US porn film makers suspend filming over HIV scare

[John99]

Nasor, a "stigma" attached to a job doesnt bother me so much and i doubt you would really be cool with your daughter getting into a sex industry but maybe you are being honest.

My favorte scene in the godfather movie was when they were trying to get the main godfather into selling drugs and he said (parphraisng) "i dont mind what you do but its a dirty business". Its a classic scene and something i always remember.

I remember in the early 90s when crack was decimating some communities and women were doing a certain sex act for as little as 50 cents. This was an extremely bad neighborhood and you could hear gun shots on most nights and really just standing outside you are taking some risk. But in the park there were many hookers and everyone was addicted to crack. These days it is much less widespread and really because people saw what it did and those people literally sacrificed their lives for crack. Drugs are a BIG part of the porn industry and those (mostly women) performing sex acts for a few dollars in the streets didnt want to be there but when you are addicted...

Still just based on what they were doing with strangers in the street most women used condoms.

In porn this is not the case and according to sources i just read on wikipedia:

Studies indicate that 89.5% of porn actors have STDs, with the median number of STDs for a porn star at 4.

http://www.listofstds.com/

I will post the full citation:

Because of the nature of their work, usually involving sex without condoms, pornographic actors are particularly vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases. Data suggest that pornographic actors have a higher rate of STDs (except for HIV) than the general American population[citation needed]. Among 825 performers screened in 2000–2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had chlamydia, and 2% overall had gonorrhea. These rates are much higher than in patients visiting family planning clinics, where chlamydia and gonorrhea rates were 4.0% and 0.7%, respectively. Between January 2003 and March 2005, approximately 976 performers were reported with 1,153 positive STD test results. Of the 1,153 positive test results, 722 (62.6 %) were chlamydia, 355 (30.8%) were gonorrhea, and 126 (10.9%) were coinfections with chlamydia and gonorrhea. Less is known about the prevalence and risk of transmission of other STDs such as syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, hepatitis B or C, trichomonal infection, or diseases transmitted through the fecal–oral route.[16] According to actress Chloe, "After you've been in this business for a while, you have herpes. Everyone has herpes."[5]
Studies indicate that 89.5% of porn actors have STDs, with the median number of STDs for a porn star at 4.[17]
In the 1980s, an outbreak of HIV led to a number of deaths of erotic actors and actresses, including John Holmes, Wade Nichols, Marc Stevens, Al Parker. This led to the creation of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation, which helped set up a voluntary standard[18] in the U.S. adult film industry where erotic actors are tested for HIV every 30 days

.

Regarding AIDS it states (citation needed) and i seriously doubt it is less. If you look at the last link it say tested every 30 days (for HIV only) which leaves 29 days untested. If you relied on a test every 30 days you would be an imbecile.

 

[Nasor]

The source cited in the wiki article for the claim that "Studies indicate that 89.5% of porn actors have STDs, with the median number of STDs for a porn star at 4," does not actually say that. In fact, it (ironically) says pretty much the opposite; people who act in porn films have fewer STDs than people of the same age group who don't, even though they have far more sexual partners.

 

[John99]

It says 89.5% of porn actors (performers) have STD's which is a very clear statement. You can believe whatever you want and makes no difference to me. At this point it just becomes a matter of common sense though.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ses-rampant-in-californian-porn-industry.html

And that is just what we know about. In reality the numbers are probably much higher because people dont have to be honest about their lifestyle but no one is going to say they do porn if they dont BUT the opposite is true where they may not be honest. So yeah, the number is, most likely, higher.

 

[adoucette]

Well.....

Mitchell says porn stars have a lot more sexual partners but get fewer STDs compared to others in the same age group. According to her, AIM tests about 2,000 people each month, and only 2.8 percent test positive for an STD. That's well below comparable national rates: In the U.S., about 22 percent of people ages 15 to 24 get an STD each year.

But one's a monthly rate and the other's a yearly rate, and 12 * 2.8 = 33.6

But, some of those people in the Porn would get hit more than once, so that number is going to be too high.

So

You really can't compare the two numbers

And

Not everyone between 15 and 24 are sexually active each year, while by definition, everyone in Porn is,

So

It would seem the rates are roughly comparable for sexually active young people in and out of porn.

Arthur

 

[Nasor]

It says 89.5% of porn actors (performers) have STD's which is a very clear statement.

No, it sure as hell doesn't. Here is the link:http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-09-04/columns/danger-on-the-set/|archivedate/

Even though that is the source that wikipedia used to back up the 89.5% statistic, that statistic (or anything else similar) does not appear anywhere in the article. The fact that it's "very clear" is irrelevant, since it's unsubstantiated.

You can believe whatever you want and makes no difference to me. At this point it just becomes a matter of common sense though.

Yeah, because who wants to bother with anything as tedious and boring as scientific data when you can just rely on "common sense."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ses-rampant-in-californian-porn-industry.html

This article fails to provide any useful statistics; it give a number of confirmed cases in California, but says nothing about the total number of actors/percentage infected, and does not give any comparison information on rates in the general population.

 

[John99]

Audocette, you have to remember also that these statistics are looking at companies where we can say are in the "high end" or well paid performers (well paid is relative though because if you spend everything you earn then your still at zero) but what about the poorer people? Even still money talks so statistics associated with the industry wont be looking to shed a negative light. Getting tested ever 30 days is certainly better than nothing but that still leaves 29 days untested. Not very good odds when you factor everything in.

 

[John99]

No, it sure as hell doesn't. Here is the link:http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-09-04/columns/danger-on-the-set/|archivedate/

Even though that is the source that wikipedia used to back up the 89.5% statistic, that statistic (or anything else similar) does not appear anywhere in the article. The fact that it's "very clear" is irrelevant, since it's unsubstantiated.Yeah, because who wants to bother with anything as tedious and boring as scientific data when you can just rely on "common sense."
This article fails to provide any useful statistics; it give a number of confirmed cases in California, but says nothing about the total number of actors/percentage infected, and does not give any comparison information on rates in the general population.

I quoted a passage from a wikipedia article. weather you agree with it or not does not really matter.

Look at prostitution: Would you have sex with a prostitute unprotected if she tested negative 28 days ago? Because basically that is what you are saying is safe to do. I agree the testing is better than nothing though.

 

[John99]

Because it really boils down to one partner being infected. And in this case "close dont count".

 

[phlogistician]

Well.....



But one's a monthly rate and the other's a yearly rate, and 12 * 2.8 = 33.6




Arthur

you can't be that stupid that you think a yearly % is 12x the monthly %!

12x more people visit the clinic yearly vs monthly, so the % works out the same.

 

[adoucette]

Yeah, but in the US, if you aren't interacting with the gay male community or sharing needles then your odds are pretty slim to start with, and even less if everyone you are having sex with has been tested within 30 days.

It's a risk, but apparently a fairly low one.

Consider, from the CDC's stats.

If you were a White Hetrosexual Male who didn't do IV drugs, then you don't even make this chart.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

Arthur

 

[John99]

Also Nasor, that test is specifically for HIV and there is no requirement for 30 day testing for other diseases which never go away either. That means porn industry is an incubator for STD's.

 

[John99]

Nasor, can you answer the question i asked in post #47?

 

[adoucette]

you can't be that stupid that you think a yearly % is 12x the monthly %!

12x more people visit the clinic yearly vs monthly, so the % works out the same.

Thanks, I'm not that stupid.

BUT

This is an INDUSTRY test, not open to the public, and so I assumed they mean they test mostly the same people each month, since the test is required every 30 days, thus 2.8% of the same group show up with a STD.

Now if NONE of the people ever tested positive twice, it would be the 33.6% I quoted, but of course that is unlikely. But on the other hand, most people wouldn't get hit twice either, so it's high, but not that high.

As I pointed out.

Arthur

 

[Nasor]

Also Nasor, that test is specifically for HIV and there is no requirement for 30 day testing for other diseases which never go away either. That means porn industry is an incubator for STD's.

Actually, the link that I provided with information on how porn star's STD tests are less likely to be positive than average did specifically say that they are including other STDs in the stats. But hey, don't bother reading the link or anything.

Look at prostitution: Would you have sex with a prostitute unprotected if she tested negative 28 days ago? Because basically that is what you are saying is safe to do. I agree the testing is better than nothing though.

If the prostitute was only having sex with other people who had tested negative within the last 30 days and there was data showing that prostitutes were less likely to have an STD than the general population, then I would say that it's safer to have unprotected sex with a prostitute than it is to have unprotected sex with a random non-prostitute.

 

[Nasor]

Thanks, I'm not that stupid.

BUT

This is an INDUSTRY test, not open to the public, and so I assumed they mean they test mostly the same people each month, since the test is required every 30 days, thus 2.8% of the same group show up with a STD.

Now if NONE of the people ever tested positive twice, it would be the 33.6% I quoted, but of course that is unlikely. But on the other hand, most people wouldn't get hit twice either, so it's high, but not that high.

As I pointed out.

Arthur

The testing indicates that at any given time, about 2.8% of the porn industry and 22% of the equivalent general population have an STD. If you're about to have sex with someone, their odds of catching an STD at any point in the upcoming year isn't relevant; what you care about is whether or not they are currently infected. According to the stats (which are apparently an affront to John99's "common sense"), it's roughly 7 times more risky to have sex with some random stranger in a bar than it is to have sex with a porn star. Also note that many STDs are curable, so just because a porn worker tested positive two months ago, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're still infected; frequent testing means that STDs will be caught early and cured if possible. Ordinary people, on the other hand, often unknowingly carry and transmit treatable STDs for a long time simply because they don't get tested (or at least, don't get tested very often).

 

[Captain Kremmen]

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

Lori, this subforum is specifically about ethics and morality. If you have a point to make, then please do so in an articulate and scholarly manner, in order to help the discussion make progress. Just tossing off a snide remark about having a daughter, or a silly emoticon which (I guess?) implies that you have a really thick skull, is nothing but TROLLING.

If you have something to say, say it.

BIG RED NOTICE FROM A MODERATOR

Bahhhhh!
Since when has a banging head from someone frustrated called for such treatment.
I disagree with Lori on at least half of what she says, despite being a Christian myself.
Some of the Christians on here I disagree with far more than the Atheists on here. They talk irrational bollocks.
I don't want to be associated with them.
It is only myself who talks complete sense. (well, perhaps not)
Let's argue rather than being aggressive or dismissive.
If you disagree, just disagree.
No need for the over-reaction

Oh, and Lori.
You are in a fortunate patch of life at the moment.
Very nice for you.
Stop being so bleeding smug.

Anyone else need sorting out?

 

[adoucette]

The testing indicates that at any given time, about 2.8% of the porn industry and 22% of the equivalent general population have an STD. If you're about to have sex with someone, their odds of catching an STD at any point in the upcoming year isn't relevant; what you care about is whether or not they are currently infected. According to the stats (which are apparently an affront to John99's "common sense"), it's roughly 7 times more risky to have sex with some random stranger in a bar than it is to have sex with a porn star. Also note that many STDs are curable, so just because a porn worker tested positive two months ago, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're still infected; frequent testing means that STDs will be caught early and cured if possible. Ordinary people, on the other hand, often unknowingly carry and transmit treatable STDs for a long time simply because they don't get tested (or at least, don't get tested very often).

Closer, but still no cigar.

The 22% don't have the STD for the whole year either, some will get it in the last month, most will get it treated (if it is treatable), and so the 22% is a cumulative number for people over the entire year and at any given time the percent of people with an STD will by a far lower number.

The number is also somewhat low because it includes people who are NOT sexually active, which by definition if you are picking them up in a bar for sex doesn't apply, so the percent you really want to know is: What is the % of people in the general population who are sexually active have an STD at any point in time?

So far no one has produced that number, but I'd doubt if it is a lot different than the Porn industry if you compare it to sexually active young people in urban settings.

One caveat to the above.

Up until recently testing for Herpes was based on checking actual physical lesions, blood testing for Herpes is relatively new and these statements don't indicate if the Blood test for Herpes is being employed and part of either set of statistics. Since even people who have herpes only have lesions infrequently, my guess is that herpes wasn't counted in those statistics unless a lesion was present.

But remember, one of the women in the porn industry said, if you were in the business for long, you had herpes. I believe her words were, "everyone has herpes", but in the general population, the percent for genital herpes is ~20%.

Arthur

 

[Nasor]

Closer, but still no cigar.

Well shit, I guess I'll have to ask my statistics professor about a refund.

The 22% don't have the STD for the whole year either...

I never said they did. I said that 22% have an STD at any given time.

...some will get it in the last month, most will get it treated (if it is treatable), and so the 22% is a cumulative number for people over the entire year

No, it's not. It's the number of people who will test positive for an STD at any given time. You can't extrapolate how many people will get an STD in a year from that statistic. Maybe 100% of people get an STD once a year, but thanks to prompt treatment only 22% of them will test positive (be infected) at any given time. Or maybe only 5% of people will get an STD in a year and wait an average of 4.4 years to get tested and treated, again meaning that on average 22% will test positive. All you know is that if you go out and test a bunch of average people, you will find that right now 22% have an STD.

...and at any given time the percent of people with an STD will by a far lower number.

No offense, but this is just stupid. If 22% of people who are tested at any given time have an STD, then 22% of them have an STD. If at any given time only, say, 5% of people had an STD, then only 5% of the STD tests would be coming back positive. Granted, people who either don't have sex or have been in a monogamous relationship for a long time probably never bother to get tested, but of course they aren't exactly in the dating pool anyway.

 

[adoucette]

The quote was:

In the U.S., about 22 percent of people ages 15 to 24 get an STD each year.

Consider 50 people.
22% getting an STD in the year is 11 people.
Now in Jan one of the 50 gets an STD, but gets it cured by Feb.
In Feb one of the 50 gets an STD, but gets it cured by Mar.
And so on.
By November you have 11 people out of the 50 who have had an STD and so the percent of people with an STD for the year is indeed 22%, which matches the data we were given.

But in this example, the percent per month was never more than 2%.
In December it's zero percent.

Arthur

 

[Nasor]

Okay, sorry, you're correct; they explicitly said 22% in a year. Sorry about that.