AIDS W/O the Sexual Revolution

The origin and development of AIDS is a bit of a scientific mystery, but I have heard that it may have been exacerbated by the Sexual Revolution and Free Love thing of the 1960's and 1970's.

So what if the Sexual Revolution never came about, or was much more muted?
 
The origin and development of AIDS is a bit of a scientific mystery, but I have heard that it may have been exacerbated by the Sexual Revolution and Free Love thing of the 1960's and 1970's.

So what if the Sexual Revolution never came about, or was much more muted?

I'm no expert, but I feel slightly dubious of that idea. The groups most at risk of AIDS are promiscuous gay men and intravenous drug users. The latter wouldn't really be affected, except indirectly, while the former were around before Free Love - I seem to recall Samuel Delany claiming to hook up with a handful of guys a day in the late fifties and early sixties. Also, Sexual Revolution = more openness about sex = better information about safe practices, perhaps.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Honestly i don't know how you can have the science to detect AIDS without modern communications and contraceptives to create an atmosphere of consumer culture that leads to the Sexual Revolution. Back to pre-1900's with you. :p
 

Michael Busch

Pulling from Wikipedia, since I'm too lazy to dig up all of the primary sources:

The origin of HIV is not much of a mystery. Based on the genetic dispersion of HIV strains, the virus entered the human population somewhere in West-Central Africa between 1885 and 1925, from an infected chimpanzee (most likely from a bushmeat hunter bitten or wounded by the animal).

Therefore, the disease being present at some level throughout the 20th century is inevitable. The extent of the epidemic can be changed considerably. OTL it was dispersed well beyond sub-Saharan Africa by the late 1950's (based on forensics of cases that weren't diagnosed at the time); with the first cases arriving in the USA via Hiati in the 1960's.

Back to the OP question:

HIV is also transmitted by infected blood transfusions (happened until the late 1980s, OTL) and dirty needles. To blame the Sexual Revolution, you'd have to convincing demonstrate that it corresponded to an increase in risky sexual practices (rather than, say, just recognition of them); and show that many more of the first cases were transmitted by sex rather than by drug needles. Blood transfusions aren't significant until there are a large number of cases, by which point the epidemic has already happened, so it doesn't change the number of cases by more than a factor of a few.
 
Pulling from Wikipedia, since I'm too lazy to dig up all of the primary sources:

To blame the Sexual Revolution, you'd have to convincing demonstrate that it corresponded to an increase in risky sexual practices (rather than, say, just recognition of them); and show that many more of the first cases were transmitted by sex rather than by drug needles.

There is the Gaetan Dugas case (who was probably emblematic of the group of people who got the epidemic going rather than a primary cause), and then there was also Robert R in 1969. Both spread via sexual activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R.

My guess is that the sexual revolution slightly increased risky sexual practices, but that increase won't be too important to the spread of HIV pre-identification. There oughta be a big survey on attitudes and practices that could tell us yes or no on that. (Kinsey and ?)

What would be much more interesting would be the reaction to the disease in a much less permissive environment. There won't be much advocacy for safe sex +condoms (outside of the military), so the dominiant reaction is gonna look like puritainism.

What's even more interesting is figuring out what the heck a US without a sexual revolution looks like. Can you have a successful civil rights movement and still no sexual revolution?
 
Top