Gay Porn Star Donte Thick Faces Backlash For Saying He Won’t Work With HIV-Positive Models Who Are Undetectable

I mean I don't blame him.

He does work in the sex industry though and we know a lot of the porn actors and escorts are HIV +

OMG, so he was told to have sex with a person who has an STD or be fired ???

Absolutely abhorrent. No one should have to be forced to touch some std carrier.

The far left liberals are as dictatorial as the nuts on the far right. When extremists are in power, they enforce censorship and blacklist people. That's why we need to move back toward the center, politically. That's where the level-headed people reside.

R3 Very true. And this porn star should not be censored or fired for doing the right thing. It's HIS body and life.

Whoever runs the STR8UpGayPorn site is always trying to get performers fired for not being pc. He's had one person fired for having a tattoo of the Confederate flag, and now he's trying for another.

What does AOC have to say about this serious matter of censorship and forced labor?

They put a clear rubber sheath up Armond Rizzo's hole now before anyone will put their dick up there. Even the HIV positive models don't want to catch that toxic fungus.

Porn performers are whores and they all catch disease. Do your job or get the fuck out. There's nothing more replaceable than a dick.

His name is Donte. Who cares what he thinks?

So they fired him for not wanting to take a risk(though slight)of contracting a potentially deadly infection there is no cure for, is that legal?

Fired? Or just not booked in the future? Are they under contract?

He has the right to sleep with whoever he wants but maybe then he should stop working as a porn performer. Donte's twitter has some toxic female porn on it anyway so he won't be missed.

In other words he's straight.

Gay porn stars sure are a catty bunch aren't they.

Undetectable = POZ, I would not fuck them either

There are a shit ton of STDs out there. IMO porn performers should be allowed to state their boundaries when it comes to who they sleep with and porn studios deciding whether they can accommodate the porn performer or pick someone else. And all that it will do is push porn performers to go and start their own "Only Fans" account where they are in control where they potentially make more money than working for gay porn studios.

Anyone with an active sex life has had sex with a POZ guy. What's the big deal? Bunch of elderly shut ins post on this site. The generation that spread AIDS around the globe.

Wait, isn’t Zach Sire being hypocritical? He used to bash gay sites that used hiv positive people as if it was no big deal and now he’s attacking other people for something he used to do and only stopped because his fans are holier than though?

Yeah his fans are all SJWs who are trying to cleanse gay, err I mean queer porn of anyone who isn’t an SJW.

Backlash from promiscuous people who think a pill is the solution to their risky behavior instead of changing their behavior. No one has a right to insist someone has sex with anyone else. He has the right to be as discriminating and selective as he wants regarding his body and health. PrEp is a drug with Major longterm side effects. He has a Right to not take it.

Part of the reason everyone hates Michael Lucas is that he supposedly tricked a negative performer into getting fucked bareback by a poz one.

R16, not everyone is slutty or indiscriminate in their sexual conduct. I’ve never had sex with a positive person. Almost all my friends are likewise.

Most people would never willingly have sex with an HIV person. That’s wise

R15 it has nothing to do with sleeping. Porn performers fuck, suck, etc. They do not sleep.

R20 you have no way of knowing that.

Donte is a huge stoner and hot and sexy. He's not a Rhodes Scholar. And I think he's straight, or bi but leans straight.

Whut now? Uh, basically every studio is condom free, so you’re going to force a pornie to fuck another “undetectable” (HIGHLY DEBATABLE) poz pornie BAREBACK? Lol, I’d like to see how that would stand up in court. Completely ridiculous. A majority of gay men wouldn’t have sex with a poz guy, even when he’s undetectable. Fact. Sorry, that’s how it is.

This is one of a million reasons why people are no longer left wing.

R23, I’ve had sex with four people: three women and one dude. None of them have HIV. I know this, and do many other people.

R27 how do you know? Because they said they didn't have it?

Thank god, now fire Michael del Rey fug and the rest of the awful trashy gay4pay trash.

You’re being obtuse r28.

Burn the POS porn stars at the stake!

Fear of getting STDs is a huge reason more hot dudes don’t do male porn. The perception is male porn is flooded with people with STDs

It's his body, he has the absolute say on what he does with it.

A porn star who has sex with men and is not on Prep? Oh well, it just means he's more likely to include a few more drugs in his daily pill.

Life is a banquet, with Prep or HART. Truly, modern medical science is a miracle.

that photo of him is hilarious

R30 no. Yu are being holier-than thou and acting like you know the STD status of your partners simply because you believe they don't have STDs and, you are likely a Lesbian. You are being willfully obtuse.

R27 : four people?

R36 when you consider she's likely a Lesbian and not gay, it isn't the same story.

Here Dante shows off his flexibility by sucking his own dick while getting fucked

Why do women, straight or gay, feel that they can comment on sex between men?

If you have a cunt between your legs, then shut up. Your opinions are worthless on this subject.

His body, his choice.

6.4 is the average number of sexual partners for men. Most people are not living libertine lifestyles. Millennials are even more sexually modest

sex is dirty and degrading

This is why they hate us.

That being said, if he wants to demand only working with models that have been tested, he such only work with studios that rigorously test such as Sean Cody or Bel Ami or straight porn

Wow, we've come full circle, and now we're back to HIV shaming despite the fact that we KNOW that undetectable means untransmittable as the scientists and doctors have confirmed, we know PrEP works, and we know that the only way to continue HIV transmission is through ignorance, denial and unnecessarily risky behavior... and the majority of this supposedly porn-friendly audience here (I mean, to paraphrase R1, about a third of the posts on DL are porn-related in one way or another) thinks that Thick is doing the right thing?

Here's a guy who likes raw dick up his hole, and is willing to do it for everyone to see. But he doesn't want to take PrEP, he knows the guys he's working with are either HIV+, on PrEP, or in denial, and he thinks he's going to stay negative. Oh, and he's a drug user, to boot. No, no chance of seroconversion there. None.

Until the day he finds out he's HIV+, and then he'll be back on social media begging for attention and sympathy (and directing all his fans to go to patreon or gofundme and donate to him because he doesn't have health insurance). If we've seen it once, we've seen it a thousand times...

Surely he's allowed to decide who he has sex with?

Or is this like the trans thing where we have to give up our holes for any trans who demands it?

The guy's a porn star. Not a sex slave.

One of the big reasons companies test is because the models demand it. In recruiting, studios run into many prospective models who don’t want to do gay porn because they don’t want to work with guys with any STDs, including HIV. The studios that don’t test tend to have models that aren’t demanding testing or frightened of STDs.

R45 Undetectable might mean untransmittable in a laboratory setting. It doesn't account for real life. What if the guy forgot to take his meds that day? What if he was on a meth binge and forgot to take them for a week? The virus is STILL hiding in his body and can re-emerge with a vengeance as soon as he slips up.

Donte's not a malicious asshole, he's just a fun sexy slightly dumb guy with a big cock and a fantastic body.

[quote]That being said, if he wants to demand only working with models that have been tested, he such only work with studios that rigorously test such as Sean Cody or Bel Ami or straight porn

He doesn’t have an issue with testing. He simply doesn’t want to sleep with poz people period.

[quote]Wow, we've come full circle, and now we're back to HIV shaming despite the fact that we KNOW that undetectable means untransmittable as the scientists and doctors have confirmed, we know PrEP works, and we know that the only way to continue HIV transmission is through ignorance, denial and unnecessarily risky behavior

And here is today’s Stalin left in a nutshell. You have no right to your own body.

I concur with the right to be highly selective and discriminating in sexual partners, including not having sex with people with any STD. However, if one has discriminating standards, they probably should not do porn or the type of porn he does

Not wanting to have sex with Someone with HIV is natural preservation and wise, not HIV-shaming. Most people realize that

He's from the "g4p" school of porn. They do test.

Zach Sire is an asshole.

It's his hot body and he can do what he wants!

WHATEVAH! WHATEVAH!

The whore has spoken!

If only there were some other work he could do to pay the bills.

I agree with R51. Sure, he has a right to decide he doesn't want to have bareback sex with HIV+ men , undetectable or not. However, if he is going to insist on exercising this right he probably shouldn't be in porn.

R58 also believes that women, if they want to have a choice in who fucks them, probably shouldn't be on the streets.

The best elite studios already test

The sleazy and trashy studios don’t test

There is no right to only have sex with who you want in the porn industry.

He says he won’t sleep with poz guys. Fine, but the porn industry is full of them. This will severely limit whom the directors can pair him with.

Instead of going through that, that fired him. He can now have an OnlyFans acct and sleep with whomever he wants

“Thick”?

R62 Dante has a purple haired girlfriend who he calls “Mrs Thick”.

Zach Sire posted in the comments about how he thinks Thick needs to retire from porn if he feels this way. So I added a comment to his comment saying that if he feels this way and is pushing the idea, he has no business using "No Agenda" as his site's motto.

Of course, he took my comment down.

Exactly

I stated that confusingly. Let me try again:

Zach Sire posted in the comments about how he thinks Thick needs to retire from porn if he feels this way. So I added a comment to Sire's comment saying that if he (Sire) is pushing this idea, he then has no business using "No Agenda" as part of his site's motto.

Of course, he took my comment down.

^ Because you're an old woman with only the remnant of a penis maybe R67?

r67 he's a clickbaiting hypocritical obsessive queen who projects ridiculous Woke standards on everyone but himself. Zach, you write for a porn blog about cocks and abs, you aren't curing cancer. Get over yourself.

Why hello Zach Sire r68!

Hi Nana @ R70!! How was BINGO?

Oh god, it's the "gramps/Nana" troll. Shouldn't you be "y'allng" and "stupid ass"ing in a RPDR thread?

Woke about porn? Smh

There's no place where bigotry should be tolerated. Everyone who is bigoted thinks that they have a valid reason for their bigotry.

And I am sure you are the one to decide just who is bigoted and who is not, r74.

Bigotry? No choosing one’s sexual partners is an are where discrimination and selectivity are not only allowed, but strongly advised.

I think you left out a word or two, r76.

My two cents, he can fuck or get fucked by who he chooses. Why is this even a debate?

gotry? No, choosing one’s sexual partners is an area where discrimination and selectivity are not only allowed, but strongly advised.

[quote]if he is going to insist on exercising this right he probably shouldn't be in porn.

[quote]There is no right to only have sex with who you want in the porn industry.

I don't really agree with this argument. Even as someone who does porn for a living, he still has the right to take certain measures to protect himself. All he's basically saying is that so long as the studio runs a test on his scene partner and can REASONABLY assure him that the person is negative, then he will do his job and fuck them bareback, but if the studio tells him that the person is poz -- even if undetectable -- he is not willing to take the risk. I just don't see what is so outrageous about that point of view.

Being a porn star means fucking, sucking, swapping and swallowing body fluids with another human being. If you learn upfront that the person with whom you'll be performing is poz but undetectable, you should have the same rights as anyone else and be able to make the choices you feel are best for your own body. If that steps on someone else's bottom line or political agenda, that's their problem. As R78 says, why is this even a debate? It shouldn't be.

R80 it's a debate because the POZ people are trying to rebrand undetectable as untransmittable, therefore they should be treated as the same as a negative person and something about "stigma" etc.

So they get very mad if anyone suggests they aren't as "clean" as someone who isn't positive.

On one hand I see their dilemna but let's not pretend that pos is the same as negative.

Who is the bottom on top of the pic? HOT!!!

[quote] Why is this even a debate?

Because Zach Sire is an asshole who likes to stir up shit.

Agreed r84.

Zach Sire is a little bitch who’s lust for clicks outweighs any thought of rationality or consistency. Must be hard out when your only income is a porn blog.

Undetectable DOES mean untransmittable. Any informed person knows this. Ask your ancient GP.

A porn whore can work or not work for a company. That's his choice. The last black dude who fucked Rizzo wore a condom. There is still condom porn produced anyway.

A whore fucks for money. There is risk involved of STI's, but not HIV transmission from an undetectable partner. What seronegative fool does bareback gay porn and doesn't use PrEP anyway? Liars, racists and morons.

Go fuck somebody else raw for $400, you ugly idiot Donte.

It’s not a debate. There is no debate.

r86 So you're linking to an ad campaign designed to promote this as fact.

All it means is that the person is undetectable AT THE TIME OF THE TEST. It does not mean they are STILL undetectable, if they have stopped taking meds, or have forgotten a dose, etc. etc.

The person STILL has the virus in them, somewhere. If they have not been diligent about their medication regime, they can very well be transmittable again.

I don't think HIV+ people should be ostracized but it's total bullshit to act like Undetectable is the same as not having the virus at all, which is what U = U is saying, along with their Twitter brigade of people who will shame anyone who doesn't want to expose themselves to the additional risk of working with a person who is known to have HIV.

I'm in a fledgling pseudo-relationship with a guy who lives very far away in a different country. We've been Whatsapping for three months. We're planning to meet once it can be arranged and spend a month together in person. If it goes well, he's open to moving, as am I. We've cammed with each other (both sex and conversations). No, we haven't used the "L" word yet, but it's looking promising.

All of that aside, what are some question(s) we can ask each other to learn more about each other? Both gay-specific questions and just general "getting to know you" questions. We don't exactly run out of things to talk about when we chat, but I would like to know more about him as a person and let him know more about me.

I'm trying to avoid over-generalized/employee interview-type questions, e.g. "what are your hopes and dreams for the future?" that seem to be what a lot of sites have as conversation starters.

Can I contract HIV over WhatsAPP? Do you get it from phone sex? I'm really worried. He told me he's clean. How can I be sure?

r89 I know you think you're being cute, but it's really irrelevant to what I said. Can you not back up your assertion without resorting to childish crap?

This is what happens when hets talk about gay issues.

This is yet another reason I only watch amateur porn now.

Reminds me of those who try to make people guilty about not wanting to have sex with trans people. People have the right to not want to have sex with someone with any STD.

Most of the guys pushing the U=U message are already HIV+ so if that message turns out to not be true in all cases then they have nothing to lose.

Or people who aren’t very discriminating or selective in their sexual behavior or partners and resent those who are. They are trying to guilt people into having sex or dating them, or trying to encourage others to behave like them.

There is not a world (yet) in which a court or jury will support someone being fired for not fucking an STD ridden performer in porn.

[quote]the U=U message

The what?

R97, "U = U" is shorthand for "Undetectable = Untransmittable."

[quote]And here is today’s Stalin left in a nutshell. You have no right to your own body.

And here's another troll taking my comment about HIV shaming and twisting into saying Thick somehow doesn't have a right to his own body. No, idiot, it's Thick who is endangering every other model (and everyone else) because [italic]he[/italic] doesn't want to take PrEP, but wants to fuck without a condom, and is willing to do it on film. These guys don't do [italic]anything[/italic] on film that they won't or don't do in real life. If a model demands bareback on set, he demands it when there aren't cameras around, too. And if he demands that he not be responsible for his coworkers' safety, he sure as hell doesn't give two shits about his partners'.

When it comes to enforced personal responsibility, it's a lot like dealing with smokers. As a liberal, I'm not going to demand that cigarettes are removed from sale because you have the right to do to your body whatever you want. However, that right ends where my body begins, so I do support (and demand) smoke-free environments. Likewise, I can't (and won't) force anyone to take PrEP, but that does not mean that sex workers have the right to expose their screen partner's health and livelihood. There are some preconditions to every line of work. It is ironic that the same people who screamed for the use of condoms in porn are now screaming how unjust and freedom-quashing it is that the industry demands that all performers (at least on the gay side) be on PrEP.

But no fear! Our resident infectious disease specialist is here to warn us:

[quote]Undetectable might mean untransmittable in a laboratory setting. It doesn't account for real life.

What laboratory are you talking about? I'm talking about practical everyday use of PrEP, which everyone from garden variety doctors to the CDC has said is effective in preventing HIV transmission in real life. Yes, you have to take the drug for it to work... which is not an uncommon requirement for prescription drug efficacy.

[quote]What if the guy forgot to take his meds that day? What if he was on a meth binge and forgot to take them for a week? The virus is STILL hiding in his body and can re-emerge with a vengeance as soon as he slips up.

Well, now you're conflating HIV treatment with HIV prevention. But let's play along and answer the questions: a missed daily dose, so long as the patient has been taking it on schedule otherwise, is not going to cause a relapse. A missed week due to a meth binge, however, is going to cause problems in the patient's long-term care, but that has more to do with meth usage and everything that goes with recreational drug use than a missed week of prescription doses. Further, meth heads are not the best reference point when it comes to drug efficacy.

But here's where it gets a little tricky to answer because of your assumptions and conflation of care vs. prevention: a missed week of doses for an HIV+ person has a much different impact than a week of missed doses for someone taking PrEP prophylactically. For the patient, it diminishes the effectiveness of the drug; for the PrEP taker, it leaves him susceptible to seroconversion.

Which is why PrEP is meant to protect the user, not society at large. What you're implying is that Thick has no responsibility to himself or others but demands it from his coworkers and fuck buddies, believing that the so-called herd immunity should protect him despite the fact that he won't do what's required to protect himself and others. That's called being a leech on society, and if there was any shaming to be done, it is that Thick should be ashamed of himself and shamed out of gay porn. We can't force Thick to be ashamed of himself, but we can (and apparently, the industry has) shamed him out of gay porn. Good.

[quote]Donte's not a malicious asshole, he's just a fun sexy slightly dumb guy

No, he's pretty much a malicious asshole — because he's a narcissist — as well as being dumb, and that's not sexy, at all.

^ tl;dr

It appears Mr. Thick has found DL. Words are hard, aren't they R100?

^ too stupid; didn't read

I wouldn't either!

I'm not HIV negative and 50+ by sleeping with POZ guys. I don't give a FUCK about "U=U" because I'm still taking someone's word for their status, and not seroconverting is MY responsibility.

[quote]r45 now we're back to HIV shaming

It's not shaming someone to say you choose not to sleep with them. It's just how consent works.

Missing one dose doesn't suddenly make someone's virus spike. That's idiotic. And if you're having sex with someone who has weeklong meth binges, you have a lot to worry about that isn't HIV.

Yes, people should have control over their bodies but FFS some of the ignorance on this board. Talk to a doctor and get some facts.

Porn performers are not a very trustworthy group in general R105 so who knows what they are or aren't doing.

I do think he's in the wrong business if he wants to avoid STDs. But you can't argue with the logic that if you want to avoid HIV, you avoid intimacy with those who have HIV.

One of the drawbacks to forums like this is that someone like R104 can come along and drop a bonmot like "It's just how consent works" and seem perfectly reasonable and justified in that position. And indeed, when it comes to making personal choices about who to sleep with, it is. But that's not what we're talking about regarding Thick; consent in porn (or any employment) is different than in personal interactions. Or, to bring it home to help you understand, you, R104, have the right to deny consent when it comes to your life and your body; but you do not have the right to deny consent when it comes to the public good. For instance, let's say you work for a messenger company, R104; there are laws that mandate that you wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. Your employer, who requires that you ride a motorcycle to make deliveries for his messenger company, mandates that you wear a helmet. It's better for you, it's better for the company, it's better for any potential driver(s) who end up in an accident with you, and it is a societal good to have fewer people killed in motorcycle accidents. You, however, do not consent to wearing a helmet because you're a safe rider who has never had an accident. You're fired. Do you have a cause of action against your employer? Should your potential employer be forced to accommodate your desire to not wear a helmet?

It is HIV-shaming when Thick says he won't fuck someone HIV+ who is on HAART with an undetectable viral load if he (Thick) were on PrEP. Look at it this way: Thick will fuck you if you say you are HIV-, but the reality is that either you are HIV+ or you simply don't know. Even if you were tested and negative within the last 24 hours, if you had unprotected sex anytime in the prior 6 to as long as 12 weeks, you could be positive and not know it. Even if you think you had protected sex, if we listen to the posters on this thread, it isn't really safe. However, if you are positive and on meds, the possibility of passing the virus on to an unprotected partner is near zero and if your partner is on PrEP, it is zero. Thick is a walking, talking example of ignorance is bliss. He'd prefer not to know than to know and take precautions.

In a profession like porn (as much as porn can be a profession) relying one coworker's honesty and even testing, while better than nothing, is tricky. You're much better off relying on science; science doesn't have an agenda, isn't broke and desperate, doesn't do illicit drugs or engage in questionable behavior. Human beings, on the other hand...

Meanwhile, Thick has the tools to protect himself. Frankly, he doesn't need to worry about what potential scene partners have or haven't done. He needs to take his PrEP if he intends on working in porn.

It is a thorny situation, to be clear. I would not accommodate Thick's desire to engage with strictly non-HIV+ coworkers in this situation, if I were the studio, given the scientific advances and evidence surrounding the issue. I would not force him to have sex with an HIV+ coworker, however; I would simply not employ Thick due to his willful ignorance, selective discrimination and yes, HIV shaming.

Be honest r108, you've already seroconverted, right?

I think that it's obvious r108 has. He's the main one in this thread posting 500 word essays on U = U and he seems to be personally offended by the whole topic.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, you should at least get educated. Spreading fear and bullshit like "if you miss one dose of your HIV meds you're radioactive" only encourages shame. People who are scared of getting tested don't get tested and every medical professional on the planet agress that people who don't know they have HIV are the most dangerous.

Right and that has nothing to do with someone choosing not to sleep with an HIV positive person.

Not a single thing you said would stand up in court R108, but nice try.

Wish Rod Daily would get back in the game.

every time I notice on someone's grindr profile that they're "undetectable" I block them

R114 I've met him, he's straight and very passionless.

I thought Daily did well in Rock Candy Films' The Psycho. Never liked him before or since, though. That he had his own website on par with Austin Wilde continues to amaze me.

R115, if you hook up from Grindr, you are playing Russian roulette with your health anyway. Infection central

do you think Sires just changed the names from his August Ames rants?

He does seem to have an "outrage template" for those stories.

The ignorance displayed here is truly mind-boggling in 2019. Thank God there are a number of informed people also participating. A little science please. A person being treated for HIV is on a cocktail of anti-viral medications. These medications all have various half-lives, which means that most remain at least somewhat active in the body for up to a week. They also attack the virus on different fronts - some interfere with replication, some make cells less receptive to infection, etc. Some of these attacks make it hard for the virus to reassert itself quickly after going off meds. Research has shown that infecting another person seems to take a certain virus level, below which transmission doesn't take place. A person would have to be off meds for a couple of weeks to come up to this viral level, and some people might not come to it for months. Moreover, people taking meds have received stern warnings from their doctors not to interrupt treatment, for fear of the virus in their bodies developing resistance to the drugs, so very few go off of them capriciously. I'm not being naive. I know that drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental illness can interfered with compliance - however, there would be some evidence of those problems on the set. I don't know who testing works in the porn industry, but I'm guessing that people known to be HIV+ must produce a very recent RNA undetectable result to participate in any kind of barebacking scene.

All of that being said, it remains a person's right to refuse sex with anyone. I just hate that these decisions are being justified in the minds of many people in this thread on the basis of erroneous and unscientific opinions - opinions they are sharing as though they represent valid scientific concerns, which they do not. In other words, it's fine to say, "I know that I am very unlikely to become infected this way, but I'm just not comfortable with it - may I use a condom, or can we stick with safer sex?" - but not fine to say, "no matter what the research says, I know for a fact that I'm going to get HIV from you, because these tests are bullshit, and the research is bullshit, therefore I'm not going to have anything to do with you, no matter how careful we are".

Thick made a reasonable decision that no person outside the porn industry would object to. Even prostitutes have a right to reject clients.

If the porn companies can’t or won’t accommodate his wishes, then he won’t get work. But he shouldn’t be shamed or condemned for his choice.

Everyobe on grindr with hiv seems to be “undetectable”

I’m surprised no one has yet commented on porn performer Derek Bolt’s tweet in the linked article where he suggests that an undetectable HIV-positive person would actually pass an HIV STD screen. Is this correct? My understanding was that the HIV STD test searches for antibodies, while the viral load test given to those with HIV infection searches for copies of the actual virus. And if the VL test can’t find enough viral copies to count above a certain threshold, the patient is deemed “undetectable.” But even if a positive person has been drug-compliant and undetectable for years, wouldn’t the antibodies to HIV still be present (indicating that one had been exposed to the virus at some point previously)? Bolt’s tweet, if accurate, would suggest that the antibodies for HIV – and other viral infections (?) – “disappear” over time. I’ve always thought that while HIV medications effectively suppress the virus, they do not suppress antibodies.

A quick Google search turned up conflicting information, so I was hoping a medical professional here could chime in.

R123 is correct

Lol at R121. EVERYONE LIES. Someone who has contracted HIV has already demonstrated a proclivity toward unsafe behavior. Why would I believe that they had been tested five minutes ago and STRICTLY ADHERED to their medication regimen? Do you know what the percentage of people not adhering to medication regimen is around the world? It’s VERY HIGH. People dying from cancer don’t adhere to their medication regimens. You think it’s any different with gay men? A historically and culturally irresponsible group? If you’re willing to take that risk, fine, but I guarantee that 95% of the people in the world do not want to take that risk.

Is Donte Thick his real name?

[quote] 20 to 30 percent of new prescriptions are never filled at the pharmacy. Medication is not taken as prescribed 50 percent of the time. For patients prescribed medications for chronic diseases, after six months, the majority take less medication than prescribed or stop the medication altogether.

This is a verbatim quote from the FDA. HALF do not adhere to medication regimen, and that gets WORSE over time. Why would I believe that gay men would be any different? People who have chronic diseases don’t take their medication FFS.

People really need to wake the fuck up about HIV and Truvada. You can still easily get infected, and no amount of press about “undetectability” and shaming of how you shouldn’t “discriminate” against the poz should stop you from protecting yourselves. I’m sorry you’re poz, but you bear the weight of that responsibility. The uninfected are not required to make you feel better about yourselves sexually.

I can vouch for how many people on chronic diseases always take their medicines. I know I play around with how many days can I skip this specific pill without consequences. None of the meds relate to HIV, but it's all related to chronic health issues. Part of it's curiosity...what will happen? Part of it's thrift....how much can I save? Sometimes it's even self-harm, I think. Sometimes it's rebellion....FTW! So, yeah, people resent their medicines, imo, even the life-saving ones.

Every time you buy/rent/click porn you are implicit in another’s sorrow and pain. If the actors enjoyed the job, they wouldn’t be high.

And that’s what makes it delicious r130

At that rate we should only watch dead porn actors' work because they've done gone and suffered already.

I wonder how far back someone would have to go to find only dead folks in porn films. I don't know if I could handle those crazy muzak soundtracks set to those loops. The voice-overs weren't as bad as the muzak.

[quote] He does work in the sex industry though and we know a lot of the porn actors and escorts are HIV +

He does not HAVE to work in the sex industry. He can get a job at Chipolte.

R133 oh, yes he does. He has a fantastic body and cock. He's definitely made for porn.

R121 MARY!

Fear of HIV and STDs keeps a lot of hot exhibitionist dudes from entering male porn. The wise ones won’t do it

R132, you could just mute the sound. I like old porn because I prefer the natural bodies and natural body hair, but the sound is hard to take - not just the music but the obviously fake, overdubbed sex sounds - so I watch with the volume turned to 0.

^ Porn without sound doesn't work for me. The porn music and fake sex sounds of 70s, 80s porn is hilarious but also unwatchable. Just imagine the guys synchronizing gay porn movies or creating porn music on their fancy 80s synthesizer.

Porn without sound is pointless to me

A world without porn sounds = a dark and lonely place.

Terrible, terrible.

I'll be glad when really good CGI porn becomes available then you could watch porn without having to wonder if the performers are putting themselves at risk or are unhappy with the choices they've made.