29.06.2013 Views

Télécharger la revue en format "pdf". - UQAM

Télécharger la revue en format "pdf". - UQAM

Télécharger la revue en format "pdf". - UQAM

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Sexual Panner Choice in Injecting Drug Users<br />

sexual partners of IOUs and an indication of their variability over<br />

time.<br />

These data indicate that proportional perc<strong>en</strong>tage of sexual contact in<br />

Australian IOUs is obtainable. Sexual partners are clustered about<br />

heterosexual contacts, with there being a t<strong>en</strong>d<strong>en</strong>cy for male IOUs to<br />

have more IOU heterosexual partners in the data on the <strong>la</strong>st sexual<br />

contact, but this being reversed for IOU status for the second-Iast<br />

sexual contact. This reversaI of IOU status of partner did not occur for<br />

the female respond<strong>en</strong>ts, where for both the <strong>la</strong>st and second-Iast sexual<br />

contact, heterosexual partners were more likely to be IOUs. This could<br />

also possibly reflect a greater certainty about regu<strong>la</strong>r as opposed to<br />

casual partners. These data suggest that the evid<strong>en</strong>ce for female IOUs<br />

being more likely to have IOU sexual partners is supported, but that<br />

the situation is mu ch less stable for male IOUs. Certainly the clear<br />

distinction betwe<strong>en</strong> male and female IOUs in terms of proportional<br />

perc<strong>en</strong>tage of IOU partners which has be<strong>en</strong> made in previous work is<br />

less clear in the second-Iast sexual contact, suggesting again that, at<br />

least in this sample, while there is a t<strong>en</strong>d<strong>en</strong>cy for male IOUs to have a<br />

lower proportion of IOU sexual partners than females, the differ<strong>en</strong>ce<br />

is not of great magnitude. This is supported by the significant<br />

differ<strong>en</strong>ce betwe<strong>en</strong> both males and females for <strong>la</strong>st and second-Iast<br />

sexual contact proportional perc<strong>en</strong>t ages, which suggests more mixing<br />

of IOU and non-IOU contacts that previous evid<strong>en</strong>ce would suggest.<br />

The <strong>la</strong>ck of bisexual contacts being noted by any respond<strong>en</strong>t suggests<br />

that either bisexuality is not coron or is not coronly recognized<br />

or discussed. This has implications for recognition that partners may<br />

have had both same- and opposite-sex partners and suggests that it is<br />

not likely to be considered or suspected. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, it is interesting<br />

from an examination of Tables 1 and 2 to note that the sexual<br />

ori<strong>en</strong>tation of same-g<strong>en</strong>der sexual contacts has be<strong>en</strong> <strong>la</strong>belled as<br />

heterosexuaI. This is particu<strong>la</strong>rly interesting as it suggests that the<br />

respond<strong>en</strong>ts <strong>la</strong>belled their sexual contacts on a binary c<strong>la</strong>ssification<br />

system, probably according to the sexual partner's predominant or<br />

previous appar<strong>en</strong>t sexual partners. These data suggest that this<br />

popu<strong>la</strong>tion may not utilize the concept of "bisexual" and consequ<strong>en</strong>tly<br />

that HIV education campaigns which emphasize risk of bisexual<br />

contact may not have much impact. The concept of "bisexuality" may<br />

have more practical significance to behavioural epidemiologists than<br />

the g<strong>en</strong>eral popu<strong>la</strong>tion. As bisexual contact may be a major risk for<br />

transmission from the subpopu<strong>la</strong>tion with male-to-male contact to<br />

wom<strong>en</strong>, this has serious implications for spread of HIV.<br />

87

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!