AIDS and homosexuality

lyonsy

Why was AIDS such an epidemic for gay men in the 80s? Is it that gay men are (were) more promiscuous then hetrosexuals, is it that the manner in which homosexual intercourse in performed is more succeptable to AIDS, is it some other reason, or is the link between AIDS and homosexuality simply a myth. Sorry i had to ask here but i haven't been able to find an answer searching online, so i though the gay community itself might know.

Rick_

I remember reading somewhere recently that there are more diagnosed cases of AIDS in heterosexual couples today than in gay couples. It's not a gay problem, heteros can get it too. Why it's been pinned onto the gays, I don't know. Is it a conspiracy? Or would an educated guess being that it was first discovered in a gay man that lead to the assumption that it was a 'gay thing' be too far fetched?

Talliesin

Consider another case.

SARS is a disease that is spread through respiratory secretions. If you are near to someone with SARS you can catch it. Once a few people in China had it, lots more people could catch it because the behaviour that will spread it - breathing in aersolised respiratory secretions and other contact - was occuring amongst that group. Chinese people weren't more likely to breathe than the rest of us, and the way Chinese people breathe wasn't more succeptable to SARS, they were just the ones that were engaging in the practice of breathing amongst people where breathing could give them SARS.

Similarly, while there were certainly clusters of highly promiscuous gay people in the US in the 80s (just like there are clusters of highly promiscuous straight people), it's largely a matter that if you put a gay man with HIV in a bar with a gay man and a straight woman, it was the gay man that he was going to try to chat up.

Diseases will cluster along the lines of how it is spread. There's nothing inherent to homosexuality that made gay men more likely to catch HIV in the 80s, just like there isn't anything inherent to heterosexuality that makes straight people spread it faster now.

An STI can just as easily be hitting mainly straight people and largely leaving gay people alone until it gets to a certain breakthrough point where it won't be found in any particular group.

Bottle_of_Smoke

You're more likely to catch it from anal than vaginal.

Men are more promiscuous than women.

"No pregancy, why use a condom?" logic

Talliesin

If the above was the case, then straights wouldn't have caught-up and overtaken gays in infection rates.

Stark

I reckon the criminalisation of homosexuality had a certain amount to do with it as well. Before decriminalisation, none of the gay health organisations that we have today could exist. Combine sexual ignorance with an underground anonymous sex lifestyle and you've the perfect breeding ground for sexually transmitted infections. The very fact that we need to tell girls that the pill doesn't protect them from infections shows how little you can take for granted when it comes to educating people.

Guy:Incognito

Talliesin wrote:

If the above was the case, then straights wouldn't have caught-up and overtaken gays in infection rates.

It that in % or in actual numbers?

AARRRGH

It's generally accepted that there has to be some kind of virus to blood contact to contract HIV. That's why it's so hard (esp. for heterosexuals) to catch HIV.

Analsex generally results in small injuries in the anus, so it's a lot easier for the virus (in the semen) to make blood contact.

Boston

AIDs scares the **** out of me. Its a completely unjustified fear but I take measures accordingly. You won't find very many heterosexuals saying the same thing, personally I think the pill and the misuse of the pill are directly related to spread of HIV among heterosexuals. How many people do you know that have no problem having un-protected sex once they know the pill is being used, without even an STI test?

As for why it spread in the 80s, a combination of Stark's and Talli's posts, I.E. The nature of the disease and the culture presence back then.

Boston

Stekelly wrote:

It that in % or in actual numbers?

What I've read is that they have the fastest increasing infection rate. Rate would suggest as a percentage of a given total population.

dublindude wrote:

It's generally accepted that there has to be some kind of virus to blood contact to contract HIV. That's why it's so hard (esp. for heterosexuals) to catch HIV.

Analsex generally results in small injuries in the anus, so it's a lot easier for the virus (in the semen) to make blood contact.

Yes, but its still amazing difficult to contract the hiv virus in isolation this way. Other STI's play apart, as does drug use and lack of treatment. It is far easier for a gay man to get a blood test in this country then it is for a heterosexual man, meaning you're more likely to be diagnosed and less likely to unwittingly spread the disease. Furthermore, and while I can't find the link, apparently only 25% of gay men engage in anal sex.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Talliesin wrote:

If the above was the case, then straights wouldn't have caught-up and overtaken gays in infection rates.

What are you basing that on?

Note in the first thread he said gay men in the 80s, not gays in general.

You also have to consider that one effect of the "epidemic" was to make gays of today very very careful.

Men are still more promiscuous than women but women are certainly catching up.

As for pregnancy straights now have the pill. Completely agree with Boston on that issue.

If you don't believe me about the anal/vaginal part ask any doctor.

Finally have rates actually caught up, or just numbers? I honestly don't knwo for sure.

Boston

We believe you about the anal Vs Virginal but Its often blown out of proportion. Viral load, Other STI's and Drug use will always be more significant. There are cases of people contracting HIV from oral sex for instance.

tallaght01

It's extremely rare to catch HIV through oral sex. However, when a person becomes infected, they've often had several types of penetration, so it's difficult to quantify the exact risk from any one form of intercourse.

From a doctor's point of view, homosexuals are at a higher risk of HIV, and it's more common in this population. Real numbers and "rate of increase" aren't so important, as there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the population.

Homosexual males have higher RATES of HIV infection. This is because anal sex is associated with higher rates of transmission, primarily.

Also, there has been a culture of promiscuity within the gay community. I realise that may be controversial, aswell as being factually incorrect. I don't know for certain. But small studies done, do show higher rates of unprotected sex amongst homosexual men, as well as higher rates of partner exchange. I don't mean to offend anybody by saying that. It's a culture often referred to by gay lobbyists too.

Anal sex is without doubt the riskiest form of intercourse. Within this population, the likelihood of the disease being passed on also depends on whether the infected person has been diagnosed. If they are, they are likely to be on drugs to keep their viral load low. If they are not on drugs, their viral load is likely to be too low to require them. Sadly, a recent study showed that (I think) 15% of HIV positive gay men still engage in unprotected intercourse.

I'm only referring to the gay comunity, as that's what the OP referred to. Heterosexual females account for the largest group of HIV positive people worldwide. On a global scale, heterosexual intercourse is the main route of transmission of HIV.

Sadly, some people will always regard HIV as a gay disease. When I once told somebody that women with HIV outnumbered men with HIV, she told me it must be because of lebianism!!!!

Annasopra

You also have to consider that one effect of the "epidemic" was to make gays of today very very careful.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with your use of the word "today" there - I think in the 80s and 90s there was much more awareness and shock tactic advertising but some of that has worn off

see for example the report below

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfeysngbsn/

AARRRGH

In St. James's about a year ago I went in to get a full STD checkup. About two years previous I had gotten a check up as well.

Anyway, the doctor asked if I wanted my blood work done. I told her my history: unprotected sex with about 6 "normal" girls in the two year period. She said I am so low risk I don't "need" to get checked for HIV / Hep.

Anecdotal, I know, but it does suggest to me she wasn't seeing many non drug using, hetero men contracting HIV. Even the ones who were having unsafe sex...

When people say HIV is growing fastest in the hetero community: they are talking about Western Europe or are they including the likes of Africa and India? Also, without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, who is the study sponsored by? I've read a few - sponsored by condom companies - so I would dismiss them altogether.

empirix

Anal sex is a whole lot riskier than vaginal, thats a fact, tissue is tender and can tear quite easily - hence a very real chance of infection. I think the odds for a man catching it having unprotected vaginal sex with a hiv + woman is around 4:1 while a woman having unprotected sex with a hiv + man is 2:1. Hence the percentages of the gay community is going to be higher.


So lads who fancies them odds above!:rolleyes: Cover up!

AARRRGH

empirix wrote:

I think the odds for a man catching it having unprotected vaginal sex with a hiv + woman is around 4:1 while a woman having unprotected sex with a hiv + man is 2:1.

I thought it was 10000:1

(Seriously)

Is the Padian study bollox?

EDIT: In fact, thinking about your 4:1 and 2:1 figures; they are total nonsense. If they were true we'd all be HIV+. The amount of unsafe sex that goes on in the world (the vast majority of sex) and the very small number of HIV+ people makes it obvious it is not easy at all to catch HIV. I know very few people who use condoms all the time. And I don't know anyone who continues to use condoms after they've been with their partner for a while.

empirix

You could be right, i just remember reading those particular figures somewhere.

Very small number of hiv + people! Yikes what would you call big then?

Stark

dublindude wrote:

Anecdotal, I know, but it does suggest to me she wasn't seeing many non drug using, hetero men contracting HIV. Even the ones who were having unsafe sex...

Well it's a lot harder for the HIV virus to pass from a woman to a man during normal intercourse because of the way the plumbing is arranged. That said, the story still suggests to me that the doctor was an idiot. I mean if straight men are supposedly "ultra low risk" in her opinion, where are all the straight women who become infected with HIV getting it from?

azezil

The HIV fairy perhaps?

<HIV Fairy> Oh I don't like the look of that young wan, she's so getting HIV, little tramp!

tallaght01

The figures for transmission range from 1 in 300 to 1 in 1000 for heterosexual intercourse.

This odds are known to be heightened in male to male intercourse.

Nobody knows the true figures, as it's very difficult to study.

It is, though, very hard to catch the virus.

Those figures will also vary greatly between sleeping with somebody who has well controlled HIV, and somebody who has, say, full blown AIDS.

So, the risk will be different in different circumstances.

Circumcised males also have a significantly lower risk of catching HIV.

Nevyn

Stark wrote:

Well it's a lot harder for the HIV virus to pass from a woman to a man during normal intercourse because of the way the plumbing is arranged. That said, the story still suggests to me that the doctor was an idiot. I mean if straight men are supposedly "ultra low risk" in her opinion, where are all the straight women who become infected with HIV getting it from?

Hetro/Bi women are more likely to get hiv then herto men due to the fact sperm deposited in the vagina and can stay there alive viable and containing the HIV viris for up to 72 hours. Also oh yeah the fact hiv infected sperm will swim up into the uterus where there is a blood lining and start spreading there and eventually into the blood stream.

There was some research a while back that seemed to say that circumcised men were less likely to become infect from a hiv positive woman as they didn't have any where for infected vaginal fluids to collect.

tallaght01

it's thought that the reason uncircumcised men are less likely to catch HIV is because there at T-lymphocytes in the underside of the foreskin. HIV lives in T-lymphocytes, so they're an easy mode of entry into your system.

But, again, it's not an area that's fully understood, so there could be a variety of reasons.

AARRRGH

Stark wrote:

where are all the straight women who become infected with HIV getting it from?

How many straight non drug using Irish women are getting HIV?

Seriously?

From the stats released for Ireland every year (roughly 300 new HIV cases, over 50% from sub Saharan Africans) I would imagine it's a very low figure.

Boston

dublindude wrote:

How many straight non drug using Irish women are getting HIV?

Seriously?

From the stats released for Ireland every year (roughly 300 new HIV cases, over 50% from sub Saharan Africans) I would imagine it's a very low figure.

Well, you should be asking that question about who they are sleeping with.

Rick_

Boston wrote:

while I can't find the link, apparently only 25% of gay men engage in anal sex.

Do they by any chance populate in the Gaydar chat rooms? Everyone on there are basically cruising for anal sex no matter what rom they are in! I'm not interested in anal, and never will participate in it as it doesn't appeal to me. So I suppose my chances of HIV are greatly reduced .

Boston

Paddy C wrote:

Do they by any chance populate in the Gaydar chat rooms? Everyone on there are basically cruising for anal sex no matter what rom they are in! I'm not interested in anal, and never will participate in it as it doesn't appeal to me. So I suppose my chances of HIV are greatly reduced .

I've no idea, never used gaydar. Well bar that one shared experience me and stark had. I read about the 25% about 2 years ago by my estimates.

Marksie

Thaedydal wrote:

There was some research a while back that seemed to say that circumcised men were less likely to become infect from a hiv positive woman as they didn't have any where for infected vaginal fluids to collect.

Some of the research i read indicated that the increases keratinisation which occurs on the surface layers of the circumsed penis may help as a barrier.

Certainly when i did my degree HIV//AIDS was just surfacing so we followed its progress quite extensively. If i can recall teh twenty or so years back, it first came to peoples attention when clusters of very rare illnesses e.g Kaposis sarcoma occurred in america associated with gays.

I found a pretty interesting tutorial online:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/HIV.html

I actually found something very intersting as i was looking for data to back up what i was saying, its a timeline. Interstingly there is evidence of it being present in the 1930's
http://www.avert.org/aids-timeline.htm

This site is pretty good the stats make grim reading though:

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

Oracle

I know this view is controversial but I think Peter Duesberg my be right in his hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself.

I thought, like most other people, that Duesberg was talking nonsense until I went to his web site and found out what he was saying: http://www.duesberg.com/index.html and http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html (opens a pdf file)

Stark

There was a thread on the various crackpot "AIDS not caused by HIV" theories here a while back.

patrickolee

dublindude wrote:

It's generally accepted that there has to be some kind of virus to blood contact to contract HIV. That's why it's so hard (esp. for heterosexuals) to catch HIV.

Analsex generally results in small injuries in the anus, so it's a lot easier for the virus (in the semen) to make blood contact.

ahhhh, no dublindude. That's incorrect although blood transfer helps, there does not need to be.

Also to the poster talking about cirumcision reducing the chances of catching it, the jury's still out on that one

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/6F898D49-BF01-4E6E-AFAC-2C3D274D91EB.asp

Was searching for the exact transmission likelyhoods of the various different
sexual activities per 1000, it's somewhere up on that site, but I can't find it now. Loads of info on hiv transmission on aidsmap.

There's an interesting article up there on the dublin syphillis outbreak and cross hiv infection.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/0741355D-0058-435E-9AF1-745D40EAA7A1.asp

I liked the comparison earlier to sars outbreak in China. One I generally agree
with.