Seriously, what is your comparison for "missing"? It seems the same companies that use condoms are using them, and the same ones who don't, still aren't.

Do you want to see more movies with condoms? I know I don't.

[Link]

Are you new to porn?

[Link]

Edited by - Ramsey on 4/2/2005 2:39:01 PM

[Link]

Then there are the others...

[Link]

clonshire writeL
"Do you want to see more movies with condoms? I know I don't."

Me neither but think about it, they are putting their life in danger and the more they do it w/o a condom the chances are this virus will spread out to more and more people and eventually will get to us.

[Link]

You do everything possible to safe guard your individual safefy, but the truth is you're driving around a track at 200 mph. Sure, they could make Nascar drivers drive around at 10 mph and not let the race cars get within 400 feet of each other, but the same level of excitement would not be there.

Life is inherantly full of risks. And certain professionals need to be aware of the risks they may take. That's why individuals are more suited for certain jobs. Without these types of people, we wouldn't have Firemen, Skydivers, Pilots, Miners, Porn Stars, Athletes, Military personel, etc.

[Link]

He calls Max a hero.

Nuff said...

Edited by - m vanhouten on 4/2/2005 5:15:31 PM

[Link]

Here's a different analogy . Cricket batsmen started wearing protective helmets in the 80's after being whacked on the head once too often . To begin with the pundits , ex players , and audience all protested at this new turn of events . "They're not real men" , they wailed . "I never used a helmet !" , some boasted . "It's not as enjoyable to watch" , some squealed . And you know what ? It's become accepted as the norm , and the days of pre-helmet madness are now looked at incredulously by - you guessed it - the pundits , ex players , and the audience . Now wasn't that a happy bedtime story ?

This Durex advert was paid for with boredom .

Edited by - Lee O on 4/2/2005 5:30:54 PM

[Link]

The thing about other dangerous sports is that they practice uniform risk-management to safeguard the performers. With NASCAR, we know that everyone has to build their cars to the same specs, as well as provide certain safety gear. That doesn't guarantee a driver's safety, but a driver has the same protection whatever outfit he drives for. He doesn't have to figure out the risks of driving for each company.

To my mind, that's the major failing in porn. It hardly matters that company A has good safety practices when the performers have to rotate through most, if not all of the companies in order to stay gainfully employed. Take condoms, for example. The truth is that it isn't the fact that some people are vociferous in their hatred of condoms to prevents their use, it's that there's no way to get all porn companies to present the viewers with a fait accompli. Some yahoo will 'proudly' reject them in order to 'give the fans what they want.' In case you don't speak marketeze, that means they'll gladly break ranks if there's money in it. Given that attitude, which has been repeatedly demonstrated, I wonder that anyone seriously believes 'the industry' cares about the performers' welfare. Sure, individuals within porn do, but it's delusional to think there's a blanket concern for anything other than the almighty dollar.

As for why pornstars aren't scared, assuming that's true then it's up to them to explain it to you, kicker_f1. The rest of us are just mouthing off.

[Link]

"And that works? Do I have to take it before or afterwards?"

"Neither, 'instead of' is the magical word, brother."

[Link]

Thirty + years ago, race car drivers died or were critically injured at about the rate of 1 a month (I'm only speaking of the major circuits in Europe and America; if you add in all the marginal events, this is probably higher). Eventually this changed, and it changed for several reasons:

First, in Europe, drivers began to band together and address the safety issues of the game with track management, sponsors, and the major bodies that ran the sport. The leader of this at the highest level was probably Jackie Stewart, the multiple F1 champion who had developed tremendous credibility with the racing public and sponsors at the time. Now purists hated Stewart: they complained that he was a over-paid, chicken-shit little bitch to ruin the romance and danger of the sport. "The game is dangerous, be a hero" was the motto. But Stewart argued that he was not a daredevil, but a conscientious sportsman, who drove because he loved the competition, the money, and the skillful manipulation of a race-car; thrill-seeking had nothing to do with it. And that while risks would always exist, avoidable risks should always be eliminated. Like unsafe roadside barriers, lack of emergency equipment trackside, etc.

Anyway, in 1973 a series of events happened that changed the game forever. At the GP of Belgium, Stewart organized a walk-off of drivers when the newly re-paved racing surface was judged to be unsafe. Track officials, with the pressure of sponsors and fans on them, had no choice but to capitulate and make changes (the surface was still unsafe that year, but improved over its original condition). A month later, at the Dutch GP, a British driver burned to death in his car in front of an international TV audience, the only assistance provided him being from another driver, who could not persuade the non-existent firefighters to help him turn the car over and remove the stricken man.

Fans were appalled. They were further appalled when at the Indy 500 during that same two week period (a race in which Stewart did the TV commentary), two drivers were killed and another critically injured over several days of rain and re-starts--more importantly, a number of fans in the grandstand were seriously burned by fuel spray from a destroyed car. Later that year, Stewart's teammate, the brilliant young French driver Francois Cevert, was cut in half during practice at the US GP after spinning into an unsafe steel Armco barrier--the following year, another driver was decapitated in the race at the same location on the track. In 1975, the drivers informed Watkins Glen that they would refuse to drive in the US GP unless the unsafe barriers were removed. Ultimately, the Armcos disappeared.

Now, to compare auto racing with performing unsafe sex in pornography is revealing, and goes well beyond small items like helmets. All the tragic events of the period 1967-74 (when cornering speeds on the cars reached all-time highs because in the dramatic changes in vehicle design) and the solutions that improved things, were the result of several key happenings:

1. The unionization of the drivers themselves.

2. The re-defining of what risks the driver would accept, and which ones he would no longer tolerate.

3. The outcry of the public when horrific disasters took place due to track/official negligence.

4. The recognition by sponsors that they did want to sell products in this type of environment, and the pressure they then placed on the sport to make changes to protect the image of the game.

5. The improved organization of the racing legislative organizations, which made safety standards uniform across all tracks, venues, and events.

Compare this to porn. As Hardware points out, there are no governing bodies or standards in the industry. There is absolutely no advocate looking out for the performers in the industry. Producers accept no legal responsibility for anything health-wise which occurs on their shoots. There is no outside sponsorship, except in the cable end of the business (where, lo and behold, condoms are quite common). There is no broad public image to maintain, since the public at large sees the porn as a gutter industry to begin with. And many fans view the performers with contempt, or, as Andy candidly suggests in another current thread: if it messes with my whack-off, I'm against it (I want to objectify these people, not view them as my children).

On the other hand, the business had a very near miss last year, and I suspect that an Indy 500 type disaster with STD's (including AIDS) in the next couple of years could easily end wall-to-wall hardcore as we know it. And that would be bad for everyone, wouldn't it?

[Link]

Different Question: What use is a condom when you put it off for the facial. Seen this so often in porn. Can anybody explain?

[Link]

Edited by - 1on1Fan on 4/3/2005 8:18:51 AM

[Link]

In 1989, when John Stagliano shot The Adventures of Buttman , he did it using a full-sized, full-featured, professional camera. Even if it was a bottom of the line Sony UVW-100, it's still would have cost about $15K to buy, or about $400/day to rent. Even a simple cuts only editting bay would run about $50/hour.

The advent of cheap DV camera and DV post have lowered the barriers to entry to the point that they hardly exist. This is not so unlike the difference between heroin and meth. Heroin requires a (comparatively) sophisticated network to turn poppies in Afghanistan into smack on the street. By comparisson, any asshole can cook up a batch of meth in his kitchen.

In either case (porn or drugs), the only thing that might change the equation is a change in social mores and laws. If recreational drugs were legal, perhaps they would be of better quality and cheaper, and far less mayhem would be associated with their manufacture and distribution.

Similarly, if sexually explicit entertainment were as socially acceptably and had access to the same markets as other genres, perhaps it would be of better quality and cheaper, and less mayhem would be associated with their manufacture and distribution.

-T.C.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

- Transmission of virus through (undamaged) body skin is much more difficult if not impossible compared to transmission of virus through mucous membranes

- saliva is anti-viral

If nothing goes into the eyes (and nose) a facial is relatively safe in regard to (HIV) infection.

[Link]

Risk of HIV Infection Through Receptive Oral Sex
HIV Infection From Receptive Oral Sex Is A Rare Event, UCSF Study Confirms
UCSF study finds no cases of HIV transmission from receptive oral sex (PDF)
Can I get HIV from oral sex? (CDC)
HIV and Oral Sex

[Link]

The major studios in the gay side of the industry mandate condoms. They don't use them for oral, but there's no penetration without one, and cumshots are usually just on a body. Raging Stallion Studios did re-introduce cum-eating after deciding that the risk was small enough.

There are obviously some smaller studios that specialize in rauncy, bareback titles. But they generally don't have as attractive performers or production quality, so the average consumer sticks with the 'mainstream' stuff.

Some retailers won't carry the bareback stuff. They're also locked out of the GayVN awards.

I think the major reason for the difference is on the consumer side. Straight studios know they'll sell less copies if they go all condom. It's probably tough to sell to the raunchy, DP, ATM, ATOGM market using condoms (that would mean no internal cumshots, which seem to be popular). Meanwhile, the gay market is more open to a condom policy.

[Link]

Deal?

-T.C.

[Link]

-T.C.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

i was being generous starting from scratch, but i felt sorry for you, especially as an east-coaster that you have no fucking idea that almost none of the heroin you'd ever see comes from afghanistan. in our neck of the woods it's southeast asian or colombian, in the west mostly mexican. afghanistan does europe, very little makes it here.

so, assuming we're both starting from precursors of questionable legality, i could do it in somewhere around a day if you handed me some plants or half that with the oil. there's a lot more sophisticated stuff do deal with making the other stuff, but when it comes down to it if you started putting pounds of either on the street independantly or tried to sell it to someone who could, you'd be killed as soon as you did.

and no ass-fucking, my video with peter-north almost got me blackballed from the industry. it was gay-for-pay arthur, i'm not going to join the bi-jihad!!stop emailing me!!!!

[Link]

free jason mccain!support the male-male movement in couple's porn!

[Link]

How many people does it take to grow and process a pound of heroin? A whole bunch, and a lot of them better be illiterate farmers living in some of the most remote and lawless areas of the world. How many people does it take to process a bunch of sudofed tablets into meth, a handful or less.

While you're absolutely correct that processing heroin is less dangerous than processing meth, you're ignoring (either because you like picking fights or you're stupid) the circumstances under which poppy growing and processing can be accomplished profitably. It's no coinscedence that Afghanistan is the world's leading producer.

Based on your previous posts, I had you pegged as a low-grade contrarian. Butf you'd prefer spending time in the tribal regions of Afghanistan or Bhurma, or even (these days) many parts of rural Mexico, grow and processing fields or poppies, all while dealing with the vaguaries of warlords, and other varieties of heavily armed freelance bandits to the (relative) safety of cooking meth in some stateside shotgun shack, then I have to revise my opinion. You're not a contrarian, you're just stupid

-T.C.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

I'd suggest that you exchange email addresses and carry on.

This is now the second, or third round of off-topic meanderings that have nothing to do with the original post.

I'm shutting this thread down.

Edited by - DenverDon on 4/4/2005 9:10:25 PM

Edited by - DenverDon on 4/4/2005 9:33:57 PM

[Link]