agreed, my thought is that those STD test are only as good as the next sexual encounter and the people that still go to work(porn actors) knowing they are HIV positive, comdom or not I would not have sex with someone that was HIV positine or any STD then there are the people that test positive but don't say anything, that's a risky life style !
Godfather.
OK so... first, the system is set up in a way that you don't just take the performer's word for it. Many studios will test their models at the start of a shoot and then sequester them for the duration of the shoot.
Yes, in the real world there are people who are positive and have sex with people and not tell them... that's why you should always use protection. It's your responsibility.
I'm more worried about people who have sex with people they met while drunk at parties and don't know anything about them at all.
They're the mega high-end tests used by law enforcement that cost about $250 each. They're extremely accurate and the "12-week window" that you'd get with the lower-cost tests is closer to two-three days. So you only need one, although they were tested for many STDs, not just HIV.
but who's to say that someone doesn't get tested, comes back negative, has sex with someone they don't know between the test and the shoot, and then unknowingly infects someone on set? isn't it basically down to the word of the talent? I mean, you can't test someone and then quarantine them for 3 days before the shoot.
I understand what you are saying about the safety of the industry, I'm just trying to understand how it works.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
OK so... first, the system is set up in a way that you don't just take the performer's word for it. Many studios will test their models at the start of a shoot and then sequester them for the duration of the shoot.
.
didn't see this part. interesting.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
but who's to say that someone doesn't get tested, comes back negative, has sex with someone they don't know between the test and the shoot, and then unknowingly infects someone on set? isn't it basically down to the word of the talent? I mean, you can't test someone and then quarantine them for 3 days before the shoot.
That could happen, for sure. Not all studios do the sequester thing. Few do, in fact.
But when you're a performer, it makes little sense to do that. You understand the risks involved. So you're most likely going to not do that.
Besides.... like I said, nobody has ever been infected on set when those protocols were followed.
well back to topic,maybe this new drug or what ever it is could help a lot of people, I sure hope so.
Godfather.
At the moment the larger problem is the government sequester that has eliminated any drug access for people who can't afford it, meaning that they will get sicker, their viral loads will go up and the disease will spread faster.
well back to topic,maybe this new drug or what ever it is could help a lot of people, I sure hope so.
Godfather.
At the moment the larger problem is the government sequester that has eliminated any drug access for people who can't afford it, meaning that they will get sicker, their viral loads will go up and the disease will spread faster.
but you know... we need to stop Obamacare.
right now I wouldn't put to much trust in obama care, is there something in obama care that says med's for HIV or any STD's will be given ? or is part of the plan at all ? I just have a hard time trusting a plan that is offered to the people but unwanted by the goverment staff that is offering it but that's a different thread.
Sadly... the story about the porn performers with HIV has been SO warped that hardly anyone knows the truth.
So I'll break it down for you.
1. Neither of those people were infected on set.
2. None of their scene partners have tested positive for HIV after MANY tests. They were not infected on set.
3. They were infected in their personal lives, not on set.
Porn has nothing to do with the HIV infections of either of these people.
When proper testing protocols have been followed, there has NEVER been an HIV infection on the set of a porn film.
But it's easier for scared people (sorry, but usually straight) to hand out the big scarlet A and say "that slut deserved it." They can then breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't infected because they're not sluts like the porn stars.
Truth be known, you're less likely to catch an STD from a porn star because they get tested regularly and so do all of their sex partners.
I actually favour mandatory condom use for different reasons, i completely understand that the sex industry has very high safety protocols, but i think they should be made use condoms to benefit those watching porn,
lets face it most kids get most of their knowledge about sex from porn so if they see the "professionals" not wearing condoms them it perpetrates the idea that sex is better without condoms. i think if porn stars where forced to use protection you would see a rise in average people using condoms
I actually favour mandatory condom use for different reasons, i completely understand that the sex industry has very high safety protocols, but i think they should be made use condoms to benefit those watching porn,
lets face it most kids get most of their knowledge about sex from porn so if they see the "professionals" not wearing condoms them it perpetrates the idea that sex is better without condoms. i think if porn stars where forced to use protection you would see a rise in average people using condoms
very interesting idea. but wouldn't that be a reversal of social morals to look to the porn industry for help!
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i think if porn stars where forced to use protection you would see a rise in average people using condoms
That hasn't worked in the gay community.
Our porn was condom-only from the late 80s up until maybe 2003 when bareback companies started to take hold. And it made no dent in the number of men having unsafe sex at all. None.
I wish you were right. I've taken part in SO many pro-condom, safer sex campaigns. My own campaign I spear-headed in 2009 was called "Wrap it up, I'll take it" and featured big-name porn stars rolling condoms on themselves in a series of stop-action stills. But I'd be kissing my own ass to pretend it made a difference.
Comments
OK so... first, the system is set up in a way that you don't just take the performer's word for it. Many studios will test their models at the start of a shoot and then sequester them for the duration of the shoot.
Yes, in the real world there are people who are positive and have sex with people and not tell them... that's why you should always use protection. It's your responsibility.
I'm more worried about people who have sex with people they met while drunk at parties and don't know anything about them at all.
Thanks. Although it's my industry, so I'm very aware of a moratorium on shooting that went on for a month.
but who's to say that someone doesn't get tested, comes back negative, has sex with someone they don't know between the test and the shoot, and then unknowingly infects someone on set? isn't it basically down to the word of the talent? I mean, you can't test someone and then quarantine them for 3 days before the shoot.
I understand what you are saying about the safety of the industry, I'm just trying to understand how it works.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
didn't see this part. interesting.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That could happen, for sure. Not all studios do the sequester thing. Few do, in fact.
But when you're a performer, it makes little sense to do that. You understand the risks involved. So you're most likely going to not do that.
Besides.... like I said, nobody has ever been infected on set when those protocols were followed.
well back to topic,maybe this new drug or what ever it is could help a lot of people, I sure hope so.
Godfather.
At the moment the larger problem is the government sequester that has eliminated any drug access for people who can't afford it, meaning that they will get sicker, their viral loads will go up and the disease will spread faster.
but you know... we need to stop Obamacare.
right now I wouldn't put to much trust in obama care, is there something in obama care that says med's for HIV or any STD's will be given ? or is part of the plan at all ? I just have a hard time trusting a plan that is offered to the people but unwanted by the goverment staff that is offering it but that's a different thread.
Godfather.
I actually favour mandatory condom use for different reasons, i completely understand that the sex industry has very high safety protocols, but i think they should be made use condoms to benefit those watching porn,
lets face it most kids get most of their knowledge about sex from porn so if they see the "professionals" not wearing condoms them it perpetrates the idea that sex is better without condoms. i think if porn stars where forced to use protection you would see a rise in average people using condoms
very interesting idea. but wouldn't that be a reversal of social morals to look to the porn industry for help!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That hasn't worked in the gay community.
Our porn was condom-only from the late 80s up until maybe 2003 when bareback companies started to take hold. And it made no dent in the number of men having unsafe sex at all. None.
I wish you were right. I've taken part in SO many pro-condom, safer sex campaigns. My own campaign I spear-headed in 2009 was called "Wrap it up, I'll take it" and featured big-name porn stars rolling condoms on themselves in a series of stop-action stills. But I'd be kissing my own ass to pretend it made a difference.