Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[Dorian Gray]

Critical thinking

Porn is good, mkay?
Why?
Porn is good!
But why?
Because it's good, and however many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

I've learned so much here.

Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, sorry. Sit at the back of the bus, go back to the kitchen, don't rock the boat - someone here reckons he represents mainstream western society, so give it up. There's been quite enough progress, thank you.

You're seriously comparing porn actress rights with the rights of blacks and women? That's ridiculous.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

They're bad because driving with a roll cage and a helmet with a paramedic crew behind you isn't even close to as extreme as wearing a condom (which should be pretty standard practice in sex in 2011 right? Or are we not drilled with that on a daily basis?).

You were the one arguing unprotected sex is adequately safe if testing is done. That's ridiculous on it's face and several links earlier in the thread about AIDS in the porn industry covered that.

That's why your analogies suck. A condom is as trivial as wearing a helmet on a construction site.

Oh, I see where the problem is. You're taking a totally non-evidence-based guess about the risks and assuming it's as good as an evidence-based belief about the risks.

If you think that professional porn work is risky, show us the maths. Those earlier posts you refer to totally failed to do so. What are the odds that a porn actor will develop HIV as a result of their work, per year? What are the odds that a tree feller will die as a result of their work, per year? Don't give us anecdotes in a vacuum, give us a factual risk assessment.

Now if it turns out that porn work is riskier than tree felling I'll do a complete U-turn. I'll accept on the spot that not only should the porn industry be even more regulated but that school teachers should not be involved with porn. However I don't think you're going to be able to show that, do you?

Until you present such hard facts, you're just wrong about the risks involved.

Maybe it would be a better world if all porn penises had condoms on, and everyone preferred to watch them that way. It would certainly be a safer world, if only a slightly safer world. In the same way maybe it would be a better world if nobody wanted to see movies where stuntpersons did stunts that were potentially dangerous. However as long as people want to see that stuff, it's inconsistent to get morally outraged about one but not the other.

Feel free to start a threat about how the Hollywood stunt industry is immoral and how you think that stuntpersons should not be allowed to work in school administration.

 

[JFrankA]

You're seriously comparing porn actress rights with the rights of blacks and women? That's ridiculous.

How ridiculous! Everyone knows that porn stars should have no rights like any normal human beings!

 

[Dorian Gray]

How ridiculous! Everyone knows that porn stars should have no rights like any normal human beings!

I know, right! I mean, porn stars have been oppressed for 400 years, forced to do work for their masters for no money, and it's high time that we found some affirmative action for them to make up for it!

Okay, now it's your turn again to make a ridiculous and ignorant strawman in lieu of an actual argument.

 

[JFrankA]

Those all sound like things that happen in private. Whereas making a porn for money is intended to be widely viewed.

Hopefully that prick wasn't too big for you.

Talk about lame. That's the lamest rationalization yet.

So, by your flawed logic, someone who portrays a person as a brutal serial murder, shouldn't be allowed to work with children.

After all, a movie is made for everyone to see.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How ridiculous! Everyone knows that porn stars should have no rights like any normal human beings!

You're seriously comparing porn actress rights with the rights of blacks and women?

 

[JFrankA]

I know, right! I mean, porn stars have been oppressed for 400 years, forced to do work for their masters for no money, and it's high time that we found some affirmative action for them to make up for it!

Okay, now it's your turn again to make a ridiculous and ignorant strawman in lieu of an actual argument.

No need, you've been doing that all thread!

So tell me why again, that a porn star doesn't have the right to work in a school, please?

 

[BenBurch]

You're seriously comparing porn actress rights with the rights of blacks and women?

All human beings deserve the same rights.

 

[JFrankA]

You're seriously comparing porn actress rights with the rights of blacks and women?

Rights are rights no matter who you are and what you do so long as it's legal. So someone please tell me why a porn star doesn't have the right to work at a public school?

 

[dirtywick]

Oh, I see where the problem is. You're taking a totally non-evidence-based guess about the risks and assuming it's as good as an evidence-based belief about the risks.

If you think that professional porn work is risky, show us the maths. Those earlier posts you refer to totally failed to do so. What are the odds that a porn actor will develop HIV as a result of their work, per year? What are the odds that a tree feller will die as a result of their work, per year? Don't give us anecdotes in a vacuum, give us a factual risk assessment.

Now if it turns out that porn work is riskier than tree felling I'll do a complete U-turn. I'll accept on the spot that not only should the porn industry be even more regulated but that school teachers should not be involved with porn. However I don't think you're going to be able to show that, do you?

Until you present such hard facts, you're just wrong about the risks involved.

Maybe it would be a better world if all porn penises had condoms on, and everyone preferred to watch them that way. It would certainly be a safer world, if only a slightly safer world. In the same way maybe it would be a better world if nobody wanted to see movies where stuntpersons did stunts that were potentially dangerous. However as long as people want to see that stuff, it's inconsistent to get morally outraged about one but not the other.

Feel free to start a threat about how the Hollywood stunt industry is immoral and how you think that stuntpersons should not be allowed to work in school administration.

It's your claim that testing is adequate so you'll have to do your tree felling stuff on your own.

The current practice of periodic HIV and STD testing may detect some disease early, but often fails to prevent transmission. The most recent HIV outbreak occurred when three performers who had been compliant with monthly screening contracted HIV in April of 2004.[6] At that time, a male performer who had tested HIV negative only three days earlier infected three of 14 female performers.

Failure of testing.

Other STDs are also highly prevalent in the industry. Among 825 performers screened in 2000-2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had chlamydia, and 2% overall had gonorrhea.[7] These rates are much higher than in patients visiting family planning clinics, where chlamydia and gonorrhea rates were 4.0% and 0.7%, respectively.[8] Some might argue that this program of STD testing keeps rates of HIV and other STDs lower than in other sex-related industries, and in fact, a recent study of prostitutes in San Francisco found 6.8% and 12.4% positivity rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea, higher than rates in the adult film industry.[9]

Between January 2003 and March 2005, approximately 976 performers were reported with 1,153 positive STD test results. Of the 1,153 positive test results, 722 (62.6 %) were chlamydia, 355 (30.8%) were gonorrhea, and 126 (10.9%) were coinfections with chlamydia and gonorrhea.[10] Less is known about the prevalence and risk of transmission of other STDs such as syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, hepatitis B or C, trichomonal infection, or diseases transmitted through the fecal-oral route.

Much higher rate than average people, near prostitution levels.

And perhaps most relevant to the risk (which is not to say I think it's risky, but it's significantly less so with a condom):

Efforts to reduce the risk of HIV and other STD transmission must include the use of condoms. Even with the PCR testing currently used within the industry, a recently infected performer can test negative during the window in which they are highly infectious and go on to transmit the virus to others. A meta-analysis suggests that condoms are 90%-95% effective in preventing HIV transmission.[11] Condoms are especially important given the high-risk sex acts increasingly being performed in the industry. When looking at HIV exposure risks by site, receptive anal sex has the highest risk at 80 instances of transmission per 10,000 exposures,[12] higher than needle stick injuries (10-50 per 10,000)[13] or receptive vaginal penetration (10 per 10,000).[14] Pre-existing infection with other STDs also increases the risk of HIV transmission. One study showed that the relative risk of HIV acquisition in a vaginal receptive partner increases 2- to 4-fold when the receptive partner is infected with herpes simplex type 2.[15]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/560898_2



If that helps, great. Though to reiterate, it's not the porn industry I have a problem with at all. It's your analogies, and your insistence that condoms don't make an appreciable difference.

 

[bigred]

Secretary. She's a secretary. Or was. The clues are all there, in the thread title and various posts.

Pardon the mistake, didn't see initially. My better response to the other thread is hopefully in here somewhere since the 2 were merged. Still agree on the firing and for similar reasons though.

 

[BenBurch]

On the efficacy of testing; We have seen less than a half-dozen cases of HIV transmission on a porn set using AIM testing and protocols since 2000.

Each month AIM test 1200 actors and actresses, with over 12000 having been seen by AIM since 1998. And I don't think I could put a number on the total number of scenes filmed in that time, but it's huge.

Nothing in life is absolutely safe, but if you are a promiscuous person, you are more in danger from recreational sex than you would be if you were filming adult scenes for a living.

 

[bigred]

Before getting all upset about other people not sharing your narrow minded set of beliefs, you better start reading the article this is about.

I see. I disagree with you, therefore my viewpoint is "narrow minded." Gotta love that pot/kettle thing.

And anyways, what a person does outside her/his worktime is absolutely none of the employers business. Period.

Excuse me for disagreeing.

It's completely irrelevant if that outside-of-the-job activity means going into a cafe, go swimming, act in a sitcom or act in a porn movie.

You really don't get what a ridiculous analogy that is, do you?

If you think that sex is such an awful thing,

Yes that's what I'm saying.

Thanks for quickly digressing to such flaming idiocy, as it saved me from wasting any more time reading/responding to your childish dribblings.

 

[dirtywick]

On the efficacy of testing; We have seen less than a half-dozen cases of HIV transmission on a porn set using AIM testing and protocols since 2000.

Each month AIM test 1200 actors and actresses, with over 12000 having been seen by AIM since 1998. And I don't think I could put a number on the total number of scenes filmed in that time, but it's huge.

Nothing in life is absolutely safe, but if you are a promiscuous person, you are more in danger from recreational sex than you would be if you were filming adult scenes for a living.

For HIV that appears to be the case. You're at a significant higher risk for other STDs according to the source I read.

However, that risk could easily be reduced even further, as well as other STDs, through use of a condom. A condom is cheap, easy to obtain, and easy to use.

 

[BenBurch]

HIV is the one people focus on for obvious reasons. Herpes isn't much of a consideration, and HPV is endemic; 75% infection rates nationwide. And Syphilis and Gonorrhea can still be dealt with when they are found.

 

[Ray Brady]

I'd just like to note that the use of the word "persecuted" in the thread title is inaccurate and inflammatory. The secretary was fired, disciplined, punished, take your pick, but she was not persecuted. Persecution requires a persistent campaign of harassment. A single incident doesn't qualify.

 

[bigred]

Punishing an employee for a legal activity you don't agree (as a bigot) with without a legal basis? Exactly the same.

And this is bigotry because-? Sorry, disagreeing or disapproving of this does not automatically equate to "bigotry." And frankly IMO throwing out the "bigot" bit sounds to me like some variant of the race card being thrown out even when it may not apply.

I also find it shall we say curious that some people think if something's legal, it's "OK."

So, now that you know she was a secretary, do you still think firing her was justified? Should every person working at a school, including secretaries, serve as role models for the children, including outside of school hours?

First, thank you for answering in an intelligent, adult way. Re your question, as I said above, yes, although I agree it's certainly not as significant/critical as if it was a teacher by any means. Still, to some extent or other, every member of the faculty is a role model to the kids. Again, trying to equate school faculty to any generic employee of any company is an absurd oversimplification.

Because challenging cultural mores is verboten, right? The good old traditions are always right?

Oh yay, another attempt to twist my words.

I could just as easily counter with an equally silly word twist/extreme viewpoint ie "because challenging cultural mores is always good, right? The good old traditions are always wrong?"

 

[dirtywick]

HIV is the one people focus on for obvious reasons. Herpes isn't much of a consideration, and HPV is endemic; 75% infection rates nationwide. And Syphilis and Gonorrhea can still be dealt with when they are found.

All true.

Again though, a condom would reduce the risk of exposure to every single one by a significant margin and, as per the analogy, isn't some extreme safety measure that's just beyond what would be reasonable. Condoms help prevent all of that. If people like watching the sex without them and the performers are willing to assume these risks to sell their product, I think that's fine.

In retrospect, it's pretty nit picky and not really productive to the thread. But, man, people start quoting you and responding and it's hard not to hit reply. In any case, my bad.

 

[BenBurch]

All true.

Again though, a condom would reduce the risk of exposure to every single one by a significant margin and, as per the analogy, isn't some extreme safety measure that's just beyond what would be reasonable. Condoms help prevent all of that. If people like watching the sex without them and the performers are willing to assume these risks to sell their product, I think that's fine.

In retrospect, it's pretty nit picky and not really productive to the thread. But, man, people start quoting you and responding and it's hard not to hit reply. In any case, my bad.

No problem. I agree about the condoms. I think sex is just as hot with as without. But people seem to be willing to take the risk.