Actually, that may not be fair. I think this research paper is dull. But honestly, it is so incomprehensible that it’s hard to tell. It’s written by physicists at Swedish universities, and perhaps to other physicists the observations are sexy. Here’s a sample for you:

The probability distribution of the time between two subsequent
posts ΔTposts … is narrower than a power-law, but wider than an exponential or Poisson distribution, and consistent with a powerlaw with an exponential cut-off P(ΔTposts) = C exp(−α ΔTposts) / (ΔTposts + β)γ. That the distribution is broader than Poisson suggests a more complex dynamic than just sex-buyers posting independent of each other; that it is not a power-law means that the problem cannot be mapped onto other studies of human response dynamics.

Well, I’m glad the Swedish taxpayer has invested in sorting that out for us, then.

The paper makes a pretense of being important because sexually transmitted infections are passed through the networks of the sex trade. The physicists, who include glorious graphics like this:

note that the sex workers who get the highest ratings go on to have more clients in the future (now there’s a revalation). This worries them, because the more clients a girl has, the more likely she is to be exposed to diseases, right? Well no, actually. The more clients she has unprotected anal or vaginal sex with, the more likely she is to have an STI. But really, what’s the likelihood of a girl getting consistently high ratings if she’s sending clients home pissing glass? She gets high ratings because she’s not exposing them to infection.

As an aside, I was interested to note that the forum allows punters to record three specific exotic or unusual practices: anal sex, oral sex without a condom, or kissing on the mouth. Note that in Brazil, which has one of the strongest HIV prevention programmes in the world, unprotected anal or vaginal sex with clients doesn’t even make the list, very possibly because it is too rare to mention.

Thanks to Paul for putting me in the way of a paper I’d never have found, by way of Technology Review.

Most of the money will be spent on drugs to keep people with HIV alive. This is necessary, and wonderful for the individuals who are getting the drugs. But it does mean that there will be more people with HIV. It also means there are more people who can pass it on. Granted, HIV treatment reduces the amount of virus in body fluids, and makes it more difficult to pass on. It also prevents AIDS, sickness and death. So it makes the consequences of HIV less visible. The evidence suggests that this in turn makes uninfected people more careless about who they have sex with, and sloppy about using condoms. And that in turn makes them more likely to have unprotected sex with someone who is infected but not yet on treatment. Newly-infected people are both most likely to be highly infectious and least likely to be on treatment. Indeed most still count themselves among the uninfected. So while treatment decreases the likelihood of infection for individuals on meds, it can increase new HIV infections across a whole population.

That’s what seems to be happening among gay men in countries where access to treatment is near-perfect: in Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States and Australia, new HIV infections among gay men are rising. The effect of rising risk behaviour weighs more than the effect of lower viral loads. In Africa, it’s likely to be worse. Crappy health and transport systems and erratic incomes may mean people have difficulty getting the drugs they need when they need them. Other STIs are high too, and both of those things can send viral loads bouncing all over the place, even for those on treatment.

Of course we need to get antiretrovirals to as many people in need as possible. But if we want that to remain plausible and affordable, we have to stop people getting newly infected, too. The only developing country that’s managed to prevent new infections while putting everyone in need on meds is Brazil. The country invests very heavily in needle exchanges for drug injectors, in promoting condoms to young people, and in good health services for sex workers. So will PEPFAR copy this shining example? Uhhh, no. There’s US$ 50 billion on the table, but not a cent for clean needles for injectors. Not a cent for sensible prevention programmes in the sex trade. A full half of the prevention money (some five billion dollars in all) must be spent telling kids to cross their legs, even though we know that abstinence programmes don’t work. (If people allocating PEPFAR money in countries want to throw less than half of their prevention money into this black hole, they have to make a special report to Congress.)

There’s still a little bit of negotiating to do on the bill because the versions passed by the House and the Senate are different. (This means that the understandable jubilation over the end of the HIV travel ban may just be premature.) But if all the current amendments stick, the US tax payer may well be financing the growth of the HIV epidemic.

For a blow-by-blow account of the Senate debate, read Scott Swensen’s account.

Ronaldo was found in a hotel with three sex workers in short skirts and high heels, but that, to a Brazilian footballer, is a source of pride rather than shame. Ronaldo’s problem is that under the short skirts were penises. In the opinion of many Brazilians that makes Ronaldo a fag, and that’s not good for his footballing reputation. He’s now pretending he didn’t know that the girls were boys, which does not say much for his sexual prowess. Perhaps this will help push Brazil to extend its usually sensible acceptance of sex one step further.

I’d write more about this, but I’m off to “The Matinee”, London’s rites-of-spring gay rave, with a copule of young Brazilian friends.

One is the Loyalty Oath. Different from the gag rule, the Loyalty Oath prevents organisations that accept any funding from the US from working constructively with sex workers, because it prevents us from recognising sex work as a legitimate way of making a living. The restriction applies not just to US money, but to ANY money. i.e. if a government accepts US money to do abstinence programmes, it is not allowed to use its own taxpayers’ money to improve working conditions in the sex trade. Some governments have the balls to treat this violation of their sovereignty with the contempt it deserves. Brazil, for example, turned down US$ 40 million dollars of US “aid” money for HIV prevention because it wanted to continue to engage prostitutes in prevention programmes as grown-ups making independent economic choices, rather than as simple victims of trafficking.

The second is the prohibition on spending money on clean needles for injectors. In most of Asia and much of Latin America, drug injection is the major driver of HIV infection. It has recently surfaced as well in Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania, which are already struggling to deal with sexual infections. Sterile needle programmes are one of the most effective, and cost-effective, HIV prevention strategies. But under current US policy we can’t use them. We’ll give expensive, US-made pharmaceuticals to people once they are infected, but we won’t stop them getting infected in the first place. Go figure.

It’s easy (and quite correct) to bash the Bush administration for this folly. But remember that the law that authorised this spending was passed by a congress that contained an awful lot of Democratic congressfolks.