Shane Diesel

Porn performers shouldn't do anything outside of the tested talent pool that puts them at risk for contracting HIV but they do. So now what? Looking at this one instance and saying "Shane shouldn't do that" just doesn't seem very meaningful in light of what sort of behavior is considered, if not reasonable and customary, at least commonplace.

(Now a confession of shocking naivete')

Back in the late nineties, I actually believed that once a performer was tested and entered the talent pool, he or she regarded that as some sort of sacred covenant. It was beyond my capacity to imagine that once a person had entered this 'circle of trust' (sorry, we watched Meet the Fockers last night) that they would do anything that might potentially put their fellow performers at risk. (You can stop sniggering.)

I have since been disabused of that misapprehension.

Whether or not adult performers are more or less likely than the public at large to engage in risky behavior, I can't say for certain. I can say that they most certainly are not a "sacred covenant", and throwing around nebulous terms like "right" and "wrong" when talking about off set or outside of the tested talent pool behavior is about as meaningful as theocons saying we shouldn't give out condoms because it encourages people to do things they "shouldn't" do. I'm sure it makes the theocons feel righteous to say it, but it doesn't save anybody.

Edited by - TonyC on 11/12/2005 4:10:43 PM

[Link]

It ends quite easily with only one person taking himself out of the equation, and not performing.

[Link]

The industry still has guys of uncertain sexual orientation, and performers who travel to Eastern Europe to work bareback with others of uncertain (to them) testing.

On the other hand if Shane Diesel is monogamous with Jessica Dee, doesn't engage in any other risky behavior, and Jessica is being successfully treated, and they're using condoms – all very plausible – Shane may be a much safer bet than someone just off the plane back from Brazil or elsewhere.

It's unfortunate Shane didn't discuss this ahead of time, but I would not be at all surprised should the other talent conclude that if Shane is in a stable relationship with Jessica, and precautions and circumstances agree, he's a much safer bet than some other guy in an unstable relationship with whoever he shoots up with that night.

PS. The one scientific estimate of risk of “insertive” vs. “receptive” anal sex I've seen gives a eight times higher risk for the bottom than the top: Estimated per-act relative risk for a personal without HIV acquiring HIV based on sex act and condom use

Edited by - jrv on 11/12/2005 5:15:27 PM

Edited by - jrv on 11/12/2005 5:21:34 PM

[Link]

What if his statement went on to say that without the earning power that working in front of the camera allows him, he and Jessica will no long be able to afford the medication that currently keeps her viral load at undetectable levels, and extends her life.

Would you place your trust in Shane and Jessica to act a way that respects their obligations to the health and welfare of their fellow performers?

If yes, wouldl this trust be based on some special understanding of Shane and Jessica's integrity?

If not, why do you regard Shane and Jessica's case as any different from other performers to whom you extend your trust every time you do a scene with them?

[Link]

Edited by - picman on 11/12/2005 5:49:33 PM

[Link]