Sex was passionate, though. The feelings afterwards however, never went anywhere close by. The bottom dudes got their act together very soon. They were showing passion and emotion during the actual intercourse. The tops matched this fully, as a rule. In other words, everyone was putting as much energy and enthusiasm and knowledge/skill as he had at the time to make sure that the actual sexual experience was as good as possible. A bottom friend of mine used to say, 'since I am getting fucked anyway, we all may have some real fun along the way, too...'

Once the sexual bit ended, and we returned out of the zone, the guys you messed around with were sure, still your friends, but no further expectations of any kind were raised on anyone's part.

Naturally, once the freshman year ended, a few of the guys figured out that some of their buddies were real keepers, and that the others, well, not necessarily so.

So, the dudes who kinda became 'regulars' started hanging out amongst themselves a bit more, and the already existing bonds of friendship grew a bit stronger. Hardly anyone really spoke about being in love of any kind, but a good top guy made sure that his favorite bottom dude got reasonable support if needed.

The tops, too, tended to group together, and made sure that if one of your friends needed a hand here and there; he got the support needed, too.

There was quite some bonding, quite a few seemingly great friendships, but hardly anyone tried to emulate any heteronormative emotional life associated with the heterosexual intimacy.

This is where the practicalities of life interferred. In a pre-internet and pre-apps age, the best (not the only) way of meeting the 'new' guys used to be through the network of your buddies and friends - basically through your coterie.

Add to this equation the fact that being caught was really not an option. The necessary planning forced you to call your shots ahead of time.

So, Michael asked me if I was up to meeting a new bttm dude he had messed around with. Like every horny top, you'd say, 'yeah, sure.'

Michael went on to organize a meet up over coffees or something at one of the public places. Both the 'new guy' and I had the chance to opt out if we did not like each other... But that used to be the case very rarely. The default was that the 'new dude' already had that afternoon free, and I also made sure that my downtown flat was available. So, both he and you shrugged down with your shoulders, thought WTF, and went on with the business at hand

KD

Quote |

I think for those of us who came out as being gay in the 70s and 80s and who were open - whether in the gay community only or to families, the workplace, or the public or whatever - the experience was a bit different.

If you lived in or had access to a "gayborhood," whether the Castro, Christopher Street/etc, Dupont Circle, and so on, you could walk down the street or into and out of stores knowing you were seen as gay and that you saw gay men around you. You could pick up a guy in the supermarket, on a train, on a bus, or just standing or sitting somewhere.

For many of us, there was an expectation of forming relationships and having lovers, later called "longtime companions" in all those many obituaries, later partners, now sometimes husbands. Some had serial lovers or partners, some had a primary partner and also played around casually. There were some who said they were "monogamous" (monoandrous?) but I suspect that was as factual and malleable as the monogamous status of straight married couples. And of course, there were "it's complicated" situations (a guy had a lover but was also a "Daddy" to a couple "boys" and played around together or separately..) and some simply wanted to be single and unattached.

That was where I arrived after coming out in college and moving to DC after graduation. It seems like a different mindset and social context than KD's and John's. In my early years I was usually looking for a lover and some emotional bond more than just sex. Later I realized I was happier alone. When I temporarily moved to a northeastern suburb, I told people, "I'm no longer looking for Prince Charming, I'm looking for Prince George's!" For a year and a half I lived in an apartment in suburban Prince George's County, Md. Eventually I did have an "it's complicated" partner, not the one I'm with now but still a dear close friend decades later.

I could go on and on, but the main thing is that for guys like me being "caught" or "outed" simply wasn't a concern. Everybody who needed to know, knew. Some people who didn't need to know also knew.

It was like in the office where we talked about our weekends. A woman would say, "Dan and I took the kids to Busch Gardens." I would say, "Paul and I went to Fairfax to see the Martha Graham Dance Company." This was just normal life.

Quote |

Indeed, we are talking about very different personal experiences altogether.

Living in a culturally speaking 'eastern mediterranean' society during my college years really meant that very, very few people were openly out. There were no gayborhoods, and everybody including most of my buddies and yours truly thought that no one would really want to be gay, live in a gayborhood, least of all, publicly admit that he was having sex with other men.

By far, most of my college buddies depended for their survival on their parents who were most certainly going to be very much against anyone being openly gay; as would be all your friends - not that the concept carried much weight in those days. Being gay, caught, outed etc., simply was NOT an option.

On the upside, we were definitely having a ball, the society around us knowingly turning a blind eye on our underground activities, and even being supportive of the idea that a college guy was naturally going to be hanging out with other college guys. If a dude was 'too much' into hanging out with girls, well, that was seen as pretty unmanly.

In retrospect, I have very little doubt that our fathers, brothers, uncles, etc., all must have known what was really going on. They must have gone through a set of similar arrangements in their time and day, too. The generations before them shared in the experience, too. Hence, the true nature of our close friendships was certainly no secret to anyone with some basic life experience but the society as a whole decided that raising the subject to any level of public discourse was really both entirely unnecessary and fully uncalled for.

--

I cannot think of any of my buddies in those days who really did not like the guys he was having sex with, at least to some extent. We belonged to a closely knit coterie of friends, and you made sure that your really kept meeting up with and having sex with the dudes whom you thought both attractive and friendly enough.

A few months into the process, human nature took its course. I was having coffees and chatting with at least two dozens of guys whom 'I knew', meaning I had sex with or at least a very close buddy of mine had sex with. Naturally, I found some of the guys far more attractive and interesting than the others, and was working towards landing those who I was really interested in. No doubt, the others followed the same tactics, too.

Soon enough, the coterie started to function as a social platform, but 'everybody within' knew that I was meeting for sex, say 3-4 bottom boys on a regular basis. No one talked any exclusivity here but those dudes and I clicked together, and the chemistry worked for us, too. No doubt, both they and I strayed away sometimes or even pretty often which was deemed perfectly natural if rather immaterial. Other top dudes played around with maybe only 1-2 bttm guys, some got stuck with 1 bttm dude only, but the pattern was there.

Sure, what kept us all together was the underground, secret nature of our arrangements, and the idea that we all benefited majorly by keeping in touch. This is how you got to meet the 'newcomers', have some fun on the side, and compensate for the fact that sooner or later one of your regulars would drop off, graduate, move away or even find a new, possibly more suited 'partner'.

The coterie typically concerned itself with three basic issues only:

First off, the dude was one of us. He had sex with one of our guys.

Second off, he was either a top or a bottom. (Few people took versatility seriously those days.)

Third off, for all we knew, he fitted the pattern. He belonged to our peer group, and was at least superficially not seen as a source of trouble. (He was not a heavy drug uses, petty criminal, etc.)

The coterie did not share all the information among its members. People have been having secrets since the dawn of times.

Say, one of my bttm dudes was also meeting a sugar daddy totally out of the coterie for some fun and benefits on the side. This stayed buried six feet deep between the two of us. Additional income, presents, clothes, etc., were always welcome. And you would not judge the dude. A guy has got to do what a guy has got to do.

Another good example of a 'deep secret' used to be that a certain top dude wanted/agreed to bottom for a very specific top dude.

On a purely social level, tops tended to communicate among themselves, hoping to exchange pertinent information about the available bottom guys, first and foremost. Bottom dudes did the same. This, too, was deemed as perfectly natural.

An archetypical situation occurred if the two tops organized a threesome, and less frequently a foursome. Once the play was over, the guys parted. If you knew how to read the signals right, you would know that your top buddy may be returning for some more 1:1 fun with you, once the designated bttm dude was seen driving away in public bus, taxi or a tram.

Neither my 'oh-not-so-exclusively-top' buddy nor I would ever mention the little remission to anyone. But once the first 'remission' occurred, you would expect him to be repeating the pattern, and possibly stopping by at your place alone at all the ungodly hours, hoping not to be seen by anyone for some top-to-top fun on the side. If a dude was sighted approaching your place, everybody agreed that he must have been too drunk to go home, and crushed in at your place until the morning.

---
Once I post-graduated, the game was largely over. I moved into a major European capital for business, and shortly thereafter transferred to San Francisco, CA. I slipped into the new 'public gay world' without much ado. And life actually got even better.

KD

Quote |

Although I grew up in a North Eastern USA small city my experience was much like KD rather than infopop...

There was not a "gayborhood" and really no one was "out".

For the most part everyone acted as if it was "temporary" and they expected when they got older to get married and settle down.

Being openly gay was left for the "fruits and nuts" in California.

Gay sex was something we did - it was not considered who we were. Even in college I do not remember there being anything like a "gay / straight alliance", and if there had been I would not have had the courage to join it, but now you find clubs and organizations like that even in Junior High schools!

Basically we just lived our lives like everyone else acting just like the rest of the gang - except after everyone else had left when alone we would have sex. There was a degree of emotion involved but nothing overwhelming and certainly nothing public.






Very much the case with us - it was truly "don't ask / don't tell". Families had "bachelor uncles" that never got married, "Bob's" brother and his roommate shared an apartment, even though it only had one bedroom. But it was not talked about.

What was frustrating about no one being open or talking about it was when you would find out someone was into it years later. A guy I always thought was cute as hell in high school ended up getting caught and outed in college - and all I could think of was "If only I had known back then he was into guys!"

Quote |

Yup, John nailed it in the head here. True, after a while, we all quietly and implicitly agreed that what was going on WAS gay. We were trading gay magazines and VHS vids, too. No one spoke about being gay, though, but it was understood by all that we were all very much 'walking on the wild side', and no one showed any sign of being uncomfortable with it.

Over the time, your close buddies and you developed bonds of friendship. No one really felt like being in love with anyone in particular, but your close buddies enjoyed your support to quite some degree. We all implicitly agreed that the guy you were having sex several times a week was not just another dude you knew, but someone who deserved your friendship and support. Towards the end of the month, a few fellow college kids were running really low on food money. No one expected you to help them all, but a good top tried to make sure that his generosity was directed towards the dudes who bottom for him first and foremost. This was an unspoken, unwritten rule, but all my friends observed it judiciously.


Relatively few people would actually start a gossip here and there. 'You know, he does not have a GF, yet?', etc.. But since we all kept our stories very strictly to ourselves, there was no smoking gun, and hence, hardly anyone did more than shrug with his shoulders and move on to the more substantial subjects.

Unlike John, I never experienced any feelings of regret once I learnt that one or the other HS/college cuties came out.

Practically all of my buddies and I were pretty open-minded and extrovert. If a cute dude showed up anywhere on the horizon, the chances are that we would be putting our works on him. If he did not catch the bait, well, it was bad for all of us, but we moved on pretty swiftly. You win some - you lose some.

We also learnt pretty soon that a few guys who we thought were gay and who really turned out to be gay were apparently not interested in the dude(s) who were approaching them. A few years later, we discovered that there was yet another coterie of gay guys at college who were mostly looking for daddies, or preferably for sugar daddies. Those guys had had absolutely no intentions of messing around with their peers to start with. Some of it was purely sexual - they wanted to have sex with grown up men, and NOT with growing boys. Much of it had to do with money and lifestyle that some of them were craving for.

I befriended some of the Trophy Boys gang during my postgrad years, and discovered that most of the talk among them was about expensive gifts, exclusive foreign travel, and life on a superfast lane. Neither I nor any of my buddies would either qualify nor would we be really interested in going financially overboard to score with yet another dude, regardless of how hottt he may have been.

The 'generosity' most of the tops in my gang showed limited itself to a possibly nice meal, occasional movie/theater tickets, and a cab ride home, usually after some hot play in the top's bedroom.

We also learnt that being 'out' was of relatively low practical importance even if it were a theoretical possibility in those days only.

Later on, when many, many people came out, and the rest of the world kept on wondering if this guy was really gay or not, most of us shrugged with our shoulders and moved on.

The gay could be as gay as Christmas. I may be as out as anyone could possibly be, but if he does not find me attractive enough, I am not going to score anyway.

KD

Quote |

Hi. I am returning to the original point of this thread, but have found the stories/memoirs of the 70s and 80s really interesting. I started having sex with guys in the late 70s, and so by the early 80s was in just as much panic about HIV as everyone else. Once it was established that semen transmitted HIV, anal sex became rarer and always with a condom, and that's true for me all these years later. After studying the stats, I changed my mind about oral sex (I don't use a condom). That is my "reasonable." And I'm not with a single partner, I do have anonymous encounters from time to time.

But the parts of the article that were given here leave me questioning. Are the one thousand people having unprotected sex a random sample of the US population having sex (which are overwhelmingly straight and in relationships that haven't involved the large number of partners I've had)? The sample doesn't represent me very well; most people on this site are outliers. Of course it's true that the population as a whole isn't at risk having unprotected sex (thank god they do, otherwise the birth rate would go to zero). What concerns me is that people who are outliers read this stuff and think that applies to them. There are a lot of health statistics that get very confusing in the hands of the public.

Quote |

Much like NakedAl - as we found out how HIV was transmitted anal sex became rare.

I think what is happening now is a lot of younger gay / bi guys have grown up with AIDS as a manageable disease and they don't have the fear we had. But they don't realize the risks they are still taking. Sure the disease is much less deadly than it was - but it is still not something I am willing to risk my life for just to bareback.

Quote |

I looked at the Atlantic article again and saw a link to the study. When I went that online repository, I could read only the abstract. To see the entire text you have to pay to join the site. Without reading the study, we really don't know much about the sample or the methodology. I would like to believe that gay men, as a subgroup, are more educated about HIV than the general public, but that ain't necessarily so: It depends on the gay man. That goes even moreso if you consider the group of MSM, based on the activity of men having sex with men rather than the identity of considering oneself gay.

I thought it might help to post a link to The Stigma Project and also to their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/thestigmaproject. From their 'About Us' page: "We are a grassroots organization that aims to lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS through education and awareness via social media and advertising. The Stigma Project seeks to create an HIV neutral world, free of judgement and fear by working with both positive and negative individuals from all walks of life, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, or background."

Anyhow, there is outreach to the "outliers" and it comes from many groups with many different messages. The individual still needs to make a choice, or sometimes they choose not to choose or their path somehow gets away from their choice.

Taking a quick glance at their Founders and Board of Directors, I'm making a unjustified snap judgement that this is led largely by younger gay men. Younger, in that I'm 54, gay glancing at the photos and bios (though you never know).

I wish I had the time now to write more about what I think the audience for the Atlantic article was and about generational differences in perception and behavior toward HIV. This seems to be different not only for those like me who moved to a place where I could be openly gay when I was young (as opposed to those who had a different cultural identity or self-image) but also different for people of different ages and life experience. In fact, I wish I could write instead of doing my regular work. Oh, well.

All for now. ~ Bob

Quote |

Hi, I took a look at the article in a little more detail. I see the authors' point that we have very distorted perceptions on relative risks of things we encounter every day. But it still begs the question about the subgroups who are at greater risk than others. My concern is for the people in recognized risk groups who misinterpret the results. This has been really interesting and I will try to access the study.

Quote |