Printable View
You do realize that putting positives with positives drastically increases the likelihood that the poz in question will get sick much quicker, have a much more complicated case to treat, and likely drastically shorten his life expectancy?Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
Likewise, I assume you also realize that testing negative is virtually meaningless since a newly-infected negative will have a very high viral load for the first several weeks, while still testing negative?
Can you prove this or are you just repeating propoganda? Because this is not my personal experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
Michael
Feel the need to respond to this a little more. If you look on the VERY first page of this thread, you can see exactly why I posted the message that I did. Huskyguy posted his question--a VERY responsible, open-ended question intended to promote discussion--and immediately got responses that were both emotionally and morally based. When one member rightfully commented on what he felt sounded like hypocrisy, he was viciously attacked by another who started to immediately sermonize. And that's what I perceive the CHIEF problem to be when it comse to this topic. People choose to ignore the reality of the situation and instead resort to name-calling and intimidation through sermonizing. And I find that to be highly irresponsible. In school, sex education classes give EDUCATION about sex, not MORAL SERMONS around it. (Or at least we hope not.) It's important to stick to the facts and the facts alone, not pull in our judgment calls and start making snap analyses of how "sad" other people are for having their own opinions or acknowleding that, indeed, the world is not a perfect place to live in and that not everythign is rose-colored.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Another common thread in debates like this one. Perhaps one of the most prevalent, and personally, one that I'm really tired of hearing. "I've had friends who have been effected" does not make it OK to preach to the rest of the world what they should be doing. In fact, I would think it would make you more sympathetic than anything else.Quote:
i have friends who have HIV - it's no fun. it's horrible, and may be fatal, although often it appears that hep C will kill them long before AIDS - which is often also avoidable with condoms. and yes, one of them got it through oral sex. he's never done IV drugs and never fucked (weird, i know). it does happen.
I never debated that fact. And it's a VERY good point to make. My chief point to make is that the barebacking in porn issue is one that is best defeated through education and the encouragement of personal responsibility, NOT censorship and moralizing.Quote:
ignorance may cause the problem, but people living - or dying - with HIV, hep C, herpes, and many other uncurable life-threatening diseases is the problem. and it's one we can prevent - not just with education, but using condoms.
Do I engage in bareback sex in my own private life? On occasion, yes, but only if both partners are informed and are aware of the risks involved, even if we both think we are negative. I'm being responsible for my OWN actions, and proceeding with the full knowledge of the possible consequences. (Again, just as people do when they hang-glide, or bunji jump, or smoke cigarettes. People do things every single day that are potentially life threatening and carry a great deal of IMMEDIATE risk, and no one jumps on a high horse about that.)
Do I enjoy watching bareback porn? On occasion, yes. And I take offense to the notion that there is something "wrong" with me for wanting to do so, as somebody stated on here earlier. Does the fact that one of my favorite movies of all time is Pulp Fiction make me a sick fuck as well? Gee, how nice to know that I'm not being judged by my fellow mates...
Would I film bareback sex in the porn I want to one day produce? Probably not. (Unless, perhaps, both partners were a monogamous, long-time couple who were both negative and wanted to record their sexuality on film. But even then I would proceed with caution and host huge banners on the risks involved in unprotected sex.) Personally, I DO feel that I have a responsibility to put certain messages out into the world, and I would rather promote safer sex than bareback sex b/cuz I understand the need to reinforce the idea of safer sex in the gay community.
Again, that said, I feel it is the right for any company to produce the content they see fit to produce--PROVIDED that their models are informed of the risks and that they take part only through informed and expressed consent.
Again Basschick, none of my comments were directed toward you personally, and they are still not. I'm simply trying to reinforce what I feel to be a more pro-active mentality when it comes to barebacking porn--one that is predicated upon the belief that human beings are intelligent creatures who have the power of personal responsibility in their favor, and who have the "God-given" right to utilize it as they see fit.
Chip, there is no scientific or medical proof to show that two positives have unprotected sex will cause either to get sick faster. The only medical theory behind these actions is that is has the "risk" of the virus mutating between the two partners and creating a seperate string that could potentially be more lethal because of it's unknown characteristics, being new and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
The second part you put is unfortunately very true. It can take up to 90 days in an average individual to produce enough of the virus in your system to be detectable by standard tests. We could always lock our models in closets for 3 months, with no other human contact, test them at the end and if everything comes up clean... Off we go... :whip:
i didn't preach and some other people didn't, either.
i believe that most people don't have the information to make an informed decision on this issue. a lot of people believe that you simply CAN NOT get hiv through oral because they have heard it from their own authority figures.
and there is more to life than HIV, but most producers and webmasters don't even talk about hep C, which is more of a problem in some ways as the treatments are less friendly and less effective.
maybe every producer should sit down with every model and tell him every STD he could get, and then ask him to do a shoot. but that's never really going to happen - producers mostly don't even think outside the gon, syph, and HIV. so first we'd have to educate the producers - all of them.
this isn't going to happen in a day or a month - or at all. there are some brilliant and informed producers but there are ignorant or opinionated or predatory producers. so why not just have the talent wear a condom and keep everyone as safe as possible? they can always shoot committed couples for barebacking...
Yes, and again, I wasn't directing my comments to YOU or them. What about that do you not get? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Well, because they own their own studios, and fortunately for them, they get to make their own rules. Isn't that what the First Amendment is all about? Barebacking porn is a form of self-expression for some people, and it is protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.Quote:
maybe every producer should sit down with every model and tell him every STD he could get, and then ask him to do a shoot. but that's never really going to happen - producers mostly don't even think outside the gon, syph, and HIV. so first we'd have to educate the producers - all of them.
this isn't going to happen in a day or a month - or at all. there are some brilliant and informed producers but there are ignorant or opinionated or predatory producers. so why not just have the talent wear a condom and keep everyone as safe as possible? they can always shoot committed couples for barebacking...
If you REALLY want to see an issue from someone else's viewpoint, then consider the HIV+ people who consider bareback porn to be liberating to their self identity. Just something to think about...
I've always wondered about things like that. Hep C and Syphilis are both extremely dangerous, orally transmittable, and without immediate treatment can cause some major damage. It makes me wonder how the studios that have "fuck and suck everything with a pulse" stars like Jeff Palmer and Damon Dogg keep them around and healthy. To be responsible, I just have to guess that the stars who put themselves at the most risk, like these guys, finish up every shoot with a rigourous round of tests and more tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
I'm still at a loss for what keeps extreme sluts, the real life mirrors of these kind of guys, who suck dicks like it's a hand shake, from dropping like flies. When I ask people questions about that, they say it dosn't matter how many std's you have, it's all about diet and exercise.
There are MANY different strains of HIV.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanmasters
You can get re infected with a new strain from a partner infected with that strain. Now you are infected with two strains of HIV infection.
Googling HIV reinfection brings up a lot of results that say reinfection occurs and can cause you to get sick faster. I'm not a doctor. I personally have no idea, but the articles and studies are from doctors, so I hope they know what they're talking about.
This is a really good point and one so many overlook. You can have two HIV/AIDS positive performers, suppose a bottom that has full blown AIDS, and a top that has herpes. Bringing those two together would be detrimental to their health. I don't want to be a part of that equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
When people share their stories and say things like "I've had friends who have been effected" they are not moralizing. They are sharing why they feel people should be responsible from their own experience. Just like I tell my son stories of my mistakes so he'll learn. It's what human beings do.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
In all 8 pages of this thread I haven't seen ANYONE say that porn should be censored. People have said they don't like the fact there is a market for this, or don't want to be a part of it, etc.
When you put censorship and moralizing together with an opinion that differs from your own, you're vilifying those that don't share your opinion.
I learned to jack off by watching the movie Footloose. The part where Kevin Bacon is in the cafeteria, and says to his friend "So what you been doing?" and the other guy replied by making a jack off motion.. then I realized what that was, and couldn't wait to get home and try it, and I did, and it was great!
What entertainment puts out in the real world directly affects what people do. Young, impressionable people, model their behaviors by what they experience in person, and are fed by the media (including entertainment).
Older, more experienced people, try something new based on what they see because it's not something they have experienced, because if it's in media it's ok now, and for a large number of other reasons. A large part of Gay acceptance, and condemnation, has been because of the media & entertainment. Look at Oprah, her entertainment, does she affect peoples lives?
You contradict yourself when you say that what we all do isn't proactive, and that bareback videos need this, and that, before the movie to educate people before watching a bareback film. Along the same lines of logic all movies that have violence, smoking, etc. should have the same education before a film. In fact.. your new ideas of being proactive are you moralizing what others should do... the very thing you're against. Yet you brush off those of us who are for condemn only fucking as not being pro active.
You talk about censorship and people not being filmed smoking, or bungee jumping, etc. What you fail to consider is that sex is a different beast, real sex, with real consequences, not only for the models, and their lovers/family/children, but the producers as well. Filming smoking... well... their is a filter on the cigarette. Filming bungee jumping.. well... there's a rope tied to their feet to stop them from dying. Filming bareback.. there is NO protection.
The world is not an anarchy. Porn is not anarchy. If we don't govern ourselves, we will be governed. If we don't protect our models, we will be forced to protect them. It's human decency. Why disregard the safety of others to make a quick buck?
Hopefully, however, you give your son the information that you feel he needs to make an informed decision, yet you realize that your son needs to learn by making his own mistakes. THAT is actually what human beings do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Granted. Not all of my posts were specific to this thread, though. This issue is one that divides the entire community, and I was admittedly tossing a lot of stuff in there for consideration. There are people who do say it shouldn't be made at all, and I actually think it was implied a few times during this thread.Quote:
In all 8 pages of this thread I haven't seen ANYONE say that porn should be censored. People have said they don't like the fact there is a market for this, or don't want to be a part of it, etc.
Yes, but my opinion is the RIGHT one. LOL! :)Quote:
When you put censorship and moralizing together with an opinion that differs from your own, you're vilifying those that don't share your opinion.
And after your entirely inappropriate tirades and personal attacks against Lee earlier, I really don't think you have any place to go around telling other people that they're vilifying people for not sharing their opinions. In other words, "Hello, kettle, you're fucking BLACK!" ;)
Same here, but I learned it through Fast Times at Ridgemont High (hello Judd Nelson!) and Risky Business (Mr. Cruise)! Oh, those were the days, back when just the implication of masturbation was the hottest thing ever! :)Quote:
I learned to jack off by watching the movie Footloose. The part where Kevin Bacon is in the cafeteria, and says to his friend "So what you been doing?" and the other guy replied by making a jack off motion.. then I realized what that was, and couldn't wait to get home and try it, and I did, and it was great!
EXACTLY what I've been saying all along, in regard to not only barebacking, but, ahem, the whole straight niche. :)Quote:
What entertainment puts out in the real world directly affects what people do. Young, impressionable people, model their behaviors by what they experience in person, and are fed by the media (including entertainment).
"Older, more experienced people" would probably never bareback because they saw it in a bareback video. As for the young ones, well, hopefully they are smart enough to know better.Quote:
Older, more experienced people, try something new based on what they see because it's not something they have experienced, because if it's in media it's ok now, and for a large number of other reasons. A large part of Gay acceptance, and condemnation, has been because of the media & entertainment. Look at Oprah, her entertainment, does she affect peoples lives?
Oh, come on, Squirt. You're SERIOUSLY grasping for straws just to be argumentative on this point, and you know it. A disclaimer before a movie that says "The following movie contains images of violence that may not be suitable for all audiences" is not moralizing. It's giving the viewers an option. Educating is not moralizing if you're doing it right. And I'm sure the MPAA would love the idea of putting messages before films like Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, but that's what the "R" rating is for in the first place, to let people know that there are things that may not be suitable for children.Quote:
You contradict yourself when you say that what we all do isn't proactive, and that bareback videos need this, and that, before the movie to educate people before watching a bareback film. Along the same lines of logic all movies that have violence, smoking, etc. should have the same education before a film. In fact.. your new ideas of being proactive are you moralizing what others should do... the very thing you're against. Yet you brush off those of us who are for condemn only fucking as not being pro active.
Except EDUCATION! That's the whole point of my thread!Quote:
You talk about censorship and people not being filmed smoking, or bungee jumping, etc. What you fail to consider is that sex is a different beast, real sex, with real consequences, not only for the models, and their lovers/family/children, but the producers as well. Filming smoking... well... their is a filter on the cigarette. Filming bungee jumping.. well... there's a rope tied to their feet to stop them from dying. Filming bareback.. there is NO protection.
Porn absolutely, positively IS anarchy, or at least a form of liberation for those of us who are trying to get away from the increasingly fundamental values of this Judeo-Christian society. Porn is a way of accepting our sexuality and giving it validation. When that flies in the face of the prevailing attitudes of the nation, is IS anarchy.Quote:
The world is not an anarchy. Porn is not anarchy. If we don't govern ourselves, we will be governed. If we don't protect our models, we will be forced to protect them. It's human decency. Why disregard the safety of others to make a quick buck?
But you're right about one thing. It IS up to us to police ourselves. But it's also up to each one of us HOW we choose to police ourselves. That's what I have to say about it anyway. Disagree all you want. You're entitled. :)
I just did a fairly exhaustive Medline search and there is apparently pretty solid evidence for two different problems relating to reinfection: recombinant HIV, in which two slightly different strains of HIV form a recombinant form of HIV that becomes medication resistant, and the emergence of what in the literature is called "superinfection", which is apparently the new infection of people with the recombinant strain. (Sex Transm Dis. 2004 Apr;31(4):201-4 )Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
Among other issues, they specifically address bareback sex between HIV+ people as the source of the recombinant HIV, though it is less certain whether superinfection is a result of exposure to multiple HIV strains (as in barebacking with multiple HIV+ partners) or a single exposure to a person that already has a recombinant infection.
Other articles in the literature point to difficulties with these strains responding to known medications and, additionally, a significant acceleration of the pathological effects of HIV as a result of the recombinant strains.
As with any other emerging research, there is some conflict in the literature, with some studies indicating less impact than others, but it seems the majority of studies are now reporting this as being a serious problem. It also appears to be a *separate* problem from the emergence of HIV-2, the more aggressive strain of HIV.
So while my initial post was based on repeating the information given to one of my friends by his HIV-specialist physician, this post is based on my own research in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
Um.. yeah.. by telling my son about my own mistakes he's getting the information he needs to make informed decisions. I also show him examples of people that didn't learn from others mistakes (i.e. last year he told me about kids at school having sex so we had a talk about what sex with others means, respect for your partner, and condom use. Then I promptly took him to the computer and showed him pictures of STD's that people contracted by not using condoms. He was 10)Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
We make porn. We're open minded people. Just as human being cannot stop rape, murder, suicide.. we can't stop bareback filming. People here are voicing their opinions about supporting this in the industry. Most people just don't want to be a part of someone hurting themselves, or others.. that's just the way it is. There is always the exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
I think you need to re read that part and see who attacked whom. And yes.. after a few drinks and a good fuck I came back to the computer and sunk to his level for a bit while my sex partner was in the shower.. then left and fucked a couple more times... such is life.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Yeah the days of "she bop, he bop a we bop" and "I had to touch myself" and just say no LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Yes well I hope young people model not being afraid of straight men sexually, or submissive to them. :kiss:Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Well if young people see sex with condoms they'll know, if they don't, they wont. If they feel the rest of the world isn't afraid of HIV/AID, or it can't happen to them, or the guys in the movies, then they'll do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Older more experienced men who are new to the scene, straight all their life and just coming out, or who are bisexual, or straight men experimenting, can very well think it can't happen to them, or they're clean because they're straight, only bottoms get it, etc. etc.
But I guess what others do isn't our problem, we're not responsible for what we put out there. Every man for himself right? he he
Educating isn't saying "if you do this it could be bad for you"Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Education is also showing people the consequences of their actions. Bringing it home. Like scared straight... when they take the kids to the prison, the morgues, when they see the reality, not just are told not to do something. Give me a break.
Unfortunately our schools don't talk about AIDS and sex that much, let along homosexuality. A lot of people learn from what they see on TV or in movies... and teaching them that saying unprotected sex is not good... then showing them a movie of men having unprotected sex... well that's just plain stupid and irresponsible.
Yes it is up to us to police ourselves as an industry and decide what we will, and will not, endorse. That's what these discussions are about.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
It's important to remember that while we're in a Gay forum and addressing this as a Gay issue because of our given productions, this is a HUGE problem on the straight side of the industry that I've never seen openly discussed in any of their forums. I'm glad we're being responsible on this important topic.
I've answered the reinfection issue in a separate post,but wanted to clarify:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanmasters
1) Standard HIV tests aren't testing for presence of virus, they're testing for presence of *antibodies* to the virus. According to the medical literature it seems that about 70% of people will test positive for antibodies to the virus within 90 days of exposure, but the remaining 30% may have the virus, but not test positive for it for up to 3 years after exposure.
Additionally, viral loads (and therefore infection risk) are very high within the first 30-45 days after exposure in the majority of individuals, but these individuals will still not test positive for antibodies; so in that way, an individual may be at risk of infecting another individual *more* during the first 30-45 days than during the next year or two, depending on how the disease progresses and what treatment that individual receives.
The virus titer itself is an expensive test that's more difficult and is not commonly used for HIV screening. It's also not completely reliable as the retrovirus can "hide" during certain stages of the disease and be low or near undetectable. Thus, the presence of antibodies to the virus is a strong indication that the individual has been exposed to it, and therefore, probably has it and is at risk of transmitting it to others.
In short, waiting 90 days isn't a safe bet,and testing at the moment a scene is filmed isn't a safe bet at all. What isn't a matter of conjecture is whether it can be made safe. It can't. So whether a producer chooses to encourage his models to do it, or people choose to participate in bareback sex is an entirely separate issue.
BTW, in making this post I did look further into the issue of oral transmission. Again, there is some conflicting information, but all of the available studies indicate that while oral transmission has definitely been documented, it is still considered rare. Of the cases in which oral transmission has been documented, nearly all involved the ejaculation of cum into the recipient's mouth. Additionally, many of those infected orally had open sores in their mouth, bleeding gums, or other complications that made it easier to become infected. While precum and saliva do in some samples have incidence of virus, it is at vastly smaller rates (often zero) in proportion to that in blood or semen.
So, for the time being, based on the most recent studies in the medical literature, the risk of oral transmission, with appropriate safeguards, continues to be very, very low, while the risk of transmission via unprotected anal contact is much higher.
well fuck, it was on the CDC site and Yahoo. I can't dig the link out
Im going by what % of the new infections are man-on-man sex.
Every time the stats come it's always 40% 50% 60% of infections being gay/bi men or male-to-male as I think they put it so often.
This is from today:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid21380.asp
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_051005154539
Again I'm talking about the proportion of how many gays there are vs how many hetero and which group tests HIV+ the most.
Unless the stats are rigged then gay people being 2.8% of the population (I don't know that this stat is accurate) yet half or more of the new HIV infections are gay.
Logically since there are more heterosexuals the HIV stats should be the opposite. But they're not.
Which means either heterosexuals are having a lot less sex, or a lot of sex with rubber and that gays are having a lot of sex without rubber.
And I'm saying that meth contributes TO having unprotected sex which leads to a lot of infection HIV and other STDs. And since a lot of meth is going on at the gay clubs, and seems to be a problem as acknowledged in the gay rags by community activists and so on, then it is a contributing factor in why so many queers are getting the virus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt