Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

LA to require condoms at porn shoots

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “They are taking something they know nothing about and imposing their morality on our industry.”

    What has morality got to do with condom use? Here was I thinking it was about sexual health and protection.

    I always thought you could get up to some pretty “immoral” things whilst wearing a condom, obviously I was dead wrong.

  2. Brilliant news.

  3. I agree that actors should probably wear condoms, but, that said, it should be their choice and their choice alone.

    They are adults, and they understand the risks involved in unprotected sex, it is their choice whether or not it is a risk they are willing to take.

    LA City Council should not be imposing their morals on the industry, I agree with Joss on that.

    1. I don’t think you do since you’re opinion is the polar opposite of mine…

      The first sentence is a quote from the article.

  4. So the porn industry will just move their bareback shoots from LA. It makes no difference.

    1. It’s true as long as people buy it

      1. And people should be free to buy it if they wish to. Turning bareback sex into a legislative ‘sex crime’ will not stop HIV transmission. Just as illegal abortions doesn’t stop abortions, or illegal homosexuality doesn’t stop homosexuality. It just forces it underground, and creates criminals where there is no crime.

        1. Bareback porn was not banned. Condoms were used to save lives and it also showed some respect between the actors. Now the assholes making porn don’t give a damn about the actors and neither do most of the posters. It’s tragic and depressing we have such a low opinion of the porn actors and this is all in line with gay peoples shift to the right. I feel ashamed,

          1. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Jan 2012, 8:39am

            James, you seem to have a somewhat romantic view of the world I’m afraid. If you take the bareback porn ‘industry’ in the UK and Europe, the, well lets call them actors, are usually required to sign a declaration of their HIV status to confirm that they are positive.

            The myth of cross infection has long been exposed as exactly that, a myth, and whilst I accept that they is a risk in relation to other infections, you could argue that in relation to doctors and nurses for example. We don’t all start banging on about lack of respect for doctors and nurses who we kind of expect will expose themselves to all sorts of nasty illnesses in the course of their duties.

            Frankly I wouldn’t want to be out collecting the bins for the council every week either because I’d be worried what I could pick up.

            We all make judgements about risk constantly through our lives, from the simplest thing like crossing a busy road to choosing a career.

  5. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 7:11pm

    Surely such actors being over the age of eighteen, they are old enough to decide for themselves.

    1. The trouble is, with the internet and such, a lot of the people watching the porn aren’t over 18 so it contributes to a society of young men who refuse to wear condoms because they think it’s not cool or it’s not as good to have sex that way etc etc.

      Studies have suggested that pornography is where teenagers learn about sex. I suspect the likelihood of that being the case is higher for gay teens because schools do a sh1t job at sex-ed for homosexuals

      Also some actors may want to wear condoms but the director or producer may have the final say. Apparently there is quite a lot of competition in the industry so they may feel pressure to conform or face the sack.

      I think we’ve all had bosses or managers who are total sh!tsacks, who make us do things we don’t think are right, even if we haven’t worked in the adult entertainment industry.

      1. de Villiers 19 Jan 2012, 8:54pm

        I do not agree that we should change adult entertainment because children might see it. That would apply to every form of adult activity.

    2. Yes 18 year olds are never manupilated. Or maybe you want more of this

      http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=104123

      1. de Villiers 19 Jan 2012, 8:56pm

        We all take responsibility for our own actions. On our logic, perhaps you or the government should make all our important, life affecting choices.

  6. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation in LA has been campaigning for this no-brainer for years. Common sense prevails at last.

    Why have our UK HIV charities not been doing likewise? Are they so tied into the sexualisation of gay culture and the profits that are being reaped at the cost of our brothers’ health to give a damn about doing the jobs they are funded to do?

    It is nothing short of heinous and criminal that HIV charity spokesmen refuse to speak out about bareback porn being produced in quantity today for fear of being seen to be censoring gay men’s “rights” to view or indulge in whatever extreme and risky sex they desire (check out THT’s hardcell.org.uk for proof of this).

    What about the rights of those youngsters forced into this industry and who have no choice but to perform “raw” and dangerous acts in order to put food on the table or pay that month’s rent?

    Despicable! Regulation is needed urgently.

    1. HIV chariites are not funded to take direct action against the porn industry – and where is it proven that bareback porn contributes directly HIV transmission rates. If this was the case then perhaps it may be reasonable to take on the porn industry, but surely regulation is something for the Government to become involved in rather than an HIV charity?

      Again Samuel you are confusing rights with responsibilites. HIV transmission occurs because in the main individuals make choices about the level of risk they are prepared to take and surely it is thier responsibility to make the choices that do not result in risk taking that could lead to HIV transmission.

      You may be of the opinion that gay men should not be subjected to barback porn, but surely this smacks of the nanny state and suggests that gay men are not capable of making personal choices on thier behaviour.

      Please do not hijack this thread in showing your dislike for HIV charities and me personally Samuel

      1. HIV charities are funded in part to prevent the onward transmission of HIV. Bareback sex is a facilitator of HIV transmission. Bareback porn is being produced in this country like a factory production line.

        What part of this equation are you not getting, W6?

        1. @ Samuel
          Please provde the evidence to support your assertion that bareback porn influences bareback sex – a link so your reference point would be useful, and as you assert that the UK are producing it like a factory production line, please provide a study that has been completed in the UK. I look forward to reading your reference point.

          1. You are a nasty selfish person. If you like bareback porn fine just don’t pretend it’s a good thing

            http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=104123

          2. W6, I’ve accused you of being disingenuous on related topics, but this really DOES take the biscuit.

            Your are a grand master at squirming and sliding around in circular logic does you no favours. Then, when adequately challenged you demand a scientific explanation and evidence for something that is personal to each gay man on an experiential level and which cannot be proven theoretically. Are you human or a robot, W6?

            Take your ridiculous assertion that it is not for HIV charities to educate people about the real consequences of HIV but down to personal responsibility of each gay men to wear condoms.

            Yet WHY should they wear condoms when they have not been told at school why HIV remains a chronic disease, and are then failed by their own charities with HIV campaigns that leave them thinking the disease is no more serious than any other STI…

          3. or adverts on the back of Boyz or QX that serve more to incentivise unsafe sex rather than discourage it, together with ads for PEP that subliminally persuade the reader that they can prepare for a weekend of unsafe sex, and pop down to their local NHS clinic on Monday morning for a prescription.

            Regarding the influence of bareback porn as an incentive for young men in particular to engage in unsafe sex, it is constantly cited by gay men as one of the leading factors in the abandoning of condoms.

            Such DVD’s normalise unsafe sex, and for these young men I mentioned who have been failed by their schools and then our HIV charities, the plethora of bareback porn being produced in this country sends out a green light that “raw” is culturally acceptable.

            You have shown, with your stance over bareback porn in particular, that you seem content to see the onward transmission of HIV to the point where it is at San Francisco levels and normalised in our community…

          4. I’ve suggested already on other threads that HIV stigma and HIV prevention cannot be tackled head-on by the same HIV charities because they are mutually incompatible; the eradication of HIV stigma can only be achieved by improving people’s perception of HIV, by “normalising” it.

            And how do you normalise something? You make it mainstream, and therefore HIV charities turn proven behavioral prevention methods that could prove effective upside down, inside out and back to front in favour of policies and campaigns that subliminally encourage and blatantly facilitate the onward spread of HIV.

            This has been achieved with PC and blatant NLP techniques applied by an HIV sector that refuses to speak out against bareback porn while approving unsafe sex venues, produces incentivising unsafe sex campaigns, misrepresents the intended use of PEP as a failsafe in the event of condoms breaking, and a whole host of other policies that directly correlate to today’s all-time high rate of infection.

          5. “Please provde the evidence to support your assertion that bareback porn influences bareback sex”

            Finally, to prove what a nasty, selfish, dangerous person the mysterious “W6″ – who insists he is not a disinformation shill for the HIV sector – really is, examine his words above.

            Um, isn’t the evidence that bareback porn encourages gay men to participate in unsafe sex there on the bl**dy screen for all to see, W6? Where does science come into it?

            I hope this thread truly exposes W6 for who he/she/it really is.

          6. And what is my stance on bareback porn Samuel, you are making assumptions. But as it goes I will tell you……I dont purchase any kind of porn so I am not best placed to make the judgements you are so ready to make. As you say it is a personal choice.

            We live in a world where individuals make choices, and with those choices comes responsibility, a responsibility to oneself and too others, rather like the health & safety comment. Regulating things like porn & bareback porn will not reduce HIV transmission rates –

            I guess you want to raise a tax to pay for the HIV drug bill rather like the example on tobacco, alcohol etc, where will it stop I wonder – a Police state, which is contrary to your assertions on freedom Samuel.

            You may not like the choices others make, but you should not take the moral high ground and judge everyone against your narrow point of view.

          7. Samuel here we go again with your vitriol towards me……despite my plea for you not to make ths thread all about HIV charities and personal unfounded remarks about me.

            You beleive what you want about me, now please let some other contributors have a look in and not hog this thread again with your sensationalised take on the subject matter.

          8. Hang on, W6. I thought you were against censorship and the right of people to express themselves freely and openly?

            You are a mass of contradictions, mate. Make your mind up for heaven’s sake!!!

          9. James! Please explain your comments that I am a nasty selfish person……..just because you dislike bareback porn that does not give you carte Blanche to make the assertions you make.

            I have no interest in porn of any kind, so perhaps I am not best placed to comment – but I do know that censoring porn is unlikely to have an impact on HIV transmission rates, this simplistic cause and effect will not resolve this problem.

            I, nor you should make judgements on what individuals choose to do in their life or what risks they are prepared to take. We all have choices in life, and it is very sad that occasionally poor choices will result in the death of a young person, this happens the world over.

          10. PS: If you can’t stand the heat, W6, stay out of here. In case you hadn’t noticed, I am not the only one here aghast at your callous ineptitude and absurb logic.

            James!, ignore W6’s baiting. He is constantly demanding evidence for this and that when it is staring him squarely in the eyes.

            Such derailing tactics are par for the course with W6 when he finds himself in a corner, as he does time and time again.

          11. Wow Samuel you have surpassed yourself today………so many contradictions in such a short space of time.

            Well you and James! Have the right to your views and so do I and the other commentators, but it is getting very tiresome when all you can do is turn most threads you contribute to into a pissing contest.

            Both you and James! share the same sensational, tabloid journalistic approach, big on the headline, nothing in substance, do some research and stop imposing your narrow morals on everyone else

          12. W6 Bloke

            Please provde the evidence to support your assertion that bareback porn influences bareback sex

            Lets not play games. There is an increase in tennis courts being booked after Wimbledon so people can be influenced by what they see on TV or we wouldn’t have any ads on it.

            HIV transmission occurs because in the main individuals make choices about the level of risk they are prepared to take and surely it is thier responsibility to make the choices that do not result in risk taking that could lead to HIV transmission.

            Can you tell me why you are in favour of bareback porn? Reading you posts I get the impression that you are HIV+ and like to have unsafe sex.

            Are you trying to justify your behaviour?

          13. W6 gives pos men a bad name. I have many pos friends who would be appalled, no, horrified that a pos man can be so indifferent and blase about the promotion and encouragement of activities that facilitate HIV transmission.

            It is not a disease they would choose to have, yet W6 in other HIV-related threads actively resists policies that could prevent neg men seroconverting while supporting agendas that actively encourage its spread.

            For pointing out his aparent self-interest in promotng HIV as something glamorous or something that is not in the least bit harmful in aquiring, I have of course been accused by him of being anti-pos people.

            That’s the same as claiming people who dare suggest that immigration levels may be a little high are racists. It is the stock in trade of the PC/disinfo shill to tarnish purveyors of truth in this way to steal the argument and alter public perceptions.

            W6 wishes I would go away so that his dangerous, insane world view goes unchallenged. Not a chance.

          14. I thought so. He’s a very bad man

          15. James! where in this thread have I siad that I agree with bareback porn? I have clearly stated that as I do not watch it then I am not best placed to make comments or jump to the conclusions you & Samuel make.

            My HIV status has nothing to do with any of this, but for the record I am HIV positive & practice safer sex, which frankly is none of your business.

            Samuel and you make great bed fellows, but be careful because he may be your best buddy today, but never dare question him? He will come down on you like a ton of bricks!

    2. Samuel I agree with most of that except we don’t need regualtion we need to stop buying it. It’s need to be as socially unacceptable as shooting up or drink driving

      1. Agreed, James!, but who is going to lead the way into stigmatising bareback porn and making it culturally unacceptable if the HIV charities aren’t going to do it. You? Me?

        It used to be enshrined in the likes of THT’s mission statements that they would do all in their power to reduce onward HIV transmissions.

        That pledge has long been forgotten, and such charities have actually been pivotal influencers in the hyper-sexualisation of our culture in recent years, taking funding from unsafe sex clubs, Gaydar and the like.

        I am not against the sex industry per se, but the HIV charities should be setting an example and not be involving themselves with promoters or companies that grow rich off the back of indiscriminate sex and which do not advocate safer sex as an upfront and guiding principle.

        1. I would point you to the fundraiser in December held at XXL nightclub in aid of Status Samuel…….XXL has a dark room, therefore it is a sex club of sorts, so with your logic should you not be condemning Status for involving themselves with the promoters and owners of XXL???

          I seem to remember that you commented that both Stats and XXL were doing great things in HIV prevention, your comment above sees to contradict this somewhat. Which is it Samuel.

          1. Would someone please buy Samuel B a johnny and a fleshlight and get him the hell out of here. Talk about a crusade. And yes James people do watch and enjoy bareback porn, so f-‘king what? Samuel B not all ‘brothers’ as you so quaintly and colonially put it have been infected by HIV simply because they watched bareback porn.

          2. Wow Ronaldo well I maybe wrong but if my partner asked for unsafe sex or got off on bareback porn we would be over

          3. Wherever W6’s warped worldview is aired, his alter ego Riondo is never seemingly far behind…

          4. With regard to W6’s comments about XXL, I am sure Paulo won’t mind me cut and pasting his contribution to a related thread:

            “Kudos Samuel for so convincingly winning the argument and knocking W6_Blockhead into submission. I and I am sure many others are outraged at his statement of fact that XXL is a sex club replete with dark rooms and Status were therefore wrong to receive its fundraising. As an XXL-er of some years standing I am grossly insulted. I go to the club to dance and socialize and many orthers will testify that XXL is one of the few attitude-free places that gay men can still enjoy themselves of a night out…
            And what a rank hypocrit this shrilling troll W6 proves himself to be in his defense of HIV enablers like GMFA. From the 12/1/12 edition of QX:
            IT’S A LUCKY FRIDAY 13TH FOR GMFA WHEN THE UK’S BIGGEST NAKED DISCO, NUDITY, HOLDS A FUNDRAISING EVENT FOR THE WORTHWHILE [SIC] ORGANISATION… THE USUAL NAKED GAY DISCO ABANDON WILL BE ON OFFER FOR THE NIGHT WITH TOP TUNES…

          5. … THE USUAL NAKED GAY DISCO ABANDON WILL BE ON OFFER FOR THE NIGHT WITH TOP TUNES PLUS THE USUAL DARK NOOKS AND CRANNIES TO RELIEVE THE TENSION BETWEEN TUNES…
            That’s not just vile, it’s OBSCENE!”

            XXL is not a sex club per se, W6. Not like Playpit, for example, where various HIV sector personnel are or were once often to be seen whooping it up of a Saturday night, or club night’s like “Filth” that are sponsored by the GMFA.

            You know, W6. One day your veil of illusion will lift and you will see everything in the clear light of day, and how the “reality” you inhabited up to that point was warped and twisted to the point where you would not know what truth is if it jumped up and bit you on the backside.

            When that day comes I hope you will be able to forgive yourself and still be able to look at yourself in the mirror. In the meantime, carry on spinning and deceiving…

          6. But what is your answer to my statement Samuel, or have you already answered under your alter ego Paulo???? The issue I have raised about duplicity has not been answered.

          7. “XXL is not a sex club per se” which is the same as saying XXL is a sex club of sorts! Dark rooms usually serve one purpose, and I would be very surprised if there were people not indulging in bareback sex in the dark room in XXL……so my question Samuel is do you agree that Status were right to hold a fundraiser event at XXL? Yes or no will suffice.

          8. 100% YES!!

            While it isn’t a club I’d frequent, XXL is a long-established, well-respected and, I believe, the only weekly peak time Saturday night still running.

            And if XXL does run a rampant dark room, the punters there, I’m sure, are more likely to be safety conscious than those that frequent Playpit, Central Station, Filth, and myriad other clubs that cater for pos men looking to “serosort”. How can THT and GMFA possibly justify taking funds from such establishments?

            W6, your suggestion that Status is wrong to receive funding from XXL fundraising brings to mind a well-known saying:

            “Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality.”

            In light of your many absurd and outrageous statements on behalf of the HIV sector, we can add:

            “…and HIV charities destroy gay men’s health.”

          9. Double standards SamB as always, have the courage of your conviction and not be selective in your condemnation of sex clubs your perception of their links to HIV charities.

            You seem to know a great deal about the other clubs you mention, I am not in a position to comment as I have never been to the ones you are so clearly knowledgable about, or are you just making your usual assumptions based on hearsay rather than fact?

          10. If individuals choose to go to these sex clubs is it not their choice to do so? And does it not make sense that if individuals are going to engage in high risk sexual behaviour that there are interventions such as outreach services to try and reduce the risk of HIV transmission as much as possible?

            You have openly condemned the harm reduction strategies like pulling out before cumming, but this may help prevent transmission occurring, surely this is better than no attempt to mitigate against high risk behaviour.

            You might prefer to think that risk taking is irresponsible but high risk individuals deserve some form of intervention rather than nothing.

            There will never ever be universal use of condoms, so should we ignore the fact it will still happen and not provide any harm reduction strategies?

          11. Of course it is each man’s right to choose what kind of clubs they frequent. The point is the message so-called “health advocates” send out when they tie themselves to sex clubs where the unspoken code is no condoms.

            Outreach work is a total waste of time in such places as you well know, W6, because gay men attracted to the extreme fringes of the scene will already have made up their mind what type of sex, safe or otherwise, they prefer, and outreach workers in such scenarios look, frankly, ridiculous dispensing condoms, although there is always a high demand for lube.

            Anyway, I thought the likes of THT saw such places as an opportunity to promote PEP, never mind condoms?

            In a sane world, their time and energy would be devoted targeting the mainstream gay community with effective HIV education and awareness programmes.

            But their obsession with the extreme sex scene and, as has been documented elsewhere, active participation in it by some of their staff, seems to take precedence.

          12. Prevention for the majority but not for all is what you seem to be suggesting in your most recent post…..a two tier prevention strategy is the answer so those at highest risk because their sexual behaviour do not deserve any intervention to reduce risk.

            If you had cared to read the Pan London commissioning report I have previously highlighted to you, then you would know the importance attached to outreach work & also the importance to reach those most at risk because of their sexual behaviour.

            You seem to think that PEP is given out like smarties, it is not and there has been a change in the recommendations recently to take into account the effect treatment has on reducing the risk of transmission. This recognises that treatment today is effective and tolerable and can cut transmission rates by 96%.

            It is the undiagnosed cohort of gay men that identify as being negative that pose the greatest risk of passing on HIV. This is something you seem to think is a myth, it is fact!

          13. “It is the undiagnosed cohort of gay men that identify as being negative that pose the greatest risk of passing on HIV. This is something you seem to think is a myth, it is fact!”

            You particularly hoist yourself by your own petard with this inane statement, W6.

            If HIV charities had been doing their job all along and gay men today knew that the best approach to sex was to use condoms at all times, the gay men you speak of as being negative but are realy pos would not be an issue because their partners would be protecting themselves.

            As it is, the inevitability of the situation we have today is that if those who sleep with such “neg” men are not wearing condoms, then they probably do not as a rule and are playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

            You are obsessed with advocating mass testing as the solution, when that is NEVER going to happen. Even if it does, it will not change some people’s behaviour.

            Only consistent and effective HIV education and prevention programmmes will…

          14. …in the long-term, impact on HIV transmission rates.

            Your modus operandi here is clearly the mass dispensing of HIV drugs, for which the HIV sector today priotritises above effective HIV prevention strategies.

            This obsession has reached a dangerous level, with testing booths even set up in environments in which gay men are “letting their hair down” and throwing back a few points or getting high on the latest new letter of the alphabet; conditions under which the immune system can become compromised, sometimes quite severely.

            I have a friend who who tested in such an environment and his result came up as positive, and immediately he was told of all the drug regimens available to him, how it was considered advisable to start these regimens as soon as possible – even though he was in robust health – and of course the myriad services available to him c/o the THT.

            Thankfully my friend decided to wait as he did not want to unduly compromise his health by prematurely taking drugs he…

          15. felt were being plied on him, and felt uneasy that those pushing these drugs were being a little too enthusastic in their approach.

            Thankfully he decided he did not want to unduly compromise his health by prematurely taking drugs he did not feel he needed to at that point.

            A few months later he went for a routine STI check-up and revealed to the physician that he had tested positive, and was asked if he wanted a new test. This time the result came back NEGATIVE!

            Now, my friend is known to party a little, but no more than the next gay man. What I am getting at here is that the drive to get men tested come what may is undoubtedly producing a number of false pos results.

            That is a statistical inevitability, but the zeal in which this testing drive is being done raises suspicions that the end result is to dispense as many HIV drugs as possible, which suggests targets are being set and bonuses are to be reaped at some level.

            To deny it is all for the good of gay men is laughable.

          16. So I guess now you are also critical of the British HIV Assiciation guidelines on when to start treatment, which is currently when the CD4 cell count is below 350 or the viral load is > 100,000 copies.

            All clinics in London use these guidelines, but it is ultimately the choice of the patient when to start. Uncontrolled viral replication has a very damaging effect on the body, as proven in the SMART study. HIV itself not the drugs is implicated in increased cardio vascular risk, metabolic changes including bone density loss, not to mention the high level of virus in the body fluids.

            The US which you are always so keen to quote recommend treatment starting at CD4 levels less than 500, which is effectively within a “normal” CD4 cell count. Viral replication is more harmful than the current modern drug regimens.

            This is medical fact Samuel which you always doubt.

          17. It seems to me that given your latest totally erroneous posting there is no point engaging with you because what you don’t know you make up, and your latest attempt to discredit HIV services just shows what lengths you will go to in order to prop up the lies you spin on here, you cannot be trusted to make a valid argument – that’s me out of here to continue it pointless

          18. And who is to say that is the best time when someone with HIV should start taking the meds? I know of several people who ignored such advice and their condition IMPROVED because they looked after themselves and took care of their immune systems the natural way.

            And what exactly do you mean by “medical fact”? Who establishes these “facts”, and by what criteria? Time and again we find these facts are skewed by pharma reps and lobbyists, or doctors and academics who are basically fed a script to recite ver batim in return for kickbacks.

            Please don’t expect me to believe the medical establishment is the only one not to be riddled by corruption and self-interest. Open your mind a bit and you will see that the call to testing is based on flawed logic and lacks common sense, which is why it hasn’t worked and HIV charities are moaning and wailing becauser they aren’t hitting service user targets.

            The job of the shill is to attempt to paint the truth seeker as the voice in the wilderness…

          19. and to bismirch their character, which is why you accuse just about anyone who agrees with me or who also dares to see through the HIV sector’ veil of illusion as being me but under a different name.

            The fact is, W6, if you speak to most gay men today they will tell you that something isn’t right with how the emphasis has shifted towards testing and treatments, which insanely is now being sold to us under the guise of HIV prevention (ie:- it is pos gay men who believe themselves to be neg who will change their ways if every single gay man comes forward to be tested and their status identified, and that pos men on meds are safer to sleep with as they record lower viral loads).

            As I said before, the world is upside down and back to front, and now the acquisition of HIV itself is being packaged as something safe and comforting, and HIV prevention tells us to sleep with someone on meds because they are less likely to be infectious!!!

            We have surely entered the Twilight Zone…

        2. Cheers Samuel

          some of the people on this site are rancid. I don’t get how they can be comfortable with entertainment that costs lives.

          1. I will add we want marriage kids and equality but we are happy to let porn actors play russian roulette with HIV. Funny but I don’t think straight people would allow it to continue.

        3. Sorry Samuel HIV drugs are never ever given to anyone just on the basis of an HIV test. This is always confrimed by a PCR viral load test, together with a CD4 cell count test, and resistance testing. Either you have it wrong or your friend has sadly felt so stigmatised by getting a positive result that he has chosen to change his account of events.

          If you are using this as a cynical attempt to discredit testing and HIV care you are just peddling lies which are dangerous and extremely damaging to those people who may be reading this rubbish you spout.

          You are totally wrong to cite this flawed example and this is why I take issue with you – you have no idea at all about HIV care and treatment in the UK, and your views are irresponsible and dangerous. Don’t medel in things you knw nothing about, a little knowledge can do a great deal of damage.

      2. And stigma is your solution to everything that you do not agree with Samuel……….stigmatising anything be it HIV or the porn industry will not solve the problems you think it will. You take a very simplistic view on most subjects that you commentate on here, and your postings here today have shown that when challenged or questioned you become abusive and make personal remarks

        1. Ooh, Betty!!!

  7. PS: Thank you Pink News for publishing this story when so many others of a similar or more serious nature have been missed or completely ignored by your editor.

  8. But when you consider that actors will receive more money to do bareback scenes, are they really making a free choice?

    I don’t see this to be any different than those working with heavy machinery being required to wear goggles and gloves or healthcare professionals having to wear gloves and aprons when exposing themselves to patients’ body fluids – employers have a duty to protect their employees from harm and employees have a responsibility to protect their colleagues from harm.

    1. Exactly!! When Health and Safety regulations are now preventing the rescue services from, um, rescuing people, one wonders what force is at work to make H&S also turn a blind eye to gay men being filmed infecting each other with a chronic disease, or spreading variant strains of the virus onward to one another.

      The sex industry banks the money while the taxpayer is left to foot the bill, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds over a lifetime to treat just one gay man infected in his twenties.

      Have we such short memroies that we have totally forgotten the Newsnight investigation into the bareback porn shoot in which three twinks were infected on the same shoot? By my reckoning that shoot alone will cost over £1 million in treatments and services over their lifetimes, not to mention the deteriorating impact of these meds on their health over time.

      Sorry if I distracted you from tonight’s important eviction episode of Celebrity Big Brother, You may continue watching now…

      1. Samuel

        I think you believe what you read in the press too much …

        As a paramedic, yes there are safety procedures – but there is nothing to stop me from rescuing someone if I need to …

        I have pulled people out of burning cars …

        Although the Daily Fail would have you believe otherwise … the problem wit health and safety is not the law, its about people who are employed as health and safety advisors who do not adopt common sense …

        Every scenario I go to I make a risk assessment – but then so do you, when you cross the road, when you open a door, everyone does – health and safety when done properly is merely common sense …

        Emergency personnel are expected to take risks – and I do … but reasonable risks …

        1. Stu – I think you missed the point here. It’s not all about you, dear.

          1. I think you’ll find it is Samuel who thinks this thread is all about him.

      2. Hi Stu, with all due respect to you, you are hardly an impartial commentator on how the objectives of of the rescue services is being subverted by ridiculous and increasingly insane H&S legislation. And suggesting I read The Daily Mail is a cheap shot, frankly.

        Even David Cameron this week insisted that rules that are actually serving to put people in need of rescuing in danger need to be rolled back urgently.

        Stu, I think you need to accept that PC lies at the rot of most that is going wrong in all levels of society today, which has become so riddled with this pernicious disease.

        Indeed, PC has become so normalised and accepted that we can’t even see how it negatively influences every facet of our lives, to the point where people are left to drown while people like yourselves run a risk assessment over the situation, and yes, HIV prevention campaigns are so watered down and subverted in their political correctness that they achieve completely the opposite results.

        Insanity!!

      3. “Every scenario I go to I make a risk assessment – but then so do you, when you cross the road, when you open a door, everyone does – health and safety when done properly is merely common sense …”

        I agree that almost every minute of every day we are all making risk assessments based on our environment (“is this air I’m breathing healthy?”) and in getting from destination to destination (“watch out for uneven pavements” etc.)

        But you must agree, surely, that these assessments are made intuitively and in the flash of an eye – the so-called ‘fight or flight’ response – and 99% of the time prove to be correct?

        H&S’s interference with the rescue services has made risk assessment COUNTER intuitive; namely, rather than trusting the rescuer to make his own assessment based on a given situation, he/she is now obliged to complete a tick list of endless requirements compiled by bloated bureacrats in non-jobs who are trying to justify their employment.

        And this insanity is costing lives…

    2. de Villiers 19 Jan 2012, 9:00pm

      No choices are free choices – it is fanciful to think otherwise. But some choice is better than no choice.

      The difference is that the using of dangerous machinery is not the end product but the means of creating it. The health and safety measures reduce to the lowest reasonable level the risk of creating that product. In pornography, however, unprotected sex is the end product. There will be health and safety measures to reduce the risk, such as regular medical consultations, but there is only so much which reasonable can reduce the risk of that activity – which is the choice made by a pornographic actor.

  9. it gets better…..unless you end up doing porn then youll be treated like a disposablenappy and realise that you have been lied to. the negative responses makes me angry at the hypocrite

    1. I’ll finish that

      angry at the hypocracy. Don’t kill yourself until your old enough to entertain us. It’s sickening

  10. I support safe sex and I would rather porn actors use condoms.

    However this is probably going to be unpopular but this is a case of too much regulation and is going to be damaging to the porn industry in LA. When it comes to the market and demand people want to see bareback sex, I’m sorry to say that but it’s true. This legislation will either mean porn companies will be cost a lot of money or their businesses will just relocate elsewhere where the law does not apply.

    Also it is important to consider that a lot (albeit not all) of porn industries/companies have their own regulations in place to keep their stars safe when they are partaking in bareback.

  11. Could someone please buy Samuel B a johnny and a fleshlight and get him the hell out of here. Talk about a crusade. And yes James people do watch and enjoy bareback porn, so f-‘king what? Samuel B not all ‘brothers’ as you so quaintly and colonially put it have been infected by HIV simply because they watched bareback porn.

    1. You nasty selfish person. If the possibility of transmittig HIV is not enough to put you lot off I think I may have spent enough time on this site.

      1. Can’t an individual watch bareback porn and then have protected sex?!! FFS. You really do have tunnel vision. People can watch Psycho but it doesn’t mean they’re going to go to Homebase buy a meat cleaver and start butchering people. WTF do you want? Give people credit for not being sheep. You must be a total sucker or know people who are real gullible and will do exactly what they see on tv or film? What are you? And please don’t think its acceptable for us as adults to be preached to and led by the hand as if we don’t have the intelligence to use our own brains. Sheesh.

        1. Said like a true transmit er. Hivinfection rates are going up . How would you explain it?

          1. Thankfully I’m neg James but I appreciate your ‘concern’ for my health. How would I explain a rise in HIV? Complacency, which has nothing to do with porn. Also I can’t imagine all those in Africa infected with HIV have access to porn- bareback or otherwise, can you? And a vast majority of those are straight.

          2. Complacency? and bareback porn hasn’t contributed too that. You sir are a fool

          3. And who do we have to thank for this complacency you speak of? That’s right, the HIV charities who have fought valliantly to decrease HIV stigma while sticking two fingers up at their remit to educate efficiently and effectively about the consequences of unsafe sex.

            The cat is now out of the bag that HIV prevention aimed at gay men has been mismanaged and disproportionate, both in the allocation of funds and how those funds are spent by the pampered execs and single-minded academics and bureaucrats at THT towers in their lush offices in prime central London.

            Thanks for at least indirectly admitting what the problem is, Riondo.

          4. Once again another thread hijacked by Samuel et al……carry on guys, please do, but I think you will find most commentators are very bored of your constant crusades on all things related to HIV and HIV charities.

      2. de Villiers 19 Jan 2012, 9:03pm

        More bullying by James, yet again. Infallible, like the Pope.

    2. Stop using my bloody poster name. Thank you.

  12. SamuelB has in this thread made a totally unfounded attack on HIV testing and care in this thread.

    He as portrayed a scenario that he has either made up or got totally wrong. Whichever it is his comments about false positive tests leading to HIV drugs being prescribed it totally wrong. HIV drugs would never ever be given without the necessary confirmation of diagnosis tests.

    He is calling into question the high level of care that HIV services provide here in London – his comments are dangerous amd what little knowledge he has is also dangerous to others reading his postings.

    He is being totally irresponsible to post the “story of his friend” here.

    To be clear false results can happen but there is always always a PCR viral load test completed before medication is even considered, let alone the results of a resistance, tropism or CD4 cell count.

    Samuel B is totally irresponsible, he should make an apology for the totally inaccurate posting he makes!

    1. The way he describes the experience if hs “friend” suggests that HIV medication was offered on the basis of a reactive quick test result, and the ongoing care path he vaguely describes is unlikely to have occurred. As the scenario he describes can easily be identified as the recent testing initiative by 56 Dean Street and GAY for WAD, as a patient of the Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust I have first hand experience if thier protocols and the high level of care they provide.

      No doubt he will deny my charges agains him, but the scenario he has described is just not possible, particularly the scenario about drugs being pushed n th basis of just a reactive test result. He has no shame.

      1. Calm down, dear, lest you want to become known as PN’s “shrill shill”!

        I was only recounting what my friend conveyed to me of a boozy night a year or so back, so do stop getting your knickers in a twist!

        He took a 5 minute test, he was told to prepare for a pos result, when it did came back pos he enquired about the implications and he said he felt a hard sell to consider taking treatments as soon as possible to ensure a long and normal lifespan.

        Oh, and they laid it on a bit heavy about the services that would be available to him, particularly from THT.

        For all I know he WAS told that a follow-up test would be required, along with all the other formal procedures you expertly describe.

        What this proves is that I have been so robust and compelling in my claims and evidence refuting your arguments and you have not been able to do likewise, so you’ve leapt at the slightest technicality or perceived flaw in my argument in order to shrill about what a fraud I am.

        Desperate, much?

        1. Even in this “explanation” you offer for your erroneous account it would be highly improbable that a discussion would take place about medication, and it certainly would not be a “hard sell” as you describe it – no HIV consultant or health advisor would put a patient who had just tested positive n that position.

          You are wrong here and you are deliberately misleading readers about wat actually takes place during a rapid testing situation and the follow up that would occur.

          You have no shame & you have gone too far on this occasion with your lies & deformation of HIV services which offer a vital, professional and clinically excellent service to all people living in London.

          Your accounts are dangerous and inaccurate and in my view should be removed because they could undermine the credibility of the testing service and the aftercare that goes with it.

          You are totally irresponsible to post such comments, I cannot begin to describe how angry I am, I hope PN acts!

          1. I have formally complained to PN about your eroneous comments Samuel and I hope they uphold my complaint and remove them. And do not cite “freedom of speach here” because with any type of freedom comes responsibility – you have submitted a totally erroneous posting that is misleading and could cause anxiety to anyone who has taken a rapid HIV test. Your comments are damaging to the integity of our healthcare system, and I for one will not allow you to continue to make totally inaccurate statments.

            There is enough dis-information and myth out there and you are just perpetuating this. I will now leave this in the hands of PN and see how they respond.

          2. How on earth can you profess to know exactly what goes in with every HIV test conducted in the UK?

            You simply can’t!

            OK, there may be a code of ethics drawn up which all STI clinicians and HIV testing wagons have to be aware of, but you are frankly insane if you are suggesting that 100% of those mandated to perform HIV testing abide by such ethics 100% of the time.

            For you to state I made this up is frankly slanderous, unprovable and damaging to my reputation as it suggests I would resort to the sort of deceptive and sleight of hand tricks that you consistently subscribe to in order to denigrate the HIV industry.

            As the grand master of deception and twisting of facts to sort your limited and often warped worldview, W6, I would take a good long look in the mirror and stop projecting your sly, underhand tactics onto those you are trying to besmirch.

            The dark arts be your stock in trade, but not all of us resort to such tactics to make a point, and the truth NEVER does.

  13. They will just move 1 block away from the city and shoot there…. lol….

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all