HIV Porn Panic 2013: "All Clear" Given, Moratorium Lifted As Of Today, Sayeth FSCPASS....But, What About The Peanut Gallery Skeptics?

Well, that was a short, sweet, and thankfully brief little panic.

Last night, the Free Speech Coalition's PASS announced that the final remaining test of all first generation performers whom had shot with the performer whom had been recently infected with HIV had come up negative, like all the other tests. Thusly, it was now safe to lift the moratorium on porn production that had been imposed last Friday, and resume shooting as of today (December 13th).

In addition, FSCPASS announced that the date for acceptable tests for clearance to shoot had been rebooted to December 5th, in accordance with their protocols that production cease for two weeks after any possible exposure to HIV.  Since the infected performer's last shoot was on November 21st, the two-week latency period would fall due on Dec. 5th. (The actual positive test was confirmed on December 6th; the Aptima HIV test used by FSCPASS has a 7 to 10 day latency period for catching infected DNA. FSCPASS allows for a 2 week period for additional coverage and protection.)

So, once again, the system worked exactly as planned, and people should be celebrating...right??

You'd think so...but, there is a minority but growing number of skeptics around the porn disapora who aren't so sure that lifting the moratorium this soon is a good idea.

Their basic argument is that the Aptima test might be well and good for initial detection and screening, there is that small chance that it may miss someone who has the HIV virus running dormant, and if that person is cleared for shooting and infects someone else, you could get a disasterous outbreak. To them, the proper protocol should be to follow up with reinforced testing of the first-gen partners in two weeks following the initial Aptima testing, and then even further testing in six to eight weeks just to be sure that the HIV virus is completely removed from the system.

And some critics of FSCPASS even go further than that; they believe that the costs of not shooting are too great, and that FSCPASS has way too much power to control production in the midst of a crisis...so, they argue that production should continue while the protocols are being followed....as long as condoms are used.

Both arguments have some bit of merit, but ultimately they both fail the smell test for me.

Argument #1 might have more merit if the dominant tests used for STI's was something like ERISA, an antibody test that did tend to miss out early cases; but Aptima has been proven to be very accurate in the screening and detection of acute cases of HIV. Plus, the new 14-day testing protocol imposed by FSCPASS all but eliminates the latency period where someone can get infected before testing and sneak through the cracks of the tests. It should also be remembered that the HIV testing protocols used by FSCPASS also include ERISA and Western Blot assays in addition to Aptima, for full coverage.

Another note is that while it is technically possible, there has been no recorded case -- even with the multiple HIV panics this year -- of any first-gen performer being cleared initially but testing positive in followup testing while shooting. Indeed, there has not even been one case, not even since the original "outbreak" of 2004, where a performer has even gotten infected on the straight side of the industry directly from a porn shoot. (And in that one case, Darren James brought his HIV infection in from the outside. No, Derrick Burts doesn't count, either, because his infection occured in a condom-only gay shoot, though allegedly not while actually shooting.)

Argument #2, on the other hand, was the argument thrown out by Porno Dan Leal after his attempted coup against FSCPASS in bucking the moratorium: "Because Immoral Productions is condom only, and none of their models were part of the first-gen list, they should have been allowed to shoot; and condom-only shops should be able to shoot content during the moratorium period. Performers gotta eat and pay their bills, you know."

That sounds more less like a concern for safety, and more a concern about not getting paid; and it also sounds like a surrender to the Condom Nazis over at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who would gladly exploit such a division to say that even industry giants think that condoms are the best form of prevention, so why not just make it mandatory and abolish bareback sex altogether??

It also ignores the basic fact that my friend Ernest Greene has argued repeatedly: you cannot have mandatory testing and mandatory condoms together, because California antidiscrimination laws do not allow for the removal or even the screening of employees for HIV. AHF's argument has long been that with condoms, you don't need testing to begin with, because barrier protection really is the only legitimate form of protection from STI's..and "safe sex" can be pretty hot, and anyone who doesn't like condoms are simply putting performers at risk of death and destruction. One look at the HIV/AIDS death toll of gay performers on their side of the industry (where condoms rather than testing is the default) will dissuade most people of that fallacy.

Thankfully, there seems to be developing a sense of unity among performers and the industry, mostly because they are finally fed up with being AHF's punching bag for the past three years, and also because after three scares this past year, the sense of urgency to do something before AHF and CalOSHA overrides them has finally soaked into their brains. Let's hope that this unity lasts by the time the next panic hits...which, if I know AHF's deep pockets and ability to buy their own instigators, probably won't be too long coming.

HIV In Porn Panic, Round Three: Now With 150% Extra Porno Dan Blowback!!

Good to the ness.

So, now we have Porn Panic #3 for 2013, as on Friday the Free Speech Coalition's testing group PASS announced that a performer had tested positive for HIV, and a new moratorium is now in place, pending the prerequiste testing of first-generation partners.

Of course, the usual fear and panic has enabled the usual peanut gallery of rogues to call for mandating condoms in porn as the only alternative....but if you know this space, you know why those arguments are simply bogus.

The Real Porn Wikileaks has been the go-to source for updated info and background during this current debacle, and at least FSCPASS has been out in front from the very beginning. (A particularly timely essay by FSC CEO Diane Duke explaining the moratorium process can be found here.)

For now, it seems like this event isn't going to explode like the Cameron Bay/Rod Daily fiasco; since the affected performer has been fully cooperative with the process; and since the protocols put into place was followed, there are fewer first-gen performers to locate and test. So, it's looking like he was the only one affected, and there has been no on-set transmissions.

However...that doesn't mean that this event hasn't produced its own fireworks. When the original announcement of the positive test came out, there was the usual firestorm on Twitter from some second-level performers screaming that this latest proved the total failure of the FSCPASS system, and that only condoms would provide the better means of protection. (One such performer announced that she would only shoot condom only from here on...though she had been generally inactive from shooting porn in the past year anyways.) The AIDS Healthcare Foundation put out their usual "How long, oh how long,will we allow this industry to skip the law?" BS press release, but otherwise they have been a bit quieter than usual.

And then, there was Dan Leal of Immoral Productions.

Saturday night, FSCPASS updated that they had obtained and tested all the infected performer's first-gen partners, and that it appeared that the moratorium would probably last only a week at most when all the test results would be posted. Apparently, that was enough for "Porno Dan", because right after that announcement, he tweeted this bit:

Keep in mind, folks, that Immoral Productions has been very much in the spotlight in the Condom Wars; they have been a direct target of Los Angeles County health officials, having had their facility raided last year under the guise of Measure B; and "Porno Dan" has been pretty outspoken about both abiding by the law and about the current outbreaks.

However, this attempt to jump the FSCPASS moratorium falls under a not quite so thinly veiled agenda of undermining FSC, aided and abetted by many of the same agents that have historically not played so well with that particular agency.

After getting absolutely fricaseed and gangslammed by industry heavyweights such as Julia Ann, Axel Braun, Melissa Monet, Keiran Lee, and Brad Armstrong, among others, Leal reacted that he was just stirring stuff up, and that he would not challenge the moratorium after all. But, he got off these parting shots at Diane Duke and the FSC:

Funny, but I didn't know that FSC was obligated to get the approval of LATATA or Talent Testing Services in order to enact a measure intended to protect performers from getting infected with a potentially life-threatening disease. Plus, wasn't one of the main criticisms of the FSC during the Bay/Daily fiasco that they acted too quickly to lift the moratorium and resume shooting before all of the testing processes had been resolved??

I guess maybe that Dan Leal would much prefer Michael Weinstein determining production, then??

Don't get me wrong here, the issue of who should control performer testing is an important one, and agents, production companies, and performers should have a healthy and free debate on that matter.

When a performer becomes infected, however, all debate and infighting should cease and desist, and the focus should be placed on two issues: comforting and assisting to the full extent possible the performer(s) affected, and rallying to protect the other performers from getting infected. Anything else become simply distractions that only aid and abet the goals of Michael Weinstein and the Condom Fascists.

And in the meantime, perhaps this will fiinally galvanize the industry to unify themselves towards a single, standardized testing and screening regime for ALL performers, reinforced by full reimbursement of fees for testing, AND a pool of insurance to cover all the costs of treatment and care for those who do get sick. Either the industry gets off it and fights for their performers, or AHF and the government Condom Police will take over..with not so healthy results.

See also Dr. Chauntelle Tibals' essay on accountability here.

Dan had cited no specific medical basis for his decision, other than a subsequent tweet to the effect that he knew something the rest of us don’t. Regardless of any medical rationale, however, the political and perceptual problems caused by a public display of division on an issue of such magnitude would, as members of the adult community quickly noted, play right into the hands of those presently at war with the adult business.
Most industry veterans who spoke to TRPWL offered a simple theory to explain Dan’s move: the goal was to underscore and foster disunity, and to make the point that he and certain “others” opposed adult trade association Free Speech Coalition’s stewardship of industry matters.
In short, insiders viewed it as a purely contrarian move; an opportunistic volley in an industry power struggle. Few thought he’d actually go through with his promise to resume shooting.
- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/porno-dan-hoist-petard-announcing-defy-production-moratorium/#sthash.GrsUZ6FB.dpuf

Dan had cited no specific medical basis for his decision, other than a subsequent tweet to the effect that he knew something the rest of us don’t. Regardless of any medical rationale, however, the political and perceptual problems caused by a public display of division on an issue of such magnitude would, as members of the adult community quickly noted, play right into the hands of those presently at war with the adult business.
Most industry veterans who spoke to TRPWL offered a simple theory to explain Dan’s move: the goal was to underscore and foster disunity, and to make the point that he and certain “others” opposed adult trade association Free Speech Coalition’s stewardship of industry matters.
In short, insiders viewed it as a purely contrarian move; an opportunistic volley in an industry power struggle. Few thought he’d actually go through with his promise to resume shooting.
- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/porno-dan-hoist-petard-announcing-defy-production-moratorium/#sthash.GrsUZ6FB.dpuf

Dan had cited no specific medical basis for his decision, other than a subsequent tweet to the effect that he knew something the rest of us don’t. Regardless of any medical rationale, however, the political and perceptual problems caused by a public display of division on an issue of such magnitude would, as members of the adult community quickly noted, play right into the hands of those presently at war with the adult business.
Most industry veterans who spoke to TRPWL offered a simple theory to explain Dan’s move: the goal was to underscore and foster disunity, and to make the point that he and certain “others” opposed adult trade association Free Speech Coalition’s stewardship of industry matters.
In short, insiders viewed it as a purely contrarian move; an opportunistic volley in an industry power struggle. Few thought he’d actually go through with his promise to resume shooting.
- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/porno-dan-hoist-petard-announcing-defy-production-moratorium/#sthash.GrsUZ6FB.dpuf

Why We Shouldn't Shoot All Of The Lawyers: VIVID's Counterbrief Response To AHF's Defense Of Measure B

To set this up right: VIVID, along with co-plantiffs Derrick Pierce and Kayden Kross, is attempting to appeal the preliminary ruling in the still ongoing Measure B appeal, in which Judge Dean Pregerson set aside certain portions of the law while upholding the main parts requiring condoms for porn shoots. They are also attempting to disqualify the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a "putative intervenor" on behalf of the law. AHF had earlier filed their own brief defending the law; linkage to that brief can be found here. (Mark Kernes' excellent breakdown of AHF's brief is here.) This brief is the plantiffs' response to AHF's brief....and as you will see, it stands on its own for its full fledged takedown of AHF's arguments and of Measure B in general.

MeasureBLawsuit_VIVIDResponseBriefToAHF.pdf

The Rebuttal Too Smart For CounterPunch To Publish: Whereas I Rebuke Gail Dines' Bullshittery

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Measure B Was Only A Missile, CalOSHA Drops The NUKE: Draft Of New Porn Regulations Released, And It's As Bad As It Gets..And WORSE (UPDATED)

[UPDATED: Scroll to the bottom of this post.]

A lot of people were under the impression that since Measure B is now getting assaulted under legal action, and the proposed condom mandate law died a brutal death in the California Assembly, the porn world would be safe from regulation now for the forseeable future.

Problem is, though, they forgot about CalOSHA and their ability to use regulations to do what official law might not accomplish. And, considering the not so thinly veiled collusion between CalOSHA and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in their mission to regulate the porn industry to death, or at least force "barrier protection" on them, it may have been not too wise to overlook them.

Well...can't overlook them now.

Tonight, CalOSHA, using the tried-and-true method of leaking to friendly supporters of their crusade (read, Mike South's blog), released their draft copy of proposed "bloodborne/sexually transmitted pathogens" prevention regulations that they plan to submit to the federal branh of OSHA for final approval.

I have converted the original .doc file to .pdf and will be uploading the file here ASAP for your personal viewing and analysis...but trust me on first reading, it is as bad as it gets...and WORSE.

Here's the quick Cliff's Notes summary of the proposed regs:

1) A new category of "sexually transmitted pathogens" is created in order to justify mandating condom usage, assuming that ALL porn performers are essentially carriers of STI's and are incapable of protecting themselves.

2) Condoms and other forms of "barrier protection" are now mandatory for ALL vaginal and anal penetrative sex, and any contact of semen/vaginal fluids with the face or internal body organs are now prohibited. Translation: no more facials or swallowing, no creampies, and no pop shots to the ass or near the vag, either. The back, the breasts, and anywhere below the knee is still apparently OK, though.

3) There is a exception from condoms (and I assume dental barriers for women) for oral sex, but that is conditioned on verification that the performers involved have undergone a stringent vaccination regime for HPV, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B, and is cleared by an approved physician....and that exception is invalidated by January 1, 2018.

4) All porn production studios are now required to have Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) -- as in safety gloves, goggles, aprons, and other mandatory equipment -- in use and accessible. In short, porn studios and personal residences are now forced to endure regulations more suited for hospitals or drug testing facilities...even though STI infections in porn are below that of the general population.

5) All porn production studios will be forced to provide a licensed physician at all shoots to verify that these regulations are being enforced, and to report any violations and/or possible infections to the local health authorities.

6) Vaccines for Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and HPV will be required of all performers, at producers expense, and even if a testing/screening program is in place that clears the performer. (What..no Hepatitis C or syphilis??)

7) Porn production companies must provide at their own expense a program of medical services and followup treatment for possible exposures. (This is a direct attack at the PASS protocols, since their screening system doesn't include as of yet followup for treatment. I'm guessing that AHF is chomping at the bit to provide those "services" through their inferior yet "free" tests, right??)

That's the bad part...here's where it gets progressively WORSE:

8) Producers are now required to log every scene, including every scene performed within the last 30 years, including personal medical information about everyone involved with each and every scene....and that includes the performers' stage and real names, addresses, and other personal info. And, they must make such info available upon request to any federal or state authority, and must maintain such information for no less than five years. (This is 2257 on steroids, y'all. Can you imagine someone like Michael Weinstein getting his hands on such a database of personal private information?? Imagine no more, because it's more than probable that AHF will take over the monitoring and the testing AND the enforcement of these regulations, and thusly will have control over this "database". NSA will have nothing on THIS.)

9) Furthermore, even if the production company should go out of business, it would be required to immediately transfer these required records to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (the federal branch of OSHA) within 3 months.

All in all, this is nothing less than an AHF/OSHA coup against the adult industry to impose their own standards and drive the industry underground or completely out of business...and all for AHF and the condom companies to have free ad placement. Other than the tube sites and illegal pirates who will now thrive on the sale of bareback porn that will, if these regulations come to fruition, suddenly become a commodity like gold, and the mainstream "simulated sex" genre who may get a boost from elimination of the hardcore competition, it's going to be pretty damn hard for any aspiring producer to survive, let alone make a profit.

Don't say that we didn't warn you of this happening.

UPDATE: I've now posted the full text .pdf version of the draft regs on Scribd. Here's a copy of the transcript:

Section 5193 1 STI Form 9 Text 10-2-13 Draft

UPDATE #2 (11-5-13) AVN has now confirmed with Cal-OSHA that the document as opposed is only a first preliminary draft document, not the final regulations. Quoting from them:

UPDATE: AVN has confirmed that the proposal referenced below was officially issued by CalOSHA, but in its current form, it is described as a "draft" rather than an actual "proposal."

Deborah Gold, the Deputy Chief of Health and Engineering Services for CalOSHA, recently stated in an email, "I believe that what is being circulated is a draft, not a proposal, and it was/is our intent to post it to the advisory committee webpage... With health regulations, Division staff sends draft proposals to Board staff for their review. Then those proposals, with comments, corrections etc. are sent back to Division staff, until a final proposal is reached.  What is being circulated is only a preliminary draft. The Board released it pursuant to a public records act request... We have had six advisory meetings which led to the current draft."

Gold also said that she is no longer the lead contact on this issue, and that those responsibilities have been assumed by Senior Safety Engineer Amalia Neidhardt, who noted in an email to AVN that the current draft has been edited from an original draft created in June, 2011. She also noted, "This draft has been sent to the Board staff for their review. It is not a rulemaking proposal at this time."

So, it seems that this draft proposal wasnt really intended to be released to the public, but was only done so through a "public records act request". So, who requested it?? Mike South??  AHF?? AVN??

Did AHF and South simply jump the gun to announce these regs as "final" even though they were clearly intended to be merely preliminaries to be adjusted for the final proposal?

And....considering that it took nearly TWO years for CalOSHA to revise their original 2011 preliminary draft document to this version, what does it say about the interagency warfare now going on within CalOSHA to tweak these proposed regulations? You'd think that if they were following the AHF template to the letter, they would have released a final edition by now....but there must be some ongoing infighting going on now.

In any case, the process is still ongoing, and we will still keep you updated should anything happen.

"Adult Performers Are Adults. Lets Try Treating Them That Way." Just Another Ernest Greene Essay

[Note by Anthony: BPPA Contributor Ernest Greene asked me to post this new essay here as a followup to his original post critiquing Tristan Taormino's change in condom policy; and also addressing the recent announcements of produer Nica Noelle (who annouced that she will require condoms for her future films, in effect adopting Taormino's new policy), and producer Axel Braun (who announced this week that he would raise minimum age of eligibility for performer in his films/videos to 21 from 18). As always, the views expressed are his alone, but you are totally free to support or oppose them on their merits as you wish. I have added embedded links for background reference and research support, but the words are as Ernest typed them.]

Adult Performers Are Adults. Let’s Try Treating Them That Way.

As expected, since I raised my objections to Tristan Taormino’s declaration via CNN that she would henceforward require performers to use condoms in all scenes she directed, I’ve been getting the usual barrage of incoming bullshit that follows any attempt to take a reason-based stand on this issue. I’ve been called all sorts of things by all sorts of people who seem united only in their rancor toward me. The ranting of Rob Black and the newly retired (how could they tell?) Gene Ross, who even AHF won’t touch with a barbecue fork, is no surprise. I’m a bit more amused by Gail Dines chiming in on CounterPunch to offer her concurrence with my view that Tristan’s new stance is politically motivated (after making sure her readers knew me as a “maker of violent pornography”). Thanks for the recognition, Gail, and since you’re so fond of primitive Anglo-Saxonisms to demonstrate that you’re not a pearl-clutching prude, I’m sure you’ll know what I mean when I suggest you take your sarcastic glee in setting one pornographer against another and stick it right up your bum. I’m not going to be drawn into rebutting your lies and nonsense any more than I would be the verbal pollution of Ross and Black, with whom you share a common contempt for the truth and an adolescent need to shock.

Now, as to those who actually think that any position I’ve taken ever in my 30 years in this industry opposes the use of condoms, get real. I was among the very first directors to speak up for condom use back in 1993, when most of this business thought of latex as an ingredient in house paint. At that time I declared that I would never work for any company or on any production that would not allow performers who wanted the right to use condoms to do so. I have never wavered a millimeter from that position and I never will. One reason I endured a decade of bureaucratic bullshit from Adam&Eve is their condom-friendly policy. I am absolutely not against performers using condoms whenever, wherever and with whomever THEY choose. I’ve got miles of footage to prove it. And BTW, I’ve recently been confronted with earlier statements in which I rejected the contention that condom porn is unsellable when, in fact, I’ve sold literally millions of dollars worth of it and still believe, as I did when I said as much to the odious Luke Ford, that condoms are nothing more than a creative challenge for good directors and not a menace to the bottom line outside of certain particularly hardcore genres.  But they are a menace to some performers, particularly female performers, as Nina has explained in her own widely quoted explanation of why she, like me, favors a condom-optional policy depending on who does what to whom and how they feel most safe doing it.

Let’s be serious here. In order for that position to be ethical, it’s necessary for performers to have such a choice unconditionally. In the same way I’m opposed to AHF, Cal-OSHA and any members of the porn community attempting to make condom use mandatory under threat of either legal sanction or economic hardship, I’m unalterably opposed to any producer or director refusing to allow performers to use condoms or doing so only after a lot of whining and then scratching the condom performer from the list of potential future hires. The choice to use condoms must be meaningful for all performers. If there is to be an industry-wide position on condom use, and eventually I suspect one will emerge, it must be one of complete acceptance of performer choice regardless of all other considerations. The choice to use or not use them must not subject the performer to economic discrimination on future productions. Nothing less can be justified if we care to preserve the credibility of our oft-repeated insistence that performers do what they do with full consent. Full consent means consent to every act they’re asked to perform and to the use of barrier protections in addition to continued universal STD testing if they so desire. 

In 1993, I favored mandatory condom use for all because we did not have effective, quick-response testing of the type we have now and understood that those performers who wanted to use condoms would be kicked out of the business unless condom use were made a universal standard. It’s not 1993 now. We do have amazingly accurate testing available to all and have proven over a dozen years, during which the het side of this industry has still seen exactly two documented instances of on-set HIV transmission in the shooting of tens of thousands of bareback sex scenes, that screening and partner tracing have reduced the danger of the most serious STD transmissions in the workplace to a vanishingly rare phenomenon. At this point I’m perfectly comfortable shooting tested performers with or without condoms, but I’m not the one in front of the camera and I’m not the one who should be making that call for those whose bodies are on the line. No one else should either. I don’t care who seeks to do this or toward what end. It’s an invasive, infantilizing affront to the intelligence and judgment of consenting adults, and consenting adults are who work in front of the cameras in porn, full stop. I do not presume to know better than they do what they need, but I can tell you with absolute certainty what they don’t need, which is anyone else telling them how to do their jobs safely under threat of whatever consequences said somebody can impose.

This industry needs to accept condom use and get over it. Those both inside and outside the industry must accept that condom use is the performer’s business only and get over it also.

I hope this dispels any misunderstanding of where I stand on this question and though I know it won’t silence all the lies and distortions surrounding that stand, I am nonetheless clearly on the record as having taken it, acted on it and pledged to continue to do so regardless of what anyone else says or thinks about it. Clear enough for the various low-information individuals who have attempted to misrepresent it in every way possible? I hope so but I’m not optimistic. Neither am I optimistic that the majority of production companies, who have sought to defend themselves against the threat of intrusive governmental regulation by insisting that they support performer choice as an alternative, will actually follow through on making their claim credible by their actions on the set. Nevertheless, they should and if they don’t they’ll eventually end up regretting it.

It is a medical fact that STDs exist in the population as a whole. It is a medical fact that porn performers, however thoroughly tested and closely monitored, possess no special immunity to these diseases. There have been instances of STD contagion, usually of the more minor sort, in porn production and there will be more in the future no matter what measures are taken. No protection is foolproof. Testing is not foolproof. Condoms are not foolproof. Even combining the two is not foolproof, as not all STDs are transmitted in the same way. Unless this industry cares to be subjected to the kinds of irresponsible, politically driven attacks that occur every time someone catches a cold on a set that have become commonplace, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink approach to the condom option must be replaced by meaningful performer choice, or the idea of performer choice is, in fact, just exactly the meaningless dodge porn’s critics allege. The FSC’s insistence on performer choice is only defensible where performer choice exists.

Now, that’s my position and I’m sticking to it, so those who insist that it’s something else are hereby cordially invited to sit down and STFU.  I do not believe that condoms are necessary for safe porn production thanks to the testing system and I don’t believe the majority of performers want to use them for all the reasons they’ve stated. However, those who do want to use them should be able to without losing work or taking crap over it from anyone. Likewise those who choose not to should suffer no repercussions from members of any opposing camps.

And while I’m defending real performer choice, I want to make it clear that I am not backing away from my objections to directors appointing themselves in loco parentis to make decisions of the most personal nature for consenting adult sex workers. I note that director Nica Noelle has fallen in line behind Tristan Taormino in insisting that her performers use condoms whether they want to or not, also in the full knowledge that these same performers will be working bareback on some other set the next day so they are really made no safer overall by such unilateral decrees in such limited circumstances. I find these heartfelt declarations no less self-serving and hypocritical regardless of the source and still find them mendacious and cynical given that such limited policies are unlikely to protect anyone to any significant extent.

Likewise I find Axel Braun’s declaration that he will use no performers under the age of 21 in his productions to be risible. Again, seemingly operating under the assumption that performers can’t be trusted with their own futures, he declares that 18-year-olds are not in a position to weigh the long-term consequences of performing in porn, an ability they will magically acquire in the following three years. This is utter nonsense. At eighteen, anyone is free to enlist in the any branch of the U.S. military, the long-term consequences of which can include maiming and death. At eighteen anyone can work in any of the ten most dangerous trades listed by The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which remain the following:

 1. Fishing

2. Logging

3. Aircraft piloting

4. Refuse and recyclable material collection

5. Roofing

6. Structural iron and steel work

7. Construction

8. Farming

9. Truck driving

10. Mining

Workers under twenty-one have been injured or killed in every one of these occupations but no one seriously suggests that they be barred from entering them until they (presumably) have their wits about them at age 21. In porn, like it or not, economic advantages accrue to early adopters. For many performers their best earning years will 18-24. Why should they be deprived of the opportunity to make the most they can out of their time here by artificially handicapping them from pursuing their ambitions starting at the same age as someone enlisting for military service or shipping out on a fishing boat? This kind of thing may make it easier for directors to don the laurels of nobility, but it accomplishes nothing of value for performers whatsoever.

 Young performers would be better served by full disclosure of the possible repercussions of their decisions going in. I doubt that Marine recruiters take 18-year-old prospects on tours of V.A. hospitals, but perhaps they should. I doubt most agents, producers and directors take new talent to a sit-down with Gauge, who retired from porn early, educated herself for three different trades and found herself excluded from those trades when her past porn activities became known.  Perhaps they should. But realistically, the most serious long-term hazard porn performers face is the lasting stigma attached to them by people who regard porn as vile and that hazard can only be mitigated by broad social change.  I see that change as no more likely than a reduction of the far greater dangers of military service by a universal rejection of war as an instrument of policy.

Young people facing hard choices in a time of declining economic mobility will not be able to avoid those choices no matter who presumes to “protect” them by interfering with their ability to make a living. That is a reality with which performers, producers, directors and politically-motivated outsiders must learn to cope. I wish the world were a gentler place that provided safe, well-compensated employment to all, but it never has been and will never be.

This does not acquit anyone of the decent responsibility to insist on reasonable standards of protection and realistic minimum ages for participation in fields having the potential to make life difficult later. But in the end, if there is to be this thing we call individual freedom, individuals must be free to make decisions they may later regret. The best thing we can do is provide them with the most complete knowledge at our disposal of what future costs they may incur as a result of making their own decisions and then getting the fuck out of the way and letting them make those decisions. They’re the ones who will have to live with them and the hard choices rightfully belong only to them.

Hey, AHF?? Do Condoms Prevent The Transmission Of Unionization Fever, Too?? (Or..How Neglecting Your True Mission Comes Back To Bite 'Ya)

You know...Malcolm X had this phrase about how chickens coming home to roost never made him sad.

Right about now, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is thusly waist deep in chicken poop...mostly of their own neglect.

You see, folks....AHF has been so busy buying performers and lobbying politicians and paying press hogs to sell their condom mandate, that they allowed their primary mission of actually treating people suffering from HIV/AIDS to kinda get stepped aside.

And now, they are reaping the whirlwind of their neglect...big time.  Stamped, with a union label.

I'll just let the Los Angeles Times (also reprinted over at The Real Porn Wikileaks) take it from here.

A group of medical providers at clinics run by an influential but controversial AIDS-focused nonprofit group have launched a bid to unionize, saying that the organization's leadership has lost sight of its mission and patient care is suffering.

Doctors, nurses and physicians assistants in the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's Los Angeles and Bay Area clinics have been engaged in a behind-the-scenes struggle with the organization's leadership for the last two months.

On July 31, medical staff members submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board, announcing their desire to organize under the National Union of Healthcare Workers.

The foundation's leadership has contested the validity of the petition, saying that some of the employees involved in the union drive are supervisors not allowed to take part in union organizing.

The organization, with a budget of $750 million, runs a network of HIV and AIDS testing and treatment facilities around the world, as well as its own pharmacies. Its 10 clinics in the Los Angeles area serve more than 7,000 patients, many of them through contracts with the county.

Local providers say that those clinics are understaffed, that there is a lack of Spanish interpreters and that there has been a push to pack more patients into the schedule each day at the expense of quality care. They say their complaints have been disregarded and that the organization is focusing too much energy on political advocacy. Those include fights with the county and with the adult film industry over attempts to mandate condom use on set as a way to reduce exposure to social diseases.

Oh, gee....don't y'all know that $750M is chicken feed compared to the risks of HIV?? After all, how in the hell can AHF be so effective without paying the full costs of treatment for our propagandists such as Darren James or Derrick Burts or Cameron Bay and Rod Daily? How else can they be so successful at buying the votes of entire city/county legislatures, and even the California Assembly, or mount their coups against whole government agencies who don't kowtow to their company line on jamming condoms down the porn industry's throats??

After all, we all know that AHF would NEVER, EVER neglect their patients, would they?? Oh, wait...

"We support AHF's mission — that's why we're all here in the first place, but we feel like they're not really carrying out their mission," said Felipe Findley, a physician's assistant at the foundation's downtown clinic.

Kim Sommers, medical director at the organization's Hollywood center, recalled that one day the clinic was so over capacity that a patient suffering from chest pains was sent home by the lone over-stressed medical assistant on duty because no one was available to give him the electrocardiogram Sommers had ordered.

But, the absolutely hilarious part is Michael Weinstein's response to this potential raid on his gravy train.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation founder and President Michael Weinstein said the union process had been "tainted" by the involvement of middle managers.

"They've got an absolute right to form a union, but right now it's been organized by people in management, and they've put a lot of pressure on rank-and-file employees," he said. For their part, employees have filed complaints alleging that the executive leadership retaliated against them for their union activities.

Weinstein said the organization is indeed focused on patient care and that changes in scheduling policies were made because the organization had lost patients when they were unable to get follow-up appointments scheduled in a timely manner. He defended the organization's political activities as a core part of its mission.

"The advocacy is who we are, and I would argue that the advocacy we do has very much helped us to improve the care in our patient centers," he said.

Oh, great....the old "they're being brainwashed by outsiders" card used by right-wing union busters everywhere.

I wonder, would Assemblyman Isadore Hall approve of all this? He is a pretty damn liberal Democrat who took all of AHF's money and pushed their bills (unsucessfully), but I'm sure that he is proud to support unionization efforts of health care professionals, right?? 

Count this Lefty as in full support of the workers there for their efforts...and if by some chance they knock some sense in Weinstein's dome and cause him to rethink his mission of substituting condoms for actual care, so much the better. Solidarity Forever, and all that.

"Scoundrel Time" Redux: Ernest Greene's Response To Tristan Taormino's Condom About Face

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Why The Huffington Post's Kathleen Miles Could Use Some Classes In Journalism 101 (Or..How Shilling For AHF Can Fry Your Brain)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.