Oh really?First of all, mainelobster, a belated thanks for understanding. I thought I could let it go but then I came across this:
I don't want to take away from your joy over the analogy and I know you meant no harm by it, Críostóir but I actually find it offensive. I don't think what "ordinary (gay) people" do, for example, is a "stunt" and my relationships haven't been either. This is exactly the message that's the problem - saying we can "trust" these guys because they're professionals (which has been proven false, as there have been many scares in the industry), but if you do it in a relationship, it's "dangerous" and "like a stunt" that you should leave to "professionals", not the trust of a relationship. So I'm sorry if it's negative to say that I think the analogy breaks down, but to me it breaks down in very troubling ways. Yes there are risks in relationships and trusting your partner -- but when SC started barebacking and directly said no gay person should do this even in a long-term relationship where you have trust, that's where it gets extremely problematic for me.
A couple of other points: It is false to say only porn companies can afford rapid HIV testing. In many major cities around the country, such as New York, you can go and get your results back that afternoon. For FREE. Many people have access to clinics like this all over the world.
Second, if you think these guys are under tight control and careful testing, think again. Porn companies have been caught "trusting" their employees to go to a center to get tested, rather than controlling it in house. When all of these guys are not on a compound with on-site testing (assuming that happens), rapid HIV testing is not a perfect solution. If you actually bother to get tested, you know tests can have errors and they rightly still advise safe-sex. Why? Take, for example, Marshall now that his escorting is so public, don't you wonder if SC actually knew it? Or if the films released were in the can when we found out and now he might not come back? SC has no compound, and I have serious doubts that they have on site specialists for the "stunt sex" they're having.
But the bottom line is, these analogies and distinctions that are being made invariably end up with the argument that sex even in a relationship is dangerous, but porn companies are somehow trustworthy, so they can have the "hotter" sex and everyone else is expected to use condoms even in relationships. That is messed up.
And P.S. It will be interesting to see which guys don't come back because they choose not to take a risk in porn. Apparently they don't all think it's safe with the "professionals" and it takes repeated requests with guys like Brodie to get them to do it. SC has always had a high turnover of guys who do solos and never return, but when you think guys like Erik, Sheldon, Gareth, Gavin, Daniel and Sawyer, to name a recent few could be back doing condom-sex but otherwise are out because it's bareback or nothing, it's not just sad for consumers, it tells you that they're not as convinced as everyone that the porn companies are safer than relationships.