# Har Har Har! Porn industry has major AIDS scare **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 17, 2004, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478 "2004-04-17T03:19:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/61 "2004-04-17T22:01:47Z")
I see condoms in porn all the time. In fact, I watch Vivid porn the most, as it is my favorite company, and they very often do have condoms on. I was surprised at this announcement. I’m worried for my favorites. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/62 "2004-04-17T22:04:59Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > You’re kidding, right? > > You mean having unprotected sex with many, many people (who are also having unprotected sex with many people, and so forth) in the expanse of a few weeks is a smart thing? > > News to me. Smart or stupid isn’t the correct term…it’s a matter of acceptable risk. Again all it takes is one time with an infected person and you could be infected. How many times have you had an HIV test? Did you test your last lover? Whose smarter, the person who has sex with many, many people all of who are tested or the person who has casual sex once a month and NEVER gets tested or knows the status of their lovers? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/63 "2004-04-17T22:17:48Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s pretty assholish to remove the element of personal tragedy, though. People do that a lot with the war in Iraq as well. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/64 "2004-04-17T22:27:02Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Smart or stupid isn’t the correct term…it’s a matter of acceptable risk. And having multiple sex partners without protection, over and over and over and over again, (and hoping that the “honor system” will spare your life) is somehow smart? And risking your life just so that your audience can have a “fantasy fullfilled” is an acceptable risk? Perhaps for you, but for a lot of people, no. Especially when we all know that other people _don’t_ have to do take this risk, and can make a living without doing this. (Re: **erislover** ’s favorite movies have actors that use condoms.) The companies who use condoms in their films are still working. Those actors are still able to make money and are not sweating bullets right now. Those who decided that not having safe sex are the ones not working and the ones sweating bullets right now, worrying that they’ve got a fatal disease. Who seems to have made the “smarter” decision to you right now? I’m sorry, I just think you’re going way out on a limb here. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/65 "2004-04-17T22:33:40Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > You’re kidding, right? > > You mean having unprotected sex with many, many people (who are also having unprotected sex with many people, and so forth) in the expanse of a few weeks is a smart thing? > > News to me. Your post is what is not a smart thing. You do not get HIV merely by “having unprotected sex”; you get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. You cannot get HIV from someone who does not have HIV. These people are getting tested and, on the whole, are probably safer sex partners than someone you don’t know well. In other words, your post is not based of objective risk but just on your prejudice. I am sure there are hundreds of professions more risky which you find perfectly reasonable choices. Suppose I am given the choice of going to Iraq to work there or fucking a beautiful woman who has tested clean for STDs. . . . Hmmm. . . tough choice. . . . . . . After thinking about it I prefer to fuck the blonde. But that’s just me. If others prefer to go to Iraq, or work in a mine or fight fires, that’s fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/66 "2004-04-17T22:34:12Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > We as a society can choose to drive it deep underground, where the workers are the most hopeless, at-risk people imagineable. Or we can regulate it, monitor it, _tax_ it, and thus minimize the human misery. But that would be thinking rationally, doctor Qadgop. An even more radical change in human nature that we have ever seen, from the evidence available. And besides it would take away from the likes of **htns** the pleasure of looking down on them :rolleyes: **yosemitebabe** , what we have here is an economic application of a debate that has been going on in the background of the HIV/AIDS issue in Western “advanced” societies – namely exactly how high _IS_ the risk of general-population infection. The theory at work in porn is that if you can limit your “promiscuity” to within one “closed” (or as near as you can get to that) cohort that you can maintain under some sort of control, you can detect the start of the spread of infection and stop it with only minimal, eh, collateral damage. Yeah, that’s cold, you won;t get an argument from me. Thus the 1200 card-carrying pro pornworkers getting regularly tested (and I had the opposite reaction at first, my reaction was “that many _regulars_ in Cali alone??” since my own porn experience was to keep running into the same… uh… faces, over and over) ever since the 90s and there seems to be only sporadic flare-ups every few years (Marc Wallice, John Stagliano, now this guy). Because of the apparently limited nature of the flare-ups, the persons in this trade look around and notice the very large amount of people who have gotten away with it, and think to themselves: “self, sure it’s higher-risk behavior, but it’s not as if the _global_ risk factor approaches 1.” People tend to be wildly optimistic at risk assesment specially when the assesment includes economic hardship on the other side. As Mitchell mentioned in one interview, few “stars” can probably afford it, and those who use it to boost their day-job probably may slog thru somehow on their regular income, but quite a few are paycheck-to-paycheck. As to the question about a porn shortage until 8 June: unlikely. The non-California porn industry probably will keep going. There is also likely to be enough previosuly-shot tape already in the can that the major labels can keep putting out at a reduced rate until then. Oh, and the FOX news morning crew are a bunch of odious twerps who are probably overcompensating for never having got laid in high school. Or at least that’s how they came across to me until I gave up on watching them at all. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/67 "2004-04-17T22:50:20Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > In other words, your post is not based of objective risk but just on your prejudice. I am sure there are hundreds of professions more risky which you find perfectly reasonable choices. You mean that not using a condom when you _could_ use a condom for a job is not taking more risk? I’m sorry, I’m just not following this. I plead guilty to being ignorant about the porn business, but I don’t feel a deep “prejudice” about it. I don’t think much about it at all. It mostly isn’t on my radar, to be honest. All I see right now is that there are a group of movie companies that are continuing to shoot, because they had a policy of using condoms. And then I see is that a whole lot of other companies are not shooting, because they decided that they didn’t want to use condoms. Now, having been completely ignorant of porn films (having only seen snippets of them by happenstance), I don’t know what the dramatic difference is between movies that have actors that use condoms and those who don’t. All I see is this: The ones who used condoms = still working. The ones that didn’t = not working. Actors scared to death, **fearing for their lives.** It makes no sense to me and it seems pretty obvious to me which is the “smarter” choice. Unless someone can explain to me why shooting films without condoms (while others do use condoms and seem to stay in business) is **so** much more preferable and **so** much better of a product, (or that the porn industry would dry up if all actors used condoms) I’m just not gettin’ it. > [@JRDelerious](#): > > Thus the 1200 card-carrying pro pornworkers getting regularly tested (and I had the opposite reaction at first, my reaction was “that many regulars in Cali alone??” since my own porn experience was to keep running into the same… uh… faces, over and over) ever since the 90s and there seems to be only sporadic flare-ups every few years (Marc Wallice, John Stagliano, now this guy). I agree that the regular testing is wise and smart, but if all these pornworkers didn’t feel that there was much risk, why did _any_ companies use condoms? Why bother at all? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/68 "2004-04-17T22:59:05Z")
**JRD** (sorry I spelled your name wrong before), upon further reflection I think I see what you’re saying, so yeah, if these people are living in an insulated environment where most people don’t get HIV, then yeah, I can see them getting a false sense of security about it. So perhaps for the individuals, the emphatic “STUPID” is too strong. But I definitely think the whole “no condoms” thing is **WHACKED.** Why put people through that risk? Test them every few weeks, have everyone use condoms. Just keep everything as safe as possible. I don’t see how films without condoms could be _that_ much more wonderful and superior. (Of course, as a non-porn viewer, I am just supposing here.) Could someone explain to me why movies showing unsafe sex are superior films and therefore worth the increased risk to the actors? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/69 "2004-04-17T23:06:49Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > I agree that the regular testing is wise and smart, but if all these pornworkers didn’t feel that there was much risk, why did _any_ companies use condoms? Why bother at all? Because _some_ porn companies would rather not chase the easy, fast buck of the gonzoporn fan, but rather cultivate an image of porn-for-the-responsible-consumer; and _some_ porn performers look beyond the moment and think about life after their hot-young-piece phase. (BTW: a popular alternative to condom-porn for female performers, is to do only girl/girl work or work only with their husband/boyfriend). ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/70 "2004-04-17T23:06:56Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > Could someone explain to me why movies showing unsafe sex are superior films and therefore worth the increased risk to the actors? WAG: More people buy those films, and if the California porn industry went all-safer-sex in their films, then they’d just lose a lot of business to those who didn’t, thus putting people out of work? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/71 "2004-04-17T23:10:50Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > Could someone explain to me why movies showing unsafe sex are superior films and therefore worth the increased risk to the actors? These movies are about pure fantasy, and no guy fantasizes about fucking a girl with a condom. I can’t say if it’s worth the risk or not, but that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/72 "2004-04-17T23:15:21Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > Could someone explain to me why movies showing unsafe sex are superior films and therefore worth the increased risk to the actors? Like **Ferret Herder** said, it’s not superiority, it’s market dynamics. Why does the public want to see condomless sex in their porn? Maybe because for some of the customers, the last time they did not feel a tight rubber membrane around their dicks when involved in sex with another human, Ronald Reagan was President, and by now the very notion of doing it bareback is a fantasy to them? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/73 "2004-04-17T23:15:24Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > **JRD** (sorry I spelled your name wrong before), upon further reflection I think I see what you’re saying, so yeah, if these people are living in an insulated environment where most people don’t get HIV, then yeah, I can see them getting a false sense of security about it. So perhaps for the individuals, the emphatic “STUPID” is too strong. > > But I definitely think the whole “no condoms” thing is **WHACKED.** Why put people through that risk? Test them every few weeks, have everyone use condoms. Just keep everything as safe as possible. I don’t see how films without condoms could be _that_ much more wonderful and superior. (Of course, as a non-porn viewer, I am just supposing here.) > > Could someone explain to me why movies showing unsafe sex are superior films and therefore worth the increased risk to the actors? This has been addressed already. > [@](#): > > Posted by Holmes: > > There was a time in the late 80’s-early 90’s when the industry was practicing safe sex…and the industry started dying…without the “money shot” people stopped watching. What happens is what always happen…people got paid more to take more risks… Again, I am quite sure there are many other occupations which are more risky and nobody criticizes those who die doing them. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/74 "2004-04-17T23:20:06Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Again, I am quite sure there are many other occupations which are more risky and nobody criticizes those who die doing them. Why? Another WAG: “Porn and certain/most/all kinds of sex are **bad** , shameful things” probably sums it up. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/75 "2004-04-17T23:24:54Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Because some porn companies would rather not chase the easy, fast buck of the gonzoporn fan, but rather cultivate an image of porn-for-the-responsible-consumer . . . Yeah. There should be more of those. You know, the more I think about this, I realize something really . . . _peculiar_ that I didn’t know about myself before. I think it’s from being raised in Southern California, where the film industry is so huge, (and the emphasis on keeping production going) and there is something that must be deeply ingrained in me. It really _bugs_ that so many of these movie companies are not shooting. Not. Shooting. Not. Working. Horrors! I guess that’s a lot of what is bothering me. To see a filmmaking company have to basically shut down for (how long is this going to last? months?) so long is, on a visceral level, just _apalling_ to me. Weird, huh? > [@Ferret Herder](#): > > More people buy those films, and if the California porn industry went all-safer-sex in their films, then they’d just lose a lot of business to those who didn’t, thus putting people out of work? And hopefully, now that a whole lot of people are out of work for a while (while they are under quarantine and some studios have temporarily stopped shooting) while those companies who used condoms are still shooting—well, hopefully some companies will re-think the whole no condom thing. > [@sailor](#): > > Again, I am quite sure there are many other occupations which are more risky and nobody criticizes those who die doing them. Why? And most of these professions use all reasonable safeguards to at least minimize the risk. In this case, we see companies refusing to use a well-known, reasonable and easily accessable safeguard. All while some of their collegues _do_ use this safeguard. And guess who is still shooting right now, and who has shut down for now? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/76 "2004-04-17T23:40:56Z")
> [@kellner](#): > > We had this discussion recently in Germany when prostitution was formally legalized (before it was illegal but unpunished and de facto tolerated.) As soon as it is legalized the workers can get proper health, unemployment and other insurance. They can claim their salary in court. People who provide services to them can do so legally without being guilty of pimping or similar charges. The workers are less exposed to all kinds of blackmailing. In addition to that _effective_ medical tests become possible. [hijack] Germany has legalized prostitution? When did this happen? Did they legalize both female and male prostitutes? [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/77 "2004-04-17T23:45:39Z")
> [@yosemitebabe](#): > > And most of these professions use all reasonable safeguards to at least minimize the risk. In this case, we see companies refusing to use a well-known, reasonable and easily accessable safeguard. You just refuse to acknowledge what is being said. Porn with condom does not sell. Porn without condom sells. They are not the same thing. What part of that do you not understand? Do you need us to draw a diagram for you? > [@](#): > > All while some of their collegues _do_ use this safeguard. And guess who is still shooting right now, and who has shut down for now? Yes, and some guys join the army and get shipped to Iraq where some return home in coffins and the rest are scared shuitless all day. And most are probably making less money and exposed to more risk than porn stars. So I guess it would make sense to convert the US Army to a porn production company. That way a lot of lives would be saved. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/78 "2004-04-18T00:03:43Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > You just refuse to acknowledge what is being said. Porn with condom does not sell. I admit to being completely ignorant of the porn business. So, what you’re telling me is that these companies who have their actors use condoms don’t sell their product? Then how do they manage to stay in business? > [@](#): > > Porn without condom sells. And that says something sad about the public, I think. > [@](#): > > Yes, and some guys join the army and get shipped to Iraq where some return home in coffins and the rest are scared shuitless all day. And do they not wear helmets, when others around them do, because not wearing a helment sells more product? No. We’re talking about movies here, not war. When I hear about a stuntman dying on a set, I always think it’s a waste and I think it’s a horrible shame. If I heard that they didn’t take precautions that they _could_ take, but they didn’t take it (because the movie would make more money if they didn’t take that risk), then I’d think that was appalling. I’ve always felt this way. I love movies, I’ve even done a little bit of extra work. But I just don’t think that a movie is worth taking unecessary risks over. I don’t think it’s worth dying for. But I’ll repeat what I told JRDelirious—if the individual actors were lulled into feeling a false sense of security, so they felt like they were safe enough, I can sympathize with that. And I feel terrible that they’re all so scared right now. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/79 "2004-04-18T00:08:41Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Better in what way? You propose to take away a major freedom from producers and consumers. freedom. Sorry, your right. I think also that drug dealing is a good freedom. How could i even think of taking IT away from the producers,not to mention the consumers? What they want is all that matters, drugs make this a better society! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478/80 "2004-04-18T00:13:08Z")
**yosemitebabe** , I think the fact that this is the first HIV scare the porn industry has had in _five years_ is a pretty good indication that, condom or not, the majority of the industry does practice safe sex. Safe sex does not automatically equate with wearing a condom, and wearing a condom doesn’t automatically mean the sex you’re having is safe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/har-har-har-porn-industry-has-major-aids-scare/240478.md?page=5)