THEGAYUK

Category: Topics

  • OPINION | Why we need to take Yulia Volkova’s Anti-Gay Comments Seriouslydan

    If the word hypocrite was to apply to one person in the world right now, I would have to apply it to Russian fake lesbian t.A.T.u singer Yulia Volkova.

    By now I’m sure everyone has heard about Volkova making anti-gay comments, saying that she would not support her son if he was gay and banging on about gay people not being real men. It’s got us all talking about t.A.T.u again, long after they slipped from relevance, but whether it’s another marketing ploy or not I believe that we need to take Yulia Volkova’s comments seriously and consider the damage her words could do.

    I have to admit to genuinely being annoyed by Volkova coming out publicly as a homophobe, particularly when she used lesbianism to gain exposure for her band and to make money. I believe her comments to be dangerous. Russia is now well known around the world for being an anti-gay country that is seemingly going backwards in time towards the dark ages rather than progressing with the majority of other countries on Earth. Whether people here in the UK take Volkova’s comments seriously or not, there is potential for those comments to be inflammatory and lead to a rise in anti-gay feeling, not just in Russia but in other European countries where t.A.T.u remain popular.

    Another thing that annoyed me about Volkova’s comments was the fact that she used supposedly having gay friends in an attempt to demonstrate that she is not a homophobe. Sadly this is something that is all too common. I have lost count of the amount of times that someone has said “I have loads of gay friends, but…” before then going on to make a homophobic statement. These people need to understand that having gay friends doesn’t mean that they can’t possibly be homophobic in any way.

    Something else that Yulia Volkova is guilty of is reinforcing a stereotype. Apparently, two women together (i.e. lesbians) is more aesthetically pleasing than two men together (i.e. “fags”). Of course, all lesbians are hot and purely exist for the titillation of heterosexual men, but gay guys and the thought of two men having sex is vomit inducing. How disgusting. I hope you detect the sarcasm there, but it’s outrageous that there are people in the world who genuinely think like that. It’s that reinforcement of stereotypes that t.A.T.u built their whole career on.

    In 2002 t.A.T.u released All The Things She Said. It was a massive hit around the world and quite rightly too (let’s not forget what a brilliant song it is), but it played on lesbianism and the idea that being lesbian is hot or en vogue. The two members cavorted around in the rain, wearing school girl outfits (jailbait, anyone?) and kissing passionately. Lots of us were fooled by the act and believed they were genuine lesbian pop stars. The gay community championed them and the band rose to fame, while no doubt making a lot of money on the way. Then came the revelation that they are not really lesbians and it was just a marketing ploy. I went off t.A.T.u at that point, despite being excited by their music. Using or exploiting sexuality for fame or financial gain simply isn’t cool, and I chose to no longer be a part of t.A.T.u’s machine.

    Even when it was revealed that t.A.T.u are not really lesbians, the members spoke out in support of the gay community. Volkova’s recent comments have shown her true opinions, though, and demonstrated that her previous support of gay people was as fake as her lesbianism.

    I’m quite aware that t.A.T.u as a band are no longer taken seriously, but I do feel we should take Yulia Volkova’s anti-gay comments seriously. She is a public figure in a notoriously homophobic country. There will be people who agree with her comments or who will change their views to match hers. That is a dangerous thing and we should be concerned, despite how ridiculous this woman obviously is. But to end on a positive, at least we gays are “better than murderers, thieves, or drug addicts”. There’s clearly hope for us yet.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Yes or No… Is Scotland going to go?

    On Thursday 18th Sept 2014, History WILL be made. Never in my lifetime have I seen as many people engaged in politics, some for the very first time, there have been many arguments, wild accusations and straight out lies from both sides, and there have been some very ugly scenes on the streets, It feels like a different country and sometimes it feels like the beginning of a new revolution.

    It is exciting, scary and sometimes downright awful, but a passionate fire in Scotland has been lit, and it is more powerful and brighter than ever, and whatever your view on it all, it can’t be denied what has happened amongst the people has been incredible.

    But what about the LGBTI community in Scotland, how will it affect us?
    On Mon 15th Sept 2014, The Pink News website, published the results of a poll of 2163 LGBTI people and 54% voted in favour of a Yes vote, When I tweeted I wanted people’s opinions for this article, the majority of people also said they are voting Yes, and again the majority of LGBTI people on my social networks also favouring a Yes vote.

    Why is the Yes vote so strong amongst the LGBTI community in Scotland?
    Since the Scottish Parliament was formed, it has taken incredible strides for equality for the LGBTI community, but Britain as you may or may not know has no written constitution, decisions can be made and over-turned just as easily depending on who is in power at any given time, eg. nothing is set in stone, what is law now could just as easily not be law in the next government.

    From an LGBTI point of view that would be disastrous for everyone, for everyone who has fought for equal rights.

    From a Yes point of view, Scotland will have a written constitution with today’s laws written and enshrined in it, that would be a sense of stability for LGBTI communities all over Scotland, we would be equal, it cannot be taken away, an incredible reward for the decades of fighting for the smallest of rights to being able to marry the person we love. It would be leading the way in equality rights.

    It is with this in mind the Rainbow Paper was published detailing why a Yes vote would be beneficial for LGBTI communities –

    What If No Wins
    If a No vote does indeed prevail on Friday morning, then LGBTI communities all over Britain should be aware that after the next general election in May 2015 and the Conservative party are still in power they may seek to review and repeal the Human Rights act, placing everything that everyone who has fought for in jeopardy. That is something that everyone should be aware of, no matter where they live in the UK.

    The Morning After The Night Before
    On Friday 19th Sept, Britain is going to be a very different place, and that IS scary, even if a No vote has succeeded, a fire has been lit not just in Scottish politics but all over the UK, and the Govt and Westminster have a right to be scared, we all want change, we all want something better and we can and should make it happen.

    If a Yes vote prevails, it is very important to remember that it is NOT because Scotland hates England and all that tiresome rubbish the media and scumbags of society are throwing about, Hadrians wall is not suddenly going to re-appear, it was just a chance for change, a chance to make life better, a chance to have your voice heard.

    Scotland will always quite literally be a part of Britain, it will just have its own voice, It will be your annoying brother, that deep down you love to bits, just as England will be the annoying older Brother that we also dearly love.

    I LOVE Britain, It is Great! Just because there maybe 2 Governments instead of 1, does not mean a thing.

    I will still count myself as British, just as I have always done no matter which way it goes.
    In the words of the legendary RuPaul: Can I Get An Amen Up In Here!

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Cost The Reason HPV Vaccinations Aren’t Offered To Boys?

    Extending the HPV vaccine to gay men could help the fight against cancer.

    Dr Gillian Prue, lecturer of chronic illness at Queen’s University of Belfast, recently published in the British Medical Journal, that the current girl-only vaccination programme leaves men who have sex with men (MSM) at risk of infection from the human papilloma viruses (HPV).

    HPV is a common virus that has more than a 100 different strains. Some of them being common and relatively harmless with most people having some form of the virus during their lifetime. For most people, it will cause no symptoms and goes away on its own.

    But there are some strains of HPV that can cause changes in the cells of the lining of the mouth and throat as well as the penis and anus, known as high-risk HPVs. These changed cells have an increased risk of becoming cancerous.

    There are also strains of HPV that cause warts and verrucas, most commonly found on the hands, feet, genital area and anus. But can also be found elsewhere on the body.

    The danger with HPV is that it can be easily spread through skin contact, open mouth kissing and certain sexual acts. Infection is common in men and reports of infection have increased in the past two decades with HPV causing 5% of all human cancers.

    In September 2008, a free vaccination has been readily available for young girls aged between 12-13 in the UK with a catch-up programme for girls up to 18. Heterosexual men gain protection from the virus via vaccinated women but gay and bisexual men have no such protection and are therefore at a higher risk of infection.

    But by introducing the vaccination to men, vaccinated men would be protected against non-vaccinated girls and other men.

    Many countries have already introduced the HPV vaccination to boys such as Canada, Australia and the US. Studies have shown that vaccinating boys will produce both health and economic benefits, reducing the incidences of HPV-related genital warts and cancerous cells developing.

    And although gay and bisexual men are at a higher risk of infections, a programme targeted solely at the gay and bisexual men in the UK would be limited because many gay and bisexual men acquire HPV as teenagers and many have already been exposed to HPV already according to Prue. It has also been criticised that such a programme would appear to discriminate against young heterosexual men who are also susceptible to the risk of HPV.

    Last November the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation agreed to begin work on the possibility of offering the HPV vaccination to adolescent boys and MSM. No doubt the main deterrent for introducing the vaccination will be the cost of the vaccination, estimated to around £24,000,000.

    The most beneficial response to this would be a gender neutral vaccination strategy in schools. Anything else would simply be discriminatory. With the cost of the vaccination paling in comparison to the cost of cancer treatment caused by HPV, it seems like the next logical step in the fight against cancer.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Why pride?

    At the moment I’m currently working to promote the third year of Warrington pride. The theme that has been selected this year is Pride. At promotional events over summer we’ve been asking people to fill out cards to say what they are proud of.

    I haven’t completed mine yet, as I’m not sure what the answer is.

    I think as a community we become a cynical old bunch. Subtle Homophobia and living in a heteronormative society means that we are outsiders. I’ve almost become numb to this fact.

    Each year we can see and attend pride events which show us the diversity across the communities. This year in Manchester Pride, my boyfriend and I were drawn into a debate as to whether or not the rubber men should be part of the parade. He felt it was not part of sexuality and was a fetish so should not be there as a part of the gay community. We disagreed because to deny any aspect of sexuality across the LGBT spectrum would force it back into the closet and place shame and guilt onto those that identify with that label. I have previously written an article on the dangers of slut-shaming and I think those lessons are prevalent here.

    I also encountered negativity within the LGBT community from people who thought that groups were not representative as a whole. Groups are there to offer peer support and help to those who need it. I don’t want or need any group to represent me or be my voice.

    I have my own.

    The bears are doing their thing and the lipstick lesbians can do their own thing. They don’t need to represent each other. The village community in Manchester is diverse and strong enough so everyone gets their own time without it feeling like they are invading each other’s space. Aside from the pride events, there are things such as the “To Russia With Love” protests earlier this year. This saw the village come together to fundraise and support the LGBT community in Russia.

    What I’m proud of is the diversity we represent. Each and every one of us came out and stood up because we refused to compromise our sense of self just to fit in.

    We didn’t want to be who people told us we should be in the “straight” world why should that change in the LGBT community. We have seen abuse, we’ve seen hatred. We’ve been the victims of cheap jokes. We’ve battled to start to gain some small measure of equality.

    But we endured and stayed together. Pride for me, is about the community. Both local and online. It’s about anyone that talks to us at a fund raising event. Even if you are straight you know someone who isn’t and that person might need support or solidarity. Pride is about being yourself and not having to compromise of your integrity or beliefs and still being able to fit into an imperfect and beautifully weird group of people like me.

    I don’t need to know what drives or inspires you. I don’t even need to know your name. I just need to accept you and hope you will accept me.

    Warrington pride is on 27th September in Queens Gardens, Warrington

    http://warringtonpride.com

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Ice bucket challenge – enough is enough

    I’m all for giving to charity as much as the next man, but now that every major (and too many minor) celebrities are jumping on this latest bandwagon, we think maybe enough is enough.

    We hate to pour cold water on anybody’s good ideas, but think perhaps that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has got a little out of control. We know we are not alone on this and were so happy to watch this Broadcast on the WIN TV Channel in Australia when reporter Lincoln Humphries articulated our feelings so perfectly.

    Handsome Lincoln explains in some detail about the many ways that we can all help people in need without using up water, which is still a precious commodity in many parts of the world. He lists many ways that we can all give effectively and quietly without all the glare of publicity. We would encourage you to watch his wee piece to the very end, as we completely endorse his ideas of what we all should really be using ice cubes for.

    But just before we say goodbye to this worthy charity jape that has got out of hand, we would like to share just one more participant’s very worthy effort.

    Steve Grand the rather sensational gay singing cowboy who’s You Tube All American Boy went viral last year has just done his Ice Bucket Challenge NAKED! I mean, it would be impolite not to support him after he bared his all just for us … ooops, we mean for Charity.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | “Always Wear A Condom” Isn’t Enough

    It’s some thirty years since the AIDS pandemic began to decimate the gay community. Anyone who survived that time, or, like me, watched on in fear, will never forget the very simple message disseminated at the time: Always Wear A Condom.

    How is it then, with such a simple rule to follow, HIV acquisition rates, especially among young gay men, are rising, not falling? Something’s not quite connecting and this was something I wanted to address in This Book Is Gay, the first guide to sex and relationships for young, modern LGBT people.

    It’s my job, I believe, to not sugar-coat or pretty-up sex for young adults. I don’t think that’s helping. So here’s the truth no-one dares utter: Sex feels better without a condom. A contact describes sex with a condom as ‘like wearing a raincoat in the shower’ and he has a point. The new question becomes ‘is sex so much better without a condom, it’s worth gambling your health?’ Of course the answer is NO, but we can’t rule out this most basic of reasons why some gay and bi men choose to eschew condoms.

    That’s not the whole story. The post-pandemic generation was sufficiently scared into condom-compliance regardless of how much better sex might feel. I’d argue poor education is chiefly to blame, and is certainly the impetus behind This Book Is Gay. By this, I mean both school-based sex education and general health messages. Now that there are effective treatments for managing HIV perhaps emphasis has slipped as a public health issue.

    I interviewed a young man who wished to remain anonymous as part of my research. A pupil at a Catholic school, he received very little sex education at all and didn’t feel able to talk to his parents about sex. As such, with little media awareness, he truly believed AIDS was something that affected women in Africa. He tested HIV positive through unprotected sex aged nineteen.

    I don’t know if pornography is to blame, but it certainly doesn’t help. Post AIDS, nearly all gay porn depicted condom use (even if the condom does magically appear, hands-free, seconds before penetration). However, with a little time, bareback fetishism crept into pornography and you don’t have to look far at all to view condom-free porn. And let’s not even get into ‘bug chasing’ – that’s a whole other issue.

    The problem with porn is that it isn’t sex education. If sex education isn’t robust, young people will turn to the internet for advice, and porn provides only fantasy.

    So what can we do to reduce infection rates? I think while we must continue with the Always Wear A Condom mantra – as this is by far the most effective way to halt the spread of any STI and prevention is better than no-actual-cure – we need a second layer of education. Namely: Get Tested A Lot.

    Knowledge is power, and, HIV carriers are at their most infectious when they don’t know they’re carrying the virus. Once a patient is receiving medication, the viral load (the amount of HIV in their system) can be reduced to ‘undetectable’ levels. Basically, they are lot less infectious. If everyone knew their HIV status every time they had sex, I think we could reduce infection rates greatly.

    Guidelines suggest that sexually active gay and bi men (a high risk demographic) should be tested approximately every six months. I would suggest this should be a minimum. A finger-prick HIV test takes five minutes, you can do them yourself at home or at a sexual health clinic. It’s pain-free and the results are instant. When writing This Book Is Gay, the only reason I heard to not get tested was from a man who was simply terrified of the result.

    The next step is likely to be PrEP – Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. High-risk groups in the US are now being given a truncated version of HIV treatment to prevent converting to HIV positive. It’s not a vaccine, however, and it’s only effective if taken routinely. Trials are still underway in this country, but it seems likely to be made available on a voluntary basis soon.

    It’s my hope that This Book Is Gay will help drag HIV into the 21st Century. Young people must be made aware of HIV, the risks, and taught the lessons we learned in the nineties but also how to approach HIV without fear and stigma, but knowledge and protection. As HIV campaigner Kristian Johns so eloquently said: ‘HIV is no longer a death sentence, but it’s one hell of a life sentence.’

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Is porn the gay community’s worst enemy for monogamy?

    One of the most functional gay relationships I know is an open one. Both of them are well-educated professionals in their late twenties. They’ve been together for years. I hear one speak of the other and I can’t help but feel jealous. It’s obvious to anyone that they are so in love with each other. But I struggle to understand how they can be so in love whilst in an open relationship.

    My theory is that it all comes down to porn. We discover porn during adolescence. Be we gay or straight, every teenage boy seeks it out and finds it in some capacity. It soon becomes a daily routine. As it is a depiction of sex, it has become one of the cornerstones of the gay community. As such, it has become the enemy within.

    The problem with porn is that it is (as we all know) a fantasy. It’s not real. Clever make-up tricks, good lighting and flattering camera angles all conspire to create that which is impossible to mimic every moment of the day and night. But what we see on our laptop screens are people having sex – which is a reality.

    The struggle that so many of us seem to have with monogamy is that we expect the sexual aspect of a relationship to live up to the fantasy of porn.

    Once the novelty of our new boyfriends wear off, our minds drift to the fulfilment we could potentially receive from someone else. That someone else – he could be that little bit more aggressive. He might do that one thing your boyfriend casually mentioned in passing that he would never do. He might even have a six-pack. To me, the allure of “what could be” is why I actively chose not to pursue relationships at university – where binge drinking, casual sex and drugs were not only accepted, but also encouraged.

    Porn is so easily accessed now that it’s effects have become diluted. We seek images and videos that are more explicit. So the choice has expanded. Most porn sites now categorise their videos into subgenres. This has caused us to develop sexual profiles.

    We all have to be ‘into something’ nowadays.

    I recall back at university (a time when I actively decided I wanted to be promiscuous to the frequency of about one guy a fortnight) I met a guy in a club and he asked me back to his. He was attractive and just as drunk as I was so I agreed. We started talking flirtatiously about our preferences for a solid twenty-five minutes.

    Alas, when I said I wasn’t prepared to indulge his foot fetish, he just said: “ah, cheers anyway, mate. See ya.” I saw him a few hours later as I was leaving the club. He was sat on his own, typing voraciously on Grindr.

    Like Jordan Lohan, I couldn’t handle an open relationship. He says he doesn’t like to share, as he is an only child. I myself am the fourth of five children. Growing up, everything that was mine would eventually have to be split five ways. I feel as though I have shared enough. A boyfriend/husband would have to be for me and me alone. But in terms of taking our model of monogamy from straight people, this is something I struggle with.

    Yes, I am one of five. But my parents married when they were very young back in the 1970s and had five children between 1978 to 1990. In my twenty five years of life, I’ve only heard them argue four times and they are still happily married to this day. How could I ever possibly live up to that perfect example of monogamy?

    As a gay twenty-something man in 2014, it makes me think that the definition of monogamy does not vary by sexuality, but more our generation.

    The pure simplicity and convenience with which we can watch porn is a testament to our growing technology. But have technological advances coincided with the cultural acceptance of homosexuality at the worst possible time?

    We still face a lot of discrimination.

    But in the Western world, we are more accepted than ever before. Had this acceptance come about in the ’70s and ’80s, we may not struggle with monogamy now. In decades past, it was so much easier for gay men to have casual sex in secrecy than it was to have a relationship with the same discretion. Had we been accepted way back when, it might have given us a chance to master monogamy before the advent of porn showed us what we were supposedly missing.

    Porn is everywhere and all sexualities access it. The ease with which it can be accessed, and the frequency feed us a lie about a ‘world of options’. Why buy the cow when we can just have the milk?

    Porn has lied to us. It just created the illusion that we’re just too spoilt for choice.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Do We Need To Redefine The Term Marriage To Accommodate Our “Monogaymy”?

    MONOGAMY VS. MONOGAYMY

    Monogamy is not a board game that you used to play at Christmas with the family. Monogamy is not a kind of wood. Monogamy is to practice being with one person only and having sex with that one person only. I know just a handful of gay couples that have a strictly monogamous relationship. Is it old-fashioned or unrealistic to believe you can find happiness in one person?

    The majority of gay couples I know enjoy three-way, utilise Grindr with separate profiles, and indulge in chem-sex parties. It just seems so empty to me. However, these couples are not constantly arguing, striving to be in a different room/postcode from one another- they are very happy. The setup obviously works for them. In fact, it works extremely well as these are the couples that have been together for the longest time, and I am talking up to 20 years.

    For me, an open relationship would not be an option. If a partner even suggested inviting someone else into the bedroom, I would walk away. In a relationship, I want to be my partner’s ultimate, the one and only. Not a supplement, or “just enough”. And I do not share (only child). But, I can’t help feel I am missing out on a big secret, or rather, not quite being able to grasp that the key to a successful long lasting relationship, maybe it being an open one.

    I am single, and for the first time properly in about 11 years. I’m loving it, but I know the novelty will wear off… Perhaps. With the last 3 years being absorbed by absolute time wasters, the next time around, I want to do it properly. Is it bad to say I’m only 28 but am TIRED of dating? I would like the next guy I am with to be the one I end up marrying. Please.

    A lot of these couples that I type of being in open relationships are in fact married / civil partners. If I didn’t understand being in an open relationship with your boyfriend then I certainly am unable to grasp the idea of carrying that through into a marriage. Isn’t the whole essence of marriage to declare your love and devotion to each other? And no one else?

    Perhaps the guidelines, vows etc. of marriage are archaic and out-dated. Marriage is, after all, an extremely traditional concept. Whilst the world, humans, technology, music etc. evolve and grow, what is to say that we cannot rewrite/adapt such things as marriage. Do we need to redefine marriage?

    Gay people have a stigma of being promiscuous with our evident open-relationships, and the club drug sex party scene… I don’t even have to explain, you know we do! With gay rights being pretty much everywhere recently in the news along with gay marriage in particular. Do you think perhaps that in some instances, it may not have been homophobia that sparked people to be against gay marriage, but more that how can we expect a global nod to gay marriage when it would appear to others that a lot of gay couples lack the understanding or are unwilling to abide by what “traditional” marriage stands for?

    Perhaps, we need to take a long hard look at traditional concepts and re-write them according to the times. Perhaps we should not. With ever-evolving guidelines, it would surely ensure abolishment of the idea of tradition altogether. If we redefine terms to match our current normality, then what was normal before this normal? Tradition cannot exist without its contradiction. The task to redefine marriage and monogamy could become complicated as each partnership is different and are likely to have their own mandate when it comes to man dates.

    We are spacious with our sexuality compared to the clearly set span of straight relationships/marriage. Someone said to me recently that straight couples fall casualty to break-ups due to the monogamous regime, and gay partnerships last longer due to the ménage a trois/quatre/cinq/six set up.

    Maybe I have fallen victim to our world encouraging us to put things into categorised boxes and in this instance, I am unable to place where I currently stand and where I want to stand on the idea of someone else being intimate with my partner. What are your views on the subject? Do we need to redefine the term marriage to accommodate our “monogaymy”?

     

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | World Health Organisation Moves To Medicate All Homosexual Men

    For the first time in history, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has suggested that all men who have sex with men should take antiretroviral medication. Warning that if no action is taken, there would be a serious risk of an HIV infection rates exploding around the world.

    The WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations. As such, they are responsible for leading global health matters, shaping the research agenda and setting the standards in health trends.

    Gottfriend Hirnschall, the head of WHO’s HIV department, says that infection rates of HIV among homosexual men are on the rise again, 33 years after the epidemic hit. Further, than this, he believes that the infection doesn’t hold as much fear to a younger generation with access to drugs that enable users to live with AIDS.

    The guidelines have been published after a period of a significant drop in HIV transmission rates between 2001 and 2012.

    Antiretroviral medication is the most common used method of managing HIV/AIDS, treatment being a combination of two drugs, in one pill, taken daily for the rest of the individual’s life. There are several issues with the use of such medication, the main one being an intolerance to the drug, which can have serious side effects such as gastrointestinal tract intolerance, hypersensitivity and central nervous system adverse effects. With such severe side effects, it must be questioned why the WHO would subject them on healthy individuals unnecessarily.

    The suggested approach is known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), meaning that even those who are not infected would be required to take the medication. With the hope that it could cut the number of new diagnoses by up to 20%.

    The WHO believe that medicating ALL homosexual men will provide an additional method of preventing infection. Along with condom use and regular testing. But activists have suggested that introducing government mandated antiretroviral would discourage the use of condoms, currently the best method to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. Resulting in an increase of other sexually transmitted infections such as gonorrhoea, chlamydia and hepatitis in the gay community.

    PrEP treatment averages at roughly £10,000 a year, per individual. This is an extremely expensive medication, especially considering that the majority of those who will be forced to take the medication will not be infected. Unfortunately, by increasing the number of people taking the drugs, with the same supply, the cost of the drug would rise. This is one of the main complaints about the proposal, as it encourages the use of a costly medicine for a preventable disease.

    The second danger of introducing this medication would be running the risk of the HIV virus evolving immunity to current drugs. Recently there has been much concern about the overuse of antibiotics and how they have become less effective as viruses evolve immunity. HIV is already a deadly disease that has been a cause of death across the globe. If it were to further evolve, current treatment would become ineffective and we would be faced with the same crises that were present in the 70s and 80s.

    Those that are most at risk of infection are gay and bisexual men, who are up to 19 times more likely to be infected with the virus than the general population, according to WHO studies. But for transgendered women, injecting drug users and female sex workers, the risk of infection can be up to 50 times higher than the general public.

    So why are the homosexual community the only ones being targeted by the WHO? By targeting the homosexual community specifically, the WHO are contributing to the stigma that HIV is a “gay disease”.

    That, in turn, creates the impression that gay sex is wrong. using HIV as a way to discriminate against homosexuals.

    In a world where homosexuality is a capital crime in five countries and punishable by imprisonment in over 70 more, the issue of stigma, discrimination and violence are still a real threat to the homosexual community. The WHO has made it clear that it does not class homosexuality as a disease, but the recent guidelines would result in homosexuals being medicated as if it were one.

    The sad truth is, that almost every other high-risk group are seeing a decrease in HIV infection rate but the homosexual community is seeing an increase since 2012. New HIV cases are being seen, mostly, in young people. This can easily be explained by the fact that gay sexual education is far more unique and complex than what is being taught or more importantly what is not being taught in schools.

    Let’s not forget that compulsory sex education is not required by UK law and back in January an amendment to introduce compulsory sex education, including information about same-sex relationships, sexual violence, consent and safe sex, was rejected by the House of Lords.

    A far cheaper alternative would be mandating by law that all young people should be taught about every form of contraception, safe sex methods and importance of regular testing. With a comprehensive sexual education, the dangers of HIV/AIDs and other STIs will be made known to the next generation. Equally as importantly, taught in such a manner, the stigma attached to HIV as the “gay” disease would hopefully be removed. Education is clearly preferable over medication.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | Can We Ever Be Happy With Our Bodies If We Compare Ourselves To Porn Stars?

    COMMENT | Can We Ever Be Happy With Our Bodies If We Compare Ourselves To Porn Stars?

    Why Grandma, What Big Hands You’ve Got

    CREDIT: Bigstock

    Over the last couple of weeks, we have been talking about everyone’s favourite after-dinner topic, porn! Let’s be honest, we’ve all seen porn in one form or another and have all compared ourselves to the very buff, well-endowed actors (while sat drinking tea and being civilized of course…). But where does that constant need to compare ourselves to other people come from? And will we ever be happy with our own bodies enough to not care how buff the ‘other guy’ is?

    Now, I’m going to make this a little personal to me for a while so if I bore you, tough! For those that know me you know that I’m never happy with my body and that I’m rather partial to, shall we say, punch and pie… therefore keeping the body in the shape of an adonis is always going to be an uphill struggle. But who said that male bodies need to have washboard abs? And where can I find this person to rub him up against a few washboards? (And not in a good way!).

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the look of a nice toned healthy body just as much as the next guy, but when does that creep into then comparing yourself to the men you see? We all do it, we see a slimmer, smoother, taller, bulkier guy and suddenly you instantly find yourself admiring what they have and wishing you had it yourself. When actually, you already have most of what just walked past.

    I had a friend, a real friend not “a friend”, who I went to Gran Canaria with for pride. He was tall, slim, dark-haired and reasonably confident. While walking down that main drag before the pride parade started you could clearly see people checking him out and eyeing him up. But could he see it? Definitely not – instead he spent most of his time diverting attention away and complaining about how his body wasn’t as ‘picture perfect’ as some of the other bodies there. Dude, you’re getting attention from some pretty hot guys… buck up your ideas and live in the moment. Shudda, wudda, cudda doesn’t get you where you want to be or enjoying the life that is clearly knocking on your doorstep. Please note I only ever say dude when someone really has a “derrr” moment and needs to be told, one dude to another… promise!

    But we’ve all done it. Dressed differently to hide something we don’t like about our bodies, or gone on a crash diet to get just that little bit slimmer for the summer or our pride holiday.

    Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

    If I were to change my lifestyle to get and maintain a ‘buff’ body would that mean that I would be happy with my self-image and finally be comfortable in my own skin? I don’t think so… Well, not from what I’ve seen. I can say (proudly?) that I have some fit and healthy friends, a couple of whom took the pilgrimage to change their bodies from one shape to another. Now they are in a better shape than before I thought it would stop or become settled into a ‘maintenance’ routine, but apparently not.

    They are now looking at going on to the next level and bulk out further. Dieting and protein shakes seem to have become the new thing and the same old negative self-image is still there. I remember one time for whatever reason they were unable to get to the gym for a day or 2 and all you got from them was a constant worry that they were starting to lose definition and therefore confidence.

    You could see the confidence literally disappear from his eyes as the evening went on and he talked himself more and more into a belief that no one would speak to him because his six-pack had receded less than a centimetre. I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him, but at the same time also see some of myself in that. One thing out of place or body being bloated and you do fix on it and think that it’s something to be ashamed of.

    Lately, I will admit that being in a long term relationship meant that I did get quite close to being ‘happy’ in my own body – not completely however, but just enough to not worry about what I wore or spend ages in a gym just to burn off less fat than that in a rich tea biscuit. But that also meant that I became lazy, unhealthy and I’ll even admit it, overweight. I’m not ashamed of that, but I do now look at myself and think “bloody hell boy, you’ve let yourself go”. Instantly I go straight into a self-body hating mode and get back into the old regimes. But already I’m starting to feel healthier and a little happier in myself; so surely self-improvement can be a good thing?

    Before we go down this path, mother if you’re reading this, avert your eyes or even better go and make yourself a cup of tea – go on!

    Now, you’re all thinking it – this doesn’t just apply to bodies, we also do it with cock size (and don’t say you don’t because you do, I’m yet to meet someone that hasn’t at some point in their life, even when drunk). Bigger is better apparently, again who decided this I have no idea. Personally, bigger is not better as bigger means the more you’re expected to fit up there… (Although not me, 100% top… sorry boys!).

    So why is bigger so much better? Why do we always feel like we are smaller than everyone else when in fact, actually, we are a decent size and can have ‘fun’ without the need to outsize Dumbo? A lot of people blame the porn industry, and I have to admit after just doing a basic search online, I would have to agree with that. Out of the 10 videos I found online all of them had actors that were well above the national average (and 9 of the 10 bareback I might add, but that’s a separate issue). They all looked like they could last for hours and they all gave rather loud (and kind of convincing) orgasms which could only lead the viewer to believe that big penises lead to better orgasms. It’s at this point I rely on the bottoms out there to agree with me here that that is utter rubbish.

    Personally, I take the opinion with penis size that so long as we can do something with it then who cares what the measurement is? I’m not looking to quote you for a suit, or take it on Ryanair as hand luggage so who cares what the size is? Am I alone in that thinking? And I am only saying that because I’ve not blessed in either of the extreme size categories? Is that a mindset that can ever be achieved in gay men when we are bombarded with ‘shlong’ porn and a culture of ‘bigger is better’? I think I saw a video on a ‘popular dating site’ once that even had someone shove a cone up their bum – how can anyone compete with that?

    A few years ago I was asked if I wanted to partake in porn (I think we all have at some point) but I genuinely believed at the time that I wouldn’t be ‘fit’ enough for porn. Those guys are built, smooth and hung like a whale; three things of which I was not. So naturally, I turned it down, but not because of moral grounds but because I deemed myself unworthy of porn? I look back now and think, what on earth was I thinking?

    I keep bringing this back to me, in many ways this is deliberate and I make no apology for it as body image is a very personal thing. We, the outside world, can spot trends in behaviours but we all have our unique individual reasons for why we want to change our bodies or don’t feel confident in them. For some, it can be a deeply personal and a painful motivator, for others a fad or peer pressure or even just a way of life and nothing any deeper than that. All I’ll say is that next time you look in the mirror and see something that you don’t like, ask yourself is it you that doesn’t like it or is it your opinion that others don’t like it, therefore, you don’t like it?

    If it’s the latter, just explore that thought and see where it leads… who knows you might find something out about yourself.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • Theory: What causes the loss of CD4 T cells in people infected with HIV?

    A Theory for HIV infection: What causes the loss of CD4 T cells in people infected with HIV?

    HIV infection causes dysfunction and destruction of CD4 T cells that, without antiretroviral therapy (ART: a cocktail of drugs that interrupts the HIV life cycle), result in AIDS and eventual death within 7 to 10 years).
    Scientists believe that most CD4 T cells die, not because of direct infection by HIV of these cells, but through a process called inflammation, by which immune cells secrete toxic molecules to get rid of the virus.

    However, the logic behind how inflammation causes cell death has been a mystery for decades.

    But now, research conducted by scientists at the Burnet Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and published in the premiere HIV/AIDS Journal, AIDS in 2014, shows for the first time that HIV infection not only disturbs the functions of CD4 T cells but affects how these cells use energy (1). The team, led by chief investigator Dr Clovis Palmer, proposed a new model of how CD4 T cells are destroyed in people infected with HIV.

    In healthy persons, immune cells such as CD4 T cells take up low levels of glucose through a protein known as Glucose transporter 1 (Glut1). By a series of steps the glucose is broken down to produce pockets of energy called adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to maintain the general wellbeing of the cells

    The Burnet team showed that the Glucose transporter (Glut1) level is increased on CD4 T cells in people infected with HIV, and that this causes more glucose to enter the cells. This is a survival mechanism because the CD4 T cells need more energy to divide and manufacture antiviral and inflammatory molecules to fight the infection. This is what is called CD4 T cell activation or immune activation.
    In this activated state, instead of breaking down glucose to form energy pockets (ATP), glucose is broken down into a substance called lactic acid through a process called aerobic glycolysis. Glycolysis is only moderately efficient in energy production and, as a result, the CD4 T cells die of exhaustion. The researchers called this process ‘metabolic exhaustion’

    Dr Palmer believes that this finding could lead to new drugs that delay the start of anti-retroviral therapy and will strengthen the immune systems of HIV-positive people.

    Healthy adults have between 600 to 1,200 CD4 T cells in their blood but up to 30 percent of HIV infected adults have a CD4 cell count consistently less than 350, well below the normal range despite being on ART and having undetectable viral load. The team showed that glycolysis remains elevated in CD4 T cells from these persons and that this could explain why they are unable to reconstitute their normal CD4 T cell levels. These low levels of CD4 T cells put HIV-positive people on ART at higher risk of cardiovascular disease, liver disease, kidney failure and other life-threatening diseases.

    The results from this study suggest that CD4 T cells in HIV infected people cannot replenish themselves because they exhaust their energy reserves through their high metabolic activity. What’s exciting about this is a very real scenario where, by returning metabolic activity to normal, these cells could be re-energised to fight the infection by themselves.

    Dr Clovis Palmer heads the immunometabolism group at the world renowned Burnet Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia. Dr Palmer is a reviewer for several top-ranked international journals including Hepatology, AIDS and Antioxidants and Redox Signalling. He is the chief scientific editor for Natural Immunity-Health, Australia (www.naturalimmunity.com.au).

    by Doctor Clovis Palmer

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.