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

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

time for someone AIM exposed to sue them

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

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

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.

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.

^^ well said ^^

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.

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..

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.

:2 cents:


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.

The fact that they don't realeases info on preformers
are just a shame. That should become law. :2 cents:

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

Here is the LA Times story regarding this...

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

sad news ..

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)."

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...

http://babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerd...5/MrBubble.jpg

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

ADG

No problem bro...Safety first is my motto :1orglaugh

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......

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

Holy crappers...

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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. :1orglaugh
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. :1orglaugh

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.

Really? Cause I'm just making this shit up as I go. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

Wet suit?!? :jerkoff

http://www.americasbestmyspacecommen...a-wet-suit.jpg

Please Robbie, please... :bowdown

ADG

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.

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.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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.

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."

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! :upsidedow

As Don Adams used to say on "Get Smart" the television series: "Missed it by that much" :1orglaugh

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


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

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.

:2 cents:

ADG