Sexual negotiation in the AIDS era: Negotiated safety revisited
Sexual negotiation in the AIDS era: Negotiated safety revisited
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00002030-199702000-00009
复制
发表时间：
1997-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Cooper, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kippax, S;Noble, J;Cooper, D
目的：为了测试的安全性的“协商安全”的策略，在一定conditions.Method的艾滋病毒血清反应阴性一致的定期性关系内分发避孕套的策略：最近招募的同性恋活跃的男性（悉尼男性和性壁炉队列，n = 1037）的数据被用来重新协商安全。男性进行了调查，使用结构化的问卷和问题，解决他们的性关系和做法，他们自己和他们的经常合作伙伴的血清状态，协议进入的男性关于性行为内外的经常relationship.Results的，上下文和人口变量：调查结果表明，有相当数量的男性使用的安全协商作为艾滋病毒预防策略。在6个月前的采访中，181名男性在血清一致的艾滋病毒阴性的定期关系，62%的人从事无保护的肛交内的关系，91%（165名男性）没有从事无保护的肛交外的关系。在这165名男性中，82%的人在他们的关系之外就性问题达成了协议。谈判的安全性不仅取决于血清一致性，还取决于协议的存在; 82%的没有在正常关系之外进行无保护肛交的男性与他们的伴侣达成了协议，而只有56%的进行无保护肛交的男性达成了协议。谈判的安全性还与男性之间达成的安全协议的性质以及安全套的可接受性有关。艾滋病毒阴性血清一致的定期合作伙伴之间的协议，禁止肛门性交的偶然合作伙伴或任何形式的性行为与一个偶然的合作伙伴通常遵守，和男性谁有这样的谈判协议是在低风险的HIV infection.Conclusions：通过谈判的安全策略，在男性之间的HIV血清阴性定期关系可能会帮助这些人维持他们的性行为的安全。
Objective: To test the safety of the 'negotiated safety' strategy the strategy of dispensing with condoms within HIV-seronegative concordant regular sexual relationships under certain conditions.Method: Data from a recently recruited cohort of homosexually active men (Sydney Men and Sexual Hearth cohort, n = 1037) are used to revisit negotiated safety. The men were surveyed using a structured questionnaire and questions addressing their sexual relationships and practice, their own and their regular partner's serostatus, agreements entered into by the men concerning sexual practice within and outside their regular relationship, and contextual and demographic variables.Results: The findings indicate that a significant number of men used negotiated safely as an HIV prevention strategy. In the 6 months prior to interview, of the 181 men in seroconcordant HIV-negative regular relationships, 62% had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse within their relationship, and 91% (165 men) had not engaged in unprotected anal intercourse outside their relationship. Of these 165 men, 82% had negotiated agreements about sex outside their relationship. The safety of negotiation was dependent not only on seroconcordance but also on the presence of an agreement; 82% of the men who had not engaged in unprotected anal intercourse outside their regular relationship had entered into an agreement with their partner, whereas only 56% of those who had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse had an agreement. The safety of negotiation was also related to the nature of the safety agreement reached between the men and on the acceptability of condoms. Agreements between HIV-negative seroconcordant regular partners prohibiting anal intercourse with casual partners or any form of sex with a casual partner were typically complied with, and men who had such negotiated agreements were at low risk of HIV infection.Conclusions: The adoption of the strategy of negotiated safety among men in HIV-seronegative regular relationships may help such men sustain the safety of their sexual practice.