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.
Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.
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.




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.
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.I'm still amazingly confused as to what the whole point of this thread is.
Christ, if HSV-1 was my biggest concern when pursuing sex partners, I wouldn't be concerned.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!
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.




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.
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.
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).
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.
Last edited by Jenny; 02-29-2008 at 01:48 PM.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
^ 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.





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.
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.
BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





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.![]()
![]()
Last edited by Golden_Rule; 02-29-2008 at 06:59 PM. Reason: spelling: shot to shoot
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.
BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?
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.
[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.
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.
BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?
I still want to know what your damn point is.
I mean other than being condecending of course.
^ 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![]()




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.





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...
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.
BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?





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.
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.
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.
BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?




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?
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.




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.
Exotic dancing is like any other job.If you work in an office, you wear dress shoes and a suit.If you work in a restaraunt, you wear skid resistant shoes and a uniform.If you work in a strip club, you wear 7" stilettos and lycra g-strings.


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.
Bookmarks