Should gay men be encouraged to reduce the number of their sex partners in order to reduce the risk of HIV? This question was raised at the prevention conference CHAPS in Manchester provoked a heated discussion. Dirk Sander, gay counsellor at Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, was there
The 14th CHAPS conference took place in Manchester from 9 to 10 March. The abbreviation CHAPS stands for "Community HIV and Aids Prevention Strategy". This is an association of HIV prevention agencies and research groups from all over England. They all focus on health services that are primarily aimed at gay and bisexual men.
The conference programme covered a wide variety of topics. For example, the role of antiretroviral therapies in prevention (keyword "infectiousness") and the influence of drugs and porn consumption on sexual behaviour were discussed. In addition, many offers, ideas and concepts were presented, for example on the subject of mental health, anti-homophobia training and "New forms of condom distribution".
A presentation by Yusef Azad, Director of Campaigns at the National Aids Trust, provoked particularly lively discussions. He started from the simple but "scientifically significant" realisation that the number of partners also determines the possibilities of transmitting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. He therefore proposed campaigns to reduce the number of partners. Message: "Have fewer partners, avoid parallel partnerships and many partnerships in a row".
The recommendation caused astonishment and amusement in the plenary, as one would otherwise - as the speaker himself stated - only expect it from sex-hostile and homophobic missionaries.
Corresponding questions were then asked in the ensuing debate: Wouldn't such a campaign be more likely to lead to a lack of understanding and rejection from the very people it was intended to address? And wouldn't such an approach also conceal the fact that a large number of HIV infections occur in stable partnerships? And wouldn't the focus on "promiscuity" convey a false and counterproductive sense of security in this respect?
One speaker emphasised that prevention should not come across as moralising, rather the question should be raised as to whether the number of partners also determines the quality of sex: "Why do some of us have fewer partners, others many? Are those with many partners happier with their sex life, or just in search of happiness? And are those with one or few partners unhappier?"
In conclusion, the consensus was that Azad's proposed campaign to reduce the number of partners was superficial and a waste of money. Prevention work should aim to promote "good sex" with "as little resulting harm as possible", and the number of partners is not relevant.
The final realisation: "The best sex with the least harm!" ("The best possible sex with the least possible risk") is the right motto for successful prevention.
