So, they shouldn't test for herpes because they will get it anyways. Hmmm... wouldn't testing for herpes and getting those affected out of the industry help bring the number of new infections down?

Of course it doesn't cover what happens outside of the porn world but lets look at it like this.

Girl A is herpes free, she does some scenes and makes some money then goes back to Kansas. The people she worked with didn't have herpes either. Now of course, she goes out to party on her newfound fortune, hooks up with some random dude and gets infected. She gets tested before returning to shoot more content and make more money. Oh, wait, she's infected. Guess what, she can't work and can't infect anyone else.


I know what happens off camera is just as dangerous as on camera but where is the HARM in testing for herpes and getting rid of the infected performers. Or the infected performers can only work with other infected performers (hey, they could still get work). It seems the benefit would be much greater than the cost. Plus you test for HIV which could be gotten outside the industry like Herpes and is more likely when having unprotected sex with random people but you don't test for Herpes which is even more prevelant? Where is the logic? Oh, and I'm sorry if I didn't compose a textbook argumentative essay but the words still hold true.