That's the logic of someone tossing a coin who gets 5 heads and thinks the next time it's more likely to come up tails. A handful of girls isn't a bit enough sample to say precisely what the increased risk from creampies is.
I don't think anyone gets anything from girls burning themselves out after a year. Sometimes there's a girl you really like, then it pisses you off to hell when she pulls out at the peak of her career. And often (because there's such demand for fresh faces so girls get fewer offers as they go on?) after a couple of years the girls end up getting desensitized and doing nastier stuff than they would have when they were young and squeamish.
I suppose what's needed is a balance: if someone starts out in her first year going 100% with really hard intense stuff, then gives up ater a year, then at least we've had her best. But equally we need girls with staying power who build and build and take the fans with them.
Who on this planet does not know about HIV and AIDS???? It's been in the news and everywhere and ever continent for over twenty five years plus. Stupid people who get killed in car crash because they don't wear their seal belt know already how it works and why it's needed. But they take the risk being injured or killed by choice when they don't wear it. I would wear my belt even if it was not mandated because I choose to.
Performing oral sex is twice as risky as receiving oral sex. When compared to receiving oral sex, insertive vaginal sex is 10 times more risky, insertive anal sex 13 times more dangerous, receptive vaginal sex 20 times more hazardous and receptive anal sex 100 times more perilous.
Would you agree that their sample size is big enough?
PS - Not wearing a condom is 20 times as risky as wearing one, according to their study.
It doesn't suffice to say that because you know about HIV and everybody should know about HIV then everybody must know about HIV, let alone that what they know is the facts.
Since you are sure all the performers know the risks, what's the problem with going over it with them again?
What's the problem with telling them about the incidents of HIV transmission that have occurred within the industry?
Nothing wrong with a little education but when a girl walk thru the doors of a studio she has to have some clue as what she is doing and getting into. Looks to me as Hillary Scott, Kelly Wells, Katsumi, Katja, Selana Silvers, Jackie Moore and many more read whatever they were given and made their decisions. Welcome to Adult entertainment....
You know the one, Tricia, the one that says you're more likely to win the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes (1:130,000,000) than contract HIV on a porn set.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. I guess I'm now 100 times more admiring of the creampie cuties than I was before :)
Another statistic to bear in mind is that if neither performer has HIV then the risk of transmission is 0.
One thing I've noticed is that this whole discussion has been very US-centric. Presumably many of the Eastern European chicks who bring us such pleasure wouldn't be as aware of all this hype as those in the LA loop? Here's hoping Sineplex and their Russkies keep us in gooey buns for many years to come.
by AIM? They seem to have plenty of info at their site? Am I too naive to assume that they also have some kind of folders you can take when you go for a test?
Yes, if neither performer has HIV then there's no problem. However, AIM's testing protocol cannot determine that a performer does not have HIV. It can only certify that HIV was undetectable at the time of the test. So far as we've been told, all the people involved in the last HIV episode had 'clean' AIM tests at the time the infections occurred.
Posted - Aug 26 2005 : 7:08AM