Soon the government is expected to launch its much vaunted sex education
campaign that will essentially say all heterosexuals in the UK are at risk
from the
current HIV epidemic. A multi-million sex education campaign to combat HIV
is a good thing, surely? Well yes… and no. Yes, if it targets those
people most at risk, but no if the money is squandered on scaring the living
daylights out of the population who are statistically at a very low risk of
HIV infection, while ignoring those in real danger of contracting the virus
(or already having it, but being too scared to test).
While it’s true the UK is experiencing a heterosexual HIV epidemic,
infections in this group have risen 265 per cent over the past decade, the
government has repeatedly failed to big up the fact that 75 per cent of heterosexuals
diagnosed in the UK last year were infected abroad and 68 per cent of these
were infected in Africa.
Meanwhile, 84 per cent of those diagnosed (and infected) in the UK were gay
or bisexual. As the country’s leading HIV specialist, and UKC patron,
Professor Brian Gazzard, bluntly put it: “HIV in the UK is black and
it’s gay.”
Some believe the government has avoided spelling out this truth for fear of
playing into the hands of racists and homophobes; but in doing so they have
failed gay men and African communities in the UK. Sigma Research reports that
London, centre of the UK gay epidemic, now receives a third of the cash for
HIV prevention compared with 1997. Clearly myths perpetuated about the current
epidemic are damaging front-line prevention work too.Word now also reaches
PN that doctors at one south London hospital are becoming increasingly concerned
about undiagnosed HIV infection among young black youth and young gay men.
Apparently many of these young men who turn up to the STI clinic are agreeing
to syphilis testing but are resolutely refusing to undergo HIV tests. Let's
hope the new campaign will speak to these groups too.
October’s PN cover featuring a group of naked gay men having group sex
provoked a strong reaction. On the one hand we received many compliments for
tackling a difficult issue in such an upfront way. Most of these readers said
the cover and its related feature was read avidly by friends and colleagues
who would not normally pick up a copy of PN. On the other hand, a few complained
that the imagery was just too strong while others felt it perpetuated stereotypes
of gay men. The decision to run the cover was not taken lightly. Most people
passing on the virus right now do not know they are HIV positive. This is
why we felt it was extremely important to use at least one issue of PN to
reach out to sexually active ‘at risk’ gay men currently unsure
of their status, in the hope they might seek a test and be able to better
protect themselves and others. While we appreciate the image may have been
uncomfortable for some, we had to weigh this against the opportunity to reach
out to more gay men at risk of becoming HIV positive. Just as you cannot make
an omelette without breaking eggs, neither can you tackle an HIV epidemic
by being timid about sex. We hope you’ll feel the same.
Amanda Elliot, managing editor
