are we really disease free ???

[Long Duck Dong]

NZ gay / bi men found to have hiv /aids (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/6356441/Auckland-men-unaware-they-have-HIV-study)

unfortunately, this article hits home hard with me as it is how my sister contracted hiv,... the guy had no idea he was infected......and it makes me wonder, how many people may be infected that they have not found.....

it pushes the safe sex aspect but there is no way of knowing how they contracted hiv /aids.... and there has been recent reports of a guy that became infected when he got a tattoo ( over seas ) and a nurse that was accidently pricked with a used needle in a hospital and became infected........

I can not help but notice that in NZ, we are still pushing the gay / bi male are the bigger risk factor... and not the ANY person can be a risk factor / carrier.... and I find it interesting that they tested gay / bi males... not females....

either way, keep safe out there, people, you are somebodies friend, family, partner, loved one and one of our community.....

[slipnslide]

It is so easy to play safe. Just as easy is getting tested regularly. I don't understand why HIV is still an issue in developed nations.

[Long Duck Dong]

I used to believe that once upon a time.....

I know a person in NZ that tested pos for one test, neg for the next 3 then pos again...... and its not the first time that people have had the issue with tests not being conclusive....

the trouble with safe sex, is that its not the only way that the virus can be passed.... and all the stats and odds and fiqures in the world, mean shit if you have a condom on ya dick, and you get it from a tattoo or a needle..... :tong::tong:

hiv / aids is still a issue cos we have freedom of choice.... and we exercise it.... and while it would be easy to rubbish people for not having safe sex, well safe sex limits exposure to the virus.... it doesn't eliminate it.....

not that it matters.. I just hope that nobody in the forum ends up with hiv /aids thru no fault of their own.....

[swmnkdinthervr]

Something else to ponder...

Condom manufacturers would have you believe their product to be proof against all STD's when in fact the only thing they do protect against anywhere close to 100% is pregnancy!!! Also the porosity and failure rates are much higher than advertized and none offer protection beyond the covered area of skin. Female condoms are less prone to failure but offer a smaller effective area of protection against common bodily fluids. Creams of course offer no protection from STD's at all.

Herpes simplex 1 & 2, Hepatitis A & B and the now recognized over 200 strains of Human papillomavirus are spread through the contact with bodily fluids including semen, blood, saliva and vaginal fluids. Virtually all of these STD's can be contracted by contact with body fluids mentioned during oral, vaginal and anal sex...AND...they can be carried by innocent touch by any body part (during or immediately after sex) to any mucus membrane, (nose, eyes, mouth, vagina) open sore, abrasion or cut/tear wound. Bacteria do not last long outside/off the body but they do have a much longer life if they exist in a wet/moist area.

Only total abstinence of sex is the only SAFE sex, much like walking down the street most things in life carry an element of danger and are potentially deadly! Since most of us will never choose give up sex we have to approach it like we do the other "manageable" dangers we face every day. Careful choice of partners and good hygiene are the best defenses we have. All the ancillary accessories listed above are can if used properly offer some minimal protection but there is no protection like making good decisions!!!

[dafydd]

Careful choice of partners and good hygiene are the best defenses we have. All the ancillary accessories listed above are can if used properly offer some minimal protection but there is no protection like making good decisions!!!

I wish I lived in your world, where a 'good decision' makes for trustworthy protection. But what constitutes a good decision? How do you know it is the right one? And what is your evidence for the choice? e.g. how do u know what u think you know about someones status?

The crucial piece of information that undermines anybody's definiton of 'good decisions' is that you can be infected without knowing it.
The incubation period of the HIV virus after initial infection used to render it undectable by tests for up to 3 months (now earlier). This is the window period, the legth of time you might have the virus and not know it, and still transmit it to others.
This fact is not new information, and the slow rate of viral replication, and 'the window period' spread HIV so fast in the early 80's, where it remained unknown, and undetected for years, that so many otherwise healthy 20-30 something gay and bisexual men all died within months of each. It decimated whole communities in such areas as New York and SF. I remember my friend who lived through those days telling me that the coffee shops were full of people on repirators, with nurses etc. Life had to go on and since everyone was dying at the same time, people would go to the funerals of 3 or 4 friends within the same week. There really has never been any widespread media reflection on this wipeout, other than Randy Shilts excellent book "And The Book Played On". Hollywood, even now hasn't touched it. But it was gay men and bisexuals who were the first to fall and in their thousands. An entire generation of gay/bisexual men was wiped out between 82-85.

As such, it's very easy for me a bisexual man, who lived in SF with many HIV + friends, to make the decision to not become a living memorial to those days, and to always use protection during sex. But I am afforded a unique view of that horror that not everyone has.
It does not matter how much I love or trust my partner when they say they are HIV-. For they might actually believe that. But the truth is, unless you get tested 3 months after your last sexual encounter (with no sex in between) it is impossible to say for sure. Therefore the only 'good decision' is to where a condom.

It is technically true that nothing is 100% safe, but that's true with anything that could harm us e.g. trains, planes, can openers, chopsticks etc

The continued promotion of the 'not quite 100% safe' condom causes more harom good. Sure it may be factually correct but the condom's fallability is statistically insignificant. Many people, who are ambivalent or begrudging in their use of condoms, often cite the 'not quite 100%" contraception as reason enough to dispense with them all together. It's so illogical when you think about i. Nobody refuses to wear seatbelts in cars, just because a number of people were stangled by them last year in collisions.

Success rates of rubbers vary depending on who you talk to. 99.9999% to 98% to 96% to 88% and so on. Depending on how badly someone wants to not use them, protection rates seem to be plucked out of the air. I've heard people say they can be as low as 80% and reason that the withdrawal method has a higher rate of protection. They can therefore give up condoms and justify it using figures that suit them.

It is far better to continue promoting condoms as the best, currently available, method of protection to prevent the transmission of HIV and some other STDs. It's simple. That's it. Want sex? Don't want HIV? Use condoms.

Are we living in a world where we can no longer have unsafe sex without worry?
Yes!

Do 100% of the people having sex on this earth use condoms 100% of the time?
No.
90% of the people?
80%?
70%?
the number drops and drops before it even feels close to the mark. I don't know the figure but Id imagine its lower than 70% of people using condoms 100% of the time
How much more risk is caused by people who just don't use condoms as opposed to the risk posed by the 'not quite 100% condom itself'? insurmountable

So it's very clear why HIV is still a major threat in our world today (yes the Western world too - why should that be any different?).

--- however.....wouldn't it be lovely if it was all so easy.

How practical/reasonable/desireale/a decision to always wear condoms is another question entirely.
And not wearing condoms shouldn't in itself be something to feel guilty, bad, or irresponsible about. We know how to stop the spread of HIV, or course we do, but we aren't programable computers when we have sex.....and we don't always do things the way we should (consciously or otherwise).

Nobody wants to infect their partner with HIV+... but if it only means getting used to a plastic rubber, for the peace of mind that you are protecting your partner (and yourself) from an unstoppable deadly virus) ...maybe it's worth it.

d

[DuckiesDarling]

I wish I lived in your world, where a 'good decision' makes for trustworthy protection. But what constitutes a good decision? How do you know it is the right one? And what is your evidence for the choice? e.g. how do u know what u think you know about someones status?

The crucial piece of information that undermines anybody's definiton of 'good decisions' is that you can be infected without knowing it.
The incubation period of the HIV virus after initial infection used to render it undectable by tests for up to 3 months (now earlier). This is the window period, the legth of time you might have the virus and not know it, and still transmit it to others.
This factc is not new information, and the the slow rate of viral replication, and its the window period was the reason HIV spread so fast in the early 80's, where it remained unknown, and undetected for years, and explains why so many people died - especially young gay men in - so quickly and at the same time.)

It does not matter how much you love or trust your partner when they say they are HIV-. For they might actually believe that. But the truth is, unless you get tested 3 months after your last sexual encounter (with no sex in between) it is impossible to say for sure. Therefore the only 'good decision' is to where a condom.

It is technically true that nothing is 100% safe, but that's true with anything that could harm us e.g. trains, planes, can openers, chopsticks etc

The continued promotion of the 'not quite 100% safe' condom causes more harm good. Sure it may be factually correct but the condom's fallability is statistically insignificant. Many people, who are ambivalent or begrudging in their use of condoms, often cite the 'not quite 100%" contraception as reason enough to dispense with them all together. It's so illogical when you think about i. Nobody refuses to wear seatbelts in cars, just because a number of people were stangled by them last year in collisions.

Success rates of rubbers vary depending on who you talk to. 99.9999% to 98% to 96% to 88% and so on. Depending on how badly someone wants to not use them, protection rates seem to be plucked out of the air. I've heard people say they can be as low as 80% and reason that the withdrawal method has a higher rate of protection. They can therefore give up condoms and justify it using figures that suit them.

It is far better to continue promoting condoms as the best, currently available, method of protection to prevent the transmission of HIV and some other STDs. It's simple. That's it. Want sex? Don't want HIV? Use condoms.

Are we living in a world where we can no longer have unsafe sex without worry.
Yes!

Do 100% of the people having sex on this earth use condoms 100% of the time?
No.
90% of the people?
80%?
70%?
the number drops and drops before it even feels close to the mark. I don't know the figure but Id imagine its lower than 70% of people using condoms 100% of the time
How much more risk is caused by people who just don't use condoms as opposed to the risk posed by the 'not quite 100% condom itself'? insurmountable

So it's very clear why HIV is still a major threat in our world today (yes the Western world too - why should that be any different?).

--- however.....wouldn't it be lovely if it was all so easy.

How practical/reasonable/desireale/a decision to always wear condoms is another question entirely.
And not wearing condoms shouldn't in itself be something to feel guilty, bad, or irresponsible about. We know how to stop the spread of HIV, or course we do, but we aren't programable computers when we have sex.....and we don't always do things the way we should (consciously or otherwise).

Nobody wants to infect their partner with HIV+... but if it only means getting used to a plastic rubber, for the peace of mind that you are protecting your partner (and yourself) from an unstoppable deadly virus) ...maybe it's worth it.

d

I agree with you, dafydd, but there is also the transmission of HIV through non sexual contact. Just recently I did read the story about a guy who got it from a tattoo in Bali, we have nurses and doctors all the time infected by patients because gloves are great, but they can tear and it's not always noticed. They double glove if they know there is an HIV+ patient but even that is not foolproof. Everyone needs to be careful in whatever you do, we all know how it's transmitted and we all know it's deadly. It was never a so called "gay disease" as some idiots wanted to put it, it can strike anyone. Any sexuality, any gender, any where, unless we stop indulging in risky behaviour it's like playing russian roulette with our lives. Get tested but even that, as Dafydd pointed out, is not completely accurate. The test knows what your blood says NOW, not what it will say after that random hookup in the bookstore or the park or the party. So use condoms, use common sense. There are a lot worse things out there prevented by condoms than the release of sperm to fertilize an egg.

[swmnkdinthervr]

I wish I lived in your world, where a 'good decision' makes for trustworthy protection.

So...who said that's the only way we protect ourselves, the people we play with are in a "closed loop" and in most scenarios we use condoms. Where do you get off questioning our actions, we merely posted a compilation of information, discussions and other resources to make a point similar to the one you are making!

If you want to be totally safe abstain totally!!! If you want to play the first thing you have to do is make good decisions...that may or not include condoms for you!

Read into other peoples posts what you want but you might consider either keeping the opinion to yourself or make the effort to ask if that's the meaning of what they posted before you launch into a long diatribe!

[swmnkdinthervr]

Here's an example of what we were talking about:

It is projected that by the year 2015 as high as 90+ percent of all women 50 or older will have had at least one of the now suspected 200+ strains of HPV. It is also suspected that HPV has been around over 100 years! Only two types of the Human Papillomavirus are considered worrisome, the first of which we all recognize as genital warts but only a few types of HPV cause genital warts. Other types of HPV cause warts on other parts of the skin, such as the hands, feet, neck etc. The few known strains that cause precancerous changes in the cervix or cervical cancer are now being potentially linked to some forms of throat and colon cancer!!! There are often no symptoms of this form of HPV other than vaginal discharge, bleeding or itching. Males can carry/spread HPV almost unknowingly except where genital warts are present, a specific test is required to detect HPV.

Our point was that condoms are not always the ONLY answer...you improve your odds of avoiding an STD by making intelligent choices!

[slipnslide]

Only total abstinence of sex is the only SAFE sex

For sure. That's been working for me for almost a year now. It's like that episode of Seinfeld. When you remove sex and seeking out sex you suddenly have time for a lot of more productive things.

[LastGent]

You are TOTALLY bumming me out, brothers and sister(s). When the HPV vaccine came out I was already one year too old for it. Total sex drive crusher.
Vaccines should be made for every STD, and, they should be designed for older adults as well. Seniors can get an influenza shot every year so why not a gonorrhea shot?

[pepperjack]

For sure. That's been working for me for almost a year now. It's like that episode of Seinfeld. When you remove sex and seeking out sex you suddenly have time for a lot of more productive things.

Hear! Hear! As well as creating more personal calm & peace; there's something liberating & empowering about sexual apathy.:cool:

[swmnkdinthervr]

You are TOTALLY bumming me out, brothers and sister(s). When the HPV vaccine came out I was already one year too old for it. Total sex drive crusher.
Vaccines should be made for every STD, and, they should be designed for older adults as well. Seniors can get an influenza shot every year so why not a gonorrhea shot?

While they don't admit it the CDC look at HPV as the "new cold" as we speak over 40% of women potentially have one or more strains of the benign HPV and don't know it!!!


For sure. That's been working for me for almost a year now. It's like that episode of Seinfeld. When you remove sex and seeking out sex you suddenly have time for a lot of more productive things.

That's just a bummer to us...we are more interested in the "reproductive" things!!!

[Hephaestion]

You are TOTALLY bumming me out, brothers and sister(s). When the HPV vaccine came out I was already one year too old for it. Total sex drive crusher.
Vaccines should be made for every STD, and, they should be designed for older adults as well. Seniors can get an influenza shot every year so why not a gonorrhea shot?

The current thinking is that HPV innocculaitons are worthwhile in all age groups and irrespective of previous sexual activity although they are expensive. The argument is that there is a reasonable probability that some of the HPV's treated by the innocculation may not have been encountered yet.

Where described as so, HPV's are not 'benign' in the demotic sense i.e. they confer no good outcome, rather when described as 'benign' they are not associated with any resulting malady.

Now for the disappointing news. Regular innocculations may well produce immune strains of the ANY infective biological agent. So the call for such is very short sighted. As is now being seen, reckless infection and innoculation is doing just that - the bugs are constantly evolving.

The real answer is not to sleep around and to vet your proposed partner to the extreme. Anybody who does not agree to this is best avoided. The harsh minded in the community might well call for branding, a bell and the requirement to call out "unclean" between rings.

Congenital carriers or infected are often shielded for the best of intentions but the worry arises about other innocents being infected as a result.

Are we disease free? - No. We are giant hotels of infective agents. So when the the gentleman with flair drinks champagne from a lady's slipper, think of it as a 'verruca float'.

.

[darkeyes]

Are we disease free? - No. We are giant hotels of infective agents. So when the the gentleman with flair drinks champagne from a lady's slipper, think of it as a 'verruca float'.

.

Wot a poxy lot we r!!!

..an no 1 is drinking champers from my slippers.. they r fluffy 'n warm 'n cosey for the toseys an they cost a bomb an all... not havin' soggy slips for ne 1....

[tenni]

Ok..here goes.

When I look at the article, I notice a few factors.

First, the survey was done in rather same sex situations and resulted in less than seven percent of the individuals discoverying that they were HIV positive.

2/ Now, less than seven percent were found to have HIV positive and only 20 percent of that seven percent did not know their HIV status was positive. This makes 1.3% of the men found in a gay bar or gay community event didn't know that they were HIV positive. That is rather sad for them but statistically how alarming is this? It is not that alarming to me.

3/ The study did not separate gay men from bisexual men and no statistical information was given as to what percentage of bisexual men were found to be new cases of HIV. This gives the study a bi erasure aspect.

The environment included "gay community events and gay bars". Who would be more likely to attend such events gay or bisexual men? This is unknown.

4/ Again the fact that there was no breakdown between gay and bisexual men would have been more relevant to this site and the bisexuals on this site. There is no statistical information as to how many presented themselves for testing of those using the internet compared to how many declined to get tested in person.

How many using the internet were gay and how many were bisexual? I suspect that bisexual men tend to use the internet rather than gay bars and gay community events. Bisexual men may be less inclined to present themselves in person for a swab test to determine HIV status than gay men using the internet. That is not to write that no bisexual men use gay bars and gay community events though. Including a previous study examining this factor would be more beneficial to bisexual men on this site.

I think that there has been just a bit of hysteria practiced on this thread. There was no statistical evidence presented for cases of HIV resulting from non sexual contact versus sexual contact etc. In other words the relevance of non sexual incidents of obtaining HIV.

Caution is wise when meeting anyone for a potential same sex activity and perhaps more so in a gay community event, gay bars or via the internet. Duh? This is not ground breaking news. Refraining from sexual activity is only comfortable for a very few.

[*pan*]

there is no such thing as safe in this world never has been never will be , life is a chance and nothing lasts forever. shure one can put ones self into a bubble and be safe but for what and for how long, what expirences would one have , how much fun can one have living in a bubble. we take chances everyday if we are alive and do anything. one can sit at home thinking they are safe and one day fall off the step going to get the news paper or get cut at work and get aids drive to the store and die in a crash, how many have done without enjoyment while saving their money then die in a tragic accident never enjoying the fruits of their labor. it has happened. as far as aids is concerned, do we isolate our selves from humanity, not dating , not having sex, not enjoying the life we have. to me it is better to live happy and free for 10 years then to live a life scared of everything and doing nothing. no one knows if they have aids because you might get tested and still have it. from what they say one can have it and not be detectable for 6 months or so. even if one is tested every year they can still transmit it. i know lots of people sucking thinking they cant get it that way, but i don't believe that. but i do believe each persons life is theirs alone and not anyone elses. some die never growing up some live to be old,. a lesson i take from the animals i have is to just live life and not worry about death. be cautious, but not worry.
only thing one can do is be careful as one can, play safe as you can, and remember just because you put on a rain coat dose not mean you wont get wet lol :eek:

[slipnslide]

lol

"LOL" indeed. (What was that?!)

[Long Duck Dong]

Ok..here goes.

When I look at the article, I notice a few factors.

First, the survey was done in rather same sex situations and resulted in less than seven percent of the individuals discoverying that they were HIV positive.

2/ Now, less than seven percent were found to have HIV positive and only 20 percent of that seven percent did not know their HIV status was positive. This makes 1.3% of the men found in a gay bar or gay community event didn't know that they were HIV positive. That is rather sad for them but statistically how alarming is this? It is not that alarming to me.

3/ The study did not separate gay men from bisexual men and no statistical information was given as to what percentage of bisexual men were found to be new cases of HIV. This gives the study a bi erasure aspect.

The environment included "gay community events and gay bars". Who would be more likely to attend such events gay or bisexual men? This is unknown.

4/ Again the fact that there was no breakdown between gay and bisexual men would have been more relevant to this site and the bisexuals on this site. There is no statistical information as to how many presented themselves for testing of those using the internet compared to how many declined to get tested in person.

How many using the internet were gay and how many were bisexual? I suspect that bisexual men tend to use the internet rather than gay bars and gay community events. Bisexual men may be less inclined to present themselves in person for a swab test to determine HIV status than gay men using the internet. That is not to write that no bisexual men use gay bars and gay community events though. Including a previous study examining this factor would be more beneficial to bisexual men on this site.

I think that there has been just a bit of hysteria practiced on this thread. There was no statistical evidence presented for cases of HIV resulting from non sexual contact versus sexual contact etc. In other words the relevance of non sexual incidents of obtaining HIV.

Caution is wise when meeting anyone for a potential same sex activity and perhaps more so in a gay community event, gay bars or via the internet. Duh? This is not ground breaking news. Refraining from sexual activity is only comfortable for a very few.

the 1.3% may not be alarming..... but my sister died after contracting hiv / aids from people like the 1.3%.....

who is gay and who is bi and who is going to what event when and why... doesn't matter.... what matters is that there are people out there that have hiv / aids and have no idea.....

hence my question are we really disease free ? and my hope that nobody in this site finds out the answer is NO, they are pos and that they may have infected others without knowing it........or that they got infected by somebody that they thought was clean......

not everything has to be about stats, percentages, numbers, odds..... sometimes things can be about concern for other people....

[tenni]

"not everything has to be about stats, percentages, numbers, odds..... sometimes things can be about concern for other people...."

I'm sorry that your sister died from AIDS. I know people in my own community who have lived with HIV for more than twenty years and are healthy.

It is really all about stats you see. The fact that many are living with HIV positive is important to me. The fact that few of the people who were surveyed had HIV and fewer yet didn't know that they were HIV positive is an important improvement from twenty to thirty years ago.

You may live with your sadness for the rest of your life. I'm sorry that you have lost a loved one but we must all move forward. Society is moving forward and not reacting in a hysterical manner as they did in the 1980's. This is a good thing.

I for one, will not buy into hysteria over sexually transmitted diseases. I will live as a sexual being using my judgment about who I am with. You chose your own lifestyle without sex. I will try not to judge you. Good luck.

[Long Duck Dong]

"not everything has to be about stats, percentages, numbers, odds..... sometimes things can be about concern for other people...."

I'm sorry that your sister died from AIDS. I know people in my own community who have lived with HIV for more than twenty years and are healthy.

It is really all about stats you see. The fact that many are living with HIV positive is important to me. The fact that few of the people who were surveyed had HIV and fewer yet didn't know that they were HIV positive is an important improvement from twenty to thirty years ago.

You may live with your sadness for the rest of your life. I'm sorry that you have lost a loved one but we must all move forward. Society is moving forward and not reacting in a hysterical manner as they did in the 1980's. This is a good thing.

I for one, will not buy into hysteria over sexually transmitted diseases. I will live as a sexual being using my judgment about who I am with. You chose your own lifestyle without sex. I will try not to judge you. Good luck.

society is moving on... hence the article referred to the shift from a 1/20 infection rate to a 1/15 rate.... and in a city of 1.5 mill people, that is pretty concerning to the aids foundation of NZ..... cos it means that people are still taking risks... IE unsafe sex / using needles etc etc... but the trouble is they are still pushing safe sex as the way to be safe......

but it comes back to what I said earlier... are we really disease free ?

when was the last time you and your partners were tested ???? I still get tested every 6 months even tho I have minimal risk......

[dafydd]

So...who said that's the only way we protect ourselves, the people we play with are in a "closed loop" and in most scenarios we use condoms. Where do you get off questioning our actions, we merely posted a compilation of information, discussions and other resources to make a point similar to the one you are making!

If you want to be totally safe abstain totally!!! If you want to play the first gething you have to do is make good decisions...that may or not include is condoms for you!
.
Read into other peoples posts what you want but you might consider either keeping the opinion to yourself or make the effort to ask if that's the meaning of what they posted before you launch into a long diatribe!

Hi, I didn't question your actions. Only sought to expand on the idea of what makes a good decision. Your post actually provided some interesting food for thought. It's sad you thought I was criticising you, because the issue becomes polarised and we lose the sense of mutual understanding - that we all struggle with remaining safe from diseases and that the continued use of condoms in practice is frustratingly complex and difficult given the known benefits of doing so. Don't you think that ultimately 'we're coming from the same view?

When talking about the protection issue, I've always found it helpful to move away from the thought that alternate opinions are criticisms of our choices. I've never said those who dont use condoms are bad or wrong or anything less. I can easily identify with them. Not using condoms, despite the risk? I can understand that totally. My post acknowledges that always using condoms isn't as easy or clear cut as it appears. That there are many more factors involved. I struggle with it too.

Diatribe is a rather odd way of describing my post. It's unfortunate you saw it as finger wagging and bitter (remember it wasn't about you)
I just saw it as my thoughts on condom statistics / the fallacy of known 'fact' and a brief reflection on a bunch of good people that died horribly. Try and see it only in that way please.

D

[slipnslide]

The fact remains, bi and gay guys have 40x the STI rates of their heterosexual counterparts. Clearly something is wrong. If it's not irresponsibility and promiscuity what is it?

[tenni]

That may be true Slippy. I found a stat that states that 47% of STD numbers are in the gay & bisexual men category and that is the same as in the 1980's. Not greater and not less so it seems. It also states some unchanged stats on the health and well being of gay and bisexual men in Canada.
Mind you one stat is almost ten years old now though.

A growing body of research is revealing that beyond HIV and STIs, there are a number of other health concerns that gay and bisexual men appear to be more affected by than their straight counterparts. Research (most of which has been done in urban settings) shows that gay and bisexual men often face:

Higher rates of distress, anxiety and depression4,5,6,7,8
Higher rates of attempted suicide4,5,8,9,10
Higher rates of smoking11,12,13 and substance use8,14,15,16
Higher rates of partner violence17,18,19
Higher rates of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders20,21,22

These health concerns, which are not directly related to sexual activities between men, are likely a consequence of the stigma and discrimination faced by gay and bisexual men.23 Indeed, Statistics Canada has reported that one in 10 hate crimes is motivated by sexual orientation,24 and that approximately 44% of gay men and 41% of bisexual men have experienced some form of discrimination, compared to 14% of men who identify as heterosexual.25

Gay and bisexual men’s health problems are often not adequately addressed by healthcare providers.26 The 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey, for instance, revealed that men who identified as homosexual or bisexual were nearly twice as likely as men who identified as heterosexual to report an unmet healthcare need in the previous year.27 This is not surprising given the fact that in urban centres more than 20% of gay and bisexual men do not feel comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation to their family doctors.28,29 In rural and northern regions, this number increases to as much as 45%—often due to fear of a breach of confidentiality or discomfort with openly discussing sexuality with their family doctors.30

While the unique health issues faced by gay men are cause for concern in and of themselves, an emerging area of research is showing that these multiple epidemics (such as depression, substance use, partner violence and HIV) also reinforce each other, and together lower the overall health of gay and bisexual men more than one epidemic might do on its own.31 This concept has been termed syndemics.

Syndemics research looks at the variety of health problems faced by gay and bisexual men and how their co-occurrence influences HIV risk. A body of research shows a linkage between poorer health conditions related to psychosocial challenges and high-risk sex (unprotected anal intercourse).32,33,34

The concept of syndemics also encourages an examination of resiliency and strength among gay and bisexual men. Not all gay and bisexual men who have experienced adversity develop syndemic conditions; even if they do, not all those who develop syndemic conditions engage in riskier sex practices. For example, one of the first studies on syndemics highlighted that among gay and bisexual men who experienced three or more psychosocial health problems, 77% had avoided engaging in high-risk sexual behaviours.35 This suggests that many gay and bisexual men have already developed successful health-promoting behaviours, and that understanding and encouraging these behaviours could be a useful strategy for future interventions.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/fall-2011/re-centering-our-approach-gay-and-bisexual-men-s-health-and-hiv-prevention

[slipnslide]

Tenni - Sometimes I wonder if the alienation / loneliness that is often reported is "self-medicated" through promiscuity in an attempt to quell the loneliness and forms vicious cycle that brings increased exposure to these infections.

[dafydd]

The fact remains, bi and gay guys have 40x the STI rates of their heterosexual counterparts. Clearly something is wrong. If it's not irresponsibility and promiscuity what is it?

Slip,
regarding high HIV rates (not STIs in general), I remember reading recently that the risk of transmission of HIV in unprotected anal intercourse as opposed to unprotected vaginal intercourse is *18* times higher.

1 -Gay and bisexual can have higher numbers of sexual partners. NB: Ability and desire to have high number sof sexual partners is an attribute common to males, not exclusive to bi/homosexuality.
2- Men cannot have vaginal sex with each other. Anal sex becomes the more common method of intercourse between men. Also gay and bi men can who are passive or versatile will increase chance of infectiion through unprotected receptive anal intercourse as oppposed to insertive.

Effectively if you mutiply
increased frequency of infection (more partners) x
increased risk of infection through increased amount of anal sex (x18), x
increased risk of infection through receptive anal intercourse x
increased risk of infection through versatilty of roles during anal intercourse

you''ll have significantly higher infection rates amongst gay/bisexual men, than amoung hetereosexual mensimply by definition. There may be other reasons.

[elian]

You told us about your sister before LDD and again I'd like to say I am sorry for your loss. They are trying to pass legislation in PA that compels doctors to ask a patient if they would like to be screened for HIV before any medical procedure..coupled with this they have legislation enacted to protect patients privacy if they do find out they are HIV positive.

Unfortunately there is still a stigma with this disease that only gay men can get it and so people either don't think they NEED to get tested because they don't sleep with men, or they fear the result of the test and what it would mean for their livelihood if they were tested and found to be positive.

Until we remove the stigmas around these sorts of things it is going to continue to be a problem. Again, it all comes back to compassion.

I shared this link before, but I'll share it again. The common knowledge people have about AIDS in this area is very old/dated..some of what they were saying in this interview surprised me..they cover the "well it's only 1% of the population so why are we worried?" argument too.

http://www.witf.org/smart-talk/more-hiv-testing-encouraged-on-world-aids-day

[Long Duck Dong]

hugs...... yeah it was a real eye opening / heart rendering experience..... and I learnt more about the social / medical / support system in NZ during that time than I was aware of....... and part of the issue is any person testing pos, was treated like a leper immediately, by the services that were supposed to be there for them......

it was during that time that I learnt more about hiv / aids that the NZ public was being told.... there is not the hiv / aids virus... there was the viruses... at that stage they were dealing with 7 different variations of the hiv / aids virus..... the sexually transmitted one is apparently different to the one that you can get from needles and tattoos, but its still be pushed as the hiv / aids virus... not viruses.....

one of the things that shocked me, was reading a few months ago that the rate of herpes transmission is higher amongst people that shave their pubic area.... cos of all the small nicks and cuts that break the skin without bleeding..... and how safe sex will not stop the herpes virus being transmitted... estimates are that as much as 1/3 of sexually active people carry the herpes virus now and most of them will never develop symptoms......

its not a shock and awe campaign for me..... as much as it is, simple concern for the people in the forum.... that they never test pos for hiv / aids... cos they are somebodies family, friend, loved one, lover etc, regardless of sexuality..... and I know what its like to lose the ones you love, I have done it too many times now....

[Andre Alberts]

Inasmuch as HIV is a blood-borne pathogen (even if there are traces in saliva and tears), no blood means no HIV.

No anal sex means no blood. At the G/L Center in LA, friend of mine working there says there has never been--ever--a case of HIV transmission that was not from either anal sex or intravenous drug use.

Stick to oral.

[dafydd]

San Francisco's Year Zero: We Were Here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b65lr

Duration: 1 hour, 30 minutes

"2011 marks 30 years since AIDS descended. In 1981, the flourishing gay community in San Franscisco was hit with an unimaginable disaster. Through the eyes of those whose lives changed in unimaginable ways, this film tells how their beloved city was changed from a hotbed of sexual freedom and social experimentation into the epicentre of a terrible sexually transmitted 'gay plague'. From their different vantage points as caregivers, activists, researchers, friends and lovers of the afflicted and as people with AIDS themselves, it shares stories which are intensely personal. Speaking to our capacity as individuals to rise to the occasion, this is the story of the incredible power of a community coming together with love, compassion and determination."

[dafydd]

Inasmuch as HIV is a blood-borne pathogen (even if there are traces in saliva and tears), no blood means no HIV.

No anal sex means no blood. At the G/L Center in LA, friend of mine working there says there has never been--ever--a case of HIV transmission that was not from either anal sex or intravenous drug use.

Stick to oral.

Andre, I believe you are mistaken.
HIV does not need external bleeding or visible blood to act as conduit inside system. HIV can pass through very thin tissue walls in anus and vagina through osmosus, without there being tearing or blood leakage. The absence of blood around an area should *never* be used as an assurance an activity was safe. If lube is used anal sex should not harm/tear the lining of the rectum and therefore there may be no visible blood.
Stick to oral to minimise risk if caught without condoms, but keep your optical and your aural open. There can be blood in mouth through sores and bleeding gums sometimes and if infected semen gets in mouth through oral sex then infection can occur (even simply after regular teeth brushing gums can bleed- use mouthwash before u give head instead). If semen gets into stomach (well how would that happen ? ?! ) the virus is killed by stomach acids.
BJ's are still a risk factor (though very very minimal) but good to be aware, and dental dams and condoms are available to further reduce risk.

d

[Long Duck Dong]

Inasmuch as HIV is a blood-borne pathogen (even if there are traces in saliva and tears), no blood means no HIV.

No anal sex means no blood. At the G/L Center in LA, friend of mine working there says there has never been--ever--a case of HIV transmission that was not from either anal sex or intravenous drug use.

Stick to oral.

my sister died from vaginal sex with a infested person.... your friend is incorrect about their claims

[DuckiesDarling]

Inasmuch as HIV is a blood-borne pathogen (even if there are traces in saliva and tears), no blood means no HIV.

No anal sex means no blood. At the G/L Center in LA, friend of mine working there says there has never been--ever--a case of HIV transmission that was not from either anal sex or intravenous drug use.

Stick to oral.

There is so much misinformation here, there are plenty of cases of HIV infection passed on through other sexual contact rather than just anal, not everyone who is infected gets it from Anal or is a drug addict. There is also a mild caution from the CDC regarding Oral since it can be transmitted through oral as there can be open sores in mouth a person might not be aware of such as a tiny cut from eating a potato chip in the gumline.

HIV can be transmitted from an infected person to another through:
Blood (including menstrual blood)
Semen
Vaginal secretions
Breast milk

Blood contains the highest concentration of the virus, followed by semen, followed by vaginal fluids, followed by breast milk.

[swmnkdinthervr]

Hi, I didn't question your actions. Only sought to expand on the idea of what makes a good decision. Your post actually provided some interesting food for thought. It's sad you thought I was criticising you, because the issue becomes polarised and we lose the sense of mutual understanding - that we all struggle with remaining safe from diseases and that the continued use of condoms in practice is frustratingly complex and difficult given the known benefits of doing so. Don't you think that ultimately 'we're coming from the same view?

When talking about the protection issue, I've always found it helpful to move away from the thought that alternate opinions are criticisms of our choices. I've never said those who dont use condoms are bad or wrong or anything less. I can easily identify with them. Not using condoms, despite the risk? I can understand that totally. My post acknowledges that always using condoms isn't as easy or clear cut as it appears. That there are many more factors involved. I struggle with it too.

Diatribe is a rather odd way of describing my post. It's unfortunate you saw it as finger wagging and bitter (remember it wasn't about you)
I just saw it as my thoughts on condom statistics / the fallacy of known 'fact' and a brief reflection on a bunch of good people that died horribly. Try and see it only in that way please.

D
I agree with the idea we were sort of on the same page but your post was directly questioning and critical, your following response is condescending and defensive of your diatribe...which by the way doesn't have to be "bitter/finger wagging" to meet the definition! When you respond from such a lofty height you may anger the people you're pissing on!

[Hephaestion]

There is so much misinformation here, there are plenty of cases of HIV infection passed on through other sexual contact rather than just anal, not everyone who is infected gets it from Anal or is a drug addict. There is also a mild caution from the CDC regarding Oral since it can be transmitted through oral as there can be open sores in mouth a person might not be aware of such as a tiny cut from eating a potato chip in the gumline.

HIV can be transmitted from an infected person to another through:
Blood (including menstrual blood)
Semen
Vaginal secretions
Breast milk

Blood contains the highest concentration of the virus, followed by semen, followed by vaginal fluids, followed by breast milk.

Agreed DD.

LDD is also correct in saying that there is more than one Human Immunodeficiency Virus recognised. However, one should not assume that they are mutually exclusive in their sites and modes of infection.