Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

[Guest backbaygayguy]

Someone in another thread mentioned the documentary, "Gay Sex in the 70s" (2005, http://catalog.frameline.org/titles/gaysex70s.html).

 

Curious if anyone else saw it and their reactions? I enjoyed some aspects -- fun to see how the men looked then before everyone went to the gym, and the discussions of cruising were fun. But at other time I was irritated that the film implied everyone went to the piers or Studio 54 (I guess this was the image, both in the straight and gay media, of what the gay male did).

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

On a visit to NYC in the early 90s a friend took me to the Christopher Street Pier. It was my only visit ever to the piers, yet it was one of the most sublime experiences of my life. I never did see Studio 54, but I did experience the baths in Amsterdam, Paris, and Cologne. On visits and after moving to NYC in 95 I got to know some of the group sex parties (LOAD) and places like Zone DK—they were amazing—the hottest guys in the city were there, by the hundreds, and the sex was so hot the rooms sizzled. In those places I discovered the sense of public, group, and/or anonymous sex as utopian spaces for exploration, self-transcendence and transformation, friendship, and community building. These intense pleasures were powerfully depicted in the film “Gay Sex in the 70s.” There was a culture of freedom back then that I experienced in its decline and is essentially, and sadly, dead today—at least here in New York. It is unfortunate that the spread of HIV has been associated with group/public/anonymous sex and “promiscuity” when the real danger zones are drugs, ignorance, and serial monogamy. HIV is spread by the quality, not the quantity, of sex.

[bigguyinpasadena]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

Tom I beg to differ with you on your point about the spread of AIDS not having to do with an abundence of readily avialable sex in the seventies and early eighties.

I was alive,very alive,during the wildest days of that era,I was young and attractive,I was living in San Francisco and was a real slut.

Gay sex was every where!Every section of town had a cruising zone or some place to play that was handy.Every fetish had its outlet.There were bars/clubs for Watersports-which featured bath tubs in the middle of the room.Scat and fisting had their clubs,abd there were three places which featured glory holes.

We had lots and lots and lots of sex in places these places as well as the myriad bath houses.

STDs were very common-and no big deal.You just went to the clinic and got a treatment.Of course this was pre crisis.

By the time the news about the HIV virus got around and was taken seriously it was to late.

You have to imagine the ripple effect of small town boys,visiting the big city and revelling in their glorious sexuality in one of the baths in the big city.They return home and play with their local friends,spreading the virus with their fun.We just did not know about it until too late.

So yes-the glorious wild abandon with which we fucked in the 70's-80's p;ayed a huge factor in the spread of AIDS.

[FinFangFoom]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

>On a visit to NYC in the early 90s a friend took me to the

>Christopher Street Pier. It was my only visit ever to the

>piers, yet it was one of the most sublime experiences of my

>life.

 

Visiting the Christopher Street piers was one of THE MOST sublime experiences of your life? I don't know which is more pathetic and sad - the fact that you feel that it was or that you're willing to publicly admit it.

 

"Sublime" is not the adjective that first comes to mind when I remember the piers.

 

 

> On visits and after

>moving to NYC in 95 I got to know some of the group sex

>parties (LOAD) and places like Zone DK—they were amazing—the

>hottest guys in the city were there, by the hundreds, and the

>sex was so hot the rooms sizzled.

 

Now you're rewriting history. There were never "hundreds" in Zone DK (also known as Prism Gallery) - it wasn't large enough to accomodate that many guys. It was in a loft and could actually feel slightly cramped so it might seem that there were hundreds of guys there but there never was.

 

As for the sex, I don't know how you knew it "sizzled" because guys would hook up and scurry off into tight corners or one of the "closets" so the majority of the sex wasn't really out in the open. I found that two hot guys would latch onto each other and then try to escape from the crowd and try to find "privacy" - which was impossible. The guys who would do stuff out in the open were invariably unattractive exhibitionists or the same guys you would see at places like this anytime - and I mean ANYTIME - you ever went.

 

I never went to a LOAD party (or I may have and don't remember it being called that) so I can't speak as to whether those parties "sizzled" or not. I doubt it though.

 

People, like you, portray these tacky places as though what was going on there was like a final group scene from a Falcon video and it wasn't even remotely like that.

 

I'll tell you what WAS fun and that was the Shooting Stars parties in the late 80's and early 90's. It was only a JO party (lips above the hips, as they said) but those WERE fun and DID have hot guys.

 

For those of you who don't know about Shooting Stars, pull your chairs up little ones and Uncle Fin will tell you about it.

 

Shooting Stars was put together by a few guys who would personally invite you to a party by giving you a card and told you if you didn't want to come, you were NOT to give it to someone else. If you wanted to bring a friend you could. So, the only way you could come would be by personal invitation or being brought by a "member". Because of this, the "hot to not" ratio was like 20-1. A hot guy isn't going to bring someone scary - for instance, DONNIE. Also, the guys who ran it would turn guys away who showed up without an invite who didn't "fit in". Also, they would chastise you if your guest wasn't attractive.

 

The doors were open from 8:30-9:00 and late comers weren't allowed in. This was brilliant because who was there was who was there and guys would get to it and not wait around for even hotter guys to show up.

 

It was held one a month so it was something special you planned to attend. It was lots of fun because there really was a camaraderie there since the sexual dynamic was purely jerking off and the whole "top bottom" roles didn't come into play and, sadly, you weren't allowed to suck cock.

 

Ok, enough of my trip down Memory Lane. Let's get back to Tom..........

 

 

>In those places I

>discovered the sense of public, group, and/or anonymous sex as

>utopian spaces for exploration, self-transcendence and

>transformation

 

I can only assume that you mean that they were good places to get drugged out of your mind, because no one who has been there would seriously characterize an evening at Zone DK (or any other sex party for that matter) in such a pretentious new-age sort of way.

 

 

>friendship, and community building.

 

yeah, right

 

 

>when the real danger zones.......... and serial monogamy.

 

huh?

 

Transcendentally yours,

 

FFF

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

Hi bigguy,

 

You are right, of course. I did not mean to imply that the abundance of sexual activity was unrelated to the spread of HIV when the epidemic hit. People didn’t know to protect themselves and the result was mayhem.

 

I am talking, however, of the present and how the public and anonymous sex venues are still viewed as suspect places, as venues for disease and disorder. They have largely been forced out of existence by misguided public health officials.

 

I am convinced that some of these sites should be (should have been) used to promote safer sex and to educate people. A sex-positive culture can actually do more to influence risky behavior than messages that shame people.

 

It is true TODAY that HIV is spread—not by anonymous or promiscuous behavior—but by UNSAFE behavior frequently associated with drugs, serial monogamy, and ignorance. That was the point I was trying to make.

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

Hi Fin,

 

I found that one visit to the piers absolutely SUBLIME. The word "sublime" implies a combination of risk/danger with overwhelming beauty--like viewing a hurricane or tornado up close and being overwhelmed by yet attracted to the power and havoc of the force of nature. A few of the boys there that day were HOT—including the one I fucked doggie-style and the one who buried his tongue up my ass while a crowd gathered around to watch the three of us go at it. The sex was adventurous and anonymous—I never even spoke a word to the guys. The pier was rotting and falling apart and there was always the danger that one was going to plunge through into the river if you didn’t watch where you stepped. That risk and the public-ness and anonymity all combined to heighten the enjoyment of the sex. It was an experience I will never forget.

 

Prism Gallery and Zone DK were NOT the same place. I never got to Prism Gallery—it was in Hell’s Kitchen, right? I heard negative things about it and never went. These public sex venues, as you rightly imply, did have different personalities. Some were dull and boring, others were HOT. And it was very important to know WHEN to go.

 

Zone DK was located on the far west side of Chelsea and was very large—about the size of a good-sized movie theater. I actually made it to Zone DK about a half-dozen times over the years before it closed and it was usually full of hundreds of guys—especially if you got there after midnight. LOAD was one of several sex parties I attended, along with Carter’s NY Prime and New York by Night. LOAD was the largest of them and the guys were hotter than hell. If you don’t think there were hot guys there it can only be because you were never there or were at the wrong time. LOAD was on the same block as Splash Bar and around 1-2 a.m. it would start to fill up with the hottest men on this island. It was unbelievable! (And no, I was NEVER high when I went.)

 

It’s not radical or new to suggest that serial monogamy is a prime contributor to the spread of AIDS. Guys get together, they think they are in love, they think "it's forever," they let their guard down, etc. In some cultures asking your partner to use a condom is even considered an insult because of the implied promiscuity.

 

Nor is it radical or “new-age” to suggest that alternative sexual sites/practices can be transformative or utopian. Have you ever read Foucault? Any S/M literature? I’m trying to avoid insulting you the way you did me, but really Fin. If this were the early 90s, I’d tell you that you need to get out more. The point of this thread, however, and of the movie “Gay Sex in the 70s,” is how those once-infamous public sex places are gone or remain as mere shadows of their former selves.

 

Thanks for sharing about Shooting Stars! The camaraderie you could find in some of these places was amazing, right?!?!

 

Ultimately, I don't think it is the specter of AIDS that has killed off public sex and its venues. I think it is the internet. Sexual adventuring is a live and well in New York. But it has been totally transformed. Today guys sit at home in front of their computer screens and find sex partners the way people used to order from a catalog. Something really vital, alive, and transformative has been lost in that transition.

[+ Charlie]

My partner and I, who were in a (very) non-monogamous relationship in the 70s, went to see the film, and found it a fairly accurate reflection of the wilder side of gay New York in those days. (We did think the film was mis-titled, since it implied that gay life in the 70s was pretty much confined to the New York metro area; similar venues and experiences could be found in San Francisco, Houston, or London, where I also lived then.) We even recognized people we knew in some of the documentary images. We spent a lot of time in the West Village bars and sex clubs, and the venerable bath houses like the Everards and the St. Marks, as well as Fire Island in the summer. It did feel exciting and liberating, in the pre-AIDS days, to get all the sex one could possibly want--for free!--with few apparent consequences. Occasionally it even felt "sublime", lying on the roof of the Mine Shaft watching the sun rise on a summer Sunday morning, or sitting on the beach in the Pines under the stars after having discharged one's sexual energies in the Meat Rack.

 

Am I glad I had the experience? Absolutely. Would I want to repeat it now? No, thanks, though that's probably mostly the reaction of aging and moving on to other interests. It's probably more intriguing now to younger men who never had the opportunity for that kind of fear-free bacchanalia.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

The year I moved to LA, 98, the year before escorting, I used to go to QED Muscle Sex parties here in LA. They consisted of 20 or more (sometimes as many as 60) guys who had to be met and pre-approved as "hot enough." (translation, very very muscular, not just "in Shape") by the party co-founders. Elitist bullshit sure, but only those who don't get in complain.

 

The fetes were exceptionally hot. Just to keep Fin fang Fuckup's fist out of my ass: condom-less butt fucking, alcohol, cigarrets, drugs, even poppers, were expressly forbidden on every invitation (God how I loved seeing that black envelope in my mailbox, it meant either a Sons Of Bachus party in San Francisco (same rules about entry and drugs and safe sex applied) or QED party was coming up.) Presumably those who wanted to do drugs would do so before they arrived. But I never remember seeing that drugged out look on anyone's face. Nevertheless, I have no doubts that in the cars on the way to party, some party goers had to hold fast to the wheel for all the Bumps.

 

Condoms were everywhere and never once did I see someone not use them. Clothing (and attitude) were forbidden and needed to be checked at the door.

 

I've talked about this here before and it was all pre-escorting. Once I started escorting I stopped this shit because, although HIV wasn't anymore or less of a risk than any other time I fuck w/a condom, which is always, being in a large anonymous group does increase the risk for "incidental" infections. SO, no more. I've been checked many times none of those "incidentals" made it my way!

 

Unfortunately, these kind of groups don't really exist anymore because the next generation is generally too fucking stupid to make it work. Or so the founders have told me they've come to realize.

 

Ok, now that I've cock-blocked FFF, onto the parties. $$ at the door. The door always openened into some ridiculously large LA house that looked as if a giant had flung it against the hill. One party was in a beautiful beach house in Malibu with a tiny pool and a big hottub. I remember walking in, seeing nobody, going upstairs seeing about 10 guys in the first bedroom, ho-hum, and then walking into the second where I couldn't fucking believe my fucking eyes. At least 40 hot muscle guys in front of a giant fireplace all fucking and sucking. Mostly fucking. The giant glass doors were open to the ocean. I could hear the waves, the fire crackling, the "yeah, fuck my ass" whispers. And before I threw myself into it, into someone, I said, out loud and to nobody and everybody, "I feel as if I've entered a Tom Of Finland poster."

 

FFF, it was ok darling.

 

RH

[FinFangFoom]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

>Prism Gallery and Zone DK were NOT the same place.

 

I stand corrected. I actually called a friend before responding to confirm that Zone DK was what I thought it was and he was the one who said that it and Prism were the same thing. I've been to Zone DK but couldn't remember what it was called.

 

Yes, there were a bazillion guys at Zone DK however, the sex, such as it was, was basically done in the back area in the PITCH DARK. I went only once and got immediately bored because it was filled with guys thinking that by merely being there they were doing some "hot" and "dirty" but all they did was stand around and gawk.

 

I loathe amateurs.

 

Professionally yours,

 

FFF

[FinFangFoom]

RE: Documentary "Gay Sex in the 70s"

 

>I found that one visit to the piers absolutely SUBLIME. The

>word "sublime" implies a combination of risk/danger with

>overwhelming beauty--like viewing a hurricane or tornado up

>close and being overwhelmed by yet attracted to the power and

>havoc of the force of nature.

 

I wouldn't compare a hurricane to a skinny latin kid getting fucked up the ass by some middle-aged fat man while four guys stand there watching and jerking off.

 

 

>It’s not radical or new to suggest that serial monogamy is a

>prime contributor to the spread of AIDS. Guys get together,

>they think they are in love, they think "it's forever," they

>let their guard down, etc.

 

You're still no making sense. If they're negative and monogamous then nothing is spread. If they're promiscuous (which they can't be and still be monogamous) then there's a risk.

 

 

>In some cultures asking your

>partner to use a condom is even considered an insult because

>of the implied promiscuity.

 

And in some cultures they put plates in their lips. That also has nothing to do with what goes on here.

 

 

>Nor is it radical or “new-age” to suggest that alternative

>sexual sites/practices can be transformative or utopian.

 

"Utopian"? <eye roll>

 

 

>Have you ever read Foucault? Any S/M literature?

 

I'd rather vomit in my mouth.

 

 

Hygienically yours,

 

FFF

[Donnie]

RE: Documentary &quot;Gay Sex in the 70s&quot;

 

>As for the sex, I don't know how you knew it "sizzled" because

>guys would hook up and scurry off into tight corners or one of

>the "closets" so the majority of the sex wasn't really out in

>the open. I found that two hot guys would latch onto each

>other and then try to escape from the crowd and try to find

>"privacy" - which was impossible. The guys who would do stuff

>out in the open were invariably unattractive exhibitionists

 

Maybe Tom was one of the hot guys who went off and had sex in privacy while you were left to stand around and desperately watch the "unattractive exhibitionists".

[Donnie]

RE: Documentary &quot;Gay Sex in the 70s&quot;

 

>LOAD was the largest of them and

>the guys were hotter than hell. If you don’t think there

>were hot guys there it can only be because you were never

>there or were at the wrong time.

 

Or he was there at the right time but nobody wanted him so he's bitter.