Why We Have No Reason To Celebrate HIV Rates Dropping In America

blood_packetWhich do you want first, the good news or the bad news?

We’ll start with the good. A new study released by the Journal of the American Medical Association ahead of the start of the International AIDS Conference shows that the rate of HIV diagnosis in the United States has decreased by a third over the last ten years.

The Associated Press reports:

“16 out of every 100,000 people ages 13 and older were newly diagnosed with HIV in 2011, a steady decline from 24 out of 100,000 people in 2002.”

Decreased rate of infection was observed in “men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, heterosexuals, injection drug users, and most age groups.”

This was a major study incorporating data spanning over a decade, making these results more solid than any other study looking at HIV trends.

Which is why the bad news is so bad.

Among gay and bisexual men, the number of HIV diagnoses  is on the rise.

President Bill Clinton, UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibé and artist and activist Sir Bob Geldof will be among the high-level speakers who will join thousands of the world’s top AIDS researchers, community leaders, people living with HIV and policy-makers at this years International AIDS Conference in Melbourne, Australia.

Related stories:

Ten Reasons This Little Blue Pill Could Save Your Life

Is Truvada As Effective At Preventing HIV Infection As We Thought? Maybe not.

100 Top HIV/AIDS Researchers Presumed Dead In Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 Crash

h/t Gay Star News

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #aids #hiv #internationalaidsconference stories and more


  • Paco

    I wonder if increased rates of testing in the gay community is affecting the statistics on the number of HIV diagnosis.

    One thing is clear… Slut shaming and preaching that ONLY condoms be used for protection isn’t doing much to lower the rate of new infections in gay men. We really need to embrace new strategies such as PreP, because the war on human nature isn’t working.

  • masc4masc

    So the rates drop for everyone else but gay/bi men. What a shocker! Gay/bi men are the only ones who perceive methods of HIV prevention as some type of threat to somehow oppress their sexuality. Lately I’ve seen articles/videos promoting safer sex practices to gay man flooded with nothing but “I love barebacking and won’t be shamed for it” comments. No one else is fighting the help the way gay men are. You can only lead the horse to the water.

  • BeachGuy2014

    If guys would start using condoms everytime and stop being stupid and trusting a guy when he says he is negative or just got tested, then we wouldn’t have this problem. I treat every single guy as if he is positive, so condoms are always used.

  • Cam

    Um….remember, when the study started, gay men were less likely to be out of the closet so may have identified themselves as straight to the researchers, especially if they were married or in Bible Belt states.

    This might just be the stats correcting themselves.

    As for Paco’s comment, actually AIDS rates dropped when there was a lot more preaching going on. People have backed off it is for a while and the rates are rising again. Now, instead of safe sex ads, what we have are ads for AIDS medicines that downplay any effects and just show smiling happy models kayaking or hiking. Great advertising but also sends a very mixed message.

  • Lvng1tor

    I hate to say it but the truth is about 35% what @Paco: is saying. Slut Shaming is no longer a useful tactic. It’s because we no longer see the AIDS death we were barraged with in the 80’s-early 90’s….Now we see the HAPPY HIV+ life….we need to be seeing both because it is reality if you don’t take care of yourself you will have a horrid death.


    …..oh GOD this has to be a sign of the Apocalypse that I’m agreeing with HIM ….

    65% what @masc4masc: is speaking to.

    The rise of meth and other party drugs is a contribution also. Plus, many gay men see men who are HIV + living pretty damn good lives and think “It’s not so bad” Then there is the condom, sex restriction revolt that is happening.

    Trust me I know BB sex feels better BUT now I have something I have to monitor for the rest of my life, something that could kill me, something I have to take a drug for every day, something that does weigh on the mind, something that no matter what we want to think is reality….does stigmatize you and does marginalize you. Something that does have a large impact on relationships with and YES something I feel is my duty to tell EVERY potential sex partner about! Not to mention is quite costly.

    I live a great life, I’m healthy and active and have a pretty good social life. I work and I volunteer but all of it would be easier if I’d just used the damn condom!

  • Paco

    @Cam: Actually, the rate of new infections dropped in gay men in the early 90s, due to the massive amount of death and horror experienced in the 80s. I believe that had more to do with the brief decline than the messaging of condom usage. But yes, since the arrival of potent drugs to combat the virus, the numbers of new infections has risen with periods of leveling.

    My point was, the old strategies aren’t working and the statistics prove this. Embracing new strategies is a far better solution than trying to change human behavior. Not everyone is perfect and in complete control 100% of the time, even when confronted with the hell the community went through in the early years of the epidemic.

  • Stache99

    @Lvng1tor: I hear what your saying. Instead of slut shaming which does no one any good it’s better to look at the causes instead of just screaming about the effects.

    Gay men use party drugs far more then the average. That’s worth studying in itself. I think that’s a big driving force for the epidemic right now.

    What’s the answer? Well, anyone that does drugs like Meth or Ecstasy should be on PrEP no matter what. The HIV infection rate for Meth is like 80%.

  • Cam


    No actually you are exactly wrong, AIDS rates slowly began to clime again in the 90’s. The rate oof AIDS dropped among gay men for around a decade. It was right around 1994 that it began to slowly climb. But again, if you look at this graph the rates are NOWHERE near what they were in the 80’s

    But again, the safe sex message worked for a decade, then they stopped using that message as much and you stopped hearing about it as much except for ads in magazines for the new drugs etc… It isn’t that the old way isn’t working, it stopped existing.

  • masc4masc

    @Lvng1tor: Why do you always have to type a disclaimer before agreeing with me?? I knew there was a sensible person deep, deep, deep, deep, deep deep, deep down inside you.

    @Paco: You keep saying “trying to change human behavior” isn’t working, but the current strategies ARE working for every other demographic. Maybe it’s the gay community that needs to do some changing this time.

  • Paco

    @Cam: We had a new generation of gay men come of age removed from the deadly years of the epidemic. When you don’t experience something first hand, it is easy to ignore the consequences of what happened to past generations. Also, if the condom messaging was so effective, then why the hell are there so many gay men that became HIV+ during the height of the “Use condoms or you will die a horrific death” campaign? Let’s be honest here… In the heat of the moment, whether intoxicated or not, men will choose to have unprotected sex if a condom is not available at the time. Sticking our collective heads in the sand about human nature is what keeps the numbers of new infections rising in our community.

    I am not against condom usage at all, but when I see stats like these year after year, it is painfully obvious we need more than just condoms at our disposal.

    I looked at the graph and it pretty much backs up what I said about the decline being brief in the early 90s. You are looking at the line for MSM right? I never said the numbers returned to 1980s levels. Only that they started to climb again.

  • Tackle

    The old tactic of advocating condom use did work, and was ( is) very affective. It’s no surprise with these stats regarding in increas
    of HIV in the gsy population, due to the rise in bareback sex. Remember the new study of only a couple of weeks back, about how most gay men WILL bareback with a guy if he was good-looking? And with so many porn companies going condom-less, it is sending a message about sex, what’s hot, and how it should be done: (No condoms. ) And when over 90% of gay men partake in porn, these images have a powerful impact. And yes combine this with the party drugs, and the fact that the newer generation of young gay men do not see AIDS as a death sentence, then you havea pperfect recipe for a rise in new HIV infections.

  • BlowdyJenner

    Thanks for your honesty. @Lvng1tor. That’s brave of you.

  • Cam

    @Paco: said… “Also, if the condom messaging was so effective, then why the hell are there so many gay men that became HIV+ during the height of the “Use condoms or you will die a horrific death” campaign?”
    I’m not sure what your point is here exactly. First you said that HIV rates dropped in the 90?s and I pointed out that no, they rose from the mid-90?s on. Then I provided you with a very clear chart that showed that HIV rates among gay men dropped HUGELY for an entire decade from around 1984 to 1994 which was during the height of the “Safe Sex, Use Condoms” crusade. That messaging diminished greatly in the 90?s when the new drugs came out and as the chart showed, HIV cases started rising again.
    I get that you seem to not want to admit you are wrong, but the chart from the Post shows clearly that HIV among gay men dropped significantly during the safe sex use condoms messaging and started to rise when that push started to quiet down.
    Your not liking those facts or those numbers is irrelevant, facts are facts.

  • Daniel-Reader

    It’s been more than 30 years since HIV was discovered and still no comprehensive sex education inclusive of LGBT students. Epic fail by corrupt, too-often-genocidal politicians who make excuses. Then again many made their political careers off violating the human rights of millions of LGBTA people, so not surprising they fail to educate and protect other people’s lives. Thirty years of perpetuated ignorance is tragic. Kudos to politicians with the backbone and ethics to support inclusive education.

  • Paco

    @Cam: Cam, no where on that chart do I see the words “Effect of condom messaging campaigns on rates of new infections”. We simply disagree on the reason the numbers fell in the late 80s and early nineties. I say it was because people were losing friends left and right and going to funerals weekly while living through a scary time. You pull up a chart and try to make it say something it doesn’t say. I am going by my anecdotal evidence of witnessing that time and having sex during that time. We can agree to disagree until I see more evidence that condom campaigns stopped the rise of HIV in the community.

    Also, the first protease inhibitor wasn’t even marketed until 1995, and even then , many did not have access to the new class of drugs that would change the face of HIV and Aids in this country until later than that. I firmly believe the increase in new cases was because of increased testing efforts and the newer generation being spared the horrors of what happened in the 80s.

  • Mezaien

    Dear HOMOS, brothers please use condoms! we not all D=3,OMEGA like I am.

  • vive

    I am not surprised that rates among gay men are still bad, just based on my personal experience I would estimate that a majority of the guys under 35 I have hooked up with in the past few years don’t insist on condoms, and not because they are on PrEP, which they mostly don’t know about. I think adherence to condoms is better in the over 35 group ( my generation). In part I am sure it is because even though my generation missed the worst of it we still saw the horror of AIDS, if not in person then in the media, but I think at least in part it has to do with community. We used to hang out in gay coffee shops and bars and all were basically forced to read the same pulp gay newsweeklies to know what was going on, where we saw the safe sex articles and PDAs. Much of that has disappeared now, and online people now see and read only what they want to and what is tailored for them by business interests – they simply are not exposed “involuntarily” to print education campaigns the way we were by just being physically in the community.

  • vive

    Sorry, PSAs, not PDAs :)

  • Throbert McGee

    I recall going to NYJacks in the late ’90s (when I was in my late 20s), and they had signs posted everywhere:
    “No lips below the nips.”
    “No sticking anyone’s anything into anyone’s anywhere.”
    It’s important to remind “MSMs” that there’s more to male/male intimacy than anal sex — and that activities like fellatio and frottage are very low risk for HIV even when condoms and PrEP drugs aren’t available.

  • Throbert McGee


    still no comprehensive sex education inclusive of LGBT students. Epic fail by corrupt, too-often-genocidal politicians who make excuses.

    YOUR argument is the epic failure, Daniel.

    HIV is really not very contagious; it spreads among gay and bi males overwhelmingly through bareback anal sex, and very rarely by any other route (e.g., oral sex, or condom breakage).

    And guess what — it’s not “corrupt politicians” who promote and glamorize barebacking among gay/bi men; it’s GAY/BI MEN THEMSELVES who encourage other guys to have high-risk sex. It always has been.

    Stop blaming outsiders for a problem that is created within our own community.

  • Wilberforce

    @Throbert McGee: Thanks. You said it better than I could have.
    Paco here is another self-destructive queen trying to make us all that way. They’ve been around from day one and have always had a bucket of talking points to poison the discussion.
    Slut shaming, which they use for anyone who promotes condoms, human nature, a sly euphemism for the internalized homophobia of the reckless crowd, and anti gay, for anyone who works for prevention.
    These queens are so warped and twisted. And it’s a sign of how twisted the larger community is that they’ve let these nut jobs speak freely for thirty years.

  • Blackceo


    “I treat every single guy as if he is positive, so condoms are always used.”

    This This and more of This!!!!! It took me quite awhile (as in years) before I would even have unprotected sex with my fiance because it is my opinion that most men can’t be faithful. Therefore, if I can’t watch your ass 24/7, my attitude was that you could be creeping with someone else. But, I’ve come to be more trusting and he knows I have friends who will dig a hole without hesitation should he bring some disease back to me.


    I think that is very true. I watched the Normal Heart with a diverse group of men and women. The older group were in tears several times during the film. I only cried once. I have never known anyone to die from AIDS and was born in 1978 so that whole initial AIDS crisis was something for which I was too young to even realize was going on. But, the older people I watched the film with had lost friends and loved ones and remember clearly the fight to get government officials to act on something that was killing gay men rapidly. Plus you have those HIV ads out with the healthy looking, buff men smiling and seeming to be just as carefree as can be. Nevermind the fact of the cost and side effects of the drugs they are taking. Its ashame rates are rising in any demographic and I have no clue what the solution should be.

  • vive

    @Throbert McGee, I don’t see why you are jumping down Daniel’s throat for pointing out that there is no good sex education for LGBT people and that the authorities in power are to blame for it. That is not in conflict with your statement that there are problems within (what is left of) the gay “community.” Both can be true – it is not either/or.

  • DistingueTraces

    @Paco: Since I worked in HIV prevention in the late nineties, it has been the party line never to talk about how a person’s choices in their sex life might put them at greater risk for HIV.

    Promote condoms, promote testing, and now promote prophylactic anti-retrovirals, but no — never ever promote looking clearly and critically at your own choices regarding number of partners and how much you know about your partners.

    Again, that’s been the party line in HIV prevention since the nineties.

    It doesn’t seem to have helped very much.

    I no longer work in HIV prevention. I just gave up. Pushing against the institutional culture was too hard, and I felt that I was wasting my energy.

    So as not to be a total downer, there are reasons for hope. I love the couple from Maverick Men who incorporate home HIV testing into their homemade videos of (yes, condomless) hookups. That’s creative thinking, and it engages with the actual sex practices of gay men actually while they are having sex (or at least while they’re beating off to porn).

    And it doesn’t come from the folks in public health — it comes from a bareback porn auteur.

    There are real ways to reduce HIV, but they don’t come from repeating the same schtick that we’ve all been saying for decades.

    And yes, the “sex positive” schtick has been repeated uselessly for decades.

  • Paco

    @Wilberforce: “slut shaming” is shaming a person for being promiscuous. Not sure why you are trying to connect that with condom usage. If someone is shaming you for using condoms, then I suggest you pull up your pants and find a new sex partner. The only thing twisted here is that in the face of the continually rising statistics of new HIV infections in the gay community, the condom only crowd is having such a difficult time embracing new strategies. Expecting every gay man to use a condom properly every time or not have a weak moment in the heat of passion works great for a PSA, but isn’t working so great in the real world.

    By all means, continue to be the perfect example of the sexual gay man in the 21st century, but don’t fault others for needing more options than condoms for sex.

  • Random

    @Tackle: Actually, to date, there is no clear evidence from studies that proves that pornography impacts on behaviour, so to claim that barebacking porn is the cause for a rise in condomless sex amongst gay men is pure speculation.

  • Tackle

    @Random: I never stated that it was bareback porn alone. I clearly stated that it was a combination of factors. The bareback porn, along with the
    diminished/diminishing advocacy of condom use. Along with the newer generations lack of fear of HIV/AIDS: no longer seeing it
    as a death sentence, along with the party drugs. And I should add eith these, the prevalence of social media, and what it has become. Sex can be at your doorstep in 10 minutes, several times a day, seven dsys a week. I was around during the 80’s, and witness the the devastation of the AIDS crisis. And social media as it exists today, was not like it was,even in the 90s.

    • Random

      @Tackle: I’m aware of what you said, but if there’s no scientific data to show that watching bareback porn is a co-factor in decreased condom use then you are simply speculating.

      Also, what evidence do you have that there is more sex taking place just because of apps and social media, both of which have only taken off in the last few years (Grindr launched in 2009)? Yes, sex *can* be ‘at your doorstep in 10 minutes several times a day seven days a week’, but what proof do you have that that is actually happening? How many people could maintain that sort of sex life on top of a full time job?

      It sounds as if you’ve fallen victim to a ‘moral panic’ about gay men, based on your own opinions rather than fact.

  • Cam

    @Paco: said…”Cam, no where on that chart do I see the words “Effect of condom messaging campaigns on rates of new infections”. We simply disagree on the reason the numbers fell in the late 80s and early nineties.”

    No, the problem is that you were claiming that infections ROSE during that time and during that campaign. I pointed out that wasn’t the case and now your story is changing.

  • vive

    @Tackle, “Sex can be at your doorstep in 10 minutes, several times a day, seven dsys a week.”

    Really? Maybe in NYC, but I can assure you in most of America social apps are not necessarily any more effective for hooking up than the social venues they replaced. I would go as far as to speculate they are actually less efficient. In most places in America there are the same tired 30 regulars on Grindr and it requires endless chatting for days before you meet one of the few who are not on there simply to chat because they are otherwise lonely. So while social apps may drive the epidemic in a handful of places, they have actually decreased contact in most places, I would venture. (Social apps may have even decreased contact in large cities, I think, where you can find sex much more efficiently by going to a bathhouse.)

  • Paco

    @Cam: no Cam. The problem is that you don’t read very well. Also the main thrust of the condom campaigns didn’t happen until the early 90s. That was when many a night stands were full of those little safe sex packages given out at bars where the only useful part of the package was the little bubble pack of lube. If men weren’t covered in KS lesions or look like skeletons, then people assumed you were healthy and the condom wasn’t needed. But regardless, It was short lived and the numbers started rising again. Which was my point all along. I know it is an inconvenient truth, but we need more than rubber, love.

  • Tackle

    @Random: You bring up a very good point as far as proof goes. I don’t think anyone on here has done scientific research, or have been apart of it. And not that scientific research or research itself is infallible. I don’t think that anyone one of us can prove our point, But at the same time, I don’t believe that another poster can ” disprove” what the other is saying. We are all just giving our opinions/ points/ beliefs. Which could, or could not be right.

    • Random

      @Tackle: Yes, I agree that no one here has done scientific research but what I’m talking about is people coming up with somewhat glib unsubstantiated conclusions to issues which are inherently complex. As any first year science under-gradute knows, correlation is not the same as causation.
      And if people are going to share their opinions in a public forum, they have to accept that others will find and highlight the flaws in their argument(s), as I have with yours.

  • Tackle

    @vive: Through experience, I can assure you, this is true. Yes sex in 10 minutes. When I livef in Long Beach California, I was on A4A. About four yrs ago. Well I would only look to hook-up with guys in Long Beach. Long Beach has a huge gay population. I was downtown. I could be, or have someone at my place in 10 minutes or less. If you were horny, happen to be off. Usually ( Sat or Sun) , it was no problem. ..
    Side note. Never been on Grindr.

    Interestingly, my ex used to live in a large 75 plus apt unit in Downtown LA. He beat my record. He was on the site, A4A, and others. And would hookup with guys from his complex. And they would be there in minutes. Yes minutes. ..

    And you mentioned a bathhouse. Been there, done that. And that is not more efficient. That can be a hit or miss: many times a miss. With 40 bucks ( if getting a room) down the toilet. Yes online hookups can be a miss to. With all the catfishing going on. Be atleast it’s free.

  • vive

    @Tackle, I defer to your experience, but I suspect that big free-for-all you describe is very limited. Long Beach and LA are not the kind of places most people in America live. I live in a small Northeast city, and my experience and those of my friends is that social apps are more of a disappointment than not. It is always the same 50 guys on all the sites and apps every day, maybe three or four are attractive, and you are lucky if you hook once or twice a month with them – and for that you have to be on there permanently. I dislike those apps so I spend maybe four hours a week on them, and despite that time investment I have only met about five people that way in the past two years – much less than would have been the case if I had spent that time in a bar, say. Maybe you could counter that I am just not that attractive, but the same is true both for my average looking friend and my very attractive friend.

    • Random

      @vive: I don’t use apps but I am on gay hook-up sites and over the years I’ve only ever met a handful of guys off them And 9 times out of 10, when I have met them in real life, I haven’t wanted to have sex with them. Contrast that with saunas and sex clubs where I’ve had multiple partners in one evening, and that tells me that online ‘social networking’ is a very inefficient method of procuring sex.

  • Tackle

    @Random: And I accept that you
    or anyone find and highlight flaws in my arguments. That’s what this forum is about. In exchange/ sharing of ideas and opinions. And anyone who cannot handle a constructive critique of their post should think twice about posting on Queerty.

    • Random


      ”…anyone who cannot handle a constructive critique of their post should think twice about posting on Queerty.”


  • Jacob23

    For 30 years, the priority of gay AIDS activists has been to make the lives of HIV+ people easier. So the priority has been on reducing “stigma” and not halting infections.

    But infecting others and getting infected are terrible things. They don’t have to happen. Any competent adult in 2014 who allows it to happen should, based on the circumstances, face stigma. That person has harmed himself, has harmed others, has diminished human health, and has inflicted great costs on the health care system. Why is that not worthy of moral censure?

    Instead we get the insane campaign called “HIV Equal” which posits that everyone has a status – some positive and some negative – but it’s all equal. This is not the kind of campaign you run when you are trying to halt infections.

    And one other thing. Long term, people who have sex with people they don’t know and don’t care about are vastly more likely to engage in unsafe sex and get HIV. Men who have sex with multiple partners outside the context of stable relationships are more likely to use drugs and alcohol during sex and to suffer from mood disorders, all of which affect judgment. Telling someone that, as long as condoms are used, it is a healthy choice to connect with anonymous partners on Grindr – is lying. Eventually, vigilance wanes, there is little concern for the well-being of the stranger lying next to you, and HIV infection happens.

    Encourage loving relationships. Encourage stability. Encourage kindness and caring. Stigmatize Grindr and commercialized loveless sex. Then you’ll see those numbers turn around.

    • Random

      @Jacob23: The evidence suggests that the more HIV is stigmatised then the less likely people are to get tested and treated, which means they are more likely to pass the infection on due to a sky-high viral load. Stigma also means that people are less likely to disclose their status to their sex partners through fear of censure and rejection. So if you really do believe there should be more stigma around HIV then what you are effectively saying is you want to see more people become infected.

      Some gay men seem to have this very simplistic view of sex and relationships and seem to think that if only Grindr and bareback pornography were banned, and stigma around HIV was actively promoted (even though it’s highly stigmatised anyway), then the disease would disappear. It wouldn’t, so please stop with the naivete.

  • vive

    @Jacob23, except that a recent study found about 70% of gay HIV infections to be incurred between boyfriends, which shows the danger of your way of thinking.

  • Tackle

    @Jacob23: Great points made.
    Agree with this…

  • Tackle

    @vive: I believe he’s talking about and referring to monogamous couples in a relationship.

  • vive

    @Tackle, being in a monogamous relationship doesn’t protect you from HIV if your partner is positive without knowing it and you don’t use protection.

    There are many people who sleep around and are always safe, and then there is a lot of serial monogamists who think they don’t have anything to worry about. Shaming the former in moralistic terms as Jacob does is doing more harm than good, and isn’t even based in reality given that the latter account for the majority of infections.

  • Tackle

    @vive: Being in a monogamous relationship where BOTH partners are neg does protect you from HIV. And you know this.
    But I find it strange when some hear the words, “monogamous”, “loving relationship”, “exclusive” or between two”, they think someone is trying to “slut shame”.

    And you say that 70% of gay HIV infections occurs between boyfriends, well the majority of gay men do not have HIV, and the majority of gay men say they do not agree with open relationships.

    I could argue more of @Jacob23: points, but I’m going to stop here. It’s not my place. He’s a grown man who can speak for himself?
    But one thing I do hate is when people are so outspoken and opinionated to post a comment, and then run like rats when challenged. Not bothering to explain, clarify or defend their stance…

  • vive

    @Tackle, “And you say that 70% of gay HIV infections occurs between boyfriends, well the majority of gay men do not have HIV, and the majority of gay men say they do not agree with open relationships.”

    So? How does that contradict anything I said?

  • Tackle

    @vive: This goes into me [email protected]Jacob23: post, Which I stated, that I do not like to do. Because I believe he can and should speak for himself.
    But since you asked: Many of the men in these relationships, lie, cheat and fool around. I was the victim of a cheater. Thank god I’m healthy…
    If as @Jacob23: says, and I believe it,
    (and it is not slut shaming) that we encourage loving relationships, stability, kindness and caring in relationships: ( because there is no love lying, cheating,
    and fooling around on your partner behind his back)I believe those numbers (70%) will go down…

  • vive

    @Tackle, I am not disputing what you say, but your own experience shows the danger of making people think that they are safe because they think they are in monogamous relationships. Apart from that, many people are not safe even in ACTUAL monogamous relationships because they don’t know their status or that of their partner. Since serial monogamy is very prevalent, this is a real problem, as statistics show.

    It is not slut-shaming to encourage kindness and caring in relationships, or even encourage monogamy if that floats your boat, but that was not the gist of Jacob’s message, which was judgmental. Single people who sleep around can be (and often are) just as, or even more caring, kind, and safe with their partners, yet Jacob would judge them in scloding moral tones.

  • vive


  • Cam

    @Paco: said… “@Cam: no Cam. The problem is that you don’t read very well. Also the main thrust of the condom campaigns didn’t happen until the early 90s.”

    Remember what I said before about your continually lying and changing history everytime you get called on something?

    Well here is another lie. By 1987 even the World Health Organization launched a massive global safe sex/condom initiative that was sparked by the success of smaller initiatives such as the ones that were being done throughout the U.S.

    But please, feel free to make up another story and rewrite history again if you think it will help you make your point.

    Your basic point is, safe sex and condom campaigns didn’t work. I have linked to charts showing that HIV rates among gays dropped significantly during the campaigns and did not start to rise again until those campaigns has tended to go away.

    Rather than just acknowledge reality you now keep lying about history and trying to alter facts. Not sure why you are so invested in your point that you would defend it falsely like that.

  • Paco

    @Cam: Cam, I said it wasn’t working anymore. You somehow turned that into me saying it never worked at all. Sure there isn’t a major push at preaching anymore, but there is still safe sex outreach going on. The problem, as I said before, is that there is a new generation removed from the deadly years of the virus. They do not have all the death as a backdrop to enforce all the preaching about safe sex.

    MY EXPERIENCE in the late 80s and early nineties was that most guys I encountered decided to have safe sex or not on how healthy you looked. If you didn’t look like you had AIDS then the condom wasn’t needed. I was still attending funerals into the 90s of people who were infected during the lowest point on your chart. My point that you keep ignoring is that while the decline on your chart was happening, a lot of dying was still happening. That isn’t happening anymore and the new generation of gay men are going to need more than having condoms and packets of lube thrown at them. Simple preaching and moral indignation will only drive the statistics up without newer strategies. And I am happy that we now have ads of healthy looking HIV positive people, because my friends that are poz look the same way. No longer am I sitting by deathbeds of people I care about. So please don’t complain about the medication ads. Try to think of new ways to reach the new generation rather than blaming medication ads for making poz people appear to be too healthy. That is what you complained about in your first response to me where you started twisting what I said.

    New strategies, love. That was all I was calling for. Sheesh.

  • Cam


    But Paco, you said a few posts up ““Also, if the condom messaging was so effective, then why the hell are there so many gay men that became HIV+ during the height of the “Use condoms or you will die a horrific death” campaign?””

    I then pointed out to you that HIV infection rates fell dramatically during that time. You then changed and said that they dropped not because of those campaigns but because people were seeing sick people, you then claimed that these campaigns didn’t start until the 90’s. I then pointed out THAT was wrong….

    And now you post simply saying that I am misunderstanding. I posted your exact wording, if those words are somehow unclear please point it out.

  • Paco

    @Cam: because Cam, having your friends drop like flies is a huge motivator to not end up the same way. If you want to believe that preaching safe sex was the only reason the rate of new infections dropped, then fine, believe that. I also said I was drawing on my own experiences at the time. It is fine to look at a chart and say “see see the condom campaigns lowered the rate of infection back then.”, but it is difficult to put it into context without experiencing it first hand. I also said the “main thrust” of the safe sex campaigns didn’t happen until the early 90s (’90/’91), not that was when they began (you were misreading again or just trying to change what I said to suit you). I was living in the Midwest, and that was when I clearly remember when the safe sex outreach began to hit the bars where I lived. I couldn’t go in to a bar on the weekends without being handed a condom, lube and info about HIV. And even then, friends were still becoming infected. I lost a lot of friends that condoms and preaching didn’t work for because they were young, human and thought that hot guy was uninfected because he didn’t look like any of their sick friends. So sorry if my life happened a little differently than your chart.

    Now unless you are trying to argue why we don’t need new strategies in this new era of HIV no longer being the disfiguring death sentence it once was, what else is there to discuss here? The smiling happy people on the kayaks shouldn’t have to go back into the hospice because it doesn’t support your outdated messaging about AIDS prevention. The intent of my initial post was completely lost on you. I give up. Have a good one.

Comments are closed.