscular relaxation for receptivity) in the knowledge of what unprotected sex with an unknown partner you don’t trust can lead to? I know I can’t. I wouldn’t want to even if I could.

    As for the condom somehow being an imposition – most men wear pants don’t they? Pants are an entirely superfluous garment most of the time – trousers suffice perfectly well on their own. Yet the wearing of pants is nigh-on universal these days.

    • androphiles

      Is this a British distinction? What’s the difference between trousers and pants?

      • In British English, pants means underpants.

        • androphiles

          Thanks for the reply.

  • Staircase2

    It would be entirely unfair to blame Grindr et al for this. And I say this as someone who dubbed Grindr ‘the bastard son of Gaydar and cottaging’.

    The problem in so far as those apps is the way they undercut any sense of cohesive community or real life socialising beyond a sexual experience. The benefit of traditional venues is that they also act as a hub for information, education and the sharing of knowledge pertinent to identity/sexual identity, whereas apps (and in truth websites like Gaydar did exactly the same) encourage/facilitate a closeted experience with no socialised light at the end of the closeted tunnel.

    Apps are not responsible for the levels of HIV in the UK. They are, however, responsible for creating a whole new generation of gay/bi men where sexual identity is not framed within a social (and thereby educational) experience.

  • SD

    Am I missing it, or is there no information posted to allow us to find this study? I’m not seeing a link, author name, study title, etc.

  • Ivan

    And probably the same % think a chocolate cheesecake tastes better than kale. Now which one is better for you?

  • gogo

    There’s many sites with heterosexual men searching for bareback prostitutesand they share adresses with other men about prostitutes that like bareback, men upload pctures of barebacksex with the prostitute on such sites. Most do not get tested because they believe does not exist or is a gay desease or they fear to get to know their HIV status because if they were HIV+ then they can’t have barebacksex with prostitutes anymore.Most doctors do not know it

  • androphiles

    There’s never been any great dispute about condomless sex being “more pleasurable.” The question is whether the added pleasure is worth risking one’s life to achieve. It’s a matter of balancing what the big head knows against what the little head wants.

  • Colin

    I have a good friend who caught HIV from his Partner. They had agreed to be monogamous. My friends self esteem crashed and he went through a really bad patch. Play safe guys for many many reasons.

    One we cannot ignore is the cost. 30,000 gay and bisexual men are living with HIV. A few years a go it cost £7,000 a year for drugs. 30,000 people = £210,000,000 or £210m. If they live 50 Years that cost is £10,100,000,000. or £10.1 Billion (US Billions)

    That money could do a lot of good elsewhere if we gay gays were careful. Have fun but safe fun that’s all.

  • Twinkles

    160 respondents are obviously not enough to be a statistically valid representative sample of the wider gay community. This “study” is deeply flawed, and this article is an irresponsible piece of trash. Wear your condoms.

  • cymatic

    If this were a real study there would be information about who authored it, the methodology, where and when it will be published. The fact that this is a PinkNews “exclusive” and there are no named authors of the “study” should give some indication of the value of the reported info.

  • hkjkls

    where is the link to this academic study??

  • Ad Schuring

    a study? talking to 170 friends? come on !

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