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.
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?
People do that a lot with the war in Iraq as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).
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?
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.
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? 
This has been addressed already.
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.
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?
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.
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?
[hijack] Germany has legalized prostitution? When did this happen? Did they legalize both female and male prostitutes? [/hijack]
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?
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:
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?
And that says something sad about the public, I think.
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.
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!
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.