It's a Sin, 9 pm Channel 4, 22nd Jan CONTAINS SPOILERS **titled edited by MNHQ**

[notawittyname1954]

I keep seeing trailers for this. Anyone else looking forward to it?

I also found the character of Jill quite one dimensional.

The woman who was the one looking after everyone, organising the protests, having the difficult conversations about sex. Providing emotional support for Colins mum, researching aids, she was the one looking after Gloria etc. She was the one doing all the work and didn't really get any of her own storyline other than some mother Teresa figure to the men. There was just nothing really about her other than she dedicated her life to gay men, and AIDs work. Its even sadder if this is someone RTD is supposed to be friends with.

I can see why Keeley Hawes character might have blamed her. Jill was someone she had let into her home, they all knew she believed her to be her sons partner. And she knew Keeleys son was dying for years and didn't tell her. Then when Keeley finds out, she again tries to be this smiling shoulder to cry on. I think Jill misjudged keeley a bit there, and misjudged the support she probably needed. Jill was acting like this all loving, kind person yet didn't tell Ritchie parents he was dying, rightly or wrongly. But in the heat of the moment I would probably have hated her too

And Keeleys character probably felt angry he didn't tell her he was gay. And that Jill provided a perfect ruse, felt like they were both lying to her. She would have been angry her son had avoided her for years. Angry that his friends had got to know this side of him that she hadn't, that his friends had been the ones caring for her dying son

And it was wrong of Jill to blame Keeley, Ritchie died of Aids because he had unprotected sex with men during the height of the Aids pandemic. He was unlucky and its a very tragic thing but it had to nothing to do with how much his mum loved him. He was just gay at an unfortunate time to be gay, let's not blame his mum

@DishedUp

There's quite a misogynistic 'woman as support human' thread running through it, as if men were absolved of caring responsibilities, and Jill's inmate caring nature was down the the innate caring nature of women.

It's very problematic.

Also disliked the scene where the other mum ripped into Valerie for not realising Ritchie was gay. It was spiteful and unnecessary-she was in shock and processing the completely unexpected news that her son was dying, the last thing she needed was someone laying into her that viciously. For numerous reasons PPs have noted it’s entirely understandable that she didn’t realise.

@DishedUp

I don't think RTD was saying it wasn't horrific what he did (when he kept sleeping with other men) - he was just trying to give some insight as why men behaved like that. Ritchie was petrified and in denial.

To be honest what I found most jarring was Jill's easy acceptance of his admission, without a word of admonishment. But I suppose there's not much to be gained by berating a dying man on his deathbed.

I think I might watch it again with a better awareness of the timeline, as I was kind of thinking it was all within about 3 years, when really it spanned more like 10 I think, and they were just naive 21 year olds by the end.

I wonder if I found the amount of casual sex, partner swapping, one night stands, etc a bit shocking, not just because I had a very sheltered university experience, but because by the early/mid 90s, people were suddenly much more scared of aids or any STI. Or maybe I am just naive about what went on, since I lived at home and had no friends, let alone ever went to a club. Maybe it was like that for heterosexual students living away from home for the first time too.

Did Ritchie and Ash actually end up sleeping together? In the first episode, there is that conversation where he ends up insulting Ash about being Indian, and then sort of part company, but I wasn't clear if they'd been together or not. Ash tells him to go have a shower first, but when he comes back, he says something like the moment is over now. But then later, there's some comment about them being back together, and at the end, I"m not sure if Ash is one of the ones Ritchie has slept with unprotected. I got a bit confused about who was who at first, and by the time I'd worked it out, I'd forgotten the initial episodes.

Jill wasn't meant to be the real Jill, I don't think; loosely based on her but still a fictional person, in the same way that all the boys were drawn around people and experiences he'd had. I think the difference is that by giving her the same name, it is easier to conflate the fictional Jill with the real one. So I think criticisms of how he's portrayed the fictional person are valid, whether or not the real person was like that or not.

She seemed to go very quickly from being panicked about germs, breaking the pink cup etc, to not minding touching them, sitting with them, nursing them - I wonder if that was from all her research leading her to believe that it wasn't a danger. It seemed quite an abrupt shift given the earlier scene with the mug-breaking, and didn't seem to be explained all that well, given that the rest of the world was still worried about toilet seats by that point.

I was also kind of amazed at the closeness of their friendship, which wasn't something I'd ever experienced. I don't know if it was because they went through such traumatic experiences together and were distanced from their families for obvious reasons, or if it was the sort of friendship that normal students would have had - the thought that they'd just go stay indefinitely on the Isle of Wight until they could see Ritchie, whatever it cost, however long it took, however bored they were or had other things to do. I can't imagine having friends that care that much! But given all their other experiences together, maybe that hugely increases bonding.

@Thimbleberries if you think about it a bit like the current virus, none of us knew how you got it. There was so much fear and rumours. I remember in the beginning it was thought that you could only get it through anal sex. Then people started thinking it was contagious through any sort of bodily fluid in any amount. This was very common.

Jill was involved with campaigners so would have had access to any new ideas coming out about the virus and how it was passed on. There was so much noise about AIDs (like there is about Covid) facts got lost. People who were involved and interested would have known fairly early on that you had to be in contact with certain fluids and they had to be ingested in certain ways.

Did you all notice the other mum?
Her son wasn't a poof, he was a real man, he couldn't have the disease.

I thing RTD has mummy issues because there were no raging dads on that ward playing stereotypical working class homophobes

they were just naive 21 year olds by the end.

sorry, meant to type weren't naive 21 year olds!

Yes that's true, maybe the information was available to those interested and other people were just a bit prejudiced and not actually wanting to look into transmission, or just being over cautious in case, because they didn't know anyone who was being hurt by the isolation and fear.

I think it's also my misremembering the timeline of the show, and how many years it spanned, so what seemed like a fairly sudden change, actually wasn't.

@personwomanmancameratv people do horrific things for many reasons. It doesn't really change what they did.

I actually think the whole portrayel of gay men as 'boys' is problematic. Its absolves them of any responsibility. They need a Jill, the motherly figure to care for them, look after them and protect them

In the very first episode yes they were 18, and you could class them as boys. But as the show progresses they are definitely adult men, they are not naive children any more

@TheFirstMrsDV I agree. Where were the wanker dads?

In reality almost all of my gay friends have been worried about their dads reaction the most.

The point about the cup is interesting. I remember in the beginning people didn't know how you caught it, but even when we knew the rumours still flew about and I suppose the information wasn't as readily available.

Even after we learned how it was transmitted, there were still all kinds of horror stories in the media. I remember a magazine article about a British woman working in Africa who was HIV positive who reckoned she'd had a cut on her toe and caught it via that small cut while treating someone who was HIV Whether that was true or not, these sorts of stories where all over the place. It's no wonder everyone was paranoid.

I remember reading a story in one of those take a break type mags from someone who said their auntie was a nurse in Africa and she had caught it from a pregnant woman she was nursing. Because the stigma was so very great people would often say they had caught it in 'innocent' ways rather than having sex with an infected person.

Its really hard to get across just what a horrifying period it was.

Its really hard to get across just what a horrifying period it was

I agree. I was about 11 when those AIDS ads came on tv and they absolutely scared the bejeezus out of me. I was terrified of catching it even at that age and I think the media were partly to blame printing stories like the ones above.

It's hard to walk the line between warning people and scaring the living daylights out them, the end result being that the victims of AIDS were stigmatised so much that they were placed in locked wards with no one wanting to go near them. We can look back at the people who did that and be disgusted but that's with the benefit of hindsight. It was a very different time and people were frightened (I'm explaining rather then excusing and I hope you can see what I mean).

It was a different time. Homosexuality was not accepted.It wasn't mainstream. It wasn't illegal but it was still viewed with disgust or derision.
If you came out you risked your job, your family, your home.

Thats why Elton and Freddie and George didn't come out. They weren't cowards, they knew what it would mean.

I don't think younger people really grasp what it was like and it was still much better than it had been in the 50s, 60s

AIDs was seen as a just punishment but large parts of the population and state.
You got it because you were gay, a drug user or a whore. And that was fine as far as a lot of people were concerned.

Yes and they tried to portray that in the show ,saying Richie wouldn't join in the protest in case it came out that he was gay ( I know he did in the end) Even actors that may have been openly gay I'm thinking of John Inman ?,it was all a bit innuendo ,nudge ,nudge wink wink the I'm free etc

Wow, some great discussion on here today with good points made. Thimbleberries post at 10.26 was spot on in taking into account why gay men were more affected (lining of the anus is thinner so more likelihood of micro tears allowing easier access of the virus) also less likely to wear condoms as no risk of pregnancy, lifestyle factors and more likely to have multiple partners etc.

Although women are affected, as mentioned the series was originally called Boys and was intended to focus on the effect of AIDS in the 80s on the gay community. I wasn't initially happy with the way that both Jill and Ritchie's mum were depicted but think they were there as examples of all the "Jills" who helped and also how some parents reacted. Perhaps the worst were those that just walked away and disowned their sons entirely. I wasn't too fond of Gloria's dad either. They just had to have somebody to blame but was also due to feeling guilty that they couldn't prevent this from happening and this was their way of helping their sons in the only way they could.

Stigma was very much a thing, both around being gay and also being HIV+ (unfortunately this can still be experienced today). Also the fact that it's not just any old virus, but one that's caught by having sex! Interesting about the West End and actors - perhaps the arts have a more divers and accepting community?

Regarding risk exposure, there's a good article here that mentions how and why it can happen along with a chart to give you an idea. Viral load tends to be at it's highest just after contracting HIV and then towards the end. In between time it tends to be low though continually multiplying but largely kept under control by the immune system, however this at a gradually decreasing level. Briefly, when someone's HIV+ and not on treatment, when not using a condom, receptive anal sex is a 1 in 72 chance and receptive vaginal sex is 1 in 1234. www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/estimated-hiv-risk-exposure

There are people who can unknowingly have HIV for 10 years or so and not pass it on to their partners. There can also be quite a disparity in how long someone can have it before becoming poorly. James in this article contracted HIV in 1996 yet only started treatment in 2018 after guidelines changed to included everyone HIV+, regardless of CD4 (sorry, might have shared this before) www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/health/why-hiv-positive-james-one-our-leeds-heroes-2018-174462

MoodyMarshall I hadn't heard of the Bangui definition of AIDS and KS as compared to other defining illnesses so thank you - interesting en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_World_Health_Organization_AIDS_surveillance_case_definition . Nowadays it's based more on our CD4 count and more likely to be called late stage HIV than AIDS.

Dishedup - great points with both sides of the coin. I'm not sure whether Richie had already received his diagnosis or just suspected when still having condomless sex. It would also be about personal choice and what risk they all chose to take on the basis that anyone they slept with might have HIV. From what I know some couples chose to still have unprotected sex with either one monogamous partner or many regardless. I think it's something that unless we lived it it's really difficult to comprehend and also allow for the fact that tests didn't exist at the start and took a long time to come back. Information generally about how it was transmitted was slow to come out and be well understood. I mean, even more recently there have been newspaper articles about HIV transmission and police using spit hoods that have been incorrect and had to be corrected (though spitting is disgusting!). I've also had to reassure people about the ways it can/can't be contracted - ie when I'd just started treatment taking a sip from my wine glass is fine but if you want more you can get your own!)

I am watching this again one at a time to understand it better as also find the timeline confusing. 3rd episode tonight. I understand after feedback receive Channel 4 has now added better information at the end.

That's really interesting @HIVpos it's actually quite difficult to catch HIV from those stats ,I knew it was harder for women but 1/72 itsa lot higher than I would thought .

Really interesting @HIVpos thank you so much for the info!

wonder whether in part it was just bad luck that meant it became associated with gay men.

Back to this point I looked it up to see how much higher the risk is for gay men and is significantly more. One-off unprotected sex with a HIV+ partner who isn’t on medication is 1 in 2380 for vaginal intercourse female-male transmission, 1 in 1234 for vaginal intercourse female-male transmission, 1 in 72 for receptive anal intercourse. So that’s a great deal higher! But also shows how some could be ‘lucky’ and avoid getting it despite sleeping with positive partners.

Ooh just saw x posted

Apparently about 1% of the population are totally immune from contracting it as well which is interesting

@x2boys

That's really interesting *@HIVpos* it's actually quite difficult to catch HIV from those stats ,I knew it was harder for women but 1/72 itsa lot higher than I would thought .

All to do with quality, quantity and route - plus from personal experience being a woman of a certain age having micro tears due to low estrogen can making contracting HIV more of a possibility.

@tinylittleyou

Apparently about 1% of the population are totally immune from contracting it as well which is interesting

Yes, some people have an innate resistance to contracting HIV. Usually a receptor on the outside of the white blood cell is needed for the virus to attach to and then invade in order to make more copies of itself, in this case the CCR5 co-receptor. However some people have a mutation which prevents this happening. This will be similar to what can happen with other viruses.

Elite Controllers are able to maintain undetectable viral loads and LTNGs (Long Term Non Progressors) at a very low level for many years, both while maintaining very good immune systems i-base.info/elite-controller/

Just to add, it was mentioned on BBC Breakfast today that due to the impact of It's a Sin, 4 times more people are now getting tested during HIV testing week.

I understand that THT has now made 100,000 from La t-shirt sales. Also seen that on day 1 of HIV testing week they shifted 8,000 test kits compared to the previous year where it was 1,500. They ran out mid-week and luckily Public Health England were able to release another 10,000.

I've just got to the end of this, such a good series and cant believe how they were treated. Was Colin raped or was it consensual, I couldn't figure it out from the flashbacks?