egafd.com

Is the testing for HIV merely a hysterical response to an irrational hysteria over a disease?

Consider:

1) HIV and other STD's are not the only diseases one can contract in a hardcore or even softcore session. Yet why do we test only for the ones people are hysterical about and not for such diseases as tuberculosis (there is after all such a thing as an asymptomatic carrier) which I am sure kill far more people every year than AIDS.

2) In the case of girl/girl, the chance of one girl contracting AIDS from another girl is probably on the order of being struck by lightning, so why don't we erect lightning rods at girl/girl shoots? Perhaps girl/girl should be considered a separate case from boy/girl?

3) By perpetuating the idea of testing, are we possibly contributing to an illogical false sense of security as well as an hysteria over a disease that most of our actors willingly expose themselves to regularly (let's face it: few of our hardcore performers are sexual angels in daily life and do one night stands with people without benefit of testing...that is how much they are concerned about AIDS and other diseases).

I'm searching for the logical and nonhysterical reasons for testing at all. Why should it be the producer's responsibility? Perhaps it should be up to the performers to demand a tested partner and to decide which tests they'd like to see. I know this is hypothetical and can't change any laws, but perhaps it can start a more logical discussion of the matter.

Your thoughts?

ToWet spot. It is the performers responsibility, to show and have the correct certifiicates. As whether they are worth it? for me, any help for health and safety to performers has to be a good thing.

Your response shows how bewildering this subject is and how bewildered you are. You sound like someone looking at the tsunami destruction and saying "Send us something...anything. Anything is better than nothing."

Wouldn't it be much better to be sensible as a performer and have testing that makes sense rather than to take the view that "At least they're testing for something, even if the philosophy of testing doesn't make much sense"?

What does "sensible as a performer" mean? I think it means that if you think about it, you'll only perform with someone you'd trust without a test, such as the person you have monogamous sex with in everyday life.

What a curious post to be making on the o/t forum

You might get a better response on the main forum where all the industry debated this very health issue to death less than 3 months ago and the topic of broader testing for the less threatening diseases was broached

Do a search under "HIV"

I've never seen so many NEW posts about the same topic

No I have no thoughts as I'm just a viewer not a performer and as such am not really qualified to comment

cheers
B....OZ

Wet spot. I think you mis understand me. The tests also give results for most infections, so if you have picked something up, you know to treat it, and do not go passing on throught the industry. Surely even to you this makes sense.
The first tests came into the U.K around 94, and before then we all fucked blindly without a care.

And as for panicing I really dont give a fuck, I am lucky to have made it to this old age of 40. If your numbers up, It's up. So please do not preach to me as I have seen plenty of the dark side of life. As you are not a performer or it seem s the medical profession, why not sit back, get your tissues out, and get back to enjoying wanking aver porn, cos if you want o open up pandoras box, you probably wont like what you see.

Kind regards, happy new year. Marino

I don't really believe there are tests that effectively test for MOST infections, and as someone can (to take one example) be a carrier of HIV and not yield a positive test result, that renders a thumbs-up fairly irrelevant, does it not?

Oh, BTW, I'm not saying people shouldn't do hardcore. What I think is wrong is to put the responsibility/blame on producers when the performers probably will pick someone up in a bar or meet someone at a party and have sex with them without benefit of testing. If one is having indiscriminate sex, then indiscriminate sex without testing is the standard one uses in everyday life, and why then test for a shoot?

Sorry to dissapoint you again, Wet spot, believe it or not I do not pick girls up in bars,
I am in a great relation ship of which my partner is tested to, and any extra fun, is only ever taken with my profession.

As for blaming producers where are you making up your facts. You seem to have a head of steam over this issue, why does the testing thing bother you so?