A performer who tested positive for syphilis has been in touch with FSC and is meeting with FSC’s medical professionals to begin partner identification, evaluation and treatment. FSC has called a temporary moratorium on production until the risk to performers in the industry has been properly assessed and all performers have been tested.That sucking sound you just heard are the popping of champagne bottles from Michael Weinstein, Shelley Lubben, Gail Dines, and all opponents of porn...because this new development all but assures that the condom mandate ordinance passes in LA County this coming November, and that AHF now has free reign to impose their condom mandate and "barrier testing" regime not only porn produced in Los Angeles, but ultimately everywhere.
APHSS’ doctors have met and discussed the best avenue to protect the performers and have determined that testing the entire population is the most prudent strategy. A determination will be made by the doctors on the appropriate time to lift the moratorium as more information is revealed.
After all, who after this will ever trust porn performers to regulate themselves ever again?
It's so much easier to accept the claims of "blacklisting" of pro-condom performers (such as Brittany Andrews, one of the most strident supporters of the condom mandate) who say that intervention is needed to make hetero porn more like gay porn in allowing HIV+ performers to do scenes, and just trust that the condoms don't break. Besides, isn't it for their own good to be the honored sacrificial lambs for "safer sex" and do their part to educate the rabble about the right way to engage in sex??
Of course, the tube sites, the message boards selling all those stolen free bareback scenes, and especially the rogue XXX sites are also popping their champagne bottles, too, because they will be the recipient of the gold mine of underground bareback sales, as the majority of the consumers simply abandon condomized sex. And all the underground, unregulated, and less respectable producers will have a field day, as they will get the full economic benefits of performers forced to go to them to make their paydays when work is eliminated.
But, who cares about all that?? It's all about "performer choice", right?? Except for those who have succeed in protecting themselves without Michael Weinstein's approval.
And, in the meantime, while all this happens, the REAL pandemic of STI's amongst the poor and mostly Black population in California and the US goes on unabated, and the same people so eager to protect performers from themselves cast a blind eye to the denial of decent treatment, or even access to affordable care, for millions of "civilians".
Because forcing dental dams and condoms on porn performers for the purpose of "role modeling" and boosting condom company sales and NCO money is far more important than actually caring for whole neighborhoods suffering and dying.
Enjoy your porn, folks, because it won't be here for long.
[Just my own personal view, folks, and hopefully just not-so-wishful prophecy...but I have my doubts.]
I think you are right, Weinstein & other anit-porn critics will use this syphilis outbreak to convince people to vote for the condom mandate. And as soon as this happens the porn industry will be ruined. I find it very interesting that so many are worried about condoms being in porn, but no one seems to care about people stealing porn. If people like Weinstein really want to force condoms into porn, something needs to be done about illegal tube & torrent sites 1st. If not, porn is going to plummet & many people are going to lose their jobs. And in this economy, the last thing needed is for more people to lose their jobs.
ReplyDeleteTemporary porn production makes sense.
ReplyDeleteAttractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts
ReplyDeleteNot so fast. The syphilis "outbreak" barely made a blip on the radar in mainstream media. Only those already voting for the measure would view it as material.
ReplyDeleteAs to who will vote against it: porn consumers who hate condoms and in the privacy of the voting booth won't be afraid to express that hate, porn haters who oppose anything law that recognizes porn's right to exist, libertarians opposed to all regulations of this type, fiscal conservatives who think it's an appalling waste of the taxpayers' money and taxpayers of all kinds who feel that same way.
When programs of far greater importance to far more voters are being slashed to ribbons by forced funding cuts, an expensive new initiative to protect a small number of people no one much cares about has little voter appeal. AHF, by lying its ass off as usual, collected enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot , but that doesn't mean it can prod enough supporters to the polls to actually pass this thing which no one has a clue how to enforce.
The bullshit about levying producers to pay for it isn't going to wash because, quite frankly, even if production were at the levels of five years ago, which were double what they are now, the money for this program wouldn't have been there. The notion that the handful of producers who bother to get permits will pay thousands of dollars more for them in order to comply should this idiocy be made law is laughable. There were only 600 or so adult production permits pulled last year as it was, hardly enough to pay for the program AHF proposes even if that level of participation remained constant. Once getting a permit requires signing a document under threat of perjury charges to the effect that the condom mandate will be imposed and paying thousands of dollars for the privilege, that will be the end of permitted porn shooting, and in effect the end of legal porn production in California, which is a catastrophe for performers more than anyone else, as the best thing about this business was its legal status, which enabled performers and producers to work in the open and seek remedy within the law when abuses of whatever sort were committed.
There would still be plenty of porn made here, of course, made cheaply and in secret by people who don't give a shit about rules of any kind, and things like contact tracing when infections are detected, which didn't go very well under APHSS and won't go at all if an admissions such as that made by Mr. Marcus would also be a confession of illegal production, would be impossible. Testing would collapse. There still wouldn't be any significant increase in condom use in porn and performers would then be at risk of exploitation and abuse such as we have not seen since before legalization.
The only bright spot in this dark picture is the electorate, which isn't quite as gullible as Mr. Weinstein and his pals, who breather a greater air than the rest of us, much like Mitt Romney, seem to think.
This thing is going down to defeat because the voters don't think it's worth their time or their money and that's the one thing that all AHF's billboards and TV commercials won't change. Voters do not care about this issue and do care very deeply about anything that might end up costing them money, which this misbegotten thing surely would. One thing that will be made clear between now and the election is that the remaining large porn companies, all six of them, will challenge it in court if it passes and the taxpayers will have to pay for that litigation as well.
On the numbers, it's a non-starter and if porn haters are drinking champagne now, they'd better start looking for another vintage that goes well with the crow they'll eat come November.