We are living in a one world. I know people, who are HIV positive, but I am not afraid to give them my hand. Most of them are living normal life. They are not thinking and not talking about death all the time. Yes. I was comparing sexually transmitted disease with accidents. If we are talking about people in hospitals, there are not the difference. Risk is in everywhere. But we are people and we have a one life. We cannot be afraid all the time. Porn star Jessica Darlin after HIV scare in 1998: "I don't like condoms. I never have. I admit I will not use a condom until they become absolutely mandatory, and even then I would probably just quit. I love bareback sex, and I got into the business knowing the risk. I have always been willing to take the good with the bad. I got into this business because until lately there record regarding HIV was close to perfect. I believe that the fans are smarter than the industry gives them credit for being. The fans know that unprotected sex is a death sentence in today's society. We aren't immortal. We are fantasy. If we weren't providing fantasy a lot more cases of rape and AIDS would pop up due to sexual frustration. Sex can be fun, but sex can be dangerous. A lot of things are both of those things. If we stopped doing everything that was dangerous our lives wouldn't be worth living." Jessica Darlin. Brave woman - brave decision! Leya Falcon about condoms and STDs risks in 2012: " All of us performers take these risks, we know the risks and understand that having sex with other performers is a lot safer than having sex with someone in the general population that is not regularly tested." "I prefer no condom...leaves my pussy a lot happier!" Leya Falcon. Hot girl - hot choice! If something is risky, it does not mean, that it is bad. I am certain. We will always have real porn stars, who are not afraid to have real sex and make real porn without condoms. This is a life! Real life! The world belongs to the brave! It is impossible to be afraid all the time about all things in the world. We are living and we want to enjoy the life. We are taking the risk and getting the pleasure!
Shifting your gaze from individuals to populations means that you are no longer trying to control every single possible transmission event. All you need to do is get the AVERAGE number of transmissions per infected individual below 1, and the power of exponential growth will limit the spread of the disease thereby protecting the entire population. (Note, I didn't say, "Thereby protecting every individual within the population." 37 Million Californians can enjoy greater health, even if a few thousand catch an infectious disease every year.) Everyone is familiar with power of exponential growth when thinking about compound interest. An interest rate of 5% if reinvested can lead to dramatic growth in wealth over time. A 5% interest rate would correspond to the average person in a population infecting 1.05 individuals. (Or 19 out of 20 infections spreading to one more person with the 20th spreading it to two other people.) Now imagine a banking system in which banks could charge negative interest. (People who keep all of their wealth in bank accounts effectively are in this situation right now, since bank interest rates are less than inflation. There is an analogy in epidemiology: Because some fraction of the population is likely to be resistant to infection, the transmission rate can be greater than one, and the population is still protected.) A person who invested in a negative interest account would find that their wealth disappears over time. A 5% negative interest rate would correspond to an average transmission rate of 0.95. (19 out of 20 infections spreading to one other person with the 20th not spreading at all.) To protect the population, you don't need to stop transmission from taking place, you need to simply lower the rate of transmission, which would have significant impact because of the power of exponential growth and her twin sister, exponential shrinkage. For those who have followed me so far, let me give you the mathematics, and you will see why most diseases are endemic in populations. R-sub-o (which I am calling the "Transmission rate") is called the "Basic Reproductive Rate." It's the average number of infections generated by a single infection before the sick person either recovers or dies. In theory if it's less than one, the disease will go extinct, and if it's greater than one, an epidemic will ensue. If it's exactly one, the disease will become endemic. In reality, another factor comes into play. Some fraction of the population is not susceptible to the disease. (Usually because they have encountered it before and are therefore immune. In modern societies, vaccination can serve the same purpose with less suffering.) S= the Fraction of the population that is susceptible, and it is generally less than one. If: R * S> 1.0, you have an epidemic. R * S < 1.0, the disease will die out. R * S = 1.0, the disease will be endemic. In natural populations, R is almost always more than one, and outbreaks tend to occur in populations that have not been exposed to the disease. But as more and more people develop immunity, S decreases, and the epidemic starts to die out. Eventually, immune members of the population lose immunity or die out, and new individuals enter the population (usually by being born) who have not been exposed to the disease, increasing the population's susceptibility, and allowing new outbreaks. So you never have a disease that is truly endemic. Rather the disease cycles from breaking out to retreating to breaking out, and the population's susceptibility waxes and wanes. But to the degree that you can lower R, you can lower the intensity of the mini-epidemics. This is very basic epidemiology, which I learned as an undergrad. I'm sure reality is far more complicated than this, and I'm equally sure that every single person who works in the Public Health sector in the state of California understands it far better than I do. So I'm not saying that legalized and licensed prostitution would eliminate STD's, I'm just saying that it would minimize the impact of STD's on the population. As for what this might mean for condoms and porn: I'm sure the AIDS testing regime is working very well, and there would be no harm in expanding it to include other STD's. Unfortunately, antibiotics don't work against Herpes or other viral diseases, so it seems a reasonable measure on Public Health grounds, but to claim that you are doing it to protect the performers, rather than the public, is simple paternalism. Still, I've only argued on the basis of broad principles, any real argument would need to look at the dynamics of the actual diseases under consideration, and weigh the public health benefits (which might be quite small) with the liberty benefits of the old system.
Surely if it happens we'll all just get used to it. Like not smoking in bars, like (in UK) having to wear seatbelts in a car, like not drinking in the street. These things all caused an uproar at the time and are now just pretty much taken for granted. I can absolutely see both sides, but honestly, at the end of the day, people will still want to watch other people having sex. Which one of you will stop watching your favourite porn girls if it all becomes condom only? I'd hope very few. Psychologically you'll be able to see past it, like the people who see past two dicks touching in double vag or double anal despite how they'd feel about it personally. I think we should all just grow up a bit. If it's going to happen then fine. The use of condoms doesn't seem to have shut down half the gay porn industry, so like I say, lets just get used to it.
Perhaps you need to use the newly invented Origami condom. From the video that shows how it works, it seems to me this condom will reduce friction for the lady a lot, while the guy will still have plenty of friction to orgasm. It works like an origami, which is why it's called Origami condom. And if you put some lube inside this condom, then basically the condom will stay more or less in one place inside the lady, while the guy's cock will move within the condom. It works in a similar way to that of an uncircumcised cock, when it moves within its own skin. http://www.origamicondoms.com http://www.newscientist.com/video/2098343592001-origami-condom-adds-pleasure-to-safe-sex.html Edited by - Dan on 1/21/2013 10:31:16 AM
I don't go to bars. I sometimes did when I was younger but I never went there just to smoke. But I would have been offended enough by a no smoking sign in a bar that I would have gone to a different bar or I would have gone to a liquor store and taken my poison home to consume it instead. It's pretty funny to hear they don't allow you to have a cigarette with your sip of death in the UK. I haven't been to a bar in the US in so long I wouldn't know if they have the same policy here. I won't get used to censored porn. Ever. I have never gotten used to fake boobs, tattoos, bad camera work, wide angle lenses, cold weather, Barack Obama or any one of a number of things I decided I didn't like. Maybe if your mind is mush you will get used to things you don't like. Not me. You can censor porn for the next 50 years and if I live that long, I still won't be watching it.I don't wear seatbelts because I have to. I wear them because I want to. If we lived in a society where the cops caught every person who wasn't wearing one and fined them, I would say I don't have a choice. But frankly, it's been years since I was stopped by the cops and even then, I'd have had time to put it on before he got to the door. I could easily go without wearing it and never be caught. This is not a good comparison until there is a way to catch people.I never did that anyway. Wouldn't care if anyone else did either as long as they left me alone and didn't do anything too stupid. I don't miss it because I never did it. I will notice censored porn and anyone who wants to see real fucking is going to notice the dude is wearing a rubber.Some people will. People like me won't. I don't fantasize about condoms. I watch porn to see my fantasies brought to life. Not merely to watch people having sex. Putting on a condom is something you do if you want to fuck somebody in real life and that's the only way it's going to happen. Buying porn featuring rubbers is not the only way I can masturbate. I have plenty of good porn and I even have some good porn stashed away in a secret location. I'm not going to lose anything here and I am not going to be backed into a corner where I have to accept this. I will just stop buying porn if it goes all condom. I don't care if other people still buy it. If they want to buy watered down crap, fine. I can assure you if all porn goes to "safe sex" (Including no unprotected oral or cumshots) the industry will take a massive hit. It might still be able to survive in some form as a shadow of it's former self but that's not saying much. Almost any business can just barely survive if they're willing to settle for peanuts. And they're selling sex so there will always be a few suckers left.Me. Well, I will stop buying new stuff. There will still be solo pictures that are unaffected by rubbers but I won't buy that either because I won't do business with people who did not fight the condom mandate with everything they had. My business is my vote. I didn't have the opportunity to vote against it politically but I sure can stop spending money.As I am bi, I never had a problem with two dicks touching in porn.Oh good! Does that mean you believe other adults have a right to choose when it comes to having sex?I don't have any idea how much money the gay porn industry makes or how much they lose but I know they have never gotten a penny from me. And again, I'm bi so I would be someone who might consider buying gay porn if it was uncensored. And I'm not getting used to anything other than having more money. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/21/2013 12:45:02 PM
From the male perspective, you might as well be fucking a Fleshlight From the female perspective, you might as well use a dildo and watch movies of men making faces.
