Steve Hirsch.
In a major change of policy, Vivid have officially become a condom-optional company. Though HIV/AIDS is better controlled within jizz-bizz production than the general public, STD’s are part of porn, and Vivid’s prior insistence on condoms came into force after an AID’s outbreak (which also inspired Wicked to take the same position to protect talent.)
Vivid’s official line is that performers who choose to mandate condoms still can, but if Directors favor performers who don’t use condoms, is it fair to give performers the ‘option’ to work unprotected or ‘option’ to lose a job? Is an avoidable risk of a fatal infection tolerable under any circumstance?
Vivid’s claim that the move isn’t financially motivated makes little sense. If they’re not losing money to condom-free producers, why force performers to make a potentially dangerous choice? Another adult-industry STD outbreak is only a matter of time, and Vivid seem to have calculated that the risk is small enough to be acceptable to bear. Is it? Why? And why do condoms in porn bother so many people?
Popularity: 52% [?]
It’s a free country, well, relativley free, these days. No one is going to force any performer to work condom free. I think it is worse that vivid would not allow performers to work condom free, even those that were couples off set.
Of course it’s a reletivley free country, so stars could decide not to work with vivid, and of course consumers can choose what movies to buy.
Condoms in a film do not always inhibit the story, however there are many fantasies that, with a condom in the shot, would definitely change the whole scenario, and therefor I have always thought that condoms required in a all scenes by all actors / actresses is an overboard policy for any company.
Of course individual stars always have the option not to perform in condomless scenes, and many people choose to use no condom on camera with thier “off set” partner, but would still use condoms with others.
What’s always tripped me out, is the girls using condoms in the pussy or ass, but then swallowing nut and sucking a condom free cock at the end of a scene. Kind of blows the whole no condom thing doesn’t it?
I think this is a foolish move on their part. There health and safety laws for numerous other fields that exist to protect both employee and employer.
Imagine working for another industry where potentially life saving equipment is not required. Say a cruise ship company where their boats are lifeboat optional. Granted there isn’t a lot of risk that a ship will go down and no one is forcing consumers to take a cruise on that particular cruise line. Does it make sense that for such a small marginal cost [compared to the price of a ship] that this safety procedure not be followed?
Although I agree that Vivid and Wicked are allowed to do as they please within the law, I think there should be national regulations to insure safety of performers. It only makes sense for performs rights that they don’t have to fear contracting a lifetime illness that effectively ends their careers [and perhaps life] for doing their jobs.
I agree with that money shot comment, defeats the whole reason.
I’m not a fan of condoms in blue movies. I understand the reason, but it “for me” removes the element of fantasy. Reality slapping us in the face. The equivalent would be Superman. Seeing the crane’s arm and highly visible wires making him fly. You ruin the whole effect. This is why I avoid Vivid titles. Great covers, beautiful women, but I’ll pass because of the condoms.
It doesn’t really blow the whole no condom thing- oral sex has a much lower risk of STD transmission.
If the demand for condomless porn was strong enough for Vivid to make the policy change it’ll be strong enough to create a lot of pressure for performers to go condom-free, not to mention the effect the change will have on other companies. Optional doesn’t mean much when your other option is losing the gig.
I don’t understand how condoms ‘lessen’ the erotic element of anything, this is an immature view to have considering we’re still living in an era that still features HIV, and Hep B (which is easier to acquire than HIV). Do teenagers, who chance on porn, sit there thinking of the ‘fantasy’ element or the erotic element – they’re viewing the pornography for suggestions/tips and maybe even as a guideline. From one end they’re being formally educated on the importance of condoms and on the other spectrum they’re being told that condoms ‘aren’t erotic’ or ’sexy enough’.
I can’t believe that adults are so ‘childhish’ about this, how directors dare to flirt with their stars contracting a disease each day and how legally, there isn’t any legislation about this. In other words some directors still brandish the whip and control everything: ‘if you do wear a condom, expect to not work’ in other words.
People have to be living in the Seventies if they think that condoms aren’t ‘erotic’.
Casanova slept with how many women, using a condom. Casanova is considered on of the most erotic male figures in history.
Really how does a condom ‘change’ a story?
I don’t understand how condoms ‘lessen’ the erotic element of anything
Mmmm. Maybe it would help you understand if you had a penis. For a lot of us poor, benighted XYers, presence or absence of a rubber makes a pretty substantial difference in the “erotic element” of the sexual experience. Put it this way: Would you enjoy eating as much with a rubber sheath over your tongue? It’s not a perfect analogy, of course, but for some guys it actually makes that much difference.
I have to say that when I watch porn (which is constantly running on another computer just so I can mock all of the cliched “Storylines” but I digress…), it never occurs to me that condoms are worn. I might notice it, but it’s not something that kills the mood. However, it does need to be said that I’m extremely bored with porn the way it is, and it’s rare that porn gets me off – but in the instances that it does, The Condom Factor is never an issue with me.
I do believe that it should be both party’s choice as to whether or not deal with The Condom Factor – the Wearer and the Wearee. If that’s what they want to do and they’re comfortable with it, you do your thing. I do understand that guys are probably not going to want to wear condoms – and I’m ok with that. However, I don’t think people should be forced to go against their own personal beliefs.
But, as Sabrina said, “Optional doesn’t mean much when your other option is losing the gig.”
But, as Sabrina said, “Optional doesn’t mean much when your other option is losing the gig.”
Such is the profession. If that performer feels that the risk is just as high as the reward, then he/she should leave. Take the safer road. This isn’t indentured servitude (granted in some places, sadly it is). No one is holding a gun to them to take the risk(s).
One of my friends works at Angelus Block in Fontana, California. It’s the largest supplier of cement blocks in the state. The horror stories he relays to me are distrubing. People have lost fingers and have holes punched through hands. Dangerous, very, but it pays well. No one is forcing him to work there. The same applies here. Make a choice, these people do.
Mia’s comment on the current state of porn – boredom. Sorry. I haven’t reached that place yet (hopefully never). I don’t find it dull at all. What I think could be the problem is mind-set; newbies wanting to be the next Jenna Jameson should be more concern with passion. Tori Welles is a great example, she was mega star in the 80’s. What was recorded showed genuine enthusiasm that lead to fame. Energy and emotion, it showed.
Anastasia’s comment on Casanova. Things were medically different at that time. Wasn’t this an era where leechs were considered a catch all for ailments? A condoms was a must if you wanted to live to play another day.
True. Casanova is considered one of the most erotic men in history. But he’s also known as the best bullshit artist there ever was. He could find magic words to get the ladies to lay with him. Plus sexual knowledge at that point was hardly common. His exploits now might be considered banal, but back in the day, he was the only one really doing it. Go down on a girl? Whatever for??? That’s crazy talk!
Part of Casanova’s charm was that he genuinely liked women and preferred them as friends, even when he wasn’t shtoinking them. He didn’t need the bullshit (it was just an added bonus).
JohnIan, I absolutely agree with you about the passion, energy, and emotion supplying the intensity missing in a lot of porn. It seems to me like the arms race to extreme to keep producing that rush is partially trying to substitute for the missing heat. When I got bored with hardcore, that’s what I started seeking out, personally. That’s what was missing for me.
As for choices- the problem with choosing any career based on one set of circumstances is that when those circumstances change you might be SOL. Porn is a career choice that cuts you off from a lot of other options. People know that going in. This could still mean tough choices for a lot of people, especially since many career options are off-limits once you’ve done porn. I’d love to stay updated on how this plays out.
“Though HIV/AIDS is better controlled within jizz-bizz production than the general public”
I’ve always wondered where this “fact” came from.
Anecdotal evidence and AIM’s own data suggest that as a population male porn talent have an HIV infection rate perhaps 20 times higher than the population as a whole, 23:100,000/year, and that general rate of infection is much lower once infections from IV drug use or male to male sex are removed, perhaps as low as 8:100,000/year.
Both a probalalistic analysis and an examination of AIM’s data show that present testing is virtually powerless to detect infected performers before they infect other performers, and this has resulted on an on-set HIV infection rate several times higher than in the population as at large.
In short, having condomless porn sex puts people (women in particular) at significantly higher risk for HIV than having “civilian” sex.
And while it’s true that if we equate HIV infections with other work-place fatalites we can find occupations with even more appauling safety records, I don’t think anyone is videotaping workers risking life and limb at the concrete block factory and then offering it as “erotic entertainment” for the viewer’s masturbatory pleasure.
Well Comstock, that be a nitche. Remember a few years back those stomp videos – people stepping on small animals for sexual satisfaction. Anything is possible. Remember the webcam craze. ‘I’m doing the same thing you are, only on camera!’
“Well Comstock, that be a nitche. Remember a few years back those stomp videos – people stepping on small animals for sexual satisfaction”
Perhaps I’m misreading you, but you seem to be suggesting that the mere fact that someone can derive sexual pleasure from an image justifies whatever is done to create that image. That is, at best, a selfish and childish point of view, and sex isn’t for children. It’s for grownups.
Searching for a deeper meaning. Sorry. Not there. I was commenting on:
I don’t think anyone is videotaping workers risking life and limb at the concrete block factory and then offering it as “erotic entertainment” for the viewer’s masturbatory pleasure.
There are folks who derived pleasure from all sorts of things. Just that. I was making a sick joke. Relax, have a pop tart. Hey, that has double meaning. Damn you Britney Spears!
JohnIan,’Things were medically different in that time…’ that’s amusing, really. Although thre was no HIV during Casanova’s time, people still died from STD’s that weren’t curable, things like Syphilis for example and I don’t think they had medication for Herpes back then either. You also say that Casanova was a bullshit artist as well, but see regardless of the condoms he’s used he’s still considered as one of the most erotic figures, centuries after his existence, whereas no one will hardly remember a porn ‘cock’ three centuries from now.
Mike V, porn is to ‘watch’, I agree that it’s fantasy, but it’s not your ‘dick’ on the film it’s another actors dick on the film, isn’t it?
Condoms aren’t erotic only because people are conditioned, like Pavlovian canines, to think they’re not erotic. For those who have had sex using condoms, do they view the entire experience as a ‘waste’ of erotic time because of the condom? When you meet that person in the early days, and you have sex with a condom, do you write off 80% of the sexual journey during sex (because we all know the ‘fuck’ penetration part of it is the least lasting) because of the ‘condom’?
It’s an immature view to take, considering there are millions of people around the world still contracting AIDS. We aren’t living in the Seventies, we’re living in the 21st Century. To say that our western society is so sexually enlightened and then at the same time not use condoms in porn film, and then distribute this en masse is a bit sexually backward, regardless of how sexually ‘forward’ the content is.
The other thing that makes me have a good giggle is when people equate porn stars or these jobs as being on an equal level to that of an office worker, ‘just a job’.
Well when I go to work each day I’m not at risk of contracting AIDS like some stars are by being screwed in the ass without a condom (the rectum, its lining being more fragile hence prone to tears via penetration) like what happened to Jessica Dee.
It’s so hypocritical for anyone to say how much they care about ‘porn’ being available, how much it enhances ‘others’ sex lives and all that crap, when at the same time no one gives a shit about the people who are actually performing so ‘armchair’ wankers have a thrill.
Tony – I think the ‘fact’ I quoted (based on AIM’s data) reflects both the infection rate and the number of sex acts involved. You can slice a million different ways but, as HIV+ performers don’t work (in the straight, mainstream market) and there have been less than 20 infections in a decade (and a lot of sex) I think it’s fair to look at it both ways – if you change the filters you change the stats.
JohnIan – why take an avoidable risk? Would Formula 1 be more exciting if the drivers didn’t wear helmets?
On a general note, I see a market for transparent, matt-finish, condoms with a removable (perforated?) end ring. They’d be virtually invisible on camera and we might be able to have our cake and eat it too….
On condoms and their ’sex-appeal’ – I’m young enough to have never been sexually active at a time when AIDS wasn’t a factor, and condoms have been part of almost every sexual experience I’ve ever had. I’m not alone in this, but think that the movie companies are still run by people who remember ‘looser’ times and who see condoms as a buzzkill/contraceptive more than as a lifesaver. I’d guess that for the under 30 crowd, condoms are far more widely accepted than they are for older generations.
“Tony – I think the ‘fact’ I quoted (based on AIM’s data) reflects both the infection rate and the number of sex acts involved.”
The ‘number of sex acts’ argument is (at best) a strawman. HIV doesn’t infect sex acts, it infects individuals, and AIM’s data suggests that the rate at which HIV infections occurs on porn sets is significantly higher than among the population at large. This is not “slicing”, this is interpreting the data the same way the CDC interprets their data. If comparisons to the “general population” are going to be made, they should be the appropriate comparision.
Sabrina – so taking the stance that your chance is less, of getting HIV or gonorrhea through the throat as opposed to the ass, so wear a condom with strangers when ass fucking, but a satisfying pop shot in the mouth is worth the lessened risk? Okay. It’s a free country to shoot and produce whatever “message” you want to portray I suppose.
I also suppose people will always have to decide what they are comfortable with. I am sure many girls lose a lot of gigs because they are not comfortable shooting interaccial gangbangs with multiple ass to mouth scenes, and there are people who are losing gigs because they won’t fly to South America and shoot TS/TV gigs. I’ve lost gigs because of “on film limits”, but that is life, even off camera.
Anastasia – not able to “understand how condoms ‘lessen’ the erotic element of anything” surprises me. I have no problem with condom use in many erotic fantasy films, which why I stated “Condoms in a film do not always inhibit the story” earlier, however, if the porn you are watching is a hot girl with an out-of-gas car who just happens to have a truck of highway workers stop by to help fill er up, having no condoms in the scene makes it more realistic. A husaband and wife having a quickie in the mini van after a nice dinner and using a condom does not neccesarily ruin it, but for those of us who enjoy such an expereince with no condom, the picture of one on the screen may make our mind associate that with disease and being unclean, and therefor ruin the erotic fantasy we were adapting in out head.
Now you could choose to shoot the scene and not show the peneatration, therefor not showing the condom, and I could stay on track with that type of erotic story. I also believe that many enjoy porn in a way that living out a mini fantasy watching other people (who we are assuming are tested, clean, and safe) gangbanging, or wife swapping, we want to have the fanatsy of enjoying this risky behaviour without the risk. To fantasize about what it may be like to not have to worry about disease – fantasy. To be able to enjoy a bang on film, without ever having to actually have sex with other people – fantasy.
Sometimes a condom in the frame, or a distracting background image can really shake the mind out of the fantasy it was enjoying.
I do agree with Anastasia about condoms being erotic. The they can be very erotic, but the story line needs to work with it. A girlfriend sneaking into the office on your lunch break with a flavored condom who puts it on with her mouth, hiding it in the trash with the take out food, and being back to work with no mess, that kind of thing. When the condom is worked into the scene gracefully it is more erotic and less jaring as opposed to just popping up right when you are anticipating a hot penetration shot.
I personally consider condoms to be an effective tool for many things, and each one of them are enjoyable, however not every erotic fantasy has to include them, in fact many just don’t. A film with a prison gaurd having his way with a prisoner can be one type of story with a condom, this would go well with a hidden relationship story, which I think is very erotic. But showing a gaurd having his way without a condom, and just using inmates for sexual favors, the guy not wearing a condom could add to the character development in that kind of story.
It is not our job to think about what law breaking teens could be influenced by. I make my films for adults. Adults that should know reality from fiction. Showing someone jump across buildings while dancing around gunfire in a movie should not change people’s opinions about the safety of said activity in the real world.
If you want reality watch the news, well, thier version of reality, but when I watch a movie, I do not expect it to represent reality. Enjoying a gangabg on film does not mean I would start having random condomless gangbags with highway workers every weekend, and performers wearing or not wearing condoms is not going to make me take my life and risk any less seriously. In fact watching other people who do it right (getting tests, being educated and aware), allows me to enjoy a fantasy without actaully having to do all that work, or take all that risk in the real world.
“Showing someone jump across buildings while dancing around gunfire in a movie should not change people’s opinions about the safety of said activity in the real world.”
Are there still movies being made where the actors dodge real bullets, or stuntmen jump from building to building without airbags and/or fly-wires ? As far as I know, that stopped in 1973.
Tony – your point is a good one. I think the term ‘general population’ must include drug users and sex workers – as the people they have sex with can transmit infection beyond their immediate range of contact.
The truth is, given about 1,200 performers in hardcore, any statistics are going to have significant error (2,000 is the standard used for an election sample). Then you have to compare an 100% tested sample of porn performers, and a public that’s often ignorant of its status – and therefore under-reports infection rates. Those error’s are enough to make any position taken justifiable through the right lens.
My original point, echoed by Sabrina, is that I think any risk is too great, and the risk in porn is significant because of inherently unsafe behavior and the very high rates of sexual contact, which make rapid transmission easily possible.
As for the true rate of infection in porn performers vs. ‘the public’? Who can say with absolute certainty? The data isn’t there (and that there is comes from sources with agendas)
(NB: The numbers I’ve just quoted regarding the number of working performers are from here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5437a3.htm)
“As for the true rate of infection in porn performers vs. ‘the public’? Who can say with absolute certainty?The data isn’t there”
If no one can say with any certainty, then why would you say something like “Though HIV/AIDS is better controlled within jizz-bizz production than the general public”? If the data isn’t there, then the data isn’t there.
Tony – LOL. Let me bow out gracefully damn it! I tend to trust Mitch (Sharon Mitchell) and I’m sure that’s where the ‘fact’ is from. However – until I can find it and make sure, I won’t vouch for it as verbaitim. Can you link to your figures? I’m very happy to make a correction if I’m wrong.
Lies, lies and damn statistics.
Yes Tony, I believe they do shoot blanks in the movies, and that is how Brandon Lee was killed, and many other, high risk, stunt men have surely been mamed and killed since 1973.
I am not saying that condomless daily gangbangs are a choice everyone should make. But everyone should have the freedom to choose if they want to engage in such an activity. If I really wanted to go downtown and fuck 30 girls tonight all without a condom, the 31 of us make the decision to take risks, just like getting into car, drinking a gallon of whiskey, or getting a blood transfusion in a hosital, everything we do has risks, and different professions have inherit risks, and how we choose to engage in our professions certainly has an affect on any odds.
I would like to point out that I am adamant about choice; not being condomless. In fact I am all for promoting condom use in scenes and via other more educational methods as well. I have always thought it quite ridiculous that Vivid has been requiring condom use with all performers at all times. A husband and wife couldn’t even go without them.. c’mon.
ugh, this would be better communicated if I was using italics and blod here and there…
Anyways,
If we set up an island where only 30 porn people could enter or leave the island, and everyone was tested repeatedly and got daily checkups looking for signs of cold sores, staph infections, hiv, etc, etc, etc… for 9 months, and anyone with anything was sent off the island, then we shot a condomless movie where people got as freaky as they wanted to… then could you enjoy such a film knowing you could have a free conscience about it?
Wouldn’t it be nice to turn off the world, and watch a movie for a couple hours, take yourself out of this miserable world we live in, and enjoy a fantasy, a fantasy world where there is no disease to worry about. No social stygma about how many partners or what types of sex acts you could experiment with, and enjoy that moment. Heck it’s nice to just sit back and close your eyes for a moment and imagine the possibility of a disease free, no social pressure, world for a moment.
What if the world became disease free completely. What kind of condom paradigm shift would that be?
All of vivid’s videos would be obsolete. Worthless.
Unless condoms were viewed as sexual enahncers, like adding a dildo to the scene…
Watching a movie should take you into camelot in the middle ages, or deep into space for a couple of hours, a movie is a fantasy, a story, some are true, some are just stories.
Now condoms today could be written into scripts that actually have the couple showing off the condom before use, and then having the girl moan in joy for the ribbed, the spiraled, the warming sensation, the minty condom, and the one use vibrating tip condom. A2m with flavored condoms? Making condoms appear in the script showing how a wise man can give a woman extra pleasure, and maintain a longer erection for a more satisfying sexual experience. Things like this would make a condom fit very well into the film.
We can all hope that the general porn buying public will also seek out condom porn to support, that movie producers will figure out how to make safer sex sexy, and that everyone will have plenty of work whichever direction they choose, and the freedom to make choices. I look forward to the day when everyone has a better education and understanding of risks involved in porn, and in everyday singles’ lives in the world.
I still maintain that there are many stories where a condom appearing in the film changes the mood, and can shake someone out of the false reality, uh, fantasy they were building. Snakes are not erotic or non erotic by themselves, but placed in some stories in the right places, they could add an erotic element to the story, having a snake suddenly appear on the screen in the middle of a college dorm group sex party may take away from the otherwise enjoyable scene, depending upon how it is done. Of course a snake could be brought into the college dorm scene in an erotic way I guess. A girl could jump up and start bellydancing with snakes seductively swirling around her as she caresses herself and such.. Even if you were going to add an erotic snake element to a story, you wouldn’t just have a close up of the snake head filling the screen suddenly, unless you were trying to scare or jar the viewer, well that would sure change the story into a b rate horror flick.. But then that would change the story, not that that’s a bad story, it’s just different. Just like the many different people who are looking for the different things that get them off.
If anyone wants to shoot the porn island idea, I’d love to be in on that project
contest,reality,surivor,educating, porn series. Interviews, sex, drinks, tanning, sex, hmmm..
” and that is how Brandon Lee was killed,”
Brandon Lee did not die doing a stunt for a film. He was killed because he put a loaded gun to his head and pulled the trigger. As stupid and tragic as it may have been, what happened to Lee had nothing to do with the requirements of creating the illusion of gun-play in a movie.
As to the rest of your reply, if your idea of fantasy involves turning a blind eye to the very real risks that the people onscreen are taking, then no thanks. I’m not interested in what you’re selling.
Sam, the data is available on the AIM-Med.org website. Anyone with a collegiate level of competence in statistics can readily develop the analysis. If “Mitch” hasn’t performed these calculations, perhaps it’s because mathmatics were not part of the requirement for her PhD.
Sorry for not replying. I’m at a friend’s house typing. My browers can’t load this page anymore.
JohnIan – why take an avoidable risk? Would Formula 1 be more exciting if the drivers didn’t wear helmets?
Not into Formula racers. Guys driving real fast in a cirle. In a CIRCLE.
Going back to the topic. I’m not asking anybody to participate in condomless scenes unless they so choose to. It’s a matter of choice. The same for me, choosing to pass on vids with condoms. To each their own.
I understand the argument, vaild points. Once again it’s all making choices, adults making choices. A matter of maturity? All right if it makes you feel better, then I’m immature. So be it.
Responsiblity for one’s actions.
JohIan – Formula 1’s on an intricate track, not a circle but that’s okay. I accept your point, but the question is, which risks do we allow people to ‘choose’ and which do we protect people from?
Tony – I think I muddied the waters by trying to be accomodating. I just don’t agree with your analysis – which involves removing high-risk members of the general public before comparing disease rates in porn with those in the public. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, and I believe that without that filter, your point – that there’s more HIV/AIDS in porn than outside it – is wrong. The number’s I’m quoting are here (http://aim-med.org/images/killersex/pages/tc-3.htm) – though they pre-date the 2004 outbreak, I think the statistics will still compare the same way. If you can show me numbers that disprove that – please do. I want to be right and numbers trump annecdotal evidence every time. I accept that with your filter, your position holds up (I don’t have any numbers but you’re a smart guy and you’ve clearly done some calculations.)
I also believe that the incidence of every other kind of STD is far higher in porn – thanks to a lack of condoms, and STD’s people accept as ‘okay’ and thus live with. I am a pro-condom guy.
Wow Tony, I had just believed the urban legend I’ve heard time and time again about Lee, maybe they meant his dad, or it was just a myth..
I respect your right to choose whatever media you prefer to consume, or boycott… Perhaps you should also consider turning off the news… a similar situtaion appears there too – from an article at boing boing – http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/05/why_do_journalists_v.html
I too try to be careful how much I support certain things too, and I am glad that other people are more aware about these seemingly secondary issues as well.
“I just don’t agree with your analysis – which involves removing high-risk members of the general public before comparing disease rates in porn with those in the public.”
23:100,000/year is the CDC rate for the nation, includeing junkies, dangerously promiscuous homosexuals, and porn performers; and this rate is considerably lower than the rate of on set transmission of HIV documented by AIM. The male to female rate for the gen pop is considerably lower that 23:100,000/year, making a comparision to porn’s male to female rate look even more distressing.
Dont agree all you want. Common sense and probablalistic analysis tell us that having multiple unprotected sexual encounters puts a person at high risk for HIV. The data support this.
Mindlessly repeating the industry’s undocumneted and self-serving sales figures is harmless. Mindless repeating the industry’s self-serving and contradicted by their own data HIV figures is something else.
Tony – I am not comparing HIV in the US to HIV in porn. I’m using AIM’s comparison of HIV in LA to HIV in porn as of 2003. Meanwhile you are deriding AIM’s numbers while using them to support your position.
The rate of HIV transmission in porn in 2005 was zero. The rate in 2004 was either 1 or 2 (there’s debate over the initial contact in south America, and one performer was infected in the US). The frequency of transmission is entirely dependent on the time-frame you look at. If you look at 2005 only, I’m right. If you look at 2004, you’re right. If you expand the numbers back things change again.
The sample-size in porn is too small to make the ’straight’ comparison you’re attempting to. Everyone in porn is sexually active, everyone in the US isn’t – you can’t include the entire population and expect to see a true picture of the risks (the risk of transmission via sexual contact is zero for millions of children, adult and pensioners because they aren’t sexually active – they pad your CDC number enormously).
As someone with a science background I can tell you ‘common sense’ is worth nothing at all (try Quantum theory). Data is all, and I have linked to numbers which support my initial contention (you haven’t) and there’s nothing wrong, or simplistic, in comparing HIV in porn to HIV in LA as I have. You can argue that’s not fair, but you can’t argue the numbers I’ve linked to are wrong just because you don’t agree with the picture they paint. To depict AIM as industry shills is also unfair unless you can support the accusation somehow.
You also claim my numbers are undocumented – that’s not true – please check the links above. Your use of the term ‘mindless’ to describe my responses to you is unwarranted (and offensive).
I can’t respond to your phrase ‘…the data supports this’ unless you provide links to the data you’re using. Saying something’s ‘…considerably lower’ when it can’t be checked or verified has to be treated as speculation.
I’ve offered to correct my statement in the face of better evidence from you. To this point you’ve not provided me with anything I can verify, or the means of your working. Please feel free to. I’d like a link to the CDC information you’re using, so I can see how it’s been recorded and then make any corrections that are necessary.
I hope we can keep debate here friendly and respectful. I don’t think anyone need condescend to get their point across.
” The rate in 2004 was either 1 or 2 ”
There were three on-set transmissions in 2004: Jessica Dee, Laura Roxx, and Miss Arroyo. This is straight from the AIM website. All other data I’ve used is also on the AIM web site.
Tony – you’re 100% right on the transmissions. I didn’t check while I typed and remembered wrong (oh the irony!). You could also include Darren James (infected in Brazil) and Jennifer – who wasn’t part of the ‘outbreak’ but was diagnosed that year (and was infected off-set I think, but don’t know for sure and is thus mentioned here). Before that we had a single case in 1999. That’s 4-6 cases since 1999.
Links! Links! Links! (to specific pages please – it’s a big site and my numbers are mostly from there too).
I’m totally confused at this point… I’m quoting AIM, you’re quoting AIM, somehow we’re not on the same page…
“I’m totally confused at this point… I’m quoting AIM, you’re quoting AIM, somehow we’re not on the same page…”
It’s no wonder you’re confused. The AIM website is large and not well organized or maintained (until very recently it contained out of date and potentially dangerous recomendation on the use of Nonoxyl 9 as an HIV prophylactic)
Some AIM data:
In approx. 8 years AIM has performed roughly 80,000 monthly PCR tests on performers.
AIM cites a gender ratio in the talent pool of 3:1 female to male
In that time, AIM has detected HIV seven times in what they refer to as “active players”.
2 men who acquired HIV while on “hiatus” and were testing re-enter the active talent pool.
1 transexual who acquired HIV while on “hiatus” and was testing re-enter the active talent pool.
1 man who acquire HIV while actively a part of the talent pool.
3 women acquire HIV while actively a part of the talent pool.
A population size can be derrived from the number of tests performed.
From there an annual infection rate for both male and female performers can be derived. They do not compare well to the gen. pop., which renders claims that “HIV/AIDS is better controlled within jizz-bizz production than the general public” dubious at best.
Of course these rates are based on scant data. I would suggest that prudence demands being guided by this data as it stands, rather than simply dimissing it as a statistical aberation. At least let us agree that if there’s insufficient data to develop an infection rate, then there’s insufficient data to make comparrison to the general population, and let us stop mollifying ourselves with such claims.
Given the mechanics of infection, the vector of most concern is male talent who become infected during “off-set” activities and then transmit HIV to their female scene partners. In light of AIM’s own data (as well as annecdotal accounts of the offset behaiver of many men within the adult industry) I find current industry practices dubious. This is, of course, a value judgement – as in “how do you value other people’s health and welfare against the need to make a buck?” Porn is not the only industry that invokes this cold calculus, but it is the only one that invites us to jerk off to it.
Also, since you’ve mentioned quantum mechanics, I’m sure you know that as much as anything else, it is the science of using probablity to predict the behaivor of populations for which deterministic predictions cannot be made for individual particles.
Also a retraction:
When Brandon Lee died it was widely reported that it was a result of on-set horseplay with fire-arms, specifically that he fired a blank-loaded gun in contact with his head, apparently unaware that the force of the blank would be sufficient to propell a portion of his skull into his brain.
In fact, Lee’s death appears to be the result of producers, in the name of making a buck, substituting their own dubious on-set firearms safety measures for well-established safety measures. No doubt they thought nothing would come from cutting a few corners, other than a few more dollars in their pockets. Of course they weren’t the ones taking the risk, were they?
I always find it troubling to hear that some folks put their fantasy ahead of performers safety. Is rubbing one off while watching a porn video so worth it?
Condoms are the way of the 21st Century, fantasy or no fantasy. People can surely create their own sexual fantasies in their head, do they ’so really need’ a film to do it for them sans condoms?
The other end of the scale is the with or without condoms, sex on film really doesn’t provide the full pleasurable Monty. The male porn star is fucking for the sake of performing for himself, he always (in whatever film) takes out his cock, holds it and proceeds to ‘unload’ but, as many know (or for those who don’t buckle down to the porno school of conditioning) that part of the sexual enjoyment of penetration (or as a result of penetration) by a man (because anatomically the last two thirds of the vagina is numb, the G Spot incidentially, is related to the internal clitoris – don’t have time/space but it was in New Scientist in 1997 as a result of research at an Australian university, it has to be numb because of our function as potential child bearers) is the sensation of having the man climax ‘inside’ the woman simply because this, a woman can feel as the erection dissipates, and feel it more so in the outer third of her vagina. Now of course it’s not easy to feel this if condoms are used, but it’s a great sensation that isn’t written about. Why? Because people are too busy trying to emulate their favorite porn scenario.
Isn’t it sufficient that we see, in porn, the penis thrusting in and out? Why is it that the cock has to be ‘held’, removed and then the usual spray? We know sex has taken place (penis thrusting in and out, close up and all that jazz, aren’t we beyond the cum shot in the 21st Century?
What do women prefer? To feel a man’s climax from within (along with the penile contractions) or to forego this? For men, honest answer here, what feels better: to climax within a woman or to pull out at the pivotal moment and climax in ‘air’ so to speak?
I realise the subject is about this new development for Vivid, but really, each time I read an article in magazines about ‘porn’ being great for couples, to me it’s only about ‘up selling’ something that is simply repetitively manufactured. Sure, the clothes may have changed, but essentially the formulae isn’t anything more different to when I first viewed porn way back in the late Eighties. He fucks, he pulls out and he cums. As Simon Cowell would say, ‘So What?’
I’ve experienced porn in relationships, away from relationships and I’d have to say I preferred it away from relationships because I found that (for whatever reason) it felt like I was competing with some imaginary entity or that he was (and we’re talking about more than one ‘he’ here over time).
If pornography doesn’t move forward, the next generation of people (those in their teens/early twenties now) aren’t going to really bother that much, and I really don’t blame them.
If you compare STD transmission rate per an unprotected sex act with a stranger in the porn industry and in the general public, you’ll see a huge difference. Regular STD tests for the workers in the porn industry do make a difference. Even concidering the HIV scare of 2004, being a porn actor isn’t nearly as risky an occupation as, say, being a coal miner or a firefighter, and porn actors are much better compensated for their efforts.