Generally, was it that the hottest guys got infected at a higher rate than the less hot guys? The thought is that the hottest guys would have the more sex with the highest numbers of guys. On the other hand, was it that the hottest guys survived at a higher rate, because they were generally happier (conducive to physical health) and maybe went to the gym more and ate better?
Sorry -- "would have the *most* sex" -- though even that, now that I think about it, doesn't sound correct.
In general no. At one point every person died, Gorgeous, Ugly, Young, Old. I'm still surprised that some survived at all
I believe it was guys who were bottoms died more than anyone else.
A guy I know put it bluntly to me once: "You're alive because you didn't get fucked in the ass without a condom."
I think handsome tops were more likely to survive the '80s than handsome bottoms. Same goes for ugly tops/ugly bottoms.
It was a virus, not a moral judgement. It spread through social groupings more than anonymous sex, so you could say they were hotter on average, not being ugly public sex trolls or married closet caes, but they didn't have more sex contacts on average than say bathhouse regulars: usually far less.
Imagine being super hot, getting tons of fun sex (e.g., a male model), and then finding out you've got HIV. SUCKS.
BTW, male models looked really different from today's male models: not sure what it is, but 80s male models seem more square-jawed or something.
Oh, dear . . . .
Does the virus have a sense of aesthetics?
Grow up, r4!
Most of the hotties were infected, than non-hotties.
oh, dear. please write a complete sentence
Idiotic topic, idiotic responses. Ugly implications in topic. Fools.
Maybe I missed something but being 49 and having come of age as AIDS became well-known made me VERY careful therefore can someone explain to me when it became accepted fact that only bottoms become HIV+?
It so clearly isn't a fact.
HIV is no respecter of roles or aesthetics.
Bottoms are at far greater risk than tops. This is a fact. You can actually look up the statistics. Get a clue.
I have long believed that had I been good looking in the 80's I that would be dead.
I don't know how else to put this, OP, but I hate you.
You know something r14, it's exposure to the virus that gives someone HIV, not being a top or a bottom. I've known plenty of tops who got it, imagining that you can breeze through life as a top having unprotected sex won't just make you sick, it'll infect - even kill - other people.
Yes OP, you are clueless.
Didn't Harvey Fierstein once say if he had been very good looking, he would not have survived the AIDS epidemic? I always thought that was a stupid statement. I saw all kinds die, and all kinds survive. That being said, most guys from the 80s and early 90s I know who survived were either tops or bottoms who insisted on safe sex only.
R19, I think he was implying that he wasn't getting laid.
You're a fucking moron, OP.
Having lived during those years at one of the main epicenters (San Francisco) and having lost tons of friends, the main common denominator was definitely anal sex. Of the guys I know who died, 100% of them were primarily into anal sex. On the other hand, guys who primarily indulged in oral sex basically remained free of HIV infection, even if they had had sex with those who were infected.
[quote]You know something [R14], it's exposure to the virus that gives someone HIV, not being a top or a bottom. I've known plenty of tops who got it, imagining that you can breeze through life as a top having unprotected sex won't just make you sick, it'll infect - even kill - other people.
The virus has to get into your bloodstream via semen or blood. Receptive anal sex allows for much greater exposure to both. You are far more likely to get HIV from bottoming. The "tops" that get it are often disinclined to admit they bottom, for whatever reason.
The most gorgeous guy ive ever seen died of HIV-related complications in 1993 and he did not have the 'appearance' of someone HIV+
The new consensus is that HIV originated in 1970s in places like Castro and the Village, facillitated by the use of "poppers" (weakening the immune system). Prior to the '70s most gay men did not engage in anal.
I knew four guys who [italic]swore[/italic] they were exclusive tops who either died in (3), or have been HIV+ since (1), the 1980s. Two of them fucked me without protection just prior to our hearing about AIDS.
I've managed to stay HIV- throughout. I am confounded by this fact.
The majority of the gorgeous Fire Island crowd died early on. It was an orgy every weekend during the summer. This was before any meds were available to treat the disease.
Most of the NYC A-list members were able to get the new HIV meds before they hit the market. Their doctors got them in drug trials, even if they didn't qualify. So many of them were saved that way.
Multiple voices in your head does not equal a medical consensus, R25.
R25, prior to the 1970s most gay men did not engage in anal? You are as clueless as the OP.
I really am astounded at what I read on DL from time to time.
If you look at your hot friends on Facebook, it's easy to see how quickly and completely AIDS spread. Just click on their "friends" tab and see how every hot guy in your city, and throughout the country, is linked to each other.
Yes, OP, it was considered a badge of pride to be infected, because it meant only you were truly beautiful. As well know, only beautiful people have lots of sex.
TONS of ignorance on this thread
[quote]Their doctors got them in drug trials, even if they didn't qualify. So many of them were saved that way.
Money can get you to the head of the line and perhaps even get you some experimental drugs on the black market.
But get you into at trial you don't qualify for? I don't think so. Giant pharmaceutical companies have everything to lose if the trial is found to be fraudulent. When it comes to money Big Pharma wins.
It is interesting to me this current obsession with top vs. bottom - not as a sex act but as some kind of identity.
The loss of so many... very, very sad.
But the loss of a really hot top? Let alone masses of really hot tops?
That is the gay unimaginable tragedy.
[quote]But get you into at trial you don't qualify for? I don't think so.
I knew several people who got put into the drug trials by their doctor even though they didn't qualify. The doctors(many of them gay) were doing everything they could to save lives back then. Thank goodness they did because nobody else gave a damn.
Speaking of HIV and drugs, I just learned that an HIV-positive acquaintance had a stroke last week. He is 45 and has been on anti-HIV drugs for the last 20 years. Doctors think the stroke is a side effect of the newest drug he's taking -- he's been through so many since I've known him because they all eventually stop keeping the HIV at bay. It's affected his speech, his brain functions and his left-side motor functions. Doctors are pretty optimistic he'll recover most of his abilities, but jeez, I feel for the guy.
OP, I hope you're a troll, because your post reflects badly on your intelligence otherwise.
[quote]The new consensus is that HIV originated in 1970s in places like Castro and the Village, facillitated by the use of "poppers"
Please provide a link for this, or you're just parroting the same crap John Lauritsen was pushing back in the day. Nitrates were actually eliminated as a co-factor after a point.
Generally speaking, it was the guys who opened up their buttholes to the world, who got felled first and fast, like trees.
This slut-bottom wing of the gay community contained (at that time), and contains to this day, both hot guys, average guys, and fugly guys alike.
Michael Bronski (the well known gay-culture writer and historian) says he happened to survive the plague simply because his sexual-activity predilection was oral-only.
R40, you gave a thoughtful response.
Much better than 'you're a moron.'
What is that newest drug called, R37?
Prior to the '70s most gay men did not engage in discussions with morons.
Prior to the '70s most gay men did not engage in Neilsen ratings polls.
Prior to the '70s most gay men did not exfoliate.
Prior to the '70s most gay men did not marry Liza.
Prior to the '70s, most gay men admired Richard Prior.
Prior to the '70s, most gay men did not own a baseball jacket.
Is receptive anal sex more of a risk because...of tearing, or even if it looks like there's no tearing, there's still microfissures or something, or because tissue absorbs things easier back there...or something.
Sorry if my question is dumb, but they really haven't taught people right.
There still do seem to be other (sexual)ways of getting it, including the rarer, but still technically possible heterosexual ways.
Why are those ways less risky but still not 0% risk? Why is Africa's HIV problem more based around heterosexual incidents?
My lover died in March 1990 at age 33, He was a beautiful young man with a huge heart.Before he died he was writing a book. He finished the book and signed a contract, Two weeks later his health took a turn for the worse and he slipped into a coma.
It was a complete surprise.
My partner, soul mate, best friend and lover was leaving.
Life changed overnight. Our apartment felt very cold. His so-called
friends didn't encourage visits with me and I moved on.
He has been dead for tenty-three years. I think of him every single day.
On some level I feel that we are still connected. I occasionally feel his presence.
I feel blessed to have met him and had a brief, wonderful period where we completely shared our lives together.
The beauty is in the seeing.
I love you, R54.
[quote]Is receptive anal sex more of a risk because...of tearing, or even if it looks like there's no tearing, there's still microfissures or something, or because tissue absorbs things easier back there...or something.
It is more of a risk because the anal lining is barely even a lining at all, compared to the vagina... the anus is extremely porous tissue. This is why a vodka enema (new stupid trend on some campuses, apparently) can make a college kid black out, fast.
It also tears easily including little micro-tears. This happens all the time for constipated people. I personally believe this is part of why AIDS has spread so much in parts of Africa, and among American black men who have sex with men: frankly, if the penetrating penis is very large and HIV+, and the fucking is very hard/rough, then the odds of HIV transmission are pretty close to 100%. You don't see this kind of widespread HIV transmission in the poorer parts of Asia and India. They have had some, but not nearly as devastating. I really do think there is a major risk difference between getting fucked by a huge 9" dick that is HIV+, vs getting fucked by a small 5" dick that is HIV+.
So what's everyone's answer to the question?
R56, a nurse practitioner friend of mine informed me that the walls of the vagina are built to absorb fluids. That's means the risk is nearly as high if not higher
I still can't believe there are people on here who think that there's no difference between the risks associated with topping and those associated with bottoming. I recently got tested for all manner of STIs, including HIV. I'm negative, thank god, but I'm not really surprised, as I exclusively top, though almost exclusively bareback. I've since vowed to stop that barebacking, as the anxiety I felt after each encounter just wasn't worth the few minutes of heightened pleasure.
For me, the worst thing about anal is pulling out and having my dick shellacked in SHIT! WTF is wrong with people that they should make so much mud? What are they eating that makes such horrendous feces? And pulling off the shit-soaked condom is the worst. If I'm at their house, I usually use their sheet or pillow case when they're not looking. They can deal with it later. If I'm at my place, I pull off the condom quickly, then grab the guy by the hair. He thinks I'm being affectionate and playful but I'm really just 'wiping.' lol And I NEVER let them shower at my place neither. They want to (especially as they realize they are RIPE) but I tell there's a water emergency in my building and I show them a note that I got from building management about the water being turned off. (They don't know the note is from last year!)
R60, NASTY! This is why straights find gay male sex so repulsive
No it isn't R61 because in truth it never happens. You get maybe a trace and that's all.
[quote]having my dick shellacked in SHIT!
So then why isn't opposite-sex buttsex spreadin' the hiv, as much?
[quote]I exclusively top, though almost exclusively bareback.
See, this is how AIDS gets the very dumb, first.
dumb, but you're dumber.
ah the 80s
I had just come out, and had my very first boyfriend when we heard about AIDS. We were both in college, and it was the greatest time of my life.
I went on to lose a few friends and acquaintances to the disease, but since I was in small town, USA, I didn't lose anywhere near the people many others did.
But the specter of AIDS caused me to develop several issues involving sex and intimacy that have stayed with me until this day. Sometimes I wonder if younger gay men even worry about the disease.
It's just another layer in what we've suffered as a group.
The hottest guys got infected more because more people wanted to have sex with them. But they had higher survival rates in part because attractive people tend to have better genes & immune systems than unattractive people.
Do you really believe that R70? Not being judgmental. Just asking
[R71] Sure I do. As a general rule, good looks come from good genes. Also, being attractive is closely linked to being healthy.
With darkrooms, gloryholes etc. do you really thinks looks affected infection likelihood? Puh-lease!?
[quote] You don't see this kind of widespread HIV transmission in the poorer parts of Asia and India.
That may be because there is less widespread promescuity in India and the parts of Asia that have lower HIV transmissions rates. In India I know the women are certainly very closely kept, so there is little chance of fucking around. I've read that African traditions of multiple concurrent sex partners really spreads it around there, and there are also the problems of really high rates of rape in many African countries, guys refusing to wear condoms, and bogus folk medicine beliefs about AIDS like raping a virgin will disinfect you.
When I was first diagnosed with HIV in 1987, my bf was a doctor who used connections to get us on the Salk HIV vaccine. I think it's why I'm alive today.
[R75] Good for you, I hope things are going well for you.
Obviously the good looking ones died. It's obvious. The only ones left alive from that era are the old man trolls. Look at them! Hideous! Ugh!
R74, don't believe what they tell you about India. AIDS is widespread there.
The saddest thing I see around NYC are all the young gay guys who talk about HIV/AIDS like it's a thing of the ancient past. People are still being infected, some this very moment, and people are still dying (though more slowly than in the past). Barebacking has become the rage among the young. I weep for them.