Porn or prostitution?

pickarooney

Gurgle wrote:

my 2c:
None of the participants is actually paying for sex - It's not prostitution

Assuming working 5 days a week, with bank holidays off and 20 days annual leave - thats equivalent to a salary of €69k.

Thats not bad at all for a job where the only qualification required is willingness.

There are other qualifications:
- not being a hideous troll (for female stars)
- not having a small langer (for the boys)
- not going soft despite performing all day and being watched by lots of people

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Basically he pointed out that if you wish to make an film in LA, for every location you film you need about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector, a firemarshel and a stunt co-ordinator for every 5 stunt men or something.

While I’m not defending the lack of safeguards in the porn industry but you will however have to concede that this is a rather extreme example as it is an overkill brought about by years of lawsuits and unionisation in the entertainment industry.

I read and interview with Lara Roxx (which isn't her real name btw) in which she said she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk. Now you can say that is very stupid of her, but she was a 19 year old girl, and she wouldn't have expected that an industry would be allowed get a way with the health and safety risks that the porn industry does.

Oh please! Be still my bleeding heart!

Stupidity or naivety may explain why she was more likely to take stupid risks, but this does not excuse them. Legally and morally once we are seen as adults we are responsible for our actions, idiocy notwithstanding. Either we’re free to screw up our own lives at eighteen or we’re not and you simply cannot have it both ways.

She had high-risk unprotected sex. While it was the first time that she had practiced that particular sexual act, it is not unfair to assume that it was not the first time she’d had high-risk unprotected sex. And ultimately while what happened to her was a terrible thing, she went into eyes open and I don’t think anyone has suggested that she was deceived at any time.

Also, given her present legal moves against the porn companies in question, I’m hardly surprised that she now says she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk. And given that thousands of actors in the LA porn industry get regular checks and that given even with this, much publicised, outbreak was ultimately limited to four cases, it would not be unreasonable to say that even had she believed it, it would not have been an unfair assumption.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

While I’m not defending the lack of safeguards in the porn industry but you will however have to concede that this is a rather extreme example as it is an overkill brought about by years of lawsuits and unionisation in the entertainment industry.

Well "extreme" or not, it is a system put in place to guarentee (as much as possible) that the works on the film set, and those around the film (on lookers) are completely protected from any accidences, danger, or risk. Because an event it unlikely does not mean you should not have to take every protection against it. A fire will not likely start in the vast majority of night-clubs in Dublin this year but they all still have to meet very strict fire safety guidelines or be shut down.

The Corinthian wrote:

Oh please! Be still my bleeding heart!

The girl made one porn movie, did something she was told to do by the film director (or she wouldn't get paid) and now she is homeless, pennyless and HIV positive. She obviously didn't understand the risks she was exposed to, she was 19 for christ sake, still a teenager. She did what she was told by the film makers. SHe believed that the the porn industry was regulated to protect the actors, which is only half true. You have to understand a lot about the tests that are used, the loopholes in the industry, to know that the self regulation actually gives very little protection, something she obviously didn't know.

There was no proper system or safe guards making sure that this girl was not exposed to HIV as part of her everyday work, which when you think about it it is ridculous. Even a law saying that condoms must be used at all times would be a start. Imagine if as part of cost cutting a hospital told its staff that they would no longer be providing latex gloves to nurses or doctors who handle patents with open wounds. And if the doctors don't like it they can quit. There would be up roar.

The Corinthian wrote:

Stupidity or naivety may explain why she was more likely to take stupid risks, but this does not excuse them.

Excuse them? The girl is going to probably die a horrible death for doing something that was part of her job. What does she have to make an excuse for? Dying?

The Corinthian wrote:

Legally and morally once we are seen as adults we are responsible for our actions, idiocy notwithstanding.

Right now there are about 101 different laws and regulations protecting you at your work place. If you worked on a building site it would be illegal for the foreman to allow you on to the site without a hard hat, even if you claimed you didn't want to wear on. As I said before it is illegal in LA for a film director to let a stunt man do something that is not approved by the health and safty officer, even if the stunt man wants to do it. The modern work place is full of laws that are designed to protect you from danger, even danger caused by your own stupidity.

The Corinthian wrote:

lso, given her present legal moves against the porn companies in question, I’m hardly surprised that she now says she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk.

She made that statement in an interview 3 days after she tested positive

Gurgle

pickarooney wrote:

There are other qualifications:
- not being a hideous troll (for female stars)

The evidence I've see suggests that thats not even a disadvantage. You need to research the topic more.

pickarooney wrote:

- not having a small langer (for the boys)
- not going soft despite performing all day and being watched by lots of people

OK, admittedly the career is not as open to men as women.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well "extreme" or not, it is a system put in place to guarentee (as much as possible) that the works on the film set, and those around the film (on lookers) are completely protected from any accidences, danger, or risk. Because an event it unlikely does not mean you should not have to take every protection against it. A fire will not likely start in the vast majority of night-clubs in Dublin this year but they all still have to meet very strict fire safety guidelines or be shut down.

I never said that safety guidelines and procedures should not be present or not be strict, I simply pointed out that you gave an extreme example that amounted to overkill.

The girl made one porn movie, did something she was told to do by the film director (or she wouldn't get paid) and now she is homeless, pennyless and HIV positive. She obviously didn't understand the risks she was exposed to, she was 19 for christ sake, still a teenager. She did what she was told by the film makers. SHe believed that the the porn industry was regulated to protect the actors, which is only half true. You have to understand a lot about the tests that are used, the loopholes in the industry, to know that the self regulation actually gives very little protection, something she obviously didn't know.

So what if she was 19? What you tend to forget is that she was not the only one who did what they was told by the film makers - Jessica Dee did so too. So either we must accept that they are both equally responsible for their actions as adults or perhaps we should consider pushing the age of consent to 25. I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

Excuse them? The girl is going to probably die a horrible death for doing something that was part of her job. What does she have to make an excuse for? Dying?
Excuse her from the responsibility of the results of her own actions.

The modern work place is full of laws that are designed to protect you from danger, even danger caused by your own stupidity.

I never said that the porn (or any other) industry is well regulated; only that stupidity is no excuse to absolve someone from the consequences of their actions.

“Poor boy raped that woman, but he was only 19...” :rolleyes:

She made that statement in an interview 3 days after she tested positive

So what? Are you suggesting that the thought of suing didn’t enter her head by then?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I never said that safety guidelines and procedures should not be present or not be strict, I simply pointed out that you gave an extreme example that amounted to overkill.

Well I am not sure how you define overkill. The number of people is determented by required is to cover as much as possible any potental danger. Like I said, is it overkill to expect night-clubs to meet fire-safety codes even though the odds of a fire happening are relatively small.

The Corinthian wrote:

So what if she was 19?

So she was niaeve and inexperienced, as all 19 year olds are.

The Corinthian wrote:

What you tend to forget is that she was not the only one who did what they was told by the film makers - Jessica Dee did so too. So either we must accept that they are both equally responsible for their actions as adults or perhaps we should consider pushing the age of consent to 25.

Or we could introduce proper state controlled regulation to protect the workers, as pretty much every other industry in the western world has.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

What do I want "both ways"? Not following that at all, or the bit about "Jessica Dee did so too"

Excuse her from the responsibility of the results of her own actions.

Like I said, does she need an excuse to die from AIDS?

I never said that the porn (or any other) industry is well regulated; only that stupidity is no excuse to absolve someone from the consequences of their actions.

Absolve her from what exactly? What crime has she committed? Do you believe her behaviour was sinful or immoral?

So what? Are you suggesting that the thought of suing didn’t enter her head by then?

No I am suggesting that the statement that she believed she was in a well regulated industry that protected its works was not made up. People tend not to start planning eleborate lies to sue people a few days after they are told they are going to die.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well I am not sure how you define overkill. The number of people is determented by required is to cover as much as possible any potental danger. Like I said, is it overkill to expect night-clubs to meet fire-safety codes even though the odds of a fire happening are relatively small.

Again, I never suggested is it overkill to expect night-clubs to meet fire-safety codes even though the odds of a fire happening are relatively small. I was referring to the other example that you gave that is overkill. However, to use your nightclub example, it would be the equivalent of expecting night-clubs to have about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector and a fire marshal present at all times.

So she was niaeve and inexperienced, as all 19 year olds are.

Then if all 19 year olds are so naive and inexperienced, then we should consider raising the age of consent. Apparently you consider them incapable of making adult choices.

Or we could introduce proper state controlled regulation to protect the workers, as pretty much every other industry in the western world has.

Where have I said that they should not?

What do I want "both ways"? Not following that at all, or the bit about "Jessica Dee did so too"

Jessica Dee was in her mid-twenties at the time of the infection. She was older and certainly more experienced, but nonetheless apparently shared Lara Roxxx’s naivety where it came to the levels of safety in the industry. Yet there is no question that she holds a portion of responsibility for her own actions.

Morally and legally they are both seen as equally responsible for their own actions. If, as you contend, that Roxxx is not responsible due to age then we have to reconsider this equal level of competence.

A 19-year old is either to be treated as an adult or not. You simply cannot have it both ways. You decide.

Like I said, does she need an excuse to die from AIDS?

No but apparently you’re happy to absolve her from all personal responsibility on the basis of her age or naivety.

Absolve her from what exactly? What crime has she committed? Do you believe her behaviour was sinful or immoral?

If I walk out into the middle of the street without looking I am not committing a crime. It may be naive or stupid to do so, but if a car hits me then I must at least share some of the responsibility for what happens because as an adult in the eyes of Society I am responsible for the consequences of my actions - regardless of whether I am 18 or 81.

No I am suggesting that the statement that she believed she was in a well regulated industry that protected its works was not made up. People tend not to start planning eleborate lies to sue people a few days after they are told they are going to die.

Now who’s being naive? I suggest you go read a few Corpo case files.

rubadub

pickarooney wrote:

- not being a hideous troll (for female stars)

there is specialist mags and dvds just showing old hags and ugly women, saw them in the waiting room in the local garda station

pickarooney wrote:

- not having a small langer (for the boys)

again specialist, probably paid even more for having to go through the shame of millions of people seeing their face, saw these mags in the local church beside the missalettes

pickarooney wrote:

- not going soft despite performing all day and being watched by lots of people

viagra!

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

it would be the equivalent of expecting night-clubs to have about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector and a fire marshal present at all times.

I take it you don't know much about film sets ...

The Corinthian wrote:

Then if all 19 year olds are so naive and inexperienced, then we should consider raising the age of consent. Apparently you consider them incapable of making adult choices.

Where did she choose to get HIV? She choose to have sex with 2 men under the belief that the industry she worked in was properally regulated, a belief that was naive and not true. But like i have already pointed out how many 19 year olds do you know who fully understand (or are even expected to) the inner workings of an industries safety regulation.

Any other industry would have regulations and laws looking after someone like Roxx. It would be like giving out that a 19 year old checkout girl who dies in a fire should have brought her own fire-extiguiser and not assumed the Dunne Stores fire safty plan actually worked.

The Corinthian wrote:

Jessica Dee was in her mid-twenties at the time of the infection. She was older and certainly more experienced, but nonetheless apparently shared Lara Roxxx’s naivety where it came to the levels of safety in the industry. Yet there is no question that she holds a portion of responsibility for her own actions.

Both Dee and Roxx should have been protected by a proper regulation system. The failings of the industry regulation system is responsible for all the people infected, including James. Dee was possibly in a better position than Roxx, to know that the system that the industry claimed was in place didn't actually work, but not necessarilary so.

The Corinthian wrote:

Morally and legally they are both seen as equally responsible for their own actions. If, as you contend, that Roxxx is not responsible due to age then we have to reconsider this equal level of competence.

You are not legally or moraly responsible for dying on a job due to a regulation system failing. Like I said, is a girl who dies in a shop fire responsible because she should have known the fire system didn't work? Is Roxx responsible because she should have know that the screening system in place in American porn does not work well enough to stop things like this happening?

The Corinthian wrote:

A 19-year old is either to be treated as an adult or not. You simply cannot have it both ways. You decide.

Please tell me what I want it both ways? I don't even know what you mean by "it"

The Corinthian wrote:

No but apparently you’re happy to absolve her from all personal responsibility on the basis of her age or naivety.

Personally responsiblilty for what? What did she do that she deserved to get HIV.

It is "very risky" to jump out of a plane, but you assume that the company who is providing sky diving is properally regulated and that you are actually relatively safe, as safe as it can be. Yes there is a small chance things will fail, but are you saying that a sky diving company can put a rolled up coat in your shoot and it is your fault if you die?

The Corinthian wrote:

If I walk out into the middle of the street without looking I am not committing a crime. It may be naive or stupid to do so, but if a car hits me then I must at least share some of the responsibility for what happens because as an adult in the eyes of Society I am responsible for the consequences of my actions - regardless of whether I am 18 or 81.

If a building site foreman tells a builder to get up on a building roof, is it wrong for the builder to assume the building site is actually safe? Should he assume the foreman hasn't a clue about safety, and if the building collapses on top of him is it his fault for being stupid enough to trust his boss?

Roxx was told that there was a proper screening and regulation system in place in teh porn industry, a claim that the porn industry maintains to today. Yes she was stupid to believe porn producers, but are you really saying the industry has absolutly no responsiblity to her and the others infected?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I take it you don't know much about film sets ...

I suspect I know as much as you.

Where did she choose to get HIV? She choose to have sex with 2 men under the belief that the industry she worked in was properally regulated, a belief that was naive and not true. But like i have already pointed out how many 19 year olds do you know who fully understand (or are even expected to) the inner workings of an industries safety regulation.

Then raise the age of consent, revoke their right to vote and keep them safe at home.

Any other industry would have regulations and laws looking after someone like Roxx. It would be like giving out that a 19 year old checkout girl who dies in a fire should have brought her own fire-extiguiser and not assumed the Dunne Stores fire safty plan actually worked.

What law specifically protects 19-year olds over other workers?

Both Dee and Roxx should have been protected by a proper regulation system.

Again, I’ve never claimed otherwise.

You are not legally or moraly responsible for dying on a job due to a regulation system failing. Like I said, is a girl who dies in a shop fire responsible because she should have known the fire system didn't work? Is Roxx responsible because she should have know that the screening system in place in American porn does not work well enough to stop things like this happening?

No but some jobs are implicitly more hazardous than others. And ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law if you’re an adult.

Please tell me what I want it both ways? I don't even know what you mean by "it"

Either 19-year olds must be treated as adults or they are too naive to be treated as adults.

Personally responsiblilty for what? What did she do that she deserved to get HIV.

When does responsibility for the concequeces of your actions become deserving the worst to happen?

It is "very risky" to jump out of a plane, but you assume that the company who is providing sky diving is properally regulated and that you are actually relatively safe, as safe as it can be. Yes there is a small chance things will fail, but are you saying that a sky diving company can put a rolled up coat in your shoot and it is your fault if you die?

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no regulation in the porn industry? While hardly foolproof, the measures that are taken are hardly a ‘rolled up coat’ either.

If a building site foreman tells a builder to get up on a building roof, is it wrong for the builder to assume the building site is actually safe? Should he assume the foreman hasn't a clue about safety, and if the building collapses on top of him is it his fault for being stupid enough to trust his boss?

It is wrong for the builder to assume that it will always be completely safe. No matter what, accidents will always happen.

Roxx was told that there was a proper screening and regulation system in place in teh porn industry, a claim that the porn industry maintains to today. Yes she was stupid to believe porn producers, but are you really saying the industry has absolutly no responsiblity to her and the others infected?

No I never said that. I said that she is not without responsibility either.

BuffyBot

So she was niaeve and inexperienced, as all 19 year olds are.

Naive enough not to know that taking two strange men's unprotected dicks in her behind didn't come with some risk? :rolleyes:

Sleepy

Wicknight, I see your point that the industry could probably have stricter screening standards, yet you have to remember, porn actors are, by the very nature of the type of people attracted to those jobs, going to have more sex outside work, that most normal people. Short of watching the actors 24/7 and having an AIDS Test directly before each shoot (which is ineffective anyway as one can be a carrier for some time before standard testing will show positive) what can the industry be expected to do?

If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the fúcktard that brought in the disease for having had unprotected sex/needle sharing when his job required that he be even more careful than the rest of us.

Your example of a checkout girl in Dunnes is not a fair comparison to the case in question. Unprotected sex carries a high risk of contracting STD's. Scanning items at a checkout does not carry a high risk of starting a fire.

The girl should have known what she was getting herself into. If she didn't, then as an adult, she bares some of the responsibility for being ill-informed, and imho, more responsibility than her employer. For a comparison I've never heard of a racing car driver having to be told that because he's driving very fast any accident with that car is going to be potentially fatal. Likewise, why should a porn "star" have to be told by their employer that because they're having unsafe sex, that any accident with the screening process is going to be potentially fatal?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I suspect I know as much as you.

Apparently not

The Corinthian wrote:

Then raise the age of consent, revoke their right to vote and keep them safe at home.

Or put in place proper health and safety regulations :rolleyes: YOu seem to expect that everyone in work should assume no health and safety laws apply to them. Should I bring a fire extinguisher to work because I shouldn't assume the my company will provide one :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

What law specifically protects 19-year olds over other workers?

What are you talking about???

You claimed that she should have known that the regulations set up by the porn industry didn't work. I counter that how many 19 year olds understand the inner workings of the health and safe regulation in any job, be it Dunne Stores or a porn set. Now you are going on about why should 19 year olds be treated any differently. What are you on?

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, I’ve never claimed otherwise.

You have repeatable claim she and she alone is totally responsible for her own health and safety at work. If that is the case then what is the point of health and safety regulations. Who would be responsible for them??

The Corinthian wrote:

No but some jobs are implicitly more hazardous than others. And ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law if you’re an adult.

Ignorance is not an excuse if you break the law. Please tell me what law she broke?

Ignorance is not a justification for an industry to ignore the health and safety of its workers. Like I have said (and you have continued to ignore) if a worker in Dunne Stores burns to death in a fire because the store has no fire system set up, is the worker responsible because she assumed they did?? How about if she is told they do have a safety system set up. Is her ignorance in the lack of quality of the safety system at her job justification for her burning to death?

The Corinthian wrote:

Either 19-year olds must be treated as adults or they are too naive to be
treated as adults.

Every single adult in pretty much any industry in the western world is protected again unsafe job requirements except the porn industry. Justify that.

The Corinthian wrote:

When does responsibility for the concequeces of your actions become deserving the worst to happen?

When does a company or industry have a responsiblity to protect its workers from life threatening hazards? If a man walks onto a building site and crane falls on top of him is it simply a concequence of his actions?

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no regulation in the porn industry? While hardly foolproof, the measures that are taken are hardly a ‘rolled up coat’ either.

The entire point is that Roxx was told there was regulation and that regulation failed her. If there was no regulation at all you could claim she was stupid to do the job with no protection. But she was told there was protection. You seem to believe that a 19 year old should have known the ins and outs of the medical procedures and safety tests well enough to know they didn't work. Do you know the ins and outs of your fire code in your office? How about in your local pub? Or do you just assume they have to meet a certain standard by law?

The Corinthian wrote:

It is wrong for the builder to assume that it will always be completely safe. No matter what, accidents will always happen.

If a builder was told he didn't need to wear a hard hat and then something fell on his head would he be responsible for this??

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Short of watching the actors 24/7 and having an AIDS Test directly before each shoot (which is ineffective anyway as one can be a carrier for some time before standard testing will show positive) what can the industry be expected to do?

The prostitution industry in Nevada has had very strict state controlled regulation since the early 80s. There has never been a reported case of a protitute getting or given HIV to any one. There is absolutly no reason why the porn industry should not be held to the same high standards of health and safety.

Sleepy wrote:

The girl should have known what she was getting herself into.

She was told that the industry had proper screening for HIV, that they had a system that would protect her. That system doesn't work. Whos fault is that? Hers for believing them?

Put it another way, were you even told that your company had fire extinguers in your office, or did you just assume it? If they didn't actually have any fire system set up (which would be illegal btw) would you be responsible if you died in a fire.

Or put it another way, did you ask to get a detailed copy of the health and safety regulations when you started your last job? Or did you just assume they would meet a safe standard.

It think this holyer than thou attitude taken by people like TC is pretty hypocritical. How many people here demand to see the details of their offices fire, electrical and safety plans. How many people have even checked if their office has a first aid kit. I would say very few because we all assume, rightly, that work places in Ireland have to meet a high standard of health and safety.

This poor girl was told that the industry she worked for had a screening system in place that would protect her against HIV. She believed her employer. You all seem to think for that niavety she deserves to die from AIDS. TBH that attitude disgusts me.

BuffyBot

This poor girl was told that the industry she worked for had a screening system in place that would protect her against HIV.

I would hope that most people, in this day and age, know that the only (and not even always successful) way of avoiding STD's is to practice safe sex. I would hope that anyone who enters the porn industry and has unsafe double anal penetrative sex with two people she doesn't know, would have thought "Hold on..this might not be the best of ideas".

You all seem to think for that niavety she deserves to die from AIDS.

Nope. I don't think that. I do think that she has to take some element responsibility for the consequences of her sexual behaviour.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Apparently not

I’m sorry; the subtlety of my last comment was lost on you. I’m accusing you of bluffing knowledge in the area in question.

Or put in place proper health and safety regulations :rolleyes: YOu seem to expect that everyone in work should assume no health and safety laws apply to them. Should I bring a fire extinguisher to work because I shouldn't assume the my company will provide one :rolleyes:

Again, what does this have to do with her age? I have never objected to proper safeguards, only your singling out one individual on the basis of age.

You claimed that she should have known that the regulations set up by the porn industry didn't work.

Where did I say this? Feel free to point it out.

I counter that how many 19 year olds understand the inner workings of the health and safe regulation in any job, be it Dunne Stores or a porn set. Now you are going on about why should 19 year olds be treated any differently. What are you on?

Reality it would appear.

You have repeatable claim she and she alone is totally responsible for her own health and safety at work.

Where did I say this? Where did I say or even infer that she is totally responsible for her own health and safety at work?

Ignorance is not an excuse if you break the law. Please tell me what law she broke?

Did you miss my response where I pointed out that breaking the law was irrelevant or are you just not reading?

Every single adult in pretty much any industry in the western world is protected again unsafe job requirements except the porn industry. Justify that.

That’s seriously questionable, both the lack of standards in the porn industry as are the apparently pristine standards elsewhere.

When does a company or industry have a responsiblity to protect its workers from life threatening hazards? If a man walks onto a building site and crane falls on top of him is it simply a concequence of his actions?

Again, where have I absolve anyone from responsibility. Last time I looked you weer the only one doing that.

The entire point is that Roxx was told there was regulation and that regulation failed her.

Yes. Boo-hoo. However your sympathy for her is entirely based upon her age and how she was obviously too young to make a mature decision. This is what I am contesting. Not the standards, not the culpability of others, but that she was snow white. Perhaps she once was, but she drifted.

If a builder was told he didn't need to wear a hard hat and then something fell on his head would he be responsible for this??

If a meteorite hit him would it still be the employer’s fault?

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

I would hope that anyone who enters the porn industry and has unsafe double anal penetrative sex with two people she doesn't know, would have thought "Hold on..this might not be the best of ideas".

If you do you are very very naieve. Considering most of the people I lived with in college believed that you could only get AIDS if you were gay, or that pulling out protects you against STDs, it is frankly impressive that this 19 year old girl inquired about the HIV screening in the industry at all.

People seem to be forgetting that she was told there was a HIV screening system in place.

A blood transfusion is a incredably unsafe idea unless the blood has been screened. Would you refuse to have a blood transfusion in hospital before you have seen and had time to study the ins and outs of the hospitals blood transfusion set up. Would you even ask if they did screen the blood? I doubt it, you like most people would assume the hospital is not allowed to perform procedures that are actually unsafe. If you got HIV from infected blood due to a totally inadequate screening system at the hospital would that be your fault?

BuffyBot wrote:

Nope. I don't think that. I do think that she has to take some element responsibility for the consequences of her sexual behaviour.

She should have know that when she was told they screened actors for HIV that the screening system they used does actually work very well?

Put it this way, if you were told by your employer to handle dangerous chemicals with gloves he provided and the gloves actually did **** all to protect you, is that your fault for being stupid enough to actually do what you were told by your employer?

BuffyBot

If you do you are very very naieve. Considering most of the people I lived with in college believed that you could only get AIDS if you were gay, or that pulling out protects you against STDs, it is frankly impressive that this 19 year old girl inquired about the HIV screening in the industry at all.

I can't speak for your college friends do or don't believe. To be honest, it's neither here nor there, because none of them (as far as I know) are active in the porn industry.

Let's look at the gay porn industry for example (by this, I mean the mainstream gay porn industry - there is a whole barebacking subculture which is another topic altogether). It has HIV screening too, yet most studios insist that condoms are used for penetrative sex scenes. Many of the actors insist on them too - simply because having unprotected sex with strangers carries risks, not matter how many safeguards are put in place.

Now as I said, this woman went along and took part in some extremely hazardous and unsafe sexual activity (by choice), and paid a terrible price for it. It's a shame, but I still maintain she is certainly responsible to some extent.

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

Now as I said, this woman went along and took part in some extremely hazardous and unsafe sexual activity (by choice)

.. after being reassured that the industry screens actors (after she in fact was screened herself). It seems to me her only fault was believing her employeer. How many 19 year olds don't accept (or even understand) the health and safety advice given to them by their employer?

Like I said, would you turn down a blood transfusion? If you got HIV from a blood transfusion that was not screened properly would that be your fault?

Another example is tatoo parlors, which AFAIK are not particularly well regulated. Does that mean if a 19 year old gets a tatoo and as a result gets HIV from an unclean needle is she totally responsible for that? The parlour has no responsibility, even if they claimed they took measures against HIV transfer over needles?

It should not be the employees responsibity to make sure there employeer is being unsafe or could that something they do on the job could kill them. That is exactly why we have so many health and safety laws in this country and others. An employer should not be allowed to put an employee in the position of accepting a risk or not getting paid. This girl was told to do this scene by her employer. If she refused the movie would not be made and she might even have been in breach of her contract (as has happened to other porn stars who refused to do things in a scene).

That is even before we get to the fact taht she was told HIV screening was in place, just like we are all told blood transfusion screening is in place.

I would really like to see if someone can claim that they believe this girl is responsible for getting HIV but then claim somone recieving a blood transfusion is not responsible if they get HIV from that.

Gurgle

Any employer must take reasonable precautions to protect its workers from workplace accidents / hazards.

Why is a 19yo porn star catching HIV any different from a 19yo bricklayer falling off scaffolding and ending up paralysed ?

People are injured and killed in the workplace all over the world every day. Why should anybody be more entitled to protection than anyone else ?

As a general rule, you get extra money for more dangerous jobs. Ever heard of a bricklayer on a €69k salary ?

wicknight wrote:

I would really like to see if someone can claim that they believe this girl is responsible for getting HIV but then claim somone recieving a blood transfusion is not responsible if they get HIV from that.

wtf are you talking about ?
She took a risky high paying job and lost to the statistics!

Do people get paid for taking blood transfusions ?
Do they do it for fun ?

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

The prostitution industry in Nevada has had very strict state controlled regulation since the early 80s. There has never been a reported case of a protitute getting or given HIV to any one. There is absolutly no reason why the porn industry should not be held to the same high standards of health and safety.

How do you know that this hasn't just been through blind luck? When dealing with the HIV virus, the only way to guarantee that it won't infect the industry is to screen everyone entering it and lock them away somewhere where they can't meet or engage in sexual activities or drug use with anyone outside the industry. There is no way that the industry can protect it's actors 100%. If you can suggest one, I'm sure you'll make a fortune out of it.

She was told that the industry had proper screening for HIV, that they had a system that would protect her. That system doesn't work. Whos fault is that? Hers for believing them?

Again, what is this "proper screening" you speak of? As it stands anyone that wants to work in the industry must first produce a medical certificate stating that they are HIV negative and are then subjected to regular testing throughout their time.

Put it another way, were you even told that your company had fire extinguers in your office, or did you just assume it? If they didn't actually have any fire system set up (which would be illegal btw) would you be responsible if you died in a fire.

Or put it another way, did you ask to get a detailed copy of the health and safety regulations when you started your last job? Or did you just assume they would meet a safe standard.

At times you really don't bother to read other people's posts do you? You are not comparing like with like. If a builder is wearing his hard hat on site and something falls on his head and kills him are his employers still responsible? You cannot protect people 100% in ANY industry. All the employers can do is take what steps they can and in this instance I think the Porn industry actually did quite well. They caught the outbreak quite quickly and were able to ensure it didn't spread further. Can you imagine how this incident would have gone in the early 80's? Half the industry would have died.

It think this holyer than thou attitude taken by people like TC is pretty hypocritical. How many people here demand to see the details of their offices fire, electrical and safety plans. How many people have even checked if their office has a first aid kit. I would say very few because we all assume, rightly, that work places in Ireland have to meet a high standard of health and safety.

TC doesn't seem to be being holier than thou (in this instance at least ), he's looking at this logically rather than emotively. And when discussing reality, logic makes a far stronger argument than emotions imho.

This poor girl was told that the industry she worked for had a screening system in place that would protect her against HIV. She believed her employer. You all seem to think for that niavety she deserves to die from AIDS. TBH that attitude disgusts me.

The industry had a screening system in place that would protect her against HIV. It just didn't have a perfect one. As I said, the actors must accept a large degree of responsibility themselves as they're all HIV negative when they enter the industry. It's their unsafe practices in their personal, not professional, lives that put others in the group at risk.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

It think this holyer than thou attitude taken by people like TC is pretty hypocritical. How many people here demand to see the details of their offices fire, electrical and safety plans. How many people have even checked if their office has a first aid kit. I would say very few because we all assume, rightly, that work places in Ireland have to meet a high standard of health and safety.

Had you bothered to read or respond to my post you’ll find that while I may be guilty of being cold-blooded or even possibly amoral, I’m certainly not hypocritical. You’ve repeatedly and erroneously attributed to me a number of opinions regarding this case:

• I am not saying that she is wholly culpable for contracting the HIV virus.
• I am not claiming that the safety standards of the US pornography industry are on a par with any other or not in need of reform.
• I am not suggesting that she either deserved to contract the HIV virus or did so as a result of her breaking the law.

I am however suggesting that:

• The safety standards of the US pornography industry were generally considered adequate up to that incident.
• That there has not been any suggestion that the US pornography industry attempted to deceive her about the risks - they may have underestimated said risks, but nowhere have I seen a suggestion that they lied about them.
• That as an adult she must accept some culpability the possible consequences of her actions.

Of course, I wholly accept that the first two points are open to debate, however it is the last point that I originally and specifically took you up on, because I challenged you only after you’d started on a shrill “won’t someone think of the children” rant.

While 19-year olds may well be naive idiots at the best of times, they are still adults and with the rights afforded to adults come responsibilities. And as such naivety, ignorance and stupidity are not acceptable excuses - they may mitigate or explain why something happened but they do not absolve an adult from the responsibilities of that come as a result of their actions or inactions.

Silent Grape

wicknight, on your point about tattooing needles. this is an invalid point, tattooing is a self regulated profession which does not even slightly compare to the porn industry. per new tattoo, a new needle is taken out of its packaging, after tatooing, the needle is disposed of. risk of HIV doesnt come into it AT ALL.

i find it extremely insulting that you would even consider this a valid example. clearly you know nothing, absolutely nothing, about the tattooing world, and the porn world, from what ive read so far.

if you were to use the tattooing profession as an example of your point, a better example than 'dirty' needles, would be if a 19 year old gets a tattoo and then regrets it. it is not now the tattooists fault that she regrets getting inked. this again is invalid though, if age is the main part of your point. whats the difference if a 30 year old gets a tattoo and then regrets it.

Zombrex

Gurgle wrote:

Any employer must take reasonable precautions to protect its workers from workplace accidents / hazards.

Well done, in that one sentence you have rather brilliantly managed to completely prove my point.

There is no mandator regulations or health and safety laws that apply to the porn industry in the US. None what so ever. The only systems in place are completely volentary, not widely inforced and obviously don't work.

But Roxx, just like you, assumed that her employeer did, and was, taking reasonable precautions to protect her health and safety while engaging in a hazard activity. Why did you believe this? Probably because you believe tha in the US every employer has to take precautions by law. They don't. Why did she believe this? Because they told her they were. She is now going to die because she believed them.

If you assume this do you not think it is a bit hypocritical to then give out that a 19 year old girl assumed it aswell, after being told it.

Sleepy

Wicknight, please read and think about what myself and others have posted instead of just scanning them for pieces you can use or twist to support your beliefs. These boards are supposed to be about engaging in conversation rather than a secondary school debate.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well done, in that one sentence you have rather brilliantly managed to completely prove my point.

Only if we’ve all just plane-shifted to a parallel universe.

If you assume this do you not think it is a bit hypocritical to then give out that a 19 year old girl assumed it aswell, after being told it.

Woman. 19 year old woman.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

How do you know that this hasn't just been through blind luck?

It is about significatly reducing the risk involved. A person can die on a building site due to pure bad luck, in which case the employer is not responsible if they took every precaution and informed the building of the riks so they fully understood what a building site it like. They do this to the hookers in Nevada. They don't do this in the porn industry. In fact they are required to take no precautions what so every.

Sleepy wrote:

Again, what is this "proper screening" you speak of? As it stands anyone that wants to work in the industry must first produce a medical certificate stating that they are HIV negative and are then subjected to regular testing throughout their time.

One of the first things called for after the outbreak was a mandatory quarentee period for any actor who worked outside of the country in countries without a HIV screening program. This has been ignored by the industry.

There are more accurate and better tests for HIV that can detect it earlier, but because they are a lot more expensive they are not used by the self-regulated industry.

A number of health organisations and industry groups have been calling for the manduatory use of condoms for years. This has been ignored by all but a few of the larger studios.

That is just 3 things that should be forced on the industry by law. But because of the religious right in American no senetor or governer will touch mandator regulation in the porn industry.

Sleepy wrote:

If a builder is wearing his hard hat on site and something falls on his head and kills him are his employers still responsible? You cannot protect people 100% in ANY industry.

The question sleepy you should ask is if a person is allowed on to a building site without wearing a hat and something falls on his head and kills him, who is responsible.

Sleepy wrote:

All the employers can do is take what steps they can

That is exactly my point. Let me say this very clearly for people who seem to not be following - The porn industry in American is not required to take any steps at all to protect its workers at all.

The fact of the matter is that if there were proper forced health and safety standards in place only one person would now have HIV, Darren James. Whos fault is that? The actors who are now going to die?

Sleepy wrote:

TC doesn't seem to be being holier than thou (in this instance at least ), he's looking at this logically rather than emotively. And when discussing reality, logic makes a far stronger argument than emotions imho.

The Corinthian wrote:

Oh please! Be still my bleeding heart!

Yeah he is sounding very logical there :rolleyes:

Sleepy wrote:

It's their unsafe practices in their personal, not professional, lives that put others in the group at risk.

Darren James got HIV while working ... Darren James gave Lara Roxx HIV while working ... you have to go back to the Brazilian porn industry before you get to people who got this due to their personal lives.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Wicknight, please read and think about what myself and others have posted instead of just scanning them for pieces you can use or twist to support your beliefs. These boards are supposed to be about engaging in conversation rather than a secondary school debate.

#

Both you and Gurgle seem to have assume that Lara Roxx's employeers are required to take all reasonable steps to protect her health and safety while she works for them. The aren't and they didn't.

It is the hypocracy that you would then blame this woman for making the same assumption you have, after she was even told that they did, that I am point out.

Zombrex

Silent Grape wrote:

wicknight, on your point about tattooing needles. this is an invalid point, tattooing is a self regulated profession which does not even slightly compare to the porn industry. per new tattoo, a new needle is taken out of its packaging, after tatooing, the needle is disposed of. risk of HIV doesnt come into it AT ALL.

Very very simple question ...

If a new needle is not used and a customer gets HIV whos fault is that, the tattoo parlor for not taking every step to protect the customer or the customer for assuming that the tattoo parlor did?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah he is sounding very logical there :rolleyes:

You're getting pretty good at this pulling an irrelevant quote out of context and pretending it was an argument thing - I was satirising your emotive approach to Roxxx’s age, which I backed up with a logical argument that you’ve chosen not to quote.

But, instead how about you try addressing the other point’s I’ve posed you? You’ve been terribly quiet there.