成人论坛

Dear Newsnight

The Pennsylvannia primary is 7 weeks away? Some Democrats fear this prolonged contest for the Party ticket may be harming the Party's chances, although someone has said that there may also be benefits from what is happening,

Could one way to resolve this might be to bring the remaining Primaries forward and hold a super dooper decider, or even run all the Primaries again simulatenously to give a clear choice and mandate to one or other of the Candidates?

Could you ask one of the Democrat Party leaders about this when you speak to them?

just a thought

best wishes
Bob

GAY SEX

Thank you for highlighting this problem. Having growing up in the 1980s we are used to the images of those HIV ads. Teens growing up in the 1990's didn't have this and have no knowledge of the dangers. The 1980's ads should be rerun and the gay industry should go back to using condoms in all videos.

Why does Paxman not deal at all with the question of whether or not the Lisbon treaty should be put to a referendum, on its merits? Is it because he fears the obvious conclusion that the public is not, in fact, comptetent to decide on such technical issues?

And is Clegg being penalised for simply calling the oldest English bluff, that is, acting superior and pretending to distrust Europe, but never calling for full exit?

Madelaine, I've just seen your report on HIV in gay porn. I'm astonished! First, I was astonished it was getting airtime. Then, I was astonished it was getting so much airtime. Then I was astonished by the depth, the thoroughness and open-mindedness of your report. It was riveting! I'm skeptical of current standards in journalism - but that was one of the best investigative stories I can remember seeing. I hope your mates remember it when the awards shows come round.

A very disturbing programme on the barebacking gay porn.

The Iceberg commerical from the 80's still sticks with me. I never leave without a condom on my person - the joys of being a single gay man!

The casual attitude shown by the young model who was HIV positive and continued to work in bareback films was chilling.

The sexual health advice and free condoms that are available within the gay community is sending out a positive safe sex message.

It was pleasing to hear that as a result from Newsnight's investigation one production company is stopping bareback movies.

Well done and thank you for highlighting an issue that would not necessarily be seen on national news programme

In response to Liam (post 4), stories about exploited women in the sex industry have been very newsworthy in recent weeks. I fail to see why, by analogy, the current scandal in the gay porn industry is irrelevant or uninteresting. Is the welfare of young gay men less important than that of young straight women? In my view it is no less newsworthy to encourage a rigorous debate over bareback porn than prostitution, except that the subject matter is less palatable to a certain section of the public.

It must be time to debate whether to withhold distribution licenses from bareback gay porn films. It would at least remove any incentive for small-time porn producers to create such films, which expose young men to the risk of HIV, on camera, and for a cynically easy profit.

Todays vote against a referendum is a kick in the teeth to British people who were promised a vote by Tony Blair.
I for one is beginning to think voting is a waste of time.No longer do I have a say. Do as you are told is creeping in my mind, and in the process having our noses rubbed in the dirt by our elected members.
I am very proud of being British but for how long?

EU Referendum?

So much by the Will of the people!

They could have held a Referendum just as they did on Regional Assemblies.

Referendum Labour Style:
1 - Hold one
2 - Not the wanted Result
3 - Ignore the result

Uncle Joe would be proud!

I want to see who voted and who abstained - because none who chose not to vote and those who voted to deny the opinion of the people must never be allowed in Parliament ever again!

In reply to Liam, just because a piece of news isn't newsworthy to you does not mean it wasn't interesting or newsworthy to others. HIV/ AIDS is one of the most important health issues globally today and I think many members of the public wish to be informed on different groups in society.

I notice especially that you state that 'gay porn is not newsworthy' I wonder if you would have considered it a more worthwhile story if it had involved young heterosexuals being preyed upon to line someones pockets.

..er sorry Madeleine Holt, but you're information on the idea of an HIV+ person having sex with another HIV+ person producing a potential supervirus is highly out of date - in fact the opposite is true; for the most part HIV+ people (including Gay men) have been 'sero-sorting' their sexual partners for many, many, years. These people are only choosing to have sex with other HIV+ people rather than with HIV negative people and barebacking is very common amongst this group. There are many reasons for this, eg, it's legally safer for one positive person to have sex with another positive person as the law in this country puts the burden of responsibility for another's HIV infection on the person that he/she had sex with and who was the vector for their infection, also, it's much easier for one HIV+ person to have sex with another HIV+ person as there's not going to be a chance of rejection problems if/when the subject of HIV comes up - they then can choose whether they wish to use condoms or not more freely! These are but two of a myriad number of reasons why HIV+ people sero-sort their partners and why superinfection is quite rare. Additionally, Sue's scientific knowledge is very out of date; there are few examples of superinfection resulting in people already infected - it in fact only occurs in people who are newly infected and during the very first few weeks of their infection if they have lots of unsafe sex with lots of HIV+ people. For the most part scientific knoweldge (which is pretty flaky around the how's, why's and if's of HIV anyway) admits that superinfection for the large majority of HIV+ people doesn't happen. If superinfection were likely, then there would be even larger groups of people dying of incurable and unmanagable HIV+ disease throughtout out the Western world than there is - it would be the 1980s all over again, and it's not! As it is - HIV is mostly seen as a managable albeit eventually terminal disease and a large part of the HIV+ positive community has been making the decision to bareback for many years already without us seeing any real risk over superinfection. Finally, if young men working in the porn industry choose to make bareback porn because it offers them money and they become HIV+ as a result then they only have themselves to look to for responsibility - as in the straight sex industry, unless Gay porn models wish to become celibate except when they are on camera then their certificates which indicate their HIV negative status are only as good as the last four weeks and their last one night stand! It isn't the industry's fault that one of their models has caught HIV, that's the model's responsibility. It is only the industry's fault that they are not either employing the right kind of model and/or that their reconciliation process pertaining to the validity of their certification process (if they choose to use HIV negative models at all) needs addressing. Otherwise, this was Madeleine Holt a very inflammatory and quite inaccurate article that you did for Newsnight that put the Gay HIV+ community in the gun-sights and implied that if you're HIV+ and bareback then you're NHS waster. Please get the science right before you go 'to air' if you're going to take pot shots at the Gay community and seek to impose your misguided and ill-informed moralistic ideas of responsibility on us.

The barebacking scandal is far, far bigger than the gay porn industry alone. Barebacking has gained common currency throughout the UK gay community, becoming increasingly endemic particularly since New Labour acquired power in 1997. In that time, HIV charities have morphed into quangos who jump through government hoops in return for funding and run a near-pathological, politically correct agenda that has sought to reverse all the good done by the hard-hitting HIV campaigns of the late 1980s when HIV infection rates were at their lowest. They choose instead to legitimise and normalise HIV on the pretext that they can't be seen to indirectly stigmatise HIVers, even though most HIVers regard this attitude as patronising in the extreme and want hard-hitting HIV campaigns as much as most sane peple (a recent survey in The Pink Paper saw 82% of its readers in favour of graphic campaigns).

Consequently, young gay men today regard HIV no more of a nuisance than diabetes, believing it to be a completely manageable condition with antiretroviral drugs prescribed ad hoc by the NHS (it is estimated that the NHS will pay 拢500,000 in treatments for each 21-year-old who becomes infected with HIV over an average 20-year lifespan), while older men who avoided HIV during the 1980s and 1990s are seroconverting in rapid numbers thanks to campaigns that sexualise the virus, lack impact and are instantly forgettable.

Perversely, the HIV charities that were set up to protect the gay community are now at the root of the current epidemic that has resulted in a 55% increase in transmissions in the last 5 years, and seen HIV gain currency as a badge of honour. Their insistence that HIV must not be graphically and realistically portrayed in campaigns that would make people think twice about practising unsafe sex has inevitably fuelled a culture in which barebacking porn, "bug chasing" and sex-on-premises venues - where the transmissions of pathogens including HIV are rife - have gained common currency. Indeed, in the case of the latter, only last week it was announced that such establishments that adhere to an unenforceable "code of good practise" will be awarded a seal of approval by, among others, London's largest HIV charity, The Terrence Higgins Trust.

The gay press, meanwhile, unquestioningly continue to print these charities' press releases compiled by media-trained spin doctors totally lacking in empathy or a grasp of the seriousness of the situation, and who justify such dangerous PC policies by endlessly quoting meaningless statistics interspersed with sleight of hand, effectively leading gay men to the abyss.

The reason for this deception is plain to see. The HIV sector today pursues HIV management over HIV prevention. Its business plan is based on the numbers of services it provides to those with HIV; the more gay men who become infected, the more funding it receives from the government to provide for them. In this context it is easy to see why HIV prevention is not their number one priority, and why the HIV prevention budget funded by the NHS is in completely the wrong hands.

Yet this is only the tip of the HIV ice berg (don't even get me started on how the HIV charities have effectively allowed crystal meth to spread unhindered through the gay community - fuelling the HIV infection rate and fanning the flames of a nationwide meth epidemic - nor how they fought for the right of gay men to continue to use immunosuppressive poppers in the face of compelling evidence of the risks involved, or how they have zealously promoted the unproven "quick fix" treatment PEP - Post Exposure Prophylaxis - on gay sex sites and in every magazine at the expense of hard-hitting prevention campaigns, costing the NHS 拢600 per treatment, and prescribed to the same core group of promiscuous gay men seeking to manage their sero-status)...

But the tide is turning. In the letters pages and forums of the gay press, gay men are starting to openly question these insane policies and are demanding positive change while ducking the tirade of PC rhetoric and rationalising from shameless academics and spin doctors who are tied to the HIV sector's purse strings and do their bidding. As a gay man I am ashamed at how the community has allowed such negligence and downright mismanagement of sexual health and public funds to go on under its nose. It deserves to be exposed to a mainstream audience and forced to mend its irresponsible ways.

Just a shame that Newsnight missed the really important story around gay sex and HIV now unfolding...

The barebacking scandal is far, far bigger than the gay porn industry alone. Barebacking has gained common currency throughout the UK gay community, becoming increasingly endemic particularly since New Labour acquired power in 1997. In that time, HIV charities have morphed into quangos who jump through government hoops in return for funding and run a near-pathological, politically correct agenda that has sought to reverse all the good done by the hard-hitting HIV campaigns of the late 1980s when HIV infection rates were at their lowest. They choose instead to legitimise and normalise HIV on the pretext that they can't be seen to indirectly stigmatise HIVers, even though most HIVers regard this attitude as patronising in the extreme and want hard-hitting HIV campaigns as much as most sane peple (a recent survey in The Pink Paper saw 82% of its readers in favour of graphic campaigns).

Consequently, young gay men today regard HIV no more of a nuisance than diabetes, believing it to be a completely manageable condition with antiretroviral drugs prescribed ad hoc by the NHS (it is estimated that the NHS will pay 拢500,000 in treatments for each 21-year-old who becomes infected with HIV over an average 20-year lifespan), while older men who avoided HIV during the 1980s and 1990s are seroconverting in rapid numbers thanks to campaigns that sexualise the virus, lack impact and are instantly forgettable.

Perversely, the HIV charities that were set up to protect the gay community are now at the root of the current epidemic that has resulted in a 55% increase in transmissions in the last 5 years, and seen HIV gain currency as a badge of honour. Their insistence that HIV must not be graphically and realistically portrayed in campaigns that would make people think twice about practising unsafe sex has inevitably fuelled a culture in which barebacking porn, "bug chasing" and sex-on-premises venues - where the transmissions of pathogens including HIV are rife - have gained common currency. Indeed, in the case of the latter, only last week it was announced that such establishments that adhere to an unenforceable "code of good practise" will be awarded a seal of approval by, among others, London's largest HIV charity, The Terrence Higgins Trust.

The gay press, meanwhile, unquestioningly continue to print these charities' press releases compiled by media-trained spin doctors totally lacking in empathy or a grasp of the seriousness of the situation, and who justify such dangerous PC policies by endlessly quoting meaningless statistics interspersed with sleight of hand, effectively leading gay men to the abyss.

The reason for this deception is plain to see. The HIV sector today pursues HIV management over HIV prevention. Its business plan is based on the numbers of services it provides to those with HIV; the more gay men who become infected, the more funding it receives from the government to provide for them. In this context it is easy to see why HIV prevention is not their number one priority, and why the HIV prevention budget funded by the NHS is in completely the wrong hands.

Yet this is only the tip of the HIV ice berg (don't even get me started on how the HIV charities have effectively allowed crystal meth to spread unhindered through the gay community - fuelling the HIV infection rate and fanning the flames of a nationwide meth epidemic - nor how they fought for the right of gay men to continue to use immunosuppressive poppers in the face of compelling evidence of the risks involved, or how they have zealously promoted the unproven "quick fix" treatment PEP - Post Exposure Prophylaxis - on gay sex sites and in every magazine at the expense of hard-hitting prevention campaigns, costing the NHS 拢600 per treatment, and prescribed to the same core group of promiscuous gay men seeking to manage their sero-status)...

But the tide is turning. In the letters pages and forums of the gay press, gay men are starting to openly question these insane policies and are demanding positive change while ducking the tirade of PC rhetoric and rationalising from shameless academics and spin doctors who are tied to the HIV sector's purse strings and do their bidding. As a gay man I am disgusted and ashamed by how my community has looked the other way in the face of such negligence and downright mismanagement of sexual health and public funds, but now sense an appetite within the community for positive change. The really important story around gay sex and HIV is now unfolding...

Mike - to find out who voted how and who abstained, in this vote and any other, please see the excellent 'public whip' website (tagline: 'they work for you'...)

Thank you Paul Clifton for an excellent and informative post; if Newsnight chooses not to follow this story up along the lines you suggest it will be a great pity. As someone with some experience of the voluntary/charitable sector, albeit with a different 'client group', I know the frustration of seeing employment, endorsement, and grant application skewed to protect voluntary organisations rather than seeing them as organisations we should ultimately hope will become obsolete as equity for marginalised groups is increased, and their rights and health are better respected and protected in society.

It's distressing to see young men risking their health and perhaps their lives, and heartbreaking to see that our society is not only complicit in but rewards such self-destructive behaviour under the banners of 'personal freedom' and 'non-discrimination'.

I've just watched the Gay Porn story and was struck by the narrow scope of the feature. While it covered a story which needs covering, it was heavily focussed on the British bareback porn market which is tiny and probably insignificant compared to the likes of Hot Desert Knights and Treasure Island Media in the US who produce buckets of these films, albeit with men who look old enough to remember the 80s AIDS panic.

And maybe that's the difference - HIV education (and sex education in general) in this country is pitiful and that is presumably why young men can be so easily convinced to take part in bareback porn. But for those who remember those icebergs ad, flawed as they may have been, they did at least make people engage their brains before removing their trousers.

The shame, guilt, and maybe even responsibility lies as much with the government departments responsible for health and education as with the porn producers.

Speaking as a gay man, this report is all the proof one needs to show how much the Queer community is its own worst enemy.