
Not-so-safe Sex - araneae
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/07/entertainment-pornography-condoms-opinions-contributors-alexandre-padilla.html
======
tibbon
Aside from the public watching people having unprotected sex (which isn't
really unprotected - they are extensively tested and the chain of sexual
partners is well documented in case there is an outbreak. Plus every female
actor is on some form of birth control), what is the problem that they are
trying to solve here?

Like he said, there was only one outbreak in that community, which is far
better than your average college campus. Plus aren't these films intended for
people 18+ who are supposed to be able to separate out fantasy from reality?

~~~
teilo
You are living in a fantasy land. If you actually had the time to talk to real
porn stars who aren't being managed by a handler, they would tell you a
completely different story. What you say may be true of the really big, "high
brow" porn companies, but it is certainly not true for the bulk of the porn
that is produced in the US.

Ask one of the doctors whose job it is to do this testing, not just for HIV,
but for the whole range of STDs. I was told by one former porn star who has
interviewed said doctors that somewhere around 65% of the porn stars he tests
have Herpes.

I have also heard Audrey Hollander admit, in an interview, that if you have
been in that industry for any amount of time, then you have herpes, period.

There is so much evil crap going on in this industry, but there is also a
whole lot of denial among porn consumers who justify their habits by
statements much like yours.

[http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-stars-speak-out-stds-
drugs...](http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-stars-speak-out-stds-drugs-and-
abuse)

[http://www.jupaman.com/2008/04/23/genital-herpes-and-
pornogr...](http://www.jupaman.com/2008/04/23/genital-herpes-and-
pornographythe-hidden-side-of-porn/)

~~~
weeksie
Check the CDC site for info on herpes. Something like one in 5 people have it,
that means if you're even moderately sexually active you probably do as well.
The vast majority of the population is asymptomatic which is why there's such
a stigma over the virus. In reality it's not a big deal at all. Freaking out
over herpes is as silly as freaking out over HPV which is so common it might
as well be a genetic marker for losing your virginity.

~~~
TriinT
Herpes may not kill like HIV does, but it likely makes one wish one were dead.
You say it's fine to have herpes, when in reality it is not. At all. It
affects your sexual life, hence it affects your personal life as well. A
pregnant woman with an herpes outbreak is endangering her baby. There's a very
good reason society's morals have evolved towards condemning promiscuity. The
sex revolution only happened a few decades ago because of penicilin and
antibiotics. Sure, many people carry the HSV without even knowing it, but that
does not mean it's OK to have it. And, as you know, it is known that HPV
causes cancer, so I don't think it's OK to carry it as well.

In the end, the only truly safe sex is masturbation, but that's not a life
option I recommend to anyone. When teenagers are educated on sex via porn
movies, promoting safe sex is the responsible thing to do. If the no-condom
movies went underground, then one could ban them. Or rate them as akin to
child porn, and hence, illegal.

In any case, if there are people willing to pay for no-condom porn, then the
world is sicker than I imagined in my worst nightmares...

~~~
weeksie
I'm sorry but can you tell me how asymptomatic Herpes has a negative effect on
one's life? Most people who have Herpes don't know it. Frankly the scare over
Herpes and HPV has a lot more to do with shaming people who are sexually
active.

I don't think you realize exactly how common these "diseases" are. Roughly 50%
of the population carries HPV, sure some strains are linked to cancer but it's
quite insignificant compared to the number of people who actually carry the
virus. As for Herpes, for it to cause a problem you must be symptomatic, which
as I stated earlier the vast majority of the population is not. To use these
relatively harmless viruses as a way to scare people away from sex is
disingenuous and dishonest.

Whether or not it is OK to be promiscuous in the modern world is a moral
discussion, it is perfectly possible to be healthy and have a lot of partners.

~~~
TriinT
You have a point. I am not an expert on the topic, but it seems to me that an
asymptomatic HSV carrier cannot infect anyone and, thus, there's no health
problem, and no negative effect on one's life.

Yes, it's possible to have many sexual partners and be healthy. One only needs
to compare the rates of HSV and other STD's in Sweden (where sex education is
serious) to places like rural U.S. (where religion, not common sense,
dominates).

Yes, there's a stigma associated with HSV and other similar virus. Epstein-
Barr causes mononucleosis, but there's less stigma associated with it, perhaps
because it's the "kiss disease", and kissing is apparently more innocent than
fornication. On the other hand, I think stigmas are there for a reason. A
legacy of a not so distant past where STD's where non-curable and non-
treatable. Promiscuity is a moral issue, so I won't discuss it. I think one's
sex life is better without any haunting STD's, and that's why I think it's not
responsible to say that herpes is totally kosher. If one catches it, it's not
the end of the world, but it's not a pleasant experience either.

~~~
83457
"it seems to me that an asymptomatic HSV carrier cannot infect anyone"

 _Smacks forehead_ ... That is one of the big reason herpes is so wide spread.
It gets pased on by people that aren't having, and may never have, an
outbreak.

~~~
billswift
I had shingles (a herpes zoster re-eruption) in 2000. Initially, I wasn't sure
if it was shingles or a somehow widespread eruption of cold sores (herpes
simplex), so I did some reading up on both. Neither is contagious except when
they are presenting, ie when sores are present.

~~~
swolchok
Your claim appears to be false -- genital HSV can be transmitted whenever the
virus is being shed, which can happen in the absence of symptoms.

Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_simplex_virus>) disagrees at
the end of the first paragraph, above the ToC. I'm at a major research
university, so I was able to check their citation and confirm that it does in
fact 1) appear to be a seminar/survey from a legitimate scientific journal
(Lancet) and 2) say that viral shedding in the absence of sores is possible,
citing what appear to be first-hand studies. I'll reproduce the citations
here:

60 Lang A, Nikolich-Zugich J. Development and migration of protective CD8+ T
cells into the nervous system following ocular herpes simplex virus-1
infection. J Immunol 2005; 174: 2919–25.

62 Wald A, Zeh J, Selke S, Ashley RL, Corey L. Virologic characteristics of
subclinical and symptomatic genital herpes infections. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:
770–75.

I was able to locate a (I think) public copy of the second study, by Wald et
al.:
[http://depts.washington.edu/herpes/php_uploads/publications/...](http://depts.washington.edu/herpes/php_uploads/publications/Virologic%20characteristics.pdf)

The abstract of the paper reports that "Among women with genital HSV-2
infection, subclinical shedding occurred on a mean of 2 percent of the days."
Subclinical shedding is defined in the body of the paper, specifically under
the "Statistical Analysis" heading on the first page, as "the isolation of HSV
from the cervix, vulva, or rectum in the absence of genital or perianal
lesions noted by the subjects or the clinicians."

In summary, at least one study has proven that herpes shedding is possible
without the presence of sores. I apologize for going to so much trouble to
prove you wrong, but it's dangerous for people to be wrong about the
possibility of transmission of STDs.

~~~
TriinT
To be entirely precise, there's no such thing as genital HSV. There's HSV1 and
HSV2. If I remember correctly, HSV1 is usually what is referred to as "lip
herpes", while HSV2 is usually called "genital herpes". However, one can have
sores in other parts of the body.

------
msluyter
Marginal Revolution (my favorite economics blog) has an entry on this:

[http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/12...](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/12/condoms-
law-nsfw.html)

~~~
maudineormsby
This is a great post. Points out two things:

1\. That this really isn't about the safety of the performers, but more about
the fact that people watching the films are exposed to people having
unprotected sex, which influences their own action. The anti-AIDS lobby is
trying to increase condom use by the public, not decrease AIDS infection in
adult performers.

2\. The law is worded such as to include the performers under Cal/OSHA. It
could probably be reworked and let them have their cake and eat it too.

~~~
billswift
A commenter there also pointed out that if the performers do become employees
under Cal/OSHA, the mandatory HIV testing they undergo will become illegal.

------
tlb
Overall I think he's right, but it also reminds me of arguments in the 1960s
and 70s against seat belts and air bags: that by adding a new safeguard,
people would come to depend on it and neglect other more effective precautions
like driving carefully. There is indeed a "risk homeostasis" effect, but
history suggests that extra precautions do reduce overall risk.

~~~
pyre
The most important take-aways from that article are that the actors will have
to become employees which: (1) makes mandatory HIV testing illegal and (2)
makes discriminating against HIV-infected actors illegal. How could either of
these things be considered a good for the industry or the employees?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Is it really impossible to create a law that makes it illegal to show
unprotected sex in a film? I can't see any way in which such a law would
require any particular employment regime. Sounds like posturing/obstruction to
me.

~~~
pyre
By whom? Apparently the law is worded so that they have to be employees. This
_seems_ like it's part of the "this is for the protection of the actors" train
of thought because then they call under OSHA. This might just be a way of
convincing people that this is all about the actors'/actresses' safety and not
about trying to curb public perception of sex with/without condoms.

------
AndrewO
Out of curiousity, how does the industry not have to fulfill Cal/OSHA now? Is
it that performers are not currently employees and the proposed law would
change that?

~~~
tibbon
They aren't employees I'm pretty sure currently. Unsure if they are
technically contractors, or if 'actors' fall under a different category
overall.

This does seem like stupid legislation.

------
joubert
The argument for condom use in porn in not so much about protecting the
actors, but rather communicating to the audience that condom use is "cool",
"the thing to do", etc. etc.

The gay porn industry is mostly there (there are a few production companies
that specialize in barebacking, but they're generally frowned upon).

Whether the govt. should be involved or not is a different question
altogether.

~~~
MikeCapone
> Whether the govt. should be involved or not is a different question
> altogether.

I think it's the main question, actually.

~~~
netcan
I think I've given up on the questions "is this very bad?" & "should this be
illegal" not getting mixed into one.

~~~
MikeCapone
I'm saying that I think it's the main question because if the government
doesn't get involved, then people aren't coerced into applying someone's
opinion about what is good/bad/desirable/etc, so the impact is much smaller.

Not saying that the two things are one and the same.

------
rauljara
"For one, the adult film industry would have to make every performer an
employee to satisfy the California's Division of Occupational Safety and
Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, laws."

This sounds like the root cause of all the problems he lays out with the new
law. Not condoms. I don't understand why he frames the article in terms of
condoms. I also don't understand why you wouldn't be able to mandate condom
use without making performers full employees.

~~~
BRadmin
Especially if they're currently able to mandate monthly testing without making
performers full employees.

~~~
billswift
That monthly testing will become illegal if they become employees. See the
Marginal Revolution post linked to above.

------
kingkilr
This reminds me of the book More Sex is Safer Sex by Steven Landsburg.

------
johnl
That's the same argument for marijuana legalization.

------
yters
People like sex way too much. If you look at it objectively, sex is hilarious,
and if it weren't for people's rationality being overridden by their desire
for pleasure, everyone would be way too embarrassed to have sex, especially in
public.

~~~
enneff
How can you look at something objectively and find humour in it? Humour is a
subjective experience.

Similarly, if people were strictly rational, the concept of embarrassment
would not exist.

~~~
yters
Here we have humans: the most ingenous and powerful species on the planet, yet
they like nothing better than rubbing their bodies together and making funny
noises.

------
falsestprophet
Or the law could require both condom use and std tests

~~~
KirinDave
The point of the article is that it seems like the law is pointless and only
introduces complications and special cases to existing laws. And the simple
truth is you cannot stop pornography from being produced, you'll just turn it
into a black-market affair. That may be an acceptable problem for certain
types of exploitative porn, but for the general body of pornography it's
generally a bad idea.

~~~
dkarl
The point of the article is to miss the point. It frames the condom
requirement as a protective measure for performers, a possibly flawed solution
that threatens to cost lives by pushing some performers outside the very
effective safety regime that is already in place. However, that is not the
intent at all. The intent is to require the porn industry to _portray_ safe(r)
sex. The movies do not portray professionals in a highly regulated industry
having sex with each other in a professional setting. They portray people
routinely having unprotected sex at the drop of a hat with whatever
babysitter, repairman, job applicant, or high school student who happens to be
nearby.

Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion,
but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen.

~~~
KirinDave
> Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of
> discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen.

So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover
up our profound failures in sexual education? The last 15 years have seen
schools engaging in the most ridiculous forms of sexual education imaginable,
and then we wonder why people don't make informed decisions. It must be the
porn.

It's this kind of authoritarian control-their-thoughts logic that gives rise
to all sorts of absurd laws. It's not even clear that it'll do anything. It's
legislation for the sake of itself.

So we can have that discussion, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere
for that argument.

~~~
dkarl
_So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to
cover up our profound failures in sexual education?_

I'm pretty sure all the supporters of this legislation are strongly in favor
of comprehensive, explicit sex education in public schools. The idea that
they're working to undermine sex education by using porn as a distraction is
ludicrous. If anything, condoms in porn will increase the credibility of sex
education in kids' eyes. We know kids are skeptical what they're taught in the
public schools is artificial, idealistic BS that will never fly in the real
situations they're faced with. (And who can blame them?) We know they're not
just influenced by porn but often consciously turn to it as a source of
information about sex. Seeing condoms in porn, even if they're only used in
10% of the porn they see, encourages them to think, "Huh, I guess real people
actually do this. It's a normal practice that I can reasonably demand of my
partners without being a total priss/dweeb." The legislation won't do anything
to either promote or discourage better sex ed, but it will make it easier for
students to trust the sex ed that is actually offered to them. In what way
could it possibly detract from sexual education?

~~~
barry-cotter
Sex education has no credibility. Abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, but
guess what? Neither does any other kind.

<http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp>

Lack of contraceptive education effectiveness
[http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_se...](http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/)

~~~
dkarl
Here are some experts (the American Psychological Association) who disagree
with your link:

<http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html>

 _The research on adolescents’ sexual behavior shows that comprehensive
sexuality education programs that discuss the appropriate use of condoms do
not accelerate sexual experiences. On the contrary, evidence suggests that
such programs actually increase the number of adolescents who abstain from sex
and also delay the onset of first sexual intercourse. Furthermore, these
programs decrease the likelihood of unprotected sex and increase condom use
among those having sex for the first time._

To put your second link in context, the author is a conservative Catholic
writer who calls gay marriage "a threat to religious liberty" and accuses
contraception supporters of "Condomism" (sounds like Communism, get it?) The
first Google result for her name is her home page, titled "Dr. Jennifer Roback
Morse - Your Coach For The Culture Wars," though if you click the link it
appears the site is defunct.

Here's what she says about childhood obesity:

"My amateur diagnosis is that the childhood obesity problem is a direct result
of the whole constellation of social changes initiated by the sixties. Working
mothers, feminism and zero population growth all played a role."

I hardly think the APA committee is unbiased, but I think I'll stick with them
over "Your Coach For The Culture Wars" who blames childhood obesity on the
sixties.

