Cam,

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, or perhaps I wasn't clear.

You and Tony and I (and a few others who shall remain nameless) are probably among the only "fossils" here old enough to remember the pre-condom era. I realize that many people were infected in that era. My point was that many, if not the majority, of the "pre-condom" films were made at a time when we as a country and as an industry were not aware of HIV, how it was transmitted and caused. So yes, undoubtedly people were infected before we realized what was happening, but the difference is that no one (producers, models) was knowingly taking the risk and knowingly putting the models at risk, at least until the time it became clear what the disease was and how it was transmitted.

So the point I was making is films made in that era were made in a more "innocent" time. I suppose that cuts both ways because, as you said, people didn't have the choice of deciding to take the risk... but it was also an era when almost *no one* used condoms because it was felt that, other than the risk of incurable herpes, there was no serious health risk in doing so.



Quote Originally Posted by CamCruise View Post
I am sorry but your WRONG about that. It can takes apprpox. HIV 7 to 10+ years to become AIDS. So that means that it was being passed around all over the 70's in those very same videos that you say models were not put at risk.
The models of today can make a choice, but in the 70,s they could not. and now most of them are gone!!
So its is just wrong for the condom companies to say OH, we did not know so it alright to sell it.
I suppose the makers of Selabrex could say the same thing. Oh, we did not know so the people we hurt along the way is OK.

Todays BB vids put guys at much less risk than "PRE condom" vids did.

No condom sex sends the same message if its a 70's vid or one from today.