AIDSImpact.com:: - Santa Fe, USA 2011

Abstract #171 - ‘On-location’ safe-sex norms are in trouble: the study of safe-sex norms at sex versus non-sex locations among MSM
Authors: Presenting Author: Mr Wijnand Van den Boom - Public Health Service Amsterdam
Additional Authors: Mrs. Astrid Roggen, Dr. Udi Davidovich,
Aim: In 2010 we investigated, as part of the Awareness Project, what the expectations are of men who have sex with men (MSM) regarding the prevailing safe-sex norms at different gay related venues and websites. Such expectations can be crucial for the motivation to have safe sex as suggested in many psycho-social theories.
Method / Issue: A total of 2423 MSM (median age 35; IQR=25–46) were interviewed nationwide at 18 specified public sex venues (e.g. darkrooms, bathhouses), 31 non-sex venues (e.g. bars), or 8 chat/dating websites using a 19-items questionnaire measuring risk behavior and contextual safe-sex norms. In analyzing risk behavior, we combined unprotected insertive and receptive anal intercourse (UAI). We assessed (1) the contextual descriptive norm: to what extent men expect that other visitors/users at a particular venue/website engage in UAI there, using a 5-point scale ranging from “always” to “never” and, (2) the contextual injunctive norm: what men expect other visitors/users at a particular venue/website would think if men were to engage in UAI with them, using a 5-point scale ranging from [1] “disapproving” to [5] “approving”. In addition, we asked whether the subjects themselves ever engaged in UAI at these locations (yes/no). To identify differences between venues, we used Chi-square and Independent Samples T-tests.
Results / Comments: Among men who visited public sex venues, an average of 65% [95%CI=60%–69%] expected that other visitors at location will engage in UAI (ranging from 56% at bathhouses to 70% at darkrooms). Among men who visited non-sex venues, an average of 59% [95%CI=56%–63%] expected that other visitors will engage in UAI with men they meet there (ranging from 21% at sport clubs to 67% at bars). The difference between public sex and non-sex venues was not statistically significant (p=0.1). Among men who used websites, an average of 63% [95%CI=61%–66%] expected that other users will engage in UAI with men they meet there online. Furthermore, men who visited public sex venues, non-sex venues and websites expected other visitors/users to not fully disapprove of UAI, with mean scores of 2.3 (SE=0.06), 2.1 (SE=0.04) and 2.5 (SE=0.03), respectively. The difference between public sex and non-sex venues was statistically significant (p<.05). Additionally, of the men who visited public sex venues, non-sex venues and websites, an average of 14%, 12% and 19% (respectively) reported that they themselves ever engaged in UAI with other visitors/users.
Discussion: We conclude that, nationwide, most MSM expect that visitors of public sex venues, non-sex venues and websites will engage in UAI or will not strongly disapprove of it. Considering that most MSM still reported that they themselves use condoms at locations, it is likely to assume that MSM who practice safe sex might increasingly perceive themselves to be in a minority. It is evident that certain locations, such as darkrooms, are currently perceived as safe-sex unfriendly – this could be problematic as it might instigate a further trend towards less safe sex practices. Based on our findings, we suggest that the problematic safe-sex norms ‘on-location’ need to be discussed and dealt with within the MSM community.
Go Back