Another HIV Infection on set..

[yoyo888]

Hay Guys,

Just read this.

http://anon.projectarchive.net/?htt...iv-infection-on-porn-set-sparks-health-alert/

Looks like this time it is a gay film set, but over in Las Vegus I'm assuming. Not sure why California is mentioned in the article. Unless it is a Californian company but moved out and film over in Nevada to get away from all the Californian bureaucracy!

The Studio is not mentioned, but I'm wondering what one it was!

Play safe guys

YOYO

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

Geez. You'd have to be either totally naive or else financially desperate to put yourself at risk this way.

The problem is that I imagine most of these guys do not have any real bargaining power. It's "Do you want the job or not?" Would it be that much of an ask for the lawmakers to require condoms in sex scenes? Voluntary adoption of them is not going to work. It's like smoking in restaurants - when it was allowed, very few restaurants would voluntarily ban smoking on their premises, because smokers would simply take their business elsewhere. Legislation was needed.

Here in Australia I don't actively seek out porn but I get to see a fair bit because it's always showing at the sex club. In what gets shown here, condoms seem to have standard in any scene involving penetration, so much so that it hardly gets remarked on these days.

You want to fuck, use a condom. What part of that do people not understand?

 

[brmstn69]

Geez. You'd have to be either totally naive or else financially desperate to put yourself at risk this way.

The problem is that I imagine most of these guys do not have any real bargaining power. It's "Do you want the job or not?" Would it be that much of an ask for the lawmakers to require condoms in sex scenes? Voluntary adoption of them is not going to work. It's like smoking in restaurants - when it was allowed, very few restaurants would voluntarily ban smoking on their premises, because smokers would simply take their business elsewhere. Legislation was needed.

Here in Australia I don't actively seek out porn but I get to see a fair bit because it's always showing at the sex club. In what gets shown here, condoms seem to have standard in any scene involving penetration, so much so that it hardly gets remarked on these days.

You want to fuck, use a condom. What part of that do people not understand?

California did pass a law requiring condoms in porn, and all it did was make most of the porn studios leave the state. Both of these actors were working for a California based studio but moonlighting at a Nevada studio that apparently did a sloppy job HIV screening.

It's not condom laws that are needed, it's stricter regulation of the screening process.

 

[bigsal]

Geez. You'd have to be either totally naive or else financially desperate to put yourself at risk this way.

The problem is that I imagine most of these guys do not have any real bargaining power. It's "Do you want the job or not?" Would it be that much of an ask for the lawmakers to require condoms in sex scenes? Voluntary adoption of them is not going to work. It's like smoking in restaurants - when it was allowed, very few restaurants would voluntarily ban smoking on their premises, because smokers would simply take their business elsewhere. Legislation was needed.

Here in Australia I don't actively seek out porn but I get to see a fair bit because it's always showing at the sex club. In what gets shown here, condoms seem to have standard in any scene involving penetration, so much so that it hardly gets remarked on these days.

You want to fuck, use a condom. What part of that do people not understand?

Welcome back jeansGuyOZ

 

[yoyo888]

California did pass a law requiring condoms in porn, and all it did was make most of the porn studios leave the state. Both of these actors were working for a California based studio but moonlighting at a Nevada studio that apparently did a sloppy job HIV screening.

It's not condom laws that are needed, it's stricter regulation of the screening process.

So do you know what Studio this was then?

 

[brmstn69]

So do you know what Studio this was then?

I have no idea. But if it helps narrow things down a bit, the articles I've read seem to imply that both actors were working at a straight studio in Cali and moonlighting as gay for pay models at a studio in Nevada. Apparently their scene in Nevada was one were they had sex with each other. Both were tested before their scene together and tested negative, but when tested again a week later, both were positive. However, it has been said that the testing method used in Nevada was a cheaper, less accurate method that is not approved by current regulations.

But as to which studio, no telling. Most of the companies that fled California when the condom laws went into effect relocated to Nevada...

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

Both were tested before their scene together and tested negative, but when tested again a week later, both were positive. However, it has been said that the testing method used in Nevada was a cheaper, less accurate method that is not approved by current regulations.

I suspect the "test" consisted of taking ONE blood sample from each man, finding no HIV antibodies, and saying "Right, these guys are both negative".

I didn't think there could be anybody left who did not know about the 12-week "window period" between initial infection and the first detectable appearance of antibodies, but apparrently there is.

 

[brmstn69]

I suspect the "test" consisted of taking ONE blood sample from each man, finding no HIV antibodies, and saying "Right, these guys are both negative".

I didn't think there could be anybody left who did not know about the 12-week "window period" between initial infection and the first detectable appearance of antibodies, but apparrently there is.

That's only using the older antibody testing methods. The antigen and PCR test can detect HIV as early as 1-3 weeks from infection...

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

That's only using the older antibody testing methods. The antigen and PCR test can detect HIV as early as 1-3 weeks from infection...

Yes, but we don't know what inadequate test they were using. And I take your point about 1-3 weeks, but that still leaves a window period.

The message I was trying to get across is that it's good to have regulations in place about "screening", but if the people who run the studios don't have their hearts in it they will see it as a nuisance and will not concern themselves with whether it's done properly. Some backyard operators may get away with not doing it at all. That's why I think condoms should be required to be worn in all fucking scenes, irrespective of what the guys' HIV status is thought to be - not to mention that bareback porn is sending the not-so-subliminal message to the audience that HIV isn't really something to worry about. Let's face it, the following comment may not apply to people on this forum, but I think many habitual porn watchers would not be doing a lot of critical thinking while they are watching.

 

[Shelter]

Let's face it, the following comment may not apply to people on this forum, but I think many habitual porn watchers would not be doing a lot of critical thinking while they are watching.

JeansGuyOZ you are totally right with this comment. And very ashamed I must say I'm too one of these porn watchers. And once more ashamed I must say that until now I have loved more barebacking. I found it more horny. Nevertheless I think barebacking is more horny - but perhaps not in this films. So you are right that condoms are bett3er and safer for the actors. (although I think bareback is bareback - but in private with a confident long term partner)

 

[Gruet98]

I have a feeling it's Titan....