Odds of catching an STD

[SugarPill]

Hi all. Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what the odds are for a gay man to catch an STD? I know it depends on different factors (protection, age, race, sexual act, etc.), but I'm interested in whatever info you have to share.

It seems easy to find statistics about straight people, but not so much about folks like us. I checked the sticky thread and tried Googling it but I keep getting directed to crazy religious sites.

Thanks!

 

[KaraBulut]

Hmmm. Well, if you're looking at overall probability, it is the same probability for straight and gay people.

If you're looking for statistics about STDS- which ones men who have sex with men (MSM) have, then you can look at health department statistical data like this.

What data is it exactly that you're trying to find?

 

[SugarPill]

Yeah that's the kind of data, thanks! Just not specific to one city since many of us don't live in SF.

Really? The same probability? Using HIV as an example, doesn't a gay male statistically have a higher chance of contracting it than a hetero male? Likewise a gay male versus a gay female, or even a gay white male versus a gay black male, etc.

Here, this is what I'm looking for (from LA's DPH):

Unprotected anal sex is a very high risk activity for a bottom, much more so than for a top. The risk of HIV transmission to a bottom during unprotected anal sex is 15 in 1,000, versus 3 in 10,000 from a bottom to a top.

I find that startling! But I would like to know what the odds are if you are using protection. And I'd also like to know the probability of contracting other STDs if anyone has any other resources...?

 

[KaraBulut]

Really? The same probability? Using HIV as an example, doesn't a gay male statistically have a higher chance of contracting it than a hetero male? Likewise a gay male versus a gay female, or even a gay white male versus a gay black male, etc.

HIV transmission is related to particular sexual acts and particular practices (or lack thereof). It has nothing to do with sexual preference.

Here, this is what I'm looking for (from LA's DPH):

Unprotected anal sex is a very high risk activity for a bottom, much more so than for a top. The risk of HIV transmission to a bottom during unprotected anal sex is 15 in 1,000, versus 3 in 10,000 from a bottom to a top.

There was a thread awhile back where we discussed this particular statistic. It's a bizarre extrapolation based upon somebody's belief that algebra can be used to calculate something that we can't actually study.

The only way that we could know a statistic like this is to put two discordant people in a laboratory and have them have sex until they contract an STD. Of course, no one actually does that.

I find that startling! But I would like to know what the odds are if you are using protection. And I'd also like to know the probability of contracting other STDs if anyone has any other resources...?

Well, you're actually asking about HIV, not STDs in general.

There are some studies of discordant couples- where one person is HIV+ and the other is HIV-. The studies looked at both vaginal and anal sex activity in homosexual and heterosexual couples. The studies have found that when couples used condoms, the risk of infection was extremely low. When the HIV+ partner was on antiretroviral therapy, the transmission rate was near zero.

 

[SugarPill]

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

HIV transmission is related to particular sexual acts and particular practices (or lack thereof). It has nothing to do with sexual preference.

But doesn't sexual preference determine the sexual acts you engage in? Perhaps I didn't explain it well since I'm not an expert. This is an example of what I'm talking about via the CDC:

The burden of HIV infection falls disproportionately on certain groups of young people, including young men who have sex with men (YMSM) and youth of color.
• More than half (54%) of all cases of HIV infection or AIDS among young people aged 13–24 during 2003–2006* were from male-to-male sexual contact. Thirty-four percent were from heterosexual contact.

If gay men are by definition men who have sex with other men, and we account for 54% of all cases of HIV infection even though we're only like 5-7ish% of the population, how is sexual preference not relevant here?

There was a thread awhile back where we discussed this particular statistic. It's a bizarre extrapolation based upon somebody's belief that algebra can be used to calculate something that we can't actually study.

The only way that we could know a statistic like this is to put two discordant people in a laboratory and have them have sex until they contract an STD. Of course, no one actually does that.

So are all statistics about sex useless then because they're not 100% accurate? Even if it's just an estimation, I find information like this useful in making smarter and healthier decisions. That's where the whole idea of 'protection' comes from, right? Bettering your odds...?

Well, you're actually asking about HIV, not STDs in general.

Actually I was just using HIV as an example since the information is more readily available in relation to MSM.

My original question, an umbrella question, was about the probability for MSM to contract STDs through anal and oral sex. What are my odds of contracting gonorrhea/chlamydia/etc.? What are they if we're using protection? What are they if it's with someone my own age/race/etc.? The only fact sheets I can find for MSM are about HIV/AIDS.

 

[KaraBulut]

]But doesn't sexual preference determine the sexual acts you engage in? Perhaps I didn't explain it well since I'm not an expert. This is an example of what I'm talking about via the CDC:

If gay men are by definition men who have sex with other men, and we account for 54% of all cases of HIV infection even though we're only like 5-7ish% of the population, how is sexual preference not relevant here?

See- that's the big danger that exists in labels.

Worldwide, HIV is predominantly a heterosexual disease. The number of infections in Africa and Asia are staggering.

There are 5.7 million people who are infected with HIV in South Africa. There are 1.2 million people who are infected with HIV in the US.

There are two strains of HIV. The particular strain that is predominant in the US is transmitted via anal sex and sharing of IV needles.

It would incorrect to say that IV drug use causes HIV- it doesn't. It is the behavior of sharing needles between IV drug users that is the risky behavior.

You're also making two bad assumptions- that all gay men have anal sex and that straight people don't have anal sex.

If you read through these forums, you'll find out that it's not a valid assumption that gay men have anal sex. There are lots of gay men who are quite content with other sexual activities. As long as they do not have anal sex- particularly bareback anal sex- their risk of infection is quite low.

And if you don't think your straight friends are having anal sex, then you haven't been paying attention. I can't tell you the last time I saw a straight porn film where there wasn't anal sex- and it's almost always bareback.

And for years I've said that the problem with HIV in the US is drugs and alcohol and stupid choices that are made while under the influence.

So are all statistics about sex useless then because they're not 100% accurate? Even if it's just an estimation, I find information like this useful in making smarter and healthier decisions. That's where the whole idea of 'protection' comes from, right? Bettering your odds...?

There's a contingent of people out there who still believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Part of the reason that belief can persist is that studies of HIV are very indirect. Most of the people who have died of HIV across the globe never had an HIV test. And we aren't really sure how they became infected.

In the US, we have studies that associated HIV infections with particular behaviors. The problem is that the typical sexually active person doesn't indulge in only oral sex, or only vaginal sex or only anal sex. The typical American does different activities.

What we do know is that when condom use and safer sex practices were increased in the 1980s, the rates of infection dropped. And when people began to return to barebacking practices, the rates when up. That gives us presumptive evidence that HIV-1 infection in the US seems to be connected to bareback anal sex. But again, this is inferential- it is not something that was studied in a lab under controlled conditions.

Actually I was just using HIV as an example since the information is more readily available in relation to MSM.

My original question, an umbrella question, was about the probability for MSM to contract STDs through anal and oral sex. What are my odds of contracting gonorrhea/chlamydia/etc.? What are they if we're using protection? What are they if it's with someone my own age/race/etc.? The only fact sheets I can find for MSM are about HIV/AIDS.

Again, the studies are inferential. It would not be ethical to have a person infected with gonorrhea infect someone else for the purpose of a study, for example.

There are some indirect studies like this one. The study looked at people who came to a clinic with gonorrhea. The clinic then looked at their sexual partners and asked about their sexual practices. The study makes a conclusion about gonorrhea and the use of condoms.

The problem with the study is:

1. It relies upon the infected person to provide names of their sexual partners
2. It assumes that the partners tell the truth about their sexual activities and whether condoms were used.

 

[TorontoBoi]

In the US, we have studies that associated HIV infections with particular behaviors. The problem is that the typical sexually active person doesn't indulge in only oral sex, or only vaginal sex or only anal sex. The typical American does different activities.

I'm going to aks the age-old question based on what you just said - Can someone get HIV from giving oral sex and having cum in go into the mouth?

Now, I think a simple study can provide some sort of answer. Can't a study easily be done that asked a sample of people who have HIV:
1- Did you only have protected anal sex?
2- If yes, did you have protected oral sex?
3- In no, then it is likely that you got hiv from oral sex.

Is that a wrong assumption?

 

[KaraBulut]

There have been studies to that effect.

The answer is "yes". There have been studies that determined that there were people who were HIV+ who claimed that their only risk factor was oral sex.

The problem is that self-reporting of behaviors is notoriously unreliable. And of course, the population of people who participate in only one behavior and know their partner's HIV status is a very small population.