No AIDS

It's a pretty simple WI: no AIDS -- none ever, or anyway at least up to 2008.

What effects on sexual morality? Gay rights?

Virology and genetic research?

Africa?


Doug M.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Without AIDS, male bicuriosity would be as common as female bicuriosity. Female-on-female intercourse is widely considered harmless, while male-on-male intercourse is (in OTL) considered dangerous, at best, an activity to be tolerated from others, but at worst to be reviled and discouraged. WIthout AIDS, its easy to imagine the liberalising trend of attitudes towards male homosexuality within the 60s and 70s increasing uninteruptedly.

However, I think the most interesting effects would be in Africa. In OTL, AIDS dramatically reduced African population growth and skewed the population towards the youth. Young populations with only a small number of stabilising elders tend to be quite revolutionarily-minded, and will often drag their societies into civil war. Modern Africa would likely be unrecognisable if it had experienced the last few decades with a healthy and stable age distribution.
 

HueyLong

Banned
Without AIDS, male bicuriosity would be as common as female bicuriosity. Female-on-female intercourse is widely considered harmless, while male-on-male intercourse is (in OTL) considered dangerous, at best, an activity to be tolerated from others, but at worst to be reviled and discouraged. WIthout AIDS, its easy to imagine the liberalising trend of attitudes towards male homosexuality within the 60s and 70s increasing uninteruptedly.

However, I think the most interesting effects would be in Africa. In OTL, AIDS dramatically reduced African population growth and skewed the population towards the youth. Young populations with only a small number of stabilising elders tend to be quite revolutionarily-minded, and will often drag their societies into civil war. Modern Africa would likely be unrecognisable if it had experienced the last few decades with a healthy and stable age distribution.

I disagree. There would still be a social stigma towards male homosexuality and less of one towards female homosexuality even without AIDs.
 
Less condoms, more birth control, and perhaps a serious push by the right (family values), or the left (responsible families) to end such sexual practices. AIDs pretty much killed the last remains of the free love movement, and at the same time caused many to point to the "evils" of sex just as other social values made free love, and different lifestyles seem wicked.

So now the 80's merely has African Americans loosing a generation, and we still get Freddie Mercury wordl's not perfect but we have Queen!
 
I disagree. There would still be a social stigma towards male homosexuality and less of one towards female homosexuality even without AIDs.

Based off of what evidence? Before the outbreak of AIDs, homosexuality was simply considered unnatural and odd. After the outbreak, homosexuals recieved the stigma of being diseased and unclean; further creating an bigger argument against.

I agree that there would be a stigma, however, it would be much smaller.
 
Based off of what evidence? Before the outbreak of AIDs, homosexuality was simply considered unnatural and odd. After the outbreak, homosexuals recieved the stigma of being diseased and unclean; further creating an bigger argument against.

I agree that there would be a stigma, however, it would be much smaller.

It would be the same as today, only perhaps the push for gay marriage would be occuring in the 1990's and not today. AIDs pretty much gutted the entire Gay rights movement that was growing in the late seventies and early eighties. It forced many to step back into the cloest for short periods of time, for even though homosexuality was never fully embraced AIDs brought upon this limited stigma in which the simple label of being gay would cause others to avoid any form of contact. My father freely admits that in the 1980's when AIDs appeared he was very scared of working with his openly gay coworker for he had no idea how the disease was spread.

Without the disease gays avioud this ten year stigma and stay on their civil rights course. For today much of the arguments agaisnt gays has nothing to do with AIDs. When was the last time anyone spoke against gays and uttered the words AIDs, or hell even GRID.
 

HueyLong

Banned
I've only rarely head AIDs as an argument against homosexuality. The main point of contention always seem to be based on the culture of being macho.

Plus, just based on talking with girls, only a few find guy-on-guy as hot as a majority of guys find girl-on-girl. A lot of female bicuriosity stems from the social acceptance and further than that, the social glorification of it. I don't believe there would be a similar force for male bicuriosity.
 
The use of gloves in the medical industry will be less or delayed. Both of my parents worked in healthcare and they recall that gloves were not commonly used until AIDS came about.
 
More sex tourism to Africa
Good point... And also a lot more African young girls would be sold in Europe as prostitutes so human trafficking from Africa to Western Europe would be more common.

About homosexuality not having such a stigma without AIDS... It is hard to judge because a lot of that stigma comes from religion, especially the 3 Abramaic ones (although some homosexual acts i believe were pretty much accepted in the Ottoman Empire, dunno if that extends to the whole of Islam).
 
I don't know about that. There wasn't any sex tourism prior to widespread Aids in Africa (as far as I know), and I doubt the non-existence of Aids will change that much.

Flying to Africa was a very difficult thing to do prior to the explosion in air travel in the 70s and 80s. Sex tourism to Asia wasn't so well developed either.
It exists today in spite of the problems (mainly women)
 
Top