Testing Rumours

[Paul Chaplin]

Sam
Actually, the infection is spelt both ways. (1) Car crashes occur in the general population. They also occur on adult shoots using cars. If a clinic worker crahes his car into a performer's car in Chingford High Street, the car crash 'in the general population' has an effect on the adult industry. The correlation between the incidence of STD's in the general population and its effects in the adult industry Does have meaning. (2) The incidence of the big C is over 20% in the under 20's general population and less than 10% in the 20 - 30 year old population. The mode (meaning most of) age of escorts and indeed intravenus drug users is over 20. Accordingly, the statistical average escort is LESS at risk than the average 19 year old. (3) A person (male or female) who sleeps with any number of partners - whether paid or unpaid - is a source of infection risk. The proposition that paid sex increases risk is plainly untrue. The real proposition is that the greater number of unprotected sexual encounters with anyone on an uncertified basis increases risk. That is unhelpful information, because it is a tautology. Responsible testing systems in the adult industry ringfence the risk created by the sexual encounters happening throughout the population at all times and places. The proof that adult industry work does not carry a greater risk of infection than 'normal life' is that the percentage incidence of STDs in the adult industry - given the quantity and indeed type [anal etc etc] - is LOWER than in the general population.

[Harry Hardon]

Much of what Paul say's is correct.

Testing will not eradicate STI's but it will reduce the likelihood of these being passed on.

From looking at a few websites and review boards, the majority of major talent (male and female) work as "Escorts" these days and sometimes the modeling agency has two sites for the different income streams.

From chatting with women who run agencies, this has always happened and the internet has made it easier to access these people. I remember years ago meeting a top model who never did b/g work on camera but did escort privately.

As have also been commented on here, a clean and safe bill of health is vital for an escort as Mr / Mrs Merchant Banker won't want to have to tell their partner how they got an STI.

Whether it's in the film industry, the escort industry or simply casual sex for fun, people should take as many precautions as possible and if the person feels uncomfortable, use protection for all forms of sex.

If we were to name names, this would get very very ugly.

HH

[Sam Slater]

[quote]The correlation between the incidence of STD's in the general population and its effects in the adult industry Does have meaning.[/quote]

Yes, mainly through the route: punter>escort>porn I'd guess.

[quote]A person (male or female) who sleeps with any number of partners - whether paid or unpaid - is a source of infection risk.[/quote]

True, although I'm pretty much on safe ground in stating that there is a higher risk in contracting something from a sex worker, than a banker...........or solicitor maybe?

[quote]The proof that adult industry work does not carry a greater risk of infection than 'normal life' is that the percentage incidence of STDs in the adult industry - given the quantity and indeed type [anal etc etc] - is LOWER than in the general population.[/quote]

That depends on how you look at it. Is the percentage 'per head', or 'per sexual encounter'? Since most encounters of sex within the industry are with the same partner (e.g working with the same male talent over and over) then this is different than say, the amount of positive results per person compared to the average citizen.

I'm sure you've previously stated that Bluebird do their utmost to minimise STD contractions, or at least put that assumption across, and yet it seems you aren't in favour of clamping down an inroad in which STD's work their way into the Porn industry?

Is Bluebird -as a company or it's owner- pro-escorting, or anti-escorting, and would Bluebird -or it's owner- accept that it has a responsibility in it's performers health, as well as others hired to work for Bluebird, or it's owner?

[bigAl]

I've watched this thread develop with interest.

The advice to use condoms is sound, and PRODUCERS/TOGS would be well advised to take note if the HIV threat is considered to be a serious one:


Every "Employer" is required by law to comply with Health and Safety legislation, which means (1) providing a "safe place of work", and (2) supplying "appropriate protective equipment to guard against any known risk of injury or disease" (might this include using condoms by any chance?)

And before any producer/tog says that models are self-employed so it's not my problem, I'm afraid it's not quite that simple.

Only the courts can decide whether someone is an 'employee', should a dispute arise. Factors to be considered that would point to 'employment' (as opposed to self-employment) - and therefore legal liability to pay compensation - will include:

- the degree of control and direction over the work undertaken
- the provision of materials and equipment
- the contractual right to earn a profit from the work that person performed for you.

If a model were to contract HIV following an unprotected shoot, then she would be legally entitled to sue the producer/tog for compensation. And the HSE would also be entitled to bring a criminal prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Any attempted defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' would be laughed out of court, and I very much doubt that reliance on monthly testing would satisy the "safe place of work" test.

Whilst the industry sees itself as operating in a largely unregulated environment, with models accepting the risks involved, it's funny how attitudes will suddenly change following serious injury/illness, especially if there's someone to sue and a sniff of financial compensation!!

[Sam Slater]

[img]http://www.parida.com/img1/head-in-sand.jpg[/img]

Just a bit of humour to lighten the mood..........waddaya say?

[bigAl]

Very appropriate !!!