Click on beautiful Taylor Rain for great porn reviews!

[Link]

Dave

[Link]

Moreover, condoms detract from the viewer's pleasure. There are two reasons for this. One is that the penis isn't actually in direct contact with the partner's genitalia. The other is that they look just plain awful. A wrinkled piece of plastic on the penis is hardly mood-enhancing.

[Link]

This applies especially for persons who have sexual intercourse wizh plenty of alternating partners, i.e performers in erotic movies.

man window of diagnosis or whatever it is called

[Link]

Visually they neither add to nor detract from my viewing experience of penetration shots.
And the added benefit of an increase in work safety for the performers can only have a positive effect on my enjoyment.

I think most of my favourite movies produced since 2000 have featured condoms in some or all scenes.

But my porn of choice comes from the feature companies, and condoms may have less of an impact on their style of sex than they would on RLD style porn.

Another argument offered by condom haters, is that with most scenes ending with an open mouth facial, the risk to the girl is nearly the same.
Whether that argument holds water, I don't know.

BTW, is this a poll?

[Link]

Round Table Discussion
UCSF Study Finds No Cases of HIV Transmission From Receptive Oral Sex (pdf)

[...] having receptive anal sex with or without ejaculation is probably on the order of 10 times riskier than having receptive fellatio with ejaculation.
[...]
Of the case reports [receptive oral sex, fellatio with ejaculation]--actually 28 published--some have multiple cases, so there are maybe over 40 in the actual literature. But I would emphasize that the number of case reports is extremely low when one considers the size and the duration of this epidemic and that, from a population perspective, should be kept in mind.
[...]
In July of this last year, a group in Spain published an excellent paper from serodiscordant couples, who were heterosexuals, where they evaluated for risks of HIV transmission through unprotected oral sex, and in over 19,000 unprotected oral-genital contacts with HIV-infected partners, there was not a single case of seroconversion to HIV. This included both infected women and infected men, but the majority of the population in this study was infected men.
[...]
we published a study that showed that among 239 men who practice exclusively fellatio, not one HIV infection had occurred (Slide 7). To date, we've now interviewed over 363 men and again find no infections. This represents over 5,000 acts of oral sex, and preliminary infectivity estimates based on certain assumptions suggest an upper bound of less than what Eric published, which is 0.07%, so I think that our data--again this is a study designed to look at HIV infection in men who perform oral sex, as a means of unmasking the effect of anal sex--corroborate not only the previous studies but suggest extremely low risk. [...] But certainly consistently even in the 363 men, about 30% of them report having sex with HIV-positive partners and we still don't have any infections in this group.
[...]
The last thing I want to note about the epidemiologic studies, is that there are studies which report a high proportion of men who say that they got HIV infection from oral sex and in general, most of those studies rely on behavior which is recorded after folks know the results of their HIV test. And I think in the early years, 10 years ago, we knew that there was a recall bias in that.
[...]
in 1992 from the seroconverter study in Holland, in which 102 men seroconverted and 20 of them had reported having had only oral sex or fellatio in the period prior to that cohort visit. It was an awfully large proportion and in reinterviewing those men, 55% later did retract their initial story and in face-to-face interviews stated they had had higher risk exposures

Contact with eyes is another matter.
IMNSHAO any director who does an eyes-wide-open-bukkake should be thoroughly whipped and then be allowed to choose from getting impaled, crucified, quartered or put on the wheel.

Edited by - Zartyr on 5/7/2005 7:28:18 AM

[Link]

They seem to deal mostly with fellatio though. Is cunnilingus included?

I've never seen a dental dam. And somehow I don't think I'd like it in porn.
In real life I wouldn't even know where to get it, and no woman has ever mentioned it to me either.

[Link]

without condom scenes only with real life couples.

[Link]

Or ask your dentist (in dentistry it was used first).

Pharmacies should have it in stock, but if you don't get it, ask at the next lesbian association. They should know where to get it.

[Link]

Anyone else have similar tastes?

[Link]

And yeah, a pharmacy might be the place to go for dental dams.
It's funny how condoms are on display next to the candy at the cash register in any supermarket, but dental dams are nowhere to be seen.
But unless a lady mentions them, I think I'll prefer to continue without. Love the taste of pussy juice.

.

And +1 goldenballs request for incorporating putting on the condom as part of the scene.

[Link]

I know that you have been producing for quite a while. Does condom use truly effect sales or is it just speculation? I really would like to see the industry produce condoms only films. For me, it is so much fun to do a scene with a condom because I am not worrying about what STD I could be catching. I can just have a good time and not have any worries about it.

Love,

Rox

Edited by - rox on 5/7/2005 5:06:24 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Zartyr on 5/7/2005 8:02:44 PM

[Link]

At any rate, I don't mind condom use as long as it is well done. I think some directors may go out of their way to make condoms look bad because they don't like them. Of course, it could just be the run of the mill 'I hate my job' attitude that makes their scenes so boring.

[Link]

Maybe Tricia, Skeeter, and others can/will add their learned views here? Mine is not backed up one way or the other! However, I seldom shoot condom scenes.

Dave

[Link]

My point being, for some its everything, to others its a virtually unnoticed omission.

Edited by - Endless Loop on 5/7/2005 11:11:24 PM

[Link]

Maybe it's a personal hang-up, but it's there.

If all porn goes condom only, I won't stop watching. But I'll have to figure a way to tweak my imagination so that I can still get off. Maybe possible, maybe not.

I do own some condom scenes, and have watched them more than once. So who knows? Maybe it's just a period of acclimatization that is needed. But, it needs to be all or nothing, because if some are still shooting without, that is what I'll(and many others', I believe) will buy.

It also has a lot to do with the type of condom. Skin colored condoms are easier on the eyes.

[Link]

As a performer I dont mind wearing them during scenes.

[Link]

While I enjoy watching bareback sex, it must be very enjoyable, things have happened to change our perception of bareback sex scenes.

If I see a bareback scene I will watch it and enjoy it, because the performers have to know the risks and are undertaking the acts of their own free will.

All the performers are full grown adults who partake of the action of their own free will and know the risks, so if it is their descision to risk bareback sex, then I am completely happy with that.

Failiure to aknowledge risk or be complacent is the same in any industry. People can be killed or maimed driving forklifts just as easily if they fail to take precautions and work adequately safely.

For those people who insist, regardless, on bareback porn I have one thing to say:
Wrestling is fixed. The outcome is decided before the match takes place.

[Link]

I'd rather watch porn with condoms than risk a large outbreak of HIV in the industry.

Not only would an outbreak be a massive human tragedy, it would also give the anti-porn movement an excuse to shut the industry down.

[Link]

I realise that by daring to say this I'll probably incur the wrath and ridicule of most people reading this, many of whom - judging by the what they post in this forum - are usually among the first to reach for their "serious bullshit detectors" when it comes to The Official Line as espoused by the government and other vested interest groups. But questions DO remain, and it's just a tragedy that hiv/aids has become an almost "sacred" disease to the point that few people - politicians, scientists, journalists etc. - are willing to openly and vigorously challenge the official "hiv = aids = death" paradigm for fear of being shouted down and deemed "irresponsible" (S. African President Mbeki being one admirable exception).

How many people know for example that:

(a) At a press conference in 1984, the then U.S. Secretary of Health Margaret Heckler and the now-discredited cancer research scientist Bob Gallo boldly announced to waiting journalists that a new virus called "hiv" had been "discovered" by Gallo as the "probable" cause of aids. This was despite NO virus ever having been isolated (only protein markers for possible antibodies) and despite the fact that - contrary to established scientific research practice - none of Gallo's research work had been published for review by his fellow scientists prior to it being made public. And yet overnight the word "probable" was dropped from the phrase "probale cause", the "hiv = aids = death" paradigm was born, scientists and researchers eager for a slice of the action began to scramble aboard the retroviral bandwagon and all other theories and approaches were quickly abandoned. Of course, the Reagan Administration also wasted no time in trumpeting yet another "victory" for American scientific endeavour.

(b) Despite the hysteria that's periodically whipped up in the mass media (so that we don't forget that "aids hasn't gone away"), the much-touted "heterosexual aids epidemic" has failed to happen in the West. For the past 20 years, around 80% of all "hiv/aids" cases in the U.S. and Europe have remained confined to the traditional "high risk" groups like gays and IV drug users. U.S. infection rates have remained stable at around 1 million for years now - hardly the sign of an epidemic spiralling out of control (remember in the late '80s when Oprah Winfrey said that 5 million Americans would be dead of aids by 1990, and when Britain's Royal College Of Nursing said that "every family in Britain will have been touched by aids by the early '90s"??)

(c) We're constantly being told about tens of millions of hiv infections in sub-Saharan Africa, despite the fact that very little hiv testing is actually done in Africa (for cost and recognised test-reliability reasons). On that continent, aids diagnosis is based on what's known as the Bangui Definition, which was adopted in 1985 and says that if an African has two or more symptoms from a long list of common ailments such as diarrhoea, weight loss, fever, persistant vomiting - hey presto they have aids!! Never mind that these people are seldom actually tested for hiv!! Africans themselves even joke that these days, they're not allowed to die of anything BUT aids, and there have even been cases of road deaths being recorded as "aids-related suicide" (despite no evidence of either suicide or of the victim being infected).

(d) There are over 60 things that even hiv apologists accept CAN cause false positives on hiv tests - including pregnancy, the flu and recent vaccination against hepatitis B.

(e) The most commonly used hiv testing kits - ELISA - carry manufacturer's disclaimers that the tests are NOT definitive for detecting the actual presence of hiv in the test subject!!! Indeed, ELISA was originally intended only to screen blood banks, but soon became (mis-)used as a diagnostic tool. And similar problems have been found to exist with the supposedly more accurate Western Blot test that's used in many countries to "confirm" a positive ELISA test. Which means that potentially, millions of people worldwide could be living with false-positive diagnoses as these tests only detect protein markers of presumed antibodies to a presumed virus! How fucked-up is that??!!

(f) What do I mean by "presumed virus"? Well, quite simply that even today, the pure hi-virus has never been isolated - anywhere, by anyone!!!

(g) Worldwide there are thousands of scientists and researchers who question either (a) the link between hiv and aids or even (b) whether hiv actually exists. It's not just a few cranks either - hiv/aids sceptics include 2 Nobel prize winners and even Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of "hiv", who some years ago went on record as saying that he now believes that hiv cannot be the sole cause of aids and that other co-factors must also be involved.

(h) In 1987, the Reagan Administration took the momentous decision to promote an "Anyone Can Get Aids" message, and in so doing mentally traumatised an entire generation - who can forget the "tombstones and icebergs" advertising campaign from that time? This was done partly for political reasons, including lobbying by gay activists who were worried that unless hiv was regarded as an "equal opportunities" virus, the public at large would be unwilling to take it seriously. After all - so the logic went - who cares about a bunch of queers and junkies, right?!

(i) But this approach flew in the face of the evidence. While theoretically true that "anyone can get aids", even supporters of the hiv theory generally accept that anal sex and IV drug use are by far the most effective ways of transmitting the virus, with vaginal and oral sex a distant third and fourth. They also accept that the vast majority of recorded heterosexual transmission cases have involved at least one of the following: the presence of blood, anal sex, IV drug use and the simultaneous presence of other STDs.
However, in their minds most people automatically equate "heterosexual transmission" with "vaginal transmission" - forgetting (or maybe not even realising) that some heterosexuals also practice anal sex and without being aware that vaginal transmission is widely accepted as being relatively inefficient due to factors such as the vagina's natural acidity (pH 4) and its thicker, tougher (compared to the anus) lining that more effectively blocks incoming pathogens (including hiv). That's not to say that it doesn't or can't happen, but numerous studies of serodiscordant heterosexual couples (where one is hiv+ and the other hiv-) in Europe and the U.S. have shown that on average it takes SEVERAL THOUSAND unprotected sexual encounters with an hiv-positive subject for the virus to be transmitted vaginally (with male-to-female transmission being more effective than female-to-male). Studies such as these have, however, always been conveniently ignored by the mass media and in government (dis-)information campaigns, eager to spread the politically-correct message that "everyone is at equal risk".

(j) Going back again to Africa, most of its people live in the kind of abject poverty that we can't even begin to imagine. Their immune systems are basically fucked anyway, with or without hiv thrown into the mix: Their drinking water is often mixed with human and animal waste, they are malnourished, they have little or no basic medical care, and diseases like malaria, TB, beri-beri, typhoid and dysentery are endemic throughout much of the continent.
So what to we in the West do? We shower them with condoms and red ribbons!!! Fucking madness!! But typhoid and malaria aren't "fashionable" diseases that make people want to reach into their pockets and make a donation. So we conjure up the spectre of "hiv" there to keep the Dollars, Pounds and Euros flowing for a "good cause", while really these people would be far better off (and their already compromised immune systems would be much healthier) if they had the basics like clean running water, good food and a roof over their heads. Get all that sorted and THEN start preaching about things like "safe sex" (if we must). As it is, as far as African hiv/aids is concerned, we're trying to run before we can walk.

(k) Hiv/aids is now a highly-politicised multi-billion Dollar "big business" with lots of vested interests, political and scientific reputations and above all money at stake - not least for the big pharmaceuticals companies, whose patented hiv testing kits and anti-retroviral drugs (many of which are themselves known to be immuno-suppressive, but that's another story in itself) earn them billions every year. This is the main reason why hiv/aids sceptics are reviled as irresponsible "flat-earthers" (ironic really when you think that it was the flat-earthers who held sway at the time of Galileo). Small wonder that no-one's willing to even question the goose that laid the golden egg, much less kill it.

I could go on and on about this, but I think I've made my point.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I accept that people are dying of something (in which a viral entity called "hiv" may or may not play a role) and I do agree that on an individual level, every diagnosis of hiv/aids is a personal tragedy - not least for the feeling of hopelessness it engenders in many of those affected and because of the stigma involved as well. So I apologise to anyone I may have offended (not my intention). BUT the fact remains that despite over 20 years and billions of Dollars being invested in hiv/aids research, very little progress has been made - so maybe we've been barking up the wrong tree. At any rate, something certainly stinks about the whole thing. And we sure as shit haven't been told the whole story.

Edited by - floraman on 5/16/2005 11:48:31 AM

[Link]

I think it would be great if some of the studios were to take the initiative themselves to start doing this.

I may be wrong, but don't Vivid and Wicked have condom-only policies? I'm with RLD Fiend. Condoms literally turn me off.

If all of mainstream cinema is nothing but fntasy, then the Porn industry is nothing more than fantasy exploiting an exceedingly narrow niche: human sexuality. For me, condoms ruin the fantasy. Call it selfishness if you'd like. I'm certainly not going to attempt to justify it. It just IS.

[Link]

RT

[Link]

because they are so rare :-)

[Link]

NO condoms! Get tested - regularly!

[Link]

On a personal note ... i would have to say i prefer watching bareback. I mean it is all about the fantasy and condoms rarely enter that world. At the same time i dont wish harm on anyone else and dont want the porn industry to crumble or whatever and if it is safer and the actors prefer it , then to my fantasies dissapointment , i have to back condom usage in the porn industry.

One thing that condom usage in all mainstream movies will create is one HUGE blackmarket for bareback movies. That is a guarentee! I dont think that will be a good thing.

Furthermore i see that Subsaharan Africa and HIV have been mentioned. Well i am from South Africa and HIV is a HUGE problem. It has affected the average age of africans throughout and some countries life expectancies have dropped from like 60 down to 35! Now at present ... HIV is prevelant amongst the black communities in South Africa but it will surely spread to the whites aswell as it does not care what race you are. Now just as white South Africans like myself are possibly too complacent about this disease , so are Americans. At present we all have this false security and this could lead to our downfall.

So i will be dissapointed the day bareback porn is outlawed but i do realise it will be for the greater good.

(All of this obviously only applies to those with multiple partners)

[Link]