Don't escort
Don't go around sticking your penis in mold
Printable View
Don't escort
Don't go around sticking your penis in mold
Time for a "career" change.Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness
You said he has sex with 15-20 girls and 5 of them got HIV?Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
yes all the ones that did anal creampies got the virus, the ones that he had vaginal sex with did not nor did the male performers in group scenes
You're right. Regulating it too hard will only move the business elsewhere. I read on one of these sites that some activists want to eliminate bareback scenes based on work safety type laws. But one thing about work safety is that these laws have never been to make employment as safe as possible. Their purpose is to make work safe to a reasonable degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
While bareback sex is unsafe for the general population because we don't always know who we're having sex with, in porn the risk is much less. Someone literally needs to be in that window period and given the mandatory testing it is likely to be contained once there's a positive test. While it's far from perfect, there are a great number of industries where the threat to workers' life expectancy is much greater. A risk to be sure, but people are allowed to take those.
Yeh those numbers do not sound right........ 2004 Zero Porn Stars?
Sorry man you seem to be delusional, i think it is safer buying a lottery ticket as you stated, haha. You stated ZERO, so none of your performers have sex with gay or bi porn stars? I hope not, because according to several articles OVER 50-60% of Gay adult stars are HIV+ in 2012. Your risk keeps getting higher, much higher then zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/08/must...rs_get_tested/
i am saying that since 2004 zero point zero HIV transmissions have occurred on a porn set
of course they are working with gay or bi porn stars, which helps my point - all of those scenes and again zero point zero HIV transmissions since 2004.
where did I say my risk was zero? huh? surely you don't think i believe that i have zero risk when i shoot a scene whether its condom or not...there is always risk. jesus man
Sex again is dangerous period..why do people love to throw stones when they live in glass houses?
If someone worked in a steel factory there is a chance they will get hurt.
If someone works as a police officer there is a chance they will get hurt.
When you have an abundance of sex whether in the industry or not there is a chance you will get something!
That's just FACTS.
I feel the numbers are pretty damn low for as many scenes we do a year as an industry.
If you have one night stands on the regular and then never get tested you have no room to talk.
If you cheat with a transsexual/female/gay escort and then go home to your wife with out getting tested you have no room to talk.
If you have never been tested at all but have sex regularly you have no room to talk.
Most people never get tested and if they do it's one or two times in their lives or when they are scared.
The sex industry is dangerous in general it's up to each performer to decide as well how safe they feel.
If I saw a male model I thought looked sketchy I didn't perform with him.
I would research his background.
I also expected the test to be taken right before the shoot not the 28 day period. A lot can happen in those 28 days. People have personal lives, escort, could do drugs, and more.
Condoms are a preventative mostly against pregnancy and possibly HIV..it's not the cure all.
Testing is!
Why people are so against testing is beyond me..when free clinics test for free all the time!
I don't understand why this debate goes on and on. Why we point fingers or even why we are surprised an infection gets in!
When someone is working a lot in the industry and then on top of it escorting or having a private life it brings up the chances of EXPOSURE to infection IMMENSELY..
We are going to continue to have these problems no matter what we do!
I agree 28 day testing is too damn long. Better than nothing, but still too long. Like you said some of the girls get around daily.
Well said Kelly - the voice of reason:-)
I just got myself a copy of Transex Domination, in which you are somewhat fantastic - it hasn't been out of the DVD player since I got it. Thank you
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSLoverIB
The gay porn stars you are referring to perform in companies like Treasure Island Media where the are paired with other HIV Positive performers... This category doesnt affect transmission rates as they were Positive BEFORE they started performing.
Commercially and recreationally
I've had sex with a number of people who are HIV+.
(They are most likely unaware they are HIV+)
That's a simple case statistical likelihood.
It's a scary thought, on one level.
On another level, my sexual behaviour minimises the risk
of STI transmission to me.
The only other alternatives are to:
- 1. Have only one sexual long term partner
and be very reasonably sure they don't play away.
Or
- 2. Have zero sexual partners.
I don't see any difference between Escorting, swinging or porn shoots.
It's all essentially sex with strangers.
In porn, testing slants things to keeping the person safe
as there is no mandatory testing for swinging or Escorting.
I just assume everyone I have sex with is HIV+
and adjust my behaviours accordingly.
I also generally manoeuvre things:
"God, you fucking me is so hot.
(Manoeuvre them off me while removing the condom,
deeply and lustfully look into their eyes)
Now I want you to spunk all over my tits!"
Works every time. :)
I totally don't want my partners to
climax inside me because a spilt condom
=My personal mandatory 28 day course of PEP,
which is has really vile side effects, during this period.
Bareback - My two experiences, ever
One time where a condom broke
the other time a guy removed the condom.
In both cases I assumed they were HIV+ with a high viral load
and went on a course of PEP within 24 hours.
A very nasty 28 course of meds
but far better than getting HIV.
New HIV Case Detected, Moratorium Reinstated--UPDATED
http://business.avn.com/articles/vid...ED-528786.html
and now a 4th performer has tested positive as well yesterday http://www.xbiz.com/news/168642
amazing 4 people thus far in 3weeks ... start taking bets on if more will pop up now too ..not good indeed .
um Liberty, thats a bullshit article that is completely not true.
Michael Weinstein is the head of an anti-porn group called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation who hate our business.
All performers test through CET or TTS and if they didn't report a new positive case to the FSC, then its not a real performer.
This is grandstanding by Weinstein as he wants to lengthen the moratorium and get new press. There is a possibility that a gay porn star tested positive, but again its a completely bullshit article.
stating again, there is no 4th positive in the straight porn industry.
my question is why would XBIZ publish such a story without confirmation, particularly since they cover the adult industry and such a story would cause people to halt production which means less to share with their audience? (sigh)
Dear PASS Participants,
As promised, we are sending out updates as soon as information is available.
First, I would like to address the rumors of a fourth performer testing positive for HIV. None of the testing facilities, nor the doctors associated with the facilities, have any results of a fourth performer testing positive. This information came from AHF, which is currently trying to push regulation on the industry and has, on many occasions, reported false information to the media to advance their political agenda. Just last month AHF started a media frenzy and industry scare over false information of a positive syphilis result claiming an “outbreak” when in reality no performers were positive for syphilis. It is extremely likely that this situation is more posturing for AHF’s political agenda. Again, we have no evidence of a fourth performer testing positive for HIV.
As far as the partner identification for the third performer is concerned, all first generation partners have been identified and have retested. Results for all of the performers but one are back and all results are negative. The final result will be back tomorrow. The doctors associated with our testing facilities will teleconference tomorrow to discuss the results and next steps concerning performer testing and the moratorium.
Finally, to address some additional rumors, the doctors have confirmed that the third performer did not work with Ms. Bay or Mr. Daily.
We will continue to provide updates as we receive additional information. Thank you so much for your patience and cooperation.
— Diane Duke, CEO, Free Speech Coalition
I wonder will there ever be a cure for HIV? I'm not being nosey but would many of the girls here get checked often? It is scarey to think about HIV but it is there and hopefully a cure will be found.
tommy all adult models in the usa/uk/eu will get tested at least monthly if they are shooting ...
If a girl is just an escort who knows , but then how often do civiilans get tested ?
Libby i know exactly what you're saying with the ordinary person on the street. It would be a difficult one to change because we all seem to push these things to the back of our minds. The adult models testing is good to hear. But as you say the escorts might need to think about that as well.
thing is do the clients test that visit escorts ? its a 2way street, but then thats why escorts wrap it up :)
I'm going to watch a Christian bareback scene asap.
every thirty days ... sometimes more frequently tommy.... how bout you?
btw Seanchai - the 3rd positive person was the roommate of Cameron Bay, and although they never worked together.....lol #politics
what if tommy doesn't have sexual intercourse as frequently and with multiple partners as adult entertainers or sex workers. do you still think he should text every thirty days or more frequently?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaVeil
The standard for "Civilians" is once every ninety days. Which gives plenty of time to infect multiple partners and their partners to infect people without anyone knowing whats happened. So What do you think, Should Tommy test more frequently? Thats for Tommy to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/HIVtes...iska_626px.jpg
Well people could only hope, but logical thinking will result in realizing there is not money in "Cures" Only treatments.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy001
If a drug company will make 7.1 billion a year in drug treatment sales, how much will cures bring if everyone is cured and no longer needs drugs, Sad..
Some believe that a cure already exists, maybe a cure will come to light.
they will cure hiv and then within 2years release another condition that needs treatments :)
Liberty, i could have not said it better, i think you are exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness
I remember a few years ago, there were two cases of women from Africa in the NYC hospital, with a SEVERE drug resistant case of HIV, I believe they were calling it HIV-3, they had died, now it seems it is up to hundreds and not sure if how many have died.
http://www.prn.org/index.php/prn_new...nt_populations
They may as you stated cure HIV, but another super bug needing treatment will arise.
The Days of free sex will be long gone, if they come back, maybe only for a little while before something comes along.
On another note, when HIV was first coming out, i remember, i was so young, people were so scared, not sure how it was transmitted, the effect, in school, it was all over the classes. I remember asking a doctor years later after they found out how it was transmitted, how it was spread, how they claim it came to be.
And i remember the doctor answering, i asked him after he spoke to our high school class, at that time it was speculated it was created in a lab.
I asked him, why someone would create something like this, i barley remember who he was, but his ANSWER:
He stated POPULATION CONTROL.
Which is FUCKING SAD if it is true.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSLoverIB
ok lets all put on our tin foil hats and stock up on water and ammo for when "they" come for us
Your economic theory there is not sound my friend. Sure, you can make 7 billion treating a cold now, or you could make 50 billion a year for a couple years with residuals of around 1 billion by curing it. Remember, new babies every day, they'll need the vaccine too. While you have the patent rights and are the only one to market you could clean up financially. You then funnel that 50 billion a year (for probably 2 or 3 years before everyone has it) into other investment vehicles, be they other pharma products or financial investments, and now you can make a far better return than a paltry 7 billion a year flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSLoverIB
Remember, treatments are offered by multiple companies, so price elasticity is limited. If all you're doing is treating symptoms you can't charge more than the next guy doing the same thing. But if you're the only cure, you can charge a lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serial138
Your argument is valid but economically speaking even your reasoning is faulty. If one company can bring in profits for treatments at 7 billion a year in drug treatments. A cure, vaccine would bring in a one time cost. Say currently a HPV vaccine in place of HIV is $2000 one time insurance cost. Yet one company can charge to TREAT one patient $2500 a month in medicine. This would be a cost lowered in years of course since patients in the 80s and 90;s were paying much more. Some patients have been on treatment with AZT, the cocktails, etc etc, for FIFTEEN YEARS. Lets say one patient, $2500 or More in Past Years Per Month X 180 Months = $450,000 PER patient. With your argument, you believe a company would charge someone half a million for a cure? Even if someone gets recently infected, and current medicine costs the same. Sorry, NOT HAPPENING, Sounds like treatment is the sick way to go in a business standpoint. Lets take a private company a one time grant cost of 20 Billion to the first company to find a cure for cancer, HIV. Yet cancer brings in 1 billion a YEAR in treatments. Why has no private company found one? because its to hard to find? Because not enough people have died yet?
Intelligent individuals know exactly why....
I should have known better than to argue with a conspiracy theorist.
You forget that treatment only affects those who have the disease, while a preventive measure such as a vaccine can be administered to the entire world population. The CDC says that there are currently 35 million people living with HIV around the world. World population is 7 billion. Which target market would you prefer to have a product aimed at, 35million, or 7 billion?
But lets say that between now and 15 years from now the number of HIV cases triples to 105 million. That's unlikely to happen but just for shits and grins lets go ahead and make that assumption. And we'll also assume everyone pays $30,000 a year for treatment, going off your $2500 a month number. Not figuring inflation, price erosion, or any of a host of other variables in, you get about $47.3 trillion for treatment if that 105 million cases was treated the whole 15 years. Now lets say 3 billion of the world's 7 billion people get a one time treatment for $30,000. That comes out to $90 trillion. Which one would appeal more to the greedy corporations you think?
In addition, you've noted that one patient paying $2500 a month for 15 years is $450,000. You also mentioned that the price is declining, so that $2500 can be expected to decline further, eroding your $450,000 to even less than that. That is not a good investment. Companies want to keep margins up, not see their goods become commodities. And especially in Pharmaceutical companies, generics manufacturers are ready to eat those margins up as soon as the patent expires, so you need to get your money in before it does.
If you do any basic time value of money computation you can determine that any investment returning only 3% (basically just a tiny amount more than inflation) over that same period would yield $567,000. You're going to tell me the greedy company is going to settle for $450,000 (or less because of price erosion) instead of getting $567,000? What about investing it and getting a 5% return, and yielding $676,000 over that 15 year period? Any company would be happy to be able to get their investment out of treating HIV and reinvest in bigger returns.
What was that about intelligent individuals now? For someone who has Gordon Gecko in his avatar, you are extremely naïve about finance and economics.
i don't get what you're saying. i was saying "if tommy doesn't have sex" then you said the standard is to test every 90 days. so if tommy comes within 0 sexual contact or blood transmission he is to test every 90 days?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaVeil
my point was that if tommy is having less frequent intercourse (than sex workers/porn performers) he need not test as frequently- but if he's having more sexual contact than (then mentioned people) then he is to test more.
let's take a different analogy. if someone rides to motorcycle everyday then they should wear a helmet everyday. if you don't ride a motorcycle at all, do you require a helmet?
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaVeil
No chance.
Looking at everyone who doesn't get paid to have sex,
the vast majority of the sexually active population with multiple partners, never get tested, ever.
I was at my National Health Service GUM clinic today, and by mistake
I was given a few minutes with a doctor, rather than just the nurse for
conducting my tests. After confirming all the details held on 'puter still applied,
I asked the doc about the breakdown of people attending their GUM/GUM's across the UK.
She said that a third attend because of symptoms.
Of the two thirds that attend with no symptoms, there is a lot of illogical thought processes. Such as people who have started a sexual relationship with a new partner, wishing to get tested to confirm all is well. As opposed to getting tested before getting sexual with the new partner.
Porn performers are almost unheard of because they mostly go for tests at private clinics.
There are some Escorts.
Swingers/people with multiple sexual partners are in the minority. The true figure for this group may well be higher because people don't always tell the truth.
Looking at the many hundreds of clients I've had,
I am certain that the vast majority have NEVER had an STI test.
Of the few that have, the testing is at best sporadic or a one-off.
An Escort or a Porn performer who tests regularly and always practices safer-sex, is a far safer shag than a random pick up in a club or bar.
Good Point, I am not a sex worker so i can not advice a good testing regimen.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
@Tyler Yes Really. The US Fed Government allows actually will pay for testing every three months. Thats what I was referring too when I said thats the standard. I believe everyone should get tested, its responsible, and AS I just mentioned, people can do it for free - every three months.
Now whether people do or not is an entirely different scenario. That relates to personal choices and in my mind irresponsible ones; which actually leads to spreading all STD's.
@bluesoul: Say tommy got tested two weeks after he had sex and was negative for STD's. He goes six months between encounters. Because it was less frequent is he still not potentially dangerous to his second partner? Of course he is, It generally takes more than 14 days for HIV to show up in a test. THats why I am advocating that people take advantage of whats available to get tested.
As for the analogy, I don't really follow. It seems that it would correspond better to wearing a condom every time a person has sex, not whether some should get tested regularly. #IMO
Ah ok but immaterial.
I'm in the UK where testing is free, even if you go get tested 4 times a day!!!
The point is that people (civilians) generally don't bother getting tested at all.
That's why I assume they all have AIDS and I act accordingly.
And seat belts don't work either, if people don't wear them.