Your comment was counterfactual. I get that you have an ideological axe to grind, but you shouldn't spread mistruths about such an important subject.
Here is another sources that show it.is true that in Western Australia that straight identifying men have a higher HIV incidence this last year than MSMs.
OK, i will clarify for you, self-reporting 'Straight Men' is what I am doubting is accurate. In other words, how many of them are having sex with other men and acquired HIV that way?? probably more of them than you think.
Actually, I think Ubeat nailed it. When you read this thread you basically assumed the information collected must have been skewed or just flat out false due to "closeted men" lying during the reporting process, am I right?
Did you take a few moments to read the article in the OP? Because if you did you would have seen this:"Researchers attribute the spike in new infections to straight identifying men having unprotected sex while traveling in south-east Asia."
Followed by WA Health Minister Roger Cook's "Going Somewhere?" campaign to help educated men traveling overseas:“Going Somewhere? is particularly aimed at men who travel to south-east Asia and who may not be aware of the risk of acquiring and spreading HIV, and other STIs, while on holiday. It reminds men to take precautions, use condoms and visit a GP or sexual health clinic for a check-up when they get home,” Cook said via a WA Health statement."
Although the above is ambiguous since it's not mentioning straight men in particular the article does basically postulate that the reason for falling rates for HIV among gay men in WA is due to knowledge and use of PEP and PrEP:"The minister is also encouraging people to consider using PrEP or PEP, adding that he believes the falling HIV rates among gay men has to do with the community’s successful safe sex messaging."
Lastly, I thought the most logical thing to look up next was to see if women in southeast Asia had a high(er) rate of HIV infections compared to other areas. After all, that could only explain how straight me are getting HIV, other than sharing needles for drug use. According to this article by ncbi.gov women do have a very high incidence of HIV infection and are considered more vulnerable. And the devastation (not total number of infections) exceed what has been witnessed in Africa, which we all know has a reputation for being the most adversely affected by HIV/AIDS:"South and South-East Asia are at the centre of the most aggressive advances of the AIDS epidemic today. The challenge this presents to the region is clear. While reported absolute numbers still lag behind the African region (11,160,900 in Africa; 3,081,235 in Asia) knowledgeable observers agree that the place of infection and potential devastation in this region exceed what we have seen in Africa. Those concerned with the welfare of the people of Asia, therefore, must make serious efforts to break the chain of HIV transmission as quickly and effectively as possible and identify and care for the infected. Women are entitled to protection by rights the same as men. However, for anatomical reasons, women are more vulnerable than men to infection by HIV. In addition, throughout the Asian region, women's "natural" vulnerability is vastly magnified by poverty and generally low levels of education and personal autonomy which make it difficult for them to gain access to information and appropriate services. Because of women's multiple roles in the epidemic-potential "infectee", care-giver, transmitter of infection-if we are to be successful in halting the spread of HIV/AIDS we must give particular attention to reaching, working with, and serving women."
Above excerpt copied from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9050187