"Musket and Troubadour, I think you are wrong to suggest that the situation 30 years ago has any influence on current infection rates."

The point of the historical effect is that it produced a proportionately larger pool of infection in the MSMs (in the West only) than in Heteros before the disease was diagnosed and could even start to be treated.

This means that sex (promiscuous or not) between male homosexuals carried, and still carries, a greater risk of infection than sex between heteros (in those areas where the index cases were predominantly MSM).

I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand, that one gay encounter might still carry ten or more times the risk of a similar single hetero event.

Which destroys the absurd notion that heteros are somehow remaining celibate or monogamous, while gay men are raving sex maniacs.

And BTW, in response to Goofy's later comment, it ill bhoves you to talk about other people not accepting facts, when you still claim homosexuality to be behavioural in nature.