Jonathan Higbee's picture

Study: 80 Percent Of Gay Men In London Have Unprotected Sex With Strangers

A sobering study from London's University of Westminster reveals eye-opening stats regarding sex in the modern gay world. 

After interviewing 160 gay men in London, researchers have found that:














  • 8 out of 10 gay Londoners have unprotected sex with strangers
  • 70 percent find bareback sex "more pleasurable"
  • 94 percent of those surveyed said they're more likely to have unprotected sex with "a good looking guy"

Authors of the study (which was first reported at PinkNews) posit GPS cruising apps and the proliferation of bareback porn as culprits for the alarming statistics. “Although these apps are free, the price they pay might be higher than any presume,” researcher Milan J. said in the study. 

Jason, a 25-year-old HIV+ study participant, told researchers he's "addicted" to Grindr. 

“I was constantly checking it meeting guys to have sex with," he reports in the study. "It became a habit and I spent all my free time and days off meeting and having sex, then going to group sex parties where I tried drugs and had long sessions of unprotected sex with guys often not aware of what was happening. I was recently diagnosed with HIV and I blame my lifestyle for it."

The new study was a catalyst for University of Westminster students, who've launched the "AIDS IS NOT DEAD" campaign in response. 

“We call for the government to increase prevention funding for everyone," campaign spokesman Alex Filicevas told PinkNews," and make sex education an all-round informative and compulsory subject in UK education system."

Are you surprised by the study's results?

(Source: PinkNews)




Something seems to be really wrong on this study. I don't think it is true at all.

The danger I see in this study is that 80% of gay men in London are not HIV+, so would someone wrongfully conclude that if 80% are not infected, does that make it o.k. to have unprotected sex?

not sure why there is a red box at the top of the image reltaing to the story that reads "HOT" sex is hot sex, caring about your partner is hot sex... not caring about promoting safe sex is a turn-off and hateful, and not supportive at all of your magazine's audience. shameful.

Some need to reminded of one simple fact: it isn't *just* about HIV; there are myriad other STDs to be contracted through unprotected sex. Stop the focus on HIV. 

Several things come to mind:

a. I'd love to see the percentage of heterosexual people who have unprotected sex with strangers. I mean: unprotected sex is what gives us babies, after all. 

b. I'd love to finally see ho representative is a "focal group" of London gays in general. Somebody please, explain that to me. 

c. Sometimes I wish everyone had unprotected sex, just to see everyone get hiv, and see everyone push for the cure together. 

 Well I don't use condoms. I only have sex with people I know, because I find bareback sex way more pleasurable than condom sex. I am very diligent about getting tested, and I do so every 6 months or even more often depending on how active I am. So I know my status, and I know my partners know theirs. 

  However, bareback sex with a stranger is insane. You never know about them, who they were fucking just yesterday, you'd be surprised. If I am hooking up with a stranger I always use a condom. Anytime I don't, I regret it deeply, because it is so destructive to myself and those of my friends who trust me. 

And you do realize regardless of how well you know someone you are basically having sex with everyone they have had sex with when you have sex with your friends too. It does NOT matter how diligent you are about getting tested the simple fact is that unprotected sex REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS WITH significantly increases your chances of contracting STDs...and by the way more and more of them are proving harder and harder to correctly treat with our current arsenal of drugs.

Define "stranger."

I work in an environment where Statistical Powering plays an important part of what we do. Using anecdotal information and then adding the word "stats" does not provide sufficient support. The sample size is too small when considering the whole which will show a lack of precision in the results. Any Statistician with their salt will know, the larger your sample size determines the amount of error inherent in a test result. Other things being equal, effects are harder to detect in smaller samples. Increasing sample size is often the easiest way to boost the statistical power of a test. I would love to see the P values and CI

Making generalisations is not statistics.

I think it's bullshit.

For one thing, it would mean that only 20% of gay Londoners are currently in monogamous relationships, and that ALL the others are having unprotected sex.

So there's clearly something wrong here.. Whether it's in the methodology, the means of selecting the interviewees, or someone with an ax to grind, I won't try to guess.

You are putting words and thoughts into this article that do not exist. NOWHERE in the article does it state anything about monogamous relationships. You are implying statuses and information not present or not even looked at by the article author(s).

You have a point. But I don't think it's the methodology. I think it's the discipline itself. Statistics has always seemed like a shady profession to me. 

The bottom line is guys are having unprotected sex and enjoying it. Get smart idiots.

160 gay man they found where? Through an ad? On Grindr? At the free clinic? This is a sensational headline with nothing to judge whether it's serious research. I suspect it's crap. It's amazing how often some "study" get "reported" without one second of critical thinking. Booo on Instinct for not providing any context.

u "ALL" can say negative comments as u want, safer sex is a must, that's the TRUTH!

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

Guys...This is Instinct actually expect quality journalism with Facts? Scientific and statistical validity?
Puh-lease....Instinct is you source for sensationalism, not factualism.

A sample size of 160 gay men? Come on, that is statistically inaccurate. If the sample size was 16,000 gay men, then I would have an easier time believing this article.


yeah rubish

This is absolute bullshit. You cannot take a study of 160 gay men and make a huge claim that 80 of all gay men in London have unprotected sex. There are 10s of thousands of gay men in London (if not more) and this is nowhere near a true representation or adequate cross section of the community.

Add new comment