joker_c86 said:
I could date a porn star, have a porn star move in, share my life with a porn star. No big deal. If there happens to be one out there, that has the qualities I am attracted to, so be it.
If a person with aids has the qualities I am attracted to, okay I'll give it a shot, of course the physical would have to be safe.
Lepers? Sure I'd give it a go, although I think sex probably wouldn't happen, but physical intimacy is only one aspect of intimacy.
Hardcore Republicans, could I be intimate with them? Fuck no, even if they are leper pornstars with aids.
I hate the hypocritical, discriminatory bullshit that topics like this bring up. Of course, if there are more dipshits running around, that means statistically I have a better chance with pornstars. Only I've noticed so many of the ones I think would be cool to hang with are lesbians. Damn.
I don't know about discriminatory other than everyone has their own things they are attracted to.
True enough. I was thinking specifically of the aids/lepers post.
right.
good for you.
being sexually discriminate is a bad thing.
I love playing russian roulette every time I fuck.
In case you didn't notice the post wasn't about fucking.
Not in a "yeah I would fuck her" kind of way, but real world, actually be intimate with.
Perhaps in your world fucking is the only way to be intimate. Fair enough, life is filled with diversity.
Also, what exactly is your link showing? So a number of porn stars died of aids? Is that proportionately more or less than the number of regular people in the world that have died of aids? How about bible schoolers?
Next time, bring some real evidence to the party..
Don't most people in the porn industry undergo consistent screening for sexually transmitted diseases on a very regular basis? I would think they'd be less likely to have a communicable sexual disease than the average run of humanity.
Frank said:
Don't most people in the porn industry undergo consistent screening for sexually transmitted diseases on a very regular basis? I would think they'd be less likely to have a communicable sexual disease than the average run of humanity.
More tests doesn't equate less risk.
As similar to my previous statement: Yes they ARE TESTED at a high rate, but if I got tested yesterday morning, got fucked in the ass that afternoon by someone who is + and then shared some needles that night,today my results would only be a piece of paper.
Unless it is a DNA test, (which BTW can't be done while you wait) the test only really says whether you have developed the antibodies that your immune system uses to fight HIV. That can take as long as six months to show. So if you were tested this morning, it really only means you didn't have HIV six months ago. The reason is you could be + but your body has yet to make enough of the antibody that HIV tests look for, and hence still communicable.
This in no way discounts HIV testing, and the industry has radically changed the way they handle the disease. Increased testing doesn't mean decreased risk, it only means that if there is an outbreak within the industry it will be caught quicker than in normal society.
Unfortunately, when their is a break out it usually happens in clusters (but is contained.)
joker_
Minneapolis, MN
October 2005
JUL 21, 2006 05:47 PM