Should male performers who have sex with men and transwomen work in straight porn?

[BioDefenseGrad]

Especially those who are known to escort or do scenes without a condom.
TJ Cummings, who was known to do gay porn and had been identified for years as a gay prostitute, was recently revealed to have tested positive for HIV.

There is speculation that he tried to book scenes with female talent after his first test came back inconclusive and he was told to retest. This opened the door for further infection of performers.

The testing system is a flawed security measure, as no one can be certain what a male performer like TJ Cummings has been doing in the time since being cleared for work and when he shoots his next scene.

Other performers, like Kelly Divine and Christian XXX have speculated that most of the male performers in porn prostitute on the side.

Males who have receptive anal intercourse with transwomen (who are often marginalized, leading to riskier behavior) are particularly at risk for infection.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/transgender/

 

[Lacey Black]

I think any performer male or female that is a known escort shouldn't be allowed to shoot scenes with major companies. But since it seems like most pornstars are escorting these days I don't think you could really enforce it.

 

[Mr_Stiffy]

The thing that concerns me the most when someone in the industry catches HIV, is the fact that even if that performer caught it on set, somewhere along the chain it entered the industry because a performer screwed someone off set that had it - and it doesn't matter to me whether it was straight or gay sex, a regular partner or a paying client - and that they were unprotected. I mean, that's just fucking dumb and irresponsible. Personally every encounter I've had with an escort - including some active and former industry performers - has been 100% safe, but I have no doubt there will be some which do bareback for an extra fee. Again, fucking dumb and irresponsible.

Obviously bareback scenes are far more commonplace than scenes with a condom on, but if the performers could be trusted to play safe in their personal life, then you'd have a closed circle of people only having bareback sex with each other and getting regularly tested just in case. Well, I suppose excluding the performers that are in monogamous relationships off camera with a partner they know to be clean. I'm surprised at times that even with a few cases of performers catching it, that condom use is still the exception rather than the norm. While you have to put your trust in what your co-star has been up to since the day they took that positive test they bring to the set, if it were me, I'd still feel a little like I was playing Russian Roulette every day I went to work, and just one encounter with someone who's been fucking dumb and irresponsible since their last test, could result in contracting something fatal.

Having said that, the whole reason the virus spreads is because there are people out there in all walks of life being fucking dumb and irresponsible, so I'm not just ragging on pornstars, they're human beings after all, and human beings are fallible. But it seems a real shame that in an industry where you're entrusting your health to the people you're going to shoot with, people can't always trust each other to be careful where they stick their genitals out of hours. Given the sheer number of people in their personal chain that could be impacted and that could impact upon them if infection enters it, you'd think they'd have even more caution than Average Joe and respect for their co-stars sexual health, and their own.

:2 cents:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I think any performer male or female that is a known escort shouldn't be allowed to shoot scenes with major companies. But since it seems like most pornstars are escorting these days I don't think you could really enforce it.

That's why I limited the scope to male performers who have done gay work and work with transwomen or are known to be male prostitutes for gay clientele.

Why?

Because just below direct blood transfusions, drug users sharing syringes and being pricked with a syringe, receptive anal intercourse is the easiest way to get HIV aside from being born with it.

Taking that into consideration, HIV is higher in the gay community and highest amongst transgender sex workers. TJ Cummings is known to have been a gay prostitute for years but was allowed to shoot unprotected porn scenes with new female talent.

Some of these male performers will shoot a scene with a transwoman. If he or she is shooting those scenes without a condom, what does it say about other risks he is willing to take?

Condoms would prevent most disease, but even they have failure. Cutting down on male performers who have sex with men and transwomen can help too.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

The thing that concerns me the most when someone in the industry catches HIV, is the fact that even if that performer caught it on set, somewhere along the chain it entered the industry because a performer screwed someone off set that had it - and it doesn't matter to me whether it was straight or gay sex, a regular partner or a paying client - and that they were unprotected. I mean, that's just fucking dumb and irresponsible. Personally every encounter I've had with an escort - including some active and former industry performers - has been 100% safe, but I have no doubt there will be some which do bareback for an extra fee. Again, fucking dumb and irresponsible.

Obviously bareback scenes are far more commonplace than scenes with a condom on, but if the performers could be trusted to play safe in their personal life, then you'd have a closed circle of people only having bareback sex with each other and getting regularly tested just in case. Well, I suppose excluding the performers that are in monogamous relationships off camera with a partner they know to be clean. I'm surprised at times that even with a few cases of performers catching it, that condom use is still the exception rather than the norm. While you have to put your trust in what your co-star has been up to since the day they took that positive test they bring to the set, if it were me, I'd still feel a little like I was playing Russian Roulette every day I went to work, and just one encounter with someone who's been fucking dumb and irresponsible since their last test, could result in contracting something fatal.

Having said that, the whole reason the virus spreads is because there are people out there in all walks of life being fucking dumb and irresponsible, so I'm not just ragging on pornstars, they're human beings after all, and human beings are fallible. But it seems a real shame that in an industry where you're entrusting your health to the people you're going to shoot with, people can't always trust each other to be careful where they stick their genitals out of hours. Given the sheer number of people in their personal chain that could be impacted and that could impact upon them if infection enters it, you'd think they'd have even more caution than Average Joe and respect for their co-stars sexual health, and their own.

:2 cents:

So are you for blocking them from the straight industry or no?

 

[Mr_Stiffy]

So are you for blocking them from the straight industry or no?

I think it's a moot point because like Lacey says, you couldn't enforce it. For every known gay escort, you could still have guys running around taking it up the bum unprotected in their personal lives, swinging or escorting under the radar using a different name where they're the only person in the biz that knows what they're doing. If you blocked male performers that are known to escort from shooting boy/girl, they'd declare themselves reformed characters/done with it, get themselves their (hopefully) clean test to persuade studios to let them carry on using them, and resume escorting but taking precautions so they don't get found out. It would be like imposing a ban on performers that have any form of unprotected sex off camera ; unless you watch them 24/7/52/12/365, you aren't going to know whether they're up to it or not. Danny D, for instance, hasn't filmed gay scenes for years and is in an apparently monogamous hetero relationship off camera, but how do we know him and Sophia don't get their jollies from him taking a shaft up the bum from a random other guy while she watches? We don't.

As for receiving a length from a trans performer - they get tested too, right? In terms of the diagnosis figures, I do wonder whether it's strictly down to medical reasons (possibility of bleeding and thus infected blood or sex fluids having easier access to the other's body) that the act of anal is a bigger cause of infection than vaginal or whether it's down to people engaging in the act being less likely to wear a condom for it than a straight couple slipping a raincoat on for nice boring missionary.

Would such a measure reduce the chances of infection entering the circle of active performers? Possibly. Probably. But it would be nowhere near as effective as intended. You can't control human beings in regards to the sexual activities of consenting adults off camera. You'd be much better off controlling them on camera, which you CAN do. Straight, gay, vaginal or anal, bum or be bummed - rubber up or don't shoot.

:condom:

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

...I do wonder whether it's strictly down to medical reasons (possibility of bleeding and thus infected blood or sex fluids having easier access to the other's body) that the act of anal is a bigger cause of infection than vaginal...

That's exactly what it is. Gender doesn't matter, anal sex is just risker due to bleeding, and the increased chance of the virus entering the bloodstream. The risk is about ten times higher, though still even unprotected the chance of transmission per act is about a half a percent, unless the infection is recent (the first few months) in which case the person's viral load will be significantly higher, with an equally increased chance of transmission. I believe the viral load is initially about 10-15x higher, then levels out. So with unprotected sex, in the first few months of infection, you're looking at a transmission rate of about 0.5% per act with vaginal intercourse, and about 5% per act with anal.

Condoms reduce chance of infection by about 75-80%. No idea if that figure includes user error.

Did some research awhile back when I was considering writing a short story about someone who believed they may have been infected, and the impact that had on their life. I was actually somewhat surprised at how low the transmission rates are.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I think it's a moot point because like Lacey says, you couldn't enforce it. For every known gay escort, you could still have guys running around taking it up the bum unprotected in their personal lives, swinging or escorting under the radar using a different name where they're the only person in the biz that knows what they're doing. If you blocked male performers that are known to escort from shooting boy/girl, they'd declare themselves reformed characters/done with it, get themselves their (hopefully) clean test to persuade studios to let them carry on using them, and resume escorting but taking precautions so they don't get found out. It would be like imposing a ban on performers that have any form of unprotected sex off camera ; unless you watch them 24/7/52/12/365, you aren't going to know whether they're up to it or not. Danny D, for instance, hasn't filmed gay scenes for years and is in an apparently monogamous hetero relationship off camera, but how do we know him and Sophia don't get their jollies from him taking a shaft up the bum from a random other guy while she watches? We don't.

As for receiving a length from a trans performer - they get tested too, right? In terms of the diagnosis figures, I do wonder whether it's strictly down to medical reasons (possibility of bleeding and thus infected blood or sex fluids having easier access to the other's body) that the act of anal is a bigger cause of infection than vaginal or whether it's down to people engaging in the act being less likely to wear a condom for it than a straight couple slipping a raincoat on for nice boring missionary.

Would such a measure reduce the chances of infection entering the circle of active performers? Possibly. Probably. But it would be nowhere near as effective as intended. You can't control human beings in regards to the sexual activities of consenting adults off camera. You'd be much better off controlling them on camera, which you CAN do. Straight, gay, vaginal or anal, bum or be bummed - rubber up or don't shoot.

:condom:

Saying that some will slip through anyway is like saying you shouldn't wear a bullet proof vest because cops are killed when shot in other parts of the body, or that sometimes vest fail to stop a bullet.
Catching and screening out these people lowers risk, and it also tempers the behavior of people already in it.

The current system cannot work by itself.

 

[CrimsonBolt]

Should male performers who have sex with men and transwomen work in straight porn?

simple answer
NO!

those guys are to risking ,all of them will be one day tested positive of the HIV, that's just a matter of time.
so, no don't let those freaks fucking our baby's

 

[Mr_Stiffy]

Saying that some will slip through anyway is like saying you shouldn't wear a bullet proof vest because cops are killed when shot in other parts of the body, or that sometimes vest fail to stop a bullet.

No. Saying a potential safeguard offered by the employer could be circumvented by the choices made by the employee if they wanted to, is NOT the same as saying a safeguard offered by an employee and accepted and welcomed by the employee should be rejected because it is not 100% efficient.

:logic:

I'd say it's more analogous to telling the cops they have to wear their bulletproof vests for going on potentially dangerous missions but having no genuine control over whether they wear them or not, and/or the cops choosing not to wear them. Which doesn't happen.

I'm not saying it's not a good idea in theory just that in practice it would be :

nowhere near as effective as intended

.... and merely a halfway house between the state of play now, and truly looking after the performers i.e. all the sex on screen being safe, which is both feasible and enforceable.

You're clearly an intelligent guy, but if you want to use a straw man argument like that bulletproof vest remark, it smacks somewhat of just looking for argument for argument's sake, and moreover that your initial post was designed to broadcast "This is my opinion, and if you don't agree 100% with me, I'm going to try to make you look stupid." So, I'm going to politely step away now, I think I've said all I have to say.


Well, other than the shame I feel when infection arising in this manner serves to fan the flame of homophobia/transphobia.....

simple answer
NO!

those guys are to risking ,all of them will be one day tested positive of the HIV, that's just a matter of time.

From your previous Amy Reid thread, I'm guessing you'd favour ANY potential safeguard offered as an alternative to rubbers in porn though, yeah?

so, no don't let those freaks fucking our baby's

Brilliant attitude to 21st Century sexual diversity, that.

 

[Lacey Black]

That's why I limited the scope to male performers who have done gay work and work with transwomen or are known to be male prostitutes for gay clientele.

Why?

Because just below direct blood transfusions, drug users sharing syringes and being pricked with a syringe, receptive anal intercourse is the easiest way to get HIV aside from being born with it.

Taking that into consideration, HIV is higher in the gay community and highest amongst transgender sex workers. TJ Cummings is known to have been a gay prostitute for years but was allowed to shoot unprotected porn scenes with new female talent.

Some of these male performers will shoot a scene with a transwoman. If he or she is shooting those scenes without a condom, what does it say about other risks he is willing to take?

Condoms would prevent most disease, but even they have failure. Cutting down on male performers who have sex with men and transwomen can help too.

Lots of pornstars escort and have anal sex, probably more female than male so I don't know why you are limiting it to male performers. And gay men don't catch HIV, irresponsible men and women do.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

simple answer
NO!

those guys are to risking ,all of them will be one day tested positive of the HIV, that's just a matter of time.
so, no don't let those freaks fucking our baby's

+Rep for passion.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

No. Saying a potential safeguard offered by the employer could be circumvented by the choices made by the employee if they wanted to, is NOT the same as saying a safeguard offered by an employee and accepted and welcomed by the employee should be rejected because it is not 100% efficient.

:logic:

I'd say it's more analogous to telling the cops they have to wear their bulletproof vests for going on potentially dangerous missions but having no genuine control over whether they wear them or not, and/or the cops choosing not to wear them. Which doesn't happen.

I'm not saying it's not a good idea in theory just that in practice it would be :



.... and merely a halfway house between the state of play now, and truly looking after the performers i.e. all the sex on screen being safe, which is both feasible and enforceable.

You're clearly an intelligent guy, but if you want to use a straw man argument like that bulletproof vest remark, it smacks somewhat of just looking for argument for argument's sake, and moreover that your initial post was designed to broadcast "This is my opinion, and if you don't agree 100% with me, I'm going to try to make you look stupid." So, I'm going to politely step away now, I think I've said all I have to say.


Well, other than the shame I feel when infection arising in this manner serves to fan the flame of homophobia/transphobia.....



From your previous Amy Reid thread, I'm guessing you'd favour ANY potential safeguard offered as an alternative to rubbers in porn though, yeah?



Brilliant attitude to 21st Century sexual diversity, that.

You were saying it's not worth doing because it can be circumvented by the performers. Many safeguards can be circumvented by the performers (though it would be hard to circumvent if you're reported by someone as engaging in gay prostitution via website and it's corroborated) or employees but that doesn't mean they should be dismissed.

What has to be done is layered regulation.

 

[CrimsonBolt]

Brilliant attitude to 21st Century sexual diversity, that.

gays stay with gays, straights stay with straights, we won't those gays fucks our fav pornstars look what is happen with cameron bay!
maybe i shocked you but that is what i think, i know you the (british) fuck everything but real men don't fuck other mens that's unnatural and disgusting!

 

[DOA82]

gays stay with gays, straights stay with straights, we won't those gays fucks our fav pornstars look what is happen with cameron bay!
maybe i shocked you but that is what i think, i know you the (british) fuck everything but real men don't fuck other mens that's unnatural and disgusting!

I gave you negative rep because you are a bigoted ass hole with some very ugly and insulting opinions.

Giving me negative rep back for the hell of it really means nothing, not that rep actually means anything anyway. So smirk all you want you arrogant Mother fucker.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

gays stay with gays, straights stay with straights...

I think you're forgetting about bi-sexuality.

Also, why do I have a feeling you probably watch your fair share of lesbian porn...?

 

[bobjustbob]

I see what you are looking for. Until we can come up with an on set test for STD, there will always be a risk. You can say the same thing about everyone else not in the industry but if sex is the business you are engaged in, then it is clear that you run more risks. I'm sure that models that do double dildo swapping shoots have come up with diseases too. Let's face it, someone is willing to set you up for a job fucking people. Pretty easy considering it's such fun. If you look at the glut of models pouring into the industry, plus the industry is little more than a camera and a website, this is what you are going to get. An industry fraught with disease. Before this instant STD testing comes about, the only safety is to lock the talent into rooms between shoots.

 

[Mr_Stiffy]

gays stay with gays, straights stay with straights,

You'll be wanting separate buses next.

maybe i shocked you

Not shocked, just disappointed. I've come across homophobia so often it no longer shocks me.

i know you the (british) fuck everything

Good one.

real men don't fuck other mens that's unnatural and disgusting!

Real men don't criticize somebody else's lifestyle choice just because it's different from their own.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I gave you negative rep because you are a bigoted ass hole with some very ugly and insulting opinions.

Giving me negative rep back for the hell of it really means nothing, not that rep actually means anything anyway. So smirk all you want you arrogant Mother fucker.

DOA82, you're the guy who is in favor of that stuff, maybe it's less about bigotry and you not wanting to face facts about being bisexual.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

gays stay with gays, straights stay with straights, we won't those gays fucks our fav pornstars look what is happen with cameron bay!
maybe i shocked you but that is what i think, i know you the (british) fuck everything but real men don't fuck other mens that's unnatural and disgusting!

Hardcore69, I get what you're saying. Perhaps your choice of words are harsh, but I'm sure you would have more to say if you were writing in your native language.

I think you're right in that performers who do gay porn or have sex with transwomen, especially without a condom should not be able to perform in straight pornography.

As horrifying as it sounds, there are gay companies that knowingly let HIV infected men continue to perform…this can lead to people becoming infected with more than one strain of HIV.