Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6sG2C54md377Rxi | Hacker News Reader

I don’t understand.

> The biggest opponents of doing anything about AIDS, anything at all, were conservatives trumpeting family values.

And then later in the article:

> The notion of “pregnancy is the only drawback to sex” ended up setting the groundwork for HIV spread amongst the gay community, as there was no need for the use of condoms.

Diseases which can be sexually transmitted among humans have existed a lot longer than AIDS. Syphilis (as the first STD that comes to mind) does not discriminate by gender or sexual orientation, and while it isn’t a death sentence, it can be fatal, and many of its symptoms can drastically reduce quality of life.

I’m not sure I understand what this article is saying. Did gay men at the time not consider syphilis a threat worthy of protecting themselves?

View on HN

The 1950s through 1970s were the golden ages of antibiotics. New ones discovered all the time, and minimal resistance. Stuff like syphilis was readily curable.

So Hep B, herpes, HPV and anything else that is viral and not readily cured by a course of antibiotics is simply not a concern?

I’m not a doctor, gay man, or a sexually active person, but it doesn’t take much research to figure out that unprotected sex with random people will cause health problems that cannot be waved off with a simple pill.

Believe it or not, sexually transmitted diseases were not much of a concern from the sexual revolution of the 1960s until the arrival of herpes, or at least the re-branding of herpes as a very bad thing. [1]

So everyone was afraid of the herps, an untreatable condition.

Then AIDS came along!

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/genital-herpes-stigma-h...

> So Hep B, herpes, HPV and anything else that is viral and not readily cured by a course of antibiotics is simply not a concern?

For the most part, correct. Herpes and HPV hit basically everyone; chances are you've had one or both. Hep B is less prevalent, but still quite widespread (Wiki says 1/3 of people will get it eventually), and in most cases has minimal symptoms.

They're nothing like HIV.

The culture told gay men that they were impossible and sex was bad. Gay men discovered on their own that they actually were possible and did in fact exist and when they had sex it was good. So there was a cultural idea that sex being dangerous was created by the church and other large social structures in order to control people. If you were straight and wanted a family, as is the case with many, then this might not be such a big deal.

This is similar to modern conflicts such as the projection that drug users or gun owners are inherently malicious.

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.

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?

> 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.

>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.

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.

Not really. You just didn't want everyone knowing you're having sex. Especially in small communities.

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.

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.

All of the known STDs at the time we’re bacterial and cured with antibiotics. Syphilis was curable for decades. AIDS scared the shit out of everyone because science didn’t know what was going on. Fauci is a damn hero.

>. All of the known STDs...

herpes and human papilloma virus are both viral stds long known.

I was in college then and with recurrent strep (bacterial) treated in infectious diseases at a major hospital in Chicago, where HIV patients were also treated; they (science, doctors) knew what was going on very well, but how to effectively treat it was totally the unknown, to your point.

>Did gay men at the time not consider syphilis a threat worthy of protecting themselves?

Well, there was penicillin. I think most just preferred 'rawdogging' it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com