Unprotected Sex More Likely In Seriou...

Unprotected Sex More Likely In Serious Gay Relationships

There are 17 comments on the RedOrbit story from Jun 2, 2011, titled Unprotected Sex More Likely In Serious Gay Relationships. In it, RedOrbit reports that:

Gay young men in serious relationships are six times more likely to have unprotected sex than those who hook up with casual partners, according to new Northwestern Medicine research.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at RedOrbit.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1 Jun 2, 2011
They needed a study for this?

I would imagine that the rates of unprotected sex for ALL couples increases when they know and trust their partners.(rightly or not).

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#3 Jun 2, 2011
Naturally this study will be used as one more excuse to prevent same-sex couples from legally marrying. Nevermind that being in a serious relationship doesn't automatically equal unsafe sex practices. Nevermind that same-sex couples are a diverse lot whose practices vary widely - including those who don't engage in any high risk behaviors despite both being HIV-.

I've reached the conclusion that statistics are the bane of legal equality. They're just too easily abused and misunderstood.
johnny73

Windsor, Canada

#4 Jun 2, 2011
...so hetero couples should be wearing protection as well? Why would a monogamous gay couple have anything more to protect themselves from than a straight couple? Of both straight & gay couples, who statistically has a higher rate of contracting HIV or something else? My guess, the straight couple.
Bob

Houston, TX

#5 Jun 2, 2011
Just about the same as heterosexuals. See we're not so different afterall.
Disgusted American

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Jun 2, 2011
johnny73 wrote:
...so hetero couples should be wearing protection as well? Why would a monogamous gay couple have anything more to protect themselves from than a straight couple? Of both straight & gay couples, who statistically has a higher rate of contracting HIV or something else? My guess, the straight couple.
just read a article yesterday something like 51% of pregnancies in the USA are BY ACCIDENT...so- WHATS THAT TELL U?
Bob

Houston, TX

#7 Jun 2, 2011
Disgusted American wrote:
<quoted text>just read a article yesterday something like 51% of pregnancies in the USA are BY ACCIDENT...so- WHATS THAT TELL U?
It tells us that about half of the heterosexuals having kids are wreckless and irresponsible.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Silver Spring, MD

#8 Jun 2, 2011
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It tells us that about half of the heterosexuals having kids are wreckless and irresponsible.
Oh, I'm sure a good lot of the heterosexuals who actually meant to have those kids are reckless and irresponsible, too.

Just like glbt folks can be, only slightly less fabulous.
Disgusted American

Philadelphia, PA

#9 Jun 2, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I'm sure a good lot of the heterosexuals who actually meant to have those kids are reckless and irresponsible, too.
Just like glbt folks can be, only slightly less fabulous.
The Difference is..WHEN Gays/Lesbians Have children - THEY ARE PLANNED FOR ..they aren't accidents from a night of drunkin lust.

“Created Equal”

Since: Feb 08

USA

#10 Jun 2, 2011
Unprotected sex is not the same as "unsafe sex".

If a couple is monogamous and both partners are HIV-negative, and negative for other STD's also, then unprotected sex is not unsafe sex.

It should be noted that using condoms only reduces infection risk by a factor of four or five. It does not eliminate it.

It is in fact far safer to be having "unprotected" sex with a monogamous, uninfected partner (in which case there is no infection risk, because there is no infection to be transmitted...) than to have "protected" sex with a partner whose infection potential is unknown.

HIV infection can be devestating, and for a long time was considered ultimately fatal. Now, it's considered a chronic condition under treatment. Because of the potential severity of AIDS, infection prevention is very important. But the perception is that it's easy to get infected, but that's not true. HIV is not a very efficient retrovirus, and does not transmit easily.

It is vitally important to be tested for it (as well as things like Herpes and Human Papilloma Virus), know your status, and take the appropriate steps to prevent infections.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#11 Jun 2, 2011
ScottyMatic wrote:
Unprotected sex is not the same as "unsafe sex".
If a couple is monogamous and both partners are HIV-negative, and negative for other STD's also, then unprotected sex is not unsafe sex.
It should be noted that using condoms only reduces infection risk by a factor of four or five. It does not eliminate it.
It is in fact far safer to be having "unprotected" sex with a monogamous, uninfected partner (in which case there is no infection risk, because there is no infection to be transmitted...) than to have "protected" sex with a partner whose infection potential is unknown.
HIV infection can be devestating, and for a long time was considered ultimately fatal. Now, it's considered a chronic condition under treatment. Because of the potential severity of AIDS, infection prevention is very important. But the perception is that it's easy to get infected, but that's not true. HIV is not a very efficient retrovirus, and does not transmit easily.
It is vitally important to be tested for it (as well as things like Herpes and Human Papilloma Virus), know your status, and take the appropriate steps to prevent infections.
I learned something from you as an aside. I did not know there WAS a test out there for HPV. How does it work? Do they use a tissue sample?

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Lewes, DE

#13 Jun 2, 2011
ScottyMatic wrote:
HIV infection can be devestating, and for a long time was considered ultimately fatal. Now, it's considered a chronic condition under treatment....
And yet another post very well written. I just want to add that this chronic condition, although no longer necessarily fatal, is extremely expensive, at least in this country. The drug regimen costs about $2500 a month (although I have heard that in third world countries (think Thailand), the same drugs run about $20 a month). That's capitalism for you...

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#14 Jun 2, 2011
Duped no more wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet another post very well written. I just want to add that this chronic condition, although no longer necessarily fatal, is extremely expensive, at least in this country. The drug regimen costs about $2500 a month (although I have heard that in third world countries (think Thailand), the same drugs run about $20 a month). That's capitalism for you...
A person can get Viagra in another country.... pennies on the dollar too.

“Greetings!”

Since: Dec 06

Tampa, FL

#15 Jun 2, 2011
JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>
I learned something from you as an aside. I did not know there WAS a test out there for HPV. How does it work? Do they use a tissue sample?
The test is similar to the HPV test they give to women, they swab the rectum and it's tested for presence of the HPV virus.

NOTE: According to the CDC, more than 90% of sexually active adults (males and females) will test postitive for HPV. The cells collected from men are tested for mutuations that can cause colon cancer. IN most men, their immune system can deal with the HPV virus, but in about 6% of cases, the cells can be cancerous.

Also, HPV can be transmitted even when using condoms. It's a good test to have run, but it's not a virus with the same impact as HIV, HEP C, Syphillis, or Gohonoriha.
Ex-Leftist

Dallas, TX

#16 Jun 3, 2011
This headline reads like something out of 'The Onion'. Whoever received the grant money for this study is having a good laugh right now.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Parksley, VA

#18 Jun 3, 2011
Disgusted American wrote:
<quoted text>The Difference is..WHEN Gays/Lesbians Have children - THEY ARE PLANNED FOR ..they aren't accidents from a night of drunkin lust.
Well, that depends how drunk the involved parties are....

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#19 Jun 3, 2011
TampaBob wrote:
<quoted text>
The test is similar to the HPV test they give to women, they swab the rectum and it's tested for presence of the HPV virus.
NOTE: According to the CDC, more than 90% of sexually active adults (males and females) will test postitive for HPV. The cells collected from men are tested for mutuations that can cause colon cancer. IN most men, their immune system can deal with the HPV virus, but in about 6% of cases, the cells can be cancerous.
Also, HPV can be transmitted even when using condoms. It's a good test to have run, but it's not a virus with the same impact as HIV, HEP C, Syphillis, or Gohonoriha.
Colon cancer or anal cancer?(They affect different tissue types - I thought anal cancer was the one caused by HPV. Most colon cancers are a combination of diet and genes - I am subject to them have already had two polyps removed.)
Anonymous

Chengdu, China

#20 Jul 20, 2011
that true !Most people have herpes/hiv/hpv may feel lonely and shamed. There is an exclusive community herpesanddating,net for singles and friends with STD. If you just need to find someone to talk to or need help or advice, this is the best place. Never feel lonely again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Northwestern University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obesity, Poverty Help Explain Higher Diabetes R... Dec '17 begone 1
News Naperville man charged in murder plot (Jan '10) Dec '17 Suckrduckr 18
News Crazy College Courses and the Religion of Sex Dec '17 TerriB1 1
News Ex-Northwestern professor, Oxford employee arre... (Aug '17) Aug '17 and sick truly 5
this whoole think thing with boobs doesn't matter. (Aug '17) Aug '17 nice to see sto 2
News Chicago won't see eclipse spectacle of Carbonda... (Aug '17) Aug '17 Real Faxt 1
News Northwestern prof, Oxford staffer wanted in fat... (Aug '17) Aug '17 kobas casserole 7