WTF?!? LA Times: 16 Previously Confirmed HIV Cases in Porn Industry (Since 2004) - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

JFK · 06-12-2009, 09:11 AM

Fitty ..............

marcop · 06-12-2009, 09:22 AM

I just spoke to an agent, who told me he was aware of some of those positive HIV tests in between 2004 and now. As far as he knew, they were all people who were getting tested for the first time before entering the industry. So these people would've not entered the biz, and did not contract HIV during a porn shoot.

amacontent · 06-12-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

I just spoke to an agent, who told me he was aware of some of those positive HIV tests in between 2004 and now. As far as he knew, they were all people who were getting tested for the first time before entering the industry. So these people would've not entered the biz, and did not contract HIV during a porn shoot.

Gee youre saying AIM did its job and prevented HIV infected people from entering our industry
Maybe all the peeps on AIMs shit should get al the facts before jumping on them as I should have before jumping on Nina

collegeboobies · 06-12-2009, 09:35 AM

time for someone AIM exposed to sue them

dyna mo · 06-12-2009, 09:40 AM

l.a. fox news picked up this story and ran a pretty sad piece about it this morning.

Easton · 06-12-2009, 09:41 AM

From Adult FYI

"Dr. Colin Hamblin, AIM's medical director, provided a different timeline of events later today. Hamblin said the porn actress first tested HIV positive on June 4 and worked the following day for reasons he said were still being investigated. A second positive result came back Saturday."

U N R E A L

JP-pornshooter · 06-12-2009, 09:52 AM

i am not surprised.. and i said same in previous posts..if these infectious were contracted within the industry it would be cause for some concern.

Connor · 06-12-2009, 09:53 AM

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.

Easton · 06-12-2009, 09:55 AM

^^ well said ^^

eroticsexxx · 06-12-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDF

wow..16 people is a LOT of people

Pardon my optimistic view on this matter, but that is 16 out of how many persons who film and record scenes daily.

There needs to be a proper statistical record regarding this matter. Adult Entertainment actors and actresses have unprotected sex far more than the general public, but yet have avoided mass outbreaks of HIV.

Some of you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. AIM HAS SAVED LIVES! No system of sexual behavior is perfectly free from HIV except for abstinence.

BFT3K · 06-12-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

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.

I agree, but that goes back to one of my previous statements; that you would/should have to instantly register each scene's date and talent list with a central database, run by AIM or whoever, so that whenever a person tests positive for ANY STD everyone they worked with, and everyone THEY worked with, are instantly and directly informed.

This is the only way that companies like AIM can protect themselves from lawsuits, and it is the only way to maintain SOME privacy rights for performers.

If like you said, Joe Shmoe tests positive, who is AIM going to inform? Are they going to come to GFY and out Joe Shmoe? Then what? Are all producers then going to claim that they shot Joe Shmoe? Who is going to leak the names of the talent that Joe Shmoe shot with, who MAY or MAY NOT have been infected? Are those people going to be happy to see their names publicly displayed for all to see? They would be the folks who tested negative to begin with.

Without a tightly enforced, all encompassing, and frequently updated database for the adult industry, naming names could be just as irresponsible as not naming them.

JP-pornshooter · 06-12-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I agree, but that goes back to one of my previous statements; that you would/should have to instantly register each scene's date and talent list with a central database, run by AIM or whoever, so that whenever a person tests positive for ANY STD everyone they worked with, and everyone THEY worked with, are instantly and directly informed.

This is the only way that companies like AIM can protect themselves from lawsuits, and it is the only way to maintain SOME privacy rights for performers.

If like you said, Joe Shmoe tests positive, who is AIM going to inform? Are they going to come to GFY and out Joe Shmoe? Then what? Are all producers then going to claim that they shot Joe Shmoe? Who is going to leak the names of the talent that Joe Shmoe shot with, who MAY or MAY NOT have been infected? Are those people going to be happy to see their names publicly displayed for all to see? They would be the folks who tested negative to begin with.

Without a tightly enforced, all encompassing, and frequently updated database for the adult industry, naming names could be just as irresponsible as not naming them.

1. AIM already tested level 1 individuals (as early as monday and all came back with negative test(s) yes they were tested several times.
2. People have sex off camera with non-industry people, would be impossible to keep track of those..

DWB · 06-12-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

i am not surprised.. and i said same in previous posts..if these infectious were contracted within the industry it would be cause for some concern.

Let me add, there have been a few well know LA producers come to Thailand to make porn. Of the handful of girls I knew that worked with them, NONE of them had any testing at all and worked non-condom with American actors, who I'm sure went right back to the USA and kept on working. Lucky for them it turned out OK (or did it?), but this is a perfect example of the reckless behavior that surrounds the industry.

Walter Gropius · 06-12-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobilefun1987

I don't see the big deal with the whole "we don't want condoms in porn" bullshit.

I've seen Vivid do it a lot.

I even watched a lesbian DVD yesterday where they even used condoms on the strap-ons to protect against regular STDs.

It all makes perfect sense.

And if porn buyers don't respect the need to use protection to protect peoples lives then they are even bigger idiots that are probably having un-protected sex with hookers and sluts and will probably catch it themselves.

Porn should lead by example and start using protection for all scenes. it will also lead to viewers and youngsters who manage to watch porn into seeing that you should use protection and protect yourself.

Porn in these times I believe is a major cause for the spread of infections and teenage pregnancy. Obviously there are a lot of other factors. but by not using protection in porn production people out there are thinking:

"hey this girl has been in over 100 scenes fucking guys and she doesn't catch anything! why should I wear a condom"

I'm sick of people comparing HIV to things like road accidents, cancer, heart attacks, policemen and firemen getting hurt or killed, etc etc. There is nothing you can put on your dick that will prevent any of the above from happening. Condoms do, on the other hand, prevent HIV. You become a fireman, you know you might get burned. You eat like shit, you know you might have a heart attack. You drive a car, you know you might crash. You go into porn, you know you might get HIV... unless you wear a condom.

maxjohan · 06-12-2009, 12:34 PM

The fact that they don't realeases info on preformers
are just a shame. That should become law.

BVF · 06-12-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobilefun1987

I don't see the big deal with the whole "we don't want condoms in porn" bullshit.

I've seen Vivid do it a lot.

I even watched a lesbian DVD yesterday where they even used condoms on the strap-ons to protect against regular STDs.

It all makes perfect sense.

And if porn buyers don't respect the need to use protection to protect peoples lives then they are even bigger idiots that are probably having un-protected sex with hookers and sluts and will probably catch it themselves.

Porn should lead by example and start using protection for all scenes. it will also lead to viewers and youngsters who manage to watch porn into seeing that you should use protection and protect yourself.

Porn in these times I believe is a major cause for the spread of infections and teenage pregnancy. Obviously there are a lot of other factors. but by not using protection in porn production people out there are thinking:

"hey this girl has been in over 100 scenes fucking guys and she doesn't catch anything! why should I wear a condom"

Have you shot and distributed even ONE porn scene in your whole life?

BFT3K · 06-13-2009, 08:39 AM

Here is the LA Times story regarding this...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3569962.story

LoveSandra · 06-13-2009, 11:21 AM

sad news ..

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

be taken out of the talent pool

This is one of the problems I've been harping on the last two days...

Everyone in California THINK that they are the end all and be all. This so-called "talent pool" is nothing more than a couple of dozen "models" at LA Direct that those companies shoot over and over and over again.

So IF a person were to test positive and yet they were complete lunatics and felt the need to shoot porn and spread HIV...they could simply leave California and go anywhere in the world and perform.

Not saying that's likely. I'm just saying that everyone keeps using the terms "porn industry" and the "talent pool" etc.

We need to realize that the MAJORITY of porn is not shot in California. Yeah, the big old school Video companies are there. And yeah there are some big boy affiliate programs who made that their shooting base as well.

But there are thousands of smaller operations (like mine) around the world who have never and will never shoot a scene in LA

And there are lots of very big companies who don't shoot in LA either. Payserve for instance is in the Netherlands. Incredible Dollars travels the world shooting new girls that have never been seen before. Celian of X-Cel is in Paris. The list goes on and on.

I don't know if it's narcissism (I mean look at the AVN awards...it's just the same people who practically live next door to each other handing awards to themselves and ignoring some of the top selling people in this industry just because they aren't working in porn valley), or just isolationism...but there is NO way to remove anybody from the "talent pool" in porn.

Just like there's no way to remove anybody from the "fucking pool" in real life.

Thankfully, it's pretty damn difficult to catch HIV:

"According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. With a condom it's even safer--one in 50 million. Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million (source: The Odds on Virtually Everything, Heron House, 1980). You're in much greater danger of being struck by lightning (1 in 600,000), having your house bombed (1 in 290,000), or being murdered (1 in 11,000)."

flashfire · 06-13-2009, 12:52 PM

you mean having random sex 40 times a week is risky!

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashfire

you mean having random sex 40 times a week is risky!

Nope, but it's fun! Driving to somewhere to have random sex 40 times a week is risky...

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-13-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million.

Thanks for the warning Robbie! I tossed my big box of Mr Bubble the fuck out as soon as I read this!

ADG

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Thanks for the warning Robbie! I tossed my big box of Mr Bubble the fuck out as soon as I read this!

ADG

No problem bro...Safety first is my motto

bizarrejan · 06-13-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Gropius

I'm sick of people comparing HIV to things like road accidents, cancer, heart attacks, policemen and firemen getting hurt or killed, etc etc. There is nothing you can put on your dick that will prevent any of the above from happening. Condoms do, on the other hand, prevent HIV. You become a fireman, you know you might get burned. You eat like shit, you know you might have a heart attack. You drive a car, you know you might crash. You go into porn, you know you might get HIV... unless you wear a condom.

I do agree with you, but I also think that in life we take risks every day of our lives, we can try to limit the risks which we take, ie, condoms, but nothing is 100 percent safe......

Grapesoda · 06-13-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Everyone in California THINK that they are the end all and be all. This so-called "talent pool" is nothing more than a couple of dozen "models" at LA Direct that those companies shoot over and over and over again.

this is pretty much completely wrong. I've shot over 3K models and only about 7 of them were from LA Direct. $.02

CaptainHowdy · 06-13-2009, 02:51 PM

Holy crappers...

tony286 · 06-13-2009, 03:07 PM

Ive seen alot of internet porn where they are using condoms. For the most part you cant tell his dick just looks extra shiny. Do I think it will end porn production in the us? No because some major net companies use condoms in shoots already. It doesnt have to be obvious, she is blowing him then cut to him fucking her. Also if they like the girl, they will still like that girl. If the action is hot and everyone is into what they are doing.It will still sell.
And for once we would set a good example.

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm bradley

this is pretty much completely wrong. I've shot over 3K models and only about 7 of them were from LA Direct. $.02

3,000 different girls for adult? That's pretty damn impressive. Was that all hardcore shoots? Or pretty girl solo stuff that I wouldn't count as porn anyway in this instance.

I was trying to point out that there aren't that many "performers" based there like the LA Times is insinuating. Am I wrong on that? Because I keep seeing the same girls over and over fucking the same guys over and over on every company that shoots in Porn Valley. That's where my statement was coming from.

If there really are 1,500 HARDCORE performers that would have anything to do with this AIM/HIV story...why the heck don't they use them? lol

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Ive seen alot of internet porn where they are using condoms. For the most part you cant tell his dick just looks extra shiny. Do I think it will end porn production in the us? No because some major net companies use condoms in shoots already. It doesnt have to be obvious, she is blowing him then cut to him fucking her. Also if they like the girl, they will still like that girl. If the action is hot and everyone is into what they are doing.It will still sell.
And for once we would set a good example.

Tony, I don't think it would sell for shit. That's just my opinion...but I'm basing it on what I know sells for me.

And I think if the companies in California are forced to shoot with condoms they will all leave California and scootch right over here 4 hours drive to Nevada and Arizona where a lot of companies are already at anyway.

tony286 · 06-13-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Tony, I don't think it would sell for shit. That's just my opinion...but I'm basing it on what I know sells for me.

And I think if the companies in California are forced to shoot with condoms they will all leave California and scootch right over here 4 hours drive to Nevada and Arizona where a lot of companies are already at anyway.

http://monstersofcock.com/t1/pps=comein/ I think they make alittle money look at the fucking pictures in the tour some condom some no condom. If its hot and they still get their cum shot on tits or face or ass.I dont think they care.

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

http://monstersofcock.com/t1/pps=comein/ I think they make alittle money look at the fucking pictures in the tour some condom some no condom. If its hot and they still get their cum shot on tits or face or ass.I dont think they care.

I'm pretty sure the condom ones are at the express request of one of the talents. Everybody has one of those scenes here and there. For instance CM did a scene a couple of years back for a friends company and the male talent had a "pact" with his girlfriend that he would only have sex with other women when wearing a condom. Thus, a condom scene.

It was lame by the way.

I'm not arguing with you or anything. I'm just saying that when I watch porn, I'm not there to see a condom or for that matter anybody "making love" either lol

I want to see some major fucking. And the sales I have made from sites I have promoted over the years with my traffic have confirmed that to me.

Just like when we opened up claudia-marie.com 2 years ago. I could have went the softcore route...but I KNEW where the money was at and I went and got it.

Anyway, it's just my opinion on it. One thing is for sure. Non-condom will outsell condom every minute of the day, every day of the week. And I'm not gonna shoot any condom scenes ever. I kinda hope everybody else does so I can make more money. lol

MissMina · 06-13-2009, 04:06 PM

Maybe condoms that don't look like there is one on. Just an idea.

tony286 · 06-13-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm pretty sure the condom ones are at the express request of one of the talents. Everybody has one of those scenes here and there. For instance CM did a scene a couple of years back for a friends company and the male talent had a "pact" with his girlfriend that he would only have sex with other women when wearing a condom. Thus, a condom scene.

It was lame by the way.

I'm not arguing with you or anything. I'm just saying that when I watch porn, I'm not there to see a condom or for that matter anybody "making love" either lol

I want to see some major fucking. And the sales I have made from sites I have promoted over the years with my traffic have confirmed that to me.

Just like when we opened up claudia-marie.com 2 years ago. I could have went the softcore route...but I KNEW where the money was at and I went and got it.

Anyway, it's just my opinion on it. One thing is for sure. Non-condom will outsell condom every minute of the day, every day of the week. And I'm not gonna shoot any condom scenes ever. I kinda hope everybody else does so I can make more money. lol

if they like claudia marie they will buy if she was fucking in a wet suit. I think its important to you because thats what you are into. When I was a porn watcher I never thought about it. Condoms are not softcore. lol

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I think its important to you because thats what you are into.

BINGO. And I create and promote what I know. Basic rule there. That's why it's successful. My cock is like a Divining Rod for money.

So far it's worked out pretty good.

If I find it "hot" it seems to sell. The things I find "cold", not so much. I'm pretty sure that how most of us work right?

I personally wouldn't watch a condom scene. When I put my marketing cap on the first thing that comes to mind is: "There must be something wrong with either the girl or the guy because they are wearing a rubber" And the second thought I'd have would be: "This sucks"

I wouldn't be able to get excited by it at all. Hell, I feel cheated if I watch a scene and the girl doesn't do anal.

I suppose that if a company shot all their scenes with condoms they would have some people maybe buy it. But I know I wouldn't. And I think a large portion of the consumers wouldn't as well.

Just my thought. One way or another...if I have any control over it... a condom covered penis will never be seen in anything I shoot.

tony286 · 06-13-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

BINGO. And I create and promote what I know. Basic rule there. That's why it's successful. My cock is like a Divining Rod for money.

So far it's worked out pretty good.

If I find it "hot" it seems to sell. The things I find "cold", not so much. I'm pretty sure that how most of us work right?

I personally wouldn't watch a condom scene. When I put my marketing cap on the first thing that comes to mind is: "There must be something wrong with either the girl or the guy because they are wearing a rubber" And the second thought I'd have would be: "This sucks"

I wouldn't be able to get excited by it at all. Hell, I feel cheated if I watch a scene and the girl doesn't do anal.

I suppose that if a company shot all their scenes with condoms they would have some people maybe buy it. But I know I wouldn't. And I think a large portion of the consumers wouldn't as well.

Just my thought. One way or another...if I have any control over it... a condom covered penis will never be seen in anything I shoot.

I can see your point.

Robbie · 06-13-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I can see your point.

Really? Cause I'm just making this shit up as I go.

Now get your big ass over to Vegas and let's hit the town bro.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-13-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

if they like claudia marie they will buy if she was fucking in a wet suit.

Wet suit?!?

Please Robbie, please...

ADG

Due · 06-13-2009, 04:56 PM

According to the NY DAILY NEWS there is about 55000 people that get AIDS in USA EVERY year, compared to these 16 people during the last 5 years (3-4 per year) in the adult business it does not really appear to be that bad, probably below average of any other industry.

Walter Gropius · 06-14-2009, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizarrejan

I do agree with you, but I also think that in life we take risks every day of our lives, we can try to limit the risks which we take, ie, condoms, but nothing is 100 percent safe......

Maybe not 100 percent safe but wearing a condom does reduce the risk of getting HIV or any other STI by like a million billion zillion times (ish), so it's pretty much as good as 100 percent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Wet suit?!?

Please Robbie, please...

ADG

amacontent · 06-14-2009, 09:48 AM

ADG, before jumping on the drama bandwagon like the LA Times, check facts bro. Out of the 16., they were all either in the gay industry or wanting to join the industry and were denied. So Aim is doing thier job. There was not 1 case in non gay porn.

Robbie · 06-14-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Gropius

Maybe not 100 percent safe but wearing a condom does reduce the risk of getting HIV or any other STI by like a million billion zillion times (ish), so it's pretty much as good as 100 percent.

Here are the stats I looked up on the odds:

"According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. With a condom it's even safer--one in 50 million. Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million (source: The Odds on Virtually Everything, Heron House, 1980). You're in much greater danger of being struck by lightning (1 in 600,000), having your house bombed (1 in 290,000), or being murdered (1 in 11,000).

The numbers get a lot worse if you engage in "high-risk behavior"--having sexual intercourse or sharing needles with a member of a high-risk group, e.g., a gay or bisexual male or IV drug user from a major metro area, or a hemophiliac. The chances of getting AIDS from one such encounter range as high as 1 in 10,000 using a condom to 1 in 1,000 unprotected. Even if your partner tests negative for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the chances of infection from a high-risk person are still relatively high--1 in 50,000 without a condom. That's because there's a 45 to 90 day window during which a newly infected person can infect others but test negative. (A few people go as long as 180 days.)

From there on out, statistically speaking, things deteriorate pretty fast. If your partner is HIV-positive, your chances of getting AIDS after one night are 1 in 5,000 with a condom, 1 in 500 without. Have sex with an HIV-positive partner 500 times using condoms and your chances escalate to 1 in 11. Skip the gift wrap and they're 2 in 3.

A couple points: These odds apply equally to men and women. Although there's reason to believe male-to-female AIDS transmission happens more often than female-to-male, the amount of difference is unknown. Also, I have to emphasize again, the numbers involve a lot of guesswork. The authors admit they could be off by a factor of ten in either direction. Still, one message comes through loud and clear: by far the best thing you can do to avoid AIDS is to be picky about your partners. Use of condoms reduces your risk by a factor of 10, sleeping only with people who test negative reduces it by a factor of 5 to 50, but avoiding high-risk partners reduces it by a factor of 5,000. (You'd also be well advised to avoid high-risk behavior, such as unprotected receptive anal sex.) Asking for a resume may not be romantic, but it beats Kaposi's sarcoma."

Robbie · 06-14-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Gropius

Maybe not 100 percent safe but wearing a condom does reduce the risk of getting HIV or any other STI by like a million billion zillion times (ish), so it's pretty much as good as 100 percent.

So a condom statistically raises your level of protection by a factor of 10

Not quite a million billion zillion...but still pretty good.

Walter Gropius · 06-14-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

So a condom statistically raises your level of protection by a factor of 10

Not quite a million billion zillion...but still pretty good.

Ah come on, I was pretty close!

Robbie · 06-14-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Gropius

Ah come on, I was pretty close!

As Don Adams used to say on "Get Smart" the television series: "Missed it by that much"

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-14-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amacontent

ADG, before jumping on the drama bandwagon like the LA Times, check facts bro.

I'll try and be as careful and do as good of fact checking as you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by amacontent

Maybe all the peeps on AIMs shit should get al the facts before jumping on them as I should have before jumping on Nina

...and from now on I will trust everything AIM says without question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amacontent

quote from LA DIRECT MODELS:

‎(11:55 AM):
I spoke to Brooke who said if it was a positive test in the adult industry we would all be informed ASAP and shut down. AIM tests Civilians, and talent!!! That is exactly when she said to me if it was in the industry we would know

‎(11:56 AM):
She said there is nothing to be alarmed about!

That was before Brooke admitted there was a Positive case after all, but that it was not a "major event".

It was only after the story came out about an additional "16 performers" testing positive that AIM made some clarification. Even with that, not all of the facts are known.

I do try to be careful and fact check before making claims, in this case I cited the LA Times as a source, which had cited public health officials.

ADG

06-12-2009, 09:11 AM	#51
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	Fitty .............. __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

06-12-2009, 09:41 AM	#56
Easton Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 9,825	From Adult FYI "Dr. Colin Hamblin, AIM's medical director, provided a different timeline of events later today. Hamblin said the porn actress first tested HIV positive on June 4 and worked the following day for reasons he said were still being investigated. A second positive result came back Saturday." U N R E A L __________________ New models booked and shot every week... MILFs, pornstars and teens. Girls for every niche and project. Looking for high-quality affordable exclusive content? Check me out at Easton Content for all the details.

06-12-2009, 09:52 AM	#57
JP-pornshooter Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: westcoast usa Posts: 4,007	i am not surprised.. and i said same in previous posts..if these infectious were contracted within the industry it would be cause for some concern. __________________ "Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown

06-12-2009, 09:55 AM	#59
Easton Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 9,825	^^ well said ^^ __________________ New models booked and shot every week... MILFs, pornstars and teens. Girls for every niche and project. Looking for high-quality affordable exclusive content? Check me out at Easton Content for all the details.

06-12-2009, 12:34 PM	#65
maxjohan Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 7,219	The fact that they don't realeases info on preformers are just a shame. That should become law. __________________ I went from 100 to 313,000 satoshis in 2 days! Lots of daily freerolls... Last edited by maxjohan; 06-12-2009 at 12:38 PM..

06-12-2009, 09:22 AM	#52
marcop Content Producer Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 4,143	I just spoke to an agent, who told me he was aware of some of those positive HIV tests in between 2004 and now. As far as he knew, they were all people who were getting tested for the first time before entering the industry. So these people would've not entered the biz, and did not contract HIV during a porn shoot.

06-12-2009, 09:35 AM	#54
collegeboobies So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,644	time for someone AIM exposed to sue them

06-12-2009, 09:40 AM	#55
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,941	l.a. fox news picked up this story and ran a pretty sad piece about it this morning.

06-13-2009, 08:39 AM	#67
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Here is the LA Times story regarding this... http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3569962.story

06-13-2009, 11:21 AM	#68
LoveSandra So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Just Blow Me Posts: 10,551	sad news ..

06-13-2009, 12:52 PM	#70
flashfire ICQ 1 6 7 8 5 3 4 9 2 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,098	you mean having random sex 40 times a week is risky!

06-13-2009, 02:51 PM	#76
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,048	Holy crappers... __________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

06-13-2009, 03:07 PM	#77
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Ive seen alot of internet porn where they are using condoms. For the most part you cant tell his dick just looks extra shiny. Do I think it will end porn production in the us? No because some major net companies use condoms in shoots already. It doesnt have to be obvious, she is blowing him then cut to him fucking her. Also if they like the girl, they will still like that girl. If the action is hot and everyone is into what they are doing.It will still sell. And for once we would set a good example.

06-13-2009, 04:06 PM	#82
MissMina Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,478	Maybe condoms that don't look like there is one on. Just an idea.

06-13-2009, 04:56 PM	#88
Due Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Murrieta, CA Posts: 3,620	According to the NY DAILY NEWS there is about 55000 people that get AIDS in USA EVERY year, compared to these 16 people during the last 5 years (3-4 per year) in the adult business it does not really appear to be that bad, probably below average of any other industry. __________________ I buy plugs Skype: Due_Global /Due

06-14-2009, 09:48 AM	#90
amacontent STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,816	ADG, before jumping on the drama bandwagon like the LA Times, check facts bro. Out of the 16., they were all either in the gay industry or wanting to join the industry and were denied. So Aim is doing thier job. There was not 1 case in non gay porn. __________________ Joe Loughlin [email protected] TEAM- joeloughlin. Telegram - AMA_JOE https://www.amaproduction.com