Design The study involved a cross-sectional design with all subjects completing a self-
administered questionnaire.Questionnaire The subjects were asked to think about two sexual encounters in the
preceding year, one involving safe sex and one involving unsafe sex. They were asked to
complete the following ratings/questions about each of these encounters:1 Details of the encounters. The subjects were asked questions about their
encounters, including (i) how long ago it had taken place; (ii) whether the respondent
had known about AIDS at the time of the encounter; and (iii) what form of sexual
activity had occurred (e.g. intercourse, ejaculation into the rectum). The encounter
was then divided into four temporal stages: (i) start of the ‘evening’; (ii) time of
meeting the potential partner; (iii) start of sex; and (iv) during sex. The subjects were
then asked to answer questions about each stage of the encounter for both the safe
and unsafe encounter.
2 Start of the evening. The subjects were asked to rate (i) the type of desires that had
been in their mind (e.g. to have sex without intercourse, to have intercourse without a
condom, to have exciting sex, to have a drink or get mildly stoned); and (ii) to rate
their mood at this time (e.g. happy, relaxed, under stress) and how intoxicated they
were.
3 Meeting the partner. The subjects were asked (i) where they met their partner (e.g. at
my place, at his place); (ii) which of the above various desires had been on his mind;
(iii) how sexually attracted he was to his partner; and (iv) how intoxicated he was.
4 Start of sex. The subjects were asked (i) how much time there was between meeting
the partner and the start of sex; (ii) details of the sex (e.g. place, time of day); (iii)
kinds of desires; (iv) how sexually aroused he was; (v) how intoxicated he was; and
(iv) whether he/his partner had communicated a desire for safe sex.
5 During sex. The subject was asked (i) how intoxicated he was; and (ii) whether he/his
partner communicated about safe sex.
6 Additional questions for unsafe encounter. Subjects were also asked to rate a series
of statements for the unsafe encounter. They related to (i) ways in which the subjects
may have engaged in unsafe sex without really wanting to (e.g. physically forced,
tricked); and (ii) self-justifications for not using a condom (e.g. ‘I thought to myself
something like... condoms are such horrible things and to put one on destroys the
magic of sex. Here we are on cloud nine: how can we suddenly interrupt everything
just to get a bit of rubber out and roll it on’, ‘Other guys fuck without a condom much
more often than I do. I’m less at risk than most guys’).Results
The results were analysed to examine the characteristics of both the safe and unsafe
encounter and to evaluate any differences. The results showed that type of partner,
desires, sexual attraction, mood, knowledge of condom availability and communication
about safe sex differentiated between the two encounters. For example, unsafe sex was202 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY