Bareback!!!

[mikeyank]

I hate to think about it, but is it going to take loosing a beloved model to HIV to get back to reality? Which one are you willing to loose? Is it really worth the risk to entertain us?

The lions and the Christians at the Roman Colosseum comes to mind right now. Anything goes in the name of entertainment.

With the announcements of another1 and Valentine, I find myself loosing friends again because of this insane subject, and the hurt goes on. I will truly miss you both.

I see that you and I have very similar feelings about this announcement Robb. As I said in my previous post, I find this all very unsettling.

 

[tampa24]

I see that you and I have very similar feelings about this announcement Robb. As I said in my previous post, I find this all very unsettling.

Ditto.

 

[BenBen]

There is a short window in time that you can actually test HIV negative and still be HIV infected. How you ask? When HIV initially infects the body, your immune system begins to develop antibodies to the virus. It's those antibodies that HIV tests detect when you get HIV tested. It takes some time for enough of those antibodies to be produced for an HIV test to detect them. Therefore too little HIV antibody has not been produced when you get tested, the test result will be negative when in fact you are HIV infected.

http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/hivnegative.htm

 

[rrhill]

There is a short window in time that you can actually test HIV negative and still be HIV infected.

"The timeframe between when you are exposed to HIV to the time you test positive for HIV antibodies can be up to 3-6 months. This period of time is called a “window period” for HIV testing. On average, you may need to wait 2 to 8 weeks from the time of possible exposure to get an accurate test result, because it takes at least that long for the immune system to develop enough HIV antibodies to be detectable."[SUP]
[/SUP]source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_period

That's why one should test every six months, and practice safe sex with untested strangers. Rimming and cum eating are unsafe too.

By the way thousands of people die every year in normal traffic. Even sober, wearing a safety belt, and without it making a mistake, today could be your last day. And I do participate in traffic nevertheless: one day I could be unlucky. It's all about calculating and minimizing your risk.

Should we abandon rimming?

 

[jamostar]

I'm sorry on how this is going to sound but don't you think you're being kind of a hypocrite not having bareback sex in real life but expecting it in porn? Yes porn is fantasy for those of us watching it but it's reality for the performers.

Hey BenBen,

I never said I didnt have it in real life? I said there are people who dont have bareback sex in their own lives for various reasons like not having the money for testing etc. I think you may have read me saying "many of us might like to" as me saying it about myself. I wasnt, I was just making a generalisation. However, i dont do it very often because I am someone who is very careful and i dont always have the time or money to have testing done and most of the time sex is spontaneous and therefore you cant organise getting properly tested for spontaneous sex, so in that case its best to be safe. Filmed sex is not spontaneous, it is booked, prepared, possibly even a little rehearsed, they have the time and the money and the actors also have the decision to film bareback or not. Anyways, i hope that clears it up a little. lol : )

 

[joninliverton]

That's why one should test every six months, and practice safe sex with untested strangers. Rimming and cum eating are unsafe too.

By the way thousands of people die every year in normal traffic. Even sober, wearing a safety belt, and without it making a mistake, today could be your last day. And I do participate in traffic nevertheless: one day I could be unlucky. It's all about calculating and minimizing your risk.

Should we abandon rimming?

Should we abandon breathing ???