CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Sex › HIV Breakout in Porn Industry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HIV Breakout in Porn Industry

post #1 of 41
6/12/09 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
This reminds me of an incident that happen some years back which led to condoms being used. There are no rules on the books requiring it. But I honestly ask (As someone who really doesn't want porn) is putting on a condom that big of a deal for a scene?

LA Times Story
Reply
post #2 of 41
6/12/09 at 1:59pm
If I'm a male porn star,no way am I not gonna wear a rubber. It's like a cop wearing a bulletproof vest. If I'm a woman in the porn industry, I wouldn't do a scene with a dude who wasn't wrapped. I don't understand why people haven't figured this out yet.

As a viewer, the "aesthetics" of a scene are not ruined for me when there's a condom involved, I pretty much don't give two shits.

If I'm a producer of a porn film, I would want to make sure my people were safe. It's not even a financial decision. It's not like people are going to stop watching porn because someone's wearing a rubber.

I'm not sure why this isn't a more common practice. Any thoughts? For those who watch porn, does a condom make that big of a difference to you?
Reply
post #3 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
This reminds me of an incident that happen some years back which led to condoms being used. There are no rules on the books requiring it. But I honestly ask (As someone who really doesn't want porn) is putting on a condom that big of a deal for a scene?

LA Times Story
Porn is fantasy, condoms are reality. Marketing will dictate whether condoms ever become a thing or not (they won't, not anytime soon).
Reply
post #4 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:09pm
Thread Starter 
It's funny you mention that because it goes back to this podcast I listen to in which the two guys do bitch about the fact condoms were used for a time and then went back to this. I mean is it that big of a deal?

I can tell ya I would never watch gay porn (Once again not something I do often) where condoms were not used. There is absoultely no justification for such activity.
Reply
post #5 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
I can tell ya I would never watch gay porn (Once again not something I do often) where condoms were not used. There is absoultely no justification for such activity.
Dude, stop trying to acquit yourself of sleazebaggery, who cares? The culture of gay porn is almost in direct contrast to straight porn, as not using condoms in gay porn is seen as somewhat taboo to the point where it's designated as its own genre (barebacking).

Yes, I know a good bit about this shit, it's just interesting to me.
Reply
post #6 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:31pm
Thread Starter 
I wasn't even trying to distance myself. I was remarking on my experience. Although I can see how that be read as me saying "I don't watch porn cuz it's filthy". I'm not all that crazy about porn cuz seeing the junk all up in there isn't all that pleasing. Different strokes for...and you know the rest.
Reply
post #7 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
I can tell ya I would never watch gay porn (Once again not something I do often) where condoms were not used. There is absoultely no justification for such activity.
If there was no justification, then there would be no demand for porn without condoms. In fact though, there seems to be quite a demand for porn without condoms (yes, while there is a subgenre of gay porn - barebacking; however, I've noticed it becoming more prevalent in all genres). Which goes back to Johnny's statement of porn being fantasy and condoms being reality. Which do most people prefer to see? Fantasy.
Reply
post #8 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:48pm
I admit, a condom sorta takes me out of the fantasy, but really I don't see the problem with making sure everyone is tested before they get their scene on.

If someone hasn't been tested recently then they're not doing any fucking. If I was a porn producer or director, I would make that mandatory.
Reply
post #9 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:50pm
Is it really a marketing issue? If someone who is into say, I dunno, BBW flicks, is it really gonna matter to them if the guy is wearing a condom? No, as long as there are Big Busty Women as advertised, I don't see the condom thing being an issue.
Reply
post #10 of 41
6/12/09 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radb707 View Post
I admit, a condom sorta takes me out of the fantasy, but really I don't see the problem with making sure everyone is tested before they get their scene on.

If someone hasn't been tested recently then they're not doing any fucking. If I was a porn producer or director, I would make that mandatory.
It is mandatory, I'm just not certain how often they're tested.

It really is amazing shit like this doesn't happen more often, all things considered.
Reply
post #11 of 41
6/12/09 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radb707 View Post
I admit, a condom sorta takes me out of the fantasy, but really I don't see the problem with making sure everyone is tested before they get their scene on.

If someone hasn't been tested recently then they're not doing any fucking. If I was a porn producer or director, I would make that mandatory.
Even tested guys/girls had some chance to be infected. Multiply this small chance for tons of scenes per day and there you have an outbreak.
Reply
post #12 of 41
6/12/09 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuCornelius View Post
Is it really a marketing issue? If someone who is into say, I dunno, BBW flicks, is it really gonna matter to them if the guy is wearing a condom? No, as long as there are Big Busty Women as advertised, I don't see the condom thing being an issue.
Having condoms distract from the fantasy of porn in general, has nothing to do with any particular fetish. In my personal life, I've always worn protection (except in the case of an unexpected situation w/ a drunken stripper, a story I told on those boards 2 - 3 years back), but that's me, not my fantasy avatar, Long Dick Butters - I totally just made that name up, but you get my point.
Reply
post #13 of 41
6/12/09 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feral Akodon View Post
Even tested guys/girls had some chance to be infected. Multiply this small chance for tons of scenes per day and there you have an outbreak.
Also, there is a case of male pornstar who faked his results and infected several co-stars. Why he did this, I have no idea; denial or sociopathy or both.
Reply
post #14 of 41
6/12/09 at 4:24pm
I was actually twittering with a porn star about this article today. According to her, or another porn star I follow, the industry as a whole actually has 1/4 the rate of infection that society does.

Here's what she said to me:

@kaylanicream "AIM officials have told county officials ... not required to notify the county until seven days after confirm test"

@kaylanicream that alone proves it. they report to CDC by law, county giving them less than 7 days & accusing them of not cooperating? whatever

@kaylanicream so, again, their estimation of 16 infected etc. is the reason they're allowed to wait. so they don't start scare tactics

@kaylanicream ...what I'm saying is, the rumor mill has it going through the grapevine as 16 this month from the recent 1. not true
Reply
post #15 of 41
6/12/09 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
Having condoms distract from the fantasy of porn in general, has nothing to do with any particular fetish. In my personal life, I've always worn protection (except in the case of an unexpected situation w/ a drunken stripper, a story I told on those boards 2 - 3 years back), but that's me, not my fantasy avatar, Long Dick Butters - I totally just made that name up, but you get my point.
Until my last girlfriend, now wife, I'd never once, ever, had sex sans condom, and we only did it after we were both tested and were sure we'd be okay if a kid resulted. I never even once did the "just the tip for a minute" thing. Always skinned, every damn time, no exceptions.

And I have zero interest in condoms in porn. I see a rubber, I'm not watching. I know that is extremely hypocritical given my own person rules regarding their usage, but that's just how it is. Judging by the lack of condoms in porn, I'm in the majority.

Does that make myself and others who won't watch rubbers in porn partially culpable for this kind of shit happening? Maybe. I'm still going to enjoy watching Bobbi Starr taking eight loads in the ass though.
Reply
post #16 of 41
6/12/09 at 4:43pm
Ed, why the weird insistence that you don't watch (or want, not sure if that was a typo in post 1) porn, while absolutely obsessing over the details of the business, to the point of subscribing to porn podcasts?

I don't watch "much" porn, but the amount of time I spend on it without my dick in my hand is nil.

I find this curious.
Reply
post #17 of 41
6/12/09 at 4:48pm
I'm not a huge purveyor of porn, but isn't a (inexplicably) big thing in guy/girl situations the "money shot" of the dude ejaculating? How do you come on a girl's face if your manhood is sheathed?

I have never ever understood the appeal of come shots. Who needs a cue to climax?
Reply
post #18 of 41
6/12/09 at 4:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Ed, why the weird insistence that you don't watch (or want, not sure if that was a typo in post 1) porn, while absolutely obsessing over the details of the business, to the point of subscribing to porn podcasts?
I don't obsess over the business, albeit it can be interesting to talk about (Plus, look where I am *points to location*). I thought this story would be worth mentioning. The only reason I listen to the podcast is because it's interesting to listen to these reviews which are done completely straight i.e. having legitimate criticism about a scene.

Plus, I crack up when they go through the list of names associated with said flick. And it's an audio medium, meaning I don't have to see what some girl's OB/GYN sees on an annual basis or whenever women have to go in.
Reply
post #19 of 41
6/12/09 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee View Post
I'm not a huge purveyor of porn, but isn't a (inexplicably) big thing in guy/girl situations the "money shot" of the dude ejaculating? How do you come on a girl's face if your manhood is sheathed?

I have never ever understood the appeal of come shots. Who needs a cue to climax?
It's an act of degredation. Wish fulfillment of dominance over someone?

I'm pretty sure that the money shot can be done without a condom without risk of HIV transmission as long as it's not in the mouth. It's usually intercourse that causes problems.

This is a sad story, but there's carelessness across the board here and it's a dangerous disease to play around with.
Reply
post #20 of 41
6/12/09 at 11:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
It is mandatory, I'm just not certain how often they're tested.
I'm pretty sure it varies based on the production company. In California, at least, there aren't any laws requiring regular testing of the performers, and I remember reading several years ago that the STD rate among adult performers in California is around 10 times that of professional sex workers in Nevada (where regular testing and condom use are required by state law).
Reply
post #21 of 41
6/12/09 at 11:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee View Post
I'm not a huge purveyor of porn, but isn't a (inexplicably) big thing in guy/girl situations the "money shot" of the dude ejaculating? How do you come on a girl's face if your manhood is sheathed?

I have never ever understood the appeal of come shots. Who needs a cue to climax?
Well, it brings the narrative to its natural conclusion, doesn't it? What I don't get is a compilation that's all come shots.

Seriously, though, I imagine the money shot, such as it is, is the main reason for the lack of rubbers in porn. And as others have pointed out, the come shot is increasingly in or around the mouth or on the face. Hence a possible rise in infection.

[Grandpa Simpson]Whatever happened to a nice pearl necklace?[/Grandpa Simpson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
I don't watch "much" porn, but the amount of time I spend on it without my dick in my hand is nil.
Quoted for truth.
Reply
post #22 of 41
6/12/09 at 11:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde View Post
I was actually twittering with a porn star about this article today.
...

Did you tweet inside her or did you twit out?
Reply
post #23 of 41
6/13/09 at 2:12am
Do porn "stars" have any sort of union? You'd think they would so that way a girl can actually be fairly compensated for being a nine-way cumdumpster. Or a guy.
Reply
post #24 of 41
6/13/09 at 3:04am
Fairly compensated? Most of these girls walk away with about $1000 for a scene, which is not even an afternoon's worth of work. Even if they shoot only 3 scenes a week, they're pulling in $156,000 a year.

A shot in the mouth doesn't sound so bad with checks like that coming in.
Reply
post #25 of 41
6/13/09 at 3:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knife Chase View Post
A shot in the mouth doesn't sound so bad with checks like that coming in.
So you'd happily sign up then?
Reply
post #26 of 41
6/13/09 at 4:20am
Something I've always wondered, and it might be a stupid question...

Prostitution is illegal(the vast majority of places). Making a porno is legal(many places).

Why is making porn considered more acceptable? Not only did someone fuck for money... but it's also been recorded.
Reply
post #27 of 41
6/13/09 at 4:35am
The fact that it's taped/photographed/printed and sold as product and/or presented as art, protects it as free speech, also, it can be taxed and thus, is economically viable.
Reply
post #28 of 41
6/13/09 at 4:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
The fact that it's taped/photographed/printed and sold as product and/or presented as art, protects it as free speech, also, it can be taxed and thus, is economically viable.
Thanks. Taxation was my guess, but I'd never thought of the "art" angle.
Reply
post #29 of 41
6/13/09 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
Thanks. Taxation was my guess, but I'd never thought of the "art" angle.
Well, I've seen some pornos that I thought were pure fuckin' art. Just sayin'.

I never really understood the whole "condoms bad" thing when it comes to porn, especially in the days of AIDS. I've seen plenty of vids(!) where condom use is evident, and not once did it even matter or take me out of the moment. If anything, I'd happily give 'em a pass, 'cause condom use means it's likelier I can see more work from the performers in the future, as opposed to careers (and, more importantly, lives) cut tragically short.

Honestly if you're watching a porn, and you get distracted by the sight of a Trojan, you're doing it wrong.
Reply
post #30 of 41
6/13/09 at 2:13pm
Where do you find the movies where one porn actor infects another with HIV?
Reply
post #31 of 41
6/13/09 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
So you'd happily sign up then?
I'd happily cash the check. Not sure I'd be smilin' with pud on my face, though.
Reply
post #32 of 41
6/13/09 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louris View Post
And I have zero interest in condoms in porn. I see a rubber, I'm not watching.
Same for me. The second I see a condom I'm out.
Reply
post #33 of 41
6/13/09 at 6:10pm
Fun fact: Kubrick thought of making a porn film with famous actors. Eventually dismissed the idea.
Reply
post #34 of 41
6/13/09 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knife Chase View Post
Fairly compensated? Most of these girls walk away with about $1000 for a scene
Try $400. The ones making $1000 are the 'name' pornstars, which most of these girls aren't. Factor in the 'human meat grinder' element, which results in the more work they do, they more worn out they look, and the less money they make, forcing them to either do more work, or start doing weird shit, and it gets pretty horrible.

The reason there aren't either unions, or laws about working conditions in adult films is that they would be seen as legitimizing an industry which the state is more than happy to get tax revenue from, but would also like to pretend doesn't exist.
Reply
post #35 of 41
6/13/09 at 9:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
Fun fact: Kubrick thought of making a porn film with famous actors. Eventually dismissed the idea.
The lighting would be amazing.
Reply
post #36 of 41
6/14/09 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
Fun fact: Kubrick thought of making a porn film with famous actors. Eventually dismissed the idea.
The remnants of that idea no doubt made it into Eyes Wide Shut.

"Oh well, I can at least have people fucking around famous actors!"

It will happen one day. Too bad Kubrick won't be doing it.
Reply
post #37 of 41
6/14/09 at 3:10am
This thread is seriously killing my masturbation buzz.
Reply
post #38 of 41
6/14/09 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
Fun fact: Kubrick thought of making a porn film with famous actors. Eventually dismissed the idea.
Paul Verhoven picked up that torch, but didn't run very far with it.
Reply
post #39 of 41
6/15/09 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy five-tone View Post
Seriously, though, I imagine the money shot, such as it is, is the main reason for the lack of rubbers in porn. And as others have pointed out, the come shot is increasingly in or around the mouth or on the face. Hence a possible rise in infection.
Oral infection is incredibly rare. People aren't contracting HIV through the face shot.
Reply
post #40 of 41
6/15/09 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
Do porn "stars" have any sort of union?
Yes- the Federation of American Pornographic Personnel (F.A.P.P.), I believe their motto is "You think YOUR members hate scabs"
Reply
post #41 of 41
6/15/09 at 6:18pm
The one big negative of seeing a condom is that it removes the possibility of a surprise creampie.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sex
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Sex › HIV Breakout in Porn Industry