"I've come to make you better, I've come to take you away"

[strandinthewind]

I know - that was in that movie about AIDS - I cannot remember the title - perhaps "And the Band Played On?" - I think it would be extremely difficult to tell who introduced the virus because people could, even then, live YEARS without knowing they had it and the 70's and even 60'd were all about free love. I mean it is even possible HIV existed for hundreds of years prior to then and just never was spread to readily until the sexual liberation. So, who knows

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know - that was in that movie about AIDS - I cannot remember the title - perhaps "And the Band Played On?" - I think it would be extremely difficult to tell who introduced the virus because people could, even then, live YEARS without knowing they had it and the 70's and even 60'd were all about free love. I mean it is even possible HIV existed for hundreds of years prior to then and just never was spread to readily until the sexual liberation. So, who knows

I was once read that a few men had a very early strain of AIDS in the Tuskeegee Syphilis "Experiments." Who knows how true it is, but I'm inclined to believe it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I was once read that a few men had a very early strain of AIDS in the Tuskeegee Syphilis "Experiments." Who knows how true it is, but I'm inclined to believe it.

Well, the virus, even now, frequently mutuates and that is part of the reason why it is difficult to get a hold of it with medication. So, I am incluned to think it was around WAY before it became in the spotlight

[sparky]

Originally Posted by glitter_fades

Was that the airline steward from Canada? Weren't the earliest US cases traced to this guy who flew all over the world having gay sex? I thought he was well traveled in the NYC gay community during the 70's. He died in the 80's after infecting thousands of partners.

That would be the mythic Patient Zero. He was some guy with a french name. It escapes me now, though I have the Excellent book at home and I recommend it to anyone with even a remote interest in the subject. Talk about outrage. Youi think you like Reagan ? Read this book.

On an epidemiological level, this is all fascinating stuff. It was, epidemiologically speaking, a perfect storm. The infection route of the virus meets the abundant cheap travel, meets the fall of Rome sexual expression of post sexual revolution gay culture. It was a strange historical convergence of events. The details of all that sex club and bath house culture are grisly. I can't imagine the people who would have 20-50 sex partners a night, but it was the perfect environment for that virus to spread and infect an entire community. Never before, and hopefully, never again.

Okay, there's the intro to my dissertation.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, the virus, even now, frequently mutuates and that is part of the reason why it is difficult to get a hold of it with medication. So, I am incluned to think it was around WAY before it became in the spotlight

It may have been, in a different mutation - a less virulent form. But then again, who the hell was keeping infectious disease statistics in the friggin Congo in the early and mid part of the last century ?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sparky

That would be the mythic Patient Zero. He was some guy with a french name. It escapes me now, though I have the Excellent book at home and I recommend it to anyone with even a remote interest in the subject. Talk about outrage. Youi think you like Reagan ? Read this book.

On an epidemiological level, this is all fascinating stuff. It was, epidemiologically speaking, a perfect storm. The infection route of the virus meets the abundant cheap travel, meets the fall of Rome sexual expression of post sexual revolution gay culture. It was a strange historical convergence of events. The details of all that sex club and bath house culture are grisly. I can't imagine the people who would have 20-50 sex partners a night, but it was the perfect environment for that virus to spread and infect an entire community. Never before, and hopefully, never again.

Okay, there's the intro to my dissertation.

I was gonna say that - but you said it better!!!!!!

Also, the gay culture somewhat resisted the closing of the bath houses in the beginning - and - they are reopened today (at least some of them). That movie and other sources thought it was the Regean Admin. trying to take away gay rights and force gay people into the closet. I think in the beginning no one really knew what was going on and the CDC was trying to say what was the case, but the govt. (under Regean) refused to buy it and the gay community already HATED (with good cause) the Regean Administration. The perfect storm indeed. Then, in ALL of that - we have Ray Cohen -- I am not a homosexual - I just like sex with men - homosexuals are weak silly people - I am not. I mean really

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I was gonna say that - but you said it better!!!!!!

Also, the gay culture somewhat resisted the closing of the bath houses in the beginning - and - they are reopened today (at least some of them). That movie and other sources thought it was the Regean Admin. trying to take away gay rights and force gay people into the closet. I think in the beginning no one really knew what was going on and the CDC was trying to say what was the case, but the govt. (under Regean) refused to buy it and the gay community already HATED (with good cause) the Regean Administration. The perfect storm indeed. Then, in ALL of that - we have Ray Cohen -- I am not a homosexual - I just like sex with men - homosexuals are weak silly people - I am not. I mean really

Yeah, but think of the times. To admit that you were gay back in those days, especially if you were a person of reasonable power, or to even admit to having sex with other men, is akin to someone saying today that they like sex with kids. The animosity and hatred that people had for gays back in the early eighties was just as bad as the hatred of black people in the Southern states. I think society contributed a LOT to the ways people like "Ray Cohen" viewed things, it was hammered into them that "fags" were pieces of ****, that they amounted to nothing. It really was sickening and it still goes on today, though to a much lesser extent.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yeah, but think of the times. To admit that you were gay back in those days, especially if you were a person of reasonable power, or to even admit to having sex with other men, is akin to someone saying today that they like sex with kids. The animosity and hatred that people had for gays back in the early eighties was just as bad as the hatred of black people in the Southern states. I think society contributed a LOT to the ways people like "Ray Cohen" viewed things, it was hammered into them that "fags" were pieces of ****, that they amounted to nothing. It really was sickening and it still goes on today, though to a much lesser extent.

So true - look at the former Gov. of Jersey. I am not condoning what he did because it was wrong, but the FAR larger question is if society would have been willing to accept him - he would have never been put in that situation in the first place

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So true - look at the former Gov. of Jersey. I am not condoning what he did because it was wrong, but the FAR larger question is if society would have been willing to accept him - he would have never been put in that situation in the first place

Well, he was a piece of **** because of what he did in office and who he appointed to head Homeland Security for NJ. But I agree. Sexual preference should be not be an issue. It's no more an issue than if a straight guy appointed his piece of ass to head an important office with no qualifications. But as soon as he got wind that his sexuality would be disclosed, he jumped in the air and disclosed it first, then resigned. He made it an issue, IMO.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yeah, but think of the times. To admit that you were gay back in those days, especially if you were a person of reasonable power, or to even admit to having sex with other men, is akin to someone saying today that they like sex with kids. The animosity and hatred that people had for gays back in the early eighties was just as bad as the hatred of black people in the Southern states. I think society contributed a LOT to the ways people like "Ray Cohen" viewed things, it was hammered into them that "fags" were pieces of ****, that they amounted to nothing. It really was sickening and it still goes on today, though to a much lesser extent.

I must differ with you here. It wasn't THAT bad. It was that bad in the 60's, but the 70's changed so much of that. In big cities, this was not the case. Perhaps those raised in small towns had residue of this, but society by and large, especially in educated circles, had changed quite a lot by then. Ray Cohn moved in very moneyed, sophisticated circles. Come on, this was the New York charity crowd which lived to finance shows by the likes Mapplethorpe and other avant garde artists of the time. Sure they were slumming, but they were thrilled to be doing it. His failings as a man and a citizen were more about his character than the social pressures of the time.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

I must differ with you here. It wasn't THAT bad. It was that bad in the 60's, but the 70's changed so much of that. In big cities, this was not the case. Perhaps those raised in small towns had residue of this, but society by and large, especially in educated circles, had changed quite a lot by then. Ray Cohn moved in very moneyed, sophisticated circles. Come on, this was the New York charity crowd which lived to finance shows by the likes Mapplethorpe and other avant garde artists of the time. Sure they were slumming, but they were thrilled to be doing it. His failings as a man and a citizen were more about his character than the social pressures of the time.

I agree. But I'm saying that with the changing of the guard back in '80 to the neocons, gay hatred was not only pushed further across the country (such as in "middle" America), but it was an issue that was exploited by the neocons; just look at Reagan's popularity and his absolute disdain for those with AIDS (he singlehandedly kill thousands, if not millions). With the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on television every morning pushing the gay hatred agenda, calling them vile pigs with Satan's disease, it only made more people fearful of the gay community and we all know that fear breeds contempt.

And I actually have Mapplethorpe hanging on my walls.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Well, he was a piece of **** because of what he did in office and who he appointed to head Homeland Security for NJ. But I agree. Sexual preference should be not be an issue. It's no more an issue than if a straight guy appointed his piece of ass to head an important office with no qualifications. But as soon as he got wind that his sexuality would be disclosed, he jumped in the air and disclosed it first, then resigned. He made it an issue, IMO.

Oh - I agree - what he did was bad and he jumped on the pity me bandwagon only after he got caught. But, I am being more philosophical than literal and questioning if he would have ever done that had society "allowed" (which is a whole other discussion LOL) him to run as an openly gay person for the Gov. of Jersey. In other words, if he had not essentially HAD to have been a married family man and instead been "allowed" to be a happily partnered gay man - would he have done what he did?

It is a philosophical question I guess we will never know the answer to until someone has the ba**S to do it. And then, Barney Frank did it and still had scandal ( I think) - so who know

[sparky]

Originally Posted by dissention

I agree. But I'm saying that with the changing of the guard back in '80 to the neocons, gay hatred was not only pushed further across the country (such as in "middle" America), but it was an issue that was exploited by the neocons; just look at Reagan's popularity and his absolute disdain for those with AIDS (he singlehandedly kill thousands, if not millions). With the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on television every morning pushing the gay hatred agenda, calling them vile pigs with Satan's disease, it only made more people fearful of the gay community and we all know that fear breeds contempt.

And I actually have Mapplethorpe hanging on my walls.

I don't disagree. But I just don't think it had taken hold in a way that would influence the decisions made by the urban living sophisticates of the time. They had ditched their hometowns and bolted for the culture and fast pace of the cities. That wave of neo-con barbarism rose up fast in the bible belt and rural areas, but then again, it was never far below the surface in those places anyway.

I hope that piece of art is a close up of a flower or something and doesn't involve an African American man in a suit.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sparky

I don't disagree. But I just don't think it had taken hold in a way that would influence the decisions made by the urban living sophisticates of the time. They had ditched their hometowns and bolted for the culture and fast pace of the cities. That wave of neo-con barbarism rose up fast in the bible belt and rural areas, but then again, it was never far below the surface in those places anyway.

I hope that piece of art is a close up of a flower or something and doesn't involve an African American man in a suit.

LOL -that reminds me - I have to confess, I think Mapplethorpe's work was contrived But, everyone's a critic

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Oh - I agree - what he did was bad and he jumped on the pity me bandwagon only after he got caught. But, I am being more philosophical than literal and questioning if he would have ever done that had society "allowed" (which is a whole other discussion LOL) him to run as an openly gay person for the Gov. of Jersey. In other words, if he had not essentially HAD to have been a married family man and instead been "allowed" to be a happily partnered gay man - would he have done what he did?

It is a philosophical question I guess we will never know the answer to until someone has the ba**S to do it. And then, Barney Frank did it and still had scandal ( I think) - so who know

And Barney Frank still wins every time he's up re-election.

No, I don't think he would have done what he did. If he was openly gay and he was governor, he wouldn't have to pacify and shut up his piece of ass by giving him a cush job. If society was different, this would be a non-issue.

If he was openly gay, though, he still would have been a ****ty governor.