NationStates Jolt Archive

Two of the DVDs featured footage from a week-long shoot during which eight British models had sex with each other in multiple combinations without condoms.

Four of those who took part were diagnosed as HIV positive soon after. One of the men told the BBC he was distressed that footage which he believed showed him becoming infected had been put on sale.

Most heterosexual pornography has never featured condoms. But showing unprotected sex became taboo in gay porn after HIV and Aids emerged in the 1980s.

Yet in the last four years there has been an explosion in the production of bareback films. They now make up about 60% of the gay market.

Some health officials believe this is a sign of a wider complacency in society about the risks of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases which is mirrored in rising statistics for new infections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

Unless tests prove no infections, then yes.

Unless tests prove no infections, then yes.

Well, if a test shows an infection, you would hope they're not participating no matter what. Even with the most frequent of screening, can you really expect to catch every single infection?

Porno models really should be screened every six months.

Well, if a test shows an infection, you would hope they're not participating no matter what. Even with the most frequent of screening, can you really expect to catch every single infection?

Of course they shouldn't be participating, but barring a false-negative, I don't think that happens very often.

As far as I know, most of the major companies are pretty rigourous about screenings for STDs. Perhaps I'm a bit callous, but I wouldn't really consider a porn actor catching something that could be cleared up with antibiotics a big deal. It's a risk that kinda goes with the job.

HIV/AIDS on the other hand, no one deserves that. If the industry can't be reasonably (legally speaking) sure (say, a negative test result within 2 weeks of the bare shoot) then wearing a condom should be a no-brainer.

As far as I know, most of the major companies are pretty rigourous about screenings for life-threatening STDs. Perhaps I'm a bit callous, but I wouldn't really consider a porn actor catching something that could be cleared up with antibiotics a big deal.

HIV/AIDS on the other hand, no one deserves that. If the industry can't be reasonably (legally speaking) sure (say, a negative test result within 2 weeks of the bare shoot) then wearing a condom should be a no-brainer.

But if sex is your business you're going to be more at risk of sexual infections. Therefore, even a test just a handful of days before a shoot might not catch the signs of a serious infection.

If there isn't any real harm in having the actors wear a condom, then why not have them always do it, and keep the risk as low as possible?

But if sex is your business you're going to be more at risk of sexual infections. Therefore, even a test just a handful of days before a shoot might not catch the signs of a serious infection.

If there isn't any real harm in having the actors wear a condom, then why not have them always do it, and keep the risk as low as possible?

Some folks really like the bareback I guess. And really, how many people really care about the welfare of the porn actors?

We don't see the harm. But then, we have the rarest of things known as "common sense." The industry, however, well...

Some folks really like the bareback I guess. And really, how many people really care about the welfare of the porn actors?

We don't see the harm. But then, we have the rarest of things known as "common sense." The industry, however, well...

If the people watching it don't care, and the industry doesn't care, then perhaps the government should care, and pass a law requiring the wearing of condoms? It could also have advantages for sex education; get people used to having condoms and sex go together.

If the people watching it don't care, and the industry doesn't care, then perhaps the government should care, and pass a law requiring the wearing of condoms? It could also have advantages for sex education; get people used to having condoms and sex go together.

Of course.

If the people watching it don't care, and the industry doesn't care, then perhaps the government should care, and pass a law requiring the wearing of condoms? It could also have advantages for sex education; get people used to having condoms and sex go together.

or maybe the government can stay out of it for once, and let the actors decide if they want to wear condoms or not?

Rolling squid;13501276']or maybe the government can stay out of it for once, and let the actors decide if they want to wear condoms or not?

That is not acceptable. If a guy with HIV decides not to wear a condom, hes going to give it to the girl, who probably doesnt know he has it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

The performers are all aware of the risks of having sex without a condom. They should be allowed to make their own choices regarding condom use (which obviously includes the choice "I will not be in this film unless he uses a condom when fucking me"). Actors and actresses in bareback films are aware of the risk they're taking and shouldn't bitch about the studio if they become infected as it was their CHOICE to do a bareback role.

That is not acceptable. If a guy with HIV decides not to wear a condom, hes going to give it to the girl, who probably doesnt know he has it.

The girl has a right to require anyone fucking her to wear a condom. If she does not then she knew the risks.

The girl has a right to require anyone fucking her to wear a condom. If she does not then she knew the risks.

Ah, but that isnt what he said. He said that if should be the individual's choice.


Besides, what the hell is wrong with making people wear condoms in porn? Its not like it effects your sexual pleasure, and really it shouldnt make a difference in how much you enjoy wacking it to said porn.

The question is, why weren't they screened for STI's in the first place?

That is not acceptable. If a guy with HIV decides not to wear a condom, hes going to give it to the girl, who probably doesnt know he has it.

The "actors" included those doing the fucking and those getting fucked. If a girl wants the guys to wear condoms, they have to, if a guy wants to, he can. It's like that for normal sex, why not let it be that way for porn?

The question is, why weren't they screened for STI's in the first place?

They are, usually. It just isn't foolproof.

The question is, why weren't they screened for STI's in the first place?

Mind you, a test will show signs of an infection after 3 months. Assuming it always worked, then the actors would have to use condoms for 3 months before they could safely have sex without condoms. So even in a system where there are frequent tests and therefore no condoms, as soon as somebody is infected all people are fucked. Non-literally.

Ah, but that isnt what he said. He said that if should be the individual's choice.

Is she no longer an individual? Is "All actors must use a condom with me or I will not be in this film." not a choice?

Is she no longer an individual? Is "All actors must use a condom with me or I will not be in this film." not a choice?

He didnt qualify his statement, and it came off as meaning the men make the decision. Dont put words in my mouth. Its not my fault he wasnt clear.

They should probably be necessary, but I don't think that this will completely solve the problem. This will probably be a problem as long as porn exists, which is until the end of time.

He didnt qualify his statement, and it came off as meaning the men make the decision. Dont put words in my mouth. Its not my fault he wasnt clear.

It seems to have been clear to everyone else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

Yes

One thing that's always amazed me about porn. In a bisexual porno you'll see guys doing women left and right with no rubber. Soon as it's guy on guy though they suit up. :rolleyes:

If the people watching it don't care, and the industry doesn't care, then perhaps the government should care, and pass a law requiring the wearing of condoms? It could also have advantages for sex education; get people used to having condoms and sex go together.

A bit of a Catch 22. The law would have to be passed by conservatives, who believe in regulating sex, but oppose regulating business, or liberals who support regulating business, but oppose regulating sex.

Just glove it up a bit more, there's also a healthy (depending on your definition, of course) market for hardcore latex fetish action. Rubber all the way, baby!

Porn is so much less exciting when it's not bareback! Especially the gay porn. No point in watching it when they're all gloved up...

They shouldn't be forced to do anything. It would smart of them to get tested before but if they want to go at it with no protection they should be able to.

yes they should be required to wear condoms. any film or still picture showing any practice that risks the health of the actors/models should result in the prosecution of the producer and director for reckless endangerment.

Why not charge the actors/models as well while you're at it? They KNOW the risks, if they don't know the risks then the studio should be prosecuted for using the mentally handicapped. Bottom line, if you take a risk don't bitch about winding up with the possible consequents of said risk.

yes they should be required to wear condoms. any film or still picture showing any practice that risks the health of the actors/models should result in the prosecution of the producer and director for reckless endangerment.

if people are willing to go bareback in porn just forcing them to wear condoms is only covering up the real issue

and that issue is they can think that they won't catch an STI which if true means that them and others are willing to do this off camera

more money to sex ed please

Why not charge the actors/models as well while you're at it? They KNOW the risks, if they don't know the risks then the studio should be prosecuted for using the mentally handicapped. Bottom line, if you take a risk don't bitch about winding up with the possible consequents of said risk.

I suppose you also propose doing away with health inspectors, workplace safety regulations, and the sorts of rules that kept workplaces from turning into deathtraps like Chinese coal mines? After all, whoever worked in them know the risk, it's obviously their fault for getting killed.

Let's go back to the days when mines were propped up with twigs, and hardhats were nonexistent. Clearly if the workers feel the need to be safer, they can get that sort of equipment on their own, or better yet, we can charge them for it.

What's the connection you ask? Why, if you don't care for workplace safety in one place, why should I bother in other areas? Not that much of a difference if you die of HIV or having your head split open by a falling brick.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

Of course. I´ve seen several films where the actors are wearing condoms while performing. It should be standard procedure in the adult film industry.

Of course. I´ve seen several films where the actors are wearing condoms while performing. It should be standard procedure in the adult film industry.

Just not one of these:http://www.condomania.com/images/H-BGC_2_dt.jpg

Just not one of these:http://www.condomania.com/images/H-BGC_2_dt.jpg

WTF IS THAT?!:eek:

WTF IS THAT?!:eek:

A goofy guy in a body condom :D

A goofy guy in a body condom :D

Do those come for women?:D

Do those come for women?:D

I'm pretty sure they're unisex (http://www.condomania.com/prodinfo.asp?number=H-BGC).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

They do have the right to quit if the employer asks them to do some thing they don't want to. The actors should have the right to chose to wear a condom in an adult movie.

That is not acceptable. If a guy with HIV decides not to wear a condom, hes going to give it to the girl, who probably doesnt know he has it.

I'm pretty sure that if you know you have HIV you are legally required to wear a condom or inform your partner whether you are a porn actor or not.

Ah, but that isnt what he said. He said that if should be the individual's choice.

Besides, what the hell is wrong with making people wear condoms in porn? Its not like it effects your sexual pleasure, and really it shouldnt make a difference in how much you enjoy wacking it to said porn.

Not to argue whether or not they should have to wear a condom, but who are you to say what should or should not affect someone's sexual pleasure? If any industry caters to and represents the huge diversity in individual preferences, it's the porn industry.

I'm pretty sure that if you know you have HIV you are legally required to wear a condom or inform your partner whether you are a porn actor or not.

I believe this is correct. If you knowingly engage in an activity with a person that can lead to the transmission of HIV without their knowledge, I believe you can be tried for gross negligence at the very least.


As to the question of whether or not actors should be required to use condoms, I am ambivalent. In other high-risk occupations, such as working in a lab, safety equipment is not "optional", so it stands to reason that it would be the same. However, the use of protective barriers is not enforced uniformly at all; as someone noted earlier, condoms are often used in gay male porn but rarely in hetero porn, and I have not to date ever seen a dental dam used in lesbian porn. While gay male sex carries the HIGHEST risk of infection, it is possible to transmit HIV through all of these activities. The likelihood of using protection in all of these situations is low, however.

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?

Yes. Sexual tastes are such that they tend to encourage pushing the limit. We should draw a line.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if I were producing a pornographic film, I'd voluntarily require or at least allow my actors to suit up. The alternative seems like a hell of a liability risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7277000.stm

With this in mind, should a performer in a pornographic film, whether homosexual or otherwise, be required to wear a condom?Yes, and I'm glad some of the business at least adheres to it.

I think everyone should make their own porn. :D

Ah, but that isnt what he said. He said that if should be the individual's choice.


Besides, what the hell is wrong with making people wear condoms in porn? Its not like it effects your sexual pleasure, and really it shouldnt make a difference in how much you enjoy wacking it to said porn.

but we cant have the government requiring anything, we need the government to leave our porn alone, thank you.

It's just a matter of health regulations, actually. And let's face it, it's a government's task to enforce health regulations, no matter what kind of industry is affected by them.

I'm pretty sure they're unisex (http://www.condomania.com/prodinfo.asp?number=H-BGC).

:D

If it's that person's own perversion they should take the risk. If it's not they really shouldn't.

Condoms suck. Plain and simple. They should be tested regularly and that's worked for the entire AIDS era with incidents like this coming from negligence on the part of the actors and producers.

The people saying the tests don't work or it takes three months to detect a major STD are wack. Unless it's dollar store tests. What do you think the world's blood supply would look like if the tests didn't work right away?

That's how AIDS spread out of the homosexual community, through the blood supply. They have Rapid HIV tests that only require a swab and give you results in 20 minutes.

Hell, one of the biggest reasons to do porn is to not have to wear a condom. The only reason to have a girlfriend for a lot of guys is so that you can take the rubber off.

Porno models really should be screened every six months.

If not more often. Frankly, porn actors really need a better union, such that they can either require condoms (which kills certain types of porn) or require testing (which is probably more expensive but gives a greater possible repertoire of types of porn that can be done.) I don't know if it's a case where the supply of actors always exceeds the demand, so a union isn't feasible and a shortage can't occur, or if it just doesn't happen because of the nature of the beast.

I always thought, though, that producers took more precaution in that regard. My research into straight and gay porn is extremely limited (i.e. none) but in my extensive (read: somewhat limited) research into lesbian porn, condoms are even placed over sex toys. It's as if they take no chances.

I am well aware of the existence of bareback in the gay community (Rolling Stone once wrote an article about "bug chasers" who actually tried to catch HIV...a possible new low for human stupidity, but still not quite as dumb as the Running of the Bulls...but I digress...) but don't know the effect it has on the porn that they produce. I didn't exactly write a Ph.D. thesis on this subject (trust me, if I were looking into this subject for a Ph.D. thesis, I'd pick black lesbian twincest porn, but that's neither here nor there.)

I do know this - if my research on how quickly porn films are produced is accurate (and by "research," I, of course, mean "the episode of Family Guy where Brian produced pornographic films") then those people are probably making money hand over fist and can afford to test their actors. Besides, condoms or no, actors with HIV shouldn't be in porn. Even good condoms fail one out of 30-some-odd times, and that's counting pregnancy alone. I can't say this for sure, but I would imagine that the fail rates for STDs are as high, and you can't exactly get rid of AIDS with RU-486 or an abortion.

Therefore, my conclusion in this rambling bit of nonsense: STD testing is a good thing, and there's plenty of lesbian porn out there that's pretty good. That is all.

Reading through this thread, I've noticed a few things.

1) Some people seem to think that sex workers deserve 'what they get', and in a sort of sniggering fit of moral superiority want the gov't to stay out of it, in the thinly veiled hopes that the evil sex workers will get teh AIDS

2) No one has noted the difference between the fairly internally regulated big studio porn, and the much more prevalent small time internet and amateur porn. In the former, STI testing is regular, and there is in fact a list of the infections actors have had, and condoms are pretty much the norm. In the latter, it's essentially no holds barred, with varying levels of sexual exploitation that may or may not allow a participant to make any sort of demands in regards to condoms. This is not a perfect world where all the partcipants have equal levels of power to one another, and where everyone is able to make free and informed decisions. Plenty of people out there have no other choice but to jobs they don't exactly enjoy, simply because they have no other skills, and/or they are fucking desperate (because of poverty, addiction, or what have you).

We require health care workers who are likely to come into contact with the bodily fluids of other humans to wear protection....both for their protection, and the protection of their patients. We require saftey equipment for construction workers. We require a certain standard of dress for those who prepare food. We do all these things without harping on about free choice because it would be fucking stupid to just leave it up to the individual. So why are some of you coming at this from a moral standpoint rather than a simple health and safety standpoint?

It's just a matter of health regulations, actually. And let's face it, it's a government's task to enforce health regulations, no matter what kind of industry is affected by them.

exactly.

and unlike some other sex jobs--prostitution for example-- porn is legal and non-compliance is often very obvious. it would be easy to prosecute any producer/director of a professionally made porn product.

Condoms suck. Plain and simple.No they don't.

The people saying the tests don't work or it takes three months to detect a major STD are wack. Unless it's dollar store tests. What do you think the world's blood supply would look like if the tests didn't work right away?

That's how AIDS spread out of the homosexual community, through the blood supply. They have Rapid HIV tests that only require a swab and give you results in 20 minutes.


I fear you failing to understand the point. HIV tests take no time at all to give you the result BUT the HIV infection is not detectable in the blood stream for three months.

This is why they give you a questionnaire when you give blood, with things like unprotected sex, numerous partners or straight anal sex meaning you can't give blood for months if not a year after the event. I believe needle use is a big no-no too (I'm not certain on the regulations on that one) and sharing needles will mean you can never give blood. In a wonderfully arcaic and homophobic bent, if you've ever had gay anal sex, you can never give blood. Ever.

And despite these measures and screening, bad blood samples still get through, because we can't reliably detect it within the first 3 months.

Edit: This is UK blood donations, regulations may vary. The underlying point remains the same though

In a wonderfully arcaic and homophobic bent, if you've ever had gay anal sex, you can never give blood. Ever. And this is different from discriminating against Europeans when donating to the American Red Cross how exactly?

I was talking about blood donations in the UK, I probably should have mentioned this.

Also, I find it quite homophobic when you consider heterosexual anal sex will just stop you donating for 12 months

They do? Really?You live in the UK? If so, you're not allowed to donate blood in the US, ever. Same goes for Germans and any other country that's had instances of Mad Cow's Disease.

Just as an FYI...

If a man is infected with HIV, and he's having sex with a woman

the chance of passing it through oral sex (woman sucking off the man) is virtually nil.

Vaginal sex - 1 in 1600 per sexual encounter

Anal sex - 1 in 4

If you consider that a condom is 99.9 percent effective, unprotected vaginal sex is just as good as wearing a condom per sexual encounter. You could always wear one just to be sure.

Anal sex, on the other hand, without a condom, is riskier than playing Russian Roulette.

HIV rages through populations that practice unprotected anal sex at very high rates.

Just because someone tested clean doesn't mean they are - HIV can take time to show on a test, and you can still be infectious.

And this is different from discriminating against Europeans when donating to the American Red Cross how exactly?

I was talking about blood donations in the UK, I probably should have mentioned this.

Also, I find it quite homophobic when you consider heterosexual anal sex will just stop you donating for 12 months

They do? Really?

Just as an FYI...

If a man is infected with HIV, and he's having sex with a woman

the chance of passing it through oral sex (woman sucking off the man) is virtually nil.

Vaginal sex - 1 in 1600 per sexual encounter

Anal sex - 1 in 4

If you consider that a condom is 99.9 percent effective, unprotected vaginal sex is just as good as wearing a condom per sexual encounter. You could always wear one just to be sure.

Anal sex, on the other hand, without a condom, is riskier than playing Russian Roulette.

HIV rages through populations that practice unprotected anal sex at very high rates.

Just because someone tested clean doesn't mean they are - HIV can take time to show on a test, and you can still be infectious.

And a million voices cried out as one.. Source?

And a million voices cried out as one.. Source?

The CDC. You can also find the research papers on PubMed (MEDLINE).

There are research papers that conclude that this is why HIV spread so fast amongst homosexuals, and in Africa, compared to within the US heterosexual population.

Anal sex is a form of birth control in most African cultures.

Ah, but I'm sure you have some other explanation as to why homosexuals and Africans suffered so greatly - probably some industrial conspiracy or something.

Nothing as simple as "fucking in the ass spreads it easily".

The CDC. You can also find the research papers on PubMed (MEDLINE).

There are research papers that conclude that this is why HIV spread so fast amongst homosexuals, and in Africa, compared to within the US heterosexual population.

Anal sex is a form of birth control in most African cultures.

Ah, but I'm sure you have some other explanation as to why homosexuals and Africans suffered so greatly - probably some industrial conspiracy or something.

Nothing as simple as "fucking in the ass spreads it easily".

Got a link?

Per-Contact Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission between Male Sexual Partners.

Eric Vittinghoff, John Douglas, Frank Judson, David McKirnan, Kate MacQueen, and Susan P. Buchbinder (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 74 New Montgomery, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105)

American Journal of Epidemiology August 1, 1999;150:306-11

Abstract:

The risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission from various types of homosexual contact, including oral sex, is of biologic, epidemiologic, and public health importance. The per-contact risk of acquiring HIV infection from specific acts was estimated in a prospective cohort study of 2,189 high-risk homosexual and bisexual men, conducted in San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; and Chicago, Illinois, in 1992--1994. During 2,633 person-years of follow-up, 60 seroconversions were observed. The estimated per-contact risk of acquiring HIV from unprotected receptive anal sex (URA) was 0.82 percent (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.76 percent) when the partner was known to be HIV+ and 0.27 percent (95% confidence interval: 0.06, 0.49 percent) when partners of unknown serostatus were included. There was heterogeneity in per-contact risk, with nine seroconversions occurring after only one or two episodes of URA. The per-contact risk associated with unprotected insertive anal and receptive oral sex with HIV-positive or unknown serostatus partners was 0.06 and 0.04 percent, respectively. URA accounted for only 15 percent of all reported sexual activity by seroconverters. As lower-risk practices become more common, they may play a larger role in propagating the epidemic and should also be addressed by interventions targeting high-risk homosexual and bisexual men.

The authors conclude,

The analysis shows that while condoms provide considerable protection when used correctly, condom failure poses substantial risk for the receptive partner in anal sex....Furthermore, the apparently large risks of receptive intercourse suggest that high-risk homosexual and bisexual men should be encouraged to learn the serostatus of their sexual partners and take this risk into account in making decisions about sexual activity....To the extent that unprotected insertive anal and unprotected oral sex become more common among high-risk, HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men, substantial numbers of seroconversions could result. Thus, it is important to communicate clearly that these practices are not without risk.

----

All of that said, there are MANY studies that show this - the risk in this case is far greater than the 1 in 4 I mentioned - 1 in 4 is from the study that shows the LEAST risk for each anal sex event. Here in this study, it's 0.86 out of 1 if you're the bottom and your HIV infected partner is the top - for a single event of anal sex.

There are similar studies for heterosexuals, as well as bisexuals.

Bisexuality, especially in the context of African-Americans "on the down low", is seen by the CDC as the primary route of infection for heterosexuals in the US. It's where they're spending a lot of their grant money.

Per-Contact Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission between Male Sexual Partners.

Eric Vittinghoff, John Douglas, Frank Judson, David McKirnan, Kate MacQueen, and Susan P. Buchbinder (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 74 New Montgomery, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105)

American Journal of Epidemiology August 1, 1999;150:306-11

Abstract:

The risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission from various types of homosexual contact, including oral sex, is of biologic, epidemiologic, and public health importance. The per-contact risk of acquiring HIV infection from specific acts was estimated in a prospective cohort study of 2,189 high-risk homosexual and bisexual men, conducted in San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; and Chicago, Illinois, in 1992--1994. During 2,633 person-years of follow-up, 60 seroconversions were observed. The estimated per-contact risk of acquiring HIV from unprotected receptive anal sex (URA) was 0.82 percent (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.76 percent) when the partner was known to be HIV+ and 0.27 percent (95% confidence interval: 0.06, 0.49 percent) when partners of unknown serostatus were included. There was heterogeneity in per-contact risk, with nine seroconversions occurring after only one or two episodes of URA. The per-contact risk associated with unprotected insertive anal and receptive oral sex with HIV-positive or unknown serostatus partners was 0.06 and 0.04 percent, respectively. URA accounted for only 15 percent of all reported sexual activity by seroconverters. As lower-risk practices become more common, they may play a larger role in propagating the epidemic and should also be addressed by interventions targeting high-risk homosexual and bisexual men.

The authors conclude,

The analysis shows that while condoms provide considerable protection when used correctly, condom failure poses substantial risk for the receptive partner in anal sex....Furthermore, the apparently large risks of receptive intercourse suggest that high-risk homosexual and bisexual men should be encouraged to learn the serostatus of their sexual partners and take this risk into account in making decisions about sexual activity....To the extent that unprotected insertive anal and unprotected oral sex become more common among high-risk, HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men, substantial numbers of seroconversions could result. Thus, it is important to communicate clearly that these practices are not without risk.

----

All of that said, there are MANY studies that show this - the risk in this case is far greater than the 1 in 4 I mentioned - 1 in 4 is from the study that shows the LEAST risk for each anal sex event. Here in this study, it's 0.86 out of 1 if you're the bottom and your HIV infected partner is the top - for a single event of anal sex.

There are similar studies for heterosexuals, as well as bisexuals.

Bisexuality, especially in the context of African-Americans "on the down low", is seen by the CDC as the primary route of infection for heterosexuals in the US. It's where they're spending a lot of their grant money.


Funny, that doesn't support your earlier numbers at all. Point of fact I've been searching since you posted that and I've still not found anything that supports remotely close to the assertions you made earlier.

HIV can be transmitted through the exchange of body fluids (e.g. blood, semen, saliva, and vaginal secretions). HIV is transmittable through all forms of sexual intercourse (oral, vaginal, and anal) when one or both partners are infected with HIV. Oral sex without a latex condom places you at risk of exposure to HIV. It should also be noted that pre-ejaculation fluid can carry HIV and it can be absorbed into the thin mucous linings of the mouth. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that during oral sex, a latex condom should be used to decrease risk of exposure. 9 Source (http://cureresearch.com/h/hiv_aids/contagious.htm). That directly refutes what you said earlier, and you're spreading some very dangerous mis-information.

Funny, that doesn't support your earlier numbers at all. Point of fact I've been searching since you posted that and I've still not found anything that supports remotely close to the assertions you made earlier.

Source (http://cureresearch.com/h/hiv_aids/contagious.htm). That directly refutes what you said earlier, and you're spreading some very dangerous mis-information.

It does support the earlier numbers, in that oral sex is far safer than anal sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR5402.pdf

Oh, you were saying? It's not misinformation. It's fact.

The numbers vary among studies - but it's always oral is orders of magnitude safer than vaginal, and vaginal is orders of magnitude safer than anal.

Period.

There are also epidemiological studies that show this is the cause of the spread of HIV through the homosexual community, as well as Africa.

I think everyone should make their own porn. :D

Good idea. (http://www.maxitmag.com/forum/attachments/mag-chat/50d1121261386-hot-babes-all-time-favourite-babes-most-important-thread-ever-brook21.jpg)

BAD IDEA! BAD IDEA! (http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/images/fat_guy.jpg)

Besides, what the hell is wrong with making people wear condoms in porn? Its not like it effects your sexual pleasure, and really it shouldnt make a difference in how much you enjoy wacking it to said porn.

What about creampie videos? :p

If it's that person's own perversion they should take the risk. If it's not they really shouldn't.

Are you saying bareback sex is perverted?

It does support the earlier numbers, in that oral sex is far safer than anal sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR5402.pdf

Oh, you were saying? It's not misinformation. It's fact.

The numbers vary among studies - but it's always oral is orders of magnitude safer than vaginal, and vaginal is orders of magnitude safer than anal.

Period.

There are also epidemiological studies that show this is the cause of the spread of HIV through the homosexual community, as well as Africa.



You realize the numbers listed in that are hugely off from what you stated earlier? You claimed the odds of infection from unprotected anal sex were 1 in 4, the article you linked says 5 in 10,000. Though the article you linked doesn't provide odds if the top is known to be infected with HIV, and I'd be positively giddy to know where you pulled those numbers from.

No, it spread mostly via intravenous drug use.

Uh, no. Mostly it's sex, drug users only make up about 15% of new cases.

You realize the numbers listed in that are hugely off from what you stated earlier? You claimed the odds of infection from unprotected anal sex were 1 in 4, the article you linked says 5 in 10,000. Though the article you linked doesn't provide odds if the top is known to be infected with HIV, and I'd be positively giddy to know where you pulled those numbers from.

I think you didn't bother to read what I posted.

I said that there are many studies - this one shows it to be even more risky. And that's only the abstract - I have the entire report.

I have quite a few of the studies here on my desk.

I think you didn't bother to read what I posted.

I said that there are many studies - this one shows it to be even more risky. And that's only the abstract - I have the entire report.

I have quite a few of the studies here on my desk.

Do you have a link to said abstracts? Anywhere? So far the only actual link you've used to support your assertions hasn't.

Do you have a link to said abstracts? Anywhere? So far the only actual link you've used to support your assertions hasn't.

Most of the abstracts are on PubMed (MEDLINE), so there aren't any links.

Go ahead. Searching on PubMed is far more accurate information than the Googling you've been doing.

It also matters what demographic you're having sex with, Khadgar.

The study was for homosexual males, some of whom were of unknown serological status for HIV.

The studies I originally quoted were for heterosexuals.

But, for homosexual males:

Anal sex without condoms with positive partner
Bottom 82%
Anal sex without condoms with partner of unknown status
Bottom 27%
Top 6%
Anal sex using condom with partner of unknown status
Bottom 18%
Top 4%
Oral sex without a condom
Person sucking 4%

The figures are different for heterosexuals - and even amongst heterosexuals there are different populations.

Still, it's far riskier for anal sex, period. You can't let that go, can you?

Most of the abstracts are on PubMed (MEDLINE), so there aren't any links.

Go ahead. Searching on PubMed is far more accurate information than the Googling you've been doing.

Wow, I got 1 hit on my search from 1993. :rolleyes:

What are you searching for there to get these numbers?

I used: "transmission rate" "sexual intercourse" unprotected

Wow, I got 1 hit on my search from 1993. :rolleyes:

What are you searching for there to get these numbers?

I used: "transmission rate" "sexual intercourse" unprotected

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028613

Maybe you want to order this one.

The reason that the transmission rate "varies widely" as the abstract explains is because the type of sex varies widely as noted in the entire article.

Uh, no. Mostly it's sex, drug users only make up about 15% of new cases.It is sex as well - people who have sex with drug users. However, I can't find specific numbers on the rates of IV drug users with HIV during the late '70s, which is why I deleted that post.

Edit: Though I did find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin#1981-2:_From_GRID_to_AIDS

What about creampie videos? :p
How 'bout those hilarious ones where the guy is supposed to pull out and he doesn't. Those are frigging hilarious. Can't have those with gloves, can we? Let me tell you, nothing gets me off better than watching her face when she realizes what happened.

Are you saying bareback sex is perverted?
*whinnie* *neigh*

I think that somehow, you're thinking that this is new - it's old news.

It's been confirmed over and over and over again, in study after study.

It isn't popular to discuss it, because it contravenes the popular theory that somehow, there's a consipracy to get gays and Africans.

As I said, it explains perfectly why heterosexuals in the US don't have anywhere near the infection rate of homosexuals in the US.

Still, it's far riskier for anal sex, period. You can't let that go, can you?

I have never asserted that, you have said that I have repeatedly, but I haven't. While you're googling shit feel free to look up Straw Man Argument.

RhynoDD;13503357']How 'bout those hilarious ones where the guy is supposed to pull out and he doesn't. Those are frigging hilarious. Can't have those with gloves, can we? Let me tell you, nothing gets me off better than watching her face when she realizes what happened.


I've always assumed that was staged...

RhynoDD;13503357']
*whinnie* *neigh*

ew.

I've always assumed that was staged...
Child support says otherwise.

ew.

Horses don't make you pay child support.

RhynoDD;13503491']Child support says otherwise.


ORLY?

Do I detect insider information? (pardon the pun)

RhynoDD;13503491']
Horses don't make you pay child support.

That's just because they're too big to fit on the stage of the Maury Povich Show

ORLY?

Do I detect insider information? (pardon the pun)
Do you have porn-actor-dar?
How 'bout dead-beat-dar?

ie: no.

That's just because they're too big to fit on the stage of the Maury Povich Show
Nah, they just all go to Springer.

Which reminds me...

Does anybody know, just out of curiosity, whether the actors in the 'almost-hard-core-but-no-penetration-is-shown' movies on channels like the old Spice Channel (is that still on?) are ACTUALLY penetrating? If so, could one assume the same rules would thus apply to them?

Which reminds me...

Does anybody know, just out of curiosity, whether the actors in the 'almost-hard-core-but-no-penetration-is-shown' movies on channels like the old Spice Channel (is that still on?) are ACTUALLY penetrating? If so, could one assume the same rules would thus apply to them?

I've always wondered about that. Actually, I wonder more about sex scenes in other movies...Am I really watching Denise Richards have sex? Because that would be a lot hotter than if she was just pretending....

RhynoDD;13503631']I've always wondered about that. Actually, I wonder more about sex scenes in other movies...Am I really watching Denise Richards have sex? Because that would be a lot hotter than if she was just pretending....

no you have never seen denise richards having sex. she is ACTING.

RhynoDD;13503631']I've always wondered about that. Actually, I wonder more about sex scenes in other movies...Am I really watching Denise Richards have sex? Because that would be a lot hotter than if she was just pretending....

I was just thinking back to my younger days when we'd hotwire the cable box to get the PPV channels and try to figure it out. It sure didn't seem like it was just pretending... But one could never be certain.

But yeah I wondered about regular movies too. Especially ones like Bolero...

Which reminds me...

Does anybody know, just out of curiosity, whether the actors in the 'almost-hard-core-but-no-penetration-is-shown' movies on channels like the old Spice Channel (is that still on?) are ACTUALLY penetrating? If so, could one assume the same rules would thus apply to them?

people in d.c. get awsome channels, but I get sex on demand. (literally and the channel)

I was just thinking back to my younger days when we'd hotwire the cable box to get the PPV channels and try to figure it out. It sure didn't seem like it was just pretending... But one could never be certain.

But yeah I wondered about regular movies too. Especially ones like Bolero...

Thank You for Smoking.

Katie Holmes. Crazy as hell, but I'd bang her.

As for sex scenes in movies they're faked.

"I've done a lot of hopping in and out of bed naked, but this was my first actual sex scene. She whispered to me, did I have any knickers on? I did. I mean, God forbid there should be any real contact."

The ever helpful modesty sheet (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModestyBedsheet) makes it pretty easy in most films.

As for sex scenes in movies they're faked.

"I've done a lot of hopping in and out of bed naked, but this was my first actual sex scene. She whispered to me, did I have any knickers on? I did. I mean, God forbid there should be any real contact."

The ever helpful modesty sheet (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModestyBedsheet) makes it pretty easy in most films.

Oh no, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the scenes (nostly in softcore) where it looks for all the world like they could be doing it. You see everything except the actual penetration.

I have some of those L shaped bedsheets. they make it more entertaining to make my bed because I can never figure out which side is which.

Oh no, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the scenes (nostly in softcore) where it looks for all the world like they could be doing it. You see everything except the actual penetration.

if they dont show it, theyre not doing it.

if they dont show it, theyre not doing it.

See, I think that's a cop-out from the actors' perspective. I mean, hell, if I'm going to act like I'm having sex with a hot girl on stage, I think I should go ahead and have that sex. Consider it part of the pay...

I think everyone should make their own porn. :D

All right. You start.;)


Hey, everyone else gets to sexually assualt Amor verbally. Dont look at me like that!

All right. You start.;)


Hey, everyone else gets to sexually assualt Amor verbally. Dont look at me like that!

I've been over this:
BAD IDEA! (http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/images/fat_guy.jpg)

Reading through this thread, I've noticed a few things.

1) Some people seem to think that sex workers deserve 'what they get', and in a sort of sniggering fit of moral superiority want the gov't to stay out of it, in the thinly veiled hopes that the evil sex workers will get teh AIDS


I've not seen ANYONE say or imply that. What I've seen is people saying that condom use should be a personal choice (including the choice to not have sex with an actor/model who is not wearing a condom) and that those who choose not wear a condom/have sex with someone not wearing a condom are AWARE of the risk they're taking.

I've...seen [everyone] say or imply that. What I've seen...people saying that condom use should [not] be a personal choice (including the choice to not have sex with an actor/model who is not wearing a condom) and that those who [I]choose not wear a condom/have sex with someone not wearing a condom are [fired for not taking the risk].

I have nothing to offer except for the excuse "poetic license."

RhynoDD;13503844']I've been over this:
BAD IDEA! (http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/images/fat_guy.jpg)

yes. besides, do you really want to whack off to yourself doing it?

yes. besides, do you really want to whack off to yourself doing it?

why not?

yes. besides, do you really want to whack off to yourself doing it?

Yes, as I look like this (http://www.myzine.com/upload/6390/hotgirlinshower97930543.jpg).

RhynoDD;13504030']Yes, as I look like this (http://www.myzine.com/upload/6390/hotgirlinshower97930543.jpg).

youre that rascist fuck from the gays and earthquakes thread!!!! I dont care how hot you pretend to be on the internet, you rascist fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

youre that rascist fuck from the gays and earthquakes thread!!!! I dont care how hot you pretend to be on the internet, you rascist fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



We need a MOD with a ban stick over here.

youre that rascist fuck from the gays and earthquakes thread!!!! I dont care how hot you pretend to be on the internet, you rascist fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTH???

WTH???

see the last few pages of the gays and earthquakes thread.

It takes two to tango. It also takes two to have unprotected sex. Pornography, (save snuff), is not rape. The actors choose not to be protected, and therefore suffer the consequences. Our government was not established as a day care.

We need a MOD with a ban stick over here.

I know, right? Some people :rolleyes:

why not?

it seems weird. thats why. would you wack it wile looking at yourself in the mirror?

RhynoDD;13504069']I know, right? Some people :rolleyes:

like you and your hatefull rascist rants? go die.

it seems weird. thats why. would you wack it wile looking at yourself in the mirror?
Don't you?

Don't you?

um, no, actually, I'm not that self centered.

um, no, actually, I'm not that self centered.
Good thing I finished my grape juice. You tried to make me spit it all over again!

Good thing I finished my grape juice. You tried to make me spit it all over again!

Is my normalcy amusing to you, internet weirdo?

Is my normalcy amusing to you, internet weirdo?

You have no idea how amusing :D:D:D:D:D:D

You have no idea how amusing :D:D:D:D:D:D

this thread is going off course, I dont want to derail yet another thread, therefore, I leave.

Well, if a test shows an infection, you would hope they're not participating no matter what. Even with the most frequent of screening, can you really expect to catch every single infection?

If all participants haven't had an STD test immediately before filming (ie they have not had sex since the test), then condoms should be used regardless of the sexuality of the setting. This isn't about 'OMG GAY EQUALZ!!!!!1!one' - although gay rights is a worthy cause - it's just basic common sense. HIV doesn't discriminate between homo- and hetero- sex.

Bisexuality, especially in the context of African-Americans "on the down low", is seen by the CDC as the primary route of infection for heterosexuals in the US. It's where they're spending a lot of their grant money.

I've been waiting for someone to point a finger at bisexuals and condemn us to hell for infecting all the good straight people. I thought it would take fewer pages.

youre that rascist fuck from the gays and earthquakes thread!!!! I dont care how hot you pretend to be on the internet, you rascist fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well that was unexpected.

Good thing I finished my grape juice. You tried to make me spit it all over again!
Mine's not grapejuice. :)

(Kidding. But it had to be said.)


Well that was unexpected.
Was it? Was it really?

Hey, everyone else gets to sexually assualt Amor verbally. Dont look at me like that!

That's kind of creepy.


RhynoDD;13503844']I've been over this:
BAD IDEA! (http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/images/fat_guy.jpg)

RhynoDD;13503294']Good idea. (http://www.maxitmag.com/forum/attachments/mag-chat/50d1121261386-hot-babes-all-time-favourite-babes-most-important-thread-ever-brook21.jpg)

BAD IDEA! BAD IDEA! (http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/images/fat_guy.jpg)

Luckily, I look more like the woman.

Poetic license strikes again!

also...you should post pics.
She did. Search for "Sexiest NSer".

Luckily, I look more like the woman.
[It's] kind of creepy.

Poetic license strikes again!

also...you should post pics.

Poetic license strikes again!

also...you should post pics.

Your bastardisation of my words doesn't amuse me.

And, I did.

Your bastardisation of my words doesn't amuse me.

And, I did.

where? and sorry if it doesn't amuse you like it does for others. I do apologize if you are offended by it...

Luckily, I look more like the woman.

Then feel free, as the discussion suggested, to make your own porn. And when you do, please feel free to send me a copy.

where? and sorry if it doesn't amuse you like it does for others. I do apologize if you are offended by it...

Laerod already said.

And I'm not offended. It's just not particularly funny.

RhynoDD;13505441']Then feel free, as the discussion suggested, to make your own porn. And when you do, please feel free to send me a copy.

The beauty of making your own porn is that it's private.

I think those in the 'it should be the choice of the performers' crowd are the ones who understand that performers in such films are ADULTS who know what they're doing and don't need the nanny state telling them what to do and how to do it.

Somebody made an interesting comment earlier about whether the guy's choices are being limited if the female demands he wears one. Well, considering that sex (in such a case) is an act that involves at least 2 people, that's perfectly right since both need to come to an agreement of some kind before proceeding. Ultimately, the worst case scenario is that one or both performers get replaced by ones who CAN come to an understanding.

I think those in the 'it should be the choice of the performers' crowd are the ones who understand that performers in such films are ADULTS who know what they're doing and don't need the nanny state telling them what to do and how to do it.

Somebody made an interesting comment earlier about whether the guy's choices are being limited if the female demands he wears one. Well, considering that sex (in such a case) is an act that involves at least 2 people, that's perfectly right since both need to come to an agreement of some kind before proceeding. Ultimately, the worst case scenario is that one or both performers get replaced by ones who CAN come to an understanding.

it is an employers responsibility to provide a safe working environment. condoms are a part of that in the porn industry just as hard hats are in the construction industry.

it is an employers responsibility to provide a safe working environment. condoms are a part of that in the porn industry just as hard hats are in the construction industry.

True, but 3 points to consider:

1)Bareback sex, taken in and of itself, isn't inherently dangerous. Monogamous couples (with alternative birth control) do it 100% safely every single day. It's the environment that may, or may not, make it dangerous. If there's some kind of contractual agreement that binds the performers in such a way that they are responsible to remain disease free, then the onus is on them.

2)The porn industry gets away with other things that, in any other context, would be illegal but it's okay because they call it 'art.' (For example, paying people to have sex)

3)If the performers are considered independent contractors as opposed to employees, then they may well be responsible for their own safety.

True, but 3 points to consider:

1)Bareback sex, taken in and of itself, isn't inherently dangerous. Monogamous couples (with alternative birth control) do it 100% safely every single day. It's the environment that may, or may not, make it dangerous. If there's some kind of contractual agreement that binds the performers in such a way that they are responsible to remain disease free, then the onus is on them.And since monogamous couples are highly different from people who engage in sexual intercourse with multiple different people, this is largely irrelevant.
2)The porn industry gets away with other things that, in any other context, would be illegal but it's okay because they call it 'art.' (For example, paying people to have sex)Valid only if paying people to have sex should be illegal.
3)If the performers are considered independent contractors as opposed to employees, then they may well be responsible for their own safety.They're actors. Now what would actors be?

And since monogamous couples are highly different from people who engage in sexual intercourse with multiple different people, this is largely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, since in a hypothetical court battle over the issue that could be a major hurdle to overcome for the side advocating mandatory safety equipment.


Valid only if paying people to have sex should be illegal.

But it is illegal. The porn industry can get away with it because they label it art.


They're actors. Now what would actors be?

Depends. In fact if anything, it's more probable that they would be on a limited contract.

Are you saying bareback sex is perverted?

All forms of sex are perverted to someone.


Personally I have no view, having never experienced it. Those who wish to have a view on whether any form of sex is better should really have tried them all.

It's not irrelevant, since in a hypothetical court battle over the issue that could be a major hurdle to overcome for the side advocating mandatory safety equipment.You're suggesting having unprotected sex with multiple partners that also have unprotected sex with multiple partners is similar to unprotected sex between a strictly monogamous couple? Reality begs to differ.
But it is illegal. The porn industry can get away with it because they label it art.Depends on where you are. Likewise, there is a lot the porn industry can't get away with. Snuff films, for one.
Depends. In fact if anything, it's more probable that they would be on a limited contract.Yes, but if you want to make a point about their contract status, compare them to actors and find out what those are like.

Depends on where you are. Likewise, there is a lot the porn industry can't get away with. Snuff films, for one.

Sorry but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=526000&in_page_id=1770


That really is Snuff Porn.


And Those suggesting people make their own porn: I thought the point was to improve your self esteem.

Sorry but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=526000&in_page_id=1770


That really is Snuff Porn.


And Those suggesting people make their own porn: I thought the point was to improve your self esteem.

No it isn't.

Then What would you call it?

Then What would you call it?

A rape video


A snuff film, or snuff movie, depicts the actual killing of a human being—a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetrated for the medium of film for the purpose of entertainment and distribution.

True, but 3 points to consider:

1)Bareback sex, taken in and of itself, isn't inherently dangerous. Monogamous couples (with alternative birth control) do it 100% safely every single day. It's the environment that may, or may not, make it dangerous. If there's some kind of contractual agreement that binds the performers in such a way that they are responsible to remain disease free, then the onus is on them.

2)The porn industry gets away with other things that, in any other context, would be illegal but it's okay because they call it 'art.' (For example, paying people to have sex)

3)If the performers are considered independent contractors as opposed to employees, then they may well be responsible for their own safety.

sex with porn stars IS inherently dangerous.

the rest is just justification. there is no excuse for running an unsafe jobsite.

Sorry but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=526000&in_page_id=1770


That really is Snuff Porn.


And Those suggesting people make their own porn: I thought the point was to improve your self esteem.Um. No.
Neither is it Snuff (i.e. were someone is killed) nor is it a legally produced and distributed video, as opposed to legal porn.

You're suggesting having unprotected sex with multiple partners that also have unprotected sex with multiple partners is similar to unprotected sex between a strictly monogamous couple? Reality begs to differ.

But you'd have to prove that in a hypothetical court case. You'd have to show why a sexual act is somehow inherently dangerous despite it's being done safely millions of times a day.

You and I both know what the differences are, but if you're going to try and justify new legislation you have to be much more methodical about it than that.


Depends on where you are. Likewise, there is a lot the porn industry can't get away with. Snuff films, for one.

That's splitting hairs. No form of art can justifiably include an assault.


Yes, but if you want to make a point about their contract status, compare them to actors and find out what those are like.

That may, or may not, be an apropriate comparison. There's a big difference between a Hollywood actor's contract and that of porn performers.

sex with porn stars IS inherently dangerous.


That may or may not be, like I said above, you'd have to be able to prove it beyond simply throwing numbers around.


the rest is just justification. there is no excuse for running an unsafe jobsite.

It may be justification but it's justification that works. This is the current situation. If you want to introduce more nanny state legislation that treats adults like simpletons then you need to justify it. Just calling it 'unsafe' isn't good enough. There are plenty of industries where the work is dangerous but it gets done anyway, safety equipment or the lack therof notwithstanding.

That's splitting hairs. No form of art can justifiably include an assault.

Then explain bondage films

But you'd have to prove that in a hypothetical court case. You'd have to show why a sexual act is somehow inherently dangerous despite it's being done safely millions of times a day.

You and I both know what the differences are, but if you're going to try and justify new legislation you have to be much more methodical about it than that.Stop being stupid.
That's splitting hairs. No form of art can justifiably include an assault.Same goes for the condom issue. "It's art" isn't an excuse for unsafe working conditions, especially not when there's a cheap and effective alternative.
That may, or may not, be an apropriate comparison. There's a big difference between a Hollywood actor's contract and that of porn performers.There's a big difference between Keanu Reeves' contract and his stuntman as well. Means nothing, really.

Then explain bondage filmsS+M, not bondage :p
(though the line is blurry...)

S+M, not bondage :p
(though the line is blurry...)

True, there are S&M films though...



Personally I tend to lump them together in the category of fun things :D

True, there are S&M films though...



Personally I tend to lump them together in the category of fun things :D
Dirty old man :p

Dirty old man :p

True :)

But you'd have to prove that in a hypothetical court case. You'd have to show why a sexual act is somehow inherently dangerous despite it's being done safely millions of times a day.

You and I both know what the differences are, but if you're going to try and justify new legislation you have to be much more methodical about it than that.

You could point to epidemiological studies and the opinions of health-professionals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17173235?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1). (I only searched one, but there must be more to be found on this topic)

That's splitting hairs. No form of art can justifiably include an assault.

It sure can, some photographs in which people are assaulted (in reality) are considered art (by some).

I don't want to see men anyway...

Then explain bondage films

I want someone to explain "water bondage" to me. That just seems like two fetishes that don't belong together.

That may or may not be, like I said above, you'd have to be able to prove it beyond simply throwing numbers around.


throwing numbers around IS how you prove that a jobsite practice is dangerous.


It may be justification but it's justification that works. This is the current situation. If you want to introduce more nanny state legislation that treats adults like simpletons then you need to justify it. Just calling it 'unsafe' isn't good enough. There are plenty of industries where the work is dangerous but it gets done anyway, safety equipment or the lack therof notwithstanding.


no its not a justification that works. unsafe is unsafe. contruction workers might prefer to work without a hard hat. it is their employers responsibility to make sure that they do. they dont have the option. the employer is not allowed to leave it up to the worker to decide how safe they want to be and moreover they are certainly not allowed to have unsafe working condition be a requirement of having a job--as in "the porn actor can walk away from a job site that requires working without safe sex practices", making them choose between safety and working.

the acceptance of unsafe working conditions does not reflect a unique working arrangement of professional porn shoots. it more reflects the lack of respect and concern for the working conditions of people that those in power consider immoral due to the work they do.

Then explain bondage films

I wouldn't call that an assault, as the activity is consented to.

Stop being stupid.

Great argument. I can see there's no point contending against that :rolleyes:

We're done.

You could point to epidemiological studies and the opinions of health-professionals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17173235?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1). (I only searched one, but there must be more to be found on this topic)


You guys are missing my point. Why do people wear hardhats on a construction site? Because there are dangers inherent to being present at a construction site. Why does a welder wear a mask? because the act of using an arc welder is inherently dangerous to the eyes. Those actions carry a level of risk regardless of when and where they're peformed. There's no way to perform those acts outside of work without exposing oneself to risk. When I used my migwelder at home, I wore a mask, just like at work and for exactly the same reason.

Take a look at a kindergarten teacher. One could argue that a teacher's presence among twentysomething 5 year old kids constitutes a health risk because of common childhood illnesses like cold, etc. Elderly people in particular can face very serious health risks from even a common cold. Why don't we require a teacher to wear a filter mask? Because we see this situation differently. We acknowledge that being around kids is perfectly normal and it would be loonacy to wear a filter mask in your own home around your own kids. Yes, there's a level of risk going into the classroom to teach them but we have no law that forces such a person to take any relevant precautions.

All I ask is that you see the difference there. I know the analogies aren't perfect ones but they're meant to get the point across.


It sure can, some photographs in which people are assaulted (in reality) are considered art (by some).

And if those photos are taken of an ACTUAL assault, as opposed to a staged assault, they can be considered illegal to posess on the grounds that they constitute evidence of a crime, or if the assault was specifically started for the sake of the photo.

throwing numbers around IS how you prove that a jobsite practice is dangerous.


But those numbers have to mean something. Using the above analogy, if I present you with a statistic on the number of teachers who suffer severe health problems as a result of their profession, that alone would not justify legislation. You have to build a real case here. I know how much our Congress loves to pass out laws like they were Halloween Candy but that's part of the problem.


no its not a justification that works. unsafe is unsafe. contruction workers might prefer to work without a hard hat. it is their employers responsibility to make sure that they do. they dont have the option. the employer is not allowed to leave it up to the worker to decide how safe they want to be and moreover they are certainly not allowed to have unsafe working condition be a requirement of having a job--as in "the porn actor can walk away from a job site that requires working without safe sex practices", making them choose between safety and working.


True but again that can be (and is) overridden by the 'artistic' value in film, and the fact that there's nothing inherently dangerous about the sex act itself. True, doing it with a gazillion other performers who have, in turn, done it with a gazillion more makes porn a dangerous profession in that sense, but there are other approaches to reducing the risk. Legislating condom use on porn sets is only one step away from legislating them for the general public. Would you favor such a move?


the acceptance of unsafe working conditions does not reflect a unique working arrangement of professional porn shoots. it more reflects the lack of respect and concern for the working conditions of people that those in power consider immoral due to the work they do.

I don't doubt that there's a component of that in the minds of many, but there are other issued involved. Lots of people (myself included) are uncomfortable with Government nanny state mentality that says I have to spend $5,000 - $10,000 extra for a new car because now airbags are mandated by federal law, which may or may not be an actual improvement in the safety of the vehicle. We see freedoms being eroded "for our own good" as if we, as adults aren't considered smart enough to make our own choices. That, to me reflects an even greater lack of respect for people by their own Government.

The beauty of making your own porn is that it's private.

Really, you had to see all this coming when you posted that everyone should make their own porn...

I've...seen [everyone] say or imply that. What I've seen...people saying [is] that condom use should [not] be a personal choice (including the choice to not have sex with an actor/model who is not wearing a condom) and that those who choose not wear a condom/have sex with someone not wearing a condom are [fired for not taking the risk].

How is it that I write the sentence "people who have unprotected sex know they are at risk of contracting STD's" and you read "Porn stars are evil and deserve to die of AIDS"? Would you similarly misread the statement "Skydivers know that there is a risk their parachute won't open"?

Let me clarify things with a little scenario. We have three porn stars, Bi-sexual Bobby, Mile-long Mike and Triple D-lilah. Bobby doesn't like to wear a condom, Mike is Ok with this, so when having sex with Mike Bobby should not have to wear a condom. Bobby and Mike accept the risks of their behavior.

Triple D-lilah doesn't know where Bobby or his bareback partner Mike have been (but she has some suspicions) so she says that Bobby must wear a condom when performing with her. Bobby has a choice, he can glove up or the producers of the porno can find someone else to fuck Triple D-lilah.

exactly.

and unlike some other sex jobs--prostitution for example-- porn is legal and non-compliance is often very obvious. it would be easy to prosecute any producer/director of a professionally made porn product.

Does that mean that prostitution would be legal if you taped it? You could just call it a low-distribution studio.

Does that mean that prostitution would be legal if you taped it? You could just call it a low-distribution studio.

i doubt that the average customer would be willing to have his activity become common knowledge. i doubt that the average customer has the desire to perform to studio standards (and that he has the extra endowments that are necessary for men in porn)

but if you can show "intent to distribute" it may well pass as legal. id get a really good lawyer before i tried it.

That is not acceptable. If a guy with HIV decides not to wear a condom, hes going to give it to the girl, who probably doesnt know he has it.

Or vice versa. Or hey, a guy could give it to another guy. Or hey, a girl could give it to another girl....


STDs. The gift that keeps on giving.

STDs. The gift that keeps on giving.

That is a quote.

But I still think this whole thing is a case of "when does perversion endanger other people too much?"

like you and your hatefull rascist rants? go die.

youre that rascist fuck from the gays and earthquakes thread!!!! I dont care how hot you pretend to be on the internet, you rascist fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not acceptable. Officially warned, Anarchy works.

That is a quote.

But I still think this whole thing is a case of "when does perversion endanger other people too much?"

I would not necessarily categorize sex w/o a condom as perversion.
Stupid, yes.

I would not necessarily categorize sex w/o a condom as perversion.
Stupid, yes.

Every sex act is perverted to some one.

That said, without "barebacking", none of us would be here.

Every sex act is perverted to some one.

That said, without "barebacking", none of us would be here.

If sex without a condom was perverted to many, there would not be an overpopulation problem.

How can we make this happen?

That can only be good.


...

Toddle off now and have mummy and daddy explain the birds and the bees to you, will you? There's a good lad.

If sex without a condom was perverted to many, there would not be an overpopulation problem.

How can we make this happen?

That can only be good.

...

Toddle off now and have mummy and daddy explain the birds and the bees to you, will you? There's a good lad.

Your patronining tone makes me wanna puke.

I wish I was still innocent.

But I'm really not.

Kink.com uses condoms nowadays. They care for their models. But amateur porn and all kinds of cheap little porn factories use poor girls who can't really afford to say "either you do something or I won't do this scene" - because they need the money. Also I read that there are guys that do you from behind and take off the rubber when you're not watching, although I don't think that could happen when there are cameras around, unless the filming staff was also involved in the betrayal.

Condoms look icky but porn films (sadly) are setting a role model for young people these days, so if condom usage is made a norm, people will stop thinking that there could be another option, unless you're making babies. I think the idea of condoms making sex feel lesser is spread by dirty old men who don't care about the girls (or boys) they screw, they are just objects for them. Do you really want to have those dirty old men as your role model?

It's up to the big porn producers to become trend setters and show that it's better to use condoms. I don't think it should be about laws or the personal decision of actors, it should be on the morals of the directors and site keepers. If a webmaster states that they will not post images of sex without condoms, that sends out a message that they care for their models and that lets you watch porn without the guilt of thinking am I setting people in danger by consuming this material.

You guys are missing my point. Why do people wear hardhats on a construction site? Because there are dangers inherent to being present at a construction site. Why does a welder wear a mask? because the act of using an arc welder is inherently dangerous to the eyes. Those actions carry a level of risk regardless of when and where they're peformed. There's no way to perform those acts outside of work without exposing oneself to risk. When I used my migwelder at home, I wore a mask, just like at work and for exactly the same reason.

Take a look at a kindergarten teacher. One could argue that a teacher's presence among twentysomething 5 year old kids constitutes a health risk because of common childhood illnesses like cold, etc. Elderly people in particular can face very serious health risks from even a common cold. Why don't we require a teacher to wear a filter mask? Because we see this situation differently. We acknowledge that being around kids is perfectly normal and it would be loonacy to wear a filter mask in your own home around your own kids. Yes, there's a level of risk going into the classroom to teach them but we have no law that forces such a person to take any relevant precautions. ooo there is a big difference between getting a cold and getting an STD



I don't doubt that there's a component of that in the minds of many, but there are other issued involved. Lots of people (myself included) are uncomfortable with Government nanny state mentality that says I have to spend $5,000 - $10,000 extra for a new car because now airbags are mandated by federal law, which may or may not be an actual improvement in the safety of the vehicle. We see freedoms being eroded "for our own good" as if we, as adults aren't considered smart enough to make our own choices. That, to me reflects an even greater lack of respect for people by their own Government.
I don't think adding a 1$ condom to a porno is going to make them any more expensive

IIRC, the porn industry has a pretty vigorous testing system in place to make sure that the risks of STIs is kept to a minimum, so it's not likely that it really matters. The only real concern would be the chance of unsafe behavior in the controlled environment of pornography triggering similar unsafe behavior in the general population.

However, that's not an issue for porn to deal with and it's not their fault if that risk exists.

Your patronining tone makes me wanna puke.

I wish I was still innocent.

But I'm really not.

Don't you hate it when that happens? People call you all innocent and whatnot, but you've actually been making waterbondage videos over in Taiwan since you were 14...

I would not necessarily categorize non-monogamous sex w/o a condom as perversion.
Stupid, yes.

Fixed :D

ooo there is a big difference between getting a cold and getting an STD


I don't think adding a 1$ condom to a porno is going to make them any more expensive

Your writing in your posts appears to be reasonably intelligent so I will assume that you are not stupid. I therefore must conclude that you're missing the points on purpose in order to keep your head in the sand. Either that or you're trying to use proof by Irrelevant Conclusion.

IIRC, the porn industry has a pretty vigorous testing system in place to make sure that the risks of STIs is kept to a minimum, so it's not likely that it really matters. The only real concern would be the chance of unsafe behavior in the controlled environment of pornography triggering similar unsafe behavior in the general population.While it is true that the major porn companies have such systems, there are many many smaller porn manufactures that do not. These laws would be mostly to protect the workers in those smaller areas.