Join 3,513 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Publicizing HIV cases in the porn industry
June 12, 2009 12:54 AM   Subscribe

After one performer tested positive this week, 16 previously unpublicized cases of HIV in the porn industry have emerged. Last time this happened, government officials called it an outbreak and porn production grinded to a halt for two months.
posted by hpliferaft (193 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Having lived thru the PC 1980s, I’m still a bit amazed how many lady friends I know wot are into porn. Even the scary physical gonzo porn that is quite obviously marketed towards males.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 1:14 AM on June 12, 2009


has the industry thought of using prophylactic anti-retro viral therapy on performers when new cases are discovered? That website says the information is out of date but doesn't say why. the WHO still seems to think it's a good idea.
posted by delmoi at 1:29 AM on June 12, 2009


grinded to a halt

Is this an example of the hardcore "gonzo grammar" I've heard so much about?
posted by rhymer at 1:31 AM on June 12, 2009 [23 favorites]


On one hand, I think this is as shockingly obvious as those revelations earlier this year that athletes use steroids.

On the other, I'm appalled that the porn rep could claim this is the first outbreak since 2004. Because: bullshit. HIV is endemic in the sex industry, and these bastards who cover that up to protect profits need to be held accountable.
posted by kanewai at 1:38 AM on June 12, 2009


F*ck 'em, (and their HIV insensitive customers, too) I say, for not wearing condoms...
Oh, please, it's the 21st century already. "Professionals" don't get axed by HIV, and while I'll try to feel sad for those that have been infected, they willfully ignored nearly 30 years of anti-infection advice.
posted by paulsc at 1:40 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


"Porn production abruptly halted," hpliferaft wrote grindingly.
posted by Pronoiac at 1:49 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yeah, they let the condoms come off. That was stupid.
posted by saysthis at 1:50 AM on June 12, 2009


On the other, I'm appalled that the porn rep could claim this is the first outbreak since 2004. Because: bullshit. HIV is endemic in the sex industry, and these bastards who cover that up to protect profits need to be held accountable.

Huh? The article mentions 16 cases in the past five years, out about 6,000 people working in the industry. Do you have an actual data to back up this claim?
posted by delmoi at 1:57 AM on June 12, 2009 [12 favorites]


The fact remains that pretty much every company producing in California requires an HIV test no less than 30 days old before they they will shoot any risky forms of fluid exchange - this is exactly the type of policing not present in the world outside the industry, and it's what makes you a whole lot less likely to pick up HIV shooting porn than picking up someone in a bar. But honestly, when it's your livelihood and lifestyle on the line as well as something as easy to disregard as ones health... I don't know any porn people who aren't obsessive about using condoms with just about everyone they may fraternise with 'just for fun'.

People who don't do porn test positive all the time! Every day! AIM getting positive results from tests is just a sign that they're doing their job - and as a performer who's married to another performer I'm very glad that they are.

Regardless of what may be right and good, consumers far prefer bareback porn. Probably for the same reasons an alarming percentage of 'average folk' say they strongly dislike using condoms, or flat out refuse to. We have the right to engage in unprotected sex as much as anybody, and considering the precautions we take as a matter of routine I'd say if anything perhaps moreso.

A whole lot of movies have been shot before and since 2004. I believe someone once made an attempt to add it all up, but I can't find it right now. What happened then was tragic, but an isolated incident. Frankly, I don't mind my odds at all, and I'm fairly sure statistically speaking I do several mundane things every day that are far more potentially lethal.

Can people just leave us alone and let us make an honest living having the time of our lives, please? I'm far from an apologist, but all the unsubstantiated attacks are getting pretty boring.
posted by TheTorns at 1:59 AM on June 12, 2009 [60 favorites]


Is everybody else googling as well?
posted by chillmost at 2:19 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also it's worth pointing out that yes, AIM has not disclosed the names of infected individuals publically - but they have made sure that the performers in question will not be shooting with anyone who uses AIM.

Which is, y'know, the point here.

Why put these poor individuals through public humiliation? How exactly will that help anybody? Must people be punished and shunned for daring to catch an STD? Or is it really just another case of the moral minority looking for any excuse?
posted by TheTorns at 2:22 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


I'm not wading into this one. This has all the makings of a sticky situation.
posted by jamstigator at 2:23 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Regardless of what may be right and good...

This may be the first sign of a problem.
posted by Avenger at 2:33 AM on June 12, 2009


I've always wondered if it's true that herpes is rampant in the porn industry as some people say. Do people get tested for all STD's or just the big bad ones?
posted by P.o.B. at 2:45 AM on June 12, 2009


"... Must people be punished and shunned for daring to catch an STD? ..."
posted by TheTorns at 5:22 AM on June 12 [+] [!]

I dunno about that, but I do know that willfully passing on HIV, for simple avarice, when effective prophylatics exist, is a dick move. Bareback porn, in an age of epidemic HIV, is akin to making snuff films, in my book.
posted by paulsc at 2:46 AM on June 12, 2009


"...I do know that willfully passing on HIV, for simple avarice, when effective prophylatics exist, is a dick move. Bareback porn, in an age of epidemic HIV, is akin to making snuff films, in my book..."
posted by paulsc at 2:46 AM on June 12

So every time somebody has unprotected sex they are "wilfully passing on HIV for simple avarice"? I'm a great proponent of safe sex, but that strikes me as pretty ridiculous. Just how many cases of someone knowing they have HIV and deliberately shooting without condoms have you heard of in the adult industry?

A lot of people don't get on with condoms. So, they go get themselves tested, and expect all their partners to do the same. That's considered responsible. That's what the Cali porn industry does, via AIM. The main reason we don't have the government policing us is because we took the steps to police ourselves, and we're doing it quite effectively.

The risk is slight, but it's our right to take it. And oddly enough every company I've worked with has no problem with performers who prefer to use condoms, either.

Ask yourself when the last time you had an HIV test was, and just how many high risk activities you've engaged in since. Chances are for a lot of you, the answers don't come too easy and don't look too good. Sure, you can go ahead and expect the porn industry to be more responsible than most 'civilians' - but the cool thing is we are. And insinuating otherwise is just ignoring the facts.
posted by TheTorns at 3:03 AM on June 12, 2009 [26 favorites]


Swiss AIDS experts said Thursday that some people with HIV who meet strict conditions and are under treatment can safely have unprotected sex with non-infected partners
http://origin2.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan31/0,4670,SwitzerlandAIDS,00.html
posted by halekon at 3:09 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Seriously, anyone shouting about how risky porn is really has to look at how heavily regulated it is. It requires much heavier identification and medical checks than most work. STI outbreaks are something of an ocupational haszard, but as TheTorns said, the amount of films produced a year is staggering. A two second check on google states something like 11000 movies are made a year, which is something like 30 movies a day. One confirmed case and 14 suspected is nothing given how much fluid is being swapped.

Furthermore, there are a lot of film companies who only shoot movies where the performers wear condoms. It's especially prevalent in gay and bi flicks.

LOLPoop is a bit ad homenim, don't you think? We get someone who is actively involved in the industry in question, and rather than issue actual rebuttal we just break out the shaming.

Because: bullshit. HIV is endemic in the sex industry, and these bastards who cover that up to protect profits need to be held accountable.

Cite or it never happened.
posted by Jilder at 3:22 AM on June 12, 2009 [21 favorites]


From what I've read having herpes has been de rigeur for pornstars since the 1970's. It just goes with the territory.

But I'm only a pornstar in my dreams, so who knows.
posted by bardic at 3:26 AM on June 12, 2009


You know, the frequency at which Metafilter discussions resort to ad hominem is disappointing; but remarking on the sex lives of other posters strikes me as completely inappropriate, not because of any rule particular to this forum, but rather as a matter of general civility. There is almost no situation in daily life in which doing this is okay. It may be that this particular conversation is exceptional; still, I'd hate to have certain remarks made in this thread directed at me.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:40 AM on June 12, 2009 [18 favorites]


...and that's not an attempt at policing, or at throwing flags, but just an observation that I could not bite back down.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:42 AM on June 12, 2009


Jilder, kid ichorous:

Thankfully what seperates MetaFilter threads from the vast majority of online discourse is that when people do sink that low the rest of the crowd tends not to join in. Thanks guys.
posted by TheTorns at 3:44 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's amazing how quickly people fall back on their unfounded assumptions when the minority is one that it's socially acceptable to mock. An assumption that HIV is endemic in the sex industry is heavily applying one's own biased view to the discussion, in a very unfair way. Stating that HIV is "endemic to the gay community" would get one called out to MetaTalk so fast, your head would spin.

The porn industry is just another industry in which people use their bodies for money. It's manual labor in a way. Much like in the way working in a factory can be a horrible safety hazard that shortens your life expectancy, or a safe job with mandatory precautions, the porn industry could vary tremendously. It so happens that the California porn industry is more akin to the latter, but even in the safest factory, one person ignoring the precautions could harm him/herself and others.

Think of it as a "Zero accidents since" sign for the porn industry, and they had that sign up to nearly 5 years before this happened. Now they have to clean up, halt production while they make sure everything's OK, and flip the sign back to "0 days."

This metaphor has me thinking of porn stars working in a factory now, which leads me back to the Gay Steel Mill from the Simpsons. Hot stuff, coming through!
posted by explosion at 3:59 AM on June 12, 2009 [26 favorites]


Is this an example of the hardcore "gonzo grammar" I've heard so much about?

I loves me some Max Cantspellcore.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:22 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


The article in the NYT about porn production stopping for 60 days was bracketed by an ad for "Lose Weight Without Dieting" - I first thought the after illustration was someone with AIDS. /sighs
posted by Runcible Spoon at 4:30 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'd also like to say here that I can't think of many people more awesome than Sharon Mitchell. If you set up an agency that promises people that you'll test them under some degree of confidentiality, then you really *can't* go sharing that information with government agencies who decide -- for whatever reason -- that they'd like to get their hands on that info as well.

Once you start giving up the medical records of the porn stars, whose medical records will be next?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:31 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


The porn industry is just another industry in which people use their bodies for money. It's manual labor in a way.

Instead of "it's just sex", I'm going to start using "it's just manual labor, but funner".
posted by P.o.B. at 4:33 AM on June 12, 2009 [3 favorites]


A two second check on google states something like 11000 movies are made a year, which is something like 30 movies a day. One confirmed case and 14 suspected is nothing given how much fluid is being swapped.

In fact, this is significantly lower rate than the rate in this 3rd world city. Of course, the government doesn't give a shit about these people.
posted by inigo2 at 4:40 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Once you start giving up the medical records of the porn stars, whose medical records will be next?

First they came for the porn stars, and I did not speak out because I wasn't a porn star.

Then they came for me, and other than making sure they wore condoms, I was just happy they were having such a good time.
posted by orange swan at 4:49 AM on June 12, 2009 [3 favorites]


Then they came for me, and other than making sure they wore condoms

Sounds like an idea for a forthcoming orange swan craft fpp:

Fun ways to make your own condoms, using items as diverse as liquid latex, lamb's intestines, old washing up gloves, wellington boots and granny's old rain hat.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:08 AM on June 12, 2009 [10 favorites]


Seems to me that a lot of the same porn stars are going to be having sex with a lot of the same porn stars... an HIV+ wing within the industry.
posted by markkraft at 5:13 AM on June 12, 2009


But hey, the good news is that if they keep it in the group, nobody will need condoms at all!
posted by markkraft at 5:14 AM on June 12, 2009


Except for protection from other STIs, of course.
posted by subbes at 5:21 AM on June 12, 2009


wait a sec... (slight derail coming)
6,000 people in the industry? 11,000 films a year? $12,000,000,000 dollar industry?

Those are some very productive people, at least according to the numbers cited.

Also, it seems to mean that a 30 day stoppage would be a billion dollar loss to the industry, which is equivalent to losing 500 industry folks for a year, or maybe 50 for their typical career length, assuming they were irreplaceable, which they are quite obviously not, (except maybe to their friends and family).

Thinking through the numbers is unpleasant, at the least.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:28 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


If this shut down the Cali porn industry, it would be a boon to consumers. All the good stuff comes out of Europe and Asia, or from people's basements.

Nothing quite as unerotic as a typical industry gal with her typical huge fake boobs getting her ass reamed in the typical industry way by some faceless industry guy in a boring house in the Valley, screaming the industry standard "yeah baby fuck my ass" in the standard way for the B reel of Insatiable Ass Fuckers 47.

Let's not have any more Cali porn, less dreck to sift through in the torrent lists.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:30 AM on June 12, 2009 [8 favorites]


"...6,000 people in the industry? 11,000 films a year? $12,000,000,000 dollar industry?..."
posted by bashos_frog at 5:28 AM on June 12

Those numbers (particularly the cash) are probably terribly misleading, and may even include strip clubs and other businesses classed as adult - let alone all of the porn being shot that does not involve penetration or any activities generally considered to be high risk. Which is a lot.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean that something as massively and pointlessly overkill as a complete stoppage in production wouldn't be crippling, and most likely put a few people out of business.
posted by TheTorns at 5:37 AM on June 12, 2009


Thanks for sharing your insights TheTorns. If you're not too jaded by the dimwits, could you fill us in on how industry people typically react to news that their friends have gotten HIV? Is it more equivalent to a taxi driver getting mugged/shot (sad tradgedy that makes everyone reconsider their profession?) or getting into an accident (risk of the job that engenders sympathy but not hardcore doubts about what you're doing to earn a living).
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:45 AM on June 12, 2009


This is a good indication of our level of discomfort with sexuality in general and pornography in specific: an interesting FPP about a small HIV outbreak among porn performers immediately becomes centered on "LOL poop!" attempts at shaming and jokes about the affected performers. That's klassy-with-a-K, folks.

There's a lot I don't like about the US porn industry (with so much of what they produce is boring foremost among my dislikes), but after a number of tragedies and a lot of activism and struggle, the US porn industry pretty clearly has its act together about HIV. That said, my impression is that the industry pay structure produces some clear incentives for a performer to make riskier choices (eg higher pay for bareback, higher pay for multiple partners). Even if those incentives are driven by the marketplace -- and I have no doubt that viewers want bareback and want gonzo and so on -- there is a tension between those incentives and the anti-HIV goals.

But the other day I was at my favorite bar, watching some people flirting and hooking up. I'd bet real money that not only had none of them had a recent HIV test, but that it was unlikely that any sex they had that night would be safe. People make seemingly irrational and risky decisions all the time -- mostly they get away with it because HIV rates in many countries are really low, and are heavily concentrated in specific populations.
posted by Forktine at 5:47 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Gush.
posted by davemee at 5:48 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also it's worth pointing out that yes, AIM has not disclosed the names of infected individuals publically - but they have made sure that the performers in question will not be shooting with anyone who uses AIM.

This bit confused and concerned me. Are there performers who do not use AIM who therefore aren't protected against the newly positive folks? I mean, you'd have to be insane not to be frequently tested within the industry, but they way you worded that makes it seem like some people don't trust 'the man'.

Despite the childish guffaws of the thread, I appreciate it when workers of any field enter into threads and give us information. So thanks!
posted by graventy at 5:56 AM on June 12, 2009


Aha, see! I went back to bed, then just woke up, and sure enough, a sticky situation has been born! Now that I've demonstrated my precognitive abilities, I'm gonna get a coffee and watch the stickiness ferment here.
posted by jamstigator at 6:00 AM on June 12, 2009


If HIV really was endemic in the industry, then there'd be no problem. You can't catch it twice, right?

I wonder how many people would be extra keen to watch these 14 people fucking each other, knowing that all of those spurty squirts and screaming orgasms are riddled with the bug? Might be good for their careers. (Seems like a niche that would be easy to own, too. Pox Necklace 17, Cream pies with AIDS on top 4, Slim-man in sarcoma land, Daily Cocktales.)

But what would I know.

Thinking through the numbers is unpleasant, at the least.

I'm under the impression that the numbers are massively overinflated.
posted by The Monkey at 6:00 AM on June 12, 2009


"...If you're not too jaded by the dimwits, could you fill us in on how industry people typically react to news that their friends have gotten HIV? Is it more equivalent to a taxi driver getting mugged/shot (sad tradgedy that makes everyone reconsider their profession?) or getting into an accident (risk of the job that engenders sympathy but not hardcore doubts about what you're doing to earn a living)."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:45 AM on June 12

If you're actually paying attention then it surely won't surprise you that I honestly have no idea? I'm going to try and stop flogging the dead horse here, but really.
posted by TheTorns at 6:02 AM on June 12, 2009


There was a long article in Rolling Stone a while back about how a lot of media sex workers used some sort of topical salve to prevent STDs and supposedly AIDs. Does anyone remember this?
posted by mecran01 at 6:10 AM on June 12, 2009


I wonder how many people would be extra keen to watch these 14 people fucking each other, knowing that all of those spurty squirts and screaming orgasms are riddled with the bug? Might be good for their careers.

Dude.
posted by The Straightener at 6:11 AM on June 12, 2009 [7 favorites]


Apparently the 2004 outbreak occurred with testing:

Kernes and others interviewed say most people in the industry have confidence in the testing procedures, the vast majority of which are conducted through a producer/performer sponsored testing program at the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM), a non-profit group. They say the system failed because James went out of the country and worked unprotected.

But some groups such as AIDS Health Care Foundation have said the porn industry's testing regimen is insufficient.

Because of the need for rapid testing, AIM uses a test known as PCR (polymearase chain reaction), which is the porn industry standard and detects the presence of HIV after about two weeks. Another test, known as the ELISA test, is commonly administered in doctor's offices and can have a detection window of six months.

Though PCR offers a short window of detection, it was not short enough in James's case.

He reportedly took a PCR test immediately after arriving in the U.S. from his trip to Brazil, one week after being exposed. It was negative and he proceeded to work with 13 women.

How does worker safety balance with business interests?

Kernes says many producers have told him that in Europe, where actors wear condoms, sales lag, a contention often parroted by actors.


from Alternet
posted by mecran01 at 6:12 AM on June 12, 2009


"...Are there performers who do not use AIM who therefore aren't protected against the newly positive folks? I mean, you'd have to be insane not to be frequently tested within the industry, but they way you worded that makes it seem like some people don't trust 'the man'."
posted by graventy at 5:56 AM on June 12

Without a valid AIM test, you won't get shot by any of the companies who use AIM, who shoot the overwhelming majority of the porn being shot. This isn't optional, you have to get tested to get work. The producers often cover the cost of testing, but I haven't done enough work requiring it to really tell you how commonplace that is.
posted by TheTorns at 6:15 AM on June 12, 2009


What the fuck is with this thread.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:17 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


If you're actually paying attention then it surely won't surprise you that I honestly have no idea? I'm going to try and stop flogging the dead horse here, but really.
posted by TheTorns at 9:02 AM on June 12 [+] [!]


Wait, what? I was just wondering about the attitudes in your industry toward HIV, how was your answer a response to that?

I'm on your side bro, sorry if I wasn't clear or if I misunderstood the level of your involvement in pron. Let me try again, feel free to ignore if it's still a really stupid question: In the porn industry, in your experience, is HIV-infection seen as a calculated risk when someone catches it, or as an avoidable tragedy?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:20 AM on June 12, 2009


Dude.

Just an idea.
posted by The Monkey at 6:20 AM on June 12, 2009


After looking at it again I just realized it's a pretty stupid question. Sorry, I need more coffee.

Nothing to see here, move along.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:23 AM on June 12, 2009


What the fuck is with this thread.

Yesterday it was goths; today it's the porn industry. Shame, really. I had a tenner on steampunkheads or whatever you call them.
posted by permafrost at 6:32 AM on June 12, 2009


Even the scary physical gonzo porn that is quite obviously marketed towards males.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 1:14 AM on June 12

Honestly, having just introduced my kids to old reruns of the Muppet Show, I find this comment both disturbing and intriguing.
posted by Toubab at 6:32 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Potomac:

Sorry, I guess I am getting a little bit jaded! The point I was trying to make is that this is something that has hardly ever happened, so me not knowing how people react to it isn't that surprising. AIM isn't required to publicize whoever has tested positive. Naturally, the individuals involved probably aren't shouting about it either - and I'd like to think whoever they may decide to tell also wouldn't give up that info to others too freely.

I just don't feel qualified to answer your question, but maybe someone who has been shooting porn for a decade might have an anecdotal answer for you, I dunno. I expect they'd react to the news in much the same way anybody else would though. With such effort put into mitigating the risk of HIV infection we're probably less likely to feel like sex is a calculated risk than the non-porn people taking much greater risks.
posted by TheTorns at 6:34 AM on June 12, 2009


I think regardless of anyone's feelings about pro-porn, it's probably a good thing we have someone who actually works within the industry shedding a little more light on the hows and whys about this. So welcome, Torns.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:35 AM on June 12, 2009 [6 favorites]


This thread is eight different kinds of fucked up.
posted by spitefulcrow at 6:37 AM on June 12, 2009


You know this is wierd - but do the people infected lose their jobs automatically? Do they go on disability? Since this was possibly work related, would they qualify for SSI?
posted by Fuka at 6:39 AM on June 12, 2009


You know this is wierd - but do the people infected lose their jobs automatically? Do they go on disability? Since this was possibly work related, would they qualify for SSI?

No, the qualifying standard for phsycial disability is extremely high, in order to collect on a physical disability you have to prove you are incapable of performing a "sitting job," i.e., you are essentially bed ridden. Just because you can't fuck doesn't mean you can't type, or cook, or perform a lot of other jobs that people with legitimate physical disabilities continue to do in the labor market after becoming disabled.
posted by The Straightener at 6:42 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


I am sad that these performers have been infected. I don't care how they got it or anything, it's just sad. I hope they seek and get good care and are able to live long, happy lives in spite of it.
posted by disclaimer at 6:43 AM on June 12, 2009 [6 favorites]


Potomac: You may find it interesting to read dig out articles written about the 2004 outbreak, where some of the people were named and spoke out at length about the situation, from the perspective of both new performers and veterans. In contrast, at least so far the current cases are being kept much more confidential and low-key, so it might be harder to find the sort of description you are looking for.
posted by Forktine at 6:44 AM on June 12, 2009


Bump and grind to a halt.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:44 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


OK just to point out the obvious....

Can't anyone at any time when having unprotected sex with someone they just met be at the same risk as a porn star? When they go to work and meet their co-star for the first time is no different then me going to a bar and picking up a chick. In fact it might be safer for the porn star because more than likely they get tests for this shit.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:50 AM on June 12, 2009


Can't anyone at any time when having unprotected sex with someone they just met be at the same risk as a porn star? When they go to work and meet their co-star for the first time is no different then me going to a bar and picking up a chick. In fact it might be safer for the porn star because more than likely they get tests for this shit.

Yeah, it would seem sex workers are in fact required to be tested, so my answer to that would be "yes".
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:53 AM on June 12, 2009


paulsc: "Bareback porn, in an age of epidemic HIV, is akin to making snuff films, in my book."

I think you need to watch more sesame street as one of these things is not like the other.
posted by Mitheral at 6:57 AM on June 12, 2009 [3 favorites]


Moral Reductivism? MRILF pr0n, ahoy! A fresh cup of coffee and it's off to the torrents for me...
posted by Kinbote at 7:04 AM on June 12, 2009


Oh, gawd, rokusan, why? I'm eating meusli over here.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:06 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Thank you for sticking around, TheTorns. There's an impressive amount of judgement some people are throwing into this thread...
posted by cavalier at 7:07 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


When they go to work and meet their co-star for the first time is no different then me going to a bar and picking up a chick. In fact it might be safer for the porn star because more than likely they get tests for this shit.

Actually, it's more like working with a contracted professional for the first time. You check their references, you may not have met them before, but you've heard about them through colleagues, you check their license (most recent STI test results).

These people are professionals. I'm not in the industry, so I don't know the specifics, but I get the impression that while they have fun, it's to a large degree, a job. Much like when you get to the major leagues of a sport, it's a job. They take it seriously, they are careful. Despite the fact that they might have had sex with 100 different people, a porn star is almost certainly has a lower chance of having a serious STI than your average person.
posted by explosion at 7:11 AM on June 12, 2009


Oh, gawd, rokusan, why? I'm eating meusli over here.

Kinky.
posted by rokusan at 7:12 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Interesting story, trainwreck thread. Not just the judgment about "I don't like your type of porn", we've got some spammer on a new account in here too. Yay.

Personally, I find gay porn without condoms uncomfortable. Particularly actual amateur porn where there's no chance everyone's doing some highly regulated PCR testing every week. Just put a condom on guys, it's no big deal, and the sex will be just as hot.
posted by Nelson at 7:17 AM on June 12, 2009


The Monkey:If HIV really was endemic in the industry, then there'd be no problem. You can't catch it twice, right?.

This statement is false. There are a couple strains of HIV (some worse than others), so you can, in fact, catch it twice. Regardless of what strain each partner has, increasing one's viral load is a bad thing to do. (I don't know how much an additional exposure will increase viral load, though.)

Additionally, if one partner's infection has developed resistance to particular drugs, that resistance can be passed on to the other partner.

Also, regarding delmoi's question about prophylaxis: these drugs can be really hard on a person. The side effects can be really, really terrible. Depends on what a person is taking. It's a tough call.
posted by SirNovember at 7:19 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


There's an impressive amount of judgement some people are throwing into this thread...

I think some of that might come from the somewhat defensive tone that TheTorns is taking with respect to characterizing high-risk sexual behavior as no riskier than "unclogging a drain". While he may not mind the odds of the gambles he's taken — and he is well within his rights to put himself in high risk situations — he does a disservice to others by mischaracterizing the risk associated with those behaviors, and that does bear — in my mind, correctly — judgement on that basis.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:20 AM on June 12, 2009


paulsc: "Bareback porn, in an age of epidemic HIV, is akin to making snuff films, in my book."
Your book will never be published.
posted by Sailormom at 7:22 AM on June 12, 2009 [8 favorites]


Cite me for pushing a moral agenda when I start doing it? I'm just sharing some facts and observations, and the unwarranted hostility I'm receiving from some people for daring to do so is pretty shocking.

Your opinion, at least here, is one among many. You make it rhetorically difficult for people to disagree with your morality because you phrase things in terms of "us" versus "them."

Can people just leave us alone and let us make an honest living having the time of our lives, please? I'm far from an apologist, but all the unsubstantiated attacks are getting pretty boring.

I'm not going to disagree that the public health officials quoted in the LA times look like they have an ax to grind. But I don't see a disproportionate amount of it going on here. And ridicule is part of life. Congratulations for stating your opinions. Don't be flabbergasted that not everyone's on the same page with you.

Whatever it is that you are trying to say that I am confused about, the fact remains that there is going to be risky behavior and unrisky behavior in any industry, whether it is porn or, as you say, farming. AIM has to account for the fact that:

A. it is keeping public health officials at bay in what up to this point has been considered a first class public health concern, namely the spread of HIV in this country, and

B. that shortly after the report of one case of HIV, sixteen more unreported cases spilled into the scene.

Am I not supposed to be worried?

And while I am totally sure "the man is out to get you," (and you know what, I do kinda think these "Use Condoms!" public health officials are kinda creepy) somebody may need to step in and say, I know this makes you happy, you may think this is good, but people are getting infected, and while there are going to be financial losses and some moral tattering, it has to stop. I'm not necessarily saying that this is what is going on right here, right now. But what I do know is that at the end of the day, privacy is not the only issue on the table, and self-regulation is not always the right answer. This is just my opinion.

You portray the porn industry as being full of experts that should be left alone to their own devices, as if that were some holy truth that we must bow down to - it's just sex! what could go wrong?! - and what is ironic how that line of reasoning predicated the fall of the financial markets, where the people showed a similar deference to Wall Street, and look what an ungodly mess that turned out to be. [/troll]
posted by phaedon at 7:22 AM on June 12, 2009


Though, I must say (looking at delmoi's links, now), I didn't realize prophylactic anti-retro viral therapy was so effective. 80% reduction in risk of infection? Science!
posted by SirNovember at 7:24 AM on June 12, 2009


Not to derail further into the disability claim thing, but when I represented disabled people before SSI/SSD hearings, I was always thrilled when they called in the Vocational Expert to testify about what my clients could potentially do even if they couldn't do their previous job. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles is a fascinating (and sometimes hilarious) read. My favorite find was "Elvis Impersonator." They seriously consider that under potential jobs that someone could get even if they can't continue to do their old job.
posted by greekphilosophy at 7:26 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


The Dictionary of Occupational Titles is a fascinating (and sometimes hilarious) read. My favorite find was "Elvis Impersonator." They seriously consider that under potential jobs that someone could get even if they can't continue to do their old job.

And what a story to tell your friends. "Well, I threw at my back at my roofing job. Not too badly, mind you, but bad enough where I wouldn't be putting up scaffolding anymore. My lawyer told me he couldn't get me disability. But then he asked me how I feel about wearing a rhinestone jumpsuit."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:36 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Phaedon:

And I have less problem with the way you just stated your own thoughts in your second post.

The problem I have is with what you said in your first post, which was paraphrasing me to make it seem like I was saying something I clearly wasn't, and then ascribing some shady moral agenda to me based on some sort of prejudice you have against people who engage in certain practices you almost certainly have no actual experience of. I'm going to take a guess and assume many of your assumptions about these people you don't know and what they get up to are false.

If that's the way you start discussion with me, and then your only response to being called out on it is an attempt to point out further flaws in my contributions to discussion, then I'm not sure I should be baited into responding to you at all. You can't be trusted to play fair.
posted by TheTorns at 7:41 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think some of that might come from the somewhat defensive tone that TheTorns is taking with respect to characterizing high-risk sexual behavior as no riskier than "unclogging a drain".

Enh -- no, I'd argue the judgement occurred before there, in fact, here, where bunny responded to what was an informative first response by judging him for his occupation/lifestyle choices.

And he wasn't speaking about the whole of that sexual behavior, only his personal activity in it, which if you include the rest of the sentence went "And it was no more dangerous than working on a farm or unblocking a drain. People tend to assume we were doing things far more unhealthy than we actually were. Perhaps one shouldn't believe everything one sees or reads on the internet." I thought he actually kept his composure well (granted, then Potomac ate a misguided defensive jab later on) considering what was essentially a derail attack on him.
posted by cavalier at 7:45 AM on June 12, 2009


The Dictionary of Occupational Titles is a fascinating (and sometimes hilarious) read. My favorite find was "Elvis Impersonator."

Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, are in there, too.
posted by The Straightener at 7:45 AM on June 12, 2009


Dude only said that what he did -- which is none of anyone else's business, and which he's not obligated to describe in detail -- is no worse than unclogging a drain.

And phaedon: unless you can spell out exactly what "moral agenda" he's supposedly pushing, maybe you should apologize for your accusation. Frankly I think you have a moral agenda. Really -- comparing the porn industry to irresponsible traders is a bit rich.
posted by creasy boy at 7:56 AM on June 12, 2009


I'm also glad TheTorn showed up in this thread and has chosen to stick around so far.

I'm also guessing he's not going to be the subject of any fawning "MeFi's own!!1!" references in the future like Savage et al.
posted by availablelight at 7:57 AM on June 12, 2009


no, I'd argue the judgement occurred before there, in fact, here, where bunny responded to what was an informative first response by judging him for his occupation/lifestyle choices.

Since TheTorns appears to be mischaracterizing the risks associated with his sexual activities, what bunnytricks wrote seems like a perfectly fair, if not obvious observation.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:58 AM on June 12, 2009


Typos abound. Shit.
posted by phaedon at 8:03 AM on June 12, 2009


You portray the porn industry as being full of experts that should be left alone to their own devices

Porn production is such a small factor in the overall global scheme of transmission vectors in the public that I simply don't see ANY grounds for governmental intervention.

Heck, WRT the public health angle the gov't should be subsidizing porn shoots since you can't get STDs from yourself, (other than herpes I guess).
posted by @troy at 8:08 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Since TheTorns appears to be mischaracterizing the risks associated with his sexual activities, what bunnytricks wrote seems like a perfectly fair, if not obvious observation.

Ok, fine, I guess we're in chicken and egg territory here. I complained about the judgement being thrown around in this thread. You then proceed to judge that the judgement is OK because you, too, agree with the judgement that's being thrown and furthermore the victim of the judgement was asking for it. I'm trying to point out that TheTorns didn't even broach the derailing conversation of the risks associated with his sexual activities until he was judged in the comment previous to him.

You don't have to re-read the thread if you don't want to, but I'm running out of ways to re-read it for you.
posted by cavalier at 8:11 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Since TheTorns appears to be mischaracterizing the risks associated with his sexual activities, what bunnytricks wrote seems like a perfectly fair, if not obvious observation.

I reckon this is absolutely false. Do you have any data to back this up? It would be my hunch that an industry that is highly regulated with mandated testing for things like HIV is much safer than sex in the "real world", where things are more about passion and less about business.
posted by kbanas at 8:15 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Can't anyone at any time when having unprotected sex with someone they just met be at the same risk as a porn star? When they go to work and meet their co-star for the first time is no different then me going to a bar and picking up a chick. In fact it might be safer for the porn star because more than likely they get tests for this shit.

That's exactly what TheTorns is trying to say, as I gather it.

I'm not entirely sure why this point is flying over other posters' heads.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:15 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]



That's exactly what TheTorns is trying to say, as I gather it.

I'm not entirely sure why this point is flying over other posters' heads.


Yes, exactly. If I go to the bar and I'm three-sheets to the wind and I meet a girl and we end up in some sort of drunken debauchery in the back of my car, well, that's full of all sorts of risk. Do I use protection? Do I ask pertinent questions? Does she? Are there any good decisions made? No - this is an at risk situation.

If I'm in porno as a career, you'd better believe that I'm going to ask those questions, get those tests.
posted by kbanas at 8:18 AM on June 12, 2009


You then proceed to judge that the judgement is OK because you, too, agree with the judgement that's being thrown and furthermore the victim of the judgement was asking for it.

WTF?

You don't have to re-read the thread if you don't want to, but I'm running out of ways to re-read it for you.

You don't need to re-read it for me. (Maybe you need to re-read it, because you are way off-base.) I just don't agree with the narrow-minded and harmful view that the word "judgement" is automatically a bad thing. Different types of sexual activities have different levels of risk associated with them. TheTorn's claim that one kind of behavior, known to be in fact quite risky, is equivalent in safety to cleaning a drain is actually false and dangerous, and I have no problem with anyone pointing out that his claim is complete and utter nonsense.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:21 AM on June 12, 2009


[A whole bunch of stuff removed. Going after a user by googling up and disclosing and making hay of specific sensitive/taboo bits of their occupational history is so fucking far from okay that I don't know what the hell bunnytricks was thinking, but people need to drop that angle now.

Sorry for any bumpiness in the thread as a result, but this stuff is not cool. Double sorry for the weird reaction, TheTorns, and thanks for being willing to talk about this stuff in general from you end.]

posted by cortex at 8:22 AM on June 12, 2009 [18 favorites]


known to be in fact quite risky

You keep saying this, or things like it. What behavior, exactly, are you talking about? And care to provide some information to substantiate your claim? Which you keep making? Over and over and over?
posted by kbanas at 8:22 AM on June 12, 2009


screaming the industry standard "yeah baby fuck my ass" in the standard way for the B reel of Insatiable Ass Fuckers 47

It was never enough; dancing with a donkey to the Gymnopédies, vexing a mule to the Vexations, grabbing ear and tail while tack pianos tinkled away. The authorities followed a trail of fucked quadrupeds up and down the Loire valley. They followed by ear, like a bird hunt. At every turn a gramophone was left - for them? - spinning a cryptic jazz. Music for Furniture. The Dreamy Fish. The Bureaucratic Sonatina. What could it mean?

He'd made it halfway through the discography when they found him dozing in a field: a foal crooked in the arms of his purple tuxedo, a bottle of Chardonnay with two glasses, and a Victrola unwinding A Midsummer Night's Dream at his side. He was the in-Satieable Ass Fucker.
posted by kid ichorous at 8:26 AM on June 12, 2009 [14 favorites]


TheTorn's claim that one kind of behavior, known to be in fact quite risky, is equivalent in safety to cleaning a drain is actually false and dangerous

what Cavalier said already
posted by @troy at 8:27 AM on June 12, 2009


What behavior, exactly, are you talking about?

Please read the thread and you'll be able to follow what we're talking about.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:27 AM on June 12, 2009


Oh God, and then we bring up the "getting drunk at the bar and taking somebody home" moral equivalency. As if to imply that the porn industry should not be taxed and regulated because it's nothing more than a few romantic moments strung together on tape.
posted by phaedon at 8:30 AM on June 12, 2009


Different types of sexual activities have different levels of risk associated with them. TheTorn's claim that one kind of behavior, known to be in fact quite risky, is equivalent in safety to cleaning a drain is actually false and dangerous, and I have no problem with anyone pointing out that his claim is complete and utter nonsense.

....Has anyone considered that, in some cases, it's possible that the actors are, well, acting?

I mean, Harrison Ford doesn't really shoot that Bedouin guy with the sword in Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I'll grant that my exposure to porn is a little vanilla in these instances, and I've seen some things that aren't faked, but is it at least a possibility that some things are simulated, because of potential risk?

(Actually, that is a genuine question, now that I think about it.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:31 AM on June 12, 2009


Please read the thread and you'll be able to follow what we're talking about.

Oh, come off of it. I know exactly what we're talking about, but you're being purposefully vague. I'm asking you a simple question and you're refusing to answer it because it's easier to defend your wrong-headed position that way.

Spell it out for me.

Are you talking about scat play in specific?
posted by kbanas at 8:31 AM on June 12, 2009


[A whole bunch of stuff removed.]

Including breakfast jokes. A sad day.
posted by rokusan at 8:33 AM on June 12, 2009


As if to imply that the porn industry should not be taxed and regulated because it's nothing more than a few romantic moments strung together on tape.

I don't think there's anything romantic about pornography. It's a business, based around providing men and women (but, I think, primarily men), an avenue of fantasy and sexual release.

My point was simply that unless you practice abstinence, sexual encounters in the real world are not as tightly regulated as sexual encounters in the pornographic industry, and thus, are probably of a higher risk.
posted by kbanas at 8:34 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh God, and then we bring up the "getting drunk at the bar and taking somebody home" moral equivalency. As if to imply that the porn industry should not be taxed and regulated because it's nothing more than a few romantic moments strung together on tape.

No, I think what's being said is that as actors are required by AIM to be tested before performing, engaging in the profession is in fact less risky than going bareback with some random stranger you meet at a bar.

And as to the "practice" in question, first off, the poster has spoken of it in the past tense, as in, no longer does this, and second, the practice is only dangerous if a person physically imbibes it, which, while definitely one part of the practice, is not the only part.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:35 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh God, and then we bring up the "getting drunk at the bar and taking somebody home" moral equivalency. As if to imply that the porn industry should not be taxed and regulated because it's nothing more than a few romantic moments strung together on tape.

I don't think anyone is making that comparison out of MORAL equivalency, though. I think it's more of a public-health risk evaluation point -- i.e., that your average porn performer is more likely to have had a physical workup than your average bar hookup.

And that is a fair point. I mean - okay, I'll fess up, I consider myself to be on the higher end of safe sex practices, but I've only had a single AIDS test in my entire life. By the strictest standards, I'm actually not as safe as your average porn star, because I'm not tested annually.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:35 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'll grant that my exposure to porn is a little vanilla in these instances, and I've seen some things that aren't faked, but is it at least a possibility that some things are simulated, because of potential risk?

well, yeah, TheTorn was either saying that in his experience physical activity on the set doesn't necessarily descend (ascend?) to One-Cup levels of scat or, if it looks that way, it is simulated.

It is unclear which he meant.
posted by @troy at 8:35 AM on June 12, 2009


Metafilter: yeah baby fuck my ass ^
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:38 AM on June 12, 2009


I want to know, on broad terms, why the city of Los Angeles gets to tell me how wide my fucking driveway has to be, they can strip people of their business via eminent domain, they can pull people over for speeding, they can tell me when and where to park my car on the street, but they can't tell working pornstars to put condoms on their penises. As if some kind of unfuckingbelievable line has been crossed. For that matter, why are restaurants given letter grades and porn sets aren't?
posted by phaedon at 8:41 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Spell it out for me.

Human shit often carries a variety parasites, bacteria, and viruses. Compared with a kiss on the cheek, or — yes — cleaning a drain, the relative risk levels from fucking while handling human shit are obvious, compared with non-shit fucking with a condom. But I'm not retyping everything I've said already. Take it or leave it, however you choose, but his suggestion that scat is safe (or as safe as another activity which is generally understood to be safe) is ridiculous and that deserves to be said.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:42 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


....Has anyone considered that, in some cases, it's possible that the actors are, well, acting?

I mean, Harrison Ford doesn't really shoot that Bedouin guy with the sword in Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I'll grant that my exposure to porn is a little vanilla in these instances, and I've seen some things that aren't faked, but is it at least a possibility that some things are simulated, because of potential risk?

(Actually, that is a genuine question, now that I think about it.)

posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:31 AM on June 12

Hooray and thank you.

Now please people, kindly drop it altogether. Big thanks to Cavalier and creasy boy also. People who actively participated in the judgemental derail, Please reread their comments until it sinks in, and we'll pretend it never happened. All is forgiven.
posted by TheTorns at 8:42 AM on June 12, 2009


why are restaurants given letter grades and porn sets aren't?
posted by phaedon at 10:41 AM on June 12

I'm going to guess that it has something to do with the fact that restaurants are open to the public and porn sets aren't.
posted by Sailormom at 8:49 AM on June 12, 2009


....Has anyone considered that, in some cases, it's possible that the actors are, well, acting?

Not unless this is CGI cock going into a CGI pussy/asshole, etc. which seems unlikely.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:50 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]



I'm going to guess that it has something to do with the fact that restaurants are open to the public and porn sets aren't.


You mean you've never been on a set tour?! It's like that ride at Disney World where they take you around the park, but different.
posted by kbanas at 8:51 AM on June 12, 2009


You make it rhetorically difficult for people to disagree with your morality

The only person who's been bringing up the 'morality' of all this has been you. TheTorns has been detailing the facts of the operation from the p.o.v. of someone who actually knows the details.

The main premise has been that while there have been cases of the bug found in the industry, it is still far safer sex going on in front of the camera than most of the country's population has on a daily basis. Cali porn sex is probably the most rigorously clean sex there is, despite your 'moral' qualms.

This is like freaking out over a plane crash, and then completely ignoring the fact that you were more likely to die on the drive to work than you ever are in a plane. It doesn't matter how scary you think planes are, the facts don't change, and a pilot coming in to explain exactly how crashes might occur and how rare that is doesn't make him an apologist for the morally incorrect industry of flying death machines.
posted by FatherDagon at 8:52 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


"For that matter, why are restaurants given letter grades and porn sets aren't?"

Coming from a place that just closes restaurants that don't meet health standards instead of giving them a lower grade I've always found the health letter grade kind of off putting.
posted by Mitheral at 8:53 AM on June 12, 2009


>....Has anyone considered that, in some cases, it's possible that the actors are, well, acting?

Not unless this is CGI cock going into a CGI pussy/asshole, etc. which seems unlikely.


*blink*

...Which...is...why I said "some" cases rather than "all" cases.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:55 AM on June 12, 2009


TheTorns, I am so happy you are here. Please don't quit this site. We desperately need sex-positive people posting here, as you can see.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Metafilter does not do sex well AT ALL.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:03 AM on June 12, 2009 [5 favorites]


The only person who's been bringing up the 'morality' of all this has been you.

Wrong.

Why put these poor individuals through public humiliation? How exactly will that help anybody? Must people be punished and shunned for daring to catch an STD? Or is it really just another case of the moral minority looking for any excuse?
posted by TheTorns at 2:22 AM on June 12 [1 favorite +] [!]


I didn't bring it up, FatherDragon. And to all of you that think I'm peddling something.

The main premise has been that while there have been cases of the bug found in the industry, it is still far safer sex going on in front of the camera than most of the country's population has on a daily basis.

And this, I imagine is due in large part to regulation. You know, that thing people do to keep other people (or themselves) from totally getting out of hand.

This is like freaking out over a plane crash, and then completely ignoring the fact that you were more likely to die on the drive to work than you ever are in a plane.

No, I'm freaking out because instead of talking about the 16 cases of HIV in the porn industry mysteriously popping up shortly after 1 case of HIV was made public, theTorns is framing the conversation in terms of how the "moral minority" shouldn't be telling porn producers what to do. I can't think of a single, better opportunity on MeFi to bring up government intervention in the porn industry than in a post that links to an article that suggests AIM may have covered these cases up.

No offense, but some of you back-patters are dense.
posted by phaedon at 9:05 AM on June 12, 2009 [3 favorites]


You don't need to re-read it for me. (Maybe you need to re-read it, because you are way off-base.) I just don't agree with the narrow-minded and harmful view that the word "judgement" is automatically a bad thing. Different types of sexual activities have different levels of risk associated with them. TheTorn's claim that one kind of behavior, known to be in fact quite risky, is equivalent in safety to cleaning a drain is actually false and dangerous, and I have no problem with anyone pointing out that his claim is complete and utter nonsense.

DURRR... ok I'm going to give this one more shot, and we can prance around in mefi mail if we both want, because lord knows, I dig your contributions BP and threads are often better with your involvement in them.

I'm guessing at this point that we're just arguing about different issues. I'm talking about the shit (oy) TheTorns received when a) he did not bring it up, b) it did not belong in this convo which is about previously undisclosed HIV discoveries in the porn industry. I'm talking about people attacking him (judging, etc), when it had nothing to do with the thread at hand. I grok by this point that you're more concerned about the later explanations he made inside the derail territory about his activites and choices, etcetera, as you keep coming back to that. My point is that it a) doesn't belong in this thread and b) it was shitty (damnit) to bring Torns down into it when we refer to a).

And HEY! "I just don't agree with the narrow-minded and harmful view that the word "judgement" is automatically a bad thing."" WHEEOO WHEEOO , yet here you go judging my view to be narrow-minded and harmful. Awesome. How is that not a bad thing? What point do you have going on with this other than, I want to piss cav off? Really now. Full disclosure: I both have a nasty character flaw of judging everything around me, AND conversely I have a 0-Asshole reflex for condescension. So that's fun. And maybe we're just bumping heads because of that...

Just. Yes, ok, eating poop is bad. Agreement there. No, eating poop has no place in this thread. No, it was a derail. Yes, the comments that are now deleted were derail jumping boards that were crap (DAMNIT).
posted by cavalier at 9:06 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Metafilter does not do sex well AT ALL.

And heavens forbid the sex is with a pierced cock attached to a tattooed fellow. The prudish personae, they go all a-flustered!
posted by FatherDagon at 9:07 AM on June 12, 2009


qvantamon: "Finally! After years of waiting I finally live to see an instance of someone using the "Yeah? But you're a poopyface!" on MetaFilter. Next up - comments about someone's mother's waistline."

That would be the BBW MILF category.
posted by symbioid at 9:11 AM on June 12, 2009


Phaedon:

I accept your point about regulation. It's interesting.

I'm still not saying the things you're telling me I'm saying though, which is puzzling - and the fact remains that you've still written a whole handful of stuff that most people in the thread seem to think is way out of line, and which you refuse to budge on at all.

If you want people to accept your fair points, it would help not to surround them with... What you're surrounding them with.
posted by TheTorns at 9:12 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


I can't think of a single, better opportunity on MeFi to bring up government intervention in the porn industry than in a post that links to an article that suggests AIM may have covered these cases up.

But is it compulsory to disclose the results of an HIV test to the public? Surely among the other legal questions you've raised there is a compelling question of privacy here.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:12 AM on June 12, 2009


Just wanted to pop in and thank TheTorns for joining this conversation, also. Your perspective is very valuable and appreciated.
posted by greekphilosophy at 9:12 AM on June 12, 2009


I am in the safety and health field, and I wonder what it would be like to be an OSHA inspector at these worksites. OSHA can pretty much enter any worksite unannounced.

The personal protective equipment (PPE) would be condoms and such. I might need to get a very good view of the PPE in action.
posted by Danf at 9:12 AM on June 12, 2009


My point is that it a) doesn't belong in this thread

Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree more. If someone comes in here and claims that a very high-risk behavior is not risky — indeed, suggesting the very opposite — that should immediately, I would hope, ring alarms that cause any reasonable skeptic to question the factual nature of that individual's other claims. Indeed, I couldn't think of anything less sex-positive and more damaging to our sexual freedoms than to suggest a high-risk behavior is anything but.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:13 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Compared with a kiss on the cheek, or — yes — cleaning a drain, the relative risk levels from fucking while handling human shit are obvious.

You know that stuff that's blocking up your drain? The brown stuff?

It isn't chocolate.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:19 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree more. If someone comes in here and claims that a very high-risk behavior is not risky — indeed, suggesting the very opposite — that should immediately, I would hope, ring alarms that cause any reasonable skeptic to question the factual nature of that individual's other claims. Indeed, I couldn't think of anything less sex-positive and more damaging to our sexual freedoms than to suggest a high-risk behavior is anything but.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:13 AM on June 12

The big problem I have, apart from the continued derail is that THE ACTIVITIES I ENGAGED IN, THAT HAD NO PLACE IN THIS THREAD ANYWAY, WERE NOT WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THEY ARE. I've tried to spell this out repeatedly, others have also. Now trying with caps. So just stop. Please, stop.
posted by TheTorns at 9:19 AM on June 12, 2009


Okay. I'm gonna go ask James Randi if he wants a cheese sandwich. Good luck with this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:22 AM on June 12, 2009


Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree more. If someone comes in here and claims that a very high-risk behavior is not risky — indeed, suggesting the very opposite — that should immediately, I would hope, ring alarms that cause any reasonable skeptic to question the factual nature of that individual's other claims.

Except we have received confirmation that the specific high-risk behaviour you're referring to was faked. So something tells me that the claims of "not risky" are about something completely other than what you're talking about.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:24 AM on June 12, 2009


Hrm, whatever activities were or were not engaged in, this was not the thread to read before lunch.

At any rate, I think we should call it The Practice from now one. Like the TV show.
posted by desjardins at 9:25 AM on June 12, 2009


Okay. I'm gonna go ask James Randi if he wants a cheese sandwich

You mean a grilled cheese sandwich? *wink wink*
posted by desjardins at 9:26 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


At any rate, I think we should call it The Practice from now one. Like the TV show.

Very, very apt.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:28 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Can I just say, TheTorns, that in my admittedly limited exposure, you seem refreshingly eloquent for a member of an industry not noted for its commitment for complex dialogue.

/

Young starlet: why, I have no money with which to pay for the air conditioning repair as I stand here in my bikini.

TheTorns: Fear not, young maiden. I have a quid pro quo reimbursement program that we can use to come to a mutually beneficial outcome.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:29 AM on June 12, 2009 [7 favorites]


but they can't tell working pornstars to put condoms on their penises. As if some kind of unfuckingbelievable line has been crossed.

IANAL, but . . . Lawrence vs. Texas's "rational basis" test of the execution of the state's police power.

If sex workers were actually (legally) giving blowjobs to the public then more regulations would be in order.

There could be grounds for state intervention in the interest of preventing a race-to-the-bottom (heh) situation where performers who would prefer to work with protection are excluded from the industry by those willing to take their chances (this is similar to general workplace safety regulations).

But you've still got to demonstrate that current industry practice is significantly more risky to its participants than the baseline of every day noncommercial sexual practices.

For that matter, why are restaurants given letter grades and porn sets aren't?

The public can't get food poisoning from a porn set, durr.
posted by @troy at 9:30 AM on June 12, 2009


TheTorns, thanks so much for sticking around this trainwreck of a thread. This is what happens when somebody comes into a thread with the authority of personal experience - everything becomes about them whether they want it to or not.

Anyway, everybody, think of it like racecar drivers. They're driving fater and more often than non-professionals out there on the street, but they keep it on a closed course and make sure the cars are as safe as possible. I think the assumption that the porn industry doesn't act in the same way stems from a judgmental attitude that somehow performers in the industry couldn't possibly be concerned with the risks of their activities.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:31 AM on June 12, 2009 [5 favorites]


Oh my God, BP. Let it go.
posted by kbanas at 9:36 AM on June 12, 2009


Sometimes people totally get locked in to defending their original statement no matter what and forget to look around and see what's happening. I know that I'm often guilty of this myself.
posted by creasy boy at 9:36 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


This post had nowhere to go from the start. Links to newspaper stories? I was going to suggest that we all try to recalibrate our judgment-o-meters and return with some constructive commenting about the FPP, but there's not much to work with. I would like to add something, but I'm not very familiar with the nuances of this complex social issue, or how the industry works. Could somebody please add some links or additional experience/perspective here? It might help, um, flesh out this post a little more. And counterbalance all the judgmental crap flying around.

TheTorns: Thanks for sharing, and please don't be deterred from the site by the negativity and ick you've experienced here today. We're a work in progress, and this is obviously one of the subjects we don't do so well.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:40 AM on June 12, 2009


"Let's not have any more Cali porn, less dreck to sift through"

You clearly need to distinguish between Southern California porn and Northern California porn.
posted by markkraft at 9:40 AM on June 12, 2009


Also, I remember reading a great article about Sharon Mitchell and AIM's part in stopping the spead of the 2004 outbreak back in, well, 2004, but I can't seem to find it anywhere now.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:41 AM on June 12, 2009


I'm a little late but I crunched a few numbers to give some perspective. In 1998 the death rate in construction was 4.6 in 100,000, or 0.0046%. If I'm reading this right a rough guess would be 16 performers in a pool of 6,000? That's 0.27%.

That's actually quite a bit higher than I was expecting. Granted that construction results in yearly deaths vs. spikes, and that HIV is not the same as instant death on a job site.

I do wonder how this happened though. I was under the impression that HIV was not particularly contagious when it is first contracted. When does the viral load hit the high contraction rate? It'd be interesting to see how this spread, not knowing who contracted it, it could be that the performers were doing "contract work" on the side and that patient zero wasn't even in the porn industry and the contraction was not porn start to porn start, but some other hub with the porn stars as spokes. That would make more sense. Just because they have HIV does not mean they contracted it from each other, if anything this test looks like it worked as was intended.
posted by geoff. at 9:44 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


This thread was better before everyone practiced all over it.
posted by rokusan at 9:50 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's really comforting to see so many people thanking me for my input! Thanks guys. Thanks for the thanks.

The need for hefty moderation was unfortunate, but I'm very grateful for Cortex's effort. In the light of that effort and all the support from commenters I really wouldn't feel right abandoning you! I've been a longtime lurker but may now actually be tempted to post more often. See you in the next porn thread, perhaps. ;~)
posted by TheTorns at 9:51 AM on June 12, 2009 [3 favorites]


"In 1998 the death rate in construction was 4.6 in 100,000, or 0.0046%. If I'm reading this right a rough guess would be 16 performers in a pool of 6,000? That's 0.27%."

So, when is the reality TV show coming out?

"Deadliest Crotch"?
posted by markkraft at 9:51 AM on June 12, 2009


geoff. - remember that the 4.6 you're talking about is also yearly, and that if we were using the porn industry's numbers from '05-'08, they'd be a nice pretty 0.0%, which I think might be throwing your math off.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:54 AM on June 12, 2009


Granted that construction results in yearly deaths vs. spikes, and that HIV is not the same as instant death on a job site.

I think a better comparison would be "serious injury resulting in loss of occupation." I would think that a performer's career in the adult industry is essentially over once they test positive for HIV, but it's far from an immediate death sentence. I know several people (not related to the adult industry) who have lived with HIV for 20+ years*. I also know several people in construction & manufacturing who lost their livelihoods after work-related accidents. I would suspect these types of injuries in construction/manufacturing are higher than 0.27%.

But I'm going to lunch so I'll let someone else look for the numbers.

*not to minimize the seriousness of HIV but it's improbable in Western countries that upon a positive test result you will die from AIDS anytime soon.
posted by desjardins at 9:56 AM on June 12, 2009


A computer simulation, using data from U.S. sources, calculated the median lifespan of an adult entering HIV care to be 24.2 years

From HIV life expectancy approaching normal
posted by desjardins at 10:00 AM on June 12, 2009


I'm just happy that the gonzo porn Wiki link in the first comment led me to Martin Amis' marvellous 2001 piece about porn and life in the Valley, A Rough Trade:
That is where the market is taking us: toward heat, intensity, a frenzied athleticism. More than this, porno, it seems, is a parody of love. It therefore addresses itself to love's opposites, which are hate and death.
posted by jokeefe at 10:08 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


We desperately need sex-positive people posting here,

Porn does not equal sex; it's as much about the reality of sex as Rambo is about the reality of war. And one can be sex-positive and still regard porn with mixed feelings, instead of the whole-hearted uncomplicated endorsement which many here seem to express.
posted by jokeefe at 10:19 AM on June 12, 2009 [7 favorites]


My comment was in response to stinkycheese, btw.
posted by jokeefe at 10:21 AM on June 12, 2009


Construction takes a toll on the body that may shorten lifespan, or cause a decrease in quality-of-life. These injuries may not be fatal, but they're definitely ever-present. Porn's risks seem overall much lower.
posted by explosion at 10:22 AM on June 12, 2009


BP, normally I'm in your corner, but no one should be telling anyone whom they can fuck and in which manner. If someone wants to get fisted so far the other person's hand comes out of their mouth like the thing in Alien that's fine with me because it's none of my business. And it's none of yours either.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:30 AM on June 12, 2009 [3 favorites]


Great thread. Not that I read it or anything.
posted by ChickenringNYC at 10:31 AM on June 12, 2009


Forgive me.

Metafilter: Fisted so far the other person's hand comes out of their mouth like the thing in Alien.
posted by jokeefe at 10:37 AM on June 12, 2009


BP, normally I'm in your corner, but no one should be telling anyone whom they can fuck and in which manner.

I totally agree with you:

While he may not mind the odds of the gambles he's taken — and he is well within his rights to put himself in high risk situations [emph. added] — he does a disservice to others by mischaracterizing the risk associated with those behaviors, and that does bear — in my mind, correctly — judgement on that basis.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:40 AM on June 12, 2009


Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw at a fisting party: "My heart is yours if you can reach it."
posted by hippybear at 10:40 AM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Duly noted; I misread you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:42 AM on June 12, 2009


Let me preface this by saying I suck at stats, IANAD, etc., etc.
geoff.: I'm a little late but I crunched a few numbers to give some perspective. In 1998 the death rate in construction was 4.6 in 100,000, or 0.0046%. If I'm reading this right a rough guess would be 16 performers in a pool of 6,000? That's 0.27%.
From the 2nd link, that's 22 cases out of 6,000 individuals since 2004. Probably out of way more than 6,000 individuals, actually--I expect the turnover and burnout rate is rather high. But whatever. I think that's 3.6-4.4/year, depending how you slice it. I believe that gives you 0.06-0.073%, but I could very easily be calculating that wrong. Still shitty.

For comparison, the HIV prevalence rate in the United States is apparently 0.6%, if you believe wikipedia. The real question is what the proportion of the active hookup pool is HIV+.

Oh, and re: "Bugf*ck Productions" (diseased performers sticking together), IIRC there are at least 2 strains of HIV out there now.WP
posted by Decimask at 10:47 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


My, busy thread. Navelgazer got to the point and beat me by a significant margin. Carry on.
posted by Decimask at 10:49 AM on June 12, 2009



While he may not mind the odds of the gambles he's taken — and he is well within his rights to put himself in high risk situations [emph. added] — he does a disservice to others by mischaracterizing the risk associated with those behaviors, and that does bear — in my mind, correctly — judgement on that basis.

posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:40 AM on June 12 [+] [!]

Except you don't actually know what behaviours I was involved in, and are therefore unable to judge whether or not I am mischaracterizing their risks. You think you know, but it's very obvious to me and several other people that your assumptions about said activities were and apparently remain incorrect.

If you could own up to an honest mistake rather than continuing to perpetuate the derail in an effort to defend a massively moot point then that'd be cool.
posted by TheTorns at 10:49 AM on June 12, 2009 [4 favorites]


Ah, fuck. That's US HIV prevalence for adults.
posted by Decimask at 10:51 AM on June 12, 2009


TheTorns: I greatly appreciate your participation in this thread.

I get your point that 1. what you actually did on film maybe wasn't what it appeared to be, or even that 2.) you maybe didn't even appear to do some of the things that people are imagining.

Re: #1 - why are you being so coy about the details? Why are you not stating specifically what you did do, didn't do and appeared to do but didn't really? Just curious.
posted by tippiedog at 10:54 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


Re: #1 - why are you being so coy about the details? Why are you not stating specifically what you did do, didn't do and appeared to do but didn't really? Just curious.

Probably for the same reason that you're not telling us exactly what you do in the bedroom, tippiedog. I mean, if I asked you point-blank whether you liked anal sex, you'd probably ask me where the hell I got off because that wasn't my business. Why is this different?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:57 AM on June 12, 2009


The question of what he did or didn't do was injected into the thread early on by someone apparently wanting to use google searching to attack his credibility. If he wants to carry on discussing it at this point, that's his call, but you might as well ask why someone is being coy about details of their marriage that someone else decided ought to be fodder for discussion out of the blue.
posted by cortex at 10:58 AM on June 12, 2009 [7 favorites]


Porn does not equal sex...one can be sex-positive and still regard porn with mixed feelings, instead of the whole-hearted uncomplicated endorsement which many here seem to express.

Fair enough. MeFi does need sex-positive people, and porn-positive people. It seems to me like we don't have enough of either around here.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:06 AM on June 12, 2009


Wow - never thought I'd jump into a swamp before, but the mossy shine looks so tempting and exotic:

1. TheTorns, despite your eponysterical name, thank you for your time in this thread. Please don't bail - I want to hear from you more and outside of this porn-o-thon Terminator 5: Metachat Judgement Day thread. What else are you interested in that you want to share with anyone? We need far more folks like you around this hizzy.

2. Seconding the "check yourself before you wreck yourself" vibe here. Metafilter threads like this one could use a little more objectivity and less time at Ye Olde Ax-Grinding Shoppe.

3. still and all, great thread - trainwreck or no. This is why I love this place so much. And the people who contribute to it.
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 11:18 AM on June 12, 2009


If theTorns doesn't want to share the details of his profession, that's his business. Fine by me. I just found it curious that he stated so emphatically that what he did was probably not what some people thought, but he didn't say what it was, if nothing else, in order to avoid the back and forth over the subject.

But for those of you comparing my question to asking me what I do in the bedroom, I'd say that's not a good comparison. A better one would be asking me what I did at work today. Besides, if I'm really curious about theTorns's work, I guess I can go buy it for myself. It's not like it's a secret.
posted by tippiedog at 11:24 AM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


tippiedog, you missed previously excised (by the mods) comments that he did X or Y.
posted by cavalier at 11:29 AM on June 12, 2009


Duly noted; I misread you.

No problem.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:29 AM on June 12, 2009


A few comments...

I agree with BP's statement that a blanket condemnation of "judgment" is off-base. Actually, I would be happy if people on mefi could disagree with each other more comfortably, avoiding making things personal. It's ok to disagree, people! Of course, it's not OK to go posting someone's personal info etc...

I want to thank geoff and Decimask for injecting some actual numbers. I am very glad to have TheTorn's participation, but I think even an insider's perspective can suffer without the occasional statistic. Which is not to say that I disagree with him, but that I don't automatically believe his characterizations.

Ultimately, descriptions of safe vs. unsafe can and should be checked mathematically. I accept that the porn industry does a remarkable job of policing itself, but that two week wait on test results presents a window for trouble with people who routinely have unprotected sex with such a high number of partners. Ultimately, comparing pornstars to, uh, civilians is a little apples and oranges. That's where Decimask and geoff's contributions are so helpful to a true understanding of the situation.

Metafilter does not do sex well AT ALL.

You should see when Metafilter does race...
posted by Edgewise at 12:11 PM on June 12, 2009


question for thetorns, when a porn performer catches AIDS are they covered by medical insurance through the company or are they independent contractors who have to self insure?
posted by any major dude at 12:12 PM on June 12, 2009


In 1998 the death rate in construction was 4.6 in 100,000, or 0.0046%. If I'm reading this right a rough guess would be 16 performers in a pool of 6,000? That's 0.27%.

HIV infection is not the same thing as death. Wouldn't it be better to compare the rate of injury or disability in construction?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:33 PM on June 12, 2009


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In 2006, cases of work-related injury and illness were 5.9 per 100 full-time construction workers, which is significantly higher than the 4.4 rate for the entire private sector.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:36 PM on June 12, 2009


MeFi does need sex-positive people, and porn-positive people. It seems to me like we don't have enough of either around here.

Heh. If you can show me a single poster on Mefi who is sex-negative (there may be some who are sex-neutral) I will buy you a sockpuppet.
posted by jokeefe at 12:45 PM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


I like sex. I like porn.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:03 PM on June 12, 2009


I was under the impression that HIV was not particularly contagious when it is first contracted.

It's almost precisely the opposite. The modeling suggests that the three months post infection and the six months prior to death from AIDS are the most infectious periods. Obviously, as someone gets very sick the viral load spikes, but it is also very high when the HIV is first contrasted, before the immune system has figured out how to deal with it. During the first 3-6 months the viral load goes down as the immune system gets it under control, which it does rather well. Were it not for the fact that the virus gradually destroys that immune system, the viral load would likely stay controlled.

The public health implications of this, including for the porn industry, are not great, since the easy and cheap HIV tests we use measure the immune response to the virus, and so miss early infection by definition. One could be at their most infectious (say, 72 hours post infection), and test negative for HIV by the standard tests.
posted by OmieWise at 2:52 PM on June 12, 2009


The public health implications of this, including for the porn industry, are not great, since the easy and cheap HIV tests we use measure the immune response to the virus, and so miss early infection by definition. One could be at their most infectious (say, 72 hours post infection), and test negative for HIV by the standard tests.
posted by OmieWise at 2:52 PM on June 12

AIM use the PCR test for HIV. The more expensive type of test that detects the presence of the virus itself, not antibodies. This has been noted once or twice upthread already, and if I'm not mistaken is also mentioned in one or 2 of the articles linked to in the FPP.
posted by TheTorns at 3:00 PM on June 12, 2009


That's good, although my comment was more general in nature.
posted by OmieWise at 4:57 PM on June 12, 2009


Legs McNeil & Jennifer Osbourne's book "The Other Hollywood" has a chapter on Marc Wallice's testing positive for HIV in 1998, which resulted in a lot of industry shake-up & the creation of AIM under Sharon Mitchell, as PeterMcDermott already mentioned upthread.

As to what happened to Wallice, from the book, Tricia Deveraux (who also tested positive and believes she got it from Wallice):

"Marc Wallice was basically blackballed from the whole industry except for a couple of companies. VCA believed his story - that he didn't know and that he was devastated. He didn't know what to do, so they took him as an editor for a while. But eventually even VCA ended up firing him; now he's editing with a different company".

Deveraux later married John Stagliano (who is also HIV+, from encounters outside the porn industry) and they had a daughter who is HIV-. In this interview (NSFW ads), Deveraux discusses HIV in the industry.

And in case you're interested, Wallice, Deveraux, & Stagliano are all still with us.
posted by stinkycheese at 6:11 PM on June 12, 2009 [1 favorite]


I just want to say that the abbreviation IANAL takes on a whole new meaning in this context.
posted by ooga_booga at 6:23 PM on June 12, 2009 [2 favorites]


Can I just say, TheTorns, that in my admittedly limited exposure, you seem refreshingly eloquent for a member of an industry not noted for its commitment for complex dialogue.

Young starlet: why, I have no money with which to pay for the air conditioning repair as I stand here in my bikini.

TheTorns: Fear not, young maiden. I have a quid pro quo reimbursement program that we can use to come to a mutually beneficial outcome.
That's sooo much better than the porn dialogue I write!

GirlNextDoor: Thank you so much for delivering my pizza. I was hungry and now I will be able to eat. Also, you are very handsome.
PizzaGuy: Thank you miss, it was my pleasure. That will be $13.95
GND: Oh, mercy! I have no money in my purse. I thought I had money, but perhaps my attractive roommate has borrowed it.
PG: That is indeed a problem! Perhaps -
GND: Oh wait, here it is. That's $20 for you.
PG: Splendid! Here is your change. I will bid you a good evening as I have many other pizza deliveries to make.
posted by Ritchie at 5:59 AM on June 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Heh. I'm kinda glad I missed this thread.

"Heh. If you can show me a single poster on Mefi who is sex-negative (there may be some who are sex-neutral) I will buy you a sockpuppet."

Oh, man, does Beth still post? There've been plenty of sex-neg folks over on AskMe too, and about any time one of those "I'm celibate by choice because I'm old and don't care" threads comes up…

Anyway, while LFP was an evil, evil company, at least their records keepers, I can respect. They were always super hardassed about making sure that we had AIDS checks prior to the shoots.
posted by klangklangston at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2009


Heh. If you can show me a single poster on Mefi who is sex-negative (there may be some who are sex-neutral) I will buy you a sockpuppet.
posted by jokeefe


This anonymous poster is sex-negative.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:15 AM on June 15, 2009


This anonymous poster is sex-negative.

...I wouldn't call that "sex negative" at all. I think there's rather a difference between "I am not ready to have sex yet because I'm still coping with a history of abuse" and "feh, sex stinks, who needs it".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:17 AM on June 15, 2009


Aside from not needing a sock puppet, I didn't bother trying to come up with a list of sex-negative posters here b/c really that's a mug's game. If I say UserX is sex-negative, all that person has to do is show up & say "no, I'm not", and then where are we?

Besides, it's poor form to critique users who aren't even in the relevant thread.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2009


...I wouldn't call that "sex negative" at all. I think there's rather a difference between "I am not ready to have sex yet because I'm still coping with a history of abuse" and "feh, sex stinks, who needs it".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:17 AM on June 15


The reasoning and backstory are irrelevant - to claim that the poster in question is anything but sex-negative is splitting hairs to an absurd degree. Gimme my sock puppet!
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:27 AM on June 15, 2009


How is wanting his/her first sexual experience to be pleasant sex negative? That sounds pretty positive to me.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:32 AM on June 15, 2009


1) i just don't want to pony up the five bucks dude
2) it's not nice to say someone non-anonymous is sex-negative so i don't have a lot to work with here
3) that is totally not what the poster said in that question
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2009


...If you want a sock puppet that bad, I'll knit you one.

(I kid because I love.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2009


Well, I was being rhetorical, but if you want a sock puppet that bad I'll see what I can do... what name do you want to use? :)
posted by jokeefe at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2009


that is totally not what the poster said in that question

I just want to clarify something here:

I am not prepared to have sex with him and Don't wanna have sex are not the same as "Sex is bad."
posted by Pollomacho at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2009


I will have sex with him.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:47 PM on June 15, 2009


I will have sex.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:02 PM on June 15, 2009


I am sex negative.

If he's not cute.
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:12 PM on June 15, 2009


Follow up on this:
The performer, who was tested for HIV and other STIs on June 4, is a 42-year-old woman who had been working in porn for approximately one month prior to that date.

....................................

In short, this single, isolated case was caught early, notification was given promptly, including to governmental public health agencies mandated by law for notification of new HIV infections, and the infected performer has already been referred for treatment. She’s out of the business. Her few contacts are HIV- and likely to remain so, but will not be working until that is certain.
posted by chillmost at 5:41 AM on June 16, 2009


« Older A new 10 CD compilation of Art Tatum's work has b...  |  The Guardian Datastore... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments