I think we're at a point where youngins and some adults are feeling semi-"impervious" to the health and STDS threats, with inflated belief that medical cures are around the corner almost as a foregone conclusion, and feel falsely "safe enough". Even though cures are still expensive and its better to NOT have STDS than to have, once/IF they create decent enough HIV treatment then people's guards are gonna go down anyway. So we're still headed more toward floodgates being opened than having any caution exercised. Though yes on PRINCIPLE alone they should probably wrap up (but wont happen).
As a younging, pretty much feel bulletproof. Depends alot as well if youve been having unprotected sex from a young age, cause you get used to it, condoms really suck and you tend to think you're bulletproof I'm assuming til you catch something.
While not an expert on the subject, guys like Randy Spears and Evan Stone have had long careers in the business, being not only "well equipped" for the part, but able to act (quite well, in the case of Spears, and Stone has made a career out of acting in XXX-rated comedies). That's rare. Randy Spears has been working from 1988 to the present day, and has appeared in some of the classics of the genre. Not that I really know anything about the topic, of course.
Third p*rn actor tests positive for HIV; film shutdown proposed By Abby Sewell September 7, 2013, 8:36 a.m. The HIV case that prompted a new moratorium on shooting in the adult film industry involves a third performer, an industry group has confirmed. Last month an actress who goes by the screen name Cameron Bay tested positive for HIV, prompting a weeklong voluntary halt on shooting in the industry. On Tuesday a second performer, Rod Daily, who performs primarily in gay p*rn but is romantically linked to Bay, announced that he had also tested positive. Daily told the Los Angeles Daily News that he took his test at a clinic in Arizona unaffiliated with the industry STD testing system, and the Free Speech Coalition initially said that it had not been formally notified of the case. The coalition called for a new moratorium Friday afternoon, saying it had been notified that another performer had tested positive for HIV, but it was not immediately clear whether that performer was Daily or a third person. Free Speech Coalition spokeswoman Joanne Cachapero said late Friday that the new case involved a third performer. The group said in a statement that the performer whose case prompted the current moratorium had not done a shoot since before the first moratorium. The industry required performers whose last STD test was prior to Aug. 19 to be retested if they wanted to continue performing. The coalition said it would cover the cost of retesting for the performer's partners. "While we don't have evidence to suggest an on-set transmission as opposed to a transmission from non-industry (off-camera) related activity, we are taking every measure to determine the source and to protect the performer pool," the coalition said in the statement. A spokesman for Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said the department had not been notified of a new case. The HIV cases have added fuel to a push for a statewide mandate for condom use in adult films. L.A. County voters approved such a mandate last year, which is the subject of an ongoing court battle. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an advocacy group pushing for the statewide condom rule, launched a robocall campaign Thursday against Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles), who they allege halted the legislation. Gatto denied that he was holding the bill back. Gatto held a previous version of the measure in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The current bill, authored by Isadore Hall (D-Compton), is on hold in the Senate because it is too similar to the bill that was held. The group took another shot at Gatto in the wake of Friday's announcement. “We lay complete blame for this outbreak at the feet of Assemblymember Gatto, the pornographers and Los Angeles County,” Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation said in a statement. “How many more before we act?” http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hiv-p*rn-third-case-20130906,0,2091428.story
All this talk of unprotected sex running rampant among youths is really pretty funny. Young people are very cognizant of the dangers of unprotected sex. There was a recent study that mimicked a study done back in the 70's in which young people of different genders were put in a dark room together. In the earlier study, the young people pretty much always ended up touching and even engaging in sexual acts. In the modern version of the study, instances of touching were very rare. Behavioral psychologists theorize that the reason for the discrepancy between the studies is due to young people being more aware of the dangers of unprotected sex. Young people today are less likely to have multiple partners, whereas the young people of the past were more apt to do so because they weren't continually reminded of the dangers of unprotected sex. In short, all the talk of increasing awareness among youths of sexually transmitted infections, in my opinion, is a bit overblown. Young people are very aware, and studies back that up.
AIDS outbreaks have engulfed entire regions of the Third World; and some demographic sectors of the developed, so your anecdotal theory of increased youth awareness about sex both inaccurate and criminally negligent in the face of a permanently impending global public health risk.
Do they have CDC or local Public Health agents at every shooting? I think it's time they did to administer continuous testing. These producers are already getting a break in California in that every other state in the Union other than Florida has banned filming or just statutorily equated it as prostitution.
I was referring to a study done in the United States. You can check it out the original study here. You can simply Google the modern version, as well as surveys indicating that today's youths are less sexually active than the young people of the past. This isn't an "anecdotal theory". Furthermore, I made no comment about this issue on a global basis. The study's I alluded to were done in the United States, and obviously won't be reflective of the issue on a global scale. Global AIDS pandemics occurring elsewhere are a tragedy, but mandating the use of condoms in p*rn is hardly a solution to that. I'm simply commenting on the issue facing the p*rn industry -- not the health issue on a global scale.
It's a lot less mess to clean up after. Yall don't wear one? Also I'm getting a little tired of the crappy amateur shiz. Need moar professional films!!
Nothing in your original comment restricted the behavior to the United States, as if that's the only place psychological studies on sexual behavior are performed, or even reviewed or duplicated for relevant clinical and academic standardization. Furthermore, AIDS became a global disease due to international travel; which has expanded in the ensuing 30 years and continues to increase, particularly between developed and undeveloped regions. Of course you didn't admit it earlier, but your bizarre objection to forcing de facto sex workers to use protection is nearly genocidal in the second largest city in the country, and would guarantee more global infections sourced out of one the most immigrant and emigrant diverse coastal port cities on the planet.
Except that I'm commenting on a thread about the p*rn industry based in California. If we were in the D&D commenting on a thread about the global AIDS pandemic, I probably wouldn't have referenced studies about young people in the United States to support my argument. I quit reading at the bolded portion. You're being a troll, Pouhe.
It's important to remember. None of these p*rn stars got HIV from performing in a p*rn movie. They got infected from having sex off the set and off camera, mostly gay sex. The Condom Law won't eliminate HIV infections in the p*rn industry, because it doesn't require actors to use condoms in their personal lives.
Your first comment was that unprotected sex among young people was "funny," then you quoted a single psych study to validate that. In a thread about AIDS infections in a sexually polygamous subculture in the second largest and second most heavily touristed city in one of the largest countries in the world. I'm not being a troll; your initial thesis was reckless and intellectually lazy enough to be aggressively questioned, the inevitable death toll from your dreadful ideas doesn't really merit a lot of rhetorical restraint in any responses to it.
My comment was that the responses in this thread were funny and overblown. And what exactly is my "dreadful" idea? Not wearing condoms in p*rn? Very deadly, indeed. I'm sure when we look back in history on this, we'll have "not-legislating-the-use-of-condoms-in-p*rn" right behind Pol Pot on the list of mass murderers.
