In his argument Johan says:
“And so a generation of gay children were left to be bullied and in ignorance of the terrible threat of STDs. We will never know how many people contracted HIV as a result – but we know there are some.”

Unfortunately it’s not online yet, so can’t link to it but worth a read.

I’m being disingenuous, of course. I should not have said “contract and spread” You are quite right, from the point of view of contracting the virus, the risk depends on the number of partners, not the timing. Unless they are so closely spaced that there is increased penile or rectal trauma in the later encounters.

Sorry and thanks for pointing out the error.

C Men

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2008/05/27/hiv-after-aids/

C Men wrote:
June 3, 2008 at 8:43 am

Pisani wrote: “that people who have unprotected sex with several people in a three-month period are far more likely both to contract and spread HIV than people who have the same number of partners over a longer period”.

I understand how a newly infected guy is more likely to transmit HIV when newly infected. But can Pisani explain how in a stable epidemic a guy with three sexual partners in a week is more likely to acquire infection than another with three partners over a month? Huh?

C Men

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In an ideal setting say a high class brothel where the prostitutes are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol it may be possible to achieve the high rate of condom effectiveness. In a homosexual bathhouse or public toilet this is highly unlikely.

You had not said if you have read “Sexual Ecology” by Gabriel Rotello? If you have not you should if you want to be really informed on this subject. Rotello is himself a homosexual and looks at the issue from a practical rather than a moral or politically correct point of view.

As long as homosexuals believe the myth that condoms will protect them from HIV infection regardless of how many partners they have they will continue to be greatly over represented in HIV and AIDS statistics.

Condoms have their place but misrepresenting their effectiveness in real life situations does far more harm than good.

Desperate because they know very well they are more at risk to get infected than the general population and that one day it will happen.

Hopeful, because so far many have not been infected (or don’t know they are) and even if they have, let’s face it, treatment is “one pill a day”.

To date even if life expectancy is reduced for people infected by HIV, it still remains very long, 25 years from infection says a recent Danish (?) study. If you are a young gay man you are not very much concerned by what will happen to you in 25 years, especially with the prospect of being an “old gay man” (the one you rarely see in the magazine found in Soho!). If you are old, you’ll be dead of old age before dying of an AIDS-related disease. In both cases, condom use becomes all very relative…

A recent study in the UK (will email it to you) as shown that men who repetitively test negative for HIV either feel comforted that their behaviour is okay, or that HIV is not that easy to catch and that occasional slippage is okay.

Incidentally, have you read “Sexual Ecology” by Gabriel Rotello?