Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

HIV in the 80s

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?

by clueless Millennial reply 7911/15/2013

Sorry -- "would have the *most* sex" -- though even that, now that I think about it, doesn't sound correct.

by clueless Millennial reply 109/15/2013

In general no. At one point every person died, Gorgeous, Ugly, Young, Old. I'm still surprised that some survived at all

by clueless Millennial reply 209/15/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 309/15/2013


by clueless Millennial reply 409/15/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 509/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 609/16/2013

Oh, dear . . . .

by clueless Millennial reply 709/16/2013

Grow up, r4!

Most of the hotties were infected, than non-hotties.

by clueless Millennial reply 909/16/2013

oh, dear. please write a complete sentence

by clueless Millennial reply 1009/16/2013


Idiotic topic, idiotic responses. Ugly implications in topic. Fools.

by clueless Millennial reply 1109/16/2013

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+?

by clueless Millennial reply 1209/16/2013

It so clearly isn't a fact. HIV is no respecter of roles or aesthetics.

by clueless Millennial reply 1309/16/2013

Bottoms are at far greater risk than tops. This is a fact. You can actually look up the statistics. Get a clue.

by clueless Millennial reply 1409/16/2013

I have long believed that had I been good looking in the 80's I that would be dead.

by clueless Millennial reply 1509/16/2013

I don't know how else to put this, OP, but I hate you.

by clueless Millennial reply 1609/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 1709/16/2013

Yes OP, you are clueless.

by clueless Millennial reply 1809/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 1909/16/2013

R19, I think he was implying that he wasn't getting laid.

by clueless Millennial reply 2009/16/2013

You're a fucking moron, OP.

by clueless Millennial reply 2109/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 2209/16/2013

[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.

by clueless Millennial reply 2309/16/2013

The most gorgeous guy ive ever seen died of HIV-related complications in 1993 and he did not have the 'appearance' of someone HIV+

by clueless Millennial reply 2409/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 2609/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 2709/16/2013

Multiple voices in your head does not equal a medical consensus, R25.

by clueless Millennial reply 2809/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 2909/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3009/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3109/16/2013

TONS of ignorance on this thread

by clueless Millennial reply 3209/16/2013

[quote]Their doctors got them in drug trials, even if they didn't qualify. So many of them were saved that way.

Bull Shit.

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3309/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3409/16/2013

[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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3509/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3609/16/2013

OP, I hope you're a troll, because your post reflects badly on your intelligence otherwise.

by clueless Millennial reply 3709/16/2013

[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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3809/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 3909/16/2013

R40, you gave a thoughtful response.

Much better than 'you're a moron.'

by clueless Millennial reply 4009/16/2013

What is that newest drug called, R37?

by clueless Millennial reply 4109/16/2013

Prior to the '70s most gay men did not engage in discussions with morons.

by clueless Millennial reply 4209/16/2013

Prior to the '70s most gay men did not engage in Neilsen ratings polls.

by clueless Millennial reply 4309/16/2013

Prior to the '70s most gay men did not exfoliate.

by clueless Millennial reply 4409/16/2013

Prior to the '70s most gay men did not marry Liza.

by clueless Millennial reply 4509/16/2013

Prior to the '70s, most gay men admired Richard Prior.

by clueless Millennial reply 4609/16/2013

Prior to the '70s, most gay men did not own a baseball jacket.

by clueless Millennial reply 4709/16/2013

What is this "anal" that R25 refers to?

by clueless Millennial reply 4809/16/2013

R28, read the link below (it's not too late for you to get educated):

by clueless Millennial reply 4909/16/2013

Doctors didn't do shit back then, unless you had Cadillac insurance and most people didn't, because their employers fired them before they got their diagnosis.

by clueless Millennial reply 5009/16/2013

and more:

by clueless Millennial reply 5109/16/2013

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?

by clueless Millennial reply 5209/16/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 5309/17/2013

I love you, R54.

by clueless Millennial reply 5409/17/2013

[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+.

by clueless Millennial reply 5509/17/2013

So what's everyone's answer to the question?

by clueless Millennial reply 5609/18/2013

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

by clueless Millennial reply 5709/18/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 5809/20/2013

No it isn't R61 because in truth it never happens. You get maybe a trace and that's all.

by clueless Millennial reply 6109/20/2013


by clueless Millennial reply 6209/21/2013

[quote]having my dick shellacked in SHIT!

Not classy.

Maybe classic.

by clueless Millennial reply 6309/21/2013

So then why isn't opposite-sex buttsex spreadin' the hiv, as much?

by clueless Millennial reply 6409/22/2013

[quote]I exclusively top, though almost exclusively bareback.

See, this is how AIDS gets the very dumb, first.

by clueless Millennial reply 6509/22/2013

dumb, but you're dumber.

by clueless Millennial reply 6609/22/2013

ah the 80s

by clueless Millennial reply 6711/09/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 6811/09/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 6911/09/2013

Do you really believe that R70? Not being judgmental. Just asking

by clueless Millennial reply 7011/09/2013

[R71] Sure I do. As a general rule, good looks come from good genes. Also, being attractive is closely linked to being healthy.

by clueless Millennial reply 7111/10/2013

With darkrooms, gloryholes etc. do you really thinks looks affected infection likelihood? Puh-lease!?

by clueless Millennial reply 7211/10/2013

[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.

by clueless Millennial reply 7311/10/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 7411/10/2013

[R75] Good for you, I hope things are going well for you.

by clueless Millennial reply 7511/14/2013

R74, don't believe what they tell you about India. AIDS is widespread there.

by clueless Millennial reply 7711/15/2013

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.

by clueless Millennial reply 7811/15/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!