But see what they are:

Relationships and Sex for Gay Men - perhaps surprisingly, the first edition of this did have “to have children” as one of the reasons why “some people with HIV say they either have sex or want to have sex?” for readers to say they share or really disagree with… and “to avoid having a child” as a possible answer to “why would a person with HIV want to have safer sex?”

The text is definitely aimed at gay men though - I can find lots of “other gay men” and “you’re not the only gay man who..” and no use of the word “bisexual”.

(I can’t find this one on the current website.)

Relationships and Sex for Straight Men - now in its third edition. It doesn’t mention having sex with other men, yet we know that’s crap. My favourite spotted personal ad: “straight man seeks other straight men to have sex with” (ITV Teletext!)

So it’s “when we talk about sex between men and women…” - and it doesn’t talk about any other sort, remember - and “if a woman without HIV sucks your cock”, rather than “if someone”.

Surprisingly, while “to have children” is listed here too as one of the reasons why “other men with HIV say they either have sex or want to have sex?”, there’s no mention of “to avoid having a child” as a possible answer to “why do other HIV men want to have safer sex?” (Another missing option is “to keep the sheets clean”!)

In its second and third editions at least, this is a shorter booklet than the “.. for gay men” one: 20 pages vs 28.

You’ll find it here.

(Note different naming style of the actual file compared to the CHAPS ones.)

and

Relationships and Sex for Women - despite not having a sexual orientation in the title, it still also only explicitly mentions “When we talk about sex between men and women…”.

You’re presumably supposed to guess that, immediately after talking about “as a woman with HIV you perform oral sex on a man”, that the “someone” who “performs oral sex on you” might be a woman.

It does mention “I like them to use condoms, then I don’t have to worry about contraception” as a reason for other HIV positive women to say they want to have safer sex in its 20 pages.

Here for this one.

Note the missing title!

So which does THT think is true:

• That bisexual men don’t get HIV?
• That bisexual men with HIV don’t have relationships and sex?
• That bisexual men with HIV’s relationships and sex aren’t worth mentioning?

Given that gay-identified men’s relationships and sex with women - which, again, Sigma has been saying for years happens in larger numbers than some of the behaviours THT is prepared to talk about - is consistently ignored, I wonder.

The front page has “gay men” four times, plus “gay scene” and “gay pubs and clubs”.

The gay scene section has nothing to say about mixed gender venues or the existence of ‘no bisexuals’ door policies in some places.

The coming out section says “Coming out as gay or bisexual can be very daunting…” and says that “On the following pages you can read real life accounts from other young gay and bisexual men” but then goes on to ask “Have you tried saying ‘I’m Gay’ out loud to yourself?”

Apparently “If you find that you can’t say the words out loud then maybe you should take a bit more time to think about how comfortable you are with your sexuality.”

What message does that send to bisexual people? ‘If you can’t say “I’m gay”, you aren’t comfortable with your sexuality’?

“Maybe you could think about checking what your friends/ family attitudes are to gay men…” Well, the attitude to bisexual men is clear, as is the attitude to lesbian and bisexual women: despite recommending it as an example of THT’s LGB work, there is almost nothing here for women.

We’re then told that “there are several groups around the country run by parents of lesbians and gay men” - I’ll check to see if it’s still the case, but for many years, the main national support group was run by the mother of a bisexual man - but “there are still people in the world who believe being gay is wrong”. Are we expected to think that such people believe that being bisexual is ok?

(If you look at, for example, “Issues in Human Sexuality”, the statement of the Church of England’s House of Bishops, you’ll see that it’s often worse. While they can accept monogamous homosexual activity, “it is clear that bisexual activity must always be wrong”.)

The coming out to your family section is gay-only, e.g. “Gay men often say that coming out to parent’s [sic] is more challenging than any other aspect of the coming out process” and the suggested responses to the “few typical thing’s [sic] that parents say when their son come’s [sic] out” includes “I have met lot’s [sic] of girls but i [sic] am not attracted to them, i [sic] can’t change the way i [sic] am.”

You may have heard the scream when I read that for the first time.

Similarly, the section on friends: gay only. “You may feel like you are the only gay in the village” and are told to meet “other gay men”. Now, of course I recognise the Little Britain reference, but this is funded by money for gay and bisexual men. What’s worse? Thinking you’re the only gay in the village, or being told you don’t exist?

Meeting people: gay only. “.. another gay man..”. “Gay men are everywhere..” plus five others.

Sex: gay only. Your “first time” (unqualified!) is assumed to be with a man.

Education: ooh, the workers - at another agency! - “are looking for young gay and bisexual men to tell their stories”. I wonder if that agency wrote those paragraphs.

Celebs coming out: six men, all presented as being gay. What on earth is the excuse for not including bisexuals here? Particularly as one of them came to fame for playing a bisexual character.

Youth Group listings: That’s interesting. Some of THT’s own youth groups are inclusive, while others are not.

Links: the site’s content for “young lesbians and bisexual women” is a link to www.gingerbeer.co.uk - which advertises itself as “the lesbian guide to London”.

Health information: more of the same. For example ‘Wellbeing’ says “Young gay men are often made to feel bad about themselves by a range of different sources”. And bisexual men aren’t? “Young gay men don’t have a lot of role models in society”. There are six in the coming out section, but no bisexual ones, remember.

“.. you may find that others have a problem with [your sexuality].” Quite.

The HIV section, surprisingly given the rest of the site, does mention vaginal intercourse. Even if it does have as headings

How is HIV transmitted?
Sperm
Blood
Ways You Can’t Catch HIV

with the implication that everything apart from sperm and blood is in the latter.

Similarly, the rest of the STIs section looks inclusive. Yay. But given the rest of the site, it’s a very quiet yay.

So, this SRE Education Sector Summary Report. I agree entirely with the basic idea - that SRE needs to be improved and represent the true diversity of lives pupils will lead.

But…

The first sentence talks about “lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) pupils.” The second only talks about “gay issues”. ‘LGB’ is the same length as ‘gay’, why not use that? (And why ignore trans issues throughout?)

But it’s clearly systemic: paragraphs three and five have “the needs of gay pupils”. Paragraph six has “gay teenagers”, while paragraph seven goes back to “gay pupils”.

The first paragraph on page two says “LGB pupils” for only the second time, before talking - probably not aware of the irony - of “tokenism” in the next.

The same page has “homosexuality” twice and talks about “lesbian and gay pupils” once, reminding us that ‘gay’ is not being seen as inclusive of other orientations.

Page three has “lesbian, gay and bisexual” and “LGB” twice but then goes on to talk only of “lesbian and gay writers” and “lesbian and gay figures” as worthy of inclusion in lessons.

The last page says THT’s work for LGB people is wonderful, but then uses the author’s ygm.org.uk site as the example. (See the next post for why this was unfortunate.)

The conclusion goes back to bisexual invisibility:

we hope that this report will enable teachers to think more about issues around lesbian and gay sexuality throughout the curriculum. [..] All young people have the right to learn about the society they live in. Gay people are part of that society, whether as adults or young people. When schools ignore the needs of lesbian and gay pupils [..]

As a former bisexual pupil, I feel ignored by this.

Here’s the link to the original. I’ll do one with some unofficial highlighting soon.

True Colours was first published in 1997, with a second edition in 1999.

Apart from a superficial redesign, the only three differences between the two I can spot are

• a mention in the second edition that the age of consent will be equalised
• the first edition says THT’s website for gay and bisexual men is… www.chaps.org.uk
• some of the helpline listings have been updated.

I can’t find a PDF of these booklets - I’ll scan them in at some point. In the meantime, have part of the third paragraph of the section on diversity:

Although attitudes are changing, if you decide you’re bisexual you may experience prejudice from some gay people.

Quite.

This booklet is for young men under 18 who think they might be gay or bisexual. Designed with professionals in mind (teachers, school counsellors, youth workers), this accessible and non-explicit resource covers common anxieties that young gay or bisexual men may face such as telling people, meeting others, sexual health and where to go for support.

“… who think they might be gay or bisexual” yet…

Uneasy: “There’s no hurry to label yourself ‘gay’ (or ‘bisexual’ if you fancy women too).”

Hmm, this makes me think bisexual is seen as second best.

Good: the example bisexual man is firm about being bisexual rather than gay.

Argh: again, all stuff about sex is about sex between men. Whether it’s having a partner - “boyfriend” - or using condoms - “put lots of lubricant around his bum”.

Readers are told that

The two most common things to do to make sex safer are:

• using a condom for anal sex and
• not getting semen in the mouth.

Erm.. what happened to using a condom for vaginal sex?!? In terms of numbers, it’s far more common than using condoms for anal sex.

When the booklet was published in 2003, there was a bisexual helpline which had been running for over a decade. It wasn’t mentioned in the resources. Readers are told to search for ‘gay’ or ‘gay and lesbian’. This got me searching THT’s website for ‘bisexual’, with the results to be seen later.

The booklet’s here.

Written for men who don’t have HIV, this booklet is for men who have sex with other men. It provides basic information about sex between men, has tips that can make sex better and information about how to make sex safer.

This was the one that had me jumping up and down in anger and frustration when I first saw it. I read it as being for gay, bisexual and non-identified men who have sex with men. Apparently it’s meant for men of low educational achievement.

Good: Bi inclusive at the start.

This booklet is for guys who have sex with other men. Some only have sex with men; others have sex with men and women.

There are drawings of six men.

Uneasy: The ‘I’m bisexual’ man wants to suck big cocks and doesn’t want to get fucked. Others don’t want rough sex and pain, guys who only want sex, getting an infection and being pushed around.

Given some of the stereotypes, and the attitude to bisexual men shown elsewhere, I’d be happier if it was the gay identified guy who didn’t want to get fucked (about one in five don’t in any one year). Or if the bisexual-identified one didn’t want any of the other things.

Argh: The sex section is gay only. ‘Fucking’ means:

Anal sex is when you put a man’s cock up your arse or put your cock up his.

(Sarcasm alert) Erm, women have arses too you know?

Again, we know (Sigma) that bisexually behaving men are more likely to have anal sex with women than the general male population. (And most anal sex in the UK is between men and women.)

There’s nothing about vaginal sex or using condoms for it.

There’s a section called “Fucking boyfriends”… but nothing about female partners.

On the net, no-one can hear you scream. (Edit: an unacknowledged change to the THT website broke this link sometime in 2006, sigh.)

Designed to be given out at cruising sites and venues by outreach workers, this credit card sized leaflet provides information and support for men who have sex with men.

The exception. As far as I can see, this is the only really worthwhile publication for bisexual men (albeit aimed at non-identified ones using public sex environments) that THT have ever done.

Mind you, it was only by looking through the THT website that I found it - I don’t remember ever having seen a copy in the real world.

You can see if I’m right here.

Written in a friendly and accessible style, this gay man’s guide to anal health covers a wide variety of topics. Using a mixture of illustrations and graphics it explains how the arse works, what it does, how it relates to other parts of the body and how to get maximum pleasure from sex with minimal pain or damage.

Now also in its second edition. And it mentions vaginas, but only to say that the “lining of your throat and mouth (or a vagina) is tough” and “your arse doesn’t lubricate itself like your mouth or a woman’s vagina do.”

However the reader is assumed to be only interested in other men’s arses, not women’s. We know, again from Sigma, that bisexually behaving men are more likely to have anal sex with women than the straight population, but there’s not even a mention of the dangers in going from anal sex to vaginal sex without washing or swapping condoms.

Friends of mine would be hugely amused to learn that “Double-headed dildos are designed for two men to use at the same time”.

Again, fisting is apparently only done in men’s arses, never in women’s or in a vagina.

You can download a copy from here.

This sister publication to The Bottom Line, deals with the penis and testicles and how to stay healthy. It covers anatomy; sexual activities; sexual problems; and a range of issues from testicular cancer to sexual dysfunction, and oral sex technique to HIV and sexually transmitted infections. Complete with information about useful books, web sites and help-lines. Below the Belt is full of fascinating facts and handy hints.

Now in its second edition. But…

“How HIV gets into a cock” (p6) … only “if an HIV negative man fucks a man with HIV without a condom,” apparently. Vaginal sex and anal sex with women isn’t mentioned.

Three and a half pages on piercings though, despite them being less common, even for gay-identified men, than having sex with women.

Downloadable from here.

Many men will get a sexually transmitted infection at some time - even if haveing (sic) safer sex or sex with only a few men. This helpful manual takes an in-depth look at sexually transmitted infections, exploring what they are, how they are passed on, how to tell if you have one and what you can do to treat and prevent them. It also looks at clinics and what you should expect from a visit. This new edition has been fully revised and updated and now includes a section on LGV and a comprehensive index. Figures for numbers of gay men treated for each infection in 2004 have been added as well as a more comprhensive (sic) list of referral websites and helplines.

Third edition, revised this year and yet it remains “A gay man’s guide…” rather than “A gay and bisexual men’s…” and when it says gay, it means it (and only Kinsey 6’s, i.e. ExHAMs, too!)

It opens by saying

Many of us will get a sexually transmitted infection at some time, even if we have safer sex or sex with only a few men.

(Sarcasm alert) Oooh, good, gay men can’t get STIs through sex with women!

What was wrong with saying ‘people’?

A few pages in (p12) it does. But only some people count…

How common are STIs?

Infections are getting more common among both gay and straight people.

(Sarcasm alert) Oooh, good, not among bisexual people.

There’s more of this, but I’ll give just one other example (p23)

Fungal infections, such as thrush, are caused by a sort of mould that lives on warm, moist skin in the mouth or on the cock.

Why not mention “and in the vagina”?

Well… on p30, in the main section on Thrush, it does say

Thrush (also called candidiasis) is more a problem for women, who can give it to the men they have sex with. Gay men can get it, but it’s rare unless you have HIV.

Clearly the two implications are a) men don’t give thrush to women and b) the “men they have sex with” are not gay men. Both are crap.

In fact, the Sigma surveys show more gay-identified men have sex with women in any given time frame than, for example, have BDSM sex.

I can find one single acknowledgement of bisexuality, on p66:

When seeing the doctor, here are the kind of questions you could be asked:

• When did you last have sex?
• Was it with a man or a woman? If the doctor doesn’t ask this, it’d be best to mention the sex was with a man, if it was.

In such a large resource, funded by money for work with gay and bisexual men, why is “if it was” the only ‘and bisexual’ bit?

In the definitions section, we get the curious distinction between fingering “into someone’s arse” and fisting, which apparently only men’s arses can take: “into another man’s arse”. No mention of vaginal fisting (or, indeed, vaginal fingering!)

Similarly, rimming is a men-only thing, apparently, and there’s no mention of cunnilingus.

Still, as “genital” means, to the authors anyway, “to do with the cock and balls” and herpes apparently never affects the vulva, what should I expect?

Downloadable copy here. (Again the better, shorter, link broken with website redesign. This is the case for all deep links and I’ll stop mentioning it. For some reason, it’s in the 0..9 section of the alphabetical listing of publications, rather than the M section too.)

The Field Guide is the CHAPS manual on applying Making It Count, the strategic overview of CHAPS, to health promotion activity with homosexually active men. Both are now in their third editions.

It distinguishes (p64) “between those who are exclusively homosexually active men (ExHAM), that is, have sex exclusively with men in the previous year, and behavioural bisexuals (BBs), that is men who had sex with both men and women in that time.”

It sets out some of the differences, based on the annual Sigma surveys:

• “BBs have UAI with more partners than ExHAM and are more likely to do so with partners of unknown HIV concordancy (1999).”
• “BBs are also more likely to engage in UAI with a casual partner (2000).”
• It suggests “little difference in the probability of involvement in sdUAI between ExHAM and BB men (1999).”
• “BBs are more likely to expect a positive man to disclose prior to sex and to assume a man is HIV negative if he does not disclose he is positive (2001).”
• “They are also more likely to experience problems getting hold of condoms (1998) and condom failure is more common among this group (1999, 2001).”
• “BBs are also in more need of basic HIV knowledge (1998, 1999) and information on other STIs (1998, 2000).”
• Based on the 2001 survey, it says that while BBs are just as likely to have gone to a gym or their GP, they are half as likely to have gone to a sexual health clinic in the past month (ExHAM: 12.9%, BBs 6.1%) or phoned an HIV/AIDS helpline (7.0%, 2.5%).
• Similarly, they are less than a third as likely to have been to an AIDS organisation (6.8%, 2.1%), half as likely to have seen any of the gay press (72.4%, 36.4%), and less likely to have any contact with the commercial scene (pub or club: 76.2%, 46.2%).

So bisexual men are acknowledged to be a population at risk and in need. They’re also less likely to see ads and other health promotion material placed in the gay press or on the scene.

The full document is here. (A better, shorter, link was broken with a recent redesign of the THT website.)

Let’s go through some of THT’s publications to see if these needs are met or not.

My complaint is that it has either ignored or at best paid lip service to the “and bisexual” bit.

There’s some history behind this, including the whole story of the initial impact of Aids in the UK, the successful use of the ‘bisexual threat’ to get government action, the consequences of that, and the ‘re-gaying of Aids’ backlash. I’ll write more about this at a later date.

When HIV prevention work with gay and bisexual men was dragged away from the Health Education Authority and CHAPS was created back in 1996, THT advertised for the post of bisexual men’s health promotion officer alongside one for gay men.

Function:

To develop and implement appropriate HIV health promotion activities and resources to reach the wides range of bisexual men (including those who identify as bisexual and those who do not) …

Principal accountabilities:

1. To develop and support campaigning activities to ensure quality HIV health promotion for self-identified and non-identified bisexual men.
2. To review the current provision of HIV health promotion for bisexual men and identify unmet needs in collaboration iwith the CHAPS team and partner agencies.
3. To develop appropriate activities, resources and dissemination mechanisms for HIV health promotion for bisexual men.
4. To deliver bisexual men’s health promotion campaigns in collaboration with other members of THT’s CHAPS team, other THT staff, volunteers, CHAPS partners and other voluntary or statutory organisations.
5. [develop appropriate volunteer groups]
6. To ensure that THT’s HIV health promotion work is responsive to the needs of those most at risk and reflects the cultural diversity of bisexual men.
7. [ensure it reaches black and ethnic minority men]
8. [monitor budgets]
9. [stay up to date in the field]
10. [promote and adhere to THT policies]
11. To carry out any other reasonable duties.

I believe that was the last time the issue was treated seriously.

Two people were interviewed for the bisexual men’s post, neither was appointed, and the results can be seen today.

If you want the official website, it’s www.chapsonline.org.uk

As you will see, this is not the official website.