rss
Sex Transm Infect doi:10.1136/sti.2007.028787

More than just anal sex: the potential for STI transmission among men visiting sex on premises venues

  1. Chee Wun Phang
  1. School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Australia
    1. Jane Hocking
    1. School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Australia
      1. Christopher K Fairley
      1. School of Population Health, University of Melbourne and Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Australia
        1. Catriona Bradshaw
        1. School of Population Health, University of Melbourne and Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Australia
          1. Peter Hayes
          1. Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Australia
            1. Marcus Y Chen (mchen{at}mshc.org.au)
            1. School of Population Health, University of Melbourne and Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Australia
              • Published Online First 6 February 2008

              Abstract

              Objectives: This study aimed to obtain detailed data on the frequency of sexual practices among men who had sex with men (MSM) at sex on premises venues (SOPVs) and to compare this with their sexual practices outside SOPVs.

              Methods: A cross-sectional, survey was undertaken of MSM at 6 SOPVs between December 2006 and March 2007.

              Results: Of 604 men approached, 200 (33%) participated. Men reported sexual contact with a median of 2 other men (range: 0-28). Receptive and insertive anal intercourse was reported by 19.5% and 34.0% respectively, and was unprotected in 2.5% and 6.0%. The frequency of other practices included: unprotected insertive and receptive penile-anal touching or rubbing without penetration, or "nudging", (26.5% and 20.0%); unprotected, transient insertive and receptive anal intercourse, or "dipping", (6.0% and 5.0%); and insertive and receptive anal fingering (38.5% and 32.5%). About 40% of men who "anal sex". Compared with their practices with casual male partners outside SOPVs, men having sex at SOPVs were less likely to have receptive oral intercourse with ejaculation (OR 0.4 (95%CI: 0.2-1.0), p=0.04) and unprotected receptive anal intercourse (OR 0.3 (95%CI: 0.1-0.8), p=0.01), but more likely to have group sex (OR 2.0 (95%CI: 1.1-3.6), p=0.03).

              Conclusions: Substantial penile-anal contact not involving anal intercourse occurred at SOPVs, and may explain anal infections in the absence of reported anal sex. Some higher risk practices were reported more frequently with male partners outside of these venues than with partners within SOPVs.

              This Article

              1. Abstract
              2. PDF
              3. All versions of this article:
                1. sti.2007.028787v1
                2. 84/3/217most recent

              Responses

              1. Submit a response
              2. No responses published

              Register for free content

              The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

              Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.