If interested the book "And the Band Played On" is very informative. It's long, closely-written and very detailed. It was written by a homosexual who later died of AIDS and although he blames Reagan etc for not funding research and treatment he is, to his credit, very frank about the points the author makes. I remember one statistic along the lines of: the average homosexual in New York in the late 70s or 80s had over 70 partners per year. He also goes into detail about the reluctance of homosexuals to curb their habits and the selfishness of the man they believed was one of the first North American HIV patients: Gaetan Dugas
Well written post, Alan. I remember the first time aids came into public view. An article in time identified “patient zero”, a homosexual French flight attendant working the Paris to New York shift. In it Time described the man’s illness, diagnosis, and why he was considered “patient zero”. It seems his frequent patronizing of the NY and Paris bath houses had produced about 500 different sex partners…per year for the last 3 years. So, yeah, gay men spread this scourge and they couldn’t give a shit.
Also, the UCLA medical researchers who eventually became the first to identify the aids virus as the root cause of all the attendant illness in the afflicted group referred to this mystery disease as “the gay flu” because nearly every one of their subjects was a homosexual man. But…let’s not discuss any of that because love is love, or some similar bullshit.
The propaganda never stops. Even now in the ads for the HIV drugs lesbians feature prominently, while they are the safest cohort for risk of HIV transmission. IV drug users are noticeably absent from these ads as well, though they are at highest risk.
When the AIDS “educators” forced their way into public schools in the 80s, they were well represented by lesbians who, as you note, were not in high risk groups. But it did give them the chance to push cunnilingus and dental dams to school kids.
I hadn't thought of that, spot on! Going back and trying to reinterpret some of the prior agendas is an interesting pastime. I remember how hard they fought to put "sex education" in the schools with the idea that it was all about early pregnancy and STD prevention. Within slightly more than one generation it turned into promoting false ideas about choosing your own sex, promoting homosexuality, promiscuity and also used it as a wedge to separate children and their parents.
I was an intensive care nurse in the early 1980s when the AIDS Crisis hit us in Milwaukee and we went from full isolation protocol to protect us to being told that it was unkind. We later went to gloves only. This is the first time I realized our public health system was influenced and pressured by society and culture, not safety.
We’re incredibly fucking lucky that the biology of HIV means widespread use of PreP is unlikely to breed a pan-resistant strain but we’re taking the chance that it might rather than just tell gay men to use condoms. Maybe we will yet manage to breed pan-resistant HIV and will be back to it being an incurable scourge.
PrEP for HIV, probably not going to lead to superHIV. But doxycycline as prophylaxis against syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia probably will lead to as resistance in some areas, particularly for gonorrhea. Syphilis has not even become resistant to penicillin yet. It’s called doxyPEP and it’s basically only for gay men.
Just a slight correction. The guy who told the truth on the Fox panel is named Ned Ryun. Ned is a clear thinker who always tells the truth. Fun fact, he is the son of the great runner/miler, Jim Ryun.
Otherwise, you are preaching the truth. Another villain in this sad story is the American Church, even Big Eva. Once they decided that being "polite" to sodomites, the game was over. Because, if the church shirks its responsibility to be a brake on sinful cultural trends, there is no one left to make the moral case, not to mention the medical/scientific case.
Finally, if you want to see a real monster on this subject, look no further than Anthony Fauci. He as responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of gay men. RFK Jr. speaks about it in his book, "The Real Anthony Fauci..." And Fauci ran the exact same playbook during Covid. The man is the personification of evil.
Two of the most insightful (and the most shocking) things I've ever read on the topic of promiscuous male homosexuality were the following; the first a Medical Study documenting the physical harms and decreased lifespan that result from the lifestyle, and the second (which was horrifying, but so well-written) was a harrowing article direct from the trenches through the eyes of someone who lived it.
It is ludicrous that no one would ever refute that the life of a female prostitute carries extreme risk to both health, and to safety. Yet in our rush to express our virtue-signalling "empathy/tolerance/solidarity" with gay men, so our friends don't call us names, we actually deny them the same right of consideration and concern. The very opposite of what we THINK we're achieving.
I would also like to point out the suppressed truth that the majority of gay men were sodomized as boys by adult gay men, and this is why they are gay now. Homo-pedophilia is how male homosexuality reproduces itself:
When the epidemiologists first observed the San Fran bathhouse scene, they were shocked at the number of partners the gays had. When their dicks got hard, they put it in an asshole.
I always found the "if its in the bedroom only then it doesn't harm anyone else" argument both a starting point of the slippery slope we still slide down and an actual lack of understanding that everything we do affects other people around us, since humans are social creatures. There is no such thing as a victimless crime if you expect the society to pick up the tab for your mistakes - you are suddenly becoming a burden on those people who never had any input in your misdeed.
I feel like you can't separate the societal oppression of gay people and their sex lives. I think repression breeds promiscuity, and I don't think your solution of regulating gay sex would come close to solving this problem. I wouldn't be surprised if it made it worse.
Stanford says risk of receptive anal sex is 1.4%, whereas receptive vaginal sex is 0.08%. You gloss over this difference in likelihood, but that means gay sex is 17.5 times more likely to result in contracting HIV/AIDS. Yes, some of the AIDS crisis can be blamed on sexual practices of gay men, but a larger part than you advertise is caused by gay sex being uniquely dangerous when it comes to HIV. This isn't the fault of gay men, but rather a specific feature of this virus.
Your assertion that it was taboo to discuss the sexual practices of gay men, which is what led to the epidemic, is somewhat fraught; there were plenty of right wing politicians preaching that this was the fault of gay men for the promiscuity and their sins against god. A huge reason why the AIDS epidemic was so serious was because the general public didn't care about gay people dying ("AIDS is God's punishment, let them die"), and it was only when the rest of the population started to get it that more significant action was taken.
Also, I think it's a little bit insane to say we should be regulating the sex lives of so many people just because it carries some risk. People have autonomy over their bodies (radical idea), and legally forcing abstinence wouldn't stop any forms of sex, it would just make them more risky. All sex carries inherent risks!! Our goal should be harm reduction and safer sex practices, not complete bans.
My aunt knew a hemophiliac who died of aids. It caused his wife to lose her hair in grief and fear that she had it too, although she ended up being ok. Still though.
I worked in a business in the 80's that had a very large number of gay men. Oddly I also knew a lot of NYC cops. There is simply no denying that the sexual behavior of gay men was out of control and they made no secret of it. Meanwhile the cops who had to shut down the "bathhouses" described scenes I could never relate here. Even then, I sometimes found myself on city busses that were halted in traffic by protests by gay man screaming "silence is death". But never "we better change our behavior."
If interested the book "And the Band Played On" is very informative. It's long, closely-written and very detailed. It was written by a homosexual who later died of AIDS and although he blames Reagan etc for not funding research and treatment he is, to his credit, very frank about the points the author makes. I remember one statistic along the lines of: the average homosexual in New York in the late 70s or 80s had over 70 partners per year. He also goes into detail about the reluctance of homosexuals to curb their habits and the selfishness of the man they believed was one of the first North American HIV patients: Gaetan Dugas
Well written post, Alan. I remember the first time aids came into public view. An article in time identified “patient zero”, a homosexual French flight attendant working the Paris to New York shift. In it Time described the man’s illness, diagnosis, and why he was considered “patient zero”. It seems his frequent patronizing of the NY and Paris bath houses had produced about 500 different sex partners…per year for the last 3 years. So, yeah, gay men spread this scourge and they couldn’t give a shit.
Also, the UCLA medical researchers who eventually became the first to identify the aids virus as the root cause of all the attendant illness in the afflicted group referred to this mystery disease as “the gay flu” because nearly every one of their subjects was a homosexual man. But…let’s not discuss any of that because love is love, or some similar bullshit.
The propaganda never stops. Even now in the ads for the HIV drugs lesbians feature prominently, while they are the safest cohort for risk of HIV transmission. IV drug users are noticeably absent from these ads as well, though they are at highest risk.
On the rare times I watch network TV or read a mainstream magazine, whenever I see their ads it makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
they're more than happy to sell you those crazy pills
When the AIDS “educators” forced their way into public schools in the 80s, they were well represented by lesbians who, as you note, were not in high risk groups. But it did give them the chance to push cunnilingus and dental dams to school kids.
I hadn't thought of that, spot on! Going back and trying to reinterpret some of the prior agendas is an interesting pastime. I remember how hard they fought to put "sex education" in the schools with the idea that it was all about early pregnancy and STD prevention. Within slightly more than one generation it turned into promoting false ideas about choosing your own sex, promoting homosexuality, promiscuity and also used it as a wedge to separate children and their parents.
I was an intensive care nurse in the early 1980s when the AIDS Crisis hit us in Milwaukee and we went from full isolation protocol to protect us to being told that it was unkind. We later went to gloves only. This is the first time I realized our public health system was influenced and pressured by society and culture, not safety.
We’re incredibly fucking lucky that the biology of HIV means widespread use of PreP is unlikely to breed a pan-resistant strain but we’re taking the chance that it might rather than just tell gay men to use condoms. Maybe we will yet manage to breed pan-resistant HIV and will be back to it being an incurable scourge.
PrEP for HIV, probably not going to lead to superHIV. But doxycycline as prophylaxis against syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia probably will lead to as resistance in some areas, particularly for gonorrhea. Syphilis has not even become resistant to penicillin yet. It’s called doxyPEP and it’s basically only for gay men.
Just a slight correction. The guy who told the truth on the Fox panel is named Ned Ryun. Ned is a clear thinker who always tells the truth. Fun fact, he is the son of the great runner/miler, Jim Ryun.
Otherwise, you are preaching the truth. Another villain in this sad story is the American Church, even Big Eva. Once they decided that being "polite" to sodomites, the game was over. Because, if the church shirks its responsibility to be a brake on sinful cultural trends, there is no one left to make the moral case, not to mention the medical/scientific case.
Finally, if you want to see a real monster on this subject, look no further than Anthony Fauci. He as responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of gay men. RFK Jr. speaks about it in his book, "The Real Anthony Fauci..." And Fauci ran the exact same playbook during Covid. The man is the personification of evil.
Two of the most insightful (and the most shocking) things I've ever read on the topic of promiscuous male homosexuality were the following; the first a Medical Study documenting the physical harms and decreased lifespan that result from the lifestyle, and the second (which was horrifying, but so well-written) was a harrowing article direct from the trenches through the eyes of someone who lived it.
It is ludicrous that no one would ever refute that the life of a female prostitute carries extreme risk to both health, and to safety. Yet in our rush to express our virtue-signalling "empathy/tolerance/solidarity" with gay men, so our friends don't call us names, we actually deny them the same right of consideration and concern. The very opposite of what we THINK we're achieving.
Medical Consequences of Male Homosexuality:
https://archive.is/fxe3a
Article by Joseph Sciambra - “Surviving Gay…barely”
https://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/
Thank you for telling the truth.
I would also like to point out the suppressed truth that the majority of gay men were sodomized as boys by adult gay men, and this is why they are gay now. Homo-pedophilia is how male homosexuality reproduces itself:
https://patrick.net/post/1343652/2022-02-13-the-gay-flag-is-also-the-symbol-of
Indeed. They don't breed, they recruit.
When the epidemiologists first observed the San Fran bathhouse scene, they were shocked at the number of partners the gays had. When their dicks got hard, they put it in an asshole.
I always found the "if its in the bedroom only then it doesn't harm anyone else" argument both a starting point of the slippery slope we still slide down and an actual lack of understanding that everything we do affects other people around us, since humans are social creatures. There is no such thing as a victimless crime if you expect the society to pick up the tab for your mistakes - you are suddenly becoming a burden on those people who never had any input in your misdeed.
FaggaChad Gaetan Dugas was running around one-shotting sodomites for a decade. The Bathhouse Nemesis.
Yes, his attitude was "someone gave it to me so why shouldn't I give it to someone else?"
I feel like you can't separate the societal oppression of gay people and their sex lives. I think repression breeds promiscuity, and I don't think your solution of regulating gay sex would come close to solving this problem. I wouldn't be surprised if it made it worse.
Stanford says risk of receptive anal sex is 1.4%, whereas receptive vaginal sex is 0.08%. You gloss over this difference in likelihood, but that means gay sex is 17.5 times more likely to result in contracting HIV/AIDS. Yes, some of the AIDS crisis can be blamed on sexual practices of gay men, but a larger part than you advertise is caused by gay sex being uniquely dangerous when it comes to HIV. This isn't the fault of gay men, but rather a specific feature of this virus.
Your assertion that it was taboo to discuss the sexual practices of gay men, which is what led to the epidemic, is somewhat fraught; there were plenty of right wing politicians preaching that this was the fault of gay men for the promiscuity and their sins against god. A huge reason why the AIDS epidemic was so serious was because the general public didn't care about gay people dying ("AIDS is God's punishment, let them die"), and it was only when the rest of the population started to get it that more significant action was taken.
Also, I think it's a little bit insane to say we should be regulating the sex lives of so many people just because it carries some risk. People have autonomy over their bodies (radical idea), and legally forcing abstinence wouldn't stop any forms of sex, it would just make them more risky. All sex carries inherent risks!! Our goal should be harm reduction and safer sex practices, not complete bans.
My aunt knew a hemophiliac who died of aids. It caused his wife to lose her hair in grief and fear that she had it too, although she ended up being ok. Still though.
This problem won't be mitigated until our society collapses and the health care systems propped up by it fail as well.
I worked in a business in the 80's that had a very large number of gay men. Oddly I also knew a lot of NYC cops. There is simply no denying that the sexual behavior of gay men was out of control and they made no secret of it. Meanwhile the cops who had to shut down the "bathhouses" described scenes I could never relate here. Even then, I sometimes found myself on city busses that were halted in traffic by protests by gay man screaming "silence is death". But never "we better change our behavior."
What they have a habit of doing is make it our problem. Like heterosexuals do sodomy with each other too or. Heterosexuals can also get aids.
Classic narcissistic behaviour.