Hosters – Sexual encounters are always, or almost always, at home. Prefer not to travel very far for sex, find most of their partners online, and have their partners come to them.

House-callers – Sexual encounters are always, or almost always, at their partner’s home. They either can’t or don’t want to host sex at their place while still keeping things intimate and private.

Rovers – Sexual encounters are always, or almost always at another (public) location. Their sexual network is often within ~5km of their homebase. They prefer to meet their partners in-person and have sex in a public place away from their home and their partner’s.

Privates – Sexual encounters occur either at their own, or their partner’s home. Sex often occurs locally (on average less than 1km), except on rare occasion when they may travel to the suburbs. They are willing to meet their partners in a variety of ways; however, they want to have sex in private.

Travellers – Sexual encounters occur at either their partner’s place or at a public venue.. Geography does not limit them – they will travel for sex, locally and out of town. They prefer to find their partners online and have sex away from home, at a partner’s house, the park, the club, anywhere really, as long as it’s not their place.

Sirens – Sexual encounters occur at their own place or at public venues. This archetype occurs more rarely and these individuals prefer not to travel to someone else’s home for sex, but will gladly have their partners come to them, or connect at the bathhouse, the club or the gym.

Geoflexibles – Sexual encounters occur at their place, their partner’s place, and public venues. They find partners both online and in person and have sex in a variety of environments. They often bridge people and places.

• Most MSM had one or two strategies for finding sexual partners (i.e. Craigslist, Grindr, or cruising) and only changed strategies out of necessity if challenges arose (i.e. time constraints).
  • On-line apps were the predominant strategy used to find sexual partners
• Men travelled the shortest distance possible for sex
• Distances MSM would travel were defined by their modes of transportation (subway, walking, biking, etc.).
• Relative notions of distance were strongly correlated with the surrounding density of MS
  • e.g. 4 blocks away in the Village is perceived as way further away than 4 blocks in Scarborough

• Guys were more comfortable asking partners when they were last tested for STIs instead of asking about their STI status (this is a great approach)
• Guys protected themselves from STIs using multiple strategies:
  • Condoms
  • STI testing
  • Creating rules around sex
  • Assessing the risk of the situation (e.g. anonymous sex)
  • Risk reduction strategies (e.g. sober sex, sero-positioning)
  • Talking with partners about STI testing and status

• Many men recognized the risk of oral transmission of syphilis (or any other STI)
  • However, very few men used condoms for oral sex
• Negotiating safe sex was easier and more direct on-line than in-person
• There was a complex intersection between power, intimacy, trust and sex

• HIV predominated all conversations about STIs
  • Knowledge of HIV prevention was good
  • The seriousness of HIV made other STIs seem trivial
  • Syphilis and other bacterial STIs (chlamydia, gonorrhea) were dismissed because they are curable
  • Concern that increasing PrEP use for HIV prevention may increase transmission of other STIs
• Most guys had difficulty knowing the difference between Syphilis, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia
  • Most knew very little about modes of transmission, symptoms, testing or treatment for these STIs
• Knowledge surrounding syphilis was very low
  • Most men were unable to name any symptoms
  • Most men did not know there is an ongoing epidemic