I have nothing to add except that I'm struggling with these issues as well.

[Link]

And when something does goes wrong, it's almost always traced back to someone slipping up and not respecting the system.

The gun analogy is correct. Take a gun safety course, and follow these basic rules.

1. Always assume and treat every gun as if it were loaded.

2. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

Three simple rules, and with cases involving 99% of the accidental shootings, you can trace back to one of these three simple rules being broken.

The Biz is no different. It also has simple rules, and tragedies like the current one cannot happen unless a simple rule is broken.

Do not have unprotected sex with anyone who doesn't have a current and valid test result, showing they are clean.

Do not have unprotected sex with gay men, bisexual men, or transsexuals, whether their test is clean or not makes no difference. Always use a condom period. Sorry to be so blunt.

Do not have unprotected sex with anyone who is a needle user, whether their test is clean or not makes no difference.

If these rules are followed, the rates of HIV infection would plummet to almost nothing.

Of course if people eat healthy, exercise, and avoid smoking they'll live much longer than those who don't, so it's all relative.

ALL sex is risky if the partners are untested. Blaming this
outbreak on anal sex or cum-play is missing the point.

CC

Edited by - Cyberchicken on 4/22/2004 9:22:46 AM

Edited by - Cyberchicken on 4/22/2004 11:48:45 AM

[Link]

And condom-only porn will always be unwatchable for me, nothing will ever change that!

[Link]

A point to pound into heads may be that if they choose to do unsafe acts like mentioned above, they are playing russian roulette with their peer's lives, not just their own. A lot of people might not give a shit when it comes down to taking their own risks, but will care when it concerns some young sweet thing.

[Link]

----

I'm glad you started the thread.

I just want to feel GOOD about watching porn, that's all. It's not hard... or it wouldn't be so hard if I had any faith in many of the producers to treat the performers fairly. So little porn makes me feel good anymore, and
when I do get that great feeling, it usually has to do with a particular girl, or the vibe of a particular director who doesn't seem to be a creep, and there's STILL no way for me to know what the REAL story is.

I don't know. I don't want to give up porn. Like you said, it's silly to think that we can, or should eliminate ALL risk. And the idea that we cannot produce this kind of entertainment with the hope of maybe transcending the prominant soul-lessness in much of the work that people laughingly refer to as "gonzo" these days is just unacceptable to me. On the other hand, though... where is the cut-off? At what point does the risk become too great? Is it just a matter of educating people on the risks? Maybe, but the industry doesn't seem to give two shits about that. And that's what bothers me the most.

But again... what do I know? I'm just buying a couple Cytherea titles because I like to watch Cytherea! Is that so wrong?! I just don't know anymore. The last thing I want to see is her get hurt by these faceless unfeeling pricks who just want to cash their checks, pat her on the butt, show her the door, and consider their responsibility fulfilled.

I don't know shit--I just care is all. All I ask is that the industry, and some of these crazy-ass fans care too--maybe that would be enough. It would at least be a START .

By no means am I'm making blanket statements and talking about EVERYone, and I understand all too well that porn is a business like any other. It's just that the industry's dark side is very upsetting, and it seems to rear its ugly head most prominantly in times of crisis like this.

Like I said before. Well said Tony. I struggle as a fan, just as you do as a filmaker. I don't have any answers, but I won't give up looking for them either.

Edited by - MLyons on 4/22/2004 11:28:36 AM

[Link]

Have I taken for granted the risks talent take to provide us consumers a moment's pleasure, to, in my case, provide an outlet for my sexual hunger that helps keep my marriage monogamous? Maybe.

Should I feel guilty, though, for having sexual desire and enjoying a product that targets that need, the people who create which are supposed to be aware of and compensating for the risks involved? No, just angry that there seems to be misinformation and some shoddy business practices.

Now, having participated on ADT for a year, and getting to know people in and around the adult industry, inside and out, I can no longer see the people on the screen as ephemeral images, slightly unreal and unreachable. I see them as the people I know them to be, people I often respect and admire and have genuine affection for, and the thought that they're risking their lives for my entertainment is giving me pause.

Like MLyons, I'm struggling with it, maybe not the same aspects or from the same perspective, but there's no denying my perceptions have changed, are still changing, and I'm still unable to articulate what they have become. The "fuck me for being selfish" versus the "fuck an industry and a workforce that ain't protecting its own lifeblood, literally" are at odds.

Do what other industries do, self-regulate or the government will, form unions, educate, and make damn sure the environment smut is produced in is conducive to the employees health and well-being. I know that means the number of titles made will go down. I don't necessarily believe that's a bad thing.

There is the cold voice in the back saying "they know the risks, no one's holding a gun to their head, and it's not your fault". But do they?

So, I try to put myself in their shoes, on the other end of the barrel, and ask myself "what now?"

OK, cobalt, you're talent. Realize that no matter what, the only person ultimately responsible for you is you, not any one test or the other, nor test center, not my doctor, not my agent or a director or a studio, just you. And that may mean condoms, and refusing to work with people who use drugs (and if that means drug testing, welcome to the club), and a lot of other things that might make me, and my point of view, unpopular among my peers and yes, certain segments of the consumer base.

Know what I'd tell someone who refused to buy my condom porn? Take your money and give it to research for a cure.

Further, I personally wouldn't be engaging in acts that exacerbate the problem, like profound anal penetrations which tear tissue a whole lot worse than a good old-fashioned buttfuck. I'm not saying stop doing them, but at least pay a fuckload more for it, seeing as how you're only doing it to please a niche market. Jack up the price of the product to make it worthwhile. Make Joe realize he's got to pay for the risk that went into making it. make it worth my while to risk life and limb to perform it.

I'd recognize, too, that as good as computer animation has become, it may be time for me to concentrate on making photorealistic 3D fuckfests because the collateral damage to real people just isn't worth it. Maybe not, that's my internal greedmeter running.

If staying alive means a lower number of people in front of the camera, with current tests who know the risks, but creating a higher quality product (but less of it), I'm for that. I'd pay more for it, too.

We can't stop being sexual creatures. It's our nature. So is violence. And death. And hope and love and all that rot. So is a need for justice. If there's any justice, changes will be made. Major fuckin' adjustments. Maybe one day there'll be a cure. Until then, though, don't ever forget there's such a thing as boring day jobs. Ooooh...ow...forget I said that.

There's a dark side to everything good, but rather than accept that "them's the breaks", there must be ways to protect the most precious investment a pornographer has: their people. If it's all about quantity over quality and fuck the talent, then consider me a non-consumer. My imagination is still better than 99% of the rot coming out of porn valley, anyway. Take the tour, it's fun and nobody gets hurt.

Love!

Edited by - cobalt60 on 4/22/2004 3:02:51 PM

[Link]

Being diagnosed with HIV is undoubtedly a nerve wracking experience and I wish Lara Roxx and Darren James the best, however, I am really bothered by the case of Ms. Roxx:
1) she was so completely uniformed,
2) she was taken advantage of, not only on the set but by her supposed agent in LA and
3) she not only got infected with HIV, which, statistically speaking I can't be that upset about, but with several other diseases that SHOULDN'T have been tolerated in people performing sex for a living.

I offset that with the knowledge that her manager in Canada warned her she wasn't ready for LA, and that people like Tony Comstock, Kimi Lixx, John Stagliano and Tricia Devereaux exist in the industry as well, and I cannot conclude that porn is bad, but that there are bad apples in the industry and bad attitudes as well. The maverick/outsider/loner attitude celebrated by the industry may be a comforting counter-measure to the scorn much of the public has for porn, but when that attitude extends to indifference to the talent's well-being then things have to change. Blaming one bad egg makes no difference. These things are happening on YOUR sets, and that means you directors and producers have to accept some measure of responsibility for the health and safety of everyone on your shoots. AND, you have to do that knowing that you can't control what these people do off the set.

Now, Cyberchicken suggested rules which, if followed, would cause the HIV infection rate to plummet. Well, those are already the rules and when they weren't followed other people suffered, and that's precisely why the government is stepping in. I don't think anyone is blaming anal sex or cum-play, but the fact is that what OSHA looks for is job hazards which the employers can address. What the department of health looks for is infectious diseases that are a danger to the general populace. Put those two together and they are going to be very concerned about unprotected sex in an environment where a pathogen can rapidly spread through the community and beyond. If you don't like having OSHA and the DoH on your doorsteps then YOU need to address their concerns beforehand.

What I want to see is people in the industry make the commitment to educate the talent. I think NOBODY should be allowed to perform sex on camera without taking a thorough course on STD's and having a certificate in hand to prove it. Then, if the talent wants to take the risks, there can be no question about them operating in the dark, any more than an educated automobile driver does. I know that I'm taking my life in my own hands when I get behind the wheel, but I KNOW the risks and can make that decision so informed.

To help the talent assess the risks, I want to see the industry operate in such a way that current STD tests are meaningful; that is to say an AIM certificate means you are well TODAY, not just that you were well 2 weeks ago before you stuck your dick into 30 different orifices.

Also, I don't want to see the industry punish performers who want to use condoms by refusing them work. I don't want to hear about directors acting unprofessionally and trying to get the talent to do what wasn't agreed on beforehand. I don't want to hear about agents whose only interest is getting their client a job, any job. That doesn't mean I want you to sweep the bad under the rug, which appears to be the current modus operandi, that means I want the bad to be exposed for what it is and made to stop. So, another thing I would ask the community to consider is putting up some type of web site where performers could score the various companies and directors and agents, and where everyone could look at scorecards that would rate these people for integrity, attitude, etc. You may not be in a position to put director X out of business, but you can certainly expose his practices for all the talent to see before they have to find out the hard way. It is time for the 'everybody loves everybody' cover-up to stop.

Finally, you have to protect yourselves and the other performers against rogue talent. The time has come to say, "I don't care how hot you look, I don't care how well you fuck pussy or suck cock, if you aren't a responsible adult you don't perform on my set."

Edited by - hardware on 4/22/2004 5:46:45 PM

[Link]

bingo. an isolated case of HIV infection is discovered and, presto, everyone turns into a saint. Yes, what happened to the individuals involved is terrrible, but is that and indication that the porn system as a whole failed? I don't think so. All systems fail some people some of the time. It's not fool proof. But given the high number of unsafe sexual acts being done in the porn industry business, I'm surprised at the low rates of infection. Something must be working.

Again, I feel for the Canadian girl who was infected. But it was also HER choice to perform in porn. She HAD to be aware of the risks involved. Nobody FORCED her onto a porn set. Performers and producers have a shared responsibility here.

Porn stars are adults and can make decisions. They then have to live -as does everyone else- with the consequences of those decisions.

And, no, I will not watch and/or buy condom only features.

2Big

[Link]

I'm tired of seeing people who are showing some compassion and concern being shrugged off as hypocrites. If that's not what you meant, please explain it to me.

Edited by - MLyons on 4/22/2004 4:24:05 PM

[Link]

You've got a good point, one I agree with to a point. In any endeavor involving trusting someone else, you have to assume that if you're playing by the rules, so are others, and like you say, that's not a 100% thing, obviously. I also don't think you just throw people in a shark tank and tell them those are goldfish in there. It's ... going to require more thought before this sinner says any more.

Let me amend that 99% thing. One scene out of five, that's 20%. So I concede 19% for sheer bluster.

Other than that, I stand by what I said.

Edited by - cobalt60 on 4/22/2004 4:22:56 PM

[Link]

Max Booty
"She smells like angels ought to smell."
Frank Miller, Sin City

[Link]

Maybe it's me but I'm getting the feeling we fans of DAP's and anal creampies are getting blamed for our taste.

[Link]

Even given this HIV outbreak, more will die this year form driving cars, eating fatty foods, working with heavy machinery, and being at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The question I have to ask is: How much will going to "condom-only" porn protect the industry? All it takes is one person to screw up with an "industry" outsider, and everyone is at risk. Condoms reduce that risk, but by how much in an industry where the exchange of fluids is commonplace. Its real hard to say.

It's never going to be 100% safe as long as a virus like the HIV virus exists. How safe is it already? They have pretty stringent testing. Everyone seems to be cooperating. Alot of girls only work with certain people. How safe can they make it? It's a hard question to answer.

[Link]

I know jokes won't get me out of this one...I said "I wouldn't participate" in certain activities if I personally were talent , and that because of the higher risk involved, it should pay more, and perhaps that cost could be absorbed by the consumer who wants it.

This is where the ice gets thinner.....[deep breath].....rather than all of us paying one price for everything, some fetishes would have a sliding scale...and I realize I'm waffling and fudging and baffled.

No offense is intended to anyone here on a personal level, certainly not by me . Bearing in mind, though, that the more risks involved, the higher the compensation, that's why soldiers and pilots get "hazard pay". Am I making any damn sense? Guess not.

I gotta cut and run while I still can. Unfortunately, this is a "brain off day", has been all day, and I shouldn't have even opened my big mouth.

Edited by - cobalt60 on 4/22/2004 4:51:43 PM

[Link]

Having followed the Darren James / Lara Roxx threads these past couple of weeks, I'm getting really pissed off with all the self-appointed medical experts and prophets of doom who are now crawling out of the woodwork on this site.

Sure, HIV is a serious issue and still needs to be treated as such, but as Ramsey rightly points out, HIV does not necessarily equal AIDS and is also not the automatic death sentence that it was 10 or 20 years ago. Statements like "thought that someone as sweet and smart as Tricia will be with us for a far shorter time that she should be" serve no purpose at all and are in fact quite nauseating to read.

Here's to you, Tricia, Darren and Lara - live long and prosper!!!

[Link]

What some of us ARE saying is that we'd like the performers to ACTUALLY have that choice, beyond just the black and white decision of "either perform without a condom, or don't perform at all".

The question is not one of whether it's ok for fans to like DAP, and cream pies. The question is wehther or not it's the fan's God given right to view such acts no matter what the risks involved. To me those are two completely different issues.

Once again, in the ideal utopia, that decision should be left to the individual performer, but without an even playing ground in SOME capacity (either through an industry sponsored entity that everyone actually listens to or through ::shudder:: governement regulation in some form) there will continue to be unrelenting pressure on performers to participate in high risk activity to the point where either they do it, or they don't work. I'd HATE to see the industry come to this. It's barbaric, and ugly. I don't know what the answer is. All I want at this particular second is for porn companies to AT LEAST step up to the plate and show just an inkling of CARING? Education is key, and alot of the women who come in and are spit out on a daily basis don't even know the risks they're taking. It comes a point where it's not informed choice anymore, it's simple economic bullying.

Is it really too much to ask that the girls be able to work an environemnt where they can make informed choices about their decisions without being ostricized? That's all anyone here is saying, although I think Tony C. is saying a lot more--and I agree with a lot of it.

[Link]

The risks are obvious and known. Unless you've lived under a rock for the past 20 years, you know what the causal relationship is between stds and unprotected sex.

Is there any evidence that porn companies deliberately lie to performers about the risks. Are performers being FORCED to have sex without protection AGAINST their will?

I also find it interesting how we infantilize female porn stars: we call them "girls," as if they are immature, childish, and naive.

This is of course just the way feminists like to see porn: the exploitation of innocent wall flowers by greedy, oversexed, quasi-rapists.

2Big

[Link]

We all know it here, most of us prefer condomless porn. (If condom porn was the only option... will they not watch porn? Yeah right). Unless there is a law that no condomless porn can be shown or distributed in the US, it will be here. Our capatalism is a double edged sword. As long as there is a market for it, someone is gonna supply it. If that means that the footage is shot offshore, and the talent gets paid 10 times what they are now, it will probably happen. As TonyC pointed out, everything has risks... the world ain't a perfect place. Just driving the car to work is risky... yet expected of most of us.

Edited by - mike_rach on 4/22/2004 5:22:23 PM

[Link]

Myk

[Link]

Apparently there is no middle ground between "no one's forcing anyone to show up on set" and "the meat grinder scenario could use a fresh coat of paint before Uncle Sam comes around with his very large, one color fits all brush".

Are these the lines being drawn in the sand, so far, just clarify someone for me please? I'm baffled by what seems to be a total lack of compassion on the hand and the death knell of the industry on the other. Surely there's some middle ground here.

[Link]

Again, hardware's post is more even-tempered than I'm being here. This isn't referencing everyone in the industry. This is simply an observation of how the industry seems to work, regardless of the good intentions of those who actually DO care. Just talk to dac or Tony. It only takes a few bad apples, and the dark side of pure capitalism will take care of the rest.

Edited by - MLyons on 4/22/2004 5:37:17 PM

[Link]

And, no, there is no middle ground in Gonzo, well, because it's gonzo. If you do not wish to perform these acts, there ARE other options: softcore, girl-girl only, perform only with boyfriend, various erotic websites, etc.

Again, I believe you're not accurately presenting what is actually happening in the industry.

2Big

Edited by - 2Big on 4/22/2004 5:43:09 PM

[Link]

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/22/2004 5:56:33 PM

[Link]

Max Booty
"She smells like angels ought to smell."
Frank Miller, Sin City

[Link]

OSHA and the DoH are looking at a system they think is broken, not simply because of two HIV cases, but because of ongoing problems with STD's in general. I think there are ways to deal with this that avoid condoms, but those initiatives are going to have to be pushed by the industry, because the government isn't interested in finding novel solutions. As far as the agencies are concerned, they know how to reduce the risks and that's what they'll mandate. If you don't like it then stop whining and come up with some realistic alternatives, which I don't believe 'run to Europe' qualifies as.

As for wanting to improve the performers' lot, I'm unapologetic about it. I have no desire to guarantee outcomes for them, but I see no reason that they should not be educated about their jobs before they're asked to do them. Let's call it compassionate conservatism, shall we?

[Link]

Now, that inflammatory comment aside, I submit for your consideration the case of my wildcard nominee in Lee O's Porn Star Face Off: Amee Donavan. In her short, sweet career, she posted here about anal tearing, infections in her mouth and throat from A2M, irregular pap smears (which may or may not have a damn thing to do with her work on camera, bear with me), and left us with comments such as (and I'm paraphrasing wildly, but fuckin' bear with me please): "I tried to do too much too soon and do too many scenes in a row." Health problems from performing in adult may or may not have been to blame for her decision to exit the scene; maybe the name recognition she got from shooting gonzo took her feature dancing to the level she wanted and she merely had no desire to continue.

BUT...it's indisputable that her experiences in the industry weren't 100% what she bargained for, or pleasant.

NOW...so what? Whose responsibility is it to find out exactly what to expect? Hers, right? So, who should she have gone to, another industry veteran, her agency, a clinic, a website, where? Who? My point is you can't know what you're getting into until after the fact, its the same with many jobs, and while everyone's experience will be somewhat different, there is enough sameness to make the case for education that I've heard.

If you're going to tell me "fuck her, she chose to get in front of the camera, she suffers the consequences" and I say "fuck that, the paltry amount these girls get paid to get their assholes torn up and staph infections in their throats and possibly even the inability to bear children in the future or, of course, death does not justify the end result for me".

But fuck me, right? I'm married, I get head, I get anal, what the hell difference is it to me if the whole industry shuts down? Not a whole fuck of a lot, I tell you that truthfully.

I don't buy porn for the most part because what I'm seeing is crap, and many of the people making it don't give a shit about it or you or (obviously) the people who work for them.

I don't say "ALL", and there are certainly many, many exceptions to that and to you, I apologize and just disregard my rant. I'm not going to be so stupid as to name names one way or the other, but trying to turn this into a "black and white" issue just strikes me as incredibly naive. Yeah, well, who gives a shit what I think? Me, I love this clakkety-clakkety sound I'm making, sounds just like clapping with one hand all over again.

Now...TonyC asks "what are the benefits to making porn? What are they? And to whom?" It used to benefit me, brother, because it recharged my libidinous batteries, but that's suffering of late because I get more of a charge being out in public with my imagination in tow, reading stories and enjoying photo shoots than what's being shoveled out as product by the adult DVD industry.

You've got some distributors making fat stacks, and some studios turning a profit I suppose, a few directors with some ownership of some of their titles getting residuals, but talent is woefully underpaid from what I gather, and the technical staffs are either nonexistent or even more woefully underpaid than the onscreen flesh. Sounds rather top heavy if you ask me. No one is, but I'm still talking.

Benefits? I suppose it's a form of sexual gratification and release for a lot of people who don't otherwise have sex, and for that I'm sympathetic. Whether it's from personality problems or physical appearance or some combination keeping folks from getting laid, I'm sorry, I really am, but there's someone out there for you if you look hard enough. Or not, you can pay for it, you know. Or not, you can sit and watch porn and bitch and gripe that a little HIV never hurt nobody. Whatever. I wonder how many would be so quick to condemn the infected if it were themselves or their family or friends getting the diagnosis.

Benefits? I'm having a hard time finding any. I used to say there were scenes I could watch that gave me joy, where it actually looked like the woman in the scene MIGHT be ENJOYING herself, but of course that sends half of you screaming and running out the door puking in disgust. Let me see her get slapped around, punched in the face, puking, crying because the dick in her ass hurts so much, YEAH!! Get two of 'em to kneel in front of you, grab 'em both by the melon and SMASH THEIR SKULLS TOGETHER -- THEN jerk off on their faces! YEAAAAAHHH!! That's depraved, ain't it?

Benfits...let's see. It pays a few bills, it gives aspiring filmmakers and editors and other crew some real working experience. But mostly, it seems to pad all the wrong pockets and encourages all the wrong thought processes in its viewership.

Tactful as a sledgehammer, as usual.

Edited by - cobalt60 on 4/23/2004 8:08:58 AM

[Link]

Apparently she caught one of the strains of HPV (human pappilloma virus, either strain 16 or 18) that causes these cervix changes, from one of her male partners in a porn scene. Which means that one of these men is carrying this virus, doesn't know it, and is passing it on to women whenever he works. Just one of the innumerable risks, I suppose, for an actress working in porn.

Back to the topic, I'm pretty convinced that most producers and directors don't care much about the health of the women who work in porn - there are too many women, they come and go too frequently, when one leaves, there's another to replace her.

However, they might, just might care more about their own health, since so many of them are still performers. Particularly with new penchant for internal cum shots, combined with multi-man scenes. When that second man comes inside the woman, after the first man has done his business, the second has now exposed his dick and himself to the first one's semen, and any germs contained in it. The two men might as well be having sex with each other. If the second guy has a chlamydia or gonorrhea infection, he's even more likely to become infected with HIV, if either the woman or first man have the virus.

I get the idea a lot of these porn guys think of HIV/AIDS as a gay disease, and since they are straight, they think they have nothing to worry about. They may want to take a look at the CDC website, that talks about the most common ways HIV is transmitted sexually (Vaginal and Anal, and I do believe the second is rather commonly practiced by the porn guys), and which body fluids contain HIV, mainly blood and semen. {http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq16.htm} and {http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq37.htm}

People often hear that it's rare for a straight man to get HIV from sex with a woman. This is true for a man who only has vaginal sex with a limited number of partners. This does not describe the sex life of the typical porn guy, not by a longshot. They are mainly having anal sex, with many different partners over a short period of time, and those women are having sex with a lot of men. Something to think about.

[Link]

Whenever aesthetics and ethics get mixed up, moralists of the lowest order are having a field day.

It is pointless to seek for obscenity in the 'filmic reality'. Obscenity can only take place in the 'pro-filmic reality'. Thus, if you want to regulate something, regulate the 'pro-filmic reality'.

There is a connection between these two statements, which is being ignored by some (most?) posters in this thread.

(OK, Walter, time to get of your high horse. Let's go to World News & Nonsense. Uhm... on second thought...)





BIGmike said:
"Just trying to keep it on the sunny side of life, and all that wonderful crap."

[Link]

Can anyone here confirm if this is true?

If this is really so, then considering the level of activity it would seem that the industry in general has done a very good job with anti-HIV precautions.

Note - I didn't say a perfect job. Perfection would be if nobody was ever infected.

[Link]

More to your comment, manipulation of the audience's beliefs regarding the pro-filmic reality associated with the filmic reality of one's work is the pornographer's most valuable skill. In many cases, it's his only skill.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/23/2004 10:25:20 AM

[Link]

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/23/2004 10:55:21 AM

[Link]

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/23/2004 12:17:30 PM

[Link]

1) I am not sure what it means.
2) I am not sure what it has to do with my comment.

And I am by no means literal minded, if you are refering to my Egon Schiele comments. Your Schiele comments made me belief that you belief that 'reality' is the same as 'pro-filmic reality'. And it is not.

I am beginning to doubt that my question was serious after all.



skronker said:
"At least you know when a porn girl blows a drawf, the dwarf really IS a dwarf."

[Link]

At any rate, I have to spend the next couple of days bluring the lines between filmic and non-filmic reality and won't have the chance to add to this thread. Here's what I believe in the plainest language I can muster:

Let us suppose for a minute that we could wave a magic wand and eliminate always and forever the risk of HIV and all other health risks porn performers are now exposed to. Fine. Done. Now what have we got? Not much, and that's a pity.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/23/2004 1:13:27 PM

[Link]

So, let me rephrase my train of thought in the simplest kind of language I can muster.

If someone answers the question if all the recent trouble is worth it by saying,"no, because all current porn sucks", I say that that kind of answer is basically the same as what some posters have been doing this past week. They have been (ab)using the recent HIV threat to defend their own taste in porn. And that makes me sad. You could say it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And no, I have not yet said that you were doing this. Not yet anyway. Although a comment like this, "it will be interesting to see what, if any, of today's pornography is even a curiousity, let alone held in regard 40 years from now (here's hoping I've got enough of my witts about me to know)", comes pretty close.

Good luck with your upcoming activities in the 'real world'.




GaySatyr said:
"No politician gives a damn about anyone's free speach other than his own."

Edited by - Walter Burns on 4/23/2004 1:19:38 PM

[Link]

If possible, could someone explain to me what the relationship between filmic reality and pro-filmic reality is?

I know the definitions of the words. But I don't know what their practical meanings are to a film maker, as I am not talented in that regard..

I'm curious. Thanks.

J.

[Link]

So, a fresh start, and apologies from the onset for the fact that it's all merely personal perspective as I don't deign to think for others:

I like people. I hate people. People are noble, enterprising, caring creatures capable of doing great things. People are stubborn, mean and selfish. People offer up the fruits of their labors for all humanity. People make money exploiting each other for personal gain. People work together to achieve more than they can alone. People are treacherous, greedy backstabbers.

There's a lot of gray area in between all that, too. The point is something about the nature of good and evil, but I'm too stupid to make it eloquently without these silly compare and contrast mechanisms.

I never said all porn sucks, just most of it, but a lot of it is indisputably substandard from my perspective . Again, subjective, and not helpful to anyone but me. My opinions here are merely self-learning exercises. Please pardon my progress as this ride is refurbished for your amusement. If someone pauses a moment to reflect on why they feel a certain way about a given scenario because of something I've said, I consider it a bonus, but not a requirement.

So, disallowing my subjective comments about the relative quality of the product, that leaves the disease scenario. Apparently, this is an accepted risk in the adult community, the transmission rates may very well be lower than in the general populace, and besides, HIV is nothing to be concerned about. I feel better about not caring already! Whew!

Now, I've already slid into sarcasm, the defense mechanism of a weak mind. That's because I didn't have anything substantial to add in the first place, but in my hubris and boredom, I submitted my thoughts anyway. Remorse, confusion, and frustration ensue.

I submitted an example of what happens when a girl tries to do too much too quickly, and perhaps even suggest that this is symptomatic of problems in the machinery of the adult business, but must admit that's rather presumptuous of me, so I respectfully bow out.

As far as whether Amee's experience was indicative of the status quo, I don't know. There's so much I don't know, that in all humility (thank goodness for my morning meditation) I must apologize for opening my mouth to begin with and promise not to do it any more unless I have something substantial to offer, which may be never. Guess we'll see! Hugs

Edited by - cobalt60 on 4/23/2004 2:14:04 PM

[Link]

Like you said... it's as much a journey of discovering ourSELVES as it is a discussion that might influence anyone ELSE, and I think both are equally valuable.

[Link]

Anyway,

a) I don't care if someone thinks and says that most current porn sucks. Hell, I probably agree with such a statement.
b) I also agree that what has happened recently in the biz is not something that can be brushed aside.

What I do mind is, is that one uses b) to help one's cause in a). What I do mind is that some posters don't have any problem of mixing aesthetics with ethics. Like I said in my first post, what I do mind is that is that the connection between the two quotable reflections is being ignored by some (most?) posters in this thread. This is something that most anti-porn crusaders and attention hungry politicos do. It is dangerous and — dare I say it — stupid. Or malignant.
And let me add that I have never said that YOU were doing this.

Coming back to the Amee Donovan case. If you read the thread about the 'quotable' reflections again (link is provided in my previous post), you will see that I stated there that I am not against standards being put in place for the regulation of the "pro-filmic reality". If that will be enough, I don't know. It seems the current trouble didn't start in the "pro-filmic reality", but in (for lack of a better word to make the distinction clear) the 'regular reality'.

Last, why would I disallow any subjective comments, even ignorant ones (Joke, peoples, joke.) Do I really have to rehash my philosophical stance on the relative worth and uses of 'opinions' versus 'knowledge' again? I thought you people were sick of this months ago (and rightly so). Or maybe you didn't pay attention to them back then. I know I wouldn't if somebody else had posted them.

Edited: Or maybe my post hadn't anything to do with your posts? If that is the case, it still is a nice rant, no?
(Ah Walter, hardly anybody reads after the first paragraph. Remember the real Walter Burns!! Always mention the "Morning Post" in the first paragraph of an article.)

cochise said:
"I love to lick the pussy. I love the whole environment and camp out down there until the urge to penetrate overcomes me."

Edited by - Walter Burns on 4/23/2004 3:16:54 PM

[Link]

J.

[Link]