Sunday, December 12, 2010

HIV Porn Scare 2010 -- The Series Continues: Darrah Ford Joins The Prosecution of AIM; Justin Long Goes Off For The Defense, Tears Derrick Burts A New Orfice...And Is Condom-Free Porn Free Speech?

cSome interesting developments today in the ongoing saga of Porn Scare Smackdown! 2010.

Darrah Ford, who has essentially taken over the mantle of porn critic formerly held by Luke Ford, has been one of the most consistent and strident critics of AIM's testing in particular and the porn industry in general...and she has been mostly the main defender online of not only Shelley Lubben but also of the efforts of Michael Weinstein and AHF to mandate condoms in porn. Today, at her personal blog, she went off on what she caled "blind defenders" of AIM, basically ripping them for not caring about the welfare of their talent; and she defended Derrick Burts/Cameron Reed as the victim of their indifference. She also went on to defend the actions of the LA County Public Health officials in shutting AIM's clinic down, citing everything from the alleged rape of a porn starlet by Max Hardcore to the 1999 outbreak involving Tony Montana to last year's HIV scare where a performer contracted HIV through outside activity, but due to allowing her test period to laspe, ended up doing an oral scene after she was infected.  (Fortunately, no one else was infected there, either.) Some key snippage of Darrah's rant follows:

[...] 
Many of you still insist that everyone wants to get tested at AIM. The truth is that AIM has held a monopoly throughout the industry for years when it comes to testing. Studios, directors, and producers have told performers how they have to get tested at AIM or they won’t be allowed to work. Many have wanted to test elsewhere but were told they couldn’t.
The female performer who tested positive last year was tested on June 4, 2009. Her last negative test was on April 29. The results of the June 4 test were received on June 6. She performed a scene on June 5 before the test results were back. She was working with a 37-day-old test.

When AIM was first contacted about the rumors last year, they denied everything and said there were no HIV infections. The only reason we knew anything is because it was first revealed on one of the forums. AIM was forced to make a statement on June 10, 2009 because of the forum posting.

When I had looked at AIM’s website on June 11, 2009, there was still no mention about the new HIV infection. It had been a whole week and AIM still hadn’t updated their own website yet alerting the industry.
Of course, the fact that AIM was bound by confidentiality laws from revealing personal records, that they were obligated by the positive test to alert not only the producers but also run their required tests to determine if anyone else was infected on set probably had something to do with their supposed lack of publicizing the crisis.

Also...while the one-month period between testing is admittedly too long and should be shortened to better protect the performers; it wasn't AIM's fault that the former "Patient Zero" of last year decided to  delay getting tested, or that that particular studio that hired her to do the fateful scene was so willing to cut corners and ignore the lapsed time of her last test. Their job was not to comfort her, but to protect others from getting infected; and from the looks of the results, they did their job then...just as they did this time with Derrick Burts.

Darrah goes on to reset some other past vendettas she had with AIM, based on some previous crises:


Tony Montana was diagnosed with HIV back in 1999. AIM never notified him. Rocco Siffredi had called him to say how sorry he was after hearing the news. Tony had no idea what he was talking about. Because of Sharon Mitchell and AIM, Tony could have kept on working and infected his costars without ever knowing. 

Former porn star Neesa left the industry four years ago and says the worst moment in her life was being raped by Max Hardcore. She says after the rape, she tested positive for Chlamydia/Gonorrhea in the throat. She claims she went to Sharon Mitchell and Sharon called her a liar and was extremely rude to her. She alleges that AIM only cares about money and believed Max over her because he was a large client of theirs.
Of course, Darrah's well known for throwing up charges like these to justify her beliefs. Now, if she would actually offer evidence to justify those claims other than merely hearsay or rumor...

And here's her justification for defending LA County Health's actions:



County public health officials did not become aware that AIM was operating without a license until this April. In May, they sent AIM officials a letter advising them that as a nonprofit, they could not operate under an affiliated physician’s license and needed to apply instead for a clinic license. AIM officials were notified on Tuesday that their license application had been denied. They had applied on June 7 but state officials said the application was incomplete.
Name me any other clinic that would still be allowed to stay open after these circumstances? AIM had to be shut down for your own safety.

Why support a clinic with this track record? Stop complaining about AIM being shut down. They were operating without a license for all these months. The county became aware of this in April. How long before April were they running without a license before county officials found out? AIM can no longer provide new services but we’re now hearing all the rumors that secret draw stations have been set up to test performers. Any clinic who is still running without a license is hiding something. They had to be shut down.

Now this is really funny that Darrah attempts to blame AIM for all this, especially given the known collusion between LA County, Cal-OSHA, and AHF in directly targeting AIM for sanction or even shutdown, the fact that while AIM had been an active clinic for nearly 15 years, the state Department of Health only this July conveniently discovered this requirement for a license; and that said department did NOT openly deny AIM the license, but just had them resubmit it based on a technicality regarding their title, with an 80-day period of correcting the record.  And as for the "secret draw stations":??  They aren't so secret, Darrah; you can locate them over at AIM's website.


Going back, though, to Derrick Burts, though...Darrah has promised to all that she's going to interview "Cameron" and allow him to give the full story...as soon as she gets approval from her sources.

Unfortunately for DBurts, though, it seems that his story isn't gaining any clout from anyone outside of the LA Times or AHF or Darrah Ford. And now, more actual porn performers are starting to call him out on what they perceive to be his BS story.

And here is where I get to say "Welcome back, Justin Long."

You may remember Justin Long from the shitstorm he raised when he publically announced last summer that he would no longer do interracial scenes because he felt that White female performers were lowballing  his rates and using him only as a stepping stone for higher fees rather than interracial lust.

Well, Mr. Long -- who is a 12 year veteran of the profession -- decided that he didn't quite le the way that DBurts was attempting to use his story to slam the industry...and in a comment to the most recent article on the debacle over at the LA Weekly blog, Justin took aim and fired some verbal Scuds Cameron's way. The whole comment -- in Long's usual freestyle form -- simply can't be synopticized effectively, so I will simply repost it here in its entirity, without annotation.

Justin Long says:


Derrick Burts,

Is simply seeking media to try to drive a cash machine. I feel for him for contracting HIV as I would for anyone, no matter by what means they got it, even if those means were of there own accord.

He would have had me shut up, if he had been yelling the industry was shit, condoms only and crap needed to be changed publicly as late as even the week before he was given a positive test.

However he wasn't !!!

He was sitting there shooting with + HIV gay performers, takin the reported 2k rates for gay scenes and then putting his girl and straight performers at risk with HIS RISKY BEHAVIOR. This is exactly WHY straight performers have issue with crossover performers !!! Plain and freakin simple !!!

I won't even go into the fact that he was a male prostitute and money buys bareback just as it does anything else. Bottom line is he was a twink and got caught up in the game he was playing.

So from his own admission after not being happy with AIM went to AHF and was seen by docotrs and DID NOT inform them he was patient zeta !! He was being treated & that was that. Only a week later & Voluntarily he called who ? the CEO of AFH and then wanted to stand in front of the news cameras !!! he didn't call the LA Times which would had took the interview no worries, instead he went for AHF because of the controversy ...

His motivation isn't condoms.. it's money !!!

Can you say BITCH MOVE !!! F U you homie !!! you been in this game 3 months, and you gonna try to effect change, and further put people at risk by being influential in trying to get shut down the only testing center where talent can verify other talents test as genuine ??? YOU HAVE HIV BECAUSE YOU SOLD YOUR SOUL HOMIE !!! YOU CHOSE TO WORK WITH PEOPLE YOU KNEW TO BE HIV POSITIVE !!! IT"S YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT DUMBASSS !!!

No body has even talked about the fact that AHF regularly helps patients with financial compensation from what i am being told from a reliable source in my eyes ie; rent money, continuing education, bills, medical treatment and meds and food.

From what I understand they actually have food stores in there building.. So pay my rent, bills, give me food, and free medical and med (to the tune of thousands)and send me to school...

Shit where does my black ass sign up.. I might even give you some booty

if this is true then I can see why he allowed himself to be used as a pawn and paraded like a bitch in front of the media by AHF.. can we say pay off ..

According to him in his gay scenes he ONLY used condoms !!! So then where did he get the HIV?? It wasn't and he has never claimed it came from a straight set !!! He is monogamous with his girl !! & he dont trick right ???? Sorry there has NEVER been a Reported case of HIV transmission Through Female to Male or Male to Male oral sex !!!

So then why the need for condom???? Maybe he should had wore a condom with his boyfriend and/or john ?? My opinion but that's where it came from, or freak transmission through condom on his +HIV gay set. Sorry but it's probably the truth.

Christianxxx & I have had the discussion before, even with Viagra Cialas or levitra you still have to be turned on to get wood. So if you are not turned on by guys then all the supplements or meds in the world minus cabber jacking (shooting your penis up with a solution dont ask i couldn't tell ya damn needles)So if you aren't attracted to guys then you aint getting wood.

So much for the gay for pay theroy LMAO for real.. You have to be at minimum BI to get wood for a dudes ass .. sorry but that is a call from a straight guy with agreement from a very BI guy (not me)

So if you are attracted to guys then you probably as a porn star are having sex with guys on & off set..

Just cause he says he was faithful to his girl don't mean it to be the truth. I mean he hasn't been honest from the jump minus the fact that he is a BI male working in both industry and participating in risky behavior like sleeping with people that are HIV+ !! This is a no brainer !!

He has HIV = very sad and regrettable

He got it + from HIS OWN risky behavior
 
He's after = Anyone to pay he feels responsible (not taking responsibility for his own actions)

Wants = Money

This is my opinion and opinion are like Aholes, everyone has got one.

However mine is one of a 12+ year veteran in porn (straight) and a Hall of Fame inductee (July 2011)..

Me,

Justin Long
Adult Film Star

Posted On: Saturday, Dec. 11 2010 @ 12:11PM
Hold up....you mean that AHF -- an organization with millions and MILLIONS of dollars in gevernment aid as an NGO, would actually bribe an ex-porn performer who contracted HIV through escorting, and who openly boasted of being HIV+ and even threatened to deliberately infect another performer who dissed him, to deliberately infect innocent straight performers merely to entrap their sworn nemesis and have them shut down?? Merely so that they could collude with some government officios to take over the testing regime and shove condoms down the throats and up the other orfices of performers...or even force them out of California so that only the "progressive", "hot" safer sex studios would remain, and everyone else driven underground into a far less protected and far more dantgerous venue simply to survive?? And..so that condom makers like Lifestyles and Durex and Trojan would get a big fat payday off the backs of performers?? And Shelley Lubben would get a fresh supply of recruits for her ex-slut ministry?? And certain health "professionals" and bureaucrats would get their guniea pigs to "role model" their sex education" efforts??

Oh...and why do I detect that the next Cal-OSHA meetings will have Mike Weinstein adding DBurts to the lists of teary-eyed speakers (after all, relying on a fundie gay-basher like Ministress Shelley won;t quite make it with the hip liberal crowd...antiporn radical feminists excluded) bawling about how Teh EVIL AIM Porn Machine destroyed their lives by exposing them to all these incurable diseases??

After all...if "ROXY!!!!!" isn't enough to sell their bullcrap, then I guess that The Magician Turned Twink Escort Turned Bi Porn Pioneer Turned Victim Tale just might be the tipping point that seals the deal.


Finally, I discovered this pair of tweets from porn starlet Angela Aspen (@angelaaspenxxx) that sets up what could be an interesting argument should there by any lawsuits to impose condom usage:


RT:Am I the only performer that believes n rapid hiv testing on set and that condom free is FREEDOM OF SPEECH????

Consumers/Actors: do you really want to see porn go to condom- only??? Cause… thats… where is… is going 2011.Step Up:Freedom of Speech
Now, there are legitimate issues with having on-site testing on demand, but if someone like Angela Aspen -- who might not have the intellectual depth of a Nina Hartley or a Vicky Vette -- can get that their rights are being violated and it might be a good time for the industry to come together in their defense, then there still may be some hope for this industry after all. Given the circumstances and the privailing political winds, they will need plenty of it.

2 comments:

  1. Good article Anthony. I agree with your take on everything in this, but the free speech/rights violation thing ...I don't see it.

    If it's not considered a violation of one's rights to be obliged to wear clothes in public, or a hair net while working with food, I can't see that being required to wear a safety device in the workplace (goggles, hardhat, seatbelt, surgical gloves...condom) is a violation of one's rights.

    A performer COULD however, in my opinion, assert that a colleague refusing to wear such a device is a violation of one's rights.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's an interesting situation. Fact is, it's unique. If you walk into any public place, chances are you are not going to get naked and have sex. The adult movie industry is legal, though. It has only been regulated in its record-keeping procedures, as far as I know. I understand what you're saying, Sean, but mainstream movies don't require dental dams for kissing scenes, though it is, technically, a fluid exchange. It's just not a usual "work" situation, and the fact that these entities are trying to apply clinic laws to the sex workplace isn't fair to the people who do the actual work. I think everyone feels it is a free speech issue because the actual workers aren't being allowed a voice in the issue. These outside forces are just going to push early 90s clinic laws on porn in California without any input from actors, directors and producers. The industry started policing itself a long time ago, but rather than come in and actually find out what's going on, they are bullying, and as demonstrated during the UCLA "discussion panel", omitted altogether. No voice means free speech issue. Does that make sense? That's the way it unfolds in my mind.

    ReplyDelete