Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As one who remembers the AIDs/HIV crisis when it first began in the 1980's am here to tell you the resurgence of the disease among gay men is no surprise.
Quite honestly the disease was a tough sell even back in the day. It was only the visible horrors of the illness and vast numbers of deaths that compelled many to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent contracting the virus.
...snip
Speaking as a gay man 24 years of age, I agree with everything BugsyPal has said.
The much maligned bath-house/bar culture of the 60s-80s was the gay counterpart to the straight sexual revolution. I recall Hugh Hefner being quoted calling this period a "golden age" for straights, bookended by the sexual revolution/birth control pill and the onset of AIDS. No longer checked by police raids and prosecution, gay/bi men cut loose as straights did. Gay men had no fear of pregnancy and STDs were treatable or considered obvious (herpes flare-up) and thus avoidable. At least that's what my reading and talking with those alive during the period lead me to think.
My similarly aged peers grew up with HIV/AIDS as a controlled, if not beaten, disease. A positive diagnosis didn't kill or end your sex life. Unfortunately, this has led to an easily discernible complacency in my generation. If you click with/trust the person (that you met at on the internet or at a public function like pride), unprotected sex is on the cards. In the 1990s, being known as the guy in the area who had unprotected sex with strangers would lead to being sexually blacklisted.
From my limited personal experience, safer sex and sexual health practices correspond with education, social class, and progressive politics. The LGBT community at my elite undergrad institution with its decidedly upper and upper-middle class social milieu had very high standards with safer sex and STD testing. Young gay men in my home area (Long Island, NY) tend to put themselves at greater risk: more anonymous sex and more opportunities for unprotected with those who are closeted and infrequently or never tested. It's not a surprise, as my area is very conservative and Catholic, and many are afraid of ostracism (or worse) from their families or bosses.
The frightening problem is the increasing rates of infection amongst young black and Hispanic men. HIV is becoming less of a problem among middle class or higher whites and increasingly more of a problem for working or lower class black and hispanic men. The projections forecasting what HIV/AIDS prevalence might look like in 2020 or 2030, if you can find them, are terrifying.
Speaking as a gay man 24 years of age, I agree with everything BugsyPal has said.
The much maligned bath-house/bar culture of the 60s-80s was the gay counterpart to the straight sexual revolution. I recall Hugh Hefner being quoted calling this period a "golden age" for straights, bookended by the sexual revolution/birth control pill and the onset of AIDS. No longer checked by police raids and prosecution, gay/bi men cut loose as straights did. Gay men had no fear of pregnancy and STDs were treatable or considered obvious (herpes flare-up) and thus avoidable. At least that's what my reading and talking with those alive during the period lead me to think.
My similarly aged peers grew up with HIV/AIDS as a controlled, if not beaten, disease. A positive diagnosis didn't kill or end your sex life. Unfortunately, this has led to an easily discernible complacency in my generation. If you click with/trust the person (that you met at on the internet or at a public function like pride), unprotected sex is on the cards. In the 1990s, being known as the guy in the area who had unprotected sex with strangers would lead to being sexually blacklisted.
From my limited personal experience, safer sex and sexual health practices correspond with education, social class, and progressive politics. The LGBT community at my elite undergrad institution with its decidedly upper and upper-middle class social milieu had very high standards with safer sex and STD testing. Young gay men in my home area (Long Island, NY) tend to put themselves at greater risk: more anonymous sex and more opportunities for unprotected with those who are closeted and infrequently or never tested. It's not a surprise, as my area is very conservative and Catholic, and many are afraid of ostracism (or worse) from their families or bosses.
The frightening problem is the increasing rates of infection amongst young black and Hispanic men. HIV is becoming less of a problem among middle class or higher whites and increasingly more of a problem for working or lower class black and hispanic men. The projections forecasting what HIV/AIDS prevalence might look like in 2020 or 2030, if you can find them, are terrifying.
This is a highly informative post and a true reality check. It gives superb insight into why the incidence of HIV amongst younger gays is 19 times more likely to exist than what is true of the general population.
I hope everyone takes time to read it and digest what has happened.
This is a highly informative post and a true reality check. It gives superb insight into why the incidence of HIV amongst younger gays is 19 times more likely to exist than what is true of the general population.
I hope everyone takes time to read it and digest what has happened.
It is the natural tendency for youth to feel they are invincible. I mean didn't we all at to some degree at that stage? Gay men under about age 35 and certainly young teens have really no reference point for HIV/AIDS. It is something they largely believe affected "older gay men" and or is what the adverts seem to be telling them, that the thing is not a serious disease. That is you can take some meds and go about your business.
Had the luck or misfortune (however you wish to see things) of working in healthcare during the 1980's including at such places as Saint Vincent's Hospital. Sadly as well knew several friends and persons from college that died due to AIDs related diseases. Much like full blown syphilis if you've ever seen the ravages of HIV/AIDs you'd do everything in your power never to become infected.
Again the real sad thing is once HIV/AIDs ran it's course through certain segments of the gay community many simply turned to other things.
HIV/AIDs is becoming increasingly a disease of the poor and or powerless. A young minority or even white gay youth that has to earn his money the best way he can often has few options. If a client demands no condom there is a choice to be made. If they decline then there potentially goes dinner money with no certainty another will follow.
Young men are also full of raging hormones which sadly in both gay and straights leads to poor choices. Hooking up with some guy you just met on the subway or going on Grinder to get an itch scratched is probably *not* the smartest thing in the world. Even less if you engage in unprotected sense. As our mothers would say "you don't know where it's been do you?"
Sadly there is also the victimization of gay youth by older gay males.
In a culture that often values youth and or physical beauty gay youth have historically never been short of "admirers" so to speak. Older gay men often have things younger gays want and or need (money, status, etc...) and sadly a good number of the later are not above using what they got to get what they need from the former. Not every former rent boy/porn star can land a Calvin Klein. Most have to take what they can get and if they aren't careful or ask the right questions....
1) HIV affects the gay population because it is biologically transmitted far easier in homosexual contact than heterosexual contact. Gay people are not more "risky" or "irresponsible" than straight people. This is strictly a biological difference based on transmission mode.
2) It is astronomically rare for heterosexuals to acquire HIV from a single act of heterosexual sex from an unknown partner. The partner's exposure level is dependent on "risky" behaviors that better facilitate the transmission of the disease (sharing needles, anal sex, blood-to-blood contact). HIV is simply not transmitted easily through heterosexual sex. Persons contracting HIV from heterosexual sex are commonly women who have bisexual male partners. Like most STDs, transmission is easier from male to female than vice versa.
If heterosexual sex includes anal sex it most certainly is easily transmittable.
Some people believe the virus was created in a lab as well, and that way certain populations deemed as "undesirable" could be exterminated. There are times where I believe that is possible.
It took them quite a few years to shut them down. An organization called "Sex Panic" even tried to stop that, even when it was becoming painfully clear that multiple partner sodomy was the key method of transmission.
Here you are. Extensively footnoted. Sadly, *an ideology* of so-called "liberation" allowed all common sense public health measures, used for all other diseases, to be blocked, for more than a few years.
Sexual "orientation" is no longer an indicator of HIV/AIDS risk. I don't even understand why this is a topic. Right now, we clearly understand what constitutes behavior that minimizes you at risk for HIV. And this behavior is the same for people who are straight or gay: stay informed about your partners history, get tested, use protection, and watch out for needles if you use drugs.
That's not true. Gay men are 20x as likely to get HIV as straight people. They account for half of all new HIV cases.
That's not true. Gay men are 20x as likely to get HIV as straight people. They account for half of all new HIV cases.
Lesbians on the other hand have almost zero risk.
Not from my chair, unfortunately black women are on the fasted growing new HIV case list. We account for about 20 or 25% of new cases. It sounds nice to call it a gay disease, but reality is we are all at risk.
Not from my chair, unfortunately black women are on the fasted growing new HIV case list. We account for about 20 or 25% of new cases. It sounds nice to call it a gay disease, but reality is we are all at risk.
One way HIV/AIDS transferred to the heterosexual community was via husbands and boyfriends who caught HIV via gay sex and then gave it to their girlfriend or wife. After a heterosexual woman became infected with HIV, they could then give it to other heterosexual males.
OK wake up dude. If someone commits to risky behavior, gay straight or bi, they own their consequences. HIV is not a gay disease, it's just more prominent in gay males in America because the same ones who have it pass it to other gay men... Thus making it harder to spread into the straight community because of fewer 'transactions' with men who also mess with women. Ever wonder why the statistics are so low for lesbians? It's also not like one lrisky encounter will spread the disease. The chance of getting it from someone, who isn't on medication either, is still less than 6% and can be as low as. 03% depending on the acts performed, unless it's at the early or ending stages of the disease. In Africa and other developing countries you'll note that infection is much higher amongst straight partners.
Moderator cut: Against TOS
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-14-2014 at 11:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
