I'll make it dead simple and ask you point blank questions which you can either evade or answer, either response will be telling:


1. Do you acknowledge or believe that men who engage in gay sex are at higher risk of contracting HIV then men who do not?

2. Do you believe that men who engage in gay sex professionally are some how at lower risk of contracting HIV than men who engage in gay sex generally? If so, what is the basis for that belief?

3. Do you acknowledge that there have been HIV outbreaks in the porn industry? If so, are you aware of any such instance that did not involve men who engaged in gay sex?

4. Do you believe women have a right to know if their sexual partners engage in risky (as far as exposure to HIV) activity?


>It's not you
>
>I have no agenda. Don't mix facts with opinions externally.
>If you wanna draw your conclusions from small samples as your
>own personal life, hey go for it, some people are anti
>vaccinators for that very same reason. It's dumb, but it's
>their life choice.
>But the second they try to put those half baked ideas into the
>world for everyone else, they get called on it.
>You're no different.
>She had every right to not want to fuck whoever she didn't
>want to fuck, but the second she put those words out to the
>world, it was open season on her words. It's a shame people
>couldn't separate her words from her right, but nuance is lost
>on the internet.

There is no substance here to respond to.



>
>And stop with the HIV stats. That's a population sample that's
>not tied to the male on male for video sex.

This the first wrong thing you keep repeating. Why do you believe that HIV stats regarding gay male sex EXCLUDE men who have gay sex professionally? The studies aren't people engaging in gay sex only personally. It's people who have gay sex period. Doesn't matter if they do it professionally or personally. Or conisder themselves straight or bi. How are you arguing that men who have gay sex for pay AREN'T a part of the sample? What is the basis for excluding them?



You went from show me some stats, to well the stats don't matter because of these non-relevant distinctions you have made.



It posits that
>every male or even most men that engage in on camera male on
>male sex, do it off camera too, and that's debatable.

Not at all. Again, there is no basis for making a distinction between men who do it professionally or personally. No basis for making a distinction between men who consider themselves gay, or bi, or straight but do it for money. You are making up all these distinctions (personally or professionally, gay versus crossover) to try to exclude them what we all know to be the case, that engaging in gay sex has higher rates of HIV infection. The fact they do it PERIOD is what's relavant UNTIL you can provide a basis as to why this sub group should be treated differently.



>It makes assumptions off a concentrated demographic, in a
>concentrated location, with loose application from casual sex
>for recreation to sex for pay, and applies that to an
>industry. It's pure bullshit to try to use that.

Again you are making assumptions about a subgroup (somehow they have a lower rate). I am taking what we know about the larger group and assuming that to be the case about a subgroup until presented with information showing otherwise.



>
>Do NASCAR drivers get better insurance rates, less car
>crashes, fewer tickets?
>Do doctors get fewer diseases than the populations they
>serve?
>Do dentists get fewer cavities
>What inferences can you tangentially draw between what someone
>does professionally and how that loosely relates to their
>activities outside of the work place?


Again you are making distinctions based on occupation. I have no idea whether male race car drivers are more at risk of getting in car accidents than male non race car drivers. Until I am presented with evidence or a basis for believing that they are less at risk, I will take what we generally know about male drivers and assume it applies to all subgroups until presented with evidence that says otherwise. Which goes back to one of my bigger questions up top, why do you believe what we know about gay sex in general is not applicable to gay sex that happens on camera professionally?

>Few
>Which is why it needs to be studied and why opinions don't
>amount to a Hill of beans
>
>
>You want so much for this to be about PC culture and tolerance
>and a liberal agenda, when it's anything but that.
>I don't care that she didn't want to fuck those guys
>Legit not one iota
>I wouldn't care if was crossover men or black men or short men
>or bi racial men
>And I don't care what her reasons were
>Her logical conclusion was hers
>But I'm not about to sit here and treat these cross over men
>as if they're somehow intrinsically worse without facts
>And I damn sure am not about to take a conversation about porn
>actors and use that as a vehicle to shit on gay men or bi
>sexual men

Ahhh, see this is what is really going on. You perceive a discussion about HIV transmission rates as a form of shaming. You think that just acknowledging the higher rates of HIV transmission associated with gay sex is somehow shaming gay sex participants. That's your own moralizing and shame.

It's also the reason we have a lot of black women who unknowingly get infected because men are unwilling to acknowledge what we know to be true. You are part of the problem.


>This was a conversation about porn actors, men and women who
>perform sex acts for video in a regulated industry. That's it.
>

Again, you imply that somehow gay sex within the industry is safe by the mention of the regulated industry. Since we all know that there have been HIV outbreaks within this industry, that is not the case.

Again, it's shameful.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"