4 ms·

Were you around when this came about? There was a lot of fear and uncertainty. There was also a strong undercurrent of hate, and that these gay men deserve to

Were you around when this came about? There was a lot of fear and uncertainty. There was also a strong undercurrent of hate, and that these gay men deserve to die for being "bad". There still is a lot of hate (hat tip to Mitch Hedberg), but it was worse back then. I lost several friends to this disease -- it was, and remains, heartbreaking.

6sG2C54md377Rxi 5y ago
I’m not questioning the reality of AIDS or its impact. I’m trying to understand the climate and people’s outlook of the time. You’re right: I wasn’t around during that era. I was born in ‘86 in a faraway society that did not see these issues the same way. However, I was taught from a young age that sexual promiscuity lacking precautions was a sure pathway to disease and possibly early death. Was this not common knowledge in the US? Were gay men fundamentally more reckless than a baseline American?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > However, I was taught from a young age that sexual promiscuity lacking precautions was a sure pathway to disease and possibly early death. Sex ed changed pretty significantly in the 80s/90s, yes. > Were gay men fundamentally more reckless than a baseline American? The attitude of "baseline Americans" was likely fairly similar - if you catch something, you can get a shot of penicillin. The US military in WWII got pretty comfortable treating "venereal disease" after shore leave.
- DaveExeter 5y ago
  >However, I was taught from a young age that sexual promiscuity lacking precautions was a sure pathway to disease and possibly early death Yes, because you grew up post-AIDs. Pre-AIDs, it was different. If you grew up before AIDs, you would have been taught the greatest danger of promiscuous sex was unwanted pregnancy.
- stan_rogers 5y ago
  Actually getting condoms used to be a highly stigmatized pain in the ass back in the "caveman" days in large swaths of the world (especially in large swaths of the US). You came up in a very different environment.
  - sh4un 5y ago
    Not really. You just didn't want everyone knowing you're having sex. Especially in small communities.
- pstuart 5y ago
  Other commenters are appropriately addressing the nature of other STDs and attitudes at the time. Yes, they were more reckless because until then they pretty much could be (caveats for the risks already known, but those were equal opportunity offenders). Your lessons on the dangers were based on those learned at this time. When it hit there was no understanding and it was frightening for all.
david38 5y ago
You could theoretically argue that you reap what you sow in regards to gay men having unprotected sex with many partners. Some biblical/moral whatever. Let us suppose this argument for a minute. Very quickly it wasn’t just gay men, but innocent housewives who those men infected and then babies as well. For that reason, if for no other reason, research into treatment was necessary. What, you’re going to let someone die because someone else you don’t like dies of the same thing? The trouble with “god’s punishment” has always been that his punishments have always been rather gangster-esque. That is, lots of peripheral casualties.

6sG2C54md377Rxi 5y ago

I’m not questioning the reality of AIDS or its impact. I’m trying to understand the climate and people’s outlook of the time. You’re right: I wasn’t around during that era. I was born in ‘86 in a faraway society that did not see these issues the same way. However, I was taught from a young age that sexual promiscuity lacking precautions was a sure pathway to disease and possibly early death. Was this not common knowledge in the US? Were gay men fundamentally more reckless than a baseline American?

ceejayoz 5y ago
> However, I was taught from a young age that sexual promiscuity lacking precautions was a sure pathway to disease and possibly early death. Sex ed changed pretty significantly in the 80s/90s, yes. > Were gay men fundamentally more reckless than a baseline American? The attitude of "baseline Americans" was likely fairly similar - if you catch something, you can get a shot of penicillin. The US military in WWII got pretty comfortable treating "venereal disease" after shore leave.
DaveExeter 5y ago
>However, I was taught from a young age that sexual promiscuity lacking precautions was a sure pathway to disease and possibly early death Yes, because you grew up post-AIDs. Pre-AIDs, it was different. If you grew up before AIDs, you would have been taught the greatest danger of promiscuous sex was unwanted pregnancy.
stan_rogers 5y ago
Actually getting condoms used to be a highly stigmatized pain in the ass back in the "caveman" days in large swaths of the world (especially in large swaths of the US). You came up in a very different environment.
- sh4un 5y ago
  Not really. You just didn't want everyone knowing you're having sex. Especially in small communities.
pstuart 5y ago
Other commenters are appropriately addressing the nature of other STDs and attitudes at the time. Yes, they were more reckless because until then they pretty much could be (caveats for the risks already known, but those were equal opportunity offenders). Your lessons on the dangers were based on those learned at this time. When it hit there was no understanding and it was frightening for all.

david38 5y ago

You could theoretically argue that you reap what you sow in regards to gay men having unprotected sex with many partners. Some biblical/moral whatever. Let us suppose this argument for a minute. Very quickly it wasn’t just gay men, but innocent housewives who those men infected and then babies as well. For that reason, if for no other reason, research into treatment was necessary. What, you’re going to let someone die because someone else you don’t like dies of the same thing? The trouble with “god’s punishment” has always been that his punishments have always been rather gangster-esque. That is, lots of peripheral casualties.