Culture Why Aren't More Straight People on PrEP?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

Why Aren't More Straight People on PrEP?​

Pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is the number one form of HIV prevention, but marketing efforts for the medication are historically targeted towards men who have sex with men.

While this community is largely at a higher risk for HIV, this has left an open gap in messaging for the heterosexual community.

In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that heterosexual people made up 22 percent of the 30,635 new HIV diagnoses that year. The United Kingdom also reported that new HIV cases were higher in heterosexual people than gays and bisexuals for the first time in a decade.

Perceptions that HIV is a “gay disease” play a part in the struggle to broaden the message for HIV care.

“I believe there is stigma attached to PrEP that unfortunately keeps straight/cisgender people from accessing it at the rates this population should,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, MPH, told Healthline. “The CDC estimates that 1.2 million people require pre-exposure prophylaxis in the US, but fewer than 25% are taking it.”

Gandhi noted the troubling CDC statistics “means we have to redouble our efforts to reach heterosexual, cisgender women and men with our PrEP messaging. In fact, two of the biggest PrEP trials that led to the approval of PrEP were in heterosexual couples.”

Younger generations are more likely to remain open-minded to this medication as opposed to older generations. In the battle against HIV stigma, education remains a primary issue. Clinicians especially need more training and knowledge on this topic.

Advancements like tele-PrEP services and the new federal budget to cover PrEP in the underinsured or uninsured help with making the medication more accessible.

With nearly 1 in 7 people living with HIV unaware of their status, getting tested and considering PrEP can help you and those around you stay safe and protected.
 
Click to expand...
Probably for the same reasons that I'm not, and I'm a gay man.

That is:

  • They aren't unrepentant hedonists
  • They don't have sex with multiple partners simultaneously
  • They don't have anal sex
  • They don't have unprotected sex
  • They don't have unprotected anal sex (I feel these two points need to be emphasized)
  • They don't casually use drugs to the same extent that some gay people do, which not only cuts down the whole "sharing needles" vector, but also somewhat lessens the stupidity they get up to while fucking.
  • Sex is something they do, not who they are
I hate a lot of gay people.

Obviously some straight people do all of these things, and some gay people do none of these things. But statistically speaking...
 
Criticallacitirc said:
I've been on prep for years and do not have uncontrollable diarrhea.

The only people not on prep and need to get on prep, are black men as they make up the majority of new HIV infections.

Straight people that get HIV are usually strung out drug addicts that share needles, you think they're going to remember to take a pull every day ?
Click to expand...
I bet your mom is super proud her kid grew up to take a medication just so he can get run through by men and not catch butt AIDS.
 
1) Because when I have a partner, I don't have open relationships and we don't fuck around and if we don't use condoms, we go to the clinic to get tested. Because I'm not a fucking degenerate and I don't need more than one person because daddy didn't pay enough attention to me.

2) PrEP is unpleasant and unnecessary if you don't have a partner with HIV or a viral incurable STD or are not partaking in risky behavior. A condom is enough for HIV (not for the herpes though) and most people are worried about HIV. The less medication you take, the better. Why, a medication associated with nausea and nuking the ever living shit out of your gut flora for no real reason? SIGN ME UP.

I've experienced nausea from medications before. I've gone through withdrawal on meds that fucked with nausea response, and it literally felt like something was ripping apart my abdomen. No thanks.

Honestly, I feel like pharma has gotten bolder and more forceful after the fucking shielding they got from the COVID vaccines. Like holy shit, this article bitching about straight people not on PrEP reeks of it, since you can easily avoid taking it if you've got two brain cells to rub together and condoms are the easiest solution. Like another article was saying meds and surgery for child-hood obesity instead of making food healthier. We're so devoted to capatalism, we refuse to regulate the food industry to be healthier, make cities and services accessible to walking where you won't get splattered by a car or robbed. This society is fucked,
 
Kheapathic said:
Also, it is a gay disease; sure it can be spread via needle sharing and other things, but the majority is gay male sex. Straights don't pay attention to it via the same reason men don't worry about getting pregnant.
Click to expand...
to be fair, it's a gay disease only in the west
in africa, where all the men are circumcised, the women are infibulated, violent rape is an everyday occurence, and they do absurdly evil shit like this, it's an everybody disease
 
I don't know. Maybe it's because 93% of the total incidence of HIV is in a population where unprotected anonymous sex and piss-drinking with 19 strangers is considered a wholesome Friday night, and most of the rest is in junkies using contaminated needles. Not everyone is degenerate like you.
 
Slappy McGherkin said:
Laugh if you will, but here in AZ (thank you Viagra) the fastest rise of incidents of STDs are occurring in retirement communities. Yo momma and poppa and widows and widowers are bopping like teenagers in the back seat at a drive-in movie!

www.fox10phoenix.com

Cases of STDs on the rise for people 55 and older in Arizona

There is a saying that 60 is the new 40, and that means people are staying active longer, which may include remaining sexually active as well. With that said, it's no wonder there's an unexpected rise in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among those 65 and up. FOX 10's Anita Roman reports.
www.fox10phoenix.com www.fox10phoenix.com
Click to expand...
Great, now I have this stuck in my head:


Translates to basically 'Nursing Home Orgy'.
 
I actually have the answer to this question. I looked into the meds as a backup plan, as condoms break and I don't want to stick my tongue in a latex sheet every time I put my mouth on a woman when hooking up. Guess what: There's no fucking data for its efficacy for straight sex. Zero. Go look it up. You'll find studies about the medicine's efficacy for giving or catching buttsex, but zilch for whether it does literally anything for straight sex. You'll even notice in some of the ads during the quiet mumbled disclaimers at the end, they'll mention that the medicine hasn't been tested on women and they have no idea if it works.
 
robobobo said:
I actually have the answer to this question. I looked into the meds as a backup plan, as condoms break and I don't want to stick my tongue in a latex sheet every time I put my mouth on a woman when hooking up. Guess what: There's no fucking data for its efficacy for straight sex. Zero. Go look it up. You'll find studies about the medicine's efficacy for giving or catching buttsex, but zilch for whether it does literally anything for straight sex. You'll even notice in some of the ads during the quiet mumbled disclaimers at the end, they'll mention that the medicine hasn't been tested on women and they have no idea if it works.
Click to expand...
I've noticed now they use the "assigned male at birth" to dance around the "fuck if we know if this works for women" statement.
 
Secret Asshole said:
We're so devoted to capatalism, we refuse to regulate the food industry to be healthier
Click to expand...
TBF, leaving it up to the US gov't even more would probably result in mandatory minimums for HFCS in all foods, because agribusiness dollars speak loudly.
 
I also found that there are basically no reliable numbers for not-buttsex HIV transmission. What I did find for dick-in-vag HIV was that transmission odds were low for women and stupidly low for men, but only ballpark numbers and not anything concrete. But the gist of it is what people've known for decades now: HIV is a buttsex disease first and foremost. Your odds of contracting it through straight sex are a small fraction of the buttsex odds.
 
All this hate toward gays when you should be looking at the bisexual fellows who fuck the gays and then pass on HIV to a woman. Bi-Nazis bioweapons bringing that vagina cootie dick to the dark side.
Criticallacitirc said:
We used to keep this shit to ourselves.
Click to expand...
Jokes write themselves.

I wouldn't recommend Prep for most cases, just use a rubber! I was trying to think of a case for Prep in students, High School and above, however I made it through school without getting pos blood while also being very promiscuous on both sides of the fence. Side note to a side note...pharma companies, just make an actual vaccine.
 
As a serious response, I was under the impression that it is both expensive, and can have really unpleasant side effects - so if one is not in a high risk group, other methods (like regular condom usage for sex) are the better option. Generally, people try to avoid taking medications that they don't need. As far as I can tell, the only reason anyone takes it is because gay men preferred the option of returning to pre-AIDS levels of unprotected, promiscuous, and anonymous sex. Straight people don't really have that option, since pregnancy would remain a concern, even if one stopped worrying about STIs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom