Quote:
Originally Posted by BFT3K
Unprotected sex is dangerous, period. As it has been stated before, so is driving, so if flying, so is giving your kids toys made in China, and on and on it goes. Basically, life is dangerous, and you have to weigh out what risks you care to involve yourself in. Motorcycles are dangerous, but they are fun, so the decision is yours.
As far as the sex industry goes - testing is safer than not testing, but it is far from 100% safe. In order to make it totally safe you would have to test talent for EVERYTHING, and then forbid them to have any sex with anyone who is not in the testing database, and then register every scene with the testing facility, so if an STD breaks out, the registered talent that the positive person came into sexual contact with is immediately informed.
You would practically have to run a sex jail compound of some sort, to prevent any breach in this disease free fantasy world that would be required to make sex safer. As that is never going to happen, you might as well just buy a Harley and have some fun while you are still breathing - or hide in a sexless room, safe with your boring existence.
|
Hey man, I think you're missing the point. While your logic is MOSTLY sound, here's why naming names does make a difference.
Let's say a performer tests positive for HIV. Taking that performer out of the talent pool is just the first step. You next need to look at everyone who that performer has shot scenes with in the past X days to notify them that they too COULD be infected. Those people need to ALSO be taken out of the talent pool at least until it has been enough time to determine that yes, they are in fact negative. Testing them right away might not produce positive results even if they ARE positive because as someone pointed out, tests might take time. So they need to sit out for a while until they can be completely cleared, otherwise it's possible they too could infect people before a positive test result comes back.
Now, without the name of the original person who tested positive... how are you going to quarantine all of their recent partners? I totally get privacy concerns, but I also get why performers need to be protected from HIV ... and I think that trumps privacy concerns in this industry.
The only reason why I'm not for mandatory condoms is because it won't happen universally no matter what CA politicians do, so why put restrictions on just people in CA? That's the kind of reactionary things that politicians do that never yields positive results. Now, if they can help AIM do the right thing without getting sued... THAT would be helpful.