You're missing some Facts.
There are a few major subtypes of HIV.
The one that's spreading in this country.
And the types that looms in Asia and certain parts of Africa.
The subtypes that are in Asia, africa and latin america. The virus is more easily passable from female to male partners. So in those countries heterosexuals are higher risk than the subtype that flourishes here where the virus doesn't seem to like vagaina's.

yes i've oversimplified everything.

[Link]

This is a very important topic.

[Link]

I'm in favor of reducing the fear about casual sex, when it's based on bullshit, cant and untrue dogma.

Edited by - dexplorer on Oct 30 2001

[Link]

I'm not sure what your whole point of this post is.

Are you incouraging people to have unsafe sex?
Did you recently have unsafe sex that you feel guilty about, and this post is your way of convincing yourself that it's really ok?

Or is it simply that you are sick of seeing condoms in porn?

I admit, I'm sick of condoms in porn too, but I'm not about to trick poor old porn stars into fucking bareback by telling them that condoms aren't really necessary.

The whole idea that fucking is safe as long as you never slipped your weiner into <slimey person X> is pretty niave.

[Link]

You could drive for years without wearing a seatbelt and never have any problems whatsoever. But all it takes is one accident to put that to an end. Whether the accident was your fault or the other person's isn't going to matter at that point.

So are you saying that women are invincible against HIV/AIDS and that you're safe as long as you have sex with women that aren't druggies?

Just because a risk is small doesn't mean it's not there. I'd rather have the lifejackets on board in case the boat capsizes, ya know? Sure it may be a drag to have to wear 'em, but... safe vs. unsafe, I'll take safe. And the more people that are doing it/encouraging it, be it porn actors or anyone else -- that'll just make it safer for everyone. Yes? No?

[Link]

Where the hell do you get this comment about the women's movement? There is no good method of birth control. Don't tell me the pill, or all the other forms of hormone treatment. Some women can take hormones without a problem. For others it negatively affects their well being. The pill is also harder to get than condoms.

You're welcome to choose to risk your health, but encouraging others to do so is irresponsible.

[Link]

As for what practical course to take all in, I'll quote myself

What women really need to do is not sleep with IV drug users or bi-sexuals -- or if they don't mind being in a vastly, vastly higher risk pool, then at least always use a rubber when they do. If you look at the facts, that's really where the issue lies. In fact, what the great majority of people view as the level of free floating hetero risk of HIV out there, is really the risk if you sleep with these narrow pools -- IV drug users and the much smaller group of actively bi-sexual males. She should become comfortable about those things. And yes, get AIDS tests beforehand.

The bi issue would be a bigger problem if the were more bi guys. There really aren't that many, at least in the U.S. Most I think are transitionally bi - in the coming out of the closet stage. Closet is way less of an issue than it used to be, given better treatment of gays. The gay ideology for men is you are either gay, or you're not. If you're bi, you're really gay, it's said. And pressured to go that way. (It's sort of like the current black ideology where if there is any perceptible amount of black in you, you are expected by the black community to identify as wholly black, even if you're genetically 15/16 white, and were raised by say a white single mother.) Actually, esp.. in the case of bi guys, that's the way the mainstream world looks at it as well. It's seen as a VERY big line. Except in a very few of the most "avant" circles. (Not including the porno world from what I can tell, where homophobia re: male actors seems huge. Rumors can kill careers. Perhaps in part for legitimate risk pool reasons.)

What truly is irresponsible are those people who rely on condoms as the only method of birth control, what with their high rates of actual in practice failure. Esp. if the person finds abortion anathema. Then it's simply playing Russian roulette. Yet this is widely preached throughout the land these days by many feminists.

I take your point about there being no good method. That most definitely includes the condom. Aside from it's much more limited effectiveness, it is definitely less pleasurable to use. Especially for men, or many men. Which you know, isn't all the equation but isn't none of it either - for relationships. (And it really pisses me off when militants act like this should be simply dismissed.)

Actually I think it's closer to the truth to say there's no perfect method for everybody, and some methods are quite troublesome for a few. Some methods work like a charm for the vast majority -- yet most never try them almost entirely for propaganda / misinformation reasons. My (late) live together girlfriend used Norplant very successfully. This slow implanted drip form of birth control is probably THE most effective. It has a bad reputation in some quarters almost entirely for marketing / social policy reasons associated with some controversies about how it could be used (but never has been to my knowledge) in a coerced sort of way. That's irrelevant to private use of it. It's a do once and forget for five years method (or until you go and have it removed from your arm at baby making time in a very simple and cheap office procedure), that uses the lowest and most natural amount of spread out hormonal drip. For many the slight hormonal diffusion can regularize and smooth their cycles and mood swings. A few do have problems. Also very good are IUD's these days. The prior issues have been solved for the vast, vast majority of users. They both also have the virtue of being inherently impossible to forget to do.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 1 2001

[Link]

Globally, 36.1 million adults and children were living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2000. Of infected adults, 47.3 percent were women. In 2000, the global adult HIV prevalence rate was 1.1 percent. During that year, 5.3 million people were newly infected with HIV, and there were 3.0 million adult and child deaths due to HIV/AIDS. Since the beginning of the epidemic, there have been 21.8 million AIDS deaths.

Somehow I really doubt all these people are junkies or gay...

Did you ever play that handshake game in sex ed? 1 person stands up and shakes their neighbors hand, then picks another person and shakes their hand and so on until the entire class is "infected".

I think I'd rather stick with using a condom.

And I agree with Steph, Dex, I find your post hugely irresponsible.

[Link]

Globally is irrelevant and utterly misleading to the risks of contracting AIDS through heterosexual sex within the United States. That risk is tiny.

Virtually all of your numbers are located in AFrica and Asia.

As I said in at least some detail, the conditions of spread are very, very different there.

As Evil Rip said the strains of the disease are different as well. Yeah they could come here but they haven't to any degree.

The fact remains that epidemiologically, the heterosexual spread of HIV, or not, in the US is as I described.

Seethis book available at Amazon, among other things.

Look at the detailed numbers at the CDC.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 1 2001

[Link]

Edited by - dexplorer on Oct 31 2001

[Link]

In case my tone isn't coming through enough, I'm with Steph and Lunacy. I find your message to have a huge personal agenda and is very irresponsible. And on a personal level, I am very offended.

From your posts, I would gather that you would look at me and assume that I should have known that Marc Wallice was a different situation to have sex with than say, Mark Davis. Theoretically, to someone who doesn't have access to their personal history, they should have each been just as safe. They were both supposedly getting a negative HIV test result every month for years. And Marc Wallice had been in the business longer than Mark Davis, which should have made him safer, right?

To say that you can tell which people are safe and can be trusted is very god-like, and I don't believe in people being clairvoyant.

Imagine this: You didn't know me, and I asked you out on a date and we ended up sleeping with each other a few times until you reached your "comfort level" and said you didn't need a condom anymore. Then we have sex without a condom, and knowing how much I cum, I orgasm all over that tiny, imperceptable cut I put on your dick with my teeth when I was deepthroating you. Whoops!!!!!

Finally, with all your other posts talking about how your ideal relationship is one where you and the girl can both play around with others separately and freely, I think any girl who would sleep with you without a condom is careless.

[Link]

Well, you have succeeded in your apparent goal of stinging me badly. Coming from you in particular it hurts. Your arguments don't sting me but the emotional mud sure does.

I couldn't be sorrier that you have HIV Tricia. I wish you all the best. It's hard to take issue on a subject like this with someone so personally affected. Even if health wise, I gather so far all is well for you. I certainly hope so. The prospects are better than ever these days I think. I'm sure you know way more about that at this point than I do.

But I don't think you're being at all fair about what I said.

I realize for someone who has become infected that isn't going to carry much weight, but I still think it's true. The risk of coming down with anthrax in the US is still extremely, extremely low, except for a few areas of work, where its only very low. (Well a really high profile newscaster or his letter opening assistant has a significant risk of exposure.) But that isn't going to carry much weight for the unlucky few. Or for a lot of the public. Who don't think all that rationally.

I think all that I've said about the true risks, and the reasons for their continued media exaggeration is accurate. Neither you nor anyone have shown otherwise. I'd be happy if you do. I'm just trying to get at the truth. However, I do recognize that even a very small risk of a very bad thing, requires extra caution. I haven't advocated anything else.

I have not advocated dispensing with condoms for causal heterosexual sex, or after a few dates with someone. I myself have only dispensed with them in real relationships, after HIV tests for both. Which I also recommended in a post above. (In high risk groups or low comfort levels these should be the PCR/DNA type, which is better anyway.) The risks may be very low but the consequences are very great, so lots of caution is warranted.

As for not being able to tell IV drug users or bi-sexual males from others, well that really is the issue. I think once you get to know someone really intimately and spend a lot of time with them, or live with them, you very much should be able to tell both. Not necessarily from casual acquaintance. What I meant by comfort level is really deeply getting to know someone. I guess it's possible you might not be able to tell just the moment an addict moved to intravenous using, but any heavy addictive drug use therefore moves someone into high risk category status. You sure should know if the person has a habit, if you know very much about them. So condoms need to continue. Or othe wrong sort of person to be sexually intimate with. Similarly, while you may not be able to tell whether someone has actually had a recent gay experience, you should be able to tell whether they are open to it or not. By, you know, talking a lot to each other, intimately. There are also not huge numbers of bi-males in this country, at least active ones. There's a very, very high cultural imperative to be straight or gay, in both communities. You should also be able to tell whether you can trust them to always have used condoms in any recent casual sex experience, even if they don’t reveal the experience to you. Two very different levels of deception or carelessness. As well I've said one should see HIV tests so all you really need to feel sure about is a recent junkie or unprotected gay experience by your partner.

If you don't approach it this cautiously and you aren't screwing people you know to be junkies or male bisexuals, you still aren't at all likely to get it. Which was my main focus in my first post. But you shouldn't take the chances, where they really lie, given the consequences.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 1 2001

[Link]

The porn industry DOES have rampant amounts of casual sex with persons the actresses don't know very well necessarily. That's the practice there. I would never remotely have unprotected sex with someone with that kind of lack of knowledge of them and their background. Especially since there seems to be a lot more drug dependency among many (though hardly all) in the porn world than on average elsewhere. Non needle addiction can switch to needle addiction quickly. What the porn world has used as it's safeguard in the face of this, is once monthly HIV tests. Finally now PCR/DNA tests. Not necessarily when you were infected. Marc Wallice evidently faked his, one or a number of times, from what I understand, and as well seems to have been undetected by less effective types of HIV tests he was allowed to turn in. In fact, from what I've read (mostly at Luke Ford where Luke seems to be much more in reporter mode on this topic than usual), Marc Wallice's viral loads when he finally did get tested indicate he was probably infected for around a year before then (in May of 98), meaning six or seven months or so before infecting most of those he did, including you. He apparently wasn't getting PCR/DNA tests and the industry at that time apparently wasn't absolutely requiring them. And he may have faked or not shown the less good type of test as well on one or more occasion after his viral loads did get high enough to infect.

Yet even with this much riskier set of practices, including lots of unprotected anal sex, the porn industry has only had 10 instances of HIV since it first became a recognized disease precursor, from all I've read.

Hey Tricia, I have no doubt whatsoever that you know much more about these things in the industry and for sure about your case. It would also help if the industry did more policing of persons addicted to substances which are sometimes injected, or who otherwise use needles, I would think. Wouldn't you.?

As well I think the likelihood of my actually getting it from that tiny "imperceptible" cut from your teeth are small. Especially near the base of the penis as it would be from the deep throat teeth scenario you give.) It's not an easy disease to pass, Other than through blood, or to a lesser extent semen or vaginal fluids actually entering inside the other's body without contacting air. (It's not passed by oral saliva, and saliva appears to be a prophylactic. ) Would I want to risk it? Hell no. But I don't think it's very likely. If that kind of scenario actually caused HIV transmission very often with the U.S. strains of the disease, it would have spread far more widely through the last 20 years among U.S. hets than it has. If "we" had unprotected anal that would be another thing entirely. Anal = condoms, always. Of course I'm not saying any type of unprotected sex with a positive or high risk person is sane. The opposite.

Frankly, that is just plain vindictive. Because you disagree with some of my arguments?

If I did have some sort of somewhat open relationship, I would certainly ALWAYS use condoms with any casual sex partners we agreed on. All the more because of my responsibility to the woman I loved.

As well you obviously don't understand what I've been mentally exploring as a relationship form. (In actual life I've so far just experimented with girl/girl/boy threesomes, with a somewhat bi prior girlfriend.) What I've found most intriguing and repeatedly said so are the sorts of things Wendy Divine has described with her husband. Not each of us playing around "separately and freely". Together sometimes involving another or a couple of other people (with condoms). Not separately, and not "freely". Discussed and planned out together. With the focus for each of us being AT LEAST as much on giving that extra set of expriences to the other as in getting some direct extra ones for ourselves.

Frankly, coming from a porn actress (one I've very much liked) that slam is a bit much.

What I have had trouble understanding are one way understandings where one partner gets to have sex with multiple partners albeit in an involvement limiting way (such as only on the set or with other rules), while the other can't at all, even only with his partner present or in other involvement limiting agreed ways. That seemed to be what you were advocating on another thread, and what I objected to there. That seems highly selfish to me. It's the only time anything you've said (other than the post I'm responding to here) really bothered me. Of course maybe I misunderstood.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 1 2001

[Link]

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 1 2001

[Link]

It's nice that you found something to be so passionate about. That's a heck of a whole lot typin, there, and to be honest, I just skimmed alot of it. But, you seem to be backing away a bit from your original stance. Check out this part, near the bottom of this discussion:

See, if you would have started with the whole "only stop using condoms after you've been together for a long time, and have both been tested" I think people may have reacted differently.

That first post of yours just sounds like a ringing endorsement for condomless sex, and that it is bound to get some people worked up.

One last thing... you posts tend to have a rather elitest attitute to them. ie HIV isn't my problem, it's their problem. You need to realize that HIV is everyone's problem. We all have to just accept that and move on from there.

[Link]

The first you quote is an assessment of what makes the most sense to do in the face of very low risk, but very bad consequences.

The second is an assessment of the actual risks.

Your second is what I addressed in my initial post, almost entirely. Because that's what I think is so misleadingly reported. Which I hate. It leads to a significant portion of the public having really absurd phobia about even protected heterosexual casual sex.

In my experience most people around here aren't dummies.

[Link]

Even if HIV/AIDS were EXCLUSIVELY a gay male and IV drug using problem in America, I wouldn't be in favor of reducing funding for it, or changing compassion about it. Not at all.

We are all one family.

But that doesn't mean one shouldn't look closely at risk factors.

Peace.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 1 2001

[Link]

Your later posts did seem to take on a more cautious than your first one, which is the one that upset me.

And your posts about porn girls caught me at a particularly bad time, one in which I am seriously considering taking my email option off my website and changing my email address because I'm tired of guys assuming that ALL porn girls are into having completely open relationships.
My current relationship is open. It just doesn't include intercourse or oral sex with anyone else for either of us since I got pregnant.
I've also probably been a little too open with fans about my personal life, which has backfired a little and made me withdraw and cherish my privacy even more.

So if I do fewer personal posts in the future, it's not because I'm mad at anyone here. Not at all. It's just taken a little bit of a toll on me.

[Link]

Thank you for saying that.

I can see that with a subject as sensitive as HIV/AIDS I should have made clearer what I thought was the best course of action despite the low risk of infection (given that it's still not curable.). Rather than almost entirely focusing on the true nature of the risk.

But that just makes me wonder how it works in her partner's head, if she's still an active porn star. Strict sexual monogamy for non acting husbands just seems inherently deeply unfair. (Unless there's never any sexual thrill for doing a variety of different men in edgie sexual performances on the set for the wife performer, which I simply don't remotely believe.) Especially since I'm convinced, and the rest of our culture and other cultures have many things which indicate, that men have much more of a wired in drive for sexual strange outside of even the best monogamous relationships than most women do. (It's more the pull of experiences than the push of instinct for some women who strongly want that I think. That is, leaving aside the different sort of desire to find a full replacement relationship or affair if the first one's troubled.)

Doesn’t mean completely open marriages (which seem to rarely be very durable) are the answer either. Full fledged affairs are very threatening to relationships. Wendy Divine's version of occasional swinging seemed very interesting and like a pretty good balance to me. And something that intrigues me in "civilian life" as well now.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 5 2001

[Link]

Most impressive and articulate.

You do seem like someone adept at cutting through propaganda and hype, and getting at the core truth.

Edited by - dexplorer on Nov 7 2001

[Link]