Log in

View Full Version : STD's in the porn industry [aka, because she asked it to be posted in a new thread]



Pages : 1 [2]

Sirona
02-28-2008, 06:22 PM
Jesus... this dude makes it sound like people in porn are just big ole STD pinatas...
Wtf.

I'm still amazingly confused as to what the whole point of this thread is.

Crow2
02-28-2008, 06:48 PM
This thread just makes me want to bang my head on a desk. Several times.


I just have one last comment. GR, your ignorence is showing. That comment about you not understand why names won't be named here sort of clenched it.

You said you worked a job where bad info could ruin lives. HELLO? What exactly were you thinking might happen? A ticker tape parade?

Goodness.

Casual Observer
02-28-2008, 08:26 PM
I'm still amazingly confused as to what the whole point of this thread is.

Agreed. Are we trying to establish whether or not people in the porn industry are aware of their proportionally, comparatively lower risk? I think the numbers bear that out.


Holy shit, 98% of the population are potential herpes carriers. The reason I am interested in this is because I had a college roomate who almost didn't let me live with them because he knew I'd had cold sores (face) when I had been ill. Chances are he's a carrier too. In your face biatch!

Christ, if HSV-1 was my biggest concern when pursuing sex partners, I wouldn't be concerned.

Nini Nieb
02-28-2008, 08:52 PM
To answe the legitimate question about testing.

Each costar is given a print out of test results before filming even starts. Its not the so called directors resonsibility.

Either ones agent presents the test results or the actor/actress themselves do so. Biocollections (from Florida) has their own site and stars, producers and film companies have acess to it.

AIM has charging stations across the country and with both the testee recieves a card with their number which is their password to acess to the results.

No test results. No film. I've walked away from work because of sketchy stuff.

Thank you ! I kinda figured that out my self. Just wanna make sure.

The good thing is - It seems to work !!!

I would be nice if everybody with a casual lifestyle also used AIM/ish !? It would make life so much easier.

Crow2
02-28-2008, 10:59 PM
As a matter of fact both companies do that too. AIM advertises more for it than BC does ...

I met the gentleman who owns/runs the Biocollections center in Florida. Very nice man. Very professional.

PhillyDancer1982
02-29-2008, 08:37 AM
Yes,people do pick things up within those 28 days...that why I said that STD's do still exist in the industry. But if a random person had sex with as many people as porn performers do...in the "real world" they would MUCH more likely to pick something up. THe odds would be stacked against them since chances are higher that nobody involved ever gets tested.

BINGO! That is the exact reason why I've decided to become a LOT less promiscuous and more careful in my personal life. I realize that as much risk that working in porn can present, the same risks are there in regular dating/hook-ups/random sex.

Overall I agree that porn is relatively safe. The one disadvantage that I think working with pornstars has, is the possibility that these pornstars worked with people whom they didn't see test results for, or did work in foreign countries(such as Brazil) that didn't require full panel testing. Also, pornstars generally "get with" more people than the average non-porn person, since a pornstar's job involves having sex. But yeah if we are going to compare non-porn people that have been with equal partners to pornstars, I'd definitely say that the risks are far less for the pornstars.

However, sometimes one bad/jaded experience in the porn industry concerning STDs and/or exposure to STDs can turn someone away from it, despite the industry actually being very safe and preventive. That doesn't mean the industry is "all bad" or anything though...not at all.

PhillyDancer1982
02-29-2008, 08:41 AM
I would be nice if everybody with a casual lifestyle also used AIM/ish !? It would make life so much easier.

I agree 100%. It seems that most (non-porn) people only get STD tests when required(criteria for a job such as porn or healthcare, blood donation drives, pregnancy, etc). Or else they will get tested once or twice a year even though they've had unprotected sex with more than a few partners within that frame of time.

Overall the risk of STDs can be very scary, especially when considering the small minute chance of getting something despite precautions or even abstinence(e.g., someone that gets an STD from sharing a razor).

Jenny
02-29-2008, 01:37 PM
Agreed. Are we trying to establish whether or not people in the porn industry are aware of their proportionally, comparatively lower risk? I think the numbers bear that out.

Christ, if HSV-1 was my biggest concern when pursuing sex partners, I wouldn't be concerned.
Well - really. For some diseases that are maybe less common any number other than "0" is going to be higher proportional to the general population. It is a very, very small group being compared to a very, very large group.

Although I'm not sure I agree, generally, that STD's are a scary risk. As per what someone else said, elsewhere not all STDs are all that bad. I mean, if you caught someone's cold by fucking them (which - come on. We all have) you wouldn't think the world was ending because... it's just a cold. If you caught tuberculosis - not nearly so benign. Same thing. Some diseases are a lot worse than others. It's kind of stupid to treat a disease that is cleared up after a low dose of antibiotics and has no symptoms as the same as HIV or AIDS. I mean: trich and HIV. You get them both by engaging in sexual activity. And they have nothing else in common. But - as a result you have these high "risk" factors that are a) not that high and b) not that risky serving to enforce what is essentially a new morality buttressed by conflating a few very dangerous, but hard to contract diseases with very non-dangerous, but somewhat easier to contract diseases. Or, you know. So it seems to me.

PhillyDancer1982
02-29-2008, 01:58 PM
^ I agree with you a lot. And even chlamydia or gonorrhea aren't the end of the world, since you can clear them up easily with antibiotics and the only mortification is having to tell your current partners and then abstain for a week or two. I guess the ones that I refer to as being really "scary" are the incurables, HIV and Hepatitis C. Mostly HIV. Even with HIV, it is possible to live for over 30yrs with it if you have the extra $26,000/yr to spend on high-tech antiretroviral meds but...let's face it, most people DON'T have the extra money to spend, and most people DON'T want the societal, social, and dating stigmas that come with it. I'd say HIV is the one to be most scared of, and with rightful reason.

Golden_Rule
02-29-2008, 06:15 PM
Oh for crying out loud. I'm out of this thread. You wanted info, I gave it to you. You wanted data, I gave that to you too. You dont want to have a discussion...you want to push your opinion and you're getting irritated that people arent agreeing with you.

I don't have a problem at all with anyone disagreeing with me. I have a problem with them making the thread about me and not about what we were discussing.

Its bad form.

Totally a Side Note: Jenny got to the heart of the matter when she said I wasn't as deferential as I thought I was. [I never claimed I was being deferential. Perish the thought. I'm not a punching bag and I don't expect any one here, male or female, to be one for me either.]

She, as usual, is confusing deferential behavior with respectful behavior.

When I am being respectful I treat a body like any other body. Politely and on equal terms. Giving of what I would expect or desire myself. Deference means obedient or submissive behavior. Like I said - very telling the choice of that word on her part.

Jenny
02-29-2008, 06:27 PM
Totally a Side Note: Jenny got to the heart of the matter when she said I wasn't as deferential as I thought I was.
She, as usual, is confusing deferential behavior with respectful behavior.

When I am being respectful I treat a body like any other body. Politely and on equal terms. Giving of what I would expect or desire myself. Deference means obedient or submissive behavior. Like I said - very telling the choice of that word on her part.
Technically - and, for that matter, non-technically - what I said that we were not being unfair to you by declining to be as deferential as you think we should be. I think that is a rather telling mistake on your part.

Golden_Rule
02-29-2008, 06:39 PM
I just have one last comment. GR, your ignorence is showing. That comment about you not understand why names won't be named here sort of clenched it.

You said you worked a job where bad info could ruin lives. HELLO? What exactly were you thinking might happen? A ticker tape parade?

Goodness.


Let's see.

Asked a question because something that was stated as fact didn't match up with stuff I've been told by friends in the biz [who I have to presume aren't lying to me and know at least as much as those present here] and read in major publications.

Was given a reply which basically just was a repeat of the original "fact" as stated, so I asked if there was anything to back that up. [Still haven't seen anything that backs up the specific claims made, that Herpes is less prevalent among those who work in porn than in the general public and that major production houses will kill a shoot for an actor having a positive HSV test].

Suddenly had the convo made about me, instead of the topic at hand. Had my veracity questioned. Was accused of basically stating everyone in porn is some sort of STD infected Typhoid Mary [which is a total fabrication, I suggested no such thing]. Offered to bow out because I realize I'm banging my head against a wall here.

Come back to see I am still being trashed.

Yep, pretty much what I expected from past experince. ::) :-[

Sirona
02-29-2008, 06:42 PM
Yes you're being trashed.
We're all just a bunch of meanies out to get you.
You've found us out.
Egads, what shall we do?

Golden_Rule
02-29-2008, 07:01 PM
Yes you're being trashed.
We're all just a bunch of meanies out to get you.
You've found us out.
Egads, what shall we do?

Perhaps apply a soothing balm of intellectual honesty? You know, where opinion gets labeled as opinion, and facts get backed up when people politely question them.

I hear it does wonders to clear stuff like this up.

At least, so they say. :D

[Hey, you were a wise ass first. I only responded in kind.]

We can trade stuff like this if you want. I'd suggest it would be a waste of time though because no matter who wins, its every ones loss.

Sirona
02-29-2008, 10:36 PM
I still want to know what your damn point is.
I mean other than being condecending of course.

LadyLuck
02-29-2008, 11:49 PM
^ I think his point, at least originally, was to clarify conflicting information. That being the claim that porn actors are at much less risk for std's than the rest of the general population when his understanding was otherwise. The std's specifically in question appears to be herpes.

Then there was alot of defensive reactions followed by various forms of attack and counter attack between several of the responders & the OP. In between there were some honest questions by seperate but interested people and logical points made by many people.

Just my :twocents:

Sirona
03-01-2008, 12:41 AM
^ I think his point, at least originally, was to clarify conflicting information. That being the claim that porn actors are at much less risk for std's than the rest of the general population when his understanding was otherwise. The std's specifically in question appears to be herpes.



I know that... but why? Like, what's the whole point?
I dunno, whatever.

Crow2
03-01-2008, 03:56 PM
GR, for one Cameron dosent have to name names. There's a national regristry of thoes who can't or won't be able to work in adult film.

Once again. Ignorence. Perhaps you should consult with your so called friends.

Golden_Rule
03-01-2008, 04:06 PM
I know that... but why? Like, what's the whole point?
I dunno, whatever.

Ms Sirona,

Most politely I state that the original reason I posted my query has been asked of me twice before, in not so polite terms. Even so I answered them as matter of factly as I could. The last one is post #35 of this thread if you would be so kind as to refer back to it if you are still interested.

The reason I went on, perhaps too long, after it got a bit ugly is that I tired of getting lumped into the troll patrol simply because I suggested that if someone posts something as fact that it be, well, fact instead of opinion. Again, the reason I think that ought to be so are outlined in post #35. [see reason #1]

Now, I hope that lays that to rest because this is getting none of us, least of all me, anywhere.

I am sorry if anyone took offense, but would ask why any was taken when none was present in the first place.

As the kids says - anyways...

Golden_Rule
03-01-2008, 04:18 PM
GR, for one Cameron dosent have to name names. There's a national regristry of thoes who can't or won't be able to work in adult film.

No one listed on same stating HSV to be the sole reason for their presence, I would bet. If so proving only what I suggested in the first place.


Once again. Ignorence. Perhaps you should consult with your so called friends.

I'd ask you to place a pink ribbon at the bottom of the left hand side of the post box, instead of blue, and with precisely the same comments made on my part honestly ask yourself if your responses would have been as snide.

Like I said though - this is getting everyone now where.

Crow2
03-01-2008, 05:40 PM
I have every right to be snide. Because you have been inflamatory, condecending, knowitallish just because you have friends in the industry and found a few bits on the internet that say your right.

You don't work in the industry and individuls that do have related their experiences to you. But still you want to argue our experienced views.

Then you fuss because we become defensive. Wah?

I have made some films. Cameron as well.
You on the other hand have not.

So what's your point?

Sirona
03-01-2008, 10:00 PM
Ms Sirona,

Most politely I state that the original reason I posted my query has been asked of me twice before, in not so polite terms. Even so I answered them as matter of factly as I could. The last one is post #35 of this thread if you would be so kind as to refer back to it if you are still interested.

The reason I went on, perhaps too long, after it got a bit ugly is that I tired of getting lumped into the troll patrol simply because I suggested that if someone posts something as fact that it be, well, fact instead of opinion. Again, the reason I think that ought to be so are outlined in post #35. [see reason #1]

Now, I hope that lays that to rest because this is getting none of us, least of all me, anywhere.

I am sorry if anyone took offense, but would ask why any was taken when none was present in the first place.

As the kids says - anyways...

I've read the entire thread and my reading comprehension skills are sharp and I STILL am not sure what the hell your point in all this was.

In addition I think it sucks balls that Cameron has provided more than enough statistics and first hand information to sufficiently prove her point and you continue to blow it all off.

ps - I never classified you as a troll.

pps - I seriously doubt your intentions in starting this thread were because you were worried about the people here getting incorrect facts in regard to STD statistics amoung sex workers.

Naida
03-01-2008, 11:13 PM
These number are SIGNIFICANTLY lower then the dozen or so people in the industry who have been infected in the last decade. So...944,305 vs 12 = the industry has less infected people then the general population.

I'm sorry, but I do feel the need to but in for a moment...

A point that was also obviously missed in your response was GR's asking "per capita". This means the overall ratio, not the totalled numbers compared. The example your giving is like saying "in one test group consisting of 1,000,000 participants, individuals testing positive for ___ was 200,000, while test group two contained only 1,000 participants and 200 tested positive. Therefore, we can conclude that less people of test group two's influence are infected" simply because it is a lower number.

In terms of per capita, both test groups are equal in infection rate because 20% of test subjects from each group tested positive.

To be simply put, stop looking at it in terms of numbers and look at it in terms of percentages. Which percentage is higher? To be clear, I am NOT taking sides because I haven't done personal research.

tasteebars
03-01-2008, 11:14 PM
www.genitalherpescured.com

LadyLuck
03-02-2008, 12:18 AM
I'm sorry, but I do feel the need to but in for a moment...


A point that was also obviously missed in your response was GR's asking "per capita" This means the overall ratio, not the totalled numbers compared. The example your giving is like saying "in one test group consisting of 1,000,000 participants, individuals testing positive for ___ was 200,000, while test group two contained only 1,000 participants and 200 tested positive. Therefore, we can conclude that less people of test group two's influence are infected" simply because it is a lower number.

In terms of per capita, both test groups are equal in infection rate because 20% of test subjects from each group tested positive.

To be simply put, stop looking at it in terms of numbers and look at it in terms of percentages. Which percentage is higher?

Good point. Not to mention with the 28 day gap in testing and some std's not part of the universal testing for those who do take part in the tests. Plus due to the job requirements the likely larger number of sexual parters that a porn actor/actress have than the sexualy active person in the general public.

All those things combined just do not lend themselves to be logical that porn performers would be automaticly at less risk that the general population. Basicly it just doesn't add up.

No judgements involved here as obviously most mainstream porn performers DO take precautions to lower their potential risks. But all risk factors considered, I just think it's kind of silly to say they are much safer than the rest of us.


I do however understand that with all the negative stereotypes and public scorn that all of us in the adult industry(especially sex workers who engage in intercourse) deal with that there is a tendency to be defensive. I think that is what happened here. Maybe a bit over defensive. Just as I think maybe the OP pushed for 'facts" a little to hard after it became obvious that some of the women who do porn were feeling attacked.

Golden_Rule
03-02-2008, 12:19 AM
So what's your point?


pps - I seriously doubt your intentions in starting this thread were because you were worried about the people here getting incorrect facts in regard to STD statistics amoung sex workers.

I stated it. You accept it. You don't accept it. It stands or falls on its own merit like anything else said around here.

I can live with that.


A point that was also obviously missed in your response was GR's asking "per capita". This means the overall ratio, not the totalled numbers compared. The example your giving is like saying "in one test group consisting of 1,000,000 participants, individuals testing positive for ___ was 200,000, while test group two contained only 1,000 participants and 200 tested positive. Therefore, we can conclude that less people of test group two's influence are infected" simply because it is a lower number.

In terms of per capita, both test groups are equal in infection rate because 20% of test subjects from each group tested positive.

To be simply put, stop looking at it in terms of numbers and look at it in terms of percentages. Which percentage is higher? To be clear, I am NOT taking sides because I haven't done personal research.


I attempted to point that out the first time that was used as a response to my query. That the figures totaled to the same ratio as the per capita ratio [1:6] for the general population.

The other statement of "fact": that it is general practice [not just on the odd set here and there] to deny an actor or actress to shoot if they are HSV positive, I can't even find where they require the results of an HSV screening at any major production house, let alone bar people from scenes.

Anyway, thanks for trying.

minnow
03-02-2008, 12:12 PM
As a matter of fact both companies do that too. AIM advertises more for it than BC does ...

I met the gentleman who owns/runs the Biocollections center in Florida. Very nice man. Very professional.

This may be a bit off-thread, but has there been any(many??) cases of false positives, or false negatives occuring in testing? Also, are above cos. involved with DOT drug testing ? Links to reliability performance information?

PhillyDancer1982
03-03-2008, 09:26 AM
This may be a bit off-thread, but has there been any(many??) cases of false positives, or false negatives occuring in testing? Also, are above cos. involved with DOT drug testing ? Links to reliability performance information?

I don't know about AIM's or Biocollection's own data, but I did read that on average, only about 1 in every 300 HIV positive test results is actually a "false positive." I also read that "false positives" occur even less often than "false negatives."

I know that with the HIV test, it is more likely for a "false negative" to occur in the early stages, since sometimes it takes a while before HIV antibodies are produced and/or HIV replicates enough to the point that it'd be detectable in a RNA or DNA test. For example, the earliest point that you can take an HIV DNA test is 10 days after exposure. I think I heard that 15 days after exposure, the HIV DNA test is 94% accurate. 25 days after exposure, the HIV DNA test is 98-99% accurate. (I might be slightly off on the numbers) As you can see, the longer you wait...the greater the efficiency of the test, and therefore the less likely it is to have a false negative.

bebewood
03-27-2008, 03:48 AM
I'm curious as to the purpose of this post. Thoes of us that do work in the porn industry know the risks.

I have never come across in my short stint of doing porn anyone that was infected. As test results are shared with each co worker before any filming begins. It seems to me that your just trying to stir the pot so to speak and get more arguments going.
how is this possible. There is no HPV test for men...have you never shot with men? Because its impossible to know if they are infected or not.

Crow2
03-27-2008, 04:05 AM
how is this possible. There is no HPV test for men...have you never shot with men? Because its impossible to know if they are infected or not.

Yes, I've made films with men.

Half of this nation is infected with HPV according to the CDC. It also says that most of the time ones own body takes care of it. Unless you contract some weird, unusal strain of this disease and it mutates into cancer.

You should read up.


I've had one of the weird mutated strains and oddly enough I got this lovely gift from my second ex husband. Not a film star co worker.

bebewood
03-27-2008, 04:12 AM
Yes, I've made films with men.

Half of this nation is infected with HPV according to the CDC. It also says that most of the time ones own body takes care of it. Unless you contract some weird, unusal strain of this disease and it mutates into cancer.

You should read up.


I've had one of the weird mutated strains and oddly enough I got this lovely gift from my second ex husband. Not a film star co worker.
then u cant say you have never come across a porn star with an std
anyway can you please visit the other work lounge. I posted a porn related question and this lady is really pissing me off trying to feed me false information

Crow2
03-27-2008, 04:29 AM
I'm not going to argue with you ..

Golden_Rule
03-27-2008, 11:06 PM
Crow, its comments like the above that set me off in the first place.

Bebewood isn't arguing with you.

Someone makes a statement they've never worked in porn with anyone with an STD.

Someone points out that HPV is an STD and there are no tests for HPV in men, so if said person ever worked with male performers there is no way for that person to categorically state they have never worked with someone with an STD. ESPECIALLY given the prevalence of the presence of HPV in the population.

It is simple boolean LOGIC Bebewood is putting forth. Its not an attack, and it can't be denied with a straight face because its too high to go over, too low to go under, and too wide to go around.

BTW, no one is saying you have worked with people that have an STD either.

Just that it is impossible to tell sometimes given the state of testing, whether or not they require it for that SPECIFIC STD, combined with the rate of exposure for the general population.

That is all I was saying earlier as well.

Anyway.... ::)