Even if the CDC is usually on the overcautious side, this statement is a little bit strange.
I mean isn't it against common sense that a subgroup of (heterosexual) individuals at highest risk has less chance to contract HIV?
Do you really think a sex performer in the gonzo grinder does not belong to a high risk group?
Common sense and the CDC definition defies this assertion.
If you read a little bit around the CDC site, whenever high risk populations are mentioned they are linked to these "markers":
- individuals treated for STD (seems very common in porn) - individuals engaging in promiscuous and/or unprotected sex (the very nature of the porn valley grinder) - individuals engaging in anal sex (no comment) - commercial sex workers and/or the sex partners of IDUs, MSM/IDUs, or persons who are HIV positive (well porn stars are commercial sex workers, aren't they)
Every single "marker" can be checked with sex performers.
What a nice thing to say to Melissa! Also that she "doesn't know any better" implying that you know much more than a veteran porn actress about the subject at hand.If more newcomers chose Melissa as their role model, I would become broke from buying as much porn as possible, and rubbed raw from stroking myself so much.
It used to be that sailors were renowned for spreading disease, but these days vast sections of western societies are able to travel enormous distances and spread all sorts of interesting ailments. The development of cheap mass transport has probably made this increase in the risk of STDs pretty much inevitable. I'd guess it's changed what used to be normal sex practices in people's private lives as well, though I'm too young to remember a sexually active time before HIV/AIDS. What was once natural can now be extremely dangerous, and in a porn context where the sex is more wearing and with far more changes of partners the risk is far higher. It would be nice if that wasn't the case, but I fear it is.
Thank you for altering your post Lady C.
And thank you for so honestly and openly sharing your views Tricia.
I don't know how I quoted you out of context, but I edited my post to include everything you said.
And honestly, I'm not trying to bug you or pick on you. Seriously. It seems that we think very, very differently (180 degrees polar opposite about many things), and your posts almost uniformly arouse some kind of emotion in me for whatever reason. I like to respond to posts that arouse my thoughts and emotions. It's better than boringly sticking a "+1" after things.
Testing is reactive by design. Since there is no quarantaine before a performer steps into the porn performer pool, it does absolutely nothing.
If this form of testing could prevent anything, then you would need at least a three month individual quarantaine for every new performer. And the quarantaine for the individual would start again everytime a porn performer has sex with someone outside the monitored group, e.g.
The whole testing is just a system to detect infections, when the shit has hit the fan to "quarantaine" or single out the already infected to limit the spread within the monitored population.
If you don't want to burn in a car, first make sure you don't have fuelage lines running through the cockpit. The fire extuingisher is a nice asset, but it is much wiser to prevent setting fire at first.
And as I pointed out the amateur sportsmen and -women of sex/porn, i.e. regular swingers/bdsm practitioners insist on higher safety standards.And so what? Such things are usually not discussed while watching. Guess what, I am not watching a porn movie right now. I don't see your point here.Right, hentais are nice also, but they lack the essence (the ol' game of in and out). And in your comparison, F1 is so dumbed down that it can only be viewed as softcore playboy style "porn", which has ost the essence of pornography, F1 isn't even Vivid.
But my point was, in most sports and other profession, the safety level rises the more professionalism is introduced (see also above on amateur athletes).
Yet in the bizarro world of porn, the more professionalism the less safety.
It should be open to decide wether an unnecessary risk should be accepted or not.
I won't even discuss if "live" cumshots are necessary, considering a high school student taking a class in video-shooting should be so proficient in his editing skills that he and his nerdy friend from the chemistry/biology class should be able to give you the impression of an internal cumshot.
Please read my edit to my last post Juha. Perhaps it would be better in the future if I just refrained from saying anything unless it was positive. I hope we can get along better in the future.
I wish I had something better to add to this thread that I stupidly derailed, but the points have already been made.
I don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong by buying a company's product who chooses to engage in one form of risky behavior over another. Consumers "indirectly" support many risky behaviors that could be considered entertainment as porn is.
Porn actresses freely choose (because they have free will) to do cream pies. I'm not going to second-guess or pass judgment on them because of what they choose to do as performers. There's many companies not on the list who don't shoot that kind of content, and the studios who are on the list certainly don't shoot cream pies exclusively, so it's very possible to be successful in porn and not do one specific act.
I don't want to be paternalistic, and think that I know what is better for these people than they do. I don't pretend to pass judgment on porn companies, and I'm not going to attempt to dictate how they do business, or how somebody is going to earn money that day.
Note: Risks for condom use and acts are multiplicative; e.g, for the ratio for anal sex without a condom vs vaginal insertive sex with a condom is 100:1
--------
What that means is that you're 30% more likely to contract HIV fucking an HIV+ woman in the ass than fucking her pussy.
You're 5 times less likely to contract HIV getting a blowjob than you are from fucking her pussy.
Using a condom for any of the above reduces your risk by 95% i.e. it's statistically safer to fuck an HIV+ person in the ass while wearing a condom than getting an unprotected blowjob from them. (someone check my math please)
Also, I don't think your risk is going to change based on whether or not you blow a load in someone's ass. You're fucking them in the ass, asses are fragile, you get exposed to their feces and maybe their blood, both of which will contain the HIV virus in an HIV+ person. Pulling out at the last minute and blowing a load on her face isn't going to change that.
The only way you can be sure of the HIV status of your sex partner to have an Elisa test after six months of monogamy or abstainance. (For more on this, read the CDC protocals for declaring medical professional HIV- after a needle stick.) Short of that it's a calculated risk. Driving is much safer, Alaskan crab fishing might be a little more dangerous.
Also remember, the PCMRDA test (or whatever it's called) is only 95% certain after 30 days. That means if you send 100 recently seroconverted persons to AIM, 5 of them will return false negatives, and it will be another 30 days before their HIV status will be checked again.
per-sex-act probability of HIV transmission: unprotected receptive anal intercourse 0.82% unprotected insertive anal intercourse 0.06%
Mutatis mutandis, on the assumption that the female ass is as likely to transmit/protect as a male ass and thumb multiplied pi it is 14-times less likely to contract HIV by fucking an HIV+ individual, than by getting fucked.
I got confused. I always thing of receptive felatio as the person getting their dick sucked, ie the person receiving the blowjob, not the person receiving the dick.
so, would you say that there is less of a risk doing an anal creampie with a girl who has done a lot of anal as opposed to a girl who has done very little anal, or is the difference negligible?
Again, I really don't think whether or not you give her a creampie, i.e. blow a wad of goo up her ass, has any bearing on your risk.
Whether or not a woman has done a lot of anal has any bearing on your risk I won't speculate on. Of the top of my head I can think of a couple of seeming reasonable ideas as to why an anal vet might be less risky.
Bottom line, fucking people when you aren't sure of their HIV status puts you at risk for contracting HIV. The AIM testing regime lowers, but does not nearly eliminate the chances that you will have sex with someone who is HIV+, or has been exposed to someone who is HIV+ before they themselves a are tested. Even after they are tested, the results are only 95% certain.
Prudence suggests you take measures to protect yourself.
Are you implying that the condition of the mucous skin alters through anal sex as does the mucous membrane in the respiratory tract of smokers or the skin of circumcised penises. I don't think this question has yet been adressed in a study.
Don't want to turn this into a statistics seminar. But doesn't the 5% also include the false positives?
Whatever, thanks for the information. I really didn't know that it takes six month to lower the risk to nearly 0%.
[Link]
smith Arthur Again
29 Posts 8/05
Posted - Aug 26 2005 : 7:19PM
There are millions upon millions of couples throughout the world doing internal cumshots every day. I don't see that there's a problem with it as long as everyone's healthy.
My, unscientific, guess is, that an "anal virgin" would be less likely be infected because receptive anal is by far the most dangerous act according to Tony's and Zartyr's informations. Creampie or not makes no difference for the guy but of course for the girl.
To keep it simple: Forget the PCR to determine if an individual has HIV or not, these tests are designed to measure the virus levels in individuals, who are already known to carry HIV. I once asked a physician who is responsible for carrying out HIV tests in a hospital, and all he said when someone asked if the PCR mumbo jumbo could replace an ELISA for diagnosing an infection was a wide green meaning no (three years ago).
The ELISA which tests also a viral protein and not only antibodies is a little better than the test on immunoglobulins alone. So maybe the CDC has not gathered enough data to set the near 100%-safety-threshold back from 6 to 3 month. But some organizations seem to be confident with the available data and say, using the test on viral protein justifies to say after 3 month there is near 100% safety.
Maybe an anal vet could become trained because of the "strain of anal sex", therefore the mucuous membrane would not be teared so easily (i.e. less blood), hence reducing her chance to get infected, but also reducing the risk (less blood) to transmit the virus. An anal virgin would be a better transmitter and easier infect in this case.
But if the strain of anal sex "weakens" the mucuous skin, then it is the other way around.
I am not aware of such a study. But aren't people who have chronically "hard feces" more prone to microlesions? Then I'd guess anal vets are riskier.
Poor Hardware--he must be shaking his head at the random direction this and the "CFC" thread are going . . .
As I mentioned in the latter thread, in cases of worker safety, usually nothing is achieved until owner/producer/management is held legally liable for injuries, infections, and any other abuses that go on in their midst. Once they are held accountable, everything changes very quickly. Sometimes this is done internally within the industry; usually it requires outside intervention.
The other way things change is that so many incidents occur that the public-at-large, and their political advocates, press for intervention. In hardcore shoots, this means that every time someone shoots their cum in someone else's ass, they roll the dice for the industry at large and the consumer. Any sustained sequence of outbreaks will bring the wolf to the door, and could end porn forever as we know it (at least in America). And then we might all be sitting around here saying "if it wasn't for those stupid anal creampies . . . ."
Which brings up another point I haven't heard discussed here--how much of a market share do the creampie videos have for the average gonzo company? Obviously Keri Sable is a anal creampie gang-bang is going to move fast as soon as it drops, but this would not be a typical release in the genre. I am guessing, for example, that a "10 man cum slam" video will generally sell better than a "load in every hole" video. So are the creampie fetish videos really doing that well, or are they just a flavor of the month in the mass-volume porn industry? Is it obstinance that keeps some companies attached to this genre, rather than actual sales?
I believe testing makes porn safer, even if it's a marginal difference (in your humble opinion).Better yet, if you don't want to burn in a car, don't drive a car. Makes more sense to me.I haven't heard of this. Nothing prevents them to implement whatever safety measures they require since they aren't doing it for the public.Are they actively discussed among fans while not watching?Define "professionalism". Who is more professional: studio like Vivid or Wicked with their "close-to-mainstream" scene set-ups, or some x gonzo director shooting girls on his couch at home with handheld? AFAIK, Wicked has condom policy, and they definitely don't shoot anal cream pies.Hmm, decide you may but it doesn't mean your decision should apply to anyone else.I'm sorry ..I just find this phrase hilarious for some reason.
OK, we have heard both from the pro-creampie and anti-creampie people.
Not to try and stir shit up but why a blacklist of studios and not blacklisting the performers as well? It would seem to me that if none of the female talent agrees to do this "risky" act, then this would put an end to anal creampies.
I personally avoid studios and some directors for being ripped off in the past, bad lighting, talent on boxcover is not in movie, etc, etc. It really makes no difference to me if there is an anal creampie or if there isn't in a movie. I just buy/rent anal movies for the assfucking and not for the grand finale.
If a girl is informed about having a greater risk of contracting HIV through anal pies and still wants to perform the act anyway, then let her fart cum.
I.e. ban all physical contact; even softcore woud not be allowed then.
If you have to run a car (softcore), run a car with dangerous speed (penetration, hardcore) then eliminate the mst obvious hazards (creampies).
That is what is so puzzling. In a club race event a helicopter is seldom on standby and one ambulance with your buddies with a hangover, e.g. When the customers of two pubs meet on the football field the best medical treatment is the mobile phone to call the ambulance and one referee. At an NFL match there are slightly exaggerating five physicians per athlete and in a F1 race an ambulance-helicopter and 42 state-of-the-art ambulances, 4247 race-officials or god-how-many full-time professional referees.
Yet in porn the safety standards seem to be lower than in a swinger or bdsm party.
Quite heavily, in sports which bear some dangers. I am only familiar with skiing and motorsports. But it is quite natural. You want to see a sport which is bears, when done right - not loosing its essence - dangerous. This is not surprising either, since the fans are constantly reminded because people get hurt in top level, and are reminded because they do this activity also on a non-pro level or assist people who do this on a non-pro level.
So how make it safe, while maintaining its essence. How do you provide safe conditions in hardcore, downhill, car racing and not transforming it into softcore, slalom or gokart racing?
Define "professionalism".
Click to expand
People get paid for doing their act/athletic performance. Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe vs. Dick Fuckmehard and Pia Cream.If they do it for their personal pleasure, O.K., but this is about the porn biz .
I would also like to see the mainstream stuntman or rather the producer, who would do or advise a dangerous stunt like a creampie, which can be SFX'ed so easily without using a stuntman.
How much is the difference between a normal anal scene and an anal cream pie? More than that of a few millilitres of fake-semen?
If in a movie the story of someone who contracts HIV through a used, rusty needle is told, do they have to really inject a used, rusty needle in the scene also?
I've given up trying to follow this one, folks. Personally, I'm a blowjob fetishist, so cream pies were never my interest anyway. I understand the need to push forward with the nasty, but squirting orifices were always secondary to the look on a girl's face when orgasmic moments swept across it.
I love Ariana Jollee. I love her as a person as well as a porn star, even though I haven't spent a lot of time with her. She has a natural charisma that's irresistible, and I wish she lived down my street, because not a day would go by when I wouldn't say hello to her. But I was fairly horrified at the 65 guy cream pie thing. Yet, she's an adult so she can choose her own risks. And I don't judge her for that. And I also don't want to be so sexist that I legislate her actions in the name of protecting womanhood, when I probably would not give a flying fuck if a guy porn star did anything crazy at all. And I don't judge anyone who wants to watch it and jerk off to it. I think most gonzo is horrifying to your average 1980s porn viewer, to be honest, I remember when Dark Bros. movies pretty mich freaked me out, and I still really love the early days of Buttman gonzo, which now look innocent, compared to all the boundaries that have been pushed (and I enjoyed all that, mostly, along the way).
Then again, I really get off on a lot of current gonzo fare. Cream pie movies are not high on my list, but there's some definite rush to be hand witnessing a good cumfart. It's also not that important to my viewing. Neither are double anals. Neither is anal, really, but it sure looks hot.
Not sure what point I am making here, but, yeah. my main concern, really, is that talent is not put in harm's way. That's the "bottom" line, LOL. I think most producers I know have no active interest in hurting anyone, and would not knowingly harm a young woman for their own profit (whatever Lee O thinks). But I hope producers do follow these threads and take all this commentary into consideration.
I agree with you in that i dont want to put anyone at risk that does not wish to be at risk. But ... i do not agree with the way you want to go about it. Personally i feel each pornstar should have an up to date computer database 'cv'. On this cv it should state every scene an actor/tress has done, who they did it with and what they did. As it is all on computer it should also link up people who have lets say done a scene with someone who has done an anal creampie (or whatever) recently. With a system like this , the stars will be able to choose exactly how much of a risk they are willing to take. Some may not care ... while others may choose to not star with anyone who has done a creampie with anyone in the last year or whatever.I agree that the awareness should be raised drastically. What i suggest is a mandatory equivalent of pre-marital counselling ... - pre-porn counselling. Everyone who is thinking about entering the industry MUST attend this 'course'. In these sessions , the person interested in entering the industry should be informed of every risk , ins and outs and realities of the porn industry. Obviously all sorts of health risks will be covered. If anyone still wishes to proceed after the counselling , we can accept that they are consenting informed adults who wish to pursue this career (risks included!). Even after entering the industry , they will still have the option of what type of scenes they would like to perform in and will now have the knowledge to make an informed decision.Please dont make out that i would like to see creampies at the cost of someone life. All i am saying is i like creampies. And if it is out there , i will watch it. If it is banned , then it is banned. I wont riot or whatever. But i will miss it.
Also ... in many of your posts you are calling for porn watchers to be 'caring' and stand with you. My realistic instincts tell me that while many watchers may share your feelings , i know many others dont. So i personally cant see the demand for anal creampies ever decreasing.
Hopefully my suggestion would go a long way to helping this.
To add to my comments on the fact that alot of jobs include some risk ...
Firstly i am well aware of the effects of HIV and AIDS as i am from South Africa (for those of you who dont know we are just about ground zero when it comes to HIV).
A friend of mine recently accepted a job in Angola. Because of all the wars in Angola there are still a lot of landmines and other hazards and for this reason my friend was offered $50000 a year to merely farm one of the generals lands. Of course the money he is being paid is basically danger pay. But he is well aware of the risks and feels that the potential gains outweigh the potential risks. Now is there anything wrong with this?
Now i definitely believe that life is very precious. But at the same time i am a realist. The reality is that creampies WILL continue unless the government steps in. And i dont see this happening in the near future.
With some of your proposed bans i forsee worse things. Once again using economics ... this is how i see a ban working :
The demand is there for the product. This we know. Now the production stops. This creates a scarcity for the product and the price goes through the roof. Now this is where i see the underground and illegal industry skyrocketing. Every shady producer/director , every backalley company and all amateur producers are goin to start producing this product because of the potential gains. Now unlike in the mainstream porn industry , these pornstars will probably not be tested and will perform under rather suspect conditions and the HIV virus will once again flurry. At least now all creampie scenes are done with testing etc being done.
Personally i see this talk as being very similar to that of whethor or not prostitution should be legalised. Many feel that if prostitution were to be legalised then it could be controlled and regulated. Health services could be put in place and girls would not be abused or put at as many risks. Much the same i do prefer porn to be kept 'aboveground' , well controlled and regulated.
I am also glad that two pornstars , namely tricia and melissa posted on this topic. Here we can see 2 experienced performers having two opposing opinions on the matter. They both know the risks and should have the right to decide how they wish to act on the matter.
Also ... there has been alot of talk about the risk statistics. And from what i can see , many of you acknowledge that there is always risk but feel that the anal creampie has too much risk. Now who are you to decide for others that X% is too much for others? I mean what if i decide porn should have 2% risk? In which case all porn should be done with condoms. Or if i decide it should have ZERO risk. In which case porn is banned completely.
Life = risk. Get used to it. No one forces you to take these risks but being human and having freedom allows us to take these risks on if we so wish.
Also a note for christianx ... the bottomline is you dont want to have anal sex with a HIV infected person. Creampie or no creampie anal sex is your best chance to transmit or receive the virus. Also i think its much of a muchness with shagging a newbie or veteran anal actress. A newbie will get injured more easily and transmit the virus more easily but the chances that the veteran anal actress has the virus are higher. This pretty much evens it out.
I also hope that most of what i said answers Zartyrs comments on my post.
Ive probably left some stuff out that i wouldve liked to also add but ill leave that for my next post.
This list isn't going to do anything accept let anal creampie fans, like me, realise who they are. I basicly know what studios I like, and many of them are on the list (more for not using condoms than anything). I know it's dangerous but I still like it. Some people just have more dangerous jobs than others.
At least that thread shows that some of us fans care and some don't give a damn. And if it only prevents one girl from an uninformed decision its a big success.
People who have dangerous jobs most often have the training, education and knowledge to assess the risks of their job, or supervisors with training in safety management.
People in dangerous jobs have means to ensure employers meet minimum standards of safe procedures and safety management.
Of course this applies in the real world, not in a bizarro world which regards death lotteries as entertainment.
Playing with specific people and their reputations is a dangerous game, hopefully Ariana will realise these comments aren't aimed just at her. If she wanted to take a risk for herself that would be entirely her concern, as it would be for the other people who performed that 65 anal cream pie thing. But she decided to then return to the general pool of talent and resume shooting with people who may have had no clue of the risk she had just run. Do you think it's up to her to take risks for all those other people as well? It's the equivalent of a drunk driver on a road full of sober people. And I make no distinction between male and female performers, why did you?If you pay to watch something then you are supporting that product. For instance, when I buy a Wong Kar Wai film I'm hoping my small contribution will increase the likelihood of him making some more masterpieces. With porn being a far smaller market the effect of one person's purchase is that much more significant. You may have the right to watch it, but you also then take on a certain responsibility for what you are financially supporting. Rights and responsibilities.
Who will pay for and regulate this "course"? Who will decide what information it is acceptable to share with new talent? It's a nice idea, but until it becomes a reality I'd rather just see the most risky act abandoned.If something bad happens to him is it then also likely to happen to all sorts of other people he knows, or is he taking a risk purely for himself. The HIV in porn situation is different as those who take risks take then for all the talent. That's not brave, it's selfish.This is just a variation on the "The market demands it" argument. There's a market for all kinds of junk (kiddie, animal, etc.), and I'm sure you'd agree that is better off not getting made. It's also possible there would be a small underground market for this act. Those performers would be outside the general talent pool and the only risk would be to themselves..Unfortunately it looks as though Melissa has been making her decisions on the basis of faulty information. Since she's a director now as well it's also possible she's been passing on this misinformation to talent working for her. That's... worrying.What makes you think this thread is aimed at telling the talent what to do? As a viewer you also have a decision to make: to watch or not to watch. I have decided for myself that anal cream pies represent a risk I'm not willing to tolerate in the porn I view. Others have also expressed this opinion. The producers who pay for and tape these acts also have a responsibility for the product they create, and again some (Tricia, Mason, DAC) have stated on these boards that they are no longer comfortable with this level of risk. Talent are only 1 of the 3 groups who have to make their minds up over what level of danger they find acceptable.That's the way I see it too. Stay safe IronMan. :)
you're preaching to the epicenter of the anal-everything movement lee, it's mecca for fanatical-raincoaters. suggesting pirate movies to an audience that accurately-updates a list of "daggies" is going to be recieved as well as telling a street-junky he should spend the rest of his life on methadone. porn's going to continue operating without any ability to regulate stuff like flooding their own marketplace and the cannibalism that's the result or even stuff like not taking every dumb risk because someone's made money doing it. it'll continue until they get shut down or wall street decides there's enough money involved in it to force or buy the current company-owners out of the business. and they will when you look at where our #1 censor of halftime-shows works now for scale--a random private equity company that doesn't advertise is worth twice what the entire industry is.
Cal OSHA to the left of them, Dow Jones to the right of them, HIV to the front of them. spunked and shot plastered with lube and grime boldly they cum farted Into the jaws of Death, Into San Fernando Valley, Rode the six hundred.
