Blog of Pro-Porn Activism

How To Run A Smear Campaign, The Sequel: Have Cal-OSHA Employees Been Trolling Porn Sites Propagandizing For Condom Mandate?? Is Water Wet??

2012-01-23T10:38:00.000-08:00

Not that this will be a big blockbusting surprise to you all, but it does stir the pot a bit.

Over at The Real Pornwikileaks, Sean Tompkins has just dropped an article there, citing "a well placed source" which charges that employees of Cal-OSHA, the state agency responsible for maintaining health and safety standards, were not quite as non-partisan as they are sworn to be regarding proposed regulations concerning "barrier protection" within porn shoots.

Actually, it's more like Cal-OSHA officials actively colluding with advocates for mandatory condoms such as Michael Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation, even going as far as anonymously and pseudomonsly posting pro-condom mandate propaganda on various porn websites and message boards.

Keep in mind that Cal-OSHA is currently in the process of drawing up new regulations involving the transmission of "infectious materials" in the production of adult films, of which part of the new proposed standards would include mandatory condoms for most if not all penetrative sex acts, dental dams for oral sex acts amongst female performers, and other forms of "protection" such as goggles, gloves, and other forms of protection for "bloodborne pathogens". (An addendum to those regulations would exempt oral sex from the mandate, but only under the conditions of rigorous testing and vaccination, with expensive follow up by a verified physcian.) This is totally independent of the successful campaign by AHF to induce the LA city council to pass into law their "condom mandate" bill which would require all porn shoots getting FilmLA permits to go condom only.

Now, some of you would have guessed that Cal-OSHA was in on the fix all along, considering the paternalistic attitude that folk like safety officer Deborah Gold showed at that classic June 7th hearing of theirs, when plenty of performers showed up to defend their right to their own choice of protection and to question why this was needed in the first place.

But, if that still wasn't enough to convince you of the gross collusion between Cal-OSHA and the AHF, perhaps this will seal your concerns:

FSC has been endeavoring to work with the Standards Board to develop new, industry-appropriate regulations to replace those haphazardly applied to the adult industry years ago absent any consultation with industry leaders. But many observers within the adult community have long believed that the fix is in.

This view was bolstered by the recent leak of a cache of AHF emails that seem to indicate a cozy relationship between AHF and Cal/OSHA officials.

The emails include references to Cal/OSHA records being sent to AHF, as well as apparent assurances by OSHA leaders that the process was tilted in favor of AHF’s agenda.

A May 24, 2011 email, from AHF attorney Brian Chase to Weinstein, indicates that, while Senior Safety Engineer Deborah Gold and attorney Amy Martin, confided they were “not at all happy about” a motion made by L.A. councilman Richard Alarcon that sought to create a mechanism of local enforcement for workplace standards for porn, the two Cal/OSHA leaders nonetheless “confirmed that the new Chief [Ellen Widess] is onboard with adding a specific [Cal/OSHA] regulation requiring condoms in the production of adult films.”

Weinstein then asked, “Will Jim Clark be the attorney for Cal/OSHA? If so we may have to educate him on the employer/employee relationship between performers and producers.”

If the latest reports are true, elements within Cal/OSHA have already made up their mind about what’s best for the porn industry, and have taken to porn news and gossip sites to spread pro-AHF rhetoric.

That would be these emails, folks.

The TRPWL article goes on to list the names of Cal-OSHA officials who might be trolling for propaganda; I'll simply refer you to their article for finding out if you've been buttonholed or shook down. I just wonder how much money Weinstein's giving them under the table...if you catch me drift.

Condom Mandate Now Officially Law In LA: Revelations And Repercussions

2012-01-18T09:40:00.000-08:00

[Updated -- scroll to bottom.]

I know that this page should be blank today in solidarity with the ongoing protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (and it's only slightly less noxious cousin, the Protect IP Act. But fuck it...this is too damn important not to comment on.

Yesterday, the LA City Council completed their collusion deal with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Cal-OSHA bureaucrats and finally passed into law the condom mandate legislation.

This was done mostly to ward off the "threat" of an initiative vote that would have taken place this coming June, but mostly, it was done so that a legal industry and its talent could be abused and used as free cannon fodder and a cash cow for the profits of Michael Weinstein, the condom companies, and the Religious Right.

Naturally, Weinstein and his allies in this are now crowing loud about how this new legislation will be the ultimate push in "protecting" porn talent from dangerous and deadly diseases, and that rumors that the industry will simply pick up their roots and leave LA are simply overblown...and besides that, as he so abruptly put it: "Wherever they go, we will find them."

And just as naturally, certain liberal elitist "sex positive" intellectuals and avant garde pornographers are also hailing this ruling as a victory for "common sense", because merely jamming condoms and dental dams down the throats of performers is merely, according to them, the equivalent of forcing motorcycle riders to wear helmets or automobile drivers to wear safety belts..in short, just a necessary and slightly uncomfortable intervention to save lives.

(And yes, that "liberal elitist sex positive" smack is coming from a even more leftist sex positive, so don't assume stuff.)

So, once again, a community of sexual dissidents are used as a stepping stone and a disposable rack by supposedly well meaning "liberals" and "communitarians" to line their pockets with cash and puff up their paternalistic and maternalistic credentials...and the targets and guinea pigs are treated as less than human and unable to even think enough for themselves to be asked their opinion on the "benelovent" ones who used trumpted up scandals and faked "panics" to seal their power grab.

But do they really think that this condom mandate will really work to meet their "objectives" of "role modeling" porn consumers to use condoms more?? Really??

If decades of condom advocacy in the general society as well as free and inexpensive access to condoms in the civilian world has not done much to increase its usage, then how in the hell do these fools think that mandating every porn scene with them will succeed any better?

If it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt time and time again that porn consumers will fundamentally reject sex scenes with condoms because they prefer unwrapped sex, then how in the hell will this legislation, if enforced, lead to anything other than legal businesses being forced out of business, and the tube site/bitTorrent underground of illegal porn piracy getting new leases on life? (Especially with the new XXX domain available for the looting??)

If it is proven that FilmLA, the permitting agency for movie shoots in LA, is simply not fitted to enforce this cockamamey scheme, then who exactly will?? The LAPD, via raids like they had in the pre-Freeman days?? A special "condom squad" of Shelley Lubben's ex-sluts or disaffected and paid AHF agents, squawking around every porn venue for any signs of unwrapped dick or undammed lesbian 69?? Cal-OSHA?? (A state agency enforcing a local city ordinance?? Bureaucracy creep much??) Or, maybe, AHF can simply use that $50-per-year fee now imposed on porn producers and talent to pay their own snitches to monitor grown adults to enforce the condom mandate?? (Course, the idea of relying on the very people you are driving out to pay for driving them out might seem a bit contradictory, but moral sex panics aren't known mostly for their deep thought of consequences.

If most porn production has already been outsourced out of LA to other venues, or, even more important, transferred to mostly homemade porn sites out of private homes, then what's to prevent the new Safe Sex Commisars from attempting to extend their reign of "protection" to private homes? Will we see the LAPD now invade Streamate or Cam Central camshows in order to embarrass performers into compliance with the mandate?

And what about the testing regime for STD's that has been crafted first by AIM and now by APHSS, which will now be essentially torched in favor of the "condoms first, don't ask questions later" policy. (And remember, because California law does not allow employers or employees to force anyone to reveal their HIV status, there can be no more testing along with condoms, so a condom breakage is the only thing standing between porn performers and a major HIV outbreak. But never fear, because you can trust AHF to provide nothing but the utmost care for those now at even greater risks.)

I'm pretty sure that the lawsuits are already being prepared to overturn this law, and that actions are already being taken by the companies and the talent to either fight this full scale or begin the process of pulling up shop. But, one thing is definitely for certain; this new "Weinstein Model" of porn "protection" will work about as well in really representing porn talent as the Swedish Model of sex work regulation is doing for prostitutes. And by "about as well" I really mean "not bloody well".

Congratulations are in store though, Mr. Weinstein. You pulled your political punches well. So, what will you do when the next real HIV porn panic resulting from acts like your boy Derrick Burts screwing off camera and removing his condom?? Or, from girls like Desi Foxx contracting HIV from side escorting and still being allowed to do porn work..and subsequenly infecting others because the condom broke??

From this day forward, Mikey, you can't blame AIM, or Larry Flynt. Anyone gets infected, it's all on your ass. You built the house of straw, now live in it and take the consequences.

Update: If nothing else scares you absolutely shitless about this new law, this comment by prominent porn attorney Michael Fattorosi (aka "Pornlaw") absolutely should. Quoted from this latest article from XBiz.com:

Attorney Michael Fattorosi, who represents numerous adult industry clients, said the ruling raises the possibility that a designated vice squad could be reassembled to investigate adult shoots.

“I fear that LAPD may be directed to resurrect a dormant unit of the Valley Vice Squad,” Fattorosi said. “Several years ago LAPD Vice had a unit devoted to investigating non-permitted adult film shoots.

Many of the more popular shoot locations were well known to the unit. The undercover officers would often gain entry to sets posing as a driver and female talent by knocking and stating at the door they were there for the next scene.

“They were often let into the set by one of the crew or other performers not realizing they were undercover officers. On rare occasions, uniformed officers would even jump fences and enter the shoot location through unlocked rear doors. Once in, they showed their badges and started to take the names of everyone on set and even confiscate tapes and hard drives as evidence.”

That would be the same LAPD that was used to harrass porn producers during the bad old days before the Freeman decision liberated porn production in California. The very same vice squad that used to terrorize performers and producers alike.

And the very same squad that busted gay porn with even more enthusiasm. You know, the very same gay porn that uses condoms. The very same gay male porn whose standards of no-testing and dependence on condoms will now be imposed on the "straight" porn industry. Using...the very same damn people who wanted to shut down porn entirely, not just enforce condoms.

Protect performers?? MY ASS!!!

(Aside note: that reference to Desi Foxx was meant to be only an example of a fictional scenario. As far as I know, she's NOT HIV+.)

How To Run A Smear Campaign: The AHF War On Porn..Errrrrrrr...Condom Mandate Campaign EXPOSED Via Email Dump

2012-01-12T10:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday morning, when I posted that the LA City Council had given preliminary approval to the proposed condom mandate legislation, I wondered whether there would be any push back from people opposed to this legislation.

Well, last night, the push came back. Did it ever.

After logging in from work, I happened to notice an email from which forwarded me to a site called Pastebin.com, which in itself featured a long series of email discussions and exchanges involving some key figures in the whole condom mandate campaign amongst AHF, Cal-OSHA, Shelley Lubben's Pink Cross Foundation, various media types, and a few individuals also affected or involved in the whole campaign. Needless to say, the reading was interesting and illuminating, to say the least.

The emails go from around April of 2010, when AHF was initiating and expanding their efforts to shut down AIM through nuisance lawsuits and forced government action, to September of last year, in the midst of the last HIV "outbreak" and the initiation of the LA city condom mandate ordinance. Mostly, it's internal communication between AHF President Michael Weinstein and legal counsel Brian Chase, and their media contingent attempting to exploit ongoing events to sell their campaign.

However, the sideshow action accompanying the main event is rather intriguing in and of itself. Appearences include: Shelley Lubben attempting to nose herself and her org in on the promotion, while AHF attempts to keep her at arms length, for the obvious reasons; former performer Tim Tirch (aka "Joe Know") playing the role of the whistleblower, even though he ultimately can't deliver the goods; Diane Grundmaison ("Desi Foxx") as the test case sacrificial lamb for undoing AIM, her pimping out her own daughter at Nevada brothels aside; Molly Hennessy-Fiske, reporter for the LA Times, doing her best to propangandize for AHF; and Derrick Burts, bi/gay Rentboy model and "Patient Zeta" for the 2010 "outbreak", pleading for money to get out of his probation problems.

The most interesting and shocking moment for me comes when Desi (nee' "Dee Grandmason") attempts to bring in Donny Long's posting of a faked up HIV+ test of retired porn actress Mercedes Ashley...and Weinstein and Chase treat it as actual legitimate test and even solicits to recruit Ashley to the cause!!! Never mind that Ashley not only refuted that charge, but countered with her own HIV test which proved negative.

There are the funnier points, too: Chase mumbling about the Ministress trying to muscle in on their operation and score some promotional points at AHF's expense; DBurts being mocked for soliciting money from the "Bail Twinks Out Of Jail" account; Weinstein bitching at a Canadian TV program for "favoring" Nina Hartley over Darren James in their coverage of the 2010 "outbreak"; Lubben lobbing the charge at LukeIsBack.com that they allowed "known bondage film producer who promotes violence against women" Ernest Greene to post comments against them (I guess she forgot that Ernest is the husband of Nina "contracted chlamydia 4 times" Hartley, right??)...etc., etc.

But please, don't take my word for it. Just go over to Pastebin.com and take a looksee for yourself.

Or, if you wish, just go over to my Red Garter Club blog, where I have posted as a special page a slightly redacted copy of the email dump.

BTW...Michael Whiteacre has posted a nice analysis/timeline relating the emails to the ensuing events over at LukeIsBack.com; Part 1 can be found here, Part 2, here.

A point of clarification: there may have been the implication that since I had originally learned of the Pastebin.com article from Michael Whiteacre, he must have been one of those responsible for the release of the data. That is entirely FALSE, and I can vouch to the fact that he himself was forwarded the link from others, whom also emailed me; and that is his ONLY involvement regarding this matter.

LA Porn Panic 2012: The Requiem - LA City Council Clears Way For Condom Mandate Bill...The End Or The Beginning?

2012-01-11T09:25:00.000-08:00

Sorry that I've been away this past few weeks, but other business took precedence.

But, this latest is enough to bring me back, and it's a blockbuster.

It seems that Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation finally got their way with the Los Angeles City Council in his attempt to bypass his own initiative for mandating condoms on porn shoots.

You will remember originally that the LA City Attorney's office had filed suit to block the proposed initiative from being sent to the voters in LA in June, citing legal and financial issues.

Well, all that money that AHF sent to the LA City Council got them some results, because they were able to browbeat the Attorney's office to dismiss their suit and tenatively pass their own legislation mandating condoms in porn shoots through approvals through FilmLA.

Here's how the Huffington Post wrote the story (via LukeIsBack.com):

LOS ANGELES — An ordinance that would require porn actors to wear condoms during film shoots was tentatively approved by the City Council on Tuesday.
The council voted 11-1 for the proposal. The ordinance still requires a second vote next week for final approval.
Under the ordinance, porn producers would have to provide and require the use of condoms on set in order to obtain permits to film in the nation’s second-largest city.
Approval of the ordinance would supersede a proposed ballot initiative by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The group has long advocated for mandatory condom use in adult films and urged council members to approve the ordinance.
"This long struggle to move us to a place of making Los Angeles a safe place to make adult films has taken a huge leap forward today," said foundation President Michael Weinstein, referring to advocacy work and legal attempts to create a mandate for condoms in porn and to enforce it.

[...]

The council also agreed to form a group comprised of law enforcement, state occupational safety regulators, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and other stakeholders to hammer out how to enforce the new rules.
The council also voted unanimously to drop a lawsuit filed by the city attorney against the foundation aimed at stopping its proposed ballot measure.

I'm assuming that "other stakeholders" will NOT include actual porn performers who will be forced under this potential law to wear condoms against their stated will or be denied their paychecks and livelihoods, right??

As for that lawsuit? Well, it was dropped when AHF reached a deal where they would pay the legal fees for any challenges to the law forthcoming, releasing the LA City Council from any liability.

In other words, the fix was in from the very beginning, and AHF's economic might and capacity for bribery ultimately carried the day...or at least, will when the proposal gets final approval next week.

So...does this mean the beginning of the end for porn production in Los Angeles?? Will the major companies (VIVID, Wicked, DP, and so on) simply adjust to the new regime and once again condomize their performers?? Will other companies simply uproot to new venues or simply go overseas to less stringent regulatory markets, leaving performers fundamentally to the whims of the underground?

What about the replacement of the testing regime that has basically worked well to contain STI panics with a "just wear the damn condom, and trust it not to break" mentality that generates huge bucks for Lifestyles and Durex, but puts performers at even greater risks?? (Remember, they won't be able once the new condom regime kicks in to inquire whether or not their partner is HIV+ or not, thanks to California anti-HIV+ discrimination law.)

And, how about the total undermining of all the work done to fight against porn piracy...because we all know that the majority of fans wanting bareback porn will go to great extents to get it...and if they won't get it through legitimate channels, they will just go through free tube sites and bitTorrents and message boards.

But it gets worse....if AHF is genuinely serious about their stated goal of protecting people from STI's through massive condom usage, then how in the hell do they enforce the law against home-grown porn websites or simply people using their own camphones and websites to put out bareback sex?? Will we ultimately get a "condom police squad" raiding the Internet and targeting sites which don't wrap their schlongs?? Or, maybe, they team up with the dotXXX folk and announce legislation that forces all uncondomized sex portrayals into the .XXX domain under threat of censorship or jail time?? (Thus making lots of instant bank for both AHF AND ICM.)

I'm so sure that some of the more elitist "sex-positive" liberal gurus (Violet Blue, Dr. Gloria Brame, Tony Comstock) and the more avant garde porn artistes (Mike South) will welcome this new age of "safer sex protection", since they will be the ones most likely to profit from more mainstream porn getting smashed. And, I'm just as certain that certain antiporn "activists" (yes, Ministress, I'm looking straight at you), are practically creaming in their blessed panties in anticipation of the new potential of fresh recruits when performers are forced underground into far more dangerous venues to make their livelihood.

In the meantime...if I was a porn addict...ahhhh, I mean, porn connisseur, I'd seriously start investing on some external hard drives..the more space, the better. All the more to store up all that old porn that you will have to do with once wrapped sex becomes the rule.

Happy Freakin' New Year, indeed.

LA Porn Panic 2011/2012: The Series Continues: Mike Weinstein Gets His Condom Mandate Initiative On LA Ballot For Next June

2011-12-02T07:44:00.001-08:00

Things are now about to get real, folks.

Yesterday, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation released a press statement and had a press conference announcing that his proposed initiative mandating condom usage for all porn shoots in the greater Los Angeles area had gotten past the necessary 48,000 signatures to appear in the ballot for June of next year.

The presser was done to coincide with World AIDS Day (yes, because you know that only porn stars and gay men get HIV/AIDS, get it???) and to give Weinstein yet another chance to play verbal roulette with the truth.

Using his dedicated front group, the oxymoronically acronymed "F.A.I.R" ("For Adult Industry Accountablilty"), Weinstein was all a flutter about getting his precious initiative going, even with the progress of Cal-OSHA's making their own regulations on mandating condoms and other "barrier protections" for porn performers against their stated will.

So much so, in fact, that he wasn't even willing to wait until the vote next June; he wants the L. A. City Council to use the sigs to enact the proposal NOW. As in, before Chiristmas.

Don't believe me?? Here's a direct quote from the AHF press release (via here):

“Producers of adult films are required by California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 to use barrier protection, including condoms, to protect employees during the production of adult films,” said Brian Chase, Assistant General Counsel for AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “However, many producers of adult films in Los Angeles consistently violate the worker safety provisions of this Code. In addition, pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, producers of all films within the City of Los Angeles, including adult films, are also required to obtain film permits. Such permits issued may contain conditions ‘consistent with public health, safety and general welfare.’ We believe the city already has the authority to tie film permits to condom use—this ballot measure will allow Los Angeles voters to weigh in and make certain this happens.”

And here's a direct quote from Weinstein himself at the press conference, as captured by AVN's Mark Kernes (full article here):

Perhaps the most important point for the adult industry, aside from the announcement that AHF had apparently collected more than enough signatures to put its mandatory-condom initiative on the ballot in June, was the claim by AHF president Michael Weinstein that if city clerks, doing a random check of petition signatures, find that the initative has qualified for the June ballot, that enacting an ordinance needn't wait for voter approval.

"At that point [after the signatures have been checked], the city council will have 20 days to enact the ordinance as is, or else it will go to the June ballot," Weinstein said. "We're very confident of victory in the election. Certainly, we think it is primarily the responsibility of the city council to enact this measure, and we hope that their consciences will be pricked and they will do the right thing and do that, but we're perfectly prepared to move forward.... We will be making an announcement shortly about actions we're going to take to move the agenda along at the county level as well."

Of course, Weinstein seems to have forgotten that the second the condom mandate even becomes law, it will be hit with a tsumami of lawsuits challenging its legality...never mind the fact also that I'm guessing that LA doesn't have anywhere close to the funding to effectively enforce such a broad-reaching law. But, then again, all those potential condom dollars from Lifestyles and Durex must still be affecting his brain cells.

To further buttress his case, Weinstein bought out his crewe of sycophants and "several former actors" in the adult industry" (at least, that's what his press statement promised)...which turned out to be two actors. But oh, how interesting they were.

Testimonial #1 was from none other than Derrick Burts, the eye of the 2010 "porn scare", who waxed real good about how easy it was for him to get all kinds of STI's from unprotected sex and how only condoms would have saved him. (From Kernes again)

Burts, who "works alongside the AIDS Healthcare Foundation" and claimed to have been infected with chalymdia, herpes, gonorrhea and HIV after performing in adult movies (straight and gay) for just four months, opined, "I think it's very safe and fair to say that in this industry as a worker, when you're not wearing barrier protections, the likelihood of you getting an STD is extremely high."

Perhaps more interesting was Burts' claim that, "One thing I always point out time and time again, is that testing is not enough because there's too big of a time frame where we can go out and have sex with someone in the general public—you know, a lot of performers, female performers go out and have sex in the general public—male performers as well—and we go back to work on a porn set and we can easily spread that before testing again."

Ahhh, yes...the old "we porn stars are just too slutty to protect ourselves, so we need the State to intervene for our own good and jam condoms down our throats" card. Funny, but having someone who managed to infect himself in a scene WITH A CONDOM INCLUDED, who openly boasted of being an active bisexual swinger, and who even managed to use a negative AIM test to pimp himself for Rentboy.com, is hardly the best person to use to promote sexual restraint. (Also, go here and here to see more of DBurts playing fast and loose with the facts.)

The other former actor to take advantage of AHF's crying towel was Darren James, whom at least has a bit more cred as the centerpiece of the notorious 2004 HIV outbreak that actually did claim 4 female performers (Lara Roxx included).Like Burts, James pitied the fact that his life essentially changed after his HIV infection, and naturally, he blamed not having a condom on during the scene:

"People are going to buy porn regardless," James argued. "The fans that I've seen on the street, they could care less. They just want to see performers. If that means that a guy can't use a condom, you get a better actor that can use a condom... It's gonna sell. Don't believe all the directors talking about—they try to use every kind of scapegoat they can to get out of it, but it all comes down to the same thing: You gotta stick by the condom. The condom is the only way because just testing—that's what I thought: Just getting a test was saving me. And look at me now: I'm HIV-positive. The tests don't mean nothing; it's after the fact." (excerpted from Kernes)

So, Mr. James...why weren't you willing to stick to your own words when you had that tryst in Brazil before doing that scene?? Or..why didn't the obvious anal sores on Lara Roxx's buttocks raise the red flag that something was more than a bit wrong and that maybe it should have been time to bail out?? Viruses don't invade by themselves, you know..you have to get them and spread them.

And don't even begin to start me on the claim that James and/or Roxx might have been infected before that infamous shoot, due to they shooting in Canada..see this story.

The other spokesperson there was Brian Chase, AHF's chief legal counsel, who riffed on how the condom mandate would be enforced if the initiative was ratified or passed. Apparently, he thinks that FilmLA, the organization that permits movie shoots in Los Angeles, can be induced to enforce the law:

"Everyone knows that when you go the city to get a permit, that permit comes with some conditions," Chase stated. "If a mainstream film studio wants to get a film permit and there's going to be pyrotechnics, then they have to have safety measures; they have to have the fire department involved. When you get a construction permit for your house, that means you've got to follow all the rules regarding workplace safety for construction workers. It's the exact same thing in the adult film industry. We have regulations saying that when workers might be exposed to the threat of disease, they have to be protected with barrier protection. In the context of adult films, that means condoms. This is a law that already exists, but this industry seems to believe that it's above the law, that it can just ignore the law and get away with it. It can't, and we're going to continue to do whatever we can, including going to the voters, to put pressure on this industry to start protecting its workers."

Yes. but FilmLA does not have a charter to impose rules for condoms on porn shoots, and I don't see LA giving them the money to do so (otherwise, that would be called an "unfunded mandate", which is a no-no politically). But, Chase and Weinstein have an out for that: just let either the LA County Dept. of Public Health or Cal-OSHA take over the enforcement. The former, though, wants out of the condom police biz altogether after being burned far too often, and the latter already has enough powers through fines and raids (and is currently seeking to change the regs to force the mandate via "barrier protection" enforcement".

Just as interesting as who was there, though, was who was absent.

Like, for example, any active current porn performer, even though there are more than a few who do support the idea of more condoms in porn.

Also...no females this time; you'd think that Weinstein would want to avoid the stigma of having men lecture female performers on protecting themselves.

But the biggest absence of this drama?? No Ministeress!!!

Apparently Shelley Lubben has become much too radioactive for even the folks at AHF to recruit her ministry for propaganda's sake, thanks to the allegations that "Madelyne" (the former Michelle Avanti) raised against her and her Pink Cross Foundation. Either that, or Shelley's decided to focus her audience for her book on her fundamentalist Christian roots, and palling around with a liberal gay organization would get in the way. (Not that she's not doing her deeds en rogue, her YouTube page just put out a video of the presser, albeit altered to make it seem as if she was there.)

And if you remember, Clones, Shelley and Pink Cross was all over the original presser in June announcing the initiative; she even had her present protege Jan Meza pose in the background.Whether this is a permanent break or simply part of the strategy of divide and conquer, we shall see.

In any rate, maybe it's time for the industry to get past their differences and pull together and fight this nonsense. It's only your profession, you know.

How NOT To Sell Your Own Book: Ministress Lubben Offers Free Copies Of Her "Truth Behind The Fantasy Of Porn"...Yet Her First Story Turns Out To BE A Fantasy

2011-11-04T21:01:00.000-07:00

[Crossposted from my Red Garter Club blog]

Well...it seems that either sales are not going so well for Shelley Lubben, or she's that willing to expose herself to even more criticism about her tactics..because she just announced that she's giving out free PDF copies of her book "The Truth About The Fantasy Of Porn" to anyone who visits her site (of course, if you want an autographed hard copy of the book, you will still have to pay).

Shelley's even gone as far as to break off an announcement to none other than LukeIsBack.com. expressing the hope that porn performers surfing there would be willing to read her book and go through all the changes and epiphanies that she went through on the road to peace and glory through the "salvation of Jesus Christ".

That's all fine and good, and her perfect right to do so.

Problem is, that if you are going to open yourself like that by offering your book to anyone passing by, Ministeress, you might want to prepare yourself that it will face scrutiny and constructive critique for its shortcomings and fallacies.

I just so happened to get my own PDF copy of the book, and have given it the once-over. I'll possibly provide a much more detailed fisking of the tome later on when I have more time to really digest what Shelley printed.

However, if the first chapter -- if not the first footnoted factoid -- is of any measure, Lubben's still up to her old tricks of playing fast and loose with the facts.

Let's try this nice tibit from Page 2:

But the multi-billion dollar porn industry wants you to believe
the fantasy that we porn actresses love sex. They want you
to buy into the lie that we enjoy being degraded by all kinds of
repulsive acts. Creatively edited films and prettified packaging
are designed to brainwash consumers into believing that the
lust we portray on hot and bothered faces are part of the act.
But the reality is women are in unspeakable pain from being
slapped, bit, spit upon, kicked and called names like “filthy little
whore” and “toilet cunt.”

While filming the movie “Rough Sex 2,” porn star Regan
Starr described in horrific terms in an interview with Talk Magazine
in February, 2001, “that while sex acts were performed on
her, she was hit and choked until she couldn't breathe. Other
“actresses,” she said, “wept because they were hurting so badly.”
(1)

Now, I will defer for another time and a more detailed analysis Lubben's meme about how women are so degraded and abused in the making of porn, or the gall of a woman who hasn't made an active video in 20 years deciding to make herself the voice of ALL porn performers.

It's this reference to Regan Starr, though, that bears attention.

Here's the related footnote attached to the end of the book:

1. Regan Starr Interview. Talk Magazine, http://www.cwfa.org/articles/
3838/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm, February 2001.

It would be a very helpful link...if it worked. Problem is, it doesn't.

The actual domain is NOT to TALK Magazine, but to the site of the very antifeminist, and aggressively antiporn Concerned Women of America website...and not even their section on "Pornography" lists any such interview. (In fact, their articles only go back as far as 2009.)

Not even a Google search could find any reference to an Regan Starr interview with Talk Magazine...other than one reference to another infoblab found at another antiporn website called Against Pornography (www.againstpornography.org), which cites what is alleged to be testimony from Ms. Starr quoted from yet ANOTHER antiporn site (victimsofpornography.org):

"Porn performer Regan Starr, in an interview with Talk magazine in February 2001, described her experience while filming "Rough Sex 2" in horrific terms. She said that, while sex acts were performed on her, she was hit and choked until she couldn't breathe. Other “actresses,” she said, wept because they were hurting so badly. In the same article, a sex-film star notes how threatening the work is to performers’ health. “Nearly everyone has STDs [sexually transmitted diseases],” said Chloe. “If you’re a porno performer,” she continued, “your latest HIV test is your work permit. ... The tests we take test only for AIDS. We’ve contained AIDS in the industry, but what about all the others? You know we’re now up to hepatitis G?"
-- Source: victimsofpornography.org/

Well, now...you can't defend that, can you?? I mean, that's her iron clad story, so it must be as Shelley wrote it...right??

Not quite, Clones.

Long time serious TV journalist Linda Ellerbee had a consistent saying to warn people to dig inside the stories and not just take them at face value: "People say that the camera doesn't lie, but people can lie with a camera."

In this case, Shelley's big lie assumes that no one would ever actually seek to find the actual interview that Regan Starr made in which she made those remarks...and the proper context in which she made them.

Turns out that it wasn't Talk Magazine where the "choked" and "abused" comments originated; rather, it was an interview (warning: link NSFW) that Regan did do with the website of Excalibur Films, which interviews a lot of porn performers. They don't give out the exact date of the interview, but from the text of Starr's comments, that had to be right about that time of January 2001.

The interviewer was long time porn critic/commentator/director Roger T. Pipe, and from the looks of that interview, Regan sure didn't sound like someone who was so abused and victimized from her time in porn.

Roger T. Pipe Well, this is an interesting interview. We've just finished shooting Regan Star for the final scene of a pro-am movie and she's sitting here with me in the bathtub, naked. I guess we don't have to bother with the whole topless requirement this time around. Regan, thank you for taking time out to talk with me and your fans on the internet, and thank you for letting me sit here and enjoy a bath with you.

Regan Starr But you're not in the bath with me.

Roger T. Pipe I know, but believe me, I'm enjoying it all the same.

Regan Starr Yes, and I'm enjoying some champagne and would love the company.

Roger T. Pipe Maybe later. You just shot a scene with…(To the man about to leave the room.) Hey you, what's your name?

Jay Jay Hitchcock.

Roger T. Pipe Oh yeah, Jay Hitchcock. You just shot a scene with Jay, how was it?

Regan Starr Very good. His dick was very, very hard and quite big. It grew a great deal from where it was when we started so I was quite surprised.

Roger T. Pipe There were lots of hard dicks on the set, you just couldn't see them all.

Regan Starr Well, I was concentrating on the scene and they were all concealed in pants so I missed them. Think you could show me one?

Yup..naked in the bathtub, right after finishing up a particularly satisfying scene. Yeah, a definite Pink Cross recruit right there.

"But, hold on, 'Dog," I hear you thinking, "She did say all those things about being choked and slapped during those porn scenes, right? Is Shelley lying, or what?"

Well...yes, she does..but it's not about porn as a whole, but about ONE particular scene in ONE particular video for ONE particular company...namely, the notorious Anabolic Productions, who has built themselves a reputation for being more than a bit aggressive with their female performers. THIS is in fact what Regan actually said (emphasis added by me):

Roger T. Pipe We'll get back to the sex life later, but we were heading towards a topic. We established that with Max it was all play acting, but you're in the middle of another situation that is a little closer to home, a little more real.

Regan Starr Right. I know where you're going with that, so I'll just take over. Anabolic has put out a second tape in their Rough Sex line. In the video the women are the victims and the men are the perpetrators. The men get direction to literally perpetrate and abuse women in the videos. Anabolic thinks that it's validated because they say that they talk to the women about the video before hand. They say that the women are told that they are going to be smacked and yelled at then asked if it's still OK. The difference between this sort of film and one by Max Hardcore is that Max is the type of person who will go with what you are feeling. He may ask kinky things of you, but he will not intentionally beat you or hurt you emotionally without a very strong indication that he is acting. With Rough Sex 2, where my scene appeared, they called me a week before the shoot to ask me if I would be interested in this sort of film. Having done Max's films, I figured I wouldn't mind being pinched, spanked or talked dirty to. That's pretty common in porn. Every video you see is rougher than at home sex. It's for effect and for the audience. I really don't think Anabolic is putting out a positive vibe to the audience because they are filling their movies with women crying and being hit full force by men twice their size. Even though they talk to women before the scene, the women don't expect to get the shit kicked out of them. No one wants that, so why would they have a video that is completely real and in your face. It's absolutely wrong and I stand by my statement that even though they told me what the video was going to be like, they didn't tell me it was going to be physical abuse and that I shouldn't do it if I was sensitive or faint at heart. They should have said, hey Regan, this is absolutely real. Mickey G is going to strangle you. Mickey G is going to pick you up by your hair. He is going to throw you to the floor and make you cry. He is going to do all these things and we are going to keep filming. If they had said this to me, do you honestly think that I would have agreed to film with that company? I would have walked my ass out. I had no idea that the video was real. I had no idea that I was going to walk out of there traumatized and crying. They have a disgusting line and I think that it should be banned. I think it's completely wrong.

In other words, Regan Starr's major beef is directed SPECIFICALLY towards Anabolic and their Neanderthalish violent attitudes towards their female performers...and she even goes on to praise none other than MAX freakin' HARDCORE for his remarkable restraint!!

What....you say that I'm lying about Regan's love for Max Hardcore?? Here's a money quote from earlier in the interview:

Roger T. Pipe Before we get into the whole Rough Sex thing, I have to ask you, what's the deal with you and Max?

Regan Starr Max Hardcore is a good friend of mine and I don't think I will ever talk badly about him because he always gave me the respect I deserved. His scenes are always rough and the scenes he did with me are probably among the roughest of anything he has done. However, we had an understanding that it was fake and we were acting. There is a big difference between acting and realism. Max was rough, he was kinky and he pushed the limits, but he was also able to stop the cameras and be Max off camera while I was taking a breather and preparing for whatever vulgarity might come next. I will never bad mouth Max because of the respect. He talks to me like a human being and like I have brains. He would never do anything to me that I didn't want him to do. There was nothing in those films that I wouldn't do for someone else.

Of course, not every female porn performer would agree with that sentiment regarding Max Hardcore....but it does tell how different performers may have different reactions to different things, and how you just can't reduce individual tastes to groupthink conclusions.

Naturally, it's a mystery why Lubben wouldn't actually link the original interview and show the world that Regan Starr had an real genuine issue with one particularly bad porn company which could have been legitimately accused of mishandling and abusing their talent.

Actually, it's not so much a mystery, because Shelley's only interest is in merely rehabitating the usual antiporn talking points, distorting Regan Starr's testimony about Anabolic to indict the entire porn diaspora and find herself more prime recruits to use for her own ministry.

And to think that this is only her first footnote. I hesitate to see what other distortions and errors are in store. And, I'm sure that with Shelley Lubben, I'm betting the over every time.

Update (11/20/11):

Well…turns out that my Google search skills might need some fine tuning.

Reader Matt Scott just commented that there was indeed a Talk Magazine column that featured Regan Starr’s original comments about her not-so-excellent experiences with Anabolic Productions. I’ll simply reprint his comment verbatum:

Taking your advice to not take things at face value, I decided to look for the actual article referred to in both cases as the ‘Talk Magazine article.’ There is in fact such an article; it was written by journalist and novelist Martin Amis, appearing in the February 2001 issue of Talk Magazine under the title “Sex in America” (February 2001, pp. 98-103, 133-35). The same article was republished under the title “A Rough Trade” in The Guardian newspaper on Sat. 17 March 2001 and also on their website: http://tinyurl.com/yeewyo4 The article has since been republished by the Vintage imprint of Random House under the title “Porno’s Last Summer” in a collection of Martin Amis’s work called Vintage Amis (2004, pp. 174ff.) The quotes used by both Shelley and the Against Porn website are verbatim excerpts from the Amis article and do not originate from the interview by Roger T. Pipe. I’m sure you’ll be interested in having this information at your disposal.

My sincere thanks and appreciation to Mark for making that correction to the record.

Now, it should be noted that the original citing used by Shelley in her book does NOT cite Amis or the Guardian article, but an excerpt posted to the Concerned Women of America website…which, unfortunately, can’t be found. Why the Ministeress decided to use that source for her citation, and not use the original Amis citing or the Guardian article (or even, the citing from the antiporn website VictimsofPornography.org that I cited from my own Google search), is a mystery only she or her ghostwriters can answer. Perhaps she didn’t want to cite a putative left-of-center source for fear of alienating her target audience of right-wing fundamentalist Christian men (many of whom might also have been the biggest viewers of her porn movies when she was still playing “Roxy”). Or..perhaps it’s simply just another case of slipshod analysis and sourcing. I guess we’ll never really know, shall we??

The HIV Porn "Scare" Redux: "Patient Zeta" Derrick Burts Attempts To Clear Himself, Yet Only Suceeds In Raising More Questions

2011-10-22T20:17:00.000-07:00

A lot of 'ya may have been wondering about what would happen to Derrick Burts, "Patient Zeta" of last year's HIV porn scare, and current poster boy for the condom mandate.

In case you missed it, last time here we chronicled the fact that some matters of criminal procedings might prevent Burts from attending a proposed panel discussion over at UCLA concerning the representation and protection of porn performers. If you remember, Burts was under an arrest warrant for violating not one, but TWO probations in the LA metro area, and it was seriously problematic whether he would be able to make it to the panel discussion.

And as it turned out, he was indeed a no-show on November 16th. The panel, though, according to tweets from Danny Wylde, who was one of the other panelists (NIca Noelle of the Adult Performers Association was there as well), was not nearly as mercurial as the last panel discussion they had, and not worthy of any breathtaking breaking stories.

That didn't prevent Burts, however, from making some news of his own.

Apparently, Derrick has been surfing the Internet and reading up on all the scuttlebutt regarding his behavior, because he decided to write an email to Cindi Loftus over at LukeIsBack.com, in which he attempted to, in his own way, clear the air finally about how he got infected with HIV while shooting gay porn during September 2010.

You will recall that Burts' explanations of how he got infected have pretty much changed with the Southern California weather. First, he claimed that he got infected in a hetero shoot; then he said that he was infected in a gay shoot with a condom, where the condom broke; THEN he slightly modified that story to say that there was no condom breakage, but that the other guy took off the condom and popped off on his back and butt, and some semen leaked into his anal cavity...and THEN he changed THAT to say that maybe it was a dirty and infected "cum rag" in which he wiped his butt off after the shoot was how he got infected.

Well with this iteration, the man also known as Derrick Chambers and Cameron Reid now takes a new tact. I'll just quote the email that Cindi posted to LiB in its entirity and let you marinate it for a spell.

You will notice that he figures he's addresses his letter to "Luke", as if he's unaware that the former Luke Ford is now in retirement.

Luke,

I typically don’t respond to articles that are written about me that are industry insiders or industry blogs. I do however want to clear a couple things up for you.

The reason I did not attend UCLA’s Porn Panel was do to the fact that I was in Orlando Florida on vacation with my family. I have always made my Facebook public for anyone to see, and I often post updates with my where abouts.

You are correct, I did attend my court hearing and I have a great attorney taking on my case. As far as outstanding warrants in Orange County and Los Angeles..those have recently been addressed. My warrant in Orange County was due to an unpaid court balance that I was un aware that I still owed for a wet and reckless I got almost two years back. The warrant for LA was for failure to appear to my last court hearing to give an update on my classes because again, I was out of state at the time. I am in no way a hard criminal and I have a total of two misdeameanors on my record.

In case you were never informed, or maybe you didnt read the press articles, Los Angles County Health Officials confirmed that I not only worked with one, but two HIV positive performers that were confirmed by my agency that I worked with. As a matter of fact, the Center for Disease Control did a huge report on the entire issue and did an in depth investigation.

The way I contracted HIV was through Oral because I had gonoreah in the throat at the time. Even AIM can confirm that I tested positive for gonorhea and I was given a couple pills to get rid of it. I did a gay shoot where testing was not required due to condoms being worn on set. If you do your research you will find that you are three times more likely to get HIV if you have an active std in your body. At that time I had herpes and gonorhea.. Making it very possible to get it oraly.

Regardless of how people think I got HIV doesn’t really matter. The fact is that I got it, I could have very easily given it to other performers in the industry before testing again, and testing is not enough.

I do take responsibility for my actions and of course I knew the risk of working in this industry. I am doing great and I am making the most out of my situation.

To clear the record… AHF is not paying me in any way, and it is the state that is paying for my medications along with the Ryan White Foundation.

Before posting stories please make sure you have your facts straight.

Thanks,
Derrick

Let us break it down piece by piece, shall we??

Yeah, right, Derrick...you bailed out on the UCLA panel because you were on vacation in Florida. Sure...I mean, you did ultimately resolve the issue of your active arrest warrants, but still...why schedule yourself to attend and participate on a panel if you aren't going to follow up on your promise??

Next...."an unpaid court balance"?!?!? Really, Mr. Burts?? Is that what felony burglary and laundering charges mean to you?? Especially when you are under TWO probations in TWO different jurisdictions?? That's pretty damn close to "a hard criminal" record there, D. Especially to those of us who have never committed such crimes.

But it's this latest and newest "gonorrhea of the throat" excuse that really gets me interested. Now, I do know that there is such a thing as throat gonorrhea, and it is somewhat possible for someone who has serious abrasions or throat infections (such as strep throat) to also contact STI's from someone who is infected via oral sex leading to swallowing spooge. Problem is, though...unless someone is deep throating to the extreme, isn't it pretty much a rarity for someone to become infected from oral sex?? And, if both partners in the act are infection free, then there should be really no issue whatsoever about oral sex being a possible risk of STI infection...right??

On the other hand, if in addition to doing gay porn shoots, you also happen to escort on the side and swing heavily with active gay sex partners who aren't so careful about protecting themselves, I'd guess that "gonorrhea of the throat" would be a much more probable threat for you.

But...who am I to question Derrick, when a far better person who has been on the case can do so.

Entre vous, Mr. Michael Whiteacre, who used LiB's comment section to rebut Burts' latest claims.

October 17th, 2011 at 11:24 p
Michael Whiteacre Says:

Since AIM no longer exists — thanks to Mr. Burts’ buddies at AHF — it would be rather difficult for them, at this point, to confirm that he’d had gonorrhea of the throat.

But if he indeed had gonorrhea at the time of his last AIM test — September 3, 2010 — and was given antibiotics, why did he still have it more than 8 days later when he was shooting in Florida?

And if he was shooting scenes prior to the time the antibiotics required to run their course, it was HE who was recklessly and selfishly placing other performers at risk.

He writes, “Los Angles County Health Officials confirmed that I not only worked with one, but two HIV positive performers that were confirmed by my agency that I worked with.” That’s interesting because Burts’ agent for the gay shoots he did in Florida was a Florida agent, Howard Marr of FabScout. What was LA County doing investigating Florida shoots?

The only valid reason for any LA County investigation would be because Mr. Burts chose to shoot a gay sex scene after returning from Florida, when he was at his most infectious, without bothering to update his test at AIM (because gay shoots don’t require a current test). He cared so little for the well-being of the performers he now claims to want to help and protect that he placed another male performer — and every other sexual partner — at grave risk by allowing his AIM test to lapse.

Could it be that among those “Los Angles County Health Officials” was Mr. Mark Roy “Wolverine” McGrath, who worked previously for UCLA and is now employed by AHF?

And, why did Mr. Burts’ his agent book him to shoot with HIV-positive talent? Maybe testing would have been a good idea. Mr. Burts, wouldn’t you have liked to know whether your scene partners were HIV-positive?

Burts also writes, “Testing is not enough.” That’s an odd statement to come from someone who CHOSE to have sex in a segment of the business that does not test, but relies only on condoms. Wouldn’t it be more logical — in light of the manner in which he claims to have contracted HIV — to state “Condoms are not enough”?

How did he contract gonorrhea of the throat? Since it’s far more likely to be contracted through fellating an infected male partner, and since the gay side of the industry does not test for STIs, isn’t it more than likely that he contracted it on that side of the industry?

IF — and it’s a big if — Derrick Burts contracted HIV while performing in front of the cameras, it was because of the glaring problems inherent in the wild wild west that is gay porn production.

So why isn’t Michael Weinstein going after the gay side of the porn industry to push for a testing regime instead of forcing condoms on the “straight” side? Because 1) he doesn’t want to (further) alienate AHF’s base, 2) there’s more juicy mainstream press to be had by taking on Larry Flynt and Steve Hirsch, and 3) condoms are an intrinsic part of the marketing of AIDS fear and hysteria.

Finally, Cindi, I have to take issue with your statement, “the only way to get the truth out is to talk directly to the person who is living in the situation.” With respect, that is nonsense. Getting an email from the subject doesn’t mean you’ll get the truth, it means you’ll get his side. The twain often never meet.

In any case, Mr, Burts has answered none of the real, troubling questions raised in articles published over the last month on various sites.

Now...let's remember, Clones, that during that classic presser last September where Mike Weinstein, DBurts, Ministress Shelley Lubben/Jan Meza, Darrin James, and the rest of the Condom Mandate Army were so busy milking the latest HIV "scare" for their LA condom mandate initiative, Weinstein had made note that the Free Speech Coalition had damn well better stop "stonewalling" and hindering the "investigation" over that particular scare. (You know..the one which turned out to be a false positive??) Maybe DBurts got his investigations mixed up.

Or....perhaps he's riffing it again. Here's Whiteacre, in a followup comment:

October 19th, 2011 at 10:02 p
Here’s what Burts said in December 2010 about the shoot where he says he believes he contracted HIV:

“The particular shoot where I think I may have contracted it was with Bang Bros. Productions in Florida, Venetian Productions, for one of their gay companies. When they did the cum shot, they pulled the condom off and the performer pretty much did the shot on my back rear end, and when that wiped off, I could have come in contact with that. So there’s no knowing exactly where I got it….”

Here’s what he said in an interview published six months later:

“I did a shoot where I was riding [a co-star] on top, like a reverse cowboy. He had the condom on and at the end pulled the condom off and did the cum shot all over my butt and near my anus. I know that semen came in contact with that area. This is just an idea of how I got it. Either that or oral, because also the oral side of gay shoots is unprotected and it’s not like normal oral. You are doing 20 or 30 minutes of hardcore gagging. The cum shot was in my mouth. [It turns out that] I had gonorrhea in the throat during that shoot.

“When you have an active [sexually transmitted infection, or STI] it makes it a lot easier for you to contract HIV. That’s something that the public doesn’t understand. They say, “Oh, I don’t buy [his story]—the chances of him getting HIV from an oral scene or from semen on the butt are very unlikely.” And those chances are low—but [they’re higher] when you have an active STI. I had not only gonorrhea in the throat but also had gotten herpes [and chlamydia]. I gave this version to the media, but I’m sure you can see why they omitted it—it was probably a little too graphic.”

He tells two different stories at once, and like most con artists (including Shelley Lubben), he takes a kernel of truth (or at least events previously reported as true) — such as the fact that circa July 2010 he was diagnosed with those STIs at AIM and given treatment for them — and places it in the timeline at the most convenient spot. Burts’ original story was that he was diagnosed with those STIs one month into his career. His career began in June. He most likely contracted HIV in September.

A side note: as you know, AIM did not test routinely for herpes for performers entering the industry. There’s no way to know, at this point, whether Burts contracted it during other activities, like swinging, prior to entering porn. In any case, turning up with that assortment of STIs during such a short period of time — and where he made so few videos — likely reflects the reckless lifestyle to which Burts has already admitted (although he conveniently places it earlier in the timeline).

And then, Whiteacre adds this:

October 21st, 2011 at 10:28 p

I have to agree that Florida seems to be the wild wild west. The recent Patient Alpha case, for example, demonstrates the problems inherent in a decentralized non-AIM system combined with the reckless nature of many productions there. The fact that Kaycee Brooks/Crystal found much work in Florida several months ago is also string evidence.

Fortunately, as far as I can tell, Burts did only one post-infection scene in LA (on October 6th), two days before his first positive test: a gay condom scene as a bottom.

Of course, had Burts been a responsible person, he would have not let his AIM test lapse and would have gone in to test on October 2nd instead of October 8th — and the performer from that October 6th scene would not have been placed at risk.

BTW, I LOVE Mr. Burts’ quote above, that he’s not a “hard” criminal. He is in fact an extremely reckless individual — shooting porn and escorting off Craigslist while he was working at a Christian Youth camp — who’s now facing the toughest criminal charges of his life: FELONY burglary and embezzlement. Let’s also not forget that he was originally arrested on charges of DUI and Domestic Violence. He pleaded down to Reckless Driving and Disturbing the Peace. And he’s violated probation and blown off court dates several times.

I love his excuse for missing the UCLA panel and his court dates: he happened to be out of state or on vacation. LOL I’m sure the judge said, “Oh, why didn’t you say so…” What a conniving little douche nozzle.

Fascinating that he's been chosen to be the stand-in example of the prototypical "victim" of unregulated hetero porn, and the reason why condoms must be shoved down performers' throats. Then again, consistency of principle hasn't stopped people like Michael Weinstein before when the principal (and the interest) matter, hasn't it. To recite a popular Daffy Duck phrase: "Frankly, it's not the principle of the thing....it's the MONEY."

Of course, Burts does have his backers...including one particular former performer who now claims that DBurts, along with Ministress Lubben and other fine proponents of the condom mandate, are the victims of a vast conspiracy of "stalking" and "harassment" which even goes as far as personal threats to their lives. Then again, this is the same performer who also flipped from prominent advocate for women getting into porn to fundie Christian talking open smack about "Satanic worship" in the porn industry...and who now is attempting to get her hands on the original Pornwikileaks database...all in the name of "truthseeking", of course. But, the story of "Not Sybill XXX" has already been told in another venue, and I don't want to tally too far here from the main story.

Obviously, as news breaks, we'll continue to follow and report.

The Official State Of BPPA Address (Sort Of): Making A Good Thing Better

2011-10-01T23:12:00.000-07:00

As you well know, this blog has now been going strong for over four years now since the lovely Renegade Evolution first founded it as a means of representing a pro-porn position. Since that time, many of its main contributors have come and gone, but the main objective has not changed one bit.

Now that I remain as the sole moderator of this blog, although I am still eternally grateful to people like Ernest Greene and Iamcuriousblue and Michael Whiteacre and even Ren Ev (whose spirit still oversees this blog even as she has moved on to other venues and topics), I'm in the mood for shaking things up a bit here by enlarging the focus of this blog a bit.

As you can tell, it's mostly been used for updating the latest news on the adult industry and especially the latest on the issues facing the adult porn industry. That, of course, will never change.

What I would like to do, however, is expand the base a bit to include more contributors, more featured commentators, and a broader array of topics and concerns. Not to mention, an additional moderator or two to help me lighten the load a bit, since my regular job schedule might keep me from doing regular updates.

If anyone is interesting in becoming a mod or a contributor, simply either tweet me at @Anthony_JK or email me at @anthonyk6319@gmail.com and I will hook you up. I would love to have more industry insiders, performers, or simply pro-porn intellectuals who want to use this blog to make a difference in the broader debate.

All I ask of you is that you don't bring any gossip or hateration or personal vendettas here, and that you stick to the broad directive of defending porn as an art form and a medium of pleasure.

Also...not that I absolutely hate Blogger, but I am a WordPress man to the hilt (all of my personal blogs run on WP, and have been since I first surfed the Internet), and I'm very much considering moving the blog over there as part of my Red Garter Club Network. If membership gets big enough, I might even be willing to use BuddyPress to form an active message board for feedback. (No, I'm not talking about cloning The Real Porn Wikileaks or anything like that; this would be a board strictly for debate and discussion of porn issues amongst performers, directors, intellectuals, and fans alike, freed of gossip or rumor mongering.)

At the very least, I'm may decide to make a mirror of this blog at WordPress simply to experiment with the many features that WP has to offer.

Only question in my mind will be in keeping as much of the present template as I can, if I can't find a similar one in WP. Oh...and the gorgeous header pic will remain as the foundation of the blog, if I do make the decision; it would be an act of criminality if it disappeared.

But...I will make no decision without you readers, since this blog was created for you, not for me. Therefore, the floor is hereto open to you for suggestions. Should I leave things as is, or may I tweak with things a bit and experiment to make this blog even better??

And for those of you whom have put up with me and who have been regular readers and commenters of this blog since its inception, I thank you for your support. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one blowing into the wind.

Oh, The Tangled Webs We Weave, When First We Practice To Deceive: Derrick Burts (2010 "Patient Zeta") Gets Exposed

2011-09-28T18:10:00.000-07:00

Let's just say that today was not a particularly good day for Derrick Burts, the "Patient Zeta" of the 2010 HIV porn "scare".

Actually, tomorrow might be an even worse day for him...but I'll get to that later.

The fun began this morning when Mark Kernes of AVN released a new blog article on Burts and his current legal problems, as well as his being called by his mentors over at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the UCLA School of Public Health to participate in another seminar on health and safety in the porn industry, scheduled on October 11th.

Problem is, Burts might have a bit of a problem making that panel. Well..more than a bit. Unless they can do teleconferencing from his jail cell.

You see, tomorrow is when Burts is due to appear in Riverside County Municipal Court to be arraigned on some serious felony charges (burglary and laundering), for which he was arrested on July 31st.. And that's only the beginning of it, because those charges also put him in violation of not one, but TWO probations that he was serving for past offenses (one in LA County, and the other in Orange County, the latter of which is now repealed and an arrest warrant now active).

But it's not his personal life that is making the most headlines, his story about how he contracted the HIV virus is starting to unravel the way a house of playing cards collapses under the gentlest of breezes.

Also this morning, The Real Porn Wikileaks (the revised and legitimate version that replaced the racist/homophobic version first originated by Donny Long) ran their own article quoting emails that had been exchanged between DBurts and porn agent Mark Spingler, regarding the challenge issued by Spengler that Burts take a polygraph test to prove his accusations that he contracted HIV from shooting porn. At first, DBurts agreed, but then attempted to crawfish his way back from his commitment by attempting to set some conditions to the questions that would be asked him.

Some deets from the RPWL article (bolded emphasis in original):

Burts initially agreed to the offer, but the emails exchanged between Burts, Spiegler and the potential polygraph examiner reveal that Burts backed out after Spiegler refused to allow Burts to choose or substantially re-write the questions!

Regarding his alleged “escorting” activities – which came to light when his ad on the gay hook-up site Rentboy.com surfaced — Burts wanted to narrow the questioning to: “Did you ever meet or have sex with anyone from escorting on RentBoy?”

Burts explained that because he had never acted on his RentBoy ad, there was “NO WAY possible for me to have contracted HIV from escorting….”

He also sought to alter a question about whether he had contracted HIV on set to “Did Jennifer Miller from AIM tell you that you had sex with a known positive gay performer while in Florida shooting?” In addition, Burts sought to narrow the question concerning whether or now he’d ever had bareback gay sex to whether or not he’d ever had bareback sex during a gay shoot.

“I would never risk having bareback sex as I am aware of the high risks involved of getting HIV from that method,” Burts wrote. “My agency is 100% against bareback porn and I never participated in a bareback shoot.”

Asking things like “If I ever did this or that” could refer to any point and time in my life before contracting HIV. I would like to stick to the time frame in which I may have contracted HIV which is between August and September as the widest gap. Based off the Western Blot test I contracted HIV around mid September. My last negative test was September 3rd… I tested positive on October 8th. There is a 60 day time frame for HIV to show in the body. So that would be all of August and September.

Yes, I did have sex with partners while swinging without a condom. Is it possible that I got if from swinging? No. It was outside of the time period and every girl I did swinging with was cleared on the quarantine list. Have I EVER had anal sex with a guy before? Yes… long time ago before starting porn…. If I am going to do this test then the 4 questions have to be specific and not broad.

On the next go-round, Burts suggested another configuration of the questions, including, “Did you have bareback anal sex with guys in any of your shoots in the time frame you may have contracted HIV?” [emphasis added]

Spiegler was flummoxed, and wrote the polygraph expert,
Please remind Derrick that the questions will be questions that I choose – not him. I am paying for the test and I want to have MY questions answered. Derrick cannot craft the questions to HIS liking.

Even more interesting is how DBurts attempts to explain away his belief that he couldn't have contracted HIV from anywhere other than on set.

After reading Spiegler’s ultimatum, Burts wrote a lengthy response — and also mentioned in passing both his “AHF Legal Council” [sic] and his Florida attorney, Norm Kent. Having previously stated, in his initial email, “I NEVER met with anyone from escorting PERIOD!” Burts now contradicted himself with some startling new admissions:

I had a posting for escorting during the time I got HIV, however, I did not meet with anyone from the ad. The reason I am time specific on the escort question is because back in May or June I met with a guy from Craigslist and gave a massage and a handjob on a guy… I classify that as escorting, however, there is no way I got HIV from that time since there was no sex and out of the time frame of being able to get HIV.

As for the anal sex question, there was a time I had unprotected sex with another guy while participating in a threesome at some point in June. I know I didn’t get HIV from that time as well because it was out of the range of time I could have got it and all people in that threesome have been tested since, it was also before I started porn….

Spiegler, interviewed the next day on AdultFYI, mocked Burts’ logic: “He goes, ‘I didn’t get it from [swinging] because they all tested negative.’ Like who gets everyone’s name and number at a swinger party?”

Many in the industry continue to speculate that Burts sought to alter the questions because he may have contracted HIV from someone involved with his Florida gay porn shoots with whom he had sex off –camera – perhaps even on set.

It's also interesting because since becoming AHF's point man for the trashing of AIM and the condom mandate (despite the known fact that all of the hetero scenes he did were condom-only), Derrick Burts' recollection of how he got infected has been, to say the least, more than a bit fleeting. Quoting from Kernes' article:

Indeed, since joining up with AIDS Healthcare, Burts has rarely told the same story twice regarding the source of his infection, claiming at times that he may have contracted the disease through oral contact (since the scene itself was condom), or that he may have become infected by having rubbed a towel coated with infected semen to clean up after his scene.

AVN has acquired much more information on Burts' pre-porn life as well as more complete background on the polygraph test that agent Mark Spiegler asked Burts to take regarding his statements about his HIV-positive status and how he acquired it, but Spiegler and Burts were never able to come to an agreement as to which questions would be asked, and the exam was never given.

Hold up here...isn't the prevailing rule that unless your throat or mouth happens to be infected with some way, there's no way you can contract HIV from oral sex?? And...even if you do happen to wipe yourself with a contaminated towel, you still would have to have open bloody sores in the anal passage in order for the virus to be transmitted?? Oh, and did I mention that that scene was a condom scene where the condom was deliberately removed for the pop shot on the back??

And then there is that infamous Rentboy.com ad that Derrick Burts made in September 2010..the one where he promotes himself as "AIM-TESTED", based on his September 3rd negative test. Strangely enough, when Burts was exposed to be "Patient Zeta", he nuked all of his sexual contacts...except that ad. Coincidence?? Conspiracy?? You decide.

But wait...there's even more!! This afternoon, the blog LukeIsBack.com unleashed Part 1 of a two part essay documenting the life and times of Derrick Burts, and it does not paint a flattering portrait of him. The most troubling aspect was his flip-flopping between his early dream as a "Christian magician" and his...shall we say, his sexual experimentations.

However, his financial debts and troubles at home might not be the only reasons Burts left Hemet to take his magic act on the road. Two local parents, who did not know anything of Burts’ life after 2005 – including his porn career – and were surprised to hear that he’d returned to live in Hemet in 2011, offered an alternative explanation involving Burts and some minors at the Ramona Bowl Ampitheatre.

Burts moved suddenly to Hermiston, Oregon to live with his grandmother, and worked up a magic act. In April 2006, an article in the East Oregonian featured the heading, "Illusionist Never Runs Out of Tricks".

Burts, then 19, announced he planned to embark upon a nation-wide magic tour to_raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

It is a two-part tour. The first trip is simply to raise $20,000 in pledges_from businesses to finance the show. Burts and others will actually perform on_the second trip in towns where funds were raised. Donated proceeds from_performances will go to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Essentially, Burts was planning to use the charity’s name to raise money for his own magic tour; to later return and perform in those cities where enough money had been raised – and then send the charity some portion of the show proceeds.
Burts’ grandmother, Susan Dickens, was quoted in the article. "He was always a trickster," Dickens said. "He liked center stage."

Burts’ next stop was Spokane, Washington, where he partnered up with a young local magician called "Kenneth K." He adopted the stage name “Derrick Chambers”, and over the next few years he took work wherever he could find it: including the Silverwood Theme Park in Athol, Idaho in 2007. Burts later found stable work on a cruise ship, Norwegian Cruise Lines’ 2000-passenger Pride of Aloha, and eventually, settled down in Orlando, Florida.

He toyed with the idea of creating "Christian based magic ministries", but returned to California in March 2009, having found a job as Front Office Supervisor at Marriott Hotel in Anaheim, right next to the Disneyland Amusement Park.

And this Sybil-like dichotomy would only get more amplified later:

In June 2010 Burts and Crystal walked into the office of porn talent agency OC Modeling as a couple, and signed a two-year contract with agent Phil Mack. As Burts would tell later the world, they wanted to make some good money fast. What he didn’t mention is that there was another couple that approached OC Modeling at the same time – Crystal’s friend Hayden Winters, and Hayden’s boyfriend. Of the four, only Hayden’s boyfriend was not signed by OC.

OC Modeling primarily booked performers for "straight" porn shoots, but had also been dabbling in gay porn bookings. "When he saw me, the agent said I had money written all over me in the gay business." Burts later told The Independent. Translation: uncircumcised, shaved smooth, now quite lean and standing a mere 5′ 7", Burts was the all-American "collegiate" type – and being "uncut" had a novelty appeal in gay porn.

Crystal, under the name "Kaycee Brooks" would work in "straight" porn, working with both men and women; Burts would do "crossover" work in both "straight" and gay porn, using different names for each side of the business.

But porn wasn’t Burts only part-time gig.

From June to August of 2010, Burts also worked as a counselor at the Salvation Army’s Wildwood Ranch Christian Camp in Ramona, California. The camp’s website states that it "strives to serve the physical, social, and spiritual needs of children from the ages of 7 – 12."
"It is our desire to present the gospel of Jesus Christ to all at camp; staff and campers alike! … Camp counselors help campers make good decisions, gain confidence in their own talents and abilities, grow in independence, and learn to have fun with other children in a nurturing, supportive, loving environment."

WOW. A gay/bi porn performer/swinger doubling as a Salvation Army counselor. Not even Shelley Lubben could top that for mendacity.

The LiB post also chronicles Burts' entry into the world of Florida gay crossover porn, including Burts' attempt to play himself as being more comfortable as a gay male star, even as he tried to cross over into the "straight" side. It was during this time that he made his interview with gay male performer James Jameson....the one that would soon be released to the public as proof that Burts was using gay porn to infect others. (For the record, Jameson was and still is HIV-.)

The LiB post promises to go into how Burts ended up with AHF on their next segment.

So, what does all of this mean?? Well, it shows the depths to which some will go to pursue their agenda, and it shows that all that glitters might not be gold.

But, I'll just leave it to Lydia Lee (using her former porn altar ego Julie Meadows) for the proper perspective to all this:

What is amazing to me (and as Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals so eloquently points out in her own article on the .XXX sTLD), is that the adult industry is accused of profiteering and immorality (to name a few), yet no one questions the moral intentions of people and organizations from the outside who gouge the industry for their own profit. AHF’s Michael Weinstein has been unrelenting in finding any means necessary to insert himself into the Los Angeles-based adult industry in what appears to be an effort to take over and reap the financial rewards of policing the industry through condom mandates and clinical testing. It didn’t matter that their first personality for the ‘dangers of the porn industry’, Shelley Lubben of Pink Cross Foundation, is anti-gay, or that her own credentials and testimonies are dubious. (Lubben touts a theology degree from a non-accredited college and claims that god cured her herpes, though she has no medical data to prove she ever had herpes.)

And now AHF is using Derrick Burts to parade their campaign, even though it appears he is just as questionable at the core of his intentions. In fact, Burts is scheduled to appear on behalf of AHF at a UCLA discussion on performer health and safety this October 11th, 2011.

[...]

I have two questions.

How many questionable people will Michael Weinstein slap his brand name upon in the name of performer safety? And how many details is Michael Weinstein willing to overlook in his unceasing effort to mind the details of adult industry performers?

I guess that's what happens when you get caught in your own web of deception.

ADDEDUM: MIchael Whiteacre has emailed me a timeline of the legal problems of Derrick Burts over the past couple of years, all of which are public record. Here it is for your review and background:

On March 18, 2010, Burts was arrested in Orange County and chargedwith driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving without avalid driver's license, straddling or changing lanes when unsafe, and recklessdriving.

On April 19th, Burts failed to appear in court in Westminster, CA,and a warrant was issued. He was eventually arraigned on May 6th, where hepleaded guilty to reckless driving in exchange for all other chargesbeing dismissed. Burts was sentenced to 3 years probation, as well as a 12-hourAlcohol and Drug Program, and ordered to pay a $250 fine.

Then, in August 2010, Burts was arrested in LA County and booked fordomestic violence and misdemeanor-level assault.Burts pleaded to a charge of disturbing the peace in a Van Nuyscourtroom on August 3rd, and he was fined and sentenced to 52 weeks of classes.

But this arrest constituted a violation of his Orange Countyprobation, and it was reported to the court in mid-August (Orange County notescase activity on August 18, 2010, and his probation was revoked on that date).Following an arraignment on September 21, 2010 for violating the terms of hisprobation, probation was re-instated.

Back in the LA County court system, a progress report from January2011 shows that Burts had paid his fine, and that he requested hiscourt-ordered classes be moved to Riverside County.

He was supposed to show up in court in Van Nuys on July 6, 2011 toinform the court that he had complied with its order and taken his classes, buthe failed to appear. A $50,000 warrant was issued in his name on thatdate.

According to LA County, that warrant is still outstanding.

On July 31, 2011, Burts was arrested by Hemet police and chargedwith felony embezzlement and burglary in Riverside County. Heposted $5,000 bail through a bondsman on August 4th.

Due to his Riverside County arrest, Burts’ Orange County probation wasrevoked on August 31, 2011. The Orange County Superior Court website currently lists Burts' statusas "Fugitive".

Burts is scheduledto be arraigned on Thursday, September 29th at Riverside County’s Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta.

Like I said at the beginning: tomorrow should be quite an interesting day.

The Adult Performers Association: The Latest Attempt To Organize Porn Performers..But, Can It Suceed Where Others Have Failed??

2011-09-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

Of all of the byproducts of the latest porn scares, the most obvious has been the historical lack of organization by performers to fight for their rights and their profession.

Earlier attempts at worker organization, such as the Pink Ladies Social Club of the 1980's, tended to fail on the same factors that haunted earlier organizations: the transient nature of porn work, and the fear from the producers of "unionization", where performers could collectively attempt to gain a larger share of the profits and proceeds from their work, as well as improved benefits and workplace conditions.

However, in the wake of the latest round of porn scares and activism to protect the free choice of performers, a new attempt at forming an activist group for performers is now arising with what they see as a different approach.

The Adult Performers Association is the brainchild of Nica Noelle, a former performer turned director, who was radicalized into action by the latest HIV porn scare and the strength of performers turning out to defend themselves against the threat of the condom mandate and the existing testing regime. Her primary goal, as noted by the organization's newly built website, is to provide alternative health services and other benefits that are typically provided by other worker organizations to its members, and to speak out for the freedom of choice and more flexible options for health care and privacy protection for porn performers.

Their "Core Metrics" page provides a nice summary of the kind of activism they would provide to their members, including:

-- a greater choice in choosing their testing facilities
-- a focus on education and mentoring for entry-level performers, and a system of etiquette and protocols for talent-producer relationships
-- balancing the goal of standardized testing for STI's with freedom of choice for performers in where and with whom they are tested with
-- a focus on retaining performer privacy protection
-- a development of a performers-only forum for feedback and discourse

The development of APA, though, has not been without some controversy. While the reaction by most performers has been greatly positive, there have been some degree of grumbling behind the scenes that the prime motivation for APA might be a backhanded slap towards the Free Speech Coalition, which remains the principal activist organization for the industry, and its Adult Production Health and Safety Services (APHSS) database, which serves to replace the previous testing regime formerly adjucated by Adult Industry Medical Foundation (AIM).

Nica Noelle, along with porn performer January Seraph -- who was also instrumental in the founding of APA -- had often been more than a bit critical of the FSC for not doing more to protect performer privacy, especially concerning the security of the APHSS database. In addition, Nica had been critical of FSC for what she saw during the latest HIV in porn scare as an unwarranted attack on Talent Testing Services, the independent agency whose testing of "Patient Alpha" had been called into question by APHSS after they obtained the services of "PA". (TTS had originally been the go-to replacement for testing after AIM was put out of business, but they were eclipsed by APHSS; also, TTS had refused to join APHSS' network of testing sites, choosing to stick with their own system.) By contrast, performers such as Darryl Hanah and spokespeople such as Michael Whiteacre have responded in defense of APHSS and FSC, resulting in some heated exchanges. For the record, though, Nica and January have praised APHSS for their inclusion of active performers in their organization...especially the inclusion of Nina Hartley as their Educational Advisor.

This organization is still in its budding stages, and it remains to be seen whether it can overcome the usual obstacles that has blocked every other attempt to unite and organize the vast diaspora of adult performers. Considering what's at stake, however, it is more than worth giving it a chance to succeed.

One Important Reason Why We Exist: Tay Stevens' War On Cancer (And How You Can Help Her And Others Kick The Hell Out Of It)

2011-09-10T17:08:00.000-07:00

This may be a bit of a tangent from what we normally do here at BPPA, but considering the importance of the message, I figured that now was a good time as any.

If there is anything that this blog stands for, it is the humanity of those who take the risks to work and live as erotic performers. It's very easy to see the glamorous side, with all the pretty faces and stacked bodies...and of course, all that smiley, happy, monkey sex goings on. It's not so easy to see the human beings behind the orgasms, the nakedness, the erections or erect clits. But, porn performers and erotic models, like most other regular people, have lives far beyond the webcam or the screen; and they suffer through the slings and arrows of life just as regular "civilians" do.

And, just as occasionally, they can get hit with the life-changing blows that test their ultimate courage and will to live.

Like, for instance, the body blow that erotic model/Internet big-breasted model Taylor Stevens is attempting to beat down right now.

On New Year's Eve of last year, Tay was found to have been diagnosed with lymphoma, a particularly dangerous and potentially lethal form of cancer. After a variety of tests and verifications, she is now undergoing radiation treatment to treat her sickness.

Most people would simply knuckle under to such a fate, and simply wait for the inevitable Grim Reaper to befall them.

Thankfully, Tay isn't most people...she's decided to go on an all out assault to survive this disease, through not only full treatment, but also education and support for all whom have suffered from not only cancer in general, but lymphoma in particular. She's still doing her regular online shows via her fan club site PlayWithTay.com, and she's still active with her fans via her Twitter page (@TAYSTEVENS).

However, for this month, which happens to be her birthday month as well as National Lymphoma Month, she has decided to go above and beyond the call of duty and mount a campaign in support of research and even towards a possible cure for lymphoma.

To that end, Tay has produced a video that is currently running at both her blog and her YouTube channel where she updates people on her condition, and puts the call out for support and education on lymphoma and the efforts for an ultimate cure. It's a testimonial to her strength in the face of calamity, as well as her inner beauty.

I'll simply repost the video here and allow you to see for yourself.

Porn Panic 2011: The Climax: FSC/APHSS Clears The Air On "Patient Alpha" Testing Process And Debunks Nasty Rumormongering

2011-09-07T14:27:00.000-07:00

"Once a rumor spreads...the truth becomes the thing of the past."
-- Olivia Newton-John ("The Rumor", ["The Rumor",1988])

The thing about moral sex panics is that sometimes, when fear mixes with uncertaincy, it becomes possible for information not verified by real facts to be put out. This misinformation, whether accidental or deliberate, can really mess with the minds of the people affected the most in the panic, and even when legitimate attempts to seek the truth are taken, the rumor can take a life of its own and multiply itself for days. If not mitigated quickly, the damage of one exploding rumor/lie can do tremendous damage even long after it can be debunked by actual facts.

Fortunately, even the nastiest rumor can be quashed if the facts are made available as soon as possible, and clear-headed, sensible minds can be called on to relieve the frayed nerves of those seeking to separate facts from fiction. The best way to quash a rumor has always been to directly confront it from the beginning and not allow it to build up momentum to begin with. The absolute WORST way, on the other hand, is to simply be quiet and wish that a rumor would go away on its own.

Thankfully, in the case of the latest HIV porn scare, the people over at the Free Speech Coalition's Adult Production Health and Safety Services (APHSS) understand how to break rumors, and today they did the adult entertainment industry a much valued service in the face of one of the nastiest rumors recently raised against them.

The background, of course, is the most recent scare that a performer in Florida had been alleged to have tested "positive" two weeks ago for HIV (the virus most responsible for AIDS). News of that particular spread, and the subsequent fear that he had potentially compromised 13 other performers while mitigating and verifying that initial test, sent shock waves through the industry, especially considering it was the third consecutive year in which a performer had been tested "positive" for HIV...although, in the two previous cases in 2009 and 2010, it was found that no other performer was infected and that the original infections took place outside of porn production.

The latest "outbreak" had prompted and reenforced calls by some of the usual suspects (AHF spokesperson Mike Weinstein, ex-porn starlet turned fundie Christian activist Shelley Lubben, and some officials at the California branch of the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) for mandatory condom usage in all porn shoots. The belief was that the consecutive outbreaks had proven one and for all that system of using testing to contain and screen out HIV+ people from performing in porn had utterly failed and that only mandated condom usage would better "protect" the performers.

And it probably would have worked, too...except that last week, the FSC, using its newly built APHSS system (which was designed to replace the system that had been adjucated by the former group Adult In Medical Foundation (AIM), which was effectively driven out of business last year due to a series of nuisance lawsuits bankrolled by AHF), managed to retest "Patient Alpha" using their own protocols...which resulted in a NEGATIVE test result for HIV this time around. (As you will see later on, the original tests were not from facilities under the APHSS umbrella, but from independent facilities not having the type of tests or the protocols that AIM or APHSS uses.) The announcement of the negative test can be found here.

Based on that info, APHSS announced back then that a week-long moratorium that had been imposed on porn production when the initial "reactive" test was revealed could now be lifted, and that further tests to reinforce and verify the most recent negative tests would be done on "Patient Alpha" and all of his first- and second-generation partners.

That by itself should have ended the panic right there.

Problem was, though, forces that were either quite skeptical or outright opposed to FSC's efforts, as well as the natural tendency of rumor mongering to take place, were not willing to bury this case...and they set in motion this weekend an alternative conspiracy theory implying that the FSC/APHSS was either mortally wrong or simply the tip of a horrendous coverup.

Ground Zero for the rumor was a blog by former performer Michael Vegas, who put out the notion that FSC was hiding the true nature of the tests done on Patient Alpha. Using as "sources" emails he claimed he got from a "PersonX" whom either knew Patient Alpha or whom had gotten the testing info from Talent Testing Services, Inc. (one of the other testing companies whom had initially tested Patient Alpha before APHSS got a hold of him), Vegas used an supposed email exchange between "PersonX" and an executive of Manwin, Inc. (the parent company of Brazzers.com, the porn production company for whom Patient Alpha was alleged to have worked), to belt out the following conspiracy theory:

1) PA allegedly had three straight "positive" HIV tests.
2) The three straight positive tests were allegedly all PCR-DNA tests, which were supposed to be the most reliable in detecting early sero-infection of the HIV virus.
3) The negative test used by APHSS to clear PA was (just as allegedly, according to Vegas) the ELISA test, an older test that is more reliable for detecting more developed sero-infections, but less so for new infections due to the latent period where antibodies can be cloaked within the bloodstream without detection (the period is usually 30-60 days).
4) How can APHSS clear PA based on the ELISA test which is less unreliable, especially when three PCR tests still came up "positive"??
5) Therefore, something's not right here (according to Vegas), and either APHSS is lying about the negative test and deliberately covering up an infected performer threatening others, or Manwin/Brazzers is allowing an infected performer to continue to work.

A few other commentators then spread the story around the porn gossip grapevine, raising thoughts of anything from accident to outright coverup, and even stating that this proved AHF's point that APHSS shouldn't be trusted and that only AHF's position for mandatory condom usage was the most doable position.

Of course, those who actually knew a thing or five about the testing process would attempt to chime in that the ELISA test is NEVER used as a follow up verification test exactly because of its latency window, or that it would be a serious violation of medical privacy laws for anyone to reveal testing results to any other person other than the patient without a waiver. But, before today, such logic would probably not be heard above the screams and howls of fear and smear.

Before today, that is.

Just this afternoon, FSC/APHSS, through the FSC blog, released a statement updating the process of the testing of Patient Alpha, and it pretty much blasts through the noise and the bullshit and clears the fog.

I will simply repost the statement in its entirity.

In the interest of providing accurate information to industry and media, Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has issued this update to explain the process of testing that took place for the adult performer identified as ‘Patient Alpha.’

In cooperation with the performer, FSC has reconstructed the process of testing for Patient Alpha, which resulted in what is now believed to be at least one false positive result and touched off a week-long industry moratorium on content production.
According to reports from the performer, the dates and sequence of tests are as follows:

Initial tests, administered by an unnamed testing facility -

August 20- PCR/NAT; results come back “reactive” (indication of HIV exposure)
Followed up with Western Blot and ELISA tests; both results negative for these tests

Secodary tests, administered by Talent Testing Services (TTS) -

August 29 – PCR/DNA test is reported to patient as “reactive”
Followed up with Western Blot and ELISA tests that produced negative result
August 31 – Patient is contacted by TTS and told that results of an additional PCR/DNA test on original blood sample is negative
Test administered by Advanced Medical Testing Centers (AMTC – an APHSS.org recommeneded testing facility) –

Sept 3 – PCR/RNA, Western blot and ELISA tests all return negative results; patient is informed

FSC would like to add that none of the results for tests taken outside of APHSS.org program can be confirmed at this time, except as reported by the patient. Talent Testing Services [is not a participant] in APHSS.org.

Patient Alpha has signed a medical information release waiver and APHSS.org medical advisers have requested copies of the raw data of the test results from Talent Testing Services. There has been no response at this time.

PCR/RNA is the only HIV test approved by the FDA for diagnostics in “primary or accute infection,” but also must be confirmed with supplementary tests. This is a more recently-developed test than the PCR/DNA, which is the industry standard for monthly testing of performers.

When test results were returned by AMTC and after consultation with APHSS.org medical advisers, FSC/APHSS.org was satisfied that the moratorium on content production could be lifted this past Saturday.

So, apparently, this is what really happened:

-- Patient Alpha tested "reactive" using a variation of the PCR test, but negative under the other tests (W-Blot, ELISA), using one testing facility
-- Probably scared shitless, he goes over to TTS, who does the full followup tests on him, with the same reported result ("reactive" PCR, negative W-Blot and ELISA)...but then gets the news that another PCR test on the initial blood sample turns up NEGATIVE.)
-- Now confused as well as scared, PA goes over to APHSS, who refers him to AMTC, who runs a third battery of tests on him..which all show up negative.
-- APHSS, now wondering what the hell that initial "reactive" test was all about, requests the raw data from TTS for their own analysis. That, apparently, is still pending.

(It should be noted that TTS is independent of APHSS, and at one time, after AIM was disbanded, was promoting themselves as the go-to testing facility before APHSS was formed.)

So, as it stands right now, the only truly verifiable tests done on Patient Alpha have proven negative...although the process probably won't be fully completed until the 30-60 day latency period is passed and followup testing is done, and all the other contacts can be tested and verified. If none of them are found to be HIV+, then the game is over.

And maybe, people will regain the ability to know the difference between truth and rumor.

Because Pride And Delusions Are Always Greatest Before The Fall Off The Cliff: Ministress Lubben Breaks Out The Tiny Violin Quartet On HIV Scare 2011..Before The Truth Blindsides Her

2011-09-03T19:09:00.000-07:00

I'm probably guessing that somewhere in Bakersfield or wherever Shelley Lubben is domiciled right about now, she's probably hearing the news that the performer whom she thought had infected 13 other female performers turned out to not have had HIV after all.

Maybe, the limited syapses in her brain -- at least, the ones not warped by her fundamentalist Christian ideology mixed with her seamless drive for exhibitionism and undivided attention -- will kick in enough to actually have her feel some bit of remorse and empathy for the performer she and her associates defamed. Perhaps, she will get a bolt of lightning inspiration from her God to actually understand that part of loving people is accepting that they can make mistakes and that they should be free to exercise their own free will and protect themselves in their own way.

And, perhaps, I will win the lottery tomorrow and retire a millionaire, and become Rush Limbaugh's chief assistant.

But while the charade was still on yesterday, the Ministeress decided to try her best to use her usual Godly womanly wiles to persuade the faithful about the deep harm of the latest "pandemic".

And as usual, Shelley was on her game.

Here's what she posted to the Pink Cross blog yesterday:

Another HIV Outbreak in Porn Industry

News is breaking in the porn industry that another performer has tested positive for HIV and possibly exposed a dozen or more performers before it was discovered.

This means that there have now been a total of 27 cases of HIV in the porn industry since 2004 - that we know of! The last known HIV outbreak was in October of last year.

This comes only two weeks after a press conference was held in L.A. where former porn performers talked about the illegal and abusive practices of the porn industry.

And just last week the porn industry was bragging about their 'safe' health practices all the while they continue to flagrantly violate California law that mandates condom usage. Earlier this year, Hustler was fined $14,175 by Cal-OSHA for violating workplace health and safety law.

Lives are at stake. Pray that many men and women will leave the porn industry while they still can. Porn kills!

If you are in the industry and want out, Pink Cross is here for you. You were made for greater things than porn!

Oh, so much to break down here.

First, this notion of an "outbreak". Usually, an outbreak implies that more than one person was involved. The 2004 HIV scare qualifies as an outbreak fully because one person (allegedly Darren James) got infected doing outside work, and then went in and accidentally infected
three other women with HIV. Not much of an outbreak, but it does qualify.

The 2009 scare, though, had only one person who got HIV from outside activity, and no one else was infected. Thusly, NOT an outbreak.

The 2010 scare (featuring Derek Burts) is a bit questionable because both Burts and some folks at Cal/OSHA insist that a second performer was infected with HIV, although they have refused to comment on exactly who that second person is and how exactly he managed to get infected. Two people, though, is still not an outbreak, which assumes a bit more people getting infected with the virus.

Now, a performer getting infected with HIV and passing it on to 13 women?? That would count as a bonafide outbreak. Provided that the person actually was confirmed to actually HAVE HIV, and was confirmed to have worked with and infected various women. Course, we now know that the performer has tested negative with a better array of tests, but even then, wouldn't it be worthwhile to suspend judgment until the tests are confirmed? Wouldn't the more prudent policy be to wait until the actual tests confirm the infection before going out on a limb and screaming about a mass outbreak pandemic??

Please. This is Shelley Lubben we are talking about. She's never been known to let patience or truth get in the way of a good morality scare play.

And speaking of truth..again with the "27 HIV+ cases in the porn industry since 2004" meme. You know, the one that leaves out the inconvenient facts that most of those cases were of either gay male porn performers totally out of the jurisdiction of the adult hetero porn testing structure (16), private non-performer civilians contracting out AIM for their own private testing (4), or people just blown out of Shelley's buns. (And remember when the original stat was 22?? Then upped by Mike Weinstein to 23?? Get your propaganda numbers in sync, Shelley!!)

And how nice of Ministress Lubben to add that nice little tag line, "that we know of"...because we all know that the industry can't be trusted to tell the truth about HIV, there must be hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of porn boys and girls around spreading their legs and inserting their diseased sex organs into each other and spreading AIDS like Halloween candy!!!

Now..to that truth-telling press conference Shelley was talking about...that would be the one where the Ministress shared the dais with AHF's Weinstein, Darren James, and a couple of Pink Cross disciples to announce their drive to put a condom mandate ordinance to Los Angeles city voters for a vote. A pretty nice job of propaganda, if you ask me..but a bit light in the actual fact department. No matter how much Shelley may rant about the illegality of condomless porn or the notion that "exchanging bodily fluids" is illegal under California law, or that, the official legal opinion of the LA city attorney be damned, the local film board can and should forbid permits for any adult production not totally wrapped up, the actual debate is still quite up for grabs...and tending not to their benefit.

Oh..and about that HUSTLER fine?? Never mind that $14K to Larry Flynt is like a dollar to most of us regular folk, or the basic fact that Cal/OSHA probably doesn't have the resources or the manpower to be stalking every single porn shoot looking for wrapped dicks or dental dams when there really is a legitimate HIV pandemic in the larger population of LA County...enforcing a "law" that has never been enforced merely to soothe her revenge for those who dissed her 17 years ago is far more important to Lubben than common sense. Besides, it's all in the name of Jeeeeeeeee-zus, who died for your sexual sins and cured her herpes to show the world how He gives salvation to those evil sluts who most need it.

The closer, is the usual altar call for people in porn to get the heck out because, in Shelley's mind. "Porn Kills!!!!" At least, porn stars get killed...of course, most of them aren't killed by porn, and many of them die of causes attributed completely outside of porn...but again, the Ministress isn't known for understanding nuanced thoughts.

And when you do get out, Shelley would very much love it if you consider joining her ministry. Of course, there are those pesky conditions of surrendering all your hard earned money and having to basically starve yourself financially and convert to Lubben's kind of holy rolling sex-hating religion...but that's a small price to pay for God's salvation.

The sidebar of that post includes some of the more whacked out stats about the wages of porn sin (like the 37 porn stars who died of HIV, suicide, or drugs, or the 100 "straight or gay" performers who died of complications from AIDS, or the nearly 2,400 cases of chlamydia and 1,400 cases of gonorrhea that has infected performers since 2000). Been there, covered that.

But, no Shelley Lubben promotion would be complete without the obligatory Serious Activist Pic, and this one's a dooze.

Yes, that was Shelley at the Weinstein presser where they unveiled their asstroturf (no pun, deliberate mispell) group, "For Adult Industry Responsibility" (FAIR, although I still think that Norman Solomon over at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting would probably not like their acronym abused like that). And yes, that woman in the background pointing at the "FAIR" logo happens to be Jan Meza, Lubben's closest protoge, who has a special history of whackadoodleness all her own. Gee, Ministeress...I thought that God didn't like women showing off their bare arms...didn't they attempt to condemn First Lady Michelle Obama for something like that??

In any case, now that it has been confirmed that all their efforts were essentially for naught, I'm seriously looking forward to when Shelley and the Pink Cross Foundation will post their official apology and retraction to the performer they accused publically of infecting 13 innocent people, or to the company (Brazzers) they claimed wrongly to have used him even though he "tested positively". I'm sure that it will happen. Ultimately. The same day pigs fly.

Prove me wrong, Shelley. Woman up, admit your mistake, and apologize....and if you do, I will give you...a bit more respect.

Porn Panic 2011: BAH-LOCKED!!! BREAKING: FSC/APHSS Reports That "Patient Alpha" Tested Negative For HIV; Moratorium Now Lifted

2011-09-03T17:16:00.000-07:00

Well..what do you know? All that crowing, all that smack, all those press conferences...and it turns out, all for NOTHING.

The Associated Press is now reporting that the Free Speech Coalition, through their APHSS testing program, has announced via an email that initial test results on the performer whom had been originally found to have tested positive for HIV through a previous test is now completed....and "Patient Alpha" was found to have tested NEGATIVE.

Based on that, FSC has also announced that the voluntary moratorium on porn production that had taken effect when the initial test was revealed last week can now be lifted, and porn production resumed.

FSC did say that just for verification sakes, they would run follow up tests on "Patient Alpha"..but, it does appear that the worst fears of an "outbreak" have been settled.

If I was Michael Weinstein or Brian Chase of AHF or Shelley Lubben, I'd probably want to make plans for a long vacation. And, stock up on some lawyers. The checks they cashed with their big mouths just bounced. Let's hear the coverup conspiracies now, Mr. Weinstein.

And perhaps now, we may finally get everyone together and hash out a real plan for worker protection that actually respects the will and competence or performer choice??

If I find that AP article, I will repost it here. (Found. Scroll down.)

UPDATE: The FSC just released this statement on Patient Alpha's HIV- test over at their blog:

Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today some important news for the industry. An HIV test for “Patient Alpha,” administered by an APHSS.org testing facility, has been returned with negative results.

Recognizing the importance of accurate information being presented to the industry and media, FSC stresses that while test results indicate a negative result for the patient, follow-up testing is appropriate in this case.

“This is good news for the primary patient, the industry will continue to be abundantly cautious as we try to nail down the reasons for what now appears to have been a false positive result on a previous test,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said. “After discussion with our medical expert, he has advised that it would be appropriate for production to resume and the focus of attention brought to those who had worked with the performer. That group is already receiving care.

“FSC/APHSS.org will narrow the circle of caution to focus our concern on the group of people who had worked with the performer,” Duke continued. “Our prayers and utmost empathy go out to the performer in what has been a very difficult period.”

FSC called for an industry-wide precautionary moratorium on production last Sunday, after reports of a preliminary HIV positive test result for an adult performer in Florida. The performer in question and the adult industry were demonized as rumors and misinformation spread like wildfire. But recent developments imply that industry standards are working.

Duke continued, “Industry self-regulation and best practices are alive and well in the adult entertainment industry – and they work. We fully understand that it is vitally important for the adult performers have a place to go that is safe, trusted and transparent.”

UPDATE #2: Here is the AP story:

APNewsBreak: Porn performer retests HIV-negative
LOS ANGELES (AP) — An adult film performer who tested positive for HIV and caused the porn industry to shut down production as a precaution has been retested and the actor does not have the virus, a porn industry trade group said Saturday.

Production can now resume, said Free Speech Coalition executive director Diane Duke.

"The industry will be abundantly cautious as we try to nail down the reasons for what now appears to have been a false positive result on a previous test," Duke said.

The actor, who was in Florida, had been slated to work on a shoot for Mofos.com, but production was halted last week when the test came back positive for HIV.

Duke declined to release the performer's name, age or gender, citing the person's right to medical privacy. She also declined to say how her group learned of the case.

Production has been shut down since Monday in the San Fernando Valley's multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industry, which includes Hustler and Evil Angel's productions. The case was found at an out-of-state clinic that does not report to California health officials, Duke said. The porn industry was similarly shuttered in late 2010, after porn actor Derrick Burts was diagnosed as HIV-positive. His case was confirmed, and he has since left the industry to become an advocate for the use of condoms in pornography.

The Free Speech Coalition is working on a database to track sexually transmitted disease testing among porn actors, a task formerly handled by the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation before it closed in December 2010.

Known as AIM, the San Fernando Valley clinic had catered to porn stars since it opened in 1998. It was forced to close because of inadequate licensing.

Update #3: Michael Whiteacre just made this comment over at LukeIsBack.com that deserves reprinting here, because it addresses concerns about following up on the testing of "Patient Alpha" as well as the other 13 performers that he had been assumed to have infected.

The Associated Press reports that Patient Alpha has now tested negative in the latest round of confirmatory testing. However, the question remains whether it is legally and medically sound to DEFINITIVELY declare the patient HIV negative as of yet.

According to what I’ve been reading, most experts (including those at the CDC) recognize that it can take 30 to 90 days before one can make a definitive determination.

That’s why this quote from Weinstein’s latest self-serving press release is so frustrating:

“Why is any ‘investigation’ needed, when two rapid tests that would take 40 minutes, are sufficient to determine if someone is positive?”

This jackass — the president of the largest global AIDS organization, with clinics and testing sites in Florida (where this case reportedly occurred) — is obviously ignorant of the fact that in the state of Florida, NO ONE is deemed POSITIVE until the results of the confirmatory test come back. In fact, clinics are not permitted by the state to tell any one they are positive until the tests come back from the State. What people are told is that they are “reactive” even in AHF’s own clinics and testing sites, not positive.

Not only doesn’t Michael Weinstein understand testing, he doesn’t even know his own protocols. What a douche.

However, the FSC’s update makes it clear that the first and second generation people have been identified and contacted, and that testing has commenced, so it is appropriate to recommence production.

The only question left that would close this out is this: Where did the false positive (or false "reactive") test come from? Was it simply a screw up from the testing facility? Or...could it have been a deliberate plant used by AHF and its associates to cook the books and plants the seeds of panic just to grease the wheels for an HIV porn panic and the condom mandate??

I guess that we will never find the answer to that.

Porn Panic 2011, The Series: Here Come The Big Dawgs: Manwin, Brazzers' Parent Company, Busts Out The Whupping Stick Against AHF's Accusations

2011-09-01T13:15:00.000-07:00

And now...the Big Dawgs move in.

Here's the statement just released by Manwin, the parent company of Brazzers, in response to the charges flinged at them by Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, concerning the latest HIV porn scare, where a male performer has been alleged to have tested positive for HIV. AHF had claimed that the alleged infected performer had exposed up to 13 other performers to the virus while shooting for Brazzers, and called for federal, state, and local sanctions against the company as a "sanitary nusiance". (Both XBiz and AVN have the statement posted at their blogs.)

LUXEMBOURG—Manwin and some of its online properties have recently been falsely accused by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) as well as by other organizations in relation to possible HIV exposure of an adult industry performer.

The AHF statement is an unacceptable attempt to undermine the reputation of our producers through the publication of false information.

Our attorneys have sent the AHF a formal request demanding an immediate retraction.

Manwin and its affiliated producers wish to reiterate that we take industry performers’ health and safety very seriously and as such, we have at all times operated our business in strict compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Consequently, all of our adult online properties and their producers have accurately and meticulously followed best and standard industry practices when it comes to testing our performers.

Manwin and its producers have never attempted to hide any information or mislead anyone concerning the nature of the incident. We have acted as diligently as possible in a transparent manner in order to avoid and to mitigate any potential damages of any nature for our performers specifically and for the industry as a whole in accordance with the advice of our counsel.

More specifically, at no time did “Patient A” perform or provide any services for any of our producers after any test results were disclosed reflecting even the possibility of HIV exposure or infection. This fact is well documented and proves that the industry testing process precisely works as it should.

In addition, “Performer A” has never worked for Brazzers.com. The performer in question has performed for a separate website known as Mofos.com.

To this extent, statements to the contrary are inaccurate and possibly defamatory. We are currently waiting for a final and clear result on whether or not “Patient A” has tested positive for HIV. This process and its corresponding privacy implications means that we cannot comment further until the full results have been legally transmitted and disclosed.

Until then, we cannot and will not tolerate any further malicious, unverified, inaccurate or misleading statements published by anyone. In addition, we will not further comment on the sanitary nuisance health complaint with the Florida Department of Health and a similar letter of complaint with federal OSHA officials until we have had the opportunity to review the content of these documents and their implications.

Ahhh....zone defense. Nothing like 6-figure lawyers to cut through bullshit, ehhh??

Porn Panic 2011: Derek Burts -- From Rentboy To Crossover HIV+ Victim...To Anti-Gay Double Agent??? (OR:When Mike Weinstein and Bryan Fischer Are In Sync, We Have A BIG Problem)

2011-08-31T19:47:00.000-07:00

Oh, but you are so NOT going to believe what I am about to type here. As crazy as the latest porn scare is, the stuff I just discovered is going to blow things up to the level of insanity. It's kind of convoluted, so bear with me.

Bryan Fischer is the chief spokeperson for the American Family Association, which is one of the oldest and loudest "Christian Conservative" lobbying groups in this country. You may remember the AFA when it was formerly known as the National Federation for Decency, and its head honcho was a gruffy old Mississippi Baptist preacher named Don Wildmon, and they were in the 80's one of the main leaders of the 1980's war against "ungodly" sex. From abortion to homosexuality to pornography to "promiscuity" to just plain adultery, there was no sexual sin that they wouldn't attempt to uncover and severely punish...all in the name of salvation through Jesus, of course.

When Don Wildmon passed from this earth a few years ago, the family syndicate was passed on to his son Tim, who also appears from time to time...but these days, its Bryan Fischer who is the main mouthpiece for AFA these days. To that end, he has his own online radio talk show (to match the over-the-air radio show he does for the Family Values Radio Network and Christian Right talk radio daily) where he discusses the issues of the day from his own American Christian Taliban perspective.

Usually his show consists of varying shades or the usual wingnutter talking points: Barack Obama is a socialist Marxist Muslim Kenyan who faked his birth certificate; "Communist" Russia and "Communist China" are out to bury us, Government not redeemed by Christian Right values is illegitimate and must be abolished; the Founding Fathers of our country were rock-ribbed Christians who wanted a "Christian Nation" (their Deism and secularism not withstanding), and so on ad nauseum.

Their main obsession of the moment, however, is sexuality...and homosexuality in particular. To folks like Fischer, "sexual deviancy" (meaning, any form of sexual expression or act not intended to make lots and lots of babies for Jesus within a Biblically approved marriage) is at the heart of homosexuality, abortion, masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of what he considers to be "sexual sin"...and their practioners need at least to be punished severely for their heresy and deviance from the Godly order...or, at its most extreme, simply killed.

Which brings me to one of Bryan Fischer's latest online programs that he streamed for the AFA's website, titled "Sexual Deviancy Welcomed In U. S. Army".

(I hear 'ya thinkin', Clones..."What the hell does this have to do with the porn scare, 'Dog??" Hang with me, folks....I'm getting there.)

Anyways, the original background for this particular program was the upcoming finalization of the 60 day cooling period when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy preventing homosexuals from openly serving in the military would finally expire, and gay men, lesbian, and bisexual folk would be free to enlist and serve in our Armed Forces free of public persecution and dismissal merely for their private sexual preference. For most average folk, this is a grand step forward for equality and justice, since performance of the job should be the principal criteria for a soldier's effectiveness, not his private sex life. (Besides, it's not as if the military is bending over backwards to purge itself of hetero adulterers or divorcees, you know.)

But to people like Fischer, it is a grave and destructive step backwards, simply because it means, in his mind and that of likeminded homophobes, that gay men wielding their leather ass chaps and rock-hard dicks and Anal-Eze will be fully able to seduce and buttfuck impressionable young recruits into the evil and Satanic "homosexual lifestyle", thusly destroying morale and the will of Americans to fight and kill and torture and even die for the glory of God and their country.

And so, Fischer dedicated this program to how decent, Far Right-believing Christians can fight back for decency and morality.

The first portion is the usual talking points about fear of gay stalkers in the showers and sex in the foxholes, and talk of a protest on the day that DADT is scheduled to officially expire.

In the middle portion, though, it gets real interesting.

Unfortunately, it's streaming video, so I can't capture and embed it; you will have to go over to the AFA website to view the clip and see for yourself. But, here's the abridged version.

Fischer goes on to describe how he thinks homosexuals should be punished for their public "deviancy" and then announces that for his "Liberal News Tweak of the Day", he will use "an activist gay male porn star" to dictate what he feels should be the proper law against public homosexuality. He then quotes directly from an activist gay performer who happens to be HIV+ who had openly called for fines and even jail sentences for any gay man who has sex in porn without using a condom. Fischer, of course, extends that sanction to include not only all gay men in general, but also any one, gay, straight, or bi, outside of marriage.

But the real kicker is in the gay porn star he quotes to support his position. Three guesses, Clones.

Try....Derek Burts.

DEREK BURTS?!?!? Not that Derek Burts, alias Cameron Reid?? The one who was the Patient Zero of last year's HIV scare? The one who openly boasted of being proud of being both a crossover gay performer AND an escort for Rentboy.com? The one who claimed that AIM had dissed him after he got infected, and sought treatment from them, and then got himself on AHF's payroll?? The one who even boasted that the scene where he apparently got infected was a condom scene in which his partner took of the condom at the end and blew out on his butthole, causing the infected spooge to enter via the anal cavity?? THAT Derek Burts??

Yup...that's your man.

In fact, Fischer was so confident in using Burts as the perfect example of the kind of gay male porn role model for Christian bashing that he followed his show up with a post on the official AFA blog, Rightly Conserned, where he liberally (no pun) quotes both Derrick Burts and Michael Weinstein, as well as their LA condom mandate ordinance, which would call for huge fines for porn companies not mandating condoms in all shoots. Of course, Burts and Weinstein are more concerned about protecting performers (or so they say), while Fischer is all about banning gay sex (and non marital non procreative hetero sex)....but you can see the shared vision of deep sexual fascism and sexual repression in both.

Here's how Fischer attempted to get on Weinstein and Burts' good side:

A gay porn actor is way ahead of me, but I’m all caught up now. He wants to fine people who don’t use a condom when they have gay sex.

Now he wants to restrict the fine to people in the porn industry, but why stop there? If contracting HIV/AIDS is the threat to human health he says it is, why shouldn’t we try to protect everybody?

Derek Burts is an actor in both straight and gay porn films, and shut down the porn industry late last fall when he tested positive for HIV, which he says he almost certainly contracted while filming gay sex scenes.

Now, according to the Los Angeles Times, another sex performer has been diagnosed with HIV, and once again the porn industry has been temporarily shuttered.

Burts and others are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which, if passed by voters in 2012, will require all performers in adult films shot in L.A. to wear condoms during filming, whether the sex is gay or straight. The only standards in place right now are strictly voluntary, and ask performers to be tested every 30 days.

The president of the foundation, one Michael Weinstein, says that not requiring gay porn actors to wear condoms shows “outrageous disregard for the health and safety of performers and the community at large.” So he too admits that gay sex is an enormous threat to public health, and that the threat is community-wide. In other words, he’s saying that homosexual sex, indeed random sex in general, is not a victimless crime. I couldn’t agree more. I feel like I’m listening to myself here.

[...]

Now if condoms are going to be required in filming gay sex scenes, then there must be some penalty for failing to do so. I was unable to find out exactly what the proposed penalty is, but I’m assuming it’s in the nature of a fine.

What I’m suggesting is that we enact ordinances in city after city and laws in state after state that mandate that same exact penalty - whatever penalty gay activists think is appropriate - for unprotected homosexual sex. Hey, if it’s good enough for porn stars, it should be good enough for the average gay man on the street.

And if someone wants to extend that same penalty to unmarried straights who have sex, who am I to complain?

Why should we only care about the health of those who get paid $1000 to $2000 for filming a sex scene and not care about the little people who have gay sex in public bathrooms for free?

Of course, this is just the place to begin, but it is a first step in de-normalizing and de-legitimizing homosexual sex. And the beauty here is that we would be following the lead of homosexual activists. We ought to take their advice in the simple interest of human health and out of concern for future possible HIV victims.

So oddly, I find myself in the same corner on this issue as gay porn stars. I’m willing to take their suggestion and apply it not just in L.A. but nationwide and not just for people who get paid to have sex but for every gay sex partner in the land. It’s not all we can do, but it’s the least we can do.

Anyone wants to do an over-under on how long it will take for Ministress Lubben to appear on Fischer's show?? I'd give it about 2 weeks.

More importantly, what does that say about Mike Weinstein's fervent denials that he's not a right-winger or in any way associated with right-wingers who are dedicated to destroying everything related and not about porn, and that AHF is only and solely concerned with the safety and health of the performers?? Will he and his newly founded asstroturf group FAIR (For Adult Industry Responsibility) come out and directly repudiate Mr. Fischer and all other open homophobes and erotophobes and fascists? And how in the hell can a man who still sells bareback gay male porn at his thrift stores feel fit to fellow travel with some of the most toxic racist/sexist/homophobic/fundamentalist Right people around?

I suspect only two motives...either Mike Weinstein and Derek Burts and the rest of AHF are really right-wing double agents playing the "liberal" good cop to the "conservative" AFA bad cop scheme to wipe out porn and sexual expression a bit at a time; or they're all motivated more by the golden showers of cold hard cash that can be gotten by exploiting sex hate and shoving condoms down performers' throats.

Then again, we've already seen with such "liberals" like Mike Weinstein and Gail Dines that political consistency always tends to be flexible based on the amount of dollar bills thrown at them. Why should this be any different for them?

Once again, this is why faux liberalism, like faux ho's, should be taken very seriously. What you see might not be exactly what you ultimately get...and beware of men and women hiding behind curtains with really big microphones and bells and whistles.

Porn Panic 2011: FSC/APHSS Responds To AHF Smear Campaign

2011-08-31T18:02:00.000-07:00

It didn't take long for the Free Speech Coalition to respond to the accusations spewed forth by Mike Weinstein of AHF at his presser today. Here's their response, as posted over at AVN.com (and at XBiz.com and LukeIsBack.com as well).

CANOGA PARK, Calif.—The following announcement by the Free Speech Coalition was issued Wednesday afternoon and is reprinted in its entirety:

Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has been falsely accused by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), of obstructing a medical investigation by Los Angeles County Public Health (LACPH), in regards to the latest incidence of the possible HIV exposure of an adult industry performer in a press release issued by AHF today.

FSC, the adult industry trade association, would like to make clear that this accusation is completely false and that is appallingly irresponsible for AHF to accuse any adult industry members of wrong-doing without any basis in actual fact.

Official statements made today by AHF President Michael Weinstein at an AHF press conference are false and seemingly based on rumor and innuendo gathered from unreliable sources.

During that press conference, Weinstein also falsely accused FSC of witholding information from public health authorities.

FSC has received no contact from LACPH, out-of-state health officials, or AHF.

“This is another prime example of AHF and its President Michael Weinstein’s outrageous grandstanding, which is completely false and baseless,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke. “AHF has a history of spreading misinformation in order to further their agenda to force government regulation of sexual behavior. Apparently, Mr. Weinstein will stop at nothing, including spreading false information, in order to call attention to AHF’s agenda.”

To FSC’s knowledge, there is no investigation being conducted by LACPH at this time. It is impossible for FSC to obstruct an investigation that, evidently, does not exist. In the event that FSC were to be contacted by authorities from LACPH or elswehere, it would endeavor to cooperate fully, while still protecting the rights of any individuals to medical privacy.

It should also be made clear that at this time FSC does not have authorized information confirming that a performer or any performers have tested positive for HIV. However, after reports received on Saturday were corroborated by various sources, there was enough serious concern regarding the possible infection for FSC to call a moratorium on production.

It also should be noted that the possible infection took place outside of California, and there is nothing to suggest that the Los Angeles adult production industry has been affected by any possible infections. However, adult production companies in Los Angeles have voluntarily agreed to the moratorium in order to eliminate the potential for exposure.

Also, the possible exposure and subsequent events took place outside of the APHSS.org database program and therefore, outside of the authority of FSC to implement industry exposure protocols. However, FSC has reached out to concerned parties and is providing assistance.

The APHSS.org database program was developed in order to fill the gap left by the closure of Adult Industry Medical Healthcare (AIM) that, since 1998, had been the primary testing facility for adult performers. AIM was closed in May, largely due to financial pressure brought on by relentless litigation waged against them by AHF. FSC administers the APHSS.org program, which was launched on August 1, and still in the process of organizing producers, agents and performers for participation in the program.

“AHF’s campaign for mandatory condoms has done nothing but create controversy and, with the closure of AIM, has deprived the adult industry of an important health and safety resource,” Duke continued. “The industry has successfully self-regulated since 1998, due to AIM and the cooperation of the content production industry nationwide. However, without a similar system in place, the issue of industry protocols not being followed by separate testing facilities presents substantial difficulties for maintaining health and safety standards.”

FSC also has consulted with legal advisers in order to issue a demand for an immediate retraction from AHF.

Porn Panic 2011 -- The Series Continues: AHF Ratches Up The BS Propaganda Machine To Full Blast, Calls For Federal Investigation of Brazzers And Dings FSC/APHSS For "Stonewalling"

2011-08-31T15:11:00.000-07:00

Oh, but Mike Weinstein's through fooling around now...he's getting real serious.

Get a load of this press release AHF just posted to Business Wire.com this afternoon. If only President Obama could be this aggessive.

HIV Porn Case: AHF to File Complaints with Federal & FL Health Officials against Producers
LOS ANGELES, Aug 31, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) ----AHF officials will submit a health and safety complaint under Florida 'Sanitary Nuisance' statutes against Brazzers, the production company involved in the latest HIV case in the adult film industry; industry sources say male performer involved had worked directly with as many as a dozen female performers

--Group also will call on the Free Speech Coalition to "stop obstructing the investigation in Los Angeles County and provide necessary information to health authorities" and will call on Los Angeles City officials to suspend all new film permits for adult films

Never mind that there hasn't even been a verification of even ONE performer testing positive for HIV, or the fact that the producer involved with the alleged "Patient Zero" has formally and publically denied that he had allowed that performer to do the shoot off a positive-confirmed test (the director said that in fact, the test was negative), and that no confirmation of any other performer being infected has been found or even any first- or second-generation confirmation tests done. When there's propaganda to be done, the truth is a natural distraction.

Actually, for AHF, the truth is more like a roll of Charmin tissue. To wit:

In response to the latest reported HIV case in the adult film industry--thought to be the 23rd industry-related HIV case since 2004--AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) will host a press teleconference today, Wednesday, August 31st at 2:00 PM Pacific Time to announce the filing of a 'sanitary nuisance' health complaint with the Florida Department of Health and a similar letter of complaint with federal OSHA officials against Brazzers, the Florida-based adult film production company widely reported as the company where the infected performer was employed. Industry sources say the male performer involved had worked directly--and without condoms--with as many as a dozen female performers.

Ahh...let's count the lies, shall we??

First, you have the old and tired "23 performers contracting HIV in porn since 2004" meme....which seems quite drastic. Seems, that is....until you go "inside the numbers" and find out that only 4 of those cases involved :straight" heterosexual porn performers, and NONE of them were infected directly on set. (And the only questionable one, Derrick Burts of last year, even publically stated that he was infected in a gay scene...which included a condom.) 4 were private citizens using the services of then AIM for their own purposes, and the remainders were gay male porn performers...where a fundamentally different system of less testing (and CONDOMS, TOO!!!!) was being used. Even the LA Times, who is mostly sympathetic to the condom mandate cause, was smart enough to retract that stat...but Weinstein never let such things get in his way before, now hasn't he??

And then there is the "male performer working without condoms" libel...as if it's Brazzers' fault that the performer, if he did in fact get infected, was able to continue to shoot scenes with women. Remember that the performer was working off a negative test, albeit one that wasn't from a testing facility that had gotten under the umbrella of the Free Speech Coalition's APHSS program because the latter has only gotten started this past month.

Of course, the reason why APHSS was needed in the first place was because the older regimen that had been put in place by the earlier group AIM was shattered when AIM was put out of business...largely thanks to the hard work of AHF and Cal/OSHA's nuisance suits against them. Gee..ya think that would turn out well, Mike??

"When will it end? This is yet another suspected case of HIV infection in the adult film industry. Given the wide reports, and given that Brazzers affirmatively states they do not use condoms--a violation of both state and federal health statutes--it makes sense to investigate them in the hopes of putting an end to further infections," said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "We are filing these complaints with Florida health officials and federal OSHA officials to prompt industry compliance with employee health and safety regulations and to spur proper and thorough public health investigations of this reported incident. In addition, we are calling on the Free Speech Coalition, the adult industry-sponsored advocacy group, to stop obstructing the investigation of this incident in Los Angeles County and provide all of the necessary information to public health authorities. FSC is an advocacy group, they are not authorized to do these health investigations, and they are not qualified. The pattern of non-cooperation that has characterized the industry and led to the current situation is continuing. It is the responsibility of Los Angeles County, which has not issued any statement to this point, to demand cooperation from the adult industry. Even though the initial exposure took place in Florida, the shutdown in LA constitutes a major public health event under the law. We are also reaffirming our call on the City of Los Angeles to stop issuing new permits."

Excuse me a moment while I go through this laughing spasm.

Wait..there are FEDERAL health statutes out there that require all porn performers to use condoms?? Really, Mike?? So, what about all those damn bareback gay videos that you were selling in your Florida thrift stores recently?? Are you going to be filing federal and state complaints against those companies, too??

And this attempt at intimidating the FSC?? WOW. For an organization who has the full colluding support of the LA County health officials and Cal/OSHA, and who was able to bribe...errrrrrrrrrrrr, persuade four LA city councilmen to attempt to browbeat the LA City Attorney to force the LA film board to cancel all porn film permits until they go condom only, AND when stoned by the Attorney himself, go over his head to the California Supreme Court to get their way, to attempt to smack down FSC for "stonewalling", is chutzpah to the extreme. But to call FSC an "advocacy group" and "not qualified", and to turn the voluntary step of suspending production until all the testing is done as a "major public health event" and call for the total abolishment?? These jackals are making the words "hypocrisy" and "projection" into the understatements of the millenium...and we haven't even gotten through the second decade yet!!!

Oh, and unless Weinstein is pulling laws out of his ass as usual, I want anyone reading this to look deep into the Florida legal code and cite for me any sort of regulations where sites like Brazzers (or other home grown adult websites based in Florida) are mandated to use condoms for all of their scenes.

And also...someone please remind Mikey that organizations in California cannot be held resposible for acts of unrelated companies in Florida??

It should also be noted that none of the female performers who would potentially be affected have shot any content in California, and that the moratorium for all porn production is a voluntary preventative measure designed to protect everyone from accidental exposure while the whole situation is sorted out. Of course, the reason Weinstein wants to make it permanent is to totally break the industry so that AHF and Cal/OSHA can take over and impose his favored condom mandate plus pre-1994 testing regime...the very regime that led to umpteempt outbreaks in the past, when performers could buy and rig tests like derivatives.

One last thing, Mikey: THERE IS NO LOS ANGELES COUNTY INVESTIGATION ONGOING, BECAUSE THIS IS STRICTLY A FLORIDA SITUATION. You might want to recheck your sources on that one.

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC)--which has fiercely opposed condom use in adult films--reported over the weekend that yet another adult film performer has tested HIV positive, and as a result, the industry group itself called for a moratorium on all adult film production, "...until possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified." Sources within the adult industry also said the performer is thought to be a male and had worked directly with as many as a dozen female performers, who in turn worked with scores of other performers.

The most direct response to this particular Big Dam Lie is in two words: BULL. SHIT.

The more stacid response, though, is to simply point out that nowhere does FSC or APHSS ever call for an end to condom usage, nor do they even come close to advocating that performers who choose to use or wish their shooting partners to use condoms should be in any way discriminated against or or ostracized. They simply oppose having condom usage imposed by government fiat.

And notice the trend towards quoting unnamed "industry sources" to support Weinstein's whopping mischaracterization of both the alleged performer and his partners...as if all of them are nothing more than stupid promiscuous sluts who are incapable of protecting themselves. Until the test results come in, he knows exactly what the rest of us know: not a Goddess-damn thing.

Weinstein then goes on to pimp the LA condom mandate ordinance, which has already been debunked here before, so I won't bore you with that.

But after that, it actually gets interesting. Here's what AHF has in store for Brazzers locally:

'Sanitary Nuisance' Complaints in Florida

Unlike California or the federal government, the State of Florida does not have a specifically designated occupational safety and health division. However, there is a "sanitary nuisance" law in the Florida Statutes. AHF believes that unprotected sex in a commercial setting should, arguably, fall under the definition of a "sanitary nuisance," since Florida law defines it as "any act" that may cause disease.

386.01 Sanitary nuisance.--A sanitary nuisance is the commission of any act, by an individual, municipality, organization, or corporation, or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, by an individual, municipality, organization, or corporation, by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.

386.02 Duty of Department of Health.--The Department of Health, upon request of the proper authorities, or of any three responsible resident citizens, or whenever it may seem necessary to the department, shall investigate the sanitary condition of any city, town, or place in the state; and if, upon examination, the department shall ascertain the existence of any sanitary nuisance as herein defined, it shall serve notice upon the proper party or parties to remove or abate the said nuisance or, if necessary, proceed to remove or abate the said nuisance in the manner provided in s. 823.01.

As such, three "responsible resident citizens" will file complaints with the Florida Department of Health asking them to investigate a sanitary nuisance--unprotected sex taking place on adult film productions in the state.

There is also a Miami-Dade County "sanitary nuisance" law as well (Miami-Dade County Municipal Ordinances Chapter 26A). It uses a similar definition of "sanitary nuisance" as the state law, and it provides for the Director of the Dade County Department of Public Health to investigate nuisances.

So, in effect, Michael Weinstein is going to pay off three "responsible resident citizens" of Miami/South Beach to file a complaint with the state and local departments of health asking them to investigate and potentially shut down Brazzers as a "sanitary nusiance" for....allowing for sex acts without the use of a condom???

Now...such "sanitary nuisance" regs are nomally used against those whom explicitly handle food (such as restaurants or diners) hazardous chemicals or forms of hazardous waste, or whom get close to any form of bodily fluids or internal human organs (such as medical professionals, morticians, and the like). I'm pretty damn sure that it has never been used against porn sites...but there's a first for anything.

But here's the really ironic point: for someone who says that he cares deeply about the well being and safety of porn performers so much, he's sure giving those who don't share his concern and who would much prefer the industry to be drop-kicked into either jail cells or simple nonexistence a really big hammer to sling against any and all adult sites. Imagine the Christian Right getting three like-minded citizens to file local nuisance charges against any woman running a porn site out of her home, for example. Hell, imagine Polk County Sheriff and antiporn zealout Grant Judd using that same hammer to shut down even anyone with a computer LOOKING at porn. Be careful of what you ask for, Michael, because you just might get it.

But then again, I'm guessing that since Governor Rick Scott has so shredded Florida state government as to render it unable to fulfill Weinstein's requests, and that the Miami-Dade officials have far more struggles and concerns on their hand than wet-nursing a false porn panic, he will simply do as he has done so well in Cali: exploit this to the fullest extent to shake people down for lots and lots of money for his coffers, to be shared with both the condom manufacturers who finance AHF and the crossover gay male performers -- some of whom may even be HIV+ -- that he is protecting and covering for.

Which means..this won't be the last propaganda presser we'll get from him.

I just wonder how long it will be for Florida to read him properly and give him the boot.

Porn Panic 2011 Redux #2: Jordan Owen States The Obvious About The Dishonesty Of AHF

2011-08-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

Not many people can advocate for adult sexual expression quite like Jordan Owen.

I may not personally agree sometimes with his libertarian conservative "individualistic" perspective, but Jordan is gifted in the art of cutting through the BS of arguments of antiporn activists. He just finished a long series where he totally debunked Gail Dines' recent tome Pornland., and he has also done series debunking the idiocy of Shelley Lubben, Patrick Trueman, and other antiporn/antisex activists.

Today, at his YouTube channel, he posted a video reflecting his own thoughts on the recent HIV porn panic, the credibility of Derrick Burts as a spokesperson for the aggrieved "victim" of the industry (conveniently ignoring his Rentboy.com membership and the fact that the scene he claims he got infected in did in fact include a condom), the menacity of AHF in attempting to replace AIM as the main regulator of the California adult industry, and the illogic of the proposed LA ordinance. It is so powerful that I've decided to mirror it here for your reading enjoyment.

I most certainly recommend that you visit his channel for lots of truth and wisdom. Also, feel free to check out his Facebook page as well.

Jordan Owen (JordanOwen42) giving his personal reflections on the latest

HIV-in-porn scare, the AHF, Shelley Lubben, and the proposed LA

condom ordinance (via YouTube)

HIV Porn Panic 2011 Update: "Patient Zero" Possibly Exposed, Brazzers.com (In Florida) Implicated

2011-08-30T11:51:00.000-07:00

[UPDATED: Scroll to bottom.]

Remember, the following information is still speculation, and should not be assumed to be the absolute truth until it is verified.

More information is being released this morning about the background of the most recent HIV porn scare. It's a bit convoluted, so try to follow me.

This morning, AdultFYI.com reposted a blog entry by former porn agent Mike South in which the latter "outs" the alleged "Patient Zero" at the center of the crisis. Pursuant of this blog's stated policy, I will not give out the name of the performer (though, both AdultFYI and South obviously do at their sites), but I can give out some other information via the blog post by South, which was reposted by AdultFYI. (Redacted to protect privacy and presumption of innocence)

"What is troubling is that he tested positive and still worked, that is undisputed what is disputed is whether he tested negative after testing positive using the same methodology.

"A positive test should ALWAYS be confirmed with a Western Blot no matter if its PCR or ELISA, retesting with another test that isn't Western Blot doesn't mean anything.

"Only the Western Blot can confirm a positive test.

"The really fucked up part is the Director also reportedly knew that [redacted] had tested positive, but let him work on the basis that it was believed it was a false positive.

"It is being said that [redacted] is being retested via Western Blot to confirm his results and that the results of that test are not back yet.

"I do hope he is negative but this should be a lesson to everyone either way."

Gene (Ross, AdultFYI reporter) adds: "Now that the cat's out of the bag, here's what I'm told- [redacted] also goes by the name [redacted].

He was found by Brazzer's Producer [redacted].'

[Redacted] is known to throw sex/swing parties where [redacted] met him.

[Redacted's] test came back 'false positive' and allegedly talked [redacted] into still shooting him with a positive test.

Apparently 13 Florida Female Talent have been exposed."

So, apparently, the performer tested positive using a company not within the APHSS grid, then went to yet another testing company also not in the grid for a followup test which essentially concluded that the first test was a false positive, to which the latter test was used by him to persuade the producer to clear him to shoot scenes.

The implication of Brazzers.com is fascinating in its own right, too, since Brazzers' Florida-base production center (as opposed to their LA and Vegas centers) has developed a really bad reputation from talent and consumers alike for cutting corners in regards to protecting performers and putting their own profits above their talent. (That, and Brazzers' overly lenient attitude towards tube sites and content piracy, which has really ticked off other adult production companies struggling against content thievery.) Also, Brazzers was not amongst the main production companies who contributed to the creation of APHSS.

The scariest thing about this, though, is that 13 women whom had worked with this performer (and possibly all of their partners) are now exposed enough to warrant testing. It remains to be seen whether or not any of those women had done any other work outside of Florida.

I'm still going to reserve judgment on Brazzers until we have more reliable information, but if this editorial by a blogger at the porn gossip/info site LukeFord.com (not to be confused with LukeIsBack.com) has any weight to it, then Brazzers may be in a heap of trouble. (His sentiment, NOT mine.)

In school when they teach you about sex they are quick to remind you that you not only slept with the person you are with but every person they have been with and every person they have been with, so quickly 1 partner can become 34, 34 can become 340. So when the news broke that Brazzer’s knowingly exposed 13 performers to HIV [source] …. we know the impact is much larger because since their potential exposure, who else have those 13 girls slept with, and then who else have those people slept with?

So if stealing content, running 5 of the most popular illegal tube sites wasn’t enough, how about this? Is knowing a performer tested HIV positive and still letting him perform with others enough for ya?

Why do I go on twitter day after day and see some performer bragging about doing this or that with Brazzers? What the heck is wrong with you people? Are you blind? Do you not see day in and day out what they are doing?

I mean sure there can be arguments made for people like Jules Jordan and Wicked Pictures deserving to get screwed … they after all knowingly entered into business deals with the devil, Brazzers – so they got what they deserved … but what about you? What’s your excuse for still doing business with them?

Do you realize that because of their illegal activities, other producers were forced to reduce the amount they pay performers, so every time you do any work with Brazzers you are directly contributing to the further success of a company that fucked you and your friends.
As far as the HIV scare goes, if you have worked in Miami in the last month or so or worked with anyone who has worked in Miami than now is a good time to go get tested. Just remember, it is always better to be safe than sorry so if you have concerns about working with a performer, it’s okay to say no. Your life is far more important than that scene is.

And please, please, for Goddess sake, please, for those of you in Miami heeding that final graph's advice....use an APHSS approved clinic that has the proper protocols and procedures.

UPDATE (8-30-11): The director that was implicated in the original blog entry by Mike South (and outed by both South and the AdultFYI.com mirror post), has now responded, through an email that was posted to South's blog this evening. I'll simply repost it for posterity's sake.

I understand that there are rumors circulating concerning the identity of "Patient Zero." If the rumors are true, the last time I shot this particular individual was on August 19. That person had a valid negative test.

There has been a lot of false information circulating about this situation. I want to be clear that there is absolutely no truth to any of the statements about my filming this performer with a positive test. I would never, ever shoot anyone with a positive test, even if they claimed it was a "false positive." I make no exceptions.

Please put an end to this vicious and harmful rumor.

Our lawyers are CC'ed in this e-mail and have verified the documentation.

The title of the post over at South's blog does list the director's name, but, consistent with this blog's policy regarding performer/director privacy, I will not reveal it here.

HIV Porn Scare 2011 Redux: Rumor, Speculation, And Fact

2011-08-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

[Now also crossposted over at LukeIsBack.com; Domo Obligato to Cindi Loftus for the honor and pleasure. ]

Like I figured, developments are breaking fast on the news today of a performer having been tested positive for HIV. Thusly, it's important to understand that rumors and speculation about the identity of the performer, how (s)he got infected, whom (if any) else may have been compromised, and the nature of how this occurred, should be treated as just that: rumors and speculation, until more information is offered.

Nevertheless, there are some conclusions that can be made even in this early time, based on the preliminary info trickling out.

First off: it does appear that the targeted performer was allegedly shooting content in Florida using a testing service that was out of the loop of the testing regimen established by the Free Speech Coalition's APHSS services. Remember that when AIM-ORG was run out of business by the combined efforts of Cal/OSHA and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, it's consensus testing procedure was effectively obliterated, leaving the task to several smaller and much less standardized companies (such as Talent Testing Services), which did not have the extensive resources for follow-up testing and verification that AIM had. Many performers had feared that in their zeal to shut down AIM and impose the condom mandate and their own system of weaker testing procedures, AHF and Cal/OSHA was essentially creating much more risk for active performers by driving them into less safe venues and shadier groups more interested in exploitation than safety. Since Florida until now has not had the institutionalized and standardized testing regimen that LA had with AIM, the inevitable results could have been easily predicted.

Secondly....it is no grand irony that the last three HIV porn scares have taken place outside of LA; the 2010 scare featuring Cameron Reid/Derrick Burts was also the byproduct of a Florida shoot; and the 2009 "Patient Zero" panic was based in Las Vegas. Well, maybe it is somewhat of an irony, considering all the hard work and resources that AHF has put into browbeating the city of LA, Los Angeles County, and the state of California into imposing the condom mandate for shoots in LA. Though Weinstein has made noises about imposing similar regulations in Florida, he hasn't worked up anywhere near the effort or the concern about "performer safety" there. Maybe the South Beach politicos are too rich to bribe??

Thirdly...the lightning response by APHSS in not only confronting and containing the panic, but also getting out in front in public with warnings and suggestions on performers protecting themselves, says a great deal for their professionalism and concern about seriously protecting the talent. It also speaks to the advantage of having a standardized system of testing and treatment, rather than a hodge-podge ad-hoc system where testing is basically left to whomever is closest at the moment. Many who claimed that AIM had an "monopoly" on performer testing completely ignored the main reason why that was so: their regimen worked. Yes, there were two cases of performers getting infected, but in both cases they were not infected from a porn shoot (and in the case of Derrick Burts, the shoot was for a gay video, which is outside of AIM's jurisdiction), and in both cases the threat was contained to that particular performer. Hopefully, that will be the foundation that APHSS will build on....that is, if AHF and Cal/OSHA would allow them to.

Finally...I'm pretty sure that Mike Weinstein is already preparing his next press conference as I type this, where he and Ministress Lubben shed their usual crocodile tears about how this poor young woman (yes, I'm assuming again; If I'm wrong, then I'm the ass...so sue me) had her life taken away from her by the Big, Bad, Mean Porn Industry. (Hell, I even expect them to add Gail Dines to the lecturn to add her quarter's worth about how this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how porn chews up women for The Patriarchy.) If the concept of shame ever invaded the Teflon-coated synapses of their brains, they would hopefully think twice about exploiting her..but then again, if Lubben and Weinstein had thought twice about almost anything, they wouldn't have the publicity and the money they had, right??

Just my personal thoughts, Clones. Consume with the usual sprinkle of salt and Tony Chachere's seasoning.

BREAKING: Once Again, Into The Breach We Go: ANOTHER HIV Porn Scare???

2011-08-29T09:02:00.000-07:00

[Updated below....scroll to bottom.]

This is what you call really, really bad timing.

FSC Asks for Porn Moratorium After Possible HIV Exposure

CANOGA PARK, Calif. — Adult industry trade group Free Speech Coalition has asked for an industry-wide moratorium on porn production after reports indicate that an active performer may have tested positive for HIV.

The FSC, as well as its performer testing unit, Adult Production Health & Safety Services Program (APHSS.org), said that a moratorium be "instituted immediately and continued for a time period until the primary reports are confirmed."

The moratorium would continue until possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified. A quarantine could be extended after that point, if necessary.

The FSC said it was made aware of a "purported incident" on Saturday by a "reliable" industry source.

"According to the information that is available, the performer in question may have tested positive for HIV at a testing facility that does not appear to have protocols or procedures in place for medical follow-up (including generational testing) ," the FSC said in a statement.

The FSC said that it wanted to make clear that these reports were not involving APHSS.org testing facilities and that it can't deny nor confirm specific facts about the incident.

"Our first priority is to protect performers with reliable health services and assist producers with protocols that minimize liability, while remaining compliant with state and federal regulations regarding medical privacy," the FSC said.

In short, it appears that in the transition between the closure of AIM-ORG (the old testing center) and the establishment of APHSS, fly-by-night organizations have been going around offering testing without the kind of follow-up for treatment or verification that AIM had in place, and what APHSS now does have.

This couldn't have come at a worse time, too, since I'm sure that the usual suspects (Shelley Lubben, Mike Weinstein, et. al.) are already preparing the press conferences to say that this proves once and for all that the testing system is a failure and only condoms are the true answer. Not to mention, this gives them pretty much the ammo they need to fuel their proposed ordinace to force the condom mandate.

But, that's a worry for later. The main thing right now is to offer comfort and protection to the infected performer, investigate and contain this outbreak (if it is confirmed), let the procedures run their course, and hope that nobody else is affected.

And, it's a damn good reason for performers to join APHSS and know and follow their protocols for testing. At least they reacted decisively and rapidly to contain this threat.

Addedum: Like I said,the Free Speech Coalition and APHSS wastes no time. Here's some snippage from their official press release that was just posted to the AINews.com site just a few minutes ago.

(CANOGA PARK, CA) -- Free Speech Coalition (FSC), as administrators of the Adult Production Health & Safety Services Program (APHSS.org), would like to address recent reports that an active performer may have tested positive for HIV.

FSC was made aware of the purported incident on Saturday by a reliable industry source. Most importantly, FSC would like to make clear that these reports were not involving APHSS.org testing facilities. This fact has limited the information gathered by FSC/APHSS.org and we can neither deny nor confirm specific facts about this incident. Due to legal issues concerning patient privacy, FSC/APHSS.org, as of yet, is unable to implement exposure protocols and procedures.

It is the recommendation of FSC/APHSS.org that an industry-wide moratorium on production be instituted immediately and continued for a time period until the primary reports are confirmed, and possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified. The quarantine can be extended after that point, if necessary.

According to the information that is available, the performer in question may have tested positive for HIV at a testing facility that does not appear to have protocols or procedures in place for medical follow-up (including generational testing).

However, FSC/APHSS.org cannot act on the behalf of any testing facilities outside the APHSS.org system until we are requested to do so by the performer or any medical advisor authorized by the performer. Again, we have been in contact with concerned parties and have offered to assist them in anyway possible, while still remaining compliant with the performer’s wishes for assistance, in respect to legal constraints that require that the performer’s privacy be protected, as well as other compliance issues.

In addition to the moratorium on production, FSC/APHSS.org also recommends that active performers who are concerned about possible exposure (or that would like to take extra precautions to confirm their own well-being) consider being tested as soon as possible.

FSC/APHSS.org also recommends that industry members avoid spreading unverified information until the involved parties are able to confirm developments, or until information is received from an appropriate medical authority.

We are committed to assisting any industry members that have concerns involving this incident; if you have questions, please contact diane@freespeechcoalition.com or joanne@freespeechcoalition.com. But because this situation has occurred outside of the APHSS.org database program, we are limited in any available information until we are informed of any details or allowed to assist in implementing industry protocols.

Obviously, we'll keep you informed here if anything else breaks.

Porn Panic 2011 Supplemental: XBiz Reports On The FSC's Reaction To AHF's Proposed Condom Mandate Ordinance Drive

2011-08-16T17:24:00.000-07:00

Don't ever accuse the Free Speech Coalition of not having a rapid response team to events involving the porn industry.

Here's their official response to today's news of AHF's announcement of their drive for an initiative for the condom mandate, as reported today by XBiz.com.

FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said that the Department of Public Health has already stated in response to a lawsuit filed by AHF that it doesn't see a compelling public interest to require the use of condoms in adult productions.

"Clearly AHF has an anti-adult industry agenda and like its previous frivolous lawsuits, erroneous charges with Cal/OSHA, multiple press conferences and protests, I suspect that this is the next step in AHF’s attempt to stay relevant," Duke said.

"Clearly their efforts and financial resources would be much better served in the prevention and treatment of HIV rather than continuing its witch hunt of the adult entertainment industry."

The FSC also said that it will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars to sort out what the City Attorney has already called a "non-issue."

"It's an absurd attempt at grandstanding by AHF and its president Michael Weinstein," said Joanne Cachapero, FSC's membership director. "A judge has already ruled against AHF's attempt to force the city to enforce mandatory condoms, stating that the city cannot be compelled to enforce regulations that fall under the authority of a state agency like Cal/OSHA.

"What a huge waste of resources for the people of California and for AHF's contributors, while Weinstein carries on a campaign of misinformation."

The FSC also said that the performers who appeared at today's press conference do not represent the population in the adult industry and claims that they contracted HIV or other diseases while working on adult productions are "unfounded."

"The data that AHF presents to the media has been debunked as inaccurate and is the result of methodology that has no basis in science," Cachapero said.

"There is no public health threat or epidemic, as Weinstein likes to portray. The adult production industry has been very successful at protecting performers' health and safety ever since the first incidence of HIV infection in 1998, and we continue to be a model for STI testing.

"The only logical reason that AHF would continue its campaign must be to bring attention to their own pro-condom agenda," Cachapero said.

Porn Panic 2011 (The Endless Loop Contionues): AHF, Apparently Not Happy With The Grinding Wheels of Process, Takes Its Case ForThe Condom Mandate To The LA Streets Via Initiative

2011-08-16T16:57:00.000-07:00

Michael Weinstein much be hard on cash again...because apparently he's not bothering to wait for Cal/OSHA to do the dirty work of forcing condoms down the throats of porn performers in LA.

Today, Weinstein and his AIDS Healthcare Foundation groupies gathered at the Sheraton Hotel to announce that they were going to initiate a signature drive to put to the voters of the City of Los Angeles an initiative for a proposed ordinance that would force city officials to impose the condom mandate as a requirement for approval of production of porn in that jurisdiction. The goal would be to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot before the people of LA by June of next year.

The press release announcing this initiative cited all the usual AHF talking points about how adult performers were protected less than mainstream TV actors (ignoring the basic fact that most mainstream actors don't engage in active sex on screen (except, maybe, in casting couches, and that would probably not be covered by condom regs), that there is a pandemic of STD's, including HIV, afoot within the porn industry that is so out of control that outside intervention is needed (conveniently ignoring AHF's own role in toppling the one organization that had been the most effective in controlling STD's--namely the AIM Medical Foundation), and that all they are doing is asking the city to enforce existing law, which they say already mandates condom usage.

The actual press conference, on the other hand, was more than just the usual antics and showboating...though there was plenty of that. Mark Kernes of AVN.com did a decent report on the presser, and I will quote freely from his accounts, which you can see here.

All the usual suspects were there to testify. Mike Weinstein kicked it off:

"We're here today to announce the launching of an initiative campaign before the voters of the city of Los Angeles, to require as a condition of permitting, that adult films follow the law....[w]e protect all other workers in every other industry and minimize their risk....[w]e protect performers in Hollywood films, stunt people and actors, from injury. We even protect animals from being harmed in the making of films, and yet we do not protect the performers in this industry."

Really?? You mean that stunt people are required to wear helmets and goggles and protective gear every time they do a stumt?? Are they also requited to wear PPE (personal protective gear) to prevent themselves from tainted blood?? Are MMA athletes required to wear gloves, dental dams, and googles in order to prevent them from getting infected from blood, too??

And...surely Mike Weinstein already knows that performers are already capable of protecting themselves, and many of them already use condoms as one line of defense along with testing and peer pressure and selective use of partners in shooting porn scenes, does he??

Quite naturally, Weinstein then proceeds to throw his local allies at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health under his big, shiny bus..never mind the hard work of folks there like Peter Kerndt and Robert Kim-Fairley to cook the stats on STD transmission to his favor. And, he minces no words either towards the LA City Attorney's office, who stoned his efforts earlier to force the local film regulatory agency FilmLA to impose the condom mandate on approval of film shoots in LA. (The quote is from the Kernes AVN article.)

"Then you come down to the county level, which is responsible for public health and stopping the spread of disease; they've been a no-show," Weinstein claimed. "We've gone to them many times and they have refused to act and they've punted it to the state. At the level of the state legislature, we have not been able to get any member to sponsor legislation to strengthen these provisions. And then we come down to the city. Since most of the films are made in the city of Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles has jurisdiction over zoning, and as such the issuing of permits. There are about 200 permits a month that are issued to the adult film industry, and we simply want a condition of the issuing of those permits to be that they follow the health and safety laws. We have not been able to get the city council to enact this."

This is what you call "progressive lying through your damn teeth."....because the LA City Attorney's office had already issued its own legal counsel ruling that they had no jurisdiction over FilmLA to require condoms as a mandate for approving film permits; the Cali State Assembly already had a proposed bill in place -- Senate Bill 459 -- that would have modified the designation of "independent contractors" as opposed to "employees" in order to make it easier for Cal/OSHA to enforce the condom mandate through stiffer fines and arbitrary reporting guidelines, and, of course, the proposed changes in the Cal/OSHA regulations are still in the process of being tweaked for final review and approval. But, it's all LA County's fault that Weinstein can't impose condoms on porn shoots, or gain full control of the testing and protection" of porn performers. Tiny violins were crying in the background, I suppose,

But that was just the beginning of the fun and games, for Weinstein and his AHF legal henchman Brian Chase (who actually created the proposed ordinance), brought the full three-ring circus act to supplement their case.

Which brings us right back to...Ministeress Shelley Lubben and her Pink Cross Foundation League of Ex-Porn Sluts For Jesus.

Yup, never mind the irony of an antigay fundamentalist Christian who openly boasts of the magical powers of her Lord and Savior rescuing gays from their sins working with an organization formed to protect the rights of HIV+ perfomers, the majority of which just so happen to be gay. Where there's a camera, and an opportunity to get pub, you know that Shelley will be there. Probably with the ink from Ron Jeremy's signature still not drying off her tits yet, too. Or, the memories of her rediscovering her old stripper moves at same party being still fresh in her mind.

Here's Lubben's contribution to the AHF press release:

“I was a porn star living the glamorous life. Drug overdoses, herpes, suicide attempts and abuse at the hands of the porn industry,” said Shelley Lubben, former porn actress and founder and president of the Pink Cross Foundation, an IRS approved 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated to offering adult industry workers emotional, financial and transitional support for those who want out of the adult industry. “In my time in the industry, I did some very hardcore movies, and only drugs and alcohol could get me through them. I played a crazy game of Russian roulette with my life. The industry did not and still does NOT enforce condom usage, so STDs and HIV were and still are a high risk among porn actors and actresses. While my own life has taken an entirely new and profoundly fulfilling direction and I now work to help performers leave the industry altogether, I wholeheartedly support this ballot initiative that would allow Los Angeles residents and voters to weigh in on tying film permits to condom use in the ongoing production of adult films in California.”

How that jibes with Shelley's repeated claims that she is intent on "destroying the porn industry" is not so made abundantly clear. Also not clear: the disjoint between all this tragic tale of how the porn industry did all this bad to her, and her own spoken and written testimony that her herpes (which she still can't or won't give proof that she had, other than the assertion that "God cured me" of them) or her other ailments, were more the byproduct of her 5 years as a working street prostitute/escort prior to her even starting to make porn films in 1993, or the basic (il)logic of how her 17 credited films makes her the go-to expert on how female porn performers are treated...even though she hasn't made a video of a film in nearly 18 years.

But hey...with Jesus at your side, anything is possible.

I'll just leave it to Michael Whiteacre to address the other points about Shelley's "asistance".

Speaking thereof...Lubben brought with her two of her prized assistants from the PCF: Jan Meza-Merritt and Jenni Case, to reinforce the case against the "porn industry" for its lack of protecting female performers. Meza-Merritt was particularly strong with the proper "pathos" (again, from the AHF press release):.

“I was brutalized, traumatized and victimized for a buck by an industry that could care less if I lived or died. I contracted Chlamydia and herpes, which is a non curable STD from my time in the porn industry. The porn industry collectively employs thousands of male and female porn actresses monthly. How much higher then is the risk of getting HIV and other STD’s in a transient industry where you have not only one sexual partner per day, but several or more and condoms are looked at as an unnecessary, negative component of this industry?,” said Jan (Meza) Merritt, former porn actress and member of the Pink Cross Foundation. “Enough is enough! How many more HIV incidents must occur in the adult industry before changes are made once and for all? I fully support the ‘City of Los Angeles Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry Act’ that will allow Los Angeles voters to weigh in on the safety of those individuals who remain working in the porn industry.”

The "City of Los Angeles Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry Act"?!?!? What...they couldn't have entitled their initiative with something shorter...like, "The Lara Roxxx-Darren James Adult Industry Protection Act"???

But even Ministress Lubben and her acolytes weren't considered sufficient enough for Weinstein, because for the coup'd grace, he brought out of retirement none other than Darren James himself...the original "Patient Zero" of the 2004 outbreak.

James, now on the AHF payroll after nearly 9 years of hiding, testified at the presser about how he "had predicted another HIV outbreak" to occur "because of this same thing", and he inferred that the industry "is not being policed properly." Of course, no one bothered to ask Darren how in the hell he got himself infected to begin with -- most sources say that he was infected in Brazil shooting a bareback scene with a transgendered actor, and there are also concerns that Lara Roxxx might have been infected, too, prior to their scene as well.

And for more recent support, Derrick Burts (aka Cameron Reid) was also recruited to sell the AHF line, and to promote the crossover gay male pro-condom perspective. Burts, of course, was "Patient Zero" for the last "outbreak" in 2010, who first went to AIM-MED for help, then, claiming that he was dissed, crossed over to AHF. At the presser, he was simply off the chain.

[...] Burts charged that, "The porn industry likes to think that they're above the law," claimed that "performers, especially female performers, are afraid to speak up... They're very belittled in this industry. I've gone to several shoots where the females are just treated horribly," that "If you ask a performer off-record, would you like your male performer to wear a condom, I bet you at least 98 percent of them would say yes"; and further claimed that, "LA County has since then confirmed that I worked with not one but two HIV-positive performers"—not surprising since his primary work was in gay porn. (Quoted from the Kernes AVN,com article)

Never mind again the fact that most performers who request a condom in their scenes are enabled to use them, but many others, like Nina Hartley, prefer not to use them due to personal concerns about micro-tearing of vaginal tissue increasing the risk for more infections, or the personal feel of rubber, or simply because they feel that they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves against STD's without the heavy hand of bureaucrats looking down their blouses or up their skirts.

And...it would kind of upset the apple cart to note that Burts himself has testified that he was infected on a gay male shoot...in a condomized scene, where he claims the other participant
took off the condom at the end and blew off into his...well, anal orfice, thusly infecting him.

Remember, Clones...gay male porn has its own separate standards for STI control (more reliance on condoms due to the much greater prevalence of HIV+ performers there) as compared to the hetero porn industry (which relies on testing and peer pressure as their firewall against HIV and other common STD's)..

And, that may be the point of Weinstein's antics, I think...other than the desire to get the government grants and use them, along with the condom manufacturers, to seriously get paid. Perhaps AHF and Weinstein really want to create a protection racket for crossover gay/bi male performers wanting to make money off the existing industry...and mandating condoms along with reviving the older ERISA tests for STI's, in combination with existing standards against discrimination of HIV+ performers, would produce a permanent income flow from folk like Burts/Reid.

Of course, the cost of that in weakening the preexisting standards of the testing firewalls (now reinforced through the new AHPSS standards and the more modern PCR-DNA tests standardized through AIM-MED and now through AHPSS), not to mention the economic costs from the rejection of a porn consuming public that has spoken loud and clear with their dollars that they like their porn unwrapped and bareback, regardless of whatever good social intentions may exist.

Anyways..you can't have a proper initiative without a neat-o, catchy organization, and AHF has solved that issue by forming -- you'll love this -- "For Adult Industry Responsibility", who will oversee this effort. Gee..I wonder how Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting will react when they find out that their acronym is being pilfered this way?? If it's anything like the World Wildlife Foundation's fierce reaction (and ultimate win in the courts) over the former World Wrestling Federation's use of "WWF", I don't think that this will be pretty.

One other thing about the proposed ordinance you should know about: while the proposed Cal/OSHA regulation changes would mandate all kinds of barrier protections, including not only condoms but also gloves, dental dams, goggles, and other forms of "protection", during the shooting of porn sex scenes, the proposed AHF ordinance only requires the condom mandate. Weinstein had a...well, particular reaction at the presser when noted of that little conflict:

Moreover, when asked about the disparity between his initiative's call for universal condom use, and the fact that the Health Code refers to "barrier protection," which would also include dental dams, latex gloves, goggles and face shields during hardcore scenes, Weinstein simply responded, "You've been peddling this 'goggles' line in every article... If that makes you happy, go for it. That has never been our position; it isn't our position now; it isn't the position of CalOSHA."

So much for "follow[ing] the health and safety laws"!

So...never mind that Cal/OSHA's own regulations for "employees" directly mandate all forms of "barrier protections", and that AHF had no opposition whatsoever to adding such protections to the proposed regulations for porn shoots....all of a sudden, only condoms are needed?? Nice job, Mike, for revealing what it was all about in the first place.

Porn Panic 2011 Redux: FSC Unleashes APHSS System For Testing, Protection Of Porn Performers; But AHF/Cal-OSHA Continue Condom Mandate Plans Anyway (UPDATED)

2011-08-07T20:17:00.000-07:00

Updated below....scroll to bottom.

It's been a while since I last updated you on the Porn Protection Wars....so here's here's the latest.

First, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, not completely satisfied with its efforts with Cal-OSHA to impose the condom mandate through workplace regulations, decided to attempt to strike at another angle from which it had been supposedly denied: the use of leveraging approval film permits for shooting porn scenes by the local Los Angeles Film Board.

You will recall that that particular body had been compelled via a request from the LA City Council to report on whether the board could force the condom mandate as a requirement for the Film Board's approval to shoot porn scenes in Los Angeles County and the incorporated citiy of LA. The LA County Attorney's office had filed a report concluding that the film board didn't have that authority.

Well...you know that Michael Weinstein, the head of AHF, is not too well known for taking defeat with grace and gratitude... so, it's not surprising that he would seek a second opinion on the matter. And glory be, he seems to think he's found one...from none other than his colluding associates at ~~the LA County Department of Public Health~~ Cal-OSHA, which has been the OTHER agency attempting to push the condom mandate on the industry in LA.

Here's some snippage from the press release from AHF, as reposted to LukeIsBack.com:

Opinion by Cal OSHA legal counsel contradicts Los Angeles City Attorney’s March 2011 report claiming the City does not have authority to condition issuance of adult film permits to condom use

In its evaluation, Cal OSHA counsel noted, “…State law does not preempt such action by the City because the City does not seek to enact an occupational health and safety standard but rather a public health standard applicable to any film activity (regardless of employment) within the city boundaries.”

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–In response to a push by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to compel the City of Los Angeles to tie the issuance of its adult film permits to condom use in adult film productions, a recent opinion letter by Cal/OSHA’s (California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health) legal counsel sharply contradicts a March 2011 report in which the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office claimed it did not have the authority to condition issuance of adult film permits to condom use.

“Presently it (Cal OSHA) mandates that all employees exposed to blood borne pathogens wear protective barriers, which includes the use of condoms. CAL-OSHA has been responsive to complaints and has several open investigations, including production companies affiliated with Larry Flynt Publications and Playboy.”
In the initial City report, dated March 22, 2011 titled, “Mechanisms Necessary to Enable the City’s Film Permit Process to Require Workplace Safety in the Production of All Adult Films,’ Kimberly Miera, Deputy City Attorney, City of Los Angeles, on behalf of City Attorney Carmen A. Trutanich, wrote:

“It is the opinion of this Office (City Attorney, City of Los Angeles) that the current permit language covers the use of condoms on all permitted adult film sets to the extent that the City may legally do so. Based on the current permit language, along with the jurisdictional concerns in regulating workplace safety issues, our Office recommends the permit language remains unchanged and this report be noted and filed.”

However, in a researched opinion letter dated July 20th titled, ‘Position of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Concerning Possible Conditions on the City’s Film Permits Issued to Adult Film Producers,’ written in response to the City Attorney’s March report and addressed and sent to ‘the Honorable City Council, City of Los Angeles,’ James D. Clark, Staff Counsel for California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Legal Unit, Southern California, wrote:

“It is the Division’s (of Occupational Safety and Health) position that State law does not preempt such action by the City because the City does not seek to enact an occupational health and safety standard but rather a public health standard applicable to any film activity (regardless of employment relationship) within the City boundaries.

“Cal OSHA and Mr. Clark have provided a very clear and compelling case as to why the City of Los Angeles can condition the issuing of film permits to adult film producers based upon compliance with condom use in their film productions, as currently required under state statute,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “Ordinarily, state agencies are given deference by cities and local bodies in situations such as this, and we ask the Los Angeles City Council to do so in this matter in order to better protect workers and performers working in the adult film industry here in Los Angeles.”

In her March report to City Council, Deputy City Attorney Miera also confirmed that condom use in adult film production in the state is required, writing,

“Presently it (Cal OSHA) mandates that all employees exposed to blood borne pathogens wear protective barriers, which includes the use of condoms. CAL-OSHA has been responsive to complaints and has several open investigations, including production companies affiliated with Larry Flynt Publications and Playboy.”

The latter refers to a case that was filed against Larry Flynt Productions and Playboy on behalf of AHF, which resulted in fines imposed on the two companies for allegedly not using the proper protective measures for their performers.

Of course, the problem with all this is that the LA County Attorney's opinion is the word of law, while Cal-OSHA's and AHF's opinions are just subjective....and I'm just wondering whether or not AHF is willing to risk a legal challenge to the local office just to force the condom mandate on the Film Board. Or, are they simply awaiting the final appeal on that other case involving the LA County Department of Public Health's supposed lack of fervor in forcing condoms down performers' throats??

AVN.com columnist Mark Kernes found some other flaws in AHF's arguments, too.

Of course, AHF focused on Clark's stated "conclusion": "It is the Division's position that State law does not preempt such action by the City [in requiring condoms, etc.] because the City does not seek to enact an occupational health and safety standard but rather a public health standard applicable to any film activity (regardless of employment realtionship) within the City boundaries."

But indeed, Clark makes it clear that Cal/OSHA only has power of employer/employee situations—an issue that has been hotly contested before the Cal/OSHA Standards Board's subcommittee on performer health which has held several meetings over the past year.

"The Division has jurisdiction over 'places of employment,'" Clark wrote. "It has no jurisdiction unless an employer-employee relationship exists. ... The Labor Code and Title 8 CCR also set forth the means by which the Division is to exercise its authority to assure employee safety. The system for asserting its authority is, generally, by issuing citations that include administrative penalties for violating one or more of the Title's workplace safety standards."

Indeed, that's something CalOSHA has done a dozen times to adult producers since 2004, though four of those cases (including one against AIM) remain under appeal.

But according to Clark, nothing in CalOSHA's regulations prohibit the city from dealing with what it may perceive as violations of occupational health and safety regulations.

"It is clear that the only matter that the Legislature has put in the hands solely of the Division is the 'enforcement of occupational safety and health standards adopted by the [Standards] [B]oard'," Clark stated. "By clear implication, localities may adopt and enforce their own standards as long as that adoption is within the localities' police powers. This is true even if the local standards could be construed as 'occupational safety and health standards.'"

AHF, of course, was overjoyed with Clark's opinion—even as it continues to repeat misinformation about the infection rates and number of infectees in the industry.

"Cal/OSHA and Mr. Clark have provided a very clear and compelling case as to why the City of Los Angeles can condition the issuing of film permits to adult film producers based upon compliance with condom use in their film productions, as currently required under state statute," said AHF president Michael Weinstein said in a press release. "Ordinarily, state agencies are given deference by cities and local bodies in situations such as this, and we ask the Los Angeles City Council to do so in this matter in order to better protect workers and performers working in the adult film industry here in Los Angeles."

However, as things stand now, FilmL.A.'s website gives no indication that permits are conditioned upon complying with any particular laws or regulations. It merely requires that the company obtain liability insurance, which may be increased if the action being filmed includes "exceptional activities"—but having sex on camera isn't one of them. The permitting process also includes the possibility that a FilmLA Monitor may be assigned to the production "in areas that have Special Filming Conditions in place," which are generally "many of the most popularly filmed neighborhoods in Los Angeles."

The next two graphs by Kernes spell out the real risks in AHF's actions.

But what many may not remember is that adult companies have been applying for and receiving filming permits for less than 20 years. Prior to that, the usual practice was for the cast and crew to meet up at an agreed-upon location, then caravan to wherever the movie was to be shot, often in some out-of-the-way, little-traveled place where they would be unlikely to be observed.

If the LA City Council, the LADPH and/or FilmL.A. makes it impossible for adult producers to make movies that will sell—i.e., through rules that require condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves and face shields for all sexual acts—the possibility exists that many of the companies will go back to the "old way" doing doing things—and few in the industry want that to happen, since to do so would likely even further compromise the health and safety of the very performers AHF claims it wants to protect.

Another way in which good intentions unfettered by common sense lead to bad outcomes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, the other news couldn't come at a better time for performers waiting for a replacement to the system that AIM had in place. The Free Speech Coalition last week finally unveiled their highly vaunted performer testing and health information system for performers and producers alike.

The program is called APHSS, for Adult Performer Health and Safety Services, and it includes not only a secure database that would protect sensitive information about performers without dealing with medical data, but would also provide comprehensive STI testing through various vendors (or through personal doctors) at a yearly fee that would be affordable to all.

Joanne Cachapero, Membership Director over at the FSC, gave a brief description of how the APHSS system and database would work, and how it improves on the pioneering work of AIM.

Performers, agents and producers can go to www.APHSS.org and click “sign-up” to be led through a simple registration process. Other information that is available at the website includes links to testing facilities, FAQs and contact information. Users are encouraged to view the FAQs on the website.
As with any new system, users should be aware of small glitches. When signing up, users should receive a confirmation email, but some have indicated that the emails went to their spam folders; please, check there if you sign-up and don’t receive an email. For any questions or if you need assistance in accessing your account, please contact [email address redacted to protect privacy].

“We’re starting from scratch with this database so we really need the support of performers and producers to get signed up. We already have the support of major industry producers including Wicked, Vivid, Hustler, Adam &amp; Eve, Kink.com, Girlfriends Films, Pink Visual and Manwin producers, and we appreciate their recognition of the need for this resource. We will be working closely with the LATATA Organization and industry talent agents, to make sure to have their input for the program. We also want people to know they can contact us if they need assistance with any issues.

“Once we have the database populated, and as performers use APHSS.org testing facilities, data will be updated and users will be able to verify work availability on the site; this will take some amount of time, before the database is populated with information, as people start to use it. If anyone encounters any questions or issues, they can contact me directly. We also will have a Twitter feed @YourAPHSS,” Cachapero explained.

For two months, APHSS.org will be accessible free-of-charge, in order to give users a chance to get used to the new format and for the database to become fully populated. After the initial period is over, performers will be charged an yearly fee of $50, and producers will be charged monthly, to use the database. Funds from those fees will go to expenses for APHSS program and website operations. Eventually, APHSS.org also will add educational resources for users, to keep industry members up-to-date on health &amp; safety-related information.

While some have questioned the safety of the database and whether or not sensitive medical information will or won't be included, Ms. Cachapero has assured everyone that medical data will NOT be included in the database at all, and that other steps will be taken to insure the security of the information that will be included, so that no Donny Long/Pornwikileaks shenanigans ever happen again.

In addition, APHSS has announced the formation of its advisory committee who will oversee and monitor the operations of the system and database, with representation from performers and producers alike. As this article posted at FSC's blog shows, they include some heavyweight names indeed.

The performer representatives are Jessica Drake, Bobbi Starr, Danny Wylde and Steve Cruz. Producer representatives are Dan O’Connell (Girlfriends Films) and Steven Scarborough (Hot House Entertainment). Performer Nina Hartley will serve as Educational Advisor, and attorney Karen Tynan has been appointed as Legal Advisor.

The appointees have agreed to a six-month term, as the APHSS.org program is launched and in its initial stages. The responsibilities of committee members are to provide insight and feedback on policies and operation of the APHSS.org. They also will help develop resources for the program to benefit performers and producers.

And, the organization has been hard at work informing the public as well. ABC's Good Morning America website on Thursday featured a surprisingly balanced and non-panicky (at least, for ABC) article on the formation of APHSS, quoting freely from many representatives (and the prerequisite contrary opposition from Mike Weinstein of AHF, of course) Nina's contribution to the article is worth snipping:

For Nina Hartley, condoms make on-set sex uncomfortable and, she argues, more dangerous. But off-set it's a different story.

"I would say it's different in a civilian population," said Hartley, a performer of 27 years with a degree in nursing. "But public health is not served by forcing a small group of professionals to use condoms instead of being tested."

To those who say pornography without condoms promotes unsafe sex, Hartley has strong words.

"It's not the job of adult entertainers to be educating people about safe sex practices," she said, adding that the "ignorance-based abstinence-only model of sexual education" does little to promote safe sex either.

"People say cartoons promote bad behavior, and Hollywood movies promote unsafe driving. But this is pure entertainment," said Hartley. "We don't ask other entertainers in our culture to slip in the vegetables of education."

Still want that debate, Ministress Lubben?? And how about thou, Gail??

Update (8-12-11): Well now, that didn't take long, didn't it?? APHSS legal council Karen Tynan decided to launch a Scud missile of her own towards Cal-OSHA and the AHF's attempts to browbeat the LA City Council towards imposing the condom mandate via workplace regulations through the LACDPH. The weapon of choice?? An official legal-issue letter to LA City Attorney Carmen Trutainch.

The letter, which can be read here (warning, pdf doc, needs Adobe Reader), clearly debunks the claims of AHF and Cal-OSHA in attempting to overrule establishment legal precedent and hand off their responsibilities over to the locals, while still attempting their other legal coups through the regulatory processes.

The synopsis of the letter that was posted to the FSC blog says it better than I ever could, so I will simply quote from it.

“When I saw that counsel for Cal/OSHA was advising the City of Los Angeles to jump into this issue, I was appalled,” said Tynan. “I don’t see Cal/OSHA writing to the city council of Bakersfield or Fresno imploring those cities to write regulations on heat illness to protect the field workers, so why is Cal/OSHA taking this position on condoms? This is another glaring example of the politics, judgment, and discrimination that swirl around the condom issue.

“I certainly hope that the Los Angeles City Attorney and his staff attorneys can cut through the misinformation and propaganda that continues to pour forth from AHF and their allies,” Tynan added.

In the letter, Tynan states clearly that Cal/OSHA’s attempt to hand off regulatory enforcement to local agencies is unprecedented on a legal basis, allowing local agencies to enforce health & safety regulation without clear authority to do so.

Also, Tynan points out several conflicts of interest raised by the relationship between the Cal/OSHA and nonprofit HIV organization AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), including evidence that shows that AHF has provided expert witnesses and its own physicians to give testimony in proceedings regarding adult industry health & safety, while adult industry stakeholders had limited opportunities to present testimony or counterpoints to the data provided by AHF.

FSC, as the adult industry trade association, commissioned a report from respected biostatistician Lawrence Mayer MD, MFA, PhD, debunking the methodology used to analyze the data presented by AHF and showing that statistics used by AHF are inaccurate. That report was entered into record at the most recent Cal/OSHA meeting regarding adult industry health & safety.

“Since 2009, FSC and industry stakeholders have been working cooperatively with Cal/OSHA to arrive at industry-appropriate regulations for health & safety, so we are surprised at the latest developments,” said FSC Membership/Communications Director Joanne Cachapero. “Frankly, it’s shocking that a state agency would take action allowing the issues to become further politicized. The letter from Cal/OSHA to the LA City Attorney seems to indicate bias. It appears as if Cal/OSHA has decided to align their actions with Aids Healthcare Foundation’s continuing anti-industry campaign to mandate condom use on adult production sets.”

"Appears"??? Really, Ms., Cachapero?? There's nothing "appears" about it...Cal/OSHA and the AHF have been 69'ing each other for the past 5 years attempting to impose the condom mandate in porn. They've perfected the art of "conflict of interest" the way Dick Cheney did with Haliburton during the Iraq War years.

Porn Panic 2011: The Endless Loop Continues: Could Cal-OSHA Get A Big Hammer From The Cali Assembly?? SB 459 And The "Employees" vs. "Individual Contractors" Question

2011-07-08T12:41:00.000-07:00

Don't look now, Clones, but Cal-OSHA may be getting some major support and overwhelming weapons in their battle to force the adult industry to impose condom use.

Mark Kernes over at AVN.com just posted today on a bill currently before the California Assembly that has already passed the state Senate and is currently in committee hearings that would basically resolve the ongoing battle between declaring adult performers (among others) as either "employees" or "independent contractors" based on their status.

Bear in mind that Cal-OSHA's proposed condom mandate/barrier protection regulations are totally dependent on adult performers being reclassified as "employees" so that they would come under the jurisdiction of their workplace protection laws. Given that, the proposal known as Senate Bill 459 would give them exactly the nuclear bomb they would like to beat the industry down with.

Here's how Mr. Kernes stated it in his article:

At issue is Senate Bill (SB) 459 which, as currently amended, would "prohibit willful misclassification ... of individuals as independent contractors," and "authorize the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to assess specified civil penalties from persons or employers violating the bill."

But according to lobbyist Matt Gray of the Capital Alliance Strategic Advocacy and Public Relations Firm, the bill "adds insult to injury" because "California law never clearly defines what is or is not an employee."

"Instead, California law relies upon a laundry list of employment circumstances, case law, and workplace conditions for each business to then decide for itself whether or not the worker is an employee or contractor," Gray wrote on the Capital Alliance blog. "Does the worker wear a uniform? When they handle money, do they keep it or does it go to the business? Does the worker control his or her own schedule? Is a 1099 issued? The totality of considerations goes on and on, and even state agencies will even disagree with one another on what set of circumstances results in classification as either an employee or contractor."

Adult nightclubs which feature stages upon which dancers strip and accept tips from patrons have been engaged in the "employee vs. contractor" dispute for decades, and decisions on the controversy all over the country have come down on both sides of the issue. But the problem will become central for adult movie producers in the near future, if the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) succeeds in expanding the California Health Code to define those involved in making movies (or other content) as "employees" rather than accept many performers' classification of themselves as "independent contractors."

According to SB 459, "willful misclassification" could subject "employers" to civil penalties of not less than $5,000 and not more than $15,000 for each violation, while if various state agencies or the courts find that the "employer" has engaged in or is engaging in a pattern or practice of misclassifying personnel, the penalty goes up to not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000 for each violation.

"Then, to make matters worse, it [SB 459] set the lowest possible threshold for triggering a violation by relying merely upon 'willful' misclassification by the employer," Gray wrote. "To most people the term 'willful' means an act done of one’s own free will, intentional and voluntarily. As it applies to the law, it simply translates to someone improperly filling out a form—not that they intended to fill out the form improperly, but that they filled out the form and it was done improperly. In other words, guilty intent is not a requirement of a willful act."

So for instance, if SB 459 passes, an adult movie company which shoots a movie using no contract players but as many as 10 freelance performers (five sex scenes with two performers each) could easily find itself liable for $50,000 in civil penalties for paying the performers as independent contractors if CalOSHA decides that they are "employees"—and if the company did that for possibly as few as two movies, the penalties could easily ramp up to $250,000 per movie.

"To make matters worse, SB 459 made no allowance for affirmative defense against a misclassification, such as relying upon the advice of legal counsel, complying with case law, or adhering to industry-wide standards and historical practice," Gray noted. "That would mean 100% of all businesses with any misclassification would then be guilty and have to pay about $15,000 per offense! No exception."

Or, to put it in plain English, if an adult performer attempts to get around the condom mandate by claiming that (s)he is more of an "independent contractor", but CalOSHA rules otherwise, that performer of the company (s)he is employed by could be liable for a hefty fine for each scene they did....and they would have no recourse of appeal.

The goal, obviously, is to force the industry by threat of financial penury to adopt the condom mandate and "barrier protection" standards that CalOSHA (and by proxy, AHF) would love to impose at will.

Of course, supporters of the overall bill cite the notion of protecting "employees" who claim to have been underpaid under the cover of being declared "individual contractors", and adult nightclub/strip club workers have been clamoring for years for changes in the law to allow for the right to be designated as "employees" for the sake of better wage and benefit protections.

The bill is now currently on hold in the Assembly's Judiciary Committee, where representatives for the adult industry are feverishly attempting to include amendments to soften the standards for declaring companies guilty of "willful misclassification". However, given that the bill did pass the Cali State Senate by a large margin, it does appear that unless major and drastic action is taken, this bill will become law and those wanting to force condoms down performers' throats will have a powerful weapon on their side.

Naturally, we'll keep you posted on events as they happen on this.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: Why Some People Are Gluttons For Punishment: AHF Takes Condom Mandate/Barrier Protection Appeal To Cali Supreme Court

2011-06-27T11:47:00.000-07:00

Sorry that I couldn't update this story further, had to resolve some issues with my computer.

Well....it seems that either AHF has either plenty of deep pockets and too much time on their hands, or they take defeat not too kindly. After being blocked by the California Appelate Court from their attempt to force the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) to issue directives forcing porn shoots to impose mandatory condoms and barrier protections on LA porn performers and producers, Michael Weinstein's group has now decided to appeal directly to the California Supreme Court to force the issue once and for all.

Michael Whiteacre posted a comment to my previous post regarding the appelate court ruling, which stated that the courts could not induce LACDPH to any one method of intervention or prevention because the regulations were more like guidelines allowing for a wide latitude of options and not forcing any one option on regulations.

Needless to say, AHF begs to differ...and in their official press release announcing their decision to appeal the three judge panel ruling, they mince no words about how they feel.

Some quotes from their press statement:

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In response to the dismissal late last week by California’s Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, of an appeal (Case No. #B222979) by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) of an AHF legal action which sought a writ of mandate compelling Los Angeles County to take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, in the adult film industry, AIDS Healthcare Foundation announced that it will file a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California.
“The agency’s inaction continues to needlessly place thousands of people at risk of disease.”
The AHF legal action was first filed in July 2009 in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BS121665). Through it, AHF sought a writ of mandate, “…compelling the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to discharge its ministerial and non-discretionary statutory duty to combat an acknowledged epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases stemming from production of hardcore pornography in Los Angeles County.”

AHF filed the initial lawsuit after exhausting all other methods to compel the County to fulfill its obligation to protect the public’s health in the wake of a June 2009 revelation that an actress working in the adult film business had tested positive for HIV. At that time, AHF had urged the County to better monitor HIV and STD prevention in the region’s adult film industry—and require condom use, as required under state statute—or to shut down porn sets.

Of course, the supposed "outbreaks" of 2009 and 2010 resulted in only two performers (and a possible third) actually getting infected with HIV ("Patient Zeta" in 2009, who more than likely skipped testing herself; and Derrick Burts, who still claims he got infected through a crossover gay male shoot in which condoms were actually involved)...so other than the usual hyperbole of exploiting a moral panic for personal advantage, it does beg the question why Weinstein is so gung ho on forcing LADPH to impose his personal dictates.

And as for the supposed "epidemic" of STI's in adult (as if the civilian sector in Cali isn't drowning in STI's on its own)...well, we have The Mayer Report to undercut that nonsense.

Even better than they hyperbolic rhetoric, though, is that AHF simply resets the same tired propaganda points that have been well disproven and debunked. Ergo:

Since the June 2009 reporting of that particular HIV outbreak in the adult industry—and subsequent reports by the LA Times that as many as 22 porn performers may have tested positive in the previous five years—no action has been taken by the County to halt the spread of STDs on LA porn sets or to conduct the proper and legally required public health follow-up with those thought to be infected.

“We will vigorously pursue this legal avenue with the California Supreme Court in order to try to compel LA County Health officials to safeguard the health and wellbeing of those working in the adult film industry in California,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “As an HIV and STD medical provider, it is our obligation to continue to pursue action on this issue, which goes beyond the recent HIV outbreaks and includes an epidemic of thousands of STD cases in the porn industry annually—an epidemic virtually ignored by the County Department of Public Health. County officials and porn producers should know we will not stop our efforts to protect the public health and will continue to fight the STD epidemic in the adult film industry.”

Riiight...never mind that the "22 HIV porn infections in 5 years" meme has already been debunked readily (16 were from gay male performers having nothing to do with the straight LA porn market, 4 were non-perforer private citizens using the testing of now defunct AIM, and the other 2 were the two cases in 2009 and 2010 cited..and even that number didn't include the 4 performers infected in the Darren James/Lara Roxx et. al. outbreak of 2004). And, not to mention that the aformentioned Mayer Report revealed the hogwash methodology and cooked-up science that deliberately inflated infections in porn performers as compared to the general population. Why let the truth get in the way of a good antiporn sex panic??

And, WHOA....what a bitchslap Weinstein levels at LACDPH..as if they have done absolutely nothing to support or even collude in AHF's efforts to take over performer testing and treatment and profit off condom sales....errrrrrr, protect the performers from themselves?Whatever happened to the love for Robert Kim-Farley and Peter Kerndt, who offered much of the bad information that Weinstein uses for his crusade?? Is he that much of a meglomaniac that he can't trust performers to protect themselves..or is this just one more means for him to shake down the industry for his own profits, or simply get them booted out of Cali for good?

The Free Speech Coalition blog has posted a solid rejoinder to Weinstein's announcement, and it packs a punch in debunking all of the arguments for appeal. Some snippage:

Of course, AHF’s agenda is enforcing mandatory condoms and other barrier protection in the adult industry – because apparently there are not enough legitimate issues facing those affected with HIV/AIDS or populations at risk for HIV infection. Apparently, all of AHF’s attention can now be focused on policing the adult performer population numbering, perhaps, 1,500 people.

Never mind that the adult production industry has successfully self-regulated the safety of its performers with monthly STI testing since 1998. The testing protocol instated by the now-defunct Adult Industry Medical Healthcare (AIM) clinic efficiently prevented HIV-positive individuals from entering the business, and also effectively limited the spread of infection when active performers tested positive in 2004, 2009 and 2010. AIM also served the sexual health needs of other high-risk populations not involved in adult production.

Never mind that another lawsuit, and numerous complaints filed by AHF were instrumental in contributing to the “financial hardships” that finally destroyed AIM.

Never mind that statistical information on STI rates for adult performers, presented by public health officials, has been described as inaccurate and “without basis in science” in a report commissioned by FSC, written by prominent epidemiologist and biostatistician Dr. Lawrence Mayer. That report was entered into record at the June 7 Cal/OSHA meeting, attended by scores of adult performers that wanted their voices heard in a regulatory process that will impact them the most. And never mind that AHF - not performers – has filed workplace safety violation complaints against adult production companies and agents, forcing Cal/OSHA into action.

Never mind that AHF keeps on quoting what they now must know to be inaccurate information; as in its press release, that “as many as 22 porn performers have tested positive in the last five years,” when in fact, the LA Times published that health officials retracted their findings concerning the number of performers that tested positive for HIV. And according to Dr. Mayer’s report, the stats that AHF quotes (as analyzed by LA County Public Health) on Chlamydia and gonorrhea in the performer population ALSO are wildly inaccurate.

And while AHF is busy playing nanny to adult industry performers and the public at large, did you know that a recent study shows that the highest rate of increase in HIV infection in the nation is affecting Asians and Pacific Islanders? When was the last time that we saw an Asian on an AHF billboard, or AHF launching media outreach to that community?

Did you know that HIV rates for gay and bisexual men in California may have been dropping steadily since the mid-2000s, and this may be due to improved treatments for HIV? AHF provides valuable resources for those living with HIV and should continue to do so – at the same time, taking responsibility for the education of at-risk populations about safe sex. But adult performers – who test 12 times a year or more – are making an informed choice about their health and the work they do; how many average citizens are tested for STIs, even just once?

I'm betting that this gets laughed out of the California Supreme Court on sight.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: Cali Appelate Court Drops the BAH-LOCK And A Stern Smackdown On AHF Attempt To Force LACDPH Impose Condom Mandate

2011-06-17T12:18:00.000-07:00

While we not quite so eagerly await the process of the new Cal-OSHA "barrier protections"/condom mandate regulations as they go through the bureaucratic processes, a resolution was reached legally on yet another attempt on another front by the folks at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to force condoms down the throats of performers.

If you will remember, Michael Weinstein, the chief honcho of AHF, had been making huge noise about a lawsuit that his organization had filed last year against the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the ruling authority on health regulations for Porn Valley, stating that they had deliberately violated their duties by not enforcing exsisting regs supposedly forcing condom usage amonst porn performers.

That suit was thrown out by local state judge David P. Yaffe, who ruled that LADPH's rules were not manditory, but rather a simple guidline, and that LADPH was not held to the narrow standard that AHF was attempting to impose.

Well, AHF so did not like that decision, so they appealed to the California Appelate Court to vacate the lower court's decision, citing various laws and regs implying discrection, and asking for direct mandates to force LACDPH to enforce the condom mandate.

Well, as XBiz.com reported today, the appelate court just made its ruling in response to AHF. Essentially, they gave AHF the boot, as in: "Ahhhh....no, we don't think so."

Some snippage:

L.A. Health Officials Can't Be Forced to Regulate Porn Shoots, Court Rules

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County public health officials have the discretion to mandate regulations to control sexually transmitted diseases on porn sets, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

The county had been sued by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has been a thorn for the adult entertainment industry for years as it attempts to make condoms mandatory for all porn productions.

The AHF sued the county for its inaction over regulating porn shoots.

It lost in a lower court and reached out to the California Appeal Court, which ruled against it, 3-0.

Appellate judges, in the unpublished opinion, said the county's health department has discretion to determine what measures are necessary to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and could not be forced by the courts to implement the specific means advocated by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

[...]

In their appeal, the AHF honed in on alleged violations of Heath and Safety Codes, including Sec. 120575, which requires that a health officer who knows or has reason to believe that any contagious, infectious or communicable diseases exists, or recently existed “shall take measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or occurrence of additional cases.”

The appeal also focused on Sec. 120175, which refers to venereal diseases, and provides that it is the duty of the health officer to investigate all cases, to ascertain the sources of infection, and to take “all measures reasonably necessary to prevent the transmission of infection.”

The AHF contended that the laws impose a mandatory duty to act to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and asked a lower court to issue a writ of mandate directing the Department of Public Health to enforce Secs.120175 and 120575 by requiring adult film producers ensure performers are vaccinated for hepatitis B and use condoms during filming.

The AHF, in the alternative, asked the court to declare the department had abused its discretion under these sections in failing to take action and direct the agency to “cure that abuse of discretion.”

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe entered a judgment of dismissal, setting up a ruling on appeal.

On Thursday, writing for the majority, Judge Richard Aldrich said Secs. 120175 and 120575 do not “impose a ministerial duty, for which mandamus will lie,” but “a mere obligation to perform a discretionary function.”

The county Health Department has “discretion to choose among various measures, ranging from quarantine and isolation to physician referrals and testing in carrying out this duty,” he ruled.

Aldrich concluded the courts “cannot compel another branch of the government to exercise its discretion in a particular manner,” nor “compel the [county Health Department] to implement the [AHF's] agenda.”

Aldrich, who was joined by judges Joan Klein and Patti Kiching in the appeal, pointed the AHF to direct its efforts “at lawmakers to change the laws and workplace regulations.”

Oh, geez...you mean that they will just have to go through the usual democratic channels to change regulations, and not get preferential treatment from the courts?? Don't these "evil liberal activist judges" (or wingnut activist judges,depending on the ideology du jure) know that they're abetting an epidemic of HIV-infected porn stars?? (All 2 of them since 2005.) Aren't they concerned enough about the pandemic of STI's going on in the porn industry, where chlamydia and gonorrhea is being passed around like candy at a fair?? (Not nearly as much as the general population, mind 'ya, but we all know that only slutty porn starlets get STI's and then infect the population, right??) Don't they have some empathy for all the young impressionable girls who are entrapped into doing such dirty, nasty stuff as facials and blow jobs and creampies and -- special ewwww -- anal sex?? Why do they HATE porn performers???

Actually, they don't....or maybe the appelate panel just happens to see like most of us what a crock it is to attempt to manipulate the court system to your own advantages.

Either way, nice to see that some people still have common sense. Hopefully, the Cal-OSHA board will show some as well.

The Official (And Very Belated) Review Of The Cal-OSHA Hearings (And How This "Weinstein-Gold-Lubben Model" Could Become Nationwide Very Soon)

2011-06-12T20:13:00.000-07:00

I apologize for not being able to put this up earlier, due to work and time constraints.

Well, the first round of hearings over Cal-OSHA's proposed condom mandate/barrier protections has come and gone, and if the reaction by adult performers is of any indication, these regs are the most basic threat to porn performers' livelihoods since the LAPD busts of the 1980s.

Problem is, though...if the reaction of the Cal-OSHA officials heading the meeting are clear, performers' opposition simply won't matter, since the fix is already basically in.

And worse yet, these regulations could very well be extended nationwide without much of any feedback or protest.

I'll get to the worst case scenario later on..but first, a look at the proposed regs themselves as presented by the panel at the June 7th meeting.

Essentially, the regs would follow this template:

1) Adult performers and producers would be declared to be "employees" under Cali workplace laws in order to place them under the jurisdiction of Cal-OSHA's workplace protection regulations. Before then, adult performers were assumed to be "independent contractors", which are exempt from such protections under Cali state law.

2) Then, using the "employee" declaration, Cal-OSHA would envelop all porn performers into their new "barrier protection" scheme of STI prevention, mandating full barrier protection (read that to mean condoms, dental dams, and other means of "barriers") in place for performing any live sex acts during porn shoots. Essentially, that would totally ban all bareback intercourse involving P/V and/or anal sex, and, in the original proposal, oral sex as well (more on that anon). This would also ban external ejaculations (the dreaded facials or shots to other body parts), as well as internal ejaculations without barriers (such as "creampies" or swallowing sperm). "Manual sex" (involving masturbation or handjobs/self-stimulation) is not covered at all in the regs; but its status is not well known, and none of the Cal-OSHA staffers at the meeting could clarify their status.

3) The requirement of testing for STI's would be waived entirely, since under Cali antidiscrimination law you cannot test "employees" or ask about their STI status without their approval. Apparently, Cal-OSHA feels that the barrier protections would suffice such in preventing STI transmission that testing would be a moot point. Most active performers would probably disagree...and those who packed the meeting did so quite directly and forcefully.

4) There is a caveat, though, Cal-OSHA did propose an amendment to the regs which would have exempted oral sex (fellatio and culliningus) from the "barrier protection" requirements, but with the provision that the performers wanting such without "protection" would have to (1) endure the entire passage of Hepatitis B vaccine shots; and (2) be certified to be "fit" for performing by a licenced physician via medical tests...and verification would have to take place within 2 weeks of performing that particular scene. For EACH oral act.

The bottom line on this would be that performers would have to not only wrap up (or dam up) in all porn scenes, but they would lose the system of preemptive testing that has mostly worked to keep STI+ (and especially HIV+) performers from performing to begin with. Basically, the current standard for gay male performers, which assumes that most performers are indeed infected and uses mostly condoms to contain the spread of STI's, would be imposed on the hetero porn industry, with no respect whatsoever for performer preferences or even the concern for performer health.

And, of course, this flies directly in the face of consumer preference, and actual sexual behavior, which tends not to buy into condoms or dental dams as a means of both "destroying the fantasy" and depicting actual sex in real life. (All those who use dental dams during sex, raise your hand. OK...all you married couples who have actually used a condom for oral sex...raise YOUR hand. Right.)

Since folks like Mark Kernes and Danny Wylde, commentators like Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals, and performers like Ela Darling, Shy Love, and Nina Hartley (all of whom attended the meeting and gave testimony) have already posted their thoughts on both the regulations and their impacts on performers, I will simply cede to their excellent reviews of the hearings, which I have linked. (Plus, I'm pretty damn sure that our contributor here Ernest Greene has more than a word or two or 1,000 to say on this matter, since he also dueled with the Cal-OSHA commisars there as well.)

For now, I'll just give my very own non-expert, pro-porn activist brain droppings on these regulations. The short two word response: They SUCK. (And not in the good way.)

OK...you want more than two words?? Here I go:

Deborah Gold and her staff may THINK that these regs are designed to protect performers, but the actual reality of shooting porn basically resolves to the opposite conclusion: that these regs are designed deliberately to destroy and annihilate porn produiction in California by imposing impossible conditions for shooting effective and profitable porn content. Do they really think that in the heat of passion, performers will simply stop themselves in the middle of a scene and put on goggles or wrap a condom around or break out the dental dam?? Don't they understand that the real point of porn is barely controlled lust and sexual desire, and that imposing artificial barriers to that desire will tend to break the lust bond between performer and consumer/viewer that gives porn its appeal??

These restrictions would simply reduce sexual portrayals to the level of bad softcore, where actors who barely touch themselves and are not even encouraged to even have erections would simply fake passion for the camera. Not to say that there aren't some beautiful softcore performers out there who can act out sexual passion pretty well, but most people who watch porn would rather see real hard penises and real vaginas and real people engaging in real, sweaty, lusty, and even dirty passionate sex. It's all about vicariously feeling the passion they see on screen....and only bare skin-on-skin contact (and the allure of the "money shot" and the actual orgasm can convey to the viewer that realism of sex. No bit of "safe sex" education or attempt at "role modeling" people to use condoms will change that fact. (And, it's not as if condoms aren't already readily available to the public as a prophalytic or a pregnancy prevention method.)

The attitude of the more "liberal" advocates of these regs appears to be "If we can force porn performers to be coerced guniea pigs for "safe sex" education, then we can get more people to use condoms and dental dams and other forms of "protection"...and STI's will be a distant memory. Yeah, right...and if we simply take away everyone's cars and only provided rail-based transit and bicycles as the sole means of
transportation, then all our energy needs would be licked, global warming would cease, and the world would be a much happier place. Of course, the risk of performers not knowing whether or not their partners are indeed STI free, or the risks of condoms tearing or breaking during a scene, or the minor threat of condomized sex causing microabrasions of a woman's vagina making her even more vunerable to injury or infection...all that is inmaterial to the broader goal of "protection". And of course. it's all done "for your own good"..as if performers are merely children or out-of-control sluts incapable of any means of self-protection or self-autonomy over their own choice of protection.

Then there is the protection of crossover gay male talent like Cameron Reid/Derrick Burts from any means of preventative testing, the ability of shysters like Mike Weinstein of AHF to monopolize the "testing" regime by converting porn studios into cash cows for his condom-only regimen; the complicity of a few "sex-positive" producers like Tony Comstock to sweep in with his special brand of "married couple' porn and pick off the charred bones of the industry...the hidden agendas could build a book of their own.

For the more "conservative" proponents of these regs (read, Ministeress Lubben and her Pink Cross Foundation groupies), the motivation is much darker; they simply want to drive porn out of California, if not out of America totally; and these regs would certainly be a step in that direction. More than likely, though, performers denied their rights to shoot scenes in California would simply either go to more porn friendly confines (such as Las Vegas or Phoenix or South Beach in Florida or maybe even San Francisco) in order to make their living. Or, they could simply downgrade themselves to making private Internet-based porn content out of their homes. Or...they can simply go underground and continue to make bareback sex scenes under the radar and attempt to stay one step ahead of the Cal-OSHA posse or the LAPD "obscenity" squad...but without any means of protection from not only STI's but even abusive and/or ripoff producers.

All in all, this "Weinstein-Gold-Lubben Model" of porn regulation is just about as effective in regulating out of business porn performers as the "Swedish Model" of punishing men for even thinking about patronizing sex workers is for prostitution and other forms of sex work. The only difference between the two is that at least the Cal-OSHA regs are only set to take place in California.

At least, for now...but because these regs have to get the approval of the federal branch of OSHA before they could take effect, that has their proponents dreaming of even bigger fish to fry...as in making these regulations take effect nationwide via the federal OSHA code. That certainly would undercut the argument of the industry leaving California for other places....but I wonder how porn performers currently working in South Florida would feel if they had federal officials raiding their homes due to regulations they had no say over. Especially, in the wake or the dominant anti-regulation fervor of the TeaPublican era??

Folks, this isn't just Cali's war on porn...it's national. And it won't just be pornsters in Cali affected...but all of us. Time to step it up and fight like hell before we lose it all.

Note: A report on the Cal-OSHA hearing from Shaya Tayefe Monajer of the Associated Press can be found here (via BakersfieldNow.com). Also, see the perspective of adult film lawyer Michael Fattorosi.(who happens to also be the husband of Black performer Vanessa Blue) via his Twitter stream here. A rundown of tweets concerning the hearings can be found here; and also note reaction articles from both The Free Speech Coalition and XBiz.com. Finally, for now, there is th LA Weekly blog article, which is here.

The Official Call To Arms For Adult Porn Performers In California (from Michael Whiteacre): Cal-OSHA Hearings Tomorrow!!!

2011-06-06T16:53:00.000-07:00

Well, D-Day takes place in right around 24 hours from now....and if you are a performer and still not convinced of the importance of attending the upcoming hearing of Cal-OSHA in Los Angeles tomorow, then Michael Whiteacre would like to have a few words with you.

This was posted to the Luke Is Back blog this afternoon as an Op-Ed.

Mandatory Condoms, Cal-OSHA, Lubben, Whiteacre, Weinstein… Performers- Just GO TO THE MEETING!

OP/ED By Michael Whiteacre

As most of you know, tomorrow, in downtown Los Angeles, a Cal-OSHA Advisory Subcommittee is scheduled to address the issue of condom and other "health and safety" regulations on adult production sets. I am writing to strongly encourage ALL members of the adult production industry to attend, but especially adult performers.

The pool of active adult performers has not been heard from by Cal-OSHA since the early meetings.
Instead, in testimony, the talent pool has been routinely insulted, demonized, degraded and mocked by Shelley Lubben of Pink Cross Foundation. If there is any one reason why you should show up and make your presence felt, and your voices heard, it might be to forcefully rebut the outrageous, disgusting claims made by this sick woman.

At the last OSHA hearing, in March, Lubben described many current performers as victims, "young, dumb females who couldn’t read a contract," and who "can’t even understand words like ‘litigation’ or ‘arbitration.’" She waived a copy of the standard industry model release as an example! She also characterized adult performers (as a group) as "trained seals", claiming the reason performers don’t show up to these hearings to tell "the truth" is "because they’re frightened."

"Why is it for the past year when we’ve been having these meetings, only maybe a few female adult performers or even non-performers come?" she asked. "They’re afraid for their lives, they’re afraid they’ll lose their jobs. Right here in Van Nuys, I’ve personally invited the porn industry to come face this meeting, and where’s the female porn actresses to speak on their behalf? They’re not here because they know that they’re going to be threatened, and they’re going to be blacklisted for telling the truth about what’s really going on…."

Dear performers, if that is how you see yourselves, and your industry; if that is how you wish to be perceived by the world; and if preserving your job and your rights and your freedom is unimportant to you, then by all means, brush this meeting off.

But if you are offended by these charges; if you consider yourself a competent consenting adult with the right to do with your body as you see fit; if you think that the government has NO RIGHT to force the entertainment industry to produce safer sex ads instead of escapist entertainment, and if you support your right to chose condoms or not THEN YOU NEED TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, for it just might be your last chance.

But this is about more than stereotypes, hurt feelings, and the public’s impression of adult performers. This is about your livelihood.

Whether or not you support condom use, you should come to this meeting, for this process is not about condoms, as the OSHA proposal makes perfectly clear. This is about killing adult movie production in California. Period.

There has been NO attempt to actually promulgate reasonable, industry-appropriate regulations. As Lily Cade wrote today, in the wake of a thorough and frank discussion of the OSHA proposal last night, "It doesn’t make us safer on the job to regulate our jobs out of existence. We’re not just talking about condoms here, but about barriers to prevent ALL contact with body fluids. ‘Condoms, gloves and eye protection are specifically mentioned. That’s right, it’s time for the facial, break out your face shield." This is not a joke, and it is not fantasy. This is the Brave New World that the megalomaniacal sexophobe Michael Weinstein would wreak.

This entire crusade for "safety" has represented an attempt to railroad the adult industry by Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its willing accomplices at UCLA, LA County Dept of Public Health, and last, and certainly least, Pink Cross. This is a cabal of self-interested parties who are out to generate as much money, power and publicity off of the porn industry as they can. They are opportunistic hypocrites, excoriating porn while they profit off it. They think you are all children and poor little victims, incapable of knowing what is in your own best interest.

Do not wait until your opportunity has passed. For like this opportunity, your jobs, your personal freedoms and your way of life may soon be like the snows of yesteryear — gone, never to return.

I know that many in this industry have little faith in the industry trade organization, Free Speech Coalition. Performers rarely join, and may feel that the organization is out of touch with their interests.

The reality is complicated — but I’d ask you to consider this: it is only Free Speech Coalition that has ACTUALLY STEPPED UP to address the crises in the adult industry. It is a very small organization, dwarfed by AHF, yet it is fighting this fight daily, and assembling plans to keep the industry going, and to keep performers safe in the wake of AIM Healthcare being run out of business by lawsuits and aggressive governmental action (most of it instigated by AHF). Before you throw stones at FSC ask yourself, what have I done to help protect my industry, my job, my livelihood? Now is the time for your voice to be heard. It’s the bottom of the ninth, and this industry has to make it count.

Danny Wylde notes, "I’m going to assume you’ve become a performer to make money — and to make the most money possible … Even if some of the production companies stick it out and try this condom-mandated means of production, how many companies have to leave before you;re losing out on one, two, three, four, or five thousand dollars a month? … We all take a risk going to work every day. In my opinion, it’s a managed risk. And it’s something I choose to participate in so that I can get a paycheck at the end of my day. So when I feel that someone else who doesn’t really understand our industry is coming in to take away that paycheck, I get kind of pissed about it. And I’d like to have a say in the matter."

Do you want a say in the matter?

Life’s great question is "Where do you stand?" Lily Cade writes, "Porn performers, the ‘workers’ that Cal/OSHA says it’s trying to protect, do not want these regulations. We want to be able to work."

If that is where YOU stand, then you need to attend this meeting tomorrow morning. If not for your industry, then for your self and for those who may count on you for financial support.

The meeting will he held tomorrow, June 7, 2011 at 10 am

CalTrans Building
100 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

I say the adult industry should pack that motherfucker and makes its voice heard. Where do you stand?

Incidently, Lily Cage's essay can be found here (warning, contains NSFW images).

Porn Panic 2011 Update: New Report Debunks AHF/LACDPH/Cal-OSHA Cooked -Up Stats On Performer STI Transmission Rates..But Will Even THAT Be Enough? (Updated)

2011-06-06T08:21:00.000-07:00

Updated...scroll to bottom.

Well....the Cal-OSHA hearings on the condom mandate proposals is tomorrow, and I'm sure that there will be plenty of industry heavyweights out there to make the case against imposing the condom mandate.

Today, they got a nice new weapon at their disposal....in the form of a report that debunks the presentation of officials at Cal-OSHA, the LA County Department of Public Health, and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) regarding the rates of transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STI's) among performers.

The report's author, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, was asked to review a presentation done by LADPH clinicians Peter Kerndt and Robert Kim-Fairley, which contained detailed statistics on the STI transmission rates amongst porn performers as compared to rates amongst the general population.

One of the fundamental foundations for pushing the condom mandate is that porn performers are infected far more often than the general population is, and without the need for "barrier protections" such as condoms (and dental dams, and the use of personal protection equipment) during sex scenes, performers are literally risking their lives everytime they do a shoot "unprotected".

As Mark Kernes reports at AVN.com in analyzing Dr. Mayer's newly published report, such claims are, to say the least, severely overhyped and distorted...and outright cooked out of thin air.

Perhaps Dr. Mayer's most important finding is that the numbers put forth by the health department doctors for chlamydia and gonnorhea infections in both the adult performer population and the public at large are statistically invalid, and therefore their conclusions are, according to Dr. Mayer, "without basis in science," and that their "conclusions, analysis and advice in these three presentations should be discarded."

That's an incredibly important finding for the adult industry, since one of the main reasons put forth for requiring performers to use condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves, goggles and face shields for all forms of sexual (and even some non-sexual) contact in adult movies is that adult performers have higher infection rates of STDs than, say, the average Joe or Jane at the local nightclub.

The idea that adult performers are more sexually active and must bear the brunt of such "protection" in order to "mentor" the general population on "safer sex" is a key talking point of groups like AHF...never mind that it restates the current right-wing trope about how porn is an incubator for "disease" and merely carries it via porn to general society. And, never mind the fact that people are just as capable of being safe and sexually active and conscious of their own risks and safety all by themselves, without the need for PPE or LADPH jamming condoms and dental dams down their throats.

It is those cooked stats that Dr. Mayer basically refutes...mostly, by attacking the methodology of how performer infections are counted in LADPH's "research". I have added bolded emphasis to particular points.

Dr. Mayer begins his report by analyzing Dr. Kim-Farley's presentation at the first advisory committee meeting, STD/HIV Disease and Health Risks among Workers in the Adult Film Industry, where Dr. Kim-Farley estimated that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 performers involved in the industry between 2004 and 2008, the years which he used in his calculations, and that 3228 sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) of chlamydia or gonorrhea were reported to the LA County Public Health Department during that period. Dr. Mayer points out that Dr. Kim-Farley provides no basis for either his estimate of the size of the performer population, nor does he provide any explanation of how the data on the alleged number of infections was collected.

"This is poor science," Dr. Mayer concluded, "and inexcusable in epidemiology which can be characterized as the science of estimating risk from counts."

Among the flaws that Dr. Mayer found in Dr. Kim-Farley's presentation were that he provided "no information on turnover or longevity in this industry, the proportion of cases that were re‐infections, or multiple testing of performers," thereby calling Dr. Kim-Farley's claim that "one-fourth of all performers are diagnosed" with either or both of those diseases "unfounded and misleading."

Part of the problem in estimating infection rates is that it requires the statistician to divide the number of persons infected with the diseases (the "numerator") by the total number of people in the population under consideration (the "denominator"), and if either of those numbers is inaccurate, the result will also be inaccurate.

"It must be noted that his estimation of the prevalence is based on the false assumption that performers are never re‐infected nor re‐tested within any one year," Dr. Mayer states, regarding the figures provided in Slide 17 of Dr. Kim-Farley's Powerpoint presentation. "He could have estimated the rates of re‐infection and re‐testing and adjusted for both although it would lead to a less startling, albeit more accurate, result. The oversight is particularly bothersome and misleading because the AFI performers are re‐tested as many as 12 times a year or more. It would be rare indeed for [a] randomly chosen member of the public to be tested so often."

In other words, Dr. Mayer says that Dr. Kim-Farley's statistics apparently don't take into account the fact that an infected performer may have been retested once or even twice before the infection has cleared his/her system, thus jacking up the statistics for that disease, and also that the vast majority of performers are tested on a monthly basis, whereas the overwhelming majority of Los Angeles residents aren't even tested once per year—in fact, many have never been tested—so that comparing the infection rates of those two populations is statistically invalid.

Or, to put it in layman's terms:

Porn performers are required to be tested once a month, and many others test even more than that, as a requirement of future employment, and because many who happen to get infected are retested to insure the STI is cleared before they resume shooting, that will artificially inflate the rates of infection for performers.

For the general public, though, testing is mostly voluntary, based on fear of infection, and most people who ultimately get infected don't even get tested at all, thusly undercounting the rates in the general population.

Whether that's a flaw in the methodology or a deliberate cooking of the books is something I will leave to you to decide.

Regarding the rates of particular STI;s such as chlamydia and gonnorhea amongst porn performers, Kernes reads Mayer's study thusly:

Dr. Mayer deals with the issue of the prevalence of STD infections in the AFI [adult film industry] population later in the report, noting that the CDC recommends calculating chlamydia positivity by "dividing the number of women testing positive for chlamydia (numerator) by the total number of women tested for chlamydia (denominator includes those with valid test results only and excludes unsatisfactory and indeterminate tests) and is expressed as a percentage. The denominator may contain multiple tests from the same individual if that person was tested more than once during the period for which screening data are reported. The numerator may also contain multiple positive test results from the same individual if that person tested positive more than once during the period for which screening data are reported." [Emphasis in original]

However, as Dr. Mayer analyzes the data provided by Drs. Kim-Farley and Kerndt, the prevalence of STDs among the performer population "appears to use all positive tests in the numerator, but does not take into account the number of tests the subjects received. AFI performers are tested every four weeks. Kim‐Farley and Kerndt, lacking a denominator, used an estimate of number of AFI performers (2000 or 3000) when they should have used an estimate of the number of tests given to the performers. The two methodologies yield very different results."

At the end of his report, Dr. Mayer attempts that exact calculation, finding that for the years where data exists to make the calculations, the chlamydia and gonorrhea infection rates within the adult industry are statistically close to those which Drs. Kerndt and Kim-Farley found within the general Los Angeles population.

In other words, there is really no pandemic of STI's within the LA porn industry...at least, not greater than STI's in the general population.

Far more enlightening, though, is the way that Mayer reveals how LACDPH (through AHF and Cal-OSHA) deliberately distorted data they got from the former testing group AIM Medical Foundation to buttress their case for the condom mandate and other "protections". It seems that in the process, they couldn't even synch their stats to match each other.

Inbetween, Dr. Mayer tackles the report of Dr. Kerndt's 18-month "pilot study" (June, 2000-December, 2002) of "straight" performers, Public Health Issues in the Adult Film Industry: Policy Implications of an Outbreak, and finds that to be fatally flawed as well.

While Dr. Kerndt that according to that study, there were approximately three times as many chlamydia infections among straight female performers as among similarly-aged LA County females, and five times as many gonorrhea infections, Dr. Kerndt also failed to provide any data regarding the testing frequency of the "LA County female" population that formed the "denominator" count of his equation. But perhaps more troubling is his note that, "Not all individuals tested and reported by AIM are necessarily AFI performers."

In other words, not only do Dr. Kerndt's statistics attempt to compare apples (tested performers) with oranges (generally untested population at large); he doesn't even know who his "apples" are! They could just as easily be prostitutes or other at-risk women who have never even come close to making an adult movie!

Or as Dr. Mayer puts it: "Again, epidemiology is about counts, not policy. To treat counts so casually cuts against the basic grain of epidemiological reasoning. If the goal was to put numbers on the table to justify changes in policy then why not fabricate the entire analysis?"

Let us remember that AIM not only served industry performers, but also offered testing to private individuals as well...so not controlling for either the prevalency of multiple testing of infected performers or non-industry infections discovered by AIM certainly distorts the data in favor of higher STI rates amongst performers. Again, I'll leave it up to you to judge whether or not this was a slip in analysis or a deliberate con job.

Of course, the condom mandate proponents will probably dismiss Dr. Mayer as a paid stooge of the porn industry, and scream about the recent HIV/AIDS scares (restating the usual libel about how 24 performers have contracted HIV from sex during shoots, and probably using the likes of Ministress Shelley Lubben and Derrick Burts to shed crocidile tears over how "the inddustry failed and destroyed them" in the name of their scheme to impose condoms (and profit immensely from the government and the condom companies).

If they are the only voices heard, of course.

All the more reason why performers who actually care about their rights and livelihood absolutely must pack this meeting tomorrow and stand up and be counted and heard. This isn't about "protection"; this is more about a false choice between paternalism dressed up as "protecting performers" and running porn out of California entirely.

Unless, of course, you like your porn made in sweatshops in Lafvia.

Update:

XBiz.com just posted an article on the Mayer Report that gives further details on its genesis.

It was funded and initiated by the Free Speech Coalition, which has become the key organization that has been resistiing the condom mandate from the beginning, and who recently developed their own, performer-friendly, and far less intrusive, testing/treatment regimen to replace the one maintained by AIM-ORG before they were run out of business by the efforts of Cal-OSHA, LACDPH, and AHF.

Also...the report in its entirity is now available as a PDF file from XBiz, it can be read here.

Update #2:

The FSC just posted a blog entry synopticizing the Mayer Report over at their blog; and it also includes a link to the full report.

The Return (???) Of Sex Hate: Kimberly Kupps Arrested in Polk County, Florida For...Videotaping Sex With Her Husband?!?!?

2011-06-05T21:31:00.000-07:00

It's bad enough to face down the proposed condom mandate that is about to be thrown down on the porn industry in California.

It's just as bad to be facing the issue of piracy via tube sites, torrents, and thieves.

But you would think that in the year 2011, the idea that a woman could produce and make a profit off of selling tapes of herself having consensual sex with other consenting adults, and sell those videos to other willing consenting adults would have been an established truth.

You would think that...but apparently, the sheriff of Polk County, Florida, has a fundamentally different view.

And he just used the full power of his office to impose that view on a 55 year old woman whose only crime was to share her joy of sex with her husband with others.

You think this is some nightmare?? For Kimberly Kupps (real name Theresa Taylor), it's all too real.

The story, from XBiz.com:

Kimberly Kupps Faces Obscenity Counts Over Web Content

LAKE WALES, Fla. — Kimberly Kupps, who co-operates namesake site KimberlyKupps.com with her husband, was charged late Friday with 13 obscenity counts for content distributed over the Internet.

The 5’ 10” 55-year-old performer specializes in the big-boobs niche and had been on the radar of the Polk County Sheriffs Department for three months.

The Sheriff’s Department booked her under statute 847.5 on 13 counts of “wholesale promotion of obscene material.”

Kupps, whose real name is Theresa Taylor, started in the biz in March 1990 and currently lives in Lake Wales, Fla. She frequently comes to California for porn and photo shoots, according to her website.

Kupps was jailed along with her husband, Warren Taylor, who remains locked up; Kupps was released Saturday night after posting $7,500 bail.

According to the police report, a deputy paid an initial $19.95 membership fee to her website, where he found videos of Kupps having sex with men and women.

The deputy downloaded six videos, burned them to CDs and asked Judge Reinaldo Ojeda to review them.

Ojeda, according to the police report, said the videos were obscene material under state law.

Taylor, Kupps‘ husband, said he filmed the videos downloaded by the deputy and uploaded them for sale on Clips4Sale.com.

Taylor said the couple made an average of $700 monthly for the past four months.

XBIZ reached Kupps on Sunday, but she declined to give further details or comment on the arrests.

Keep in mind that most of what Kimberly Kupps produced was the standard fare of sex acts with her husband, solo acts, and sex with female friends that most "at home" porn sites provide.

And yet, this was considered "obscene" enough for officials in Polk County to investigate her for three months, gather information on her through her website, and ultimately get a local judge to rule her work as "obscene" under Florida state law, which ultimately cleared the way for her arrest. A local account of her arrest from the local newspaper The Ledger, can be found here.

Turns out that the sheriff, Graddy Judd, happens to be a full-on fundamentalist Christian with a history of using his office to impose his right-wing morals onto his community.

I guess that he feels that he's protecting his people from being corrupted from the power of Kimberly's exposed nipples, or vagina, or something or another. I wonder if he's this aggressive in hunting down actual criminals who commit real crimes and injure people.

Even worse...how many more Grady Judds out there are empowered by the Religious Right and the Antiporn "Feminist Left" to violate the rights and the lives of other women who make their livelihood making consensual sex vids and running consensual sex websites??

Nice Frankenstein monster you created, Gail Dines and Shelley Lubben. I know you are celebrating this. The rest of us, though, should hang our heads in shame and rage...and then fight like hell..
P

The Compleat Danny Wylde Essay On The Upcoming Cal-OSHA Hearings

2011-05-31T14:27:00.000-07:00

Danny Wylde has now given me permission to repost the entirity of his excellent essay on the upcoming Cal-OSHA hearings -- scheduled on June ~~9th~~ 7th -- concerning the proposed rules on porn workplace safety....which could include not only the dreaded condom mandate but also requirments to wear dental dams, goggles, and other means of "barrier protection".

Anyone interested in hearing the performer side of the story should read this...and then, if they can, pack that meeting. It's that important.

The Condom Debate (As I See It) (http://trvewestcoastfiction.blogspot.com/2011/05/condom-debate-as-i-see-it.html?zx=fc0bdfc0b507a937)

The most important part of this post comes first.

If you are a member of the adult industry and located within the vicinity of Los Angeles, California, I believe it is in your best interest to show up to this:

Medical Meeting with the Cal-OSHA (California Division of Occupational Safety and Health) Board of Directors Addressing Adult Industry Regulation
June 7th, 2011
10am
CalTrans Building
100 S. Main St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Now I will attempt to explain why it's important to attend this meeting.

Most adult industry professionals have by now heard about the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's (AHF) increasing efforts to mandate condom use in all US-based pornographic productions. Given that the majority of US-based porn is produced in California, efforts have consisted of filing complaints with Cal-OSHA against production companies for failing to adhere to the “same section of state workplace safety law that requires nurses to wear protective gear to spare them exposure to blood-borne and fluid-borne illnesses.” “One of the complaints filed by AHF in September has resulted in Hustler/LFP being fined more than $14,000 for violating condom regulations, and Forsaken Productions cited for more than $12,000 in violations.”

The (heterosexual) industry's defense of it's predominantly condom-less sex practices is this:

“Vivid Entertainment founder Steven Hirsch has said that such moves could force filming to leave California, causing a blow to the multi-billion porn industry that has many operations in the San Fernando Valley.
Hustler Video head Larry Flynt has said audiences don't want to see actors using condoms because it interrupts porn viewer fantasies with a reminder of disease prevention and birth control.”

But are these concerns – stated by Hirsch and Flynt - valid?

I wrote a blog entry in October, 2010, titled, “Protection.” In my post, I stated (in regards to the fear that condoms might hurt sales), “It's a little difficult to confirm this speculation given that few productions have tested the waters.”

Well, it turns out my statement was false. Production companies have tested the waters. It just happened prior to my involvement in the industry.

During my interview with former AVN editor and current adult producer/director/cameraman, Eli Cross, he told me that shortly after the 2004 HIV outbreak, “All the companies went condom only. Well, the only one that has survived shooting condom-only is Wicked, and Wicked only survived shooting condom-only because Wicked's not really in the business of shooting porn. Wicked is in the business of making these big budget movies that they can sell as R-rated, straight-to-video features in Europe, and in India, or wherever. And that's how Wicked survives. Nobody buys Wicked movies here. You know why? People don't want to see condoms in their porn. In straight porn, they don't want to see condoms.

Everybody tried it, and nobody bought the movies. And the problem is, it's not like we can just say, 'All porn is going to be condom only.' Guess what? Europe is never going to shoot with condoms. It's not going to happen. Suddenly now, miraculously, European porn was outselling American porn, three, four, five to one. Nobody went back to shooting without condoms because they wanted to. They went back to shooting without condoms because they had to.”

I've since heard this claim repeated by several other industry professionals who out-rank me in industry experience. And while there are no financial public records available for adult industry production companies, I have no reason to distrust these people. If anything is at stake, it's their jobs. I have a hard time believing that, beyond financial incentive, producers have some malicious intent to prevent performers from using condoms.

Okay, so here's an argument. Maybe in 2004, porn consumers didn't want to see condoms. But it's been about seven years. In terms of market demographic, it's possible a lot has changed.

Maybe the modern consumer doesn't mind condoms in their porn. Okay. Say this is true. As a business owner, would you be willing to take that chance?

Bear with me on this completely unrealistic scenario. Because I think the point is still valid.

Say you own a restaurant in which spaghetti with marinara sauce is your number one selling dish. And say this special brand of marinara sauce can – under very unlikely circumstances – blow up in the kitchen and severely injure one of your cooks.

Okay, so seven years ago, your kitchen had an accident, and a few of your employees were injured by explosive marinara. You – the responsible business owner - decided to no longer serve spaghetti with marinara. Instead, you served it with pesto. Because the pesto was a much more stable sauce, and much less likely to explode.

Well, no one bought the spaghetti with pesto sauce and your business almost folded. So you went back to using marinara sauce and kind of hoped for the best.

During the course of seven years, only two more cooks were injured (most likely outside of your kitchen). But now the local government wants to ban marinara sauce. And they say, “It's fine, because you can just serve spaghetti with pesto sauce.”

Over that seven year period, the economy has begun to slump. And customers aren't coming out in the droves they used to. So you're already making less money than you're used to. And now the government's telling you to try something that nearly ruined your business in the past.

Maybe things have changed in the past seven years. But are you really going to take that chance? Or are you going to move your business to some place else where marinara sauce is still legal? Because everywhere else in the world, people still buy spaghetti with marinara sauce, and everywhere else in the world, there are cooks willing to make it.

My point is that even if consumers have changed their minds about condoms, the fact that producers are so scared about it makes the change irrelevant. No one wants to run a failing business. And let's keep in mind: this is a business. You can make the argument that porn has positive and/or negative effects on the world, but no one can say it's a charitable operation. We're not doing this out of the goodness of our hearts. We're here to make money.

Okay. But there are plenty of business operations around the world that are completely unethical, dangerous, and/or illegal: sex traffickers, arms dealers, corporations that use sweatshop labor, etc... Is this at all relevant to the adult entertainment industry operating out of the San Fernando Valley? I would argue, “No.”

My experience suggests that the vast majority of performers working in this industry are doing so of their own free will. And when they are working, they are earning livable wages. Further, they are arguably causing harm to no one.

Moreover, there are industry-regulated, monthly testing practices already in place to help curb the spread of STIs. If any performer honestly feels that he/she is risking his/her life on every shoot, I've yet to hear it. And if he/she feels this way, there is always the option not to participate.

Now consider this:

For the past ten-plus years, an organization called AIM (Adult Industry Medical) provided testing and health services to adult industry performers. Both AHF and Cal-OSHA have had a hand in shutting down that organization permanently. There is no longer any industry-specific clinic that provides medical services.

But the adult industry is still following testing protocol through a facility called Talent Testing Service. It is also in the process of setting up a new testing protocol with help from The Free Speech Coalition.

Basically, AHF and Cal-OSHA are shutting down our medical facilities, and The Free Speech Coalition is attempting to help facilitate our testing practices.

So while AHF claims to not have an anti-porn stance, I along with many other industry professionals, question their motives.

The Free Speech Coalition may also have ulterior/financial motives, but at least they're willing to work with us in a way that does not jeopardize our livelihood.

Now, a case has been made for why condoms may not be financially viable. But how about the more practical reasons?

Veteran performer, Nina Hartley, explains on her blog why many performers prefer not to use condoms:

“In a nutshell, performers as a rule don't care for condoms for several reasons. For most of the men (with few exceptions), condoms make for a very-much-more difficult scene; just one more huge distraction to add to the host of other ones on the set: uncomfortable set, no chemistry with the female player, asshole director, late/early hours, too hot/cold, bad food, personal issues, etc.

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see...

...I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period...

...Porn is pretty safe. If a player says "no" to the most egregiously stupid acts (cream pies, whether anal or vaginal), then he or she is unlikely to get a deadly disease at work. People do get the non-lethal ones, but they get treated, as do their partners, and they get to work again when their new test comes back clean.”

Moving on, let's forget the grievances mentioned above. At least for a minute.

There has been a common argument that even with mandatory condom use, consumers won't have to see them in the films. Because if consumers really hate condoms in their product, the financial incentive will force producers to pay FX gurus to digitally remove them from every scene.

This seems great in theory, but the argument obviously comes from someone with no film production or FX background.

I don't claim to be an FX specialist, but I do have a degree in cinematic arts from one of the most prestigious film institutions in the United States (The University of Southern California). From my production experience, the best way to do something like digital condom removal requires a process called rotoscoping. In a frame that is not locked-off, which consists of a moving object that continually changes size and shape (a penis with condom in the midst of penetration), this is literally a frame-by-frame process. In most video, each second consists of 24-to-30 frames. The amount of work that would go into removing something for an average of twenty-to-thirty minutes per scene is astronomical - as would be the cost of doing so.

For example, I shot a spec commercial last year that required a similar process. I paid an FX guy $500 to do this for several seconds of footage. He was straight out of film school and interning at an FX house. So I was even getting a good deal.

This is not cost effective in the least. And it is a completely ridiculous suggestion.

My friend told me that at the last Cal-OSHA meeting, someone stood up to support this notion with an argument like this: “Look at what they did with that Avatar movie.”

Avatar is a major motion picture with a budget of over $200 million. The average pornographic feature film costs less than $25 thousand. Suggesting that we have the budgets to do extensive FX work is unrealistic to the adult industry business model and, in my opinion, completely ludicrous.

Further, even for those who believe that the performers will cope with the added annoyance of condoms, and consumers will get over their appearance in movies, Cal-OSHA's mandate of condoms means more than just slapping on a rubber.

According to the Huffington Post, “Cal/OSHA officials provided the Associated Press with a 17-page draft proposal that contained sometimes graphic details of the bodily fluids, waste matter and other materials that porn actors must protect themselves against to avoid infection...

...The draft says porn producers must provide and require 'use of condoms or other barrier protection to prevent genital and oral contact with the blood or (any other bodily fluids) of another person.'”

This means condoms during oral sex, the strong possibility of dental dams, and exclusion of “cum shots” from US-based pornography.

Obviously, such practices would facilitate a safer environment. But let's take off our political hats for a moment and really answer these question: Have you ever used a condom during a blowjob in real life? And when is the last time you broke out a dental dam?

To me, this is not sexy. And I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that for most people, barrier-protected oral sex is outright inefficient and actually a turn-off. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so.

Further, if we remove any contact with semen from pornography, we are eliminating a vast amount of niche and mainstream product. Like it or not, the “cum shot” has become an integral part of porn. The Cal-OSHA condom mandate eliminates blowbangs, facials, cum eating, cum swapping, creampies, and basically the end of every straight sex scene released in the past discernible history. To say this would have no impact on sales is a very presumptuous statement.

But as a pornographic performer, why should you care? Most of these concerns are for producers. If you don't mind using condoms, and don't particularly care to be splattered with semen, then what is the big deal?

Well, I'm going to assume you've become a performer to make money – and to make the most money possible. You and I both know we're not raking in millions. Even the very top performers are not making more than $200 thousand a year (strictly from performing). In fact, plenty of contract stars don't even reach an annual six figures.

So even if some of the production companies stick it out and try this condom-mandated means of production, how many companies have to leave before you're losing out on one, two, three, four, or five thousand dollars a month? Do you think it's worth it to feel a little bit safer? Are you even concerned with the current risk involved?

We all take a risk going to work every day. In my opinion, it's a managed risk. And it's something I choose to participate in so that I can get a paycheck at the end of my day.

So when I feel that someone else who doesn't really understand our industry is coming in to take away that paycheck, I get kind of pissed about it. And I'd like to have a say in the matter.

I'm asking that regardless of your opinion on the subject, you make it to the June 7th meeting, that you post this information (with whatever you'd like to add or detract) on your blog, website, Twitter feed, Facebook, etc... And that you show that we have a voice.

Because from my perspective, the industry performers (myself included) have been predominantly oblivious to what's going on, uninformed about the previous meetings that have already taken place, and in some cases apathetic. It's not completely our fault, because I don't know that there's any real avenue for all of us to get this information. But if you help spread the word, we can all be informed and approach Cal-OSHA with an actual stance.

My stance should be clear. And I'm of the opinion that many people share it. But if I'm completely off-base, show up anyways and tell the world we want to use condoms.

Whatever the verdict, our bodies are the ones at stake and we should have a say in the matter.

I hope to see you on June 7th.

Posted by Danny Wylde or .... at 5:05 PM

I will also post this at my own blogs (Red Garter Club; SmackDog Chronicles, and encourage all porn performers to promote Danny's essay and, if they can, attend the meeting. As I said, it's that important.

Eleven Days To LA Porn Judgment Day: Danny Wylde Makes The Definitive Case Against Condom Mandate...But Will It Matter?

2011-05-29T19:19:00.000-07:00

Well...eleven days from now, on June 9th, Cal-OSHA will have their hearing where more than likely we will see the first action to impose the dreaded condom mandate on porn shoots.

On the eve of such, Danny Wylde -- bi porn performer and filmmaker -- just posted over at his Trve West Coast Fiction blog an extended essay post that restates the case against the mandate and for personal performer choice. His words probably will fall on deaf ears, given the collusion between Cal-OSHA and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in developing and boosting the condom mandate, but at least it gives those of us hope that at least some truth will be given a hearing.

The full essay can be found here; but here are some snippages for langiappe.

I wrote a blog entry in October, 2010, titled, “Protection.” In my post, I stated (in regards to the fear that condoms might hurt sales), “It's a little difficult to confirm this speculation given that few productions have tested the waters.”

Well, it turns out my statement was false. Production companies ave tested the waters. It just happened prior to my involvement in the industry.

During my interview with former AVN editor and current adult producer/director/cameraman, Eli Cross, he told me that shortly after the 2004 HIV outbreak, “All the companies went condom only. Well, the only one that has survived shooting condom-only is Wicked, and Wicked only survived shooting condom-only because Wicked's not really in the business of shooting porn. Wicked is in the business of making these big budget movies that they can sell as R-rated, straight-to-video features in Europe, and in India, or wherever. And that's how Wicked survives. Nobody buys Wicked movies here. You know why? People don't want to see condoms in their porn. In straight porn, they don't want to see condoms.

Everybody tried it, and nobody bought the movies. And the problem is, it's not like we can just say, 'All porn is going to be condom only.' Guess what? Europe is never going to shoot with condoms. It's not going to happen. Suddenly now, miraculously, European porn was outselling American porn, three, four, five to one. Nobody went back to shooting without condoms because they wanted to. They went back to shooting without condoms because they had to.”

I've since heard this claim repeated by several other industry professionals who out-rank me in industry experience. And while there are no financial public records available for adult industry production companies, I have no reason to distrust these people. If anything is at stake, it's their jobs. I have a hard time believing that, beyond financial incentive, producers have some malicious intent to prevent performers from using condoms.

Wylde's essay also includes an extended quote from Nina Hartley (actually, not from her blog but from her site journal from back in 2009 during an earlier HIV porn "outbreak"), which dispatches the practical reasons why many performers oppose mandating condoms during porn scenes.

“In a nutshell, performers as a rule don't care for condoms for several reasons. For most of the men (with few exceptions), condoms make for a very-much-more difficult scene; just one more huge distraction to add to the host of other ones on the set: uncomfortable set, no chemistry with the female player, asshole director, late/early hours, too hot/cold, bad food, personal issues, etc.

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see...

...I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period...

...Porn is pretty safe. If a player says "no" to the most egregiously stupid acts (cream pies, whether anal or vaginal), then he or she is unlikely to get a deadly disease at work. People do get the non-lethal ones, but they get treated, as do their partners, and they get to work again when their new test comes back clean.”

Once again, I strongly recommend you read the entire post over at Danny's blog. It's long overdue.

Presente, Adult Industry Medical Foundation (AIM); Sexual Swiftboating Finally Claims Its Victim

2011-05-03T13:29:00.000-07:00

Well..the other shoe finally dropped.

One of the most direct ironies was that it was Violet Blue (the sex blogger notorious for taking the name of a porn performer) who passed on the fatal news today.

Nevertheless, here's how she reported the story of the shutdown of the AIM clinics:

AIM (Adult Industry Medical) Healthcare Clinic Shuts Down

Porn performer Juliette Stray just tweeted about the sudden closure today of AIM (Adult Industry Medical) Healthcare Clinic. According to Raincoat Reviews, the Free Speech Coalition (a porn industry legal org) called an industry and member-only meeting last Friday to discuss Workplace Safety, Performer Testing. As you can see by Sarah Shevon’s tweet, only seven porn performers attended the meeting. Apparently at the fateful meeting, they quietly decided to abruptly close the clinic responsible for standardized STD/STI testing, health certificates and community testing enforcement in the mainstream adult industry. AIM was also used by non-porn people for its top-rate tests and fast results.

AIM has not issued a press release nor made any comment or hint on their website that they have closed. Disturbingly, their site AimCheck.net has been taken offline. This means anyone who had good tests can no longer access the test results or have them accessed – the online proof and verification of having clean tests is gone. AIM’s Get Tested link is also broken.

Considering everything that has happened to them: the HIV scares of 2004, 2009, and 2010, the continuous assaults on their integrity by the likes of the LA local health care establishment, Michael Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the antics of the Pornwikileaks crew in hacking their database and revealing sensitive information, and antiporn activists such as Shelley Lubben and Gail Dines wanting to blow up the testing regime that had worked pretty well to contain sexually transmitted infections amongst the performing community, it's hardly surprising that they would be able to withstand such pressures for too long.

It doesn't make the news any less saddening or tragic, because it shows beyond doubt what a scare campaign built on nothing but fear and lies can do when not directly confronted.

Far worse, though, is the "I got mine, and fuck everyone else" mentality that seems to have infected members of the performer/producer industry when it comes to protecting their rights. Only six performers could be induced to attend a meeting on their very survival as an industry???

In any case, I'm sure that the champagne bottles are popping over at Mike Weinstein's place, since it's a given bet that they will be able to exploit the chaos of not having a standardized testing regime for STI's (though Talent Testing Services is well positioned to take over AIM's duties for the moment) to continue their push for mandating condoms in all porn scenes. I'm just as sure that the tube sites will be celebrating as well, because all this will do is increase the value of stolen bareback scenes ripped to tube sites and stored on PC's and servers, and force performers and producers into venues of less protection and greater risk.

But who the fuck cares, I guess?? Such are the wages of sin..or at least, that's how the usual naysayers and trolls will say it. Porn performers are a bit like children, "illegals", and poor Black men: stepping stones to be used for personal gain and money, but not quite good enough to speak for themselves.

Maybe it's high time they organized themselves and demanded to be treated as humans. And, maybe producers might want to take a very long look in the mirror and see what their foolishness and misplaced pride has gotten them, and get back to what got them their audience in the first place.

Update: The Free Speech Coalition just issued this press release at their website regarding the closure of AIM. I will simply repost it in its entirity:

FSC Responds to Closure of AIM
Last week Free Speech Coalition (FSC) was made aware that AIM Medical Associates (AIM) was in danger of closing its doors. In order to avoid a significant gap in health services for performers, FSC has drawn up preliminary strategies to fill the gap with possible options for performer testing protocols. The FSC Board of Directors will meet tomorrow for an emergency meeting to consider options.

“It is our understanding that AIM is now closed. Our hearts go out to AIM and its dedicated staff. We know that it has been a very difficult time for them,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said. “Rest assured that FSC is committed to making sure that the industry and its performers are well-protected.”
Last Friday, FSC conducted three separate meetings for producers, agents and performers to gather feedback and discuss options with industry stakeholders. The response from those meetings was successful in gathering suggestions from industry members on which options to pursue and for taking action.

AIM has suffered a two-year campaign waged by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and is currently a defendant in litigation associated with AHF involving patient medical privacy. AHF also has struck out at several companies and talent agents in their attempt to mandate condom use on adult sets.

FSC has been working with industrial safety regulation agency CalOSHA to develop industry-appropriate regulations for adult production sets. The next CalOSHA Committee meeting addressing regulations for the adult industry will take place in Los Angeles on June 7. The meeting is open to the public, and scheduled to be held at the CalTrans Building in downtown Los Angeles, at 100 Main Street (at the corner of 1^st and Main).

We Saw It Coming

2011-04-23T13:08:00.000-07:00

Did anyone really think AIM could hold out forever against the combined onslaught of AHF's rapacious minions, Cal-OHSHA's ideologically motivated abuse of state power, waves of nuisance suits filed by AHF's lawyers on behalf of anyone and everyone who might conceivably make a claim against the organization, the carefully orchestrated media campaign against it mounted by Michael Weinstein and his toadies at the L.A. Times, the whole madness of Ponrolinks being laid at AIM's door with no concrete evidence that it's in any way responsible?

Did people just take it for granted that AIM is indestructible, or that the so-called "Big Players" in porn would rush to its rescue?

Whatever anyone was thinking, other than Weinstein's crew, AIM has always been a fairly fragile institution with one very important constituency that's been little heard from amid all the smoke and mirrors - the performers. They're the ones who need it to survive, and will be in much greater danger if the bullies and bloviators finally succeed in killing AIM, because they're the ones who will be at risk if the highly successful testing and monitoring system that AIM operated for ten years, during which this industry had a total of four work-related HIV transmissions out of the nearly thirty thousand new cases reported in L.A. County during that time, finally closes down and some chaotic patchwork of test facilities with differing methods rush in to take its place. That is, unless AHF and their pals actually succeed in destroying independent testing altogether so they can land that contract with the state to replace it with their own as yet undescribed substitute system?

Only the performers will suffer if AIM closes its doors, and who really gives a fuck about them in all this political chicanery? Certainly not those who stirred it up to begin with.

I'm not ready to hang crepe for AIM as yet. It's still doing remote draws, reporting results in a day and still maintains the all important unified data base that tracks test results for performers and producers, but when you read this, you may come away with the distinct impression that the battle is nearly over and AHF and Co. have won.

If so, congratulations Mr. Weinstein. You'll have destroyed the system that kept performers safe without offering anything useful in its place. If one performer gets sick as a result, the onus for that lands heavily on your balding head.

Read it and weep:

http://business.avn.com/articles/video/AIM-Draw-Stations-Open-Future-of-Organization-Unclear-433382.html

Sex Wars (The Beltway Edition): AGUS Holder Whacks Out DoJ Obscenity Task Force; Wingnutters In Congress ERUPT: "Not So Fast, Hombres!!!"

2011-04-18T10:25:00.000-07:00

In the midst of all the drama over the Condom Mandate, the Great Porn HIV Scare(s) and .XXX, this breaking story may have slipped under the radar....but it could have almost as big an impact as the other issues.

A major political firestorm is beginning to brew in Washington, DC, on Capitol Hill over the degree of priority of whether Federal resources should be used to continue the longstanding "war on pornography" that has been ongoing since the Meese Commission released their cooked-up findings in 1987. Since the Bush era, the US Justice Department has been using its Obscenity Task Force as the main tool for prosecuting and persecuting sexually oriented businesses and performers alike through the court system.

Well....make that was rather than "has been", because current Attorney General Eric Holder just last week decided that it was time to shut down the DoD/OTF for good, both as part of the broader goal of reducing the deficit and shifting resources to more fundamentally pressing issues and concerns.

Quoting from XBiz.com (full article):

The recent move by Attorney General Eric Holder to shut down the Justice Department’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force set up during the Bush administration is causing conservatives in Congress to come out swinging.

According to reports, right-wing activists and anti-porn supporters in government led by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch are claiming that Holder and the Obama administration are soft on porn and are calling for a new crackdown on hardcore material.

The Obama team stopped any new obscenity prosecutions when it took over but allowed ongoing cases to continue even though the task force was officially but quietly disbanded earlier this year.

The final blow for dissolving the unit likely came after last July’s trial of John Stagliano when he was acquitted on all obscenity charges for lack of evidence. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon told the Washington Post at that time, “I hope the government will learn a lesson from its experience.”

Problem is...using the DoD to whack porn out of existence has ample support amongst politicians, especially of the Republican/Tea Party/Religious Right variety...and they aren't taking this news lying back.

But the dissolution of the DOJ's porn police is causing a stir on Capitol Hill.

Hatch's resurrected fight against adult began earlier this month when he and 41 other senators — that included some democrats — sent a letter to Holder pushing for criminal cases against “all major distributors of adult obscenity.”

Hatch told Politico in a statement, “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama administration is giving up without a fight.

“We write to urge the Department of Justice vigorously to enforce federal obscenity laws against major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography. We know more than ever how illegal adult obscenity contributes to violence against women, addiction, harm to children, and sex trafficking. This material harms individuals, families and communities and the problems are only getting worse.”

To be sure, the AG office is NOT saying that they won't pursue antiporn cases...they would simply transfer administration of them to a different division:

But despite the knocks against its effectiveness, the government said it is not giving up the fight against porn but instead wants local U.S. attorneys and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division to handle porn cases.

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said that the decision to discontinue the task force was made by the department’s Criminal Division, which is headed by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

“Re-incorporating the prosecution of obscenity violations into the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, as opposed to having a separate task force, provides for increased collaboration among experienced attorneys and agents, and gives our prosecutors the most solid foundation possible for pursuing their mission,” Sweeney said.

And the Justice Department didn't take Hatch’s letter lying down. In a response it said it “has charged violations of the federal obscenity laws over 150 times since October 2008, and has recently secured guilty pleas from defendants in several cases involving adult obscenity.”

The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section took over obscenity cases in January but has a carryover pending case against producer Ira Isaacs scheduled for May 17 in Los Angeles. But the Feds said the unit's greater priority is now focusing on the exploitation of children, child porn and obscene depictions of child rape.

In other words, get out of the business of prosecuting adults for producing and consuming adult porn, and stick to the business of prosecuting child porn and exploitation. Sounds reasonable to me, though one could question the notion of how hyperaggressive the child porn laws will be enforced.

But again, the Right wouldn't be the Right without the doctrine of getting into the uteruses and penises of everyone else who don't think like them, and defunding and punishing anyone who dares to question their intervention (see Parenthood, Planned)...and former OTF prosecutor/well known Porn Policeman Pat Trueman gives the game away as to the true motives of antiporn activists:

However, Morality in Media’s Patrick Trueman — a former obscenity prosecutor — disputes the DOJ’s claim of 150 recent obscenity prosecutions and said no adult obscenity prosecutions have been initiated under Obama.

“In various administrations — not just this one — DOJ has tried to sell the notion that it has a vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws underway. A look at the cases, however, reveals that what are counted as ‘obscenity cases’ are in fact child pornography cases where the defendant is allowed to plead down to an obscenity charge. … To suggest that such cases are adult porn cases is just wrong,” Trueman said.

And yes, Clones, that would be the same Pat Trueman who hosted that classic Pornography Harms seminar last year on Capitol Hill. the one featuring such antiporn lynchpins as The Ex-Slut Ministeress Lubben and Gail Dines.

Also, that's the same Pat Trueman who just last month sent a form letter to Congressmen and Senators urging them to sign up to his latest campaign blasting the Obama Administration for not beefing up antiporn activism and cracking down hard with more prosecutions. Although their media lists "over 100" legislators as signees to the letter, only 42 actual signatures are shown in their petition; mostly the usual Religious Right/GOTP figures and the typical right-wing Democrats like Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Joe Lieberman...however, a couple of head-turning Democats did sign as well: Senators Amy Kloubohar (MN) and Diane Feinstein (CA).

Interestingly enough, some of the signees are attempting to crawfish their way back from this attempt at adult speech censorship...particularly DiFi:

One of the signers of Hatch’s letter was [D]emocratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California whose constituents make up the bulk of adult production in the country.

In response to Feinstein’s surprising support of Hatch, Duke told Politico, “I have a feeling she’s going to be getting a lot of letters from our area. It’s political season and we’re an easy dog to kick, but Dianne Feinstein needs to understand that a good portion of the economy in California comes from our industry, and we pay taxes and we’re voting members of the community.”

When asked about her interest in the obscenity issue, a spokesman for Feinstein pointed to her support for several measures targeting child porn in recent years.

Actually, it's not so surprising to me, since DiFi has been trending more Rightward for years, and her current husband is the founding editor of Newsweek, which is also tacking hard Right as well.

The real issue here, once you cut through the BS, is that what Hatch and the Right are ticked at is that one weapon in their arsenal to regulate adult behavior and wipe out sex they don't like has been liquidated..and they just can't stand that. Oh, and also, one more brick to be launched against the Dems and President Hussein Obama of Kenya/Sharia/Moscow as "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", too. And...a nice way of squeezing folk for funding, too.

Focusing on abuse of children and prosecuting child porn might still allow for more obtuse attempts to silence more legal adult material under current child exploitation and "trafficking" laws (and keep in mind the current case involving Lupe Fuentes allegedly hiring underage girls to shoot vids; as well as the current brohaha involving Reality Kings and the lawsuit against them by the mom of the alleged 16-year old they shot videos with); but it would preclude the kind of hyperactive prosecution of adult that Trueman, Dines, Lubben, and others would prefer.

Either way, this could get pretty nasty soon. As always, we'll keep you informed with updates as needed.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: BREAKING: AHF Hypocrisy Exposed By TheSword.com: Push Condom Mandate On Others, But Sell Bareback Gay Porn At Home. Niiiiiice!!!

2011-04-16T11:26:00.000-07:00

Oh, My. Goodness.

If this turns out to be true, it completely changes the game on the condom mandate.

Apparently, Mike Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation has just a little bit of a problem with walking their talk about forcing condom usage in porn. As in, making money off the sime bareback they would outlaw.

No, I don't just mean making money off banning it, I mean making money off of it directly..by SELLING it.

This story originated over at TheSword.com, a very respected gay male site; I'll just quote them. (WARNING: link to article which contains NSFW images)

Why Is Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation Selling Bareback Porn?

AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s Michael Weinstein, a fierce proponent of condom usage in porn and the leading force behind ongoing efforts to make condom use mandatory in California porn, owns and operates nearly two dozen “Out of the Closet” stores, including the recently opened Wilton Manors, Florida location. In addition to used clothes and furniture, this store is also home to an ‘AHF Pharmacy.’ Also available at Michael Weinstein’s thrift store? Used bareback porn.

When the store opened in 2008, Weinstein announced that “Ninety-six cents of every dollar raised through the Wilton Manors store and through ‘AHF Pharmacy’ will benefit AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s HIV/AIDS prevention and education programs in Broward County and statewide,” so selling bareback movies in that same store would be an oddly counterintuitive move on the part of an organization whose sole objective is to prevent the spread of HIV. And yet, here they are.

The bareback movies currently on sale at Michael Weinstein’s Out of the Closet in Wilton Manors include Bareback Joy Riders, Bareback Sailor Pimp, and Cum Inside Me.

This photo of bareback porn currently on sale at Out of the Closet (note: customers have to ask a clerk to view the films, which are typically kept behind a counter) was taken by Out of the Closet employee Ryan Dixon (a.k.a. Kameron Scott), a former adult performer living with HIV. Dixon took issue with AHF/Out of the Closet selling the films, so he brought them–as well as the subject of bareback porn and bareback performers–to the attention of Out of the Closet’s district manager, Matt Lamariana, who rebuffed Dixon, allegedly telling him, “Who cares?”

Yesterday, Dixon quit his job at Out Of The Closet, citing the bareback titles and Lamariana’s attitude. Excerpts from Dixon’s letter of resignation:
This letter is being written to inform you that the weeks of April 10, 2011 and April 17, 2011 will be my final two weeks with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a cashier at Out of the Closet. I have made this decision based on my experiences working at your store, observations about operations I have made and personal beliefs which I cannot compromise.
[...]
Out of the Closet is supposed to be a fundraiser, but to sell bareback porn movies behind the counter just to make money makes me sick. I confronted a fellow employee about it, then the assistant manager, and finally my store manager about not feeling right about selling them because of what this company is supposed to be portraying. When Matt was asked about it, he looked at me, shrugged, and said, “Who cares? It’s been made and they’re probably already dead from whatever they caught.”
As a former adult model living with HIV, that comment was the last straw for me. Are we not the same company that protests studios that make videos without condoms, but yet it’s ok to sell their movies because it’s ‘already made’?
A press rep for AHF/Out of the Closet confirmed to The Sword that porn is sold in some store locations, but couldn’t comment on Dixon’s resignation or the sale of bareback porn. Additional calls to AHF/Out of the Closet in Florida have not been returned.

The Free Speech Coalition’s Diane Duke, a frequent opponent of Weinstein and AHF in the ongoing battle of condoms in porn, told me that AHF’s campaign against the porn industry has never been about the safety of adult performers.

“AHF’s activities have always been about gaining power, fame and fortune,” said Duke. “This is the kind of train wreck that happens when a nonprofit loses site of its mission and follows the money.”

Now, understand that TheSword.com's stated position is in favor of the condom mandate and for ultimately banning bareback gay porn as a enabler of spreading STI's and HIV. So, it's not as if they're necessarily friends of the industry.

On the other hand, though...for all of Mike Wenstein's pontifications about how only condoms can effectively protect performers from HIV, he is, first and foremost, a sucker for raising money...and I guess that he thought that pimping bareback gay porn in Florida wouldn't get him caught in LA.

All I want to know about this is....does Ministeress Lubben know about this?? And if she did, then why hasn't she broken off AHF as violating her "Christian" ethics?? Or...is she a private fan of gay bareback, too??

We will be following this breaking story as it happens, of course.

Update: Oh, nice....Mark Kernes at AVN just discovered this juicy hanging slider, and just hit it out of the park. His article for AVN is here.

Porn Panic 2011 Update #..Errrr, Whatever: LA City Attorney Nixes AHF Attempt At Imposing Condom Mandate Through LA Film Board

2011-04-12T17:57:00.000-07:00

Remember that study that the Los Angeles City Council had induced the local city attorney to produce that looked at whether the city could force the LA Film Board to deny permits to porn shoots within LA unless mandatory condom usage was imposed?? That was the study that was forced when four LA city council members (all of whom took money from AIDS Heathcare Foundation head honcho and leading condom mandate booster Michael Weinstein) urged the council to unaminously investigate whether or not they could simply by feat force condoms on the industry.

Well, the study is now out, and the answer has been given. And it is, as expected, a resounding.....HELL TO THE NO.

I'll just let XBiz take it from there:

City Attorney Says L.A. Can't Enforce Condoms on Set

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich's office has recommended to City Council to leave language regulating permitted porn shoots unchanged because it lacks jurisdiction to control them further.

"It is the opinion of this office that the current permit language covers the use of condoms on all permitted adult film sets to the extent that the city may legally do so," according to a letter sent to councilmembers last month from deputy City Attorney Kimberly Miera and obtained by XBIZ. "Based on the current permit language, along with the jurisdictional concerns in regulating workplace safety issues, our office recommends the permit language remain unchanged."

In February, City Council unanimously voted to instruct the city attorney to investigate mandatory condom use in porn movies. Councilmembers in December, with the insistence from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, introduced a motion that would require production companies to have performers wear condoms in order to receive film permits.

While a City Council committee slated the issue for discussion today, the advisory to city leaders from the City Attorneys office will likely deaden the measure that was first introduced by Councilman Bill Rosendahl.

In the letter, the City Attorney's office said that while the LAPD has the authority to revoke adult film permits in the event the conditions of the permit are breached, "as a practical matter, due to issues of preemption and the high level of staffing that would be required, it is doubtful the City of Los Angeles can actively enforce the wearing of condoms on adult film sets."

The City Attorney's office also noted that the city is preempted from enforcing the use of condoms on adult film sets.

"As it presently stands, the city does not have a public health office or officer, and has delegated those functions to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health," the City Attorney said in its opinion.

But the "Department of Public Health, however, indicates that it is Cal-OSHA, and not the city or county, that sets forth and enforces standards for workplace health and safety in reference to acute communicable disease control."

The City Attorney's office said that the issue of regulating porn shoots has been heard in council chambers as late as March 2005 in response to two adult film performers testing positive for HIV. But a resolution "ultimately died in committee."

In other words, Mike Weinstein and Shelley Lubben, you just can't use local LA government to force condoms down the throats of performers. It's either Cal-OSHA or nobody.

Now, it is true that the LA City Council could ignore the wishes of the Attorney and force regulation, but without the means of enforcing such, there's simply no way that that can be anything but a symbolic gesture.

I don't think that we will be seeing any pressers from AHF on this any time soon...they usually do their crowing when they think they've won, but are totally silent otherwise.

So....it's looking like those June Cal-OSHA hearings will be zero hour for when the tornado hits the sewage plant. Start stocking up on gas masks until then, people.

Why Porn Performers Deserve Their Humanity: The Fakery of Porn Wikileaks/Donny Long And The Arrogance Of Slut Shaming

2011-04-11T19:42:00.000-07:00

[Originally posted over at my Red Garter Club 3.0 blog; reposted here with slight editing. As always, the views reflect my personal views and no one else's...unless you happen to agree with them. :-)]

I have been a commentator and fan of the adult sexual media for pretty close to 10 years now.

I've seen porn starlets and stars come and go; some better than others, some prettier than others; some more successful than others.

Some get in it for the quick thrill of the fast money and the easy sex; then fade out never to be heard from again. A few stick around avd become professionals, even icons, whose personas and performances become frozen into the deepest fantasies of fans forever.

A few do become victims of their successes, getting caught up in the fast life of too much money too quick, and they suffer the consequences of their excesses.

Most of them, though, generally make their money, do their damage, live out their fantasies and dreams, and then decide that they've done enough and move on to different phases of their lives...attempting to become just regular folk living their lives.

Of course, the stigma attached to performing active sex on stage or screen or online follows them throughout the rest of their lives. It can be anything from a positive that drives their ambitions, to an albatross that feeds popular prejudice that denies them more "legitimate" employment.

In a truly progressive and sane world, their profession wouldn't even matter...they would be judged as any other person would ask to be judged: by their deeds and actions and their ethical treatment of people.

Unfortunately, we are far removed from that world...and even in 2011 it is still considered perfectly OK to condemn a woman or a man (mostly, the former) for having a sex life not redeemed by the usual conservative stereotypes.

Such is the case with the practice of "forced outing" a performer who would rather keep her/his private life/information out of publc view.

Forced outing is an issue that has long vexed sexual communities; with the conflict between exposing the hypocrisy of those who publically condemn and seek to repress nonviolent, consensual sexual behavior or media depictions thereof while privately partaking in the same behavior they would condemn in others; and respecting the fundamental right of privacy. It can be a tool of forceful social change when done properly; but it can also be, when taken out of control, a tool of social destruction.

In the case of Pornwikileaks.com, it's definitely the latter, in my view.

Their prototype, naturally, is the highly controversial and successful Wikileaks site that has been both praised and derided for revealing corporate and governmental crimes and misdemeanors.

The Pornwilileaks version, however, has a much darker and more sinister motive....laced with liberal amounts of racism, misogyny, utter hatred of performers...and especially deep, entrenched homophobia.

Their "About" page practically leaps out the page with gay hatred; stating that their primary objective is

“To get the gays out of straight porn and illegal gay pimps that have ruined porn and shut it down making condoms mandatory by the government now. The fag loving has got to stop. California is full of gay Mexicans and now they can even marry which is so wrong.”

Now, all of you know my opposition to the condom mandate as proposed by groups like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), and backed by people such as Michael Weinstein and Shelley Lubben.

My opposition is based on respect for the performers' right of free choice and the fact that the existing system of testing and prevention mostly designed and run by AIM has done as effective a job that can be done under the circumstances. I didn't say that the policy was perfect, only that it was effective, and that forcing condoms down performer's throats would be not only counterproductive, but also highly ineffective.

Yet, for all their professing of wanting to "save" porn, they really have a strange way of showing their it.

Their site claims to have the relevant information of over 14,000 performers, including their real names, current residential addresses, phone numbers, and even medical information. They boast that they would acquire and reveal information on performers' medical condition, including highly illegally obtained information on a performer's STI status.

The site also boasts of a section called "Category High Risk HIV", in which they place people which they describe as "either gay or [you] fuck fags".

And how ironic that they attempt to perceive themselves as opposing the condom mandate, when their actual acts in developing their "database" depends almost entirely on destroying the one organization standing in the way of imposing that mandate...namely, AIM.

You see, the reason Pornwikileaks has such a vast database of illegally pilfered information is because one of their agents were able to somehow break into AIM's database of confidential medical information...thusly making that info available for public posting everywhere.

And then there is the case of a man named Donny Long, whom has been rumored to be the front man
behind Pornwikileaks. Long was a former porn performer who broke from the industry about two years ago, but not before launching everything from a website to a message board casting all kinds of fury against nearly everyone. He has developed a reputation as a misantrope and a troll who basically uses every means necessary to out performers he doesn't like, and he has often used Twitter as his chosen weapon until he got banned due to complaints of stalking from those performers targetted. The language of PW is pretty much a mirror of some of the smack that Long has spread in the past in other venues. (For the record, Long has denied that he is the creator of Pornwikileaks, though he does defend its overall mission.) Opponents and victims of Long's wrath have formed their own website, DonnyLongIsAConvictedFelon.com, to counter his claims and correct the reacod.

Why is that interesting?? Because it wasn't the last time that AIM had their database hacked into and information released to the public.

Remember the case of Desi and Elli Foxx?? They were the mother/daughter performer/sex worker team which filed a public lawsuit against AIM claiming that the latter didn't do enough to protect their private info from being released to a previous forum which predicated Pornwilileaks. (Their case was settled out of court.) It was only a coincidence that the group most aggressively pushing the lawsuit just so happened to be the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who aggessively favors the condom mandate and who would benefit the most from getting AIM out of the business of testing performers. Right...only a coincidence.

Another "coincidence" to ponder?? When gay/bi performer Cameron Reid (aka Derrick Burts) revealed himself to be "Patient Zeta", the performer who tested positive for HIV in the scare last year, it was that very same Donny Long forum who, claiming to refute his charges that he contracted HIV on the set of a mainstream video, (allegedly) put out a YouTube video of Burts with fellow gay performer James Jameson, as proof positive that Burts contracted HIV directly from "those fags". Jameson, for his part, flatly denies that, even going as far as stating that he is HIV-negative and has been his entire life. Interestingly enough, Burts/Reid found his way to the reach of AHF via some contracts, and now he is their biggest booster, as well as pushing the condom mandate while soundly criticizing AIM for not doing enough to help him during his time of need.

Once again, this may be pure coincidence, or it may be just a sign that Donny Long and Pornwikileaks might be in cahoots with AHF, Shelley Lubben, and certain other antiporn groups out to basically dissect the industry for its own ends..even if unwitting allies. I wouldn't put it against the latter scenario..though it's probably more the former.[Note by Anthony: That reflects my personal view and my view alone, not anyone else here at BPPA.]

The obvious issues arisen from this is whether or not AIM is a victim of a malicious racist hack bent on their destruction, or a serial bungler who doesn't know how to handle sensitive information (as former porn director/agent Mike South has written in his analysis), or perhaps even a secret participant in the whole chirade to silence those like AHF who want to overthrow them and impose the condom mandate (as some commentators over at the LukeIsBack porn gossip blog have suggested).

But, while that question fleshes itself out, there is a much bigger issue of how those who perform in porn and sex work are seen by the world as large. Unfortunately, in some mainstream venues, the idea that porn stars and prostitutes and even women who gambol in sex for personal pleasure can be seen as fully normal and human seems to be a very foreign principle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings me to the "slut shaming" portion of this blog entry..and the single, cold-hearted brain cell that is Chris Malyszczyk of Cnet.com, who wrote what he considered to be an analysis of the whole PornWikileaks saga.

Apparently, Christopher isn't a fan of porn, and that's his right and his perogatime...but what he says about porn performers being outed against their permission speaks volumes about his disrespect and utter loathing for them....even while he probably jerks off watching them.

For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt's dictum.

You know, the one that went something like: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

It comes to mind because someone whose motivations seem slightly troubling has taken it upon himself to be the Julian Assange of porn.

For there now exists a site called PornWikiLeaks, on which, as you might be able to imagine, certain intimate details of porn stars are displayed for all to see.

The site doesn't display diplomatic messages from one porn star to another. Instead, it attempts to offer a comprehensive revelation of who these stars really are.

Riiight. Because we all know that women who do porn are really diseased sluts and nuts who fall to their knees at the first sight of hard cock, right Christopher?? So, we have every right to know every nook and cranny of what they do, who they do, where they do it, and what disease they catch while they do it. After all, we can't have them damn fags and them "jigaboos" out there polluting normal people with AIDS and other diseases..'ya know, Verne???

And...it's only "slightly troubling" but otherwise totally acceptable for a rogue agent like Donny Long to basically harrass, stalk, and potentially abuse women and men who perform in porn merely because he has a racist/sexist/homophobic fetish, and because he sucked so bad as an aspiring agent?? All because...well, they're evil slutty porn girls?? How touching.

However, many of those who earn an often meager income from their carnal knowledge don't really want their neighbors to know what they do to pay the rent. Moreover, some have left the industry in order to become elementary school teachers or accountants.

So one can only imagine that when PornWikiLeaks reveals not merely their real name, but also address, pictures of their family, and phone numbers, they might just be a little upset.

Oh dear...maybe becuse it's non of those neighbor's damn business what they do?? Or, because the stigma attached to being a porn performer or an erotic actress (unless your name happens to be Kim Kardasian or Paris Hilton or Carrie Prejean) is such that even outright repudiation of your past doesn't prevent you from total embarrassment or even removal of your job and livelihood if your past becomes revealed?? Or, maybe, Chris believes PW to be an excellent way to score a quick and easy lay, since obviously these "sluts" are incapable of being human enough to say "No"??

And besides that, there is this assumption that most normal people are entitled to the right of privacy, of not having either the government or any business entity going into their panty drawers or bedrooms or personal information without their permission and approval But, we all know that sluts, like gays, illegals, inner city Black drug addicts, and other cancers of straight White American society, aren't worthy of having normal people's rights, don't we?? We don't want Big Government in our medicine cabinets or our uteri...but them other people?? No problem.

There is also a suggestion that it is the creator's intention to reveal the STD status of every single porn star, although this hasn't actually happened yet.

But where did PornWikiLeaks get this information? At least some of the leaked data may have come from a database at AIM Medical Associates, a company that routinely tests porn stars for STDs.

AIM told NBC Los Angeles that it is investigating. However, PornWikiLeaks has been going since December, so the investigation might simply be related to the sudden publicity the site is enjoying.

Still, AIM believes it has been violated just as much as the U.S. government. Its spokeswoman, Jennifer Miller, told the Beast: "I can't stress enough, we're victims of a crime. Just like the Pentagon and the FBI, we have been victimized and hacked. We are investigating and we will press all charges."

Oh, but who asked them?? They're just the enabalers of the diseased and vapid sluts who simply don't want to be revealed to be doing their dirty deeds...and besides, who the hell are they to equate themselves to the awesome power of the Pentagon and FBI under assault by the original Wikileaks??

Now, it has been noted that PW has pilfered from a variety of sources to build their "database", not only from AIM...even though it has been confirmed that much of the medical info and a large portion of the other personal info is straight from AIM's database, which is indeed shared with porn studios as a means of screening out those who might by HIV+ or otherwise affected with STI's. However, it is also a fact that by law AIM is forced to immediately turn in any information about someone testing positive for HIV to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Services...which just so happens to be one of the agencies most motiviated to oust AIM and impose their condom mandate, along with the AHF and the state offices of Cal-OSHA. Not to mention the aformentioned suit by Mimi and Desi Foxx against AIM for not protecting their medical records from being revealed; and a later suit filed by AHF and LACDPH calling for AIM to release to them records about performers possibly linked to the HIV porn scare of 2009. Maybe AIM does have serious issues with handling personal data...but that doesn't excuse stealing their data and outing performers against their will.
It should also be noted that the 2257 laws imposed by the Federal government also require porn individuals and production companies to maintain detailed information about every performer for immediate release to government officials (the latter motivated by the myth of "underage children" getting into the industry following the Traci Lords debacle during the late 1980's; reinforced by the latest scandal in Colombia concerning current superstar Lupe Fuentes). Given the ease to which such information can be accessed and even traded, maybe it would make it quite a bit easier for any hacker to get sensitive information and use it to his own profit against the performer's interests??

But, again, that's a concern for normal people who are assumed to be fully human, not porn girls, sex workers, or other dirty sluts. At least, not to Chris Malyszczyk.

The porn industry is undergoing considerable changes, especially with the huge proliferation of free online porn. Will the existence of PornWikiLeaks make some think twice about their chosen means of making money?

Or is the expectation now entirely reasonable that anything you do, anywhere, at any time could--at any moment--be revealed online for all the world to see, know, and, of course, judge?

In other words....does the Bill of Rights apply to everyone....or are porn performers exempeted merely because of their chosen profession??

In response to such claptrap, an actual sex worker who was outed by PornWikileaks named Maggie Mayhem was moved to post at her blog a thorough ass-kicking rebuke of Chris Malyszczyk and his slut shaming. The entire piece is worthy of a read, but I will give some snippage.

Let’s clear a couple of things up, hater. First and foremost this information was obtained from private medical records. It isn’t a coincidence that one of the major ways that we protect our health and the health of our partners was sabotaged. It’s a clear message: you are not allowed to have both a non-traditional sex life and good health at the same time. This was an act of terrorism. According to your words, hater, we should just sit back and accept this as proper order of the world. We should just accept that mainstream medical care excludes us and degrades us and that if we develop a community model of care that people will do everything they can to shut it down. I guess we should have thought about that when we tried to pay our rent, have a relationship, be part of a family, or go on living our lives like anyone else. We should have just known that someone would eventually think that they were saving California from “Mexicans and gays trying to get married,” by illegally accessing our medical records and posting them on the internet with our real names and an incitement for harassment against us.

Whether or not our industry is conventional has nothing to do with what happened. For example, I think that it is unethical to set up sweatshops in developing nations to exploit the local labor force. If I hacked into the HMO database for a major corporation with factories in developing nations and published the names and private information of thousands upon thousands of low level employees who worked for that corporation at any point in time on the internet alongside calls for harassment against them I would be immediately denounced as a deranged criminal who must be stopped immediately and that would be absolutely, 100% accurate. No one w0uld be debating whether or not those employees should be ashamed of working in retail. No one would suggest that the reason why they dropped their surname or opted for nickname on their employee badge was because they were trying to hide from their occupation. No one would speak as though they should have known that sooner or later someone would inevitably hack into their medical records and post their badge name next to their full legal name alongside libelous language and calls for harassment against them. We would solely focus on the actions of the deranged criminal and discuss ways that we can prevent that kind of illegal and dangerous behavior from happening again.

Like most haters, you’re getting defensive about the fact that people are calling you out for victim blaming. The opening and closing of an essay is prime real estate in a piece of a writing. It’s what people notice first and what they walk away with at the end. This essay contained 538 words. The opening and closing (103 words) constitute just under 1/5 (just about 20%) of the total essay length and both are dedicated to questioning whether or not porn performers should feel shame about what they do for a living rather than what actually happened or any form of compelling analysis. The reason that people are receiving this as victim blaming is because you opened your essay by saying, “For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt’s dictum. You know, the one that went something like: ‘If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.’” It communicates quite a bit about your priorities that you opened and closed your writing with a sentiment of judgement and shame.

Amen and a-women on that, Maggie.

Sad to say, many performers whom I follow and respect -- and some I even worship -- have found themselves on that list of outed performers. In fact, anyone whom has used AIM's services -- whether they be in porn or not -- have probably had their privacy breached by this hacking, and they are suspect to being violated at any tiime. (Mike South has posted at his blog some means to which performers who think they ave been violaated can act to get their names removed, or to get PW shut down, and porn legal scholar Michael Fattarousi has also acted to bring legal means against Long to end the harrassment and stalking. Efforts by Long to intimidate and expose performers on Twitter have mostly failed in the wake of strong response by the performers themselves.) The resulting tragedy and its impact on AIM and on the current regime of HIV testing remains to be resolved; whether it turns out to be the concluding act in the AHF/CalOSHA/LACDHS takeover of porn testing and the condom mandate is still well up in the air.

However the results go, though, it still reinforces what to me has been one of my fundamental objectives that has driven my support for and respect of women who take the risks and enjoy the benefits of performing in adult explicit sexual entertainment: that they are treated as nothing less than full human beings, worthy of respect, free will, and accountability for their actions.

No woman -- not even Shelley Lubben or Michelle Bachmann,-- or no man -- not even Glenn Beck or Rush Liimbaugh, however I may loathe their political and social views -- deserves to be treated as any less than fully human. Maybe some day, we will apply that standard to porn/sexwork. Some day.

[See also Violet Blue's rundown of the whole controversy at her Tiny Nibbles blog here. and also FurryGirl (of Feminisnt) with her perspective on how to protect your privacy from the 2257 laws here. Danny Wylde of Trev West Coast Fiction also has a nice smackdown of Donny Long over at his blog as well. ]