STORM2K

According to FoxNews, most of the southern California pornongraphy studios have voluntarily shut down, after two of the "actors"(?) tested positive for HIV.

It was reported that one of the two may have contracted HIV during a shoot in Brazil; but the "pyramid" of possible infections may be higher than 144 or more. stuff "stars"(?) are routinely screened every three days for infection, but this news has set the moviemakers into a tailspin.

Comments?

Well, that's one more reason to shut down pornography.

Amen!

besides that...there is enough stuff on the shelves to last a million lifetimes...its not like they tell a different story each time.

I wish all stuff studios would be shut done. How women can cheapen themselves to do that==eewwwww!!!

sunnyday wrote:I wish all stuff studios would be shut done. How women can cheapen themselves to do that==eewwwww!!!

AMEN, sunnyday!

sunnyday wrote:I wish all stuff studios would be shut done. How women can cheapen themselves to do that==eewwwww!!!

My thoughts exactly.

Not in defense of them...but I knew some college girls who allowed themselves to be photographed (and were paid for that) in the nude, just to pay for expenses like food.

Street.. I have heard of stories like that too..

Not sticking up for the stuff industry either. But maybe some of these people have either A. no other options, or B. nobody to love them, so they choose to lower themselves to that level

So the 1's that have nobody to love them probably think a meaningless fling won't hurt them. They don't have enough time to fall in love with their co stars.

Forgive me if that sounded incredibly inhumane or wierd of me. But my opinion is that way..

sunnyday wrote:I wish all stuff studios would be shut done. How women can cheapen themselves to do that==eewwwww!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but the men degrade themselves just as much. What sickeness me, is people like Howard Stern, think these "stuff stars" are fantastic and give them praise.

There are many decent ways to earn money for food!

That is true Sunny Day..

The examples Bill mentioned were, at least in some way, "safe" forms of pornography. They were photographed nude and, I'm hoping, alone?

But when you engage in unprotected sex acts with multiple partners, whether on film or not, you'd better expect the worst.

streetsoldier wrote:Not in defense of them...but I knew some college girls who allowed themselves to be photographed (and were paid for that) in the nude, just to pay for expenses like food.

I wonder if they even looked for anything else (McDonald's, etc). Seems like they took the easy way out instead of working for their money.

GalvestonDuck wrote:The examples Bill mentioned were, at least in some way, "safe" forms of pornography. They were photographed nude and, I'm hoping, alone?

But when you engage in unprotected sex acts with multiple partners, whether on film or not, you'd better expect the worst.

Yeah....right now we are taking sex ed at my high school...I am in 9th grade btw....and we have been talking about std's and HIV/AIDS.....sad... but you know...you wreak what you sow..

Gosh, I just can't imagine being so young that AIDS has been around for your entire life. I remember the 70's when no one had heard about it yet.

Yes, these girls did have on-campus jobs...but at a price tag of $2-4,000 per session, they took the 'easy' way out. And, they were secluded, with the photographer (female) and at least one other girlfriend to make it more 'comfortable'.

i am surprised it didnt happen sooner. it is certainly a reprehensible industry, but lets all pray for them.

streetsoldier wrote:Yes, these girls did have on-campus jobs...but at a price tag of $2-4,000 per session, they took the 'easy' way out. And, they were secluded, with the photographer (female) and at least one other girlfriend to make it more 'comfortable'.

I suppose I can understand them taking the "easy way out". $2-4,000 per session would certainly be tempting to some. Personally, I couldn't do anything like that and would hope that my kids have been raised to have enough self-respect not to do such.

Wnghs2007 wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:The examples Bill mentioned were, at least in some way, "safe" forms of pornography. They were photographed nude and, I'm hoping, alone?

But when you engage in unprotected sex acts with multiple partners, whether on film or not, you'd better expect the worst.

Yeah....right now we are taking sex ed at my high school...I am in 9th grade btw....and we have been talking about std's and HIV/AIDS.....sad... but you know...you wreak what you sow..

That's reap what you sow...