From Goddess Damn Lies To Straight-Up Agitprop Bullshit: The AHF "Porn Study" Debunked

You would think by now that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation wouldn't be able to bury themselves any deeper in their own assholes with all the lying in support of their condom mandate campaign. But, you quickly learn to never underestimate the ability of Michael Weinstein to raise the bar, deepen the ditch, and fill it up with more of his bullshit.

And this week, he managed to outdo himself.

On Tuesday, Weinstein had one of his many debriefings with the press where he updated them on the status of Isadore Hall's condom mandate bill, AB 1576, which was scheduled for its first hearing in the California State Senate later this month after passing the California Assembly earlier. However, this time, he also came armed with what he claimed to be the smoking gun that justified his campaign to force condoms down performers' throats against their will: a survey done by the UCLA School of Public Health which, according to Weinstein, proved that there was a "public health danger" involving porn performers having all kinds of monkey sex and catching STI's like dead meat catching maggots. The actual survey numbers are now posted as a PDF file online at AHF's website, but for the presser, Weinstein presented this "pictographic" which attempted to summarize the findings of that survey.

As you can plainly see, the attempt was to paint a picture of porn performers as oppressed, drugged out, abused, exploited, and basically unable to think for themselves on the subject of protection against STI's, such that the state absolutely had to step in and rescue them with condoms.

Never mind the fact that over 600 performers were lucid enough to sign a petition in direct opposition to Hall's bill, or the fact that, as we will prove, that this "study" is essentially cooked, seasoned, and topped with AHF bias from beginning to end.

Both AVN's Mark Kernes and The Real Porn Wikileaks have done fine efforts to debunk this agitprop, but there are some points that even their efforts do manage to miss which deserve additional attention.

First off, the background for the "survey" itself. It was first proposed by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health's "Performer Advocacy Group" in 2012, during the peak of the Derrick Burts HIV scare. That that particular group was one of the most boisterous supporters of the condom mandate outside of AHF, and whose hearings and seminars on the issue of STI/HIV in porn were mostly biased antiporn rallies featuring the likes of Weinstein and Shelley Lubben, might have just a bit to do with the assumptions they precooked into the analysis. Remember how one such meeting attempted to entrap Mr. Marcus (before his unfortunate encounter with syphilis) into an ambush, forcing Free Speech Coalition head Diane Duke to intervene to give Marcus cover?

The primary hook that UCLA offered for performers to take the survey was simple research into how the industry was affected by STI's as opposed to the general population....but performers were also induced to participate with the promise of $40 gift cards and free followup testing and treatment. In the end, a total of 366 performers lent their bodies to this survey during the August 2012- Jume 2013 time frame.

Another very intriging and disturbing background is the involvement of Talent Testing Services in the formation and development of this "survey". Talent Testing was one of the two adult clinics in Los Angeles which took questions for the survey (West Oak Urban Care Center, which does not test but does offer treatment for those already suffering from STI's, was the other clinic...more on that anon), and TTS head Sixto Pacheco is listed on the byline as a survey author..but only in reference to his main clinics in Miami, not his LA branch clinics.

In addition to that, TTS was at that time locked in a pitched battle with what was then their rival testing clinic, Cutting Edge Testing, which just so happened to have the backing of both the Free Speech Coalition through their then newly hatched APHSS screening/testing system, and the porn production syndicate Manwin (now Mindgeek). TTS had refused initially to join the APHSS system ostensively due to issues they had with database privacy, although it was more widely suspected that TTS back then was more worried about losing exclusive monopoly of performer testing, and that they were in cahoots with certain talent agencies that didn't want a consolidated testing system that could get in the way of shooting could any incident of infection occur. (APHSS ultimately refined themselves into the current PASS system, and the events of 2013 forced a resolution of issues in which TTS ultimately adopted in full the PASS protocols.)

But at least, Talent Testing was a legitimate testing site. West Oak Urban Care Center?? Not so much. Quoteh Mark Kernes (emphasis added by me):

[A]ccording to the study, the surveys were provided to "adult film performers seeking testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at two clinics in Los Angeles." The study as it was released includes no mention of UCLA researchers themselves conducting testing or treatment. Also of note, one of the clinics mentioned in the study, West Oaks Urgent Care Center, is not a testing facility but a treatment facility. In other words, performers do not go to West Hills to get tested, but to get treated for conditions of which they are already aware.

In other words, unlike Talent Testing Service, which was presumably the other clinic that took part in the study, where talent does go to get their routine testing done, the performers who go to West Oaks Urgent Care Center are already either infected with something or seeking treatment for other ailments either work-related or not. But what the West Oaks pool of performers does not represent is a group of performers who, like the study claims, are "seeking testing for sexually transmitted infections." Put simply, as an already-infected or injured group of people, the West Oaks population used in the study are contaminated for the purposes of the study because, unlike the TTS population, there are no non-infected or uninjured performers patronizing West Oak. That contamination would, of course, also pollute the overall findings of the study by skewing them toward the very outcome that AHF wants.

One could only wonder what the results would have been if AHF and UCLA had allowed Cutting Edge Testing to be the other testing agency rather than West Oaks, thusly providing a much more accurate control group for their survey.

There is also this about West Oaks: its lead physican, Dr. Robert Rigg, Jr., was also listed on the byline as an author of the survey. Why is that disorienting? Because...

For one thing, among the people apparently identified as authors of the study, besides Talent Testing Services' (TTS) Sixto Pacheco, is Dr. Robert W. Rigg, Jr., owner of the aforementioned West Oak Urgent Care Center in Canoga Park. Also as mentioned, unlike TTS, neither Dr. Rigg nor West Oak are part of the adult industry's Performer Availability Screening Services (PASS) nor was West Oak an approved testing site even during the AIM era—ask any veteran performer about Dr. Rigg's reputation in the industry. So it's unclear what contribution Dr. Rigg made to the study, since performers attempting to test there could not use said tests to be "approved for work" through the PASS system—an approval required by the vast majority of Los Angeles area adult producers.

It is also noteworthy that APHSS, the predecessor to PASS and the heir to AIM, had only been in operation since mid-2011, and TTS has only been an APHSS/PASS endorsed testing services provider since mid-October, 2012, though it had been sporadically providing some information to APHSS for about four months prior to that time. However, while the UCLA/AHF poster states that the study method was a "Cross-sectional study of adult film performers seeking testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at two clinics in Los Angeles, CA," Pacheco is identified as representing "BioCollections, Miami, FL"—TTS's home base—making it even less clear which clinics provided the data used in the study.

So....why would AHF and UCLA go so far to include Talent Testing Services in their "survey", yet exclude their LA-based testing facilities?

Then, there is the omission of what was one of the main justifications for the survey: HIV. That's an issue because the original request for grant funding for the UCLA "survey" was heavy with the pathos about how STI's - including HIV -- were wreaking havoc on porn performers  and then the general society at large. Here's the money quote from UCLA's Pamina Gorebach in her pitch for the $$$$'s:

Los Angeles is the largest center for adult film production worldwide with an estimated 200 production companies employing up to 1,500 workers at any given point in time and producing and estimated 10,000 films per year. Throughout the course of their employment, adult film performers (AFPs) are routinely exposed to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and are at high risk for acquiring and transmitting STIs including HIV as a result of high-risk work including multiple and concurrent sex partners over short time periods, high-risk sexual acts such as anal intercourse, and lack of condoms or other barrier methods.

Outbreaks of STIs including HIV have been well documented in the adult film industry.  In 2004, three HIV infections were acquired during filming in Los Angeles, after a male performer infected three female performers.  There is additional data to indicate that as many as one in three performers have other STIs such as chlamydia and gonorrhea.  The STI prevalence among performers is extremely high and demonstrates that despite the industry's practice to routinely test performers for STIs, testing alone is not effective in preventing performers from being infected with STIs at endemic levels. Adult film performers are not an isolated community and performers may serve as a bridge population in passing STIs to and from the rest of the population.  Previous studies of AFPs show that the majority have at least one sexual partner outside of work and the prevalence of unprotected sex with these partners is high.   However, data on sexual networks, sexual risk behaviors, and the extent to which performers serve as a core transmitter group to the larger population is limited. 

It does seem that AHF went into the "survey" hoping that they would find some hidden HIV+ performers lurking within their control group pool....and having found none, they decided to switch the goalposts around and announce a general pandemic of "STI's"...never mind the fact that their original 2010 findings of rampant infections within the hetero talent pool have been proven to be quite fraudulent. It also does not quite square with the basic emphasis of pushing Darren James, Derrick Burts, Cameron Bay, Rod Daily, and other assorted HIV+ "victims" of the porn industry before every open microphone to prove just how the industry is pushing death and destruction on their talent, and only the strong wrapped fist of the government can step in and rescue them from their fate. Also, the original proposal was to also study the rate of syphilis, but apparently that effort failed because of lack of money to perform the necessarily tests.

Once again, though, all this is prelimanary until we look at and break down the actual numbers. AHF decided that the infographic pictured above probably wasn't enough information, so they decided to raid an Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV conference in Atlanta with a more detailed inforgraphic. A screenshot of the single page doc follows; the original can be found here.

First off, the base numbers: of the 366 performers who did respond to the survey, 274 were women (leaving 92 men, aside from the possibility of transgendered performers passing as either male or female); and 219 of them were White (though there's no specific racial breakdown of the participants).

Stunning number #1: 80% of the participants reported having done some shooting of porn within the past 30 days. That means that the other 20% -- which translates into roughly 73 performers -- did NOT perform any scenes within 30 days of participation. Of course, that says absolutely nothing about whether they were infected or not with any form of STI, or whether they engaged in some form of sexual activity in their private, not work life. In fact, the fact that one-fifth of the control group did not even shoot any porn to begin with should be the first red flag that something is just not right here...because how can you prove that porn performers are catching STI's in porn and then spreading it throughout society if a significant majority of performers don't even shoot regularly??

The breakdown of condom usage on set is as expected, with the overwhelming majority of performers choosing not to use condoms ever being 196. But, WHOOPS...there's something not quite right here. The percentage graphic listed shows 69% of performers not using condoms.....but my trusty laptop calculator comes out with only 53% (196 never used condoms/366 total sample). WTF?? Now, if you recalculated based on the denominator being those who shot scenes the past 30 days prior to being surveyed (366 - 73 = 293), then you get the posted percentage of 69%. So, why didn't the UCLA surveyors explicitly deliniate between the total sample group and the smaller group of those who had indeed performed scenes? I smell home cooking here, 'ya think?? Plus, there is the inconvenient fact of 30% of performers being able to use condoms at least part of the time while shooting. So much for the thought of "blacklisting" performers for using condoms.

The listing of sex acts performed is equally intriguing....with a distinct focus on the high risk "circus" acts such as double anal, gang bangs, double penetration, double vaginal, "creampie" (internal ejaculation in the vagina or anus) and fisting. Mark Kernes raised the issue, especially involving fisting, that many of those "circus acts" are more an enbodiment of gay male sex, where condoms are more used and HIV is far more prevalent. Considering the overwhelming female base of the survey control group, you could question that analysis.....but fisting is also a very popular act in some quarters of lesbian sex video making. The majority of acts listed, though, were the usual standards of creampie/internal ejaculation, followed closely by rimming, then gang bangs and DP. It should also be noted that the survey does not accurately measure whether any of those acts occur within the same scene or are part of seperate scenes....which would also tend to taint the sample percentage greatly.

Once again, all the percentages are somewhat inflated because they use the base of only those performers who were actively shooting within 30 days, not the entire base of performers responding.

That also impacts the "morals questions" that were asked of the surveyants, which seem to be deliberately put there as a means of propaganda.  Now, any producer who insists on unsolicited sexual favors as a prequisite for performers to shoot for them should be condemned properly and immediately by any respectable producer...but considering that sex is the actual occupation here, I'm not so sure that it should come to any surprise to anyone that extracurrucular activity would occur. As for "injury" during shooting sex? Well...getting your dick snapped by an overenthusiastic cowgirl ride is not the same as bumping your head against the headboard or pulling a hamstring attempting to sustain an anatomically difficult sexual position for the camera. Plus, the protocols specifically state that should someone test for any STD listed in the PASS protocols, they are immediately pulled from the available database to seek treatment. Any STD...not just HIV.

The "perform a sex act that you didn't want to do" question seems troubling...until you realize that many people in porn will often choose to do an act that they personally may dislike in real life simply to move themselves up the totem pole, to satisfy the demand of their fans, or simply to attempt to extend and expand their personal boundaries. They can also easily refuse to do such acts simply by not patronizing such producers.

The "not paid at the end of the job" thing is simply irrelevant pile driving, since that has nothing to do with condoms or STI's, and because it is a fact that most performers are paid for their scenes indirectly through third-party processors, through checks that can appear days after the completion of shooting.

Then we get to the "porn performers are such sluts" portion of the "survey", where the measurement of their private sex lives are supposedly exposed. Problem with that for AHF is, though, that the results reveal a quite passive group, with the overwhelming majority of performers sticking with their significant other or having only one or two other sexual partners for off-the-clock funtime. Naturally, they are usually condom free with their SO's; however, bear in mind that even off the clock, a small minority do choose to use condoms in their private lives.

But that's not all....UCLA and AHF aren't satisfied with merely slut-baiting performers; they must also drug-bait them as well. Hence, the inclusion of data about "substance abuse"...though the main  and most popular "drug" is listed as marijuana, which is only abusive to folk like Maureen Dowd and Puritan wannabes. As it stands anyway, only one-third of all performers are found to be hooked on drugs, and if you add the stoners to the list, you come up to 53% who are either drug free or using what is a relatively harmless product, even maybe legally as medicine. (Also...Xanax and Vicodin are included, but not alcohol???)

And even that is just a prelude to where the tornado really hits the septic tank...in the actual results of testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia. The box score tells the tale:

Actually, it doesn't tell the whole tale, because the raw numbers reflect sampling rather than actual totals based on active testing. Also, the numbers may reflect the same person having multiple infections in different areas being counted as standalone infections to deliberately inflate the count.

Compared to the AHF "infographic", the UCLA graph looks benign in comparison...especially since it breaks down by area of infection. Thing is, though, it only gives percentages, not the total number people who were found to be infected. That's a serious flaw, and potentially fatal, because it has already been established by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health that it is simply impossible to determine the etiology of a particular infection. Remember that one of the facilities used for the survey was a care center specifically for those who have been found to be infected and are undergoing treatment. That alone would introduce crippling bias into the system because the majority of the outside performer pool would avoid getting infected in the first place by screening and testing using the PASS protocols, which West Oaks simply does not use.

But what really grabs your attention is the flip side of what is being said: if 23.7% of adult performers are infected with either gonnorhea or chlamydia at one point in time, that means that 76.3% of adult performers are not infected. Considering Weinstein's assumption that porn performers are supposed to be so controlled by their dicks and clits that they run around fucking and sucking anyone and everyone in sight, the fact that they still remain relatively STI-free is both a testimonial to their discipline and the success of the PASS system.

Besides that, someone may want to pass on to Weinstein that chlamydia and gonnorhea are both relatively treatable and temporary infections which do not even incapacitate a performer for that long, as long as they are consistent with getting the proper treatment. It's not like HIV, which can essentially disable you for the rest of your life. Yes, I am well aware of the latest strains of chlamydia and gonnorhea that are more resistant to antibiotic treatment and are more dangerous, and that should also be taken into consideration when deciding how best to protect yourself, whether you be a porn performer or a civilian.

Basically, the bottom line for Michael Weinstein and AHF and their lackeys at UCLA is that because slightly less than one-fourth of the hetero porn talent pool risks getting infected from STI's, the other three-fourths must be forced to wear condoms and other forms of "barrier protection" for their own good and that of the general population. This isn't just the tail wagging the dog; this is the hair at the end of the tip of the tail wagging the dog.

And apparently, Weinstein isn't even content with merely regulating porn performers' lives on set, either. Another quote from Mark Kernes:

Weinstein also quoted one of the study's (or at least the poster's) conclusions that, "Given that most performers had sexual partners outside the industry with few reporting consistent condom use within the context of any partnership, targeted intervention strategies to limit the spread of STIs both within and outside of adult film work are needed." Weinstein used that "finding" to state that "the concern here goes beyond the adult film industry and that this is leading to a spread of STDs outside the industry as well as within it," but considering the (hetero) industry's testing procedures, isn't the problem more likely the other way around: That outsiders may be bringing STDs into the performer population?

Certainly, Weinstein and AHF have been derided previously as the "condom police," but does Weinstein and/or the study really seek to require adult performers to wear condoms even in their personal lives?

In other words, is Michael Weinstein's real goal to use porn performers as unwilling forced guinea pigs for "safer sex" practices in the general community as a test run for intimately regulating the sex lives of everyone?? That goes far beyond condom policing...Weinstein himself made up the more appropriate term for that kind of policy: "Condom NAZI".


*************************************************************

One final quote from Mark Kernes displays the sheer arrogance and totalitarianism inherent in Michael Weinstein's worldview, as directed towards one of his sternest critics, Nina Hartley, who probably forgets more about sexuality in one day than Weinstein knows in his entire life. His beef was with Nina's concern of excessive condom usage during long shoots leading to "friction burn" and micro vaginal tearage that could potentially invite even further infection.

By the way, the bulk of the 15-minute press conference was spent hitting many of the points dealt with above, but Weinstein went out of his way to bash vocal AB 1576 critic Nina Hartley and several other actresses when he stated, "In discussions by the industry about condoms, [it's said] they're inappropriate because they create a chafing... I won't go into graphic detail here, but you look at a lot of the practices that are being filmed and these defenders are involved in, obviously their bodies took a lot more abuse than would be there with a condom, and this idea of chafing is something that's really unheard of in the public health community." Really? Is there some other statistical group that has sex as frequently and for as long a time period—typically 1-2 hours at a time—that the "public health community" is familiar with and studied? No? So Weinstein really has no idea what he's talking about, does he?

In other words, what Weinstein is saying to Nina Hartley, Kayden Kross, Kylie Ireland, and other female performers who would rather make that choice for themselves, is essentially the equivalent of "Shut the hell up, b*tchez, and take that condom, because a little burn is a small price to pay for saving your wretched life from sure death from deadly disease. What's the matter, you scared of a little lube???" As if Nina isn't a bonafide member of the "public health community" through her years as a sexual rights and women's health activist, or a certified Registered Nurse with an actual college degree in nursing? As if Nina hasn't written books and done videos on safer sex and sexual health during her 30 years of service??

Needless to say, Ms. Hartley had a response to Weinstein's nonsensical whackery. As in, both barrels, and a stiletto boot up Weinstein's ass for good measure.

Hartley herself agrees: "I find it interesting that a man who does not own a vagina, does not work in adult entertainment himself, has not been on a heterosexual adult entertainment shoot deigns to comment on my body and the bodies of my co-workers as to our experience with condom shoots," she told AVN in an interview. "We're sick of Michael Weinstein mansplaining to us our own bodies and our own experiences. He's just a bully; he uses false information, he uses trumped-up stats, he uses non-existent studies to promulgate informatioin he knows is false for his own political ends. It's despicable and he is despicable.

"We are sick of hypocritical politicians like Isadore Hall, whose very own district is full of people who need help with HIV prevention, education and treatment," she continued. "I find it disgusting that there's no AHF clinic in all of Hall's district where they're desperately needed, and yet, Weinstein is still touting a solution in search of a problem, which is the presence of deadly diseases on adult film sets, and that we pose a risk to the general public. We do not. The stats show it, the results show it. Why doesn't he just let it go? Mainly, I'm really upset that he's telling me that my experience with my own body is somehow false or that I'm making this up. It's just astounding."

When Nina Hartley drops "mansplaining" on you, you've been thorougly and properly served.

Memo to Michael Weinstein: You're choking in your own ditch on your own poop. Stop. Digging.

Porn Panic 2012: The Syphilis REALLY Hits The Fan; FSC/APHSS Call For Temporary Porn Production Moratorium

I'll simply quote from the statement just released from APHSS just now.

A performer who tested positive for syphilis has been in touch with FSC and is meeting with FSC’s medical professionals to begin partner identification, evaluation and treatment. FSC has called a temporary moratorium on production until the risk to performers in the industry has been properly assessed and all performers have been tested.

APHSS’ doctors have met and discussed the best avenue to protect the performers and have determined that testing the entire population is the most prudent strategy. A determination will be made by the doctors on the appropriate time to lift the moratorium as more information is revealed.

That sucking sound you just heard are the popping of champagne bottles from Michael Weinstein, Shelley Lubben, Gail Dines, and all opponents of porn...because this new development all but assures that the condom mandate ordinance passes in LA County this coming November, and that AHF now has free reign to impose their condom mandate and "barrier testing" regime not only porn produced in Los Angeles, but ultimately everywhere.

After all, who after this will ever trust porn performers to regulate themselves ever again?

It's so much easier to accept the claims of "blacklisting" of pro-condom performers (such as Brittany Andrews, one of the most strident supporters of the condom mandate) who say that intervention is needed to make hetero porn more like gay porn in allowing HIV+  performers to do scenes, and just trust that the condoms don't break. Besides, isn't it for their own good to be the honored sacrificial lambs for "safer sex" and do their part to educate the rabble about the right way to engage in sex??

Of course, the tube sites, the message boards selling all those stolen free bareback scenes, and especially the rogue XXX sites are also popping their champagne bottles, too, because they will be the recipient of the gold mine of underground bareback sales, as the majority of the consumers simply abandon condomized sex. And all the underground, unregulated, and less respectable producers will have a field day, as they will get the full economic benefits of performers forced to go to them to make their paydays when work is eliminated.

But, who cares about all that?? It's all about "performer choice", right?? Except for those who have succeed in protecting themselves without Michael Weinstein's approval.

And, in the meantime, while all this happens, the REAL pandemic of STI's amongst the poor and mostly Black population in California and the US goes on unabated, and the same people so eager to protect performers from themselves cast a blind eye to the denial of decent treatment, or even access to affordable care, for millions of "civilians".

Because forcing dental dams and condoms on porn performers for the purpose of "role modeling" and boosting condom company sales and NCO money is far more important than actually caring for whole neighborhoods suffering and dying.

Enjoy your porn, folks, because it won't be here for long.

[Just my own personal view, folks, and hopefully just not-so-wishful prophecy...but I have my doubts.]

Porn Panic 2012: The Syphilis Hits The Fan

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

Porn Panic 2012: Primer On Facts Rather Than Hype: Ernest Greene Redux (2009 "Scare") -- Part Deux

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

Porn Panic 2012: A Primer On The Facts As Opposed To The Hype: Ernest Greene Redux (Via 2009 "Scare") -- Part 1

There has been certainly  a lot of confusion and throwing around of statistics and claims and counterclaims surrounding the upcoming November vote in Los Angeles County regarding the move to impose mandatory condoms and other such "barrier protections" on porn performers.

Proponents of the measure say that the existing testing regime using screening of performers and once-monthly (now twice-monthly) testing has been proven to be a failure due to back-to-back-to-back "outbreaks" of performers getting HIV, as well as an alleged "epidemic" of other STI's such as chlamydia, gonnorrhea, syphillis, Hepatitis B, Hepatatis C, and HPV, which they say are affecting the industry; and that only mandating condom usage will redress the problem and protect "worker safety". Proponents also cite the supposed benefits of mandating condom usage for porn performers in the general context of promoting  "safer sex" amongst the general population; intimating that since porn has a disproportional influence on the developing sexual habits of impressionable youth, it should be coerced by government fiat to promote such "safer sex" practices as a means of "mentoring" young people into more "responsible" practices.

While all those intentions may be based on well-meaning goals and incentives (and some may be based solely on simply taking out competition and privileging those more economically more able to profit from a condomized regime), opponents of the condom mandate like me have stated that the measure simply attacks a straw problem that does not exist, uses a nuclear bomb when a precise scapel would be more appropriate, denies the choices of the very performers they claim to want to protect, undercuts the very cause of  promoting "safer sex", and ultimately, decimates and violates the rights of innocent people who's only crime was to engage in sex in ways not approved by certain elitists.

There are other objections that have been raised to the LA County ordinance (and a similar law that was passed covering the City of Los Angeles), such as the fact that it would essentially intervene in even private, monogamous coupled affairs where filming their sex scenes for mere personal pleasure rather than profit could still require both the expensive purchase of a permit to even tape their lovemaking, and even require the use of "bloodborne pathogen protection" as well as condoms, even if the couple was certified to be STI-free and never engaged in risky behavior. Others will cover those objections in other venues.

What I intend to do here is to reset an earlier HIV-in-porn "panic" to reveal exactly how much this latest condom mandate campaign has become nothing much than the latest in a series of "sex moral panics" designed to exploit popular prejudices and assumptions about porn performers and sex workers and sexually active/assertive people in general to fuel sexually regressive and highly reactionary legislation.

The template I will use is an article that was posted here on this blog on June 14, 2009 by BPPA contributor/co-founder emeritus Ernest Greene (aka Ira Levine), recounting an earlier "panic" that took place at that time in which a performer was found to have tested positive for the HIV virus. The subsequent brohaha set the foundation for the ultimately successful campaign against the Adult Indistury Medical (AIM) Foundation, which until 2011 had been the principal agency for testing porn performers, as well as the ongoing campaign for the condom mandate. I will add relevant annotations to Ernest's commentary, as well as some context to the present day, as I go along.

It should be noted that at the time of the original article, Ernest served (as did his wife/partner, Nina Hartley) on the executive board of AIM, and was instrumental in the formation of the testing regime they used up to their untimely demise due to mainly the efforts of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the California state branch of the Occupatonal Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Services (LACDPHS). These three organizations also happen to be the main proponents of and boosters for the condom mandate.

Latest HIV-in-Porn-Panic: Rumor Control Central Re-Opens for Business

As readers of this blog already know, a female porn performer tested positive for HIV earlier this month at the Los Angeles clinic of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM), of which I am chairman of the board emeritus after six terms as a board member, starting with the organization’s formation in 1997. Though I’ve given up blogging as a hobby, the sensationalistic press coverage by local media and irresponsible fear mongering by public officials and anti-porn partisans in the wake of this development cannot go unaddressed.

The current situation has long-term implications for public health and public policy reaching beyond the parochial concerns of the porn industry, those who support it and those who oppose it. The ghoulish glee, complete dishonesty and utter disregard for the potential consequences to actual sex-workers in the attempt to politicize a single, isolated episode with which rad-fems and self-styled porn experts have seized upon this thing is disgraceful and says much more about them than it does about us.

For those implications to be considered rationally, there must first be some clear-sighted recognition of the known facts of this particular case. I’ll try to provide them, and then I’ll offer my perspective on the spin they’ve been given and my own best assessment of the correct course of action for the industry itself and for the greater community of which it is a part. I do not pretend to objectivity in this matter. I don’t have that luxury. I make my living as a pornographer and I am married to an active performer exposed to the same risks as everyone else in the long-term talent pool here, where the majority of porn in sold in America is made.

"Here", of course, refers to California and the Los Angeles region, where indeed most porn videos are produced..although, secondary markets such as Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Miami are emerging as challengers.

For brevity's sake, I will skip over Ernest's recollection of the 2009 case in detail; you are perfectly free to link to the original article if you wish to reset that case. Instead, I will jump forward to the reaction to that episode.

The lies started, as they so often do these days, with unsubstantiated reports from remotely involved parties appearing on porn gossip and chat sites. Perhaps the most harmful of these lies was that the infected performer was given a false negative result from her June 4 test by personnel at AIM prior to working on June 5.

This didn’t happen. It couldn’t have because her results did not come back until June 6, as laboratory reports conclusively establish. While AIM’s testing protocols are not foolproof, as nothing wrought by human hands can be, clinic procedures absolutely forbid clinic staff from discussing pending test results with anyone, including those tested, until the lab reports are in. These rules were observed to the letter in this case.

Another false accusation spread around the ‘net claimed that AIM made no attempt to stop the performer from working while her test was still pending. AIM has no legal authority to forcibly prevent anyone from doing anything. However, the importance of voluntary compliance with AIM’s testing and quarantine procedures is well understood throughout the industry and when the positive results were verified, the infected performer’s contacts have honored AIM’s request to refrain from performing until all re-testing is completed. Again, that is how the system works, and it worked quickly and effectively this time as it has in the past.

If that reminds you of something, Clones, then you remember went down last year with yet another HIV "scare", where a performer in Florida appeared to have tested positive for HIV, only to find out that the source sample used for his original diagnosis was tainted. He was retested under a different regimen and found to be HIV negative. However, the nature of his original tests, as well as the rumor that a major production company had allegedly allowed him to perform scenes during the arbitration of his original tests, potentially "infecting" many others, let to widespread chaos and rumors running amok. It wasn't until the Free Speech Coalition, through their then newly formed Adult Performer Health and Safety Services (APHSS), officially released the itenerary and etology of the tests, and verified the false positive, that passions ultimately cooled..but not before AHF and Cal-OSHA and antiporn activists like fundamentalist Christian ex-porn starlet Shelley Lubben were able to exploit the situation to their own advantage and further boost the condom mandate campaign.

And speaking of AHF and Cal-OSHA and LADPHS...here's where they come into the picture.  Onwards, Mr. Levine...ahhh, I mean, Mr. Greene:

But vicious as these distortions of reality were, their sources were already well known for their hostility toward AIM’s voluntary harm-reduction approach and knowledgeable insiders viewed them with the skepticism these sources have richly earned by their past behavior.

It wasn’t until the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County health officer Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Cal-OSHA spokesman Dean Fryer and Aids Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein got into the act that the bigger and much larger and more ominous falsehoods were put in general circulation.

Fielding is a long-time adversary of AIM’s whose department has a history of harassing and defaming the organization dating to well before the 2004 cases. Fielding’s hirelings have attempted to obtain confidential medical records of AIM’s clients, made threatening calls to AIM clients in efforts to intimidate them into giving information his department has no legal right to collect and publicly accused AIM of “stonewalling” his department’s attempts to investigate STI transmissions in the industry, though he knows as well as we do that California law is extremely specific regarding what we must report to government agencies and what we are forbidden to report to anyone. Members of Fielding’s staff have heckled AIM board members, myself included, from the floor at public forums unrelated to his agency’s mission and Fielding himself has lied to my face in his office in front of two other AIM board members and two members of his own staff regarding his intended recommendations to the state legislature prior to the investigative hearing into the 2004 cases.

And yes, that would be the same Jonathan Fielding that is currently setting the terms of enforcement for the upcoming LA County condom mandate, should the voters of LA County pass this initative. Government bureaucracy is so much fun when you can play both sides of the street and get paid, isn't it??

But none of Fielding’s cynical machinations sinks to the level of his false assertion, trumpeted by The Times, that AIM has “concealed” an additional 16 HIV infections in the industry since 2004. In fact, eleven of those cases involved male performers in gay porn who are not part of AIM’s client base and who do not test with AIM and four were private citizens not affiliated with porn who sought testing at AIM for personal reasons. As required by law, all HIV infections detected by AIM were reported to Fielding’s department, which is how he comes to know about them, but were not disclosed to AIM’s heterosexual porn industry clients because they did not involve het porn in any way. And yet The Times reported this deliberate and heinous distortion of the truth under the blaring headline: “More Porn HIV Cases Disclosed.” In point of fact, there is no way AIM, Fielding or anyone else can know that the cases involving the gay performers were porn-related, as AIM does not monitor that population. But then again, The Times also characterizes mainstream porn as a $12 billion dollar a year industry, an unsourced figure frequently repeated in mainstream media and universally scorned as a ridiculous exaggeration by industry insiders.

 While the LA Times was ultimately forced to retract that stat back then, it remains a central, core foundation of the condom mandate's proponents' ideological offensive...though the exact number sems to expand depending on who's blasting the mic at the moment. "18?? Wait, Weinstein/AHF/Cal-OSHA says 24!!  No, he's wrong..it's actuall 36, Shelley sezs!!" And, of course, I won't even get you started on the outrageous claims of how much porn actually sells...since any number from $800 million to $88 BILLION can be thrown around.

Also, the exclusion of gay performers having contracted HIV, and the radically different system that is being employed by the gay side of the porn industry does have some major bearing on why some folks are so hot on the idea of imposing condoms and wrecking the existing system of testing and screening. But, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself; you'll see that anon.

Meanwhile, Cal-OSHA’s Fryer alleges in the same story that “AIM Healthcare has never been cooperative with us and our investigations,” because AIM has obeyed the law and refused to give out client information to agencies not entitled to said information.

And then there’s AHF’s Weinstein, who has characterized the porn industry overall as “a poster-child for heterosexual HIV transmission” and proclaimed that: “This industry screams for regulation. Cal-OSHA needs to require condoms be used in any film. Yesterday.” Weinstein has organized picketing in front of Larry Flynt’s offices to demand that the straight porn industry adopt mandatory condom use and has refused to meet with industry representatives to discuss the reasoning behind the current standards. He is what is colloquially known as a hothead.  

A "hothead" who also happens to be very successful at shaking down major companies and government for lots and lots ANNNNNNNND LOTZ of cash, as well as incentizing his formula of condoms and treatment in lieu of other means of protection, even if that stand in the way of actual solutions. Not to mention, a nice killing for Lifestyles and Trojan and Durex.

And as for the "mentoring" aspects of the condom mandate??

All these individuals, and a few converts they’ve made at the margins of the industry, support a truly mad plan by Fielding’s deputy Dr. Peter Kerndt to implement state-legislated regulations requiring condom use throughout the industry that would make it illegal to distribute sexually explicit materials created without the use of condoms, even though Kerndt himself admits that digital post production effects could theoretically render it impossible to determine after the fact whether condoms were used or not.

If these individuals were mainly concerned with the health and safety of performers, their views might at least be worth a second hearing, and their methods, while still questionable, would at least be well meant if misguided.

 And here is where the game is given away.  (Bolded emphasis added by me.)

But their real objective has nothing to do with performer safety and everything to do with porn content, which they regard as setting a bad example to viewers following safer sex precautions in the viewers’ private lives. Kerndt makes his priorities crystal clear in his 2007 jeremiad published by the Public Library of Science: “The portrayal of unsafe sex in adult films may also influence viewer behavior. In the same way that images of smoking in films romanticize tobacco use, viewers of these adult films may idealize unprotected sex. The increasingly high-risk sexual behavior viewed by large audiences on television and the Internet could decrease condom use. Requiring condoms may influence viewers to see them as normative or even sexually appealing, and devalue unsafe sex. With the growing accessibility of adult film to mainstream America, portrayals of condom use onscreen could increase condom use among viewers, thereby promoting public health.”

Riiiiiiiight. Because "unsafe sex use" was absolutely no problem before porn came along, and because only porn performers and people taping their sex habits for personal pleasure are/were the ones spreading all kinds of nasty STI's and HIV into the civilian world.  As if the HIV rate of transmission didn't really explode until the VCR, the Internet, the camcorder, and the 3G/4G digital phone allowed people to sext and flash their naughty bits and pass bareback porn betwen each other in an instant. And, of course, people who actually HAVE "unsafe sex" in actuality have been doing so without the aid of porn for centuries, and yet it seems that they have far less of a risk than the gay male porn population, which has had the unmitigated hammer drop on them due to the nature of the HIV virus..and whom also happens to enforce mandatory condom usage in spite of that.

But, if it makes "safer sex" hotter and more sellable to the public, nothing much else matters, I guess. All personal freedoms and choices pale before "protecting the public".

This is basically Weinstein’s line as well. They want to empower the state to punish porn producers for not requiring condom use because they regard the depiction of sex without barrier protections as unhealthy viewing for the audience.

Unfortunately, in the service of that goal, they’re quite prepared to put at risk the performers they claim to be protecting.

The actual method to that madness, I will get to in Part 2 of this essay.