‘Negotiated
safety' might be described as ‘serosorting plus’: it is a specialised kind of
serosorting between regular partners involving an agreement about which sexual
practices are allowed within and outside the main relationship, taking into
account the HIV status of both partners. It is most often given this name when
both partners are negative.
Negotiated
safety does not even have to happen within the context of a couple; anecdotally,
at least, from the early days of the epidemic some HIV-negative gay men
attempted to organise themselves into ‘sex buddy’ groups where unprotected sex
was allowed within a tightly controlled group, but not with HIV-positive men or
people outside the network.
Negotiated
safety has rarely been promoted by HIV-prevention campaigns. This is partly due
to fears of stigma against people with HIV and, indeed, most HIV-prevention
campaigns around the world have consistently promoted the message, “Positive or
negative, it's all the same”, as a means of encouraging solidarity between
infected and uninfected people. At least as importantly, however, negotiated
safety is a highly fallible method of ensuring safety, especially if
‘extramarital’ sex is allowed.
The term
‘negotiated safety’ was first coined in 1993 by Australian researcher Susan
Kippax.1 In
19972 she looked at whether, if gay male couples made explicit agreements about
unprotected sex, it had any effect on the likelihood that they would have
unprotected sex outside their primary relationship.
In this
sample of 165 men in seroconcordant HIV-negative relationships, 61% had engaged
in unprotected anal intercourse at some point. She found that amongst this group
the following factors were associated with a lower likelihood of having
unprotected sex with casual partners and with a primary partner:
- Having an agreement
about unprotected sex outside the relationship.
- The agreement including
no anal sex with casual partners.
No other
demographic or behavioural factors were found to be significant.
In 2005,
a US
survey3 conducted
further examination of HIV-negative gay couples' strategies for staying
negative. It looked at agreements partners had worked out to allow unprotected
sex between them, but outlaw it with others, and to tell each other when the
rules had been broken. It found couples often had difficulty keeping to their
own rules.
The
survey initially looked at 340 HIV-negative gay men in San Francisco. It found that 60% had no
current steady relationship and that 10% had an HIV-positive partner. The other
30% had an HIV-negative partner, of which 76 men (22.4% of the whole group) were
with ‘long-term’ lovers, meaning for six months or more.
It found
that 13 of these 76 men did not have anal sex, and 17 (22%) practised the
supposed ‘gold standard’ of 100% condom use with their partner. Interestingly,
six men had unprotected sex with casual partners, but maintained 100% condom
use with their boyfriend - a stance protecting their partner, but not
themselves.
Another
eight of them (11%) had unprotected anal sex within and outside the
relationship and had not negotiated rules prohibiting it.
But the
remaining 50% of the men in a long-term seroconcordant HIV-negative
relationship had arrived at some form of negotiated safety agreement with their
partner. A quarter of them (19 men) had negotiated total monogamy, i.e. no sex
of any kind with men outside the relationship. Three disallowed anal sex of any
kind with other men, but allowed other sex. And 16 men (21%) allowed anal sex
outside the relationship as long as it was with a condom.
Of the
38 men with an agreement, eleven (29%: 14% of all men in a long-term
seroconcordant HIV-negative relationship) had broken their own rules in the
previous three months: a quarter of the ‘monogamous’ group and a third each of
the ‘no anal sex’ and ‘no unprotected sex’ groups.
Three-quarters
of the men who had negotiated safety also had a rule that they must tell their
partner if they had broken their agreement. This did seem to help: only 18% of
those with an ‘always tell’ rule had strayed outside their agreement, while the
majority (60%) of those who had no ‘always tell’ rule had in fact broken it.
Two out of every five men broke the rules they had negotiated in as short a
time as three months.
"Nevertheless,"
say the study authors, "it is important to recognize that gay men attempt
negotiated safety and may not be willing to use condoms consistently with their
primary partners."
They
recommended that health advisors could help HIV-negative couples by making sure
both partners had the same understanding of the ‘rules’ they had agreed to, and
also recommended couples have an STI test before deciding to abandon condom
use.
Several
other factors are likely to distort the strategy of negotiated safety:
- Ability to negotiate and assert - some
individuals may find it less easy to assert their doubts about the chosen
strategy.
- Pressures on the gay scene to have sex
outside the primary relationship, increasing the potential for slip-ups.
- Unwillingness to wait long enough to
go through a demanding testing procedure (linked to the length of the test’s
window period). Unprotected sex may become the norm very quickly in a
relationship as a signal that the relationship is intensifying.
- Lapses in condom use before the HIV
test-window period is over.