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, Supplemental: APHSS/FSC/Cutting Edge Testing Blink First, Abandons Abbot HIV Test

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

How Defective Condoms In South Africa Directly Affect The LA Condom Mandate (Or...Class, Capitalism, and Sloppy Seconds??)

[Also reposted over at my Red Garter Club blog]

This will take a bit of background to build to the main point..but it’s worth it, I promise. Just stick with me on this, Clones.

One of the many, many talking points put out by those who defend the LA condom mandate law is that since people — especially young people — look to porn as their only means of “sex education, and copy what they see in these videos, only showing condomized sex on screen or online will motivate them to use condoms in real life…and thusly, sexually transmitted diseases and infections will disappear, and global peace will reign supreme.

All that is fine and good….and promoting condom usage amongst the general public as a means of protection against both unwanted pregnancy AND STI’s is NOT a bad thing at all.

However..since condoms aren’t produced out of thin air, but made by corporations who exist first and foremost to make a profit, the inevitable question arises of: “What about the QUALITY of the condoms being issued to the general public? Are they of the top of the line, or are they merely the rejects and scrubs of the condom companies while the good, high-quality stuff remains on a store counter to be sold for an arm and a leg?”

That is not a unimportant question, because it’s the general public, and especially the poor and working class folk, who bear the worst burden of HIV and other STI infections, as well as the greatest risks…and if you are going to tell everyone that condoms are the best defense, you damn well had better insure that that defense isn’t corrupted or compromised.

Because if you slip that shit up, stuff like what happened in South Africa last week is bound to result.

This is what happens when quality control is pushed under the bus and dragged behind at expressway speed:

Some condoms burst. Others leaked like sieves. 

South Africa’s leading anti-AIDS group said Tuesday that allegedly faulty condoms are among more than 1.35 million handed out at the African National Congress’ 100th birthday party.

Health officials confirmed that all of those condoms have been ordered to be recalled. But the Treatment Action Campaign said no warning has been issued to people that they may have carried away defective condoms that could now cause them to unsuspectingly spread or contract HIV. South Africa has the world’s highest number of AIDS patients, some 5.6 million.

The third recall in less than five years raises questions about the quality of some of the 425 million-plus condoms that the government gives away each year, and the competence of the South African Bureau of Standards that is supposed to ensure their quality is up to international standards.

AIDS activist Sello Mokhalipi of the Treatment Action Campaign said he complained to the health department after “we had people flocking in, coming to report that the condoms had burst while they were having sex.”

Some were panicking because they were infected with AIDS and were concerned for their partners, he said.

Spokesman Jabu Mbalula of the Free State provincial health department, which distributed the condoms before the Jan. 6-8 celebrations, said they had recalled the entire batch of 1.35 million condoms around Jan. 18. He said there was no need for a panic.

But he was unable to say how many of the condoms were used or have been recovered.

In 2007, the government recalled more than 20 million defective condoms manufactured locally but recovered only 12 million. The Health Ministry said many of the condoms failed the air burst test.

That came after a recall the same year of 5 million defective and locally produced condoms. In that case, the Ministry of Health said a testing manager at the South African Bureau of Standards had taken a bribe to certify the faulty contraceptives.

[....]

South Africa recalls defective condoms (via SFGate.com)

Now, the article does not state whether the Republic of South Africa manufactures their own condoms, or whether they outsource them from a private manufacturer, but they do state that their Bureau of Standards is supposed to insure that whatever is distributed to the public meets their quality standards.

Apparently, they either looked the other way because they were willing to prove their main point, or they just slipped up on the job.

What does that have to do with the condom mandate law in LA, you ask??

Well…it’s an open secret that the major condom companies here in the US (Lifestyles, Durex, Trojan, et. al.) would just love to tap into the “pro condom”/”safer sex” mood for their own financial advantages. Remember that it was Lifestyles employees who were recruited as “protestors” to follow AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein’s “protests” against HUSTLER and other companies for not banishing bareback sex vids and wrapping their dicks. I would think that such companies would make a nice killing (no pun intended) from scoring exclusive sponsorships or deals with porn companies forced into condom-only vids in order to promote the “safer sex” memes in the larger public. Imagine “Announcing, the 2014 AVN Awards….Brought To You Byyyyyyyy…..DUREX CONDOMS!!!!!!” Or, better yet, imagine you favorite porn starlet sprouting a Trojan necklace and getting paid an endorsement fee for insisting on wrapping up her male partners. Kinda like the decals on the NASCAR racing cars, or the walking ads on World Cup soccer players, except sexier.

The problem with all that, though, is that most poor folk simply can’t afford to buy condoms off the shelf…especially not the top-of-the-line, quality stuff. So, they must go to the local clinic to get their protection…and while condoms there are indeed free, something tells me that they are also not quite so high on the quality factor. I mean, what’s to say that the condom companies don’t just dump their second- or even third-hand product on medical clinics to give to “the poor” while hoarding their quality stuff to sell for maximum profit?? It’s not as if food stores and major retailer chains don’t set the precedent of dumping their excess, close to shelf date product onto food shelters, right??

Do you now see the recipe for disaster here, gangstas and gangstrices??

Imagine if the condom law goes nationwide, thanks to the efforts of AHF and OSHA. Now, imagine AHF and Lifestyles getting a sweetheart deal with the city of LA and a major porn producing company (let’s use VIVID for an example) to put out “FREE CONDOMS!!!!!” to all citizens of that metropolis as a means of promoting “safer sex”. Now, imagine Lifestyles simply dumping its lower quality, excess product onto the streets of LA, using AHF perps to pass out the rubbers to the public.

And now, imagine one or two or five or fifty cases of condoms breaking during use, and as a result, someone gets infected with HIV. Or worse, a performer gets infected during a shoot because he/she didn’t know that the partner was infected but had to do the scene anyway…and the condom accidentally shatters during the main event.

Gee…I wonder how Mike Weinstein will react to THAT.

More importantly, how will this play in the minds of sexual reactionaries who will insist all along that condoms are simply another evil “sex pozzie” attempt to provide false protection for sexual depravity of the privileged wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are merely guniea pigs and cash cows for the “sexual elite”??

The very same arguments, BTW, are being used to slander Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and every other progressive service org delivered to the poor and working class without the approval of the Religious Right.

Be careful of what you ask for…

HIV Porn Scare 2010 Redux: "Patient Zeta" Outs Himself...But Does His Story Pass The Gloryhole/Swiss Cheese Test??

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

The Great HIV Porn Scare: All Bark, No Bite...Again (Also, Exposing Shelley Lubben's Fraudulent Scam)

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

Another HIV Porn Scare: Shall We Dance The Same Tune Again??

So, once again, we have a panic in Porn Valley.

A performer tested positive for HIV last week, and all his primary and secondary contacts are now being tested, with the results pending.

And, the usual suspects, on cue, are chirping the same tune as last year about mandating condom usage.

Unfortunately, this time around, there is a distinctly more vicious tone to the debate, because the potential "Patient Zero" just so happens to be bisexual, and has been rumored to cross over into the making of gay male porn as well.  So now, we get gay bashing on top of the ususal shit-throwing debacle.

The reactions are already fast and furious. Many performers, including some A-listers like Lisa Ann, have now instituted explicit condom-only rules for their future scenes; others (like Avy Scott) have gone further and announced that they would eschew boy/girl scenes altogether.(It should be known, though, that Avy made her decision before everything went down.)

As with last year, the debate has been reenergized over whether AIM-MED has squandered its last chance of protection and whether the government should step in and impose the Weinstein program of mandated condom usage and alternative testing. Of course, the fear that such regulation would be the final blow to porn production in California (and, to a lesser extent, Florida) due to collapse of sales already depressed due to piracy and the recession, is the gravest concern of most porn performers and producers.

On the other hand, one person's fear is another one's opportunity: and some sex-positive intellectuals and activists, as well as even a few porn pros on both sides of the camera, may see the resulting storm as a silver lining that finally liberates  porn production to become more humane and progressive.

The dilemma here, as it always has been since we have had these panics, is balancing the well-meaning aims of those who want to provide the maximum protection for performers with those who don't necessarily see condoms as the end-all cure-all for STD prevention,  and would much rather have a say in their own profession.

As for BPPA's position on this issue??  Well, it remains the same as it has been...Ernest Greene's original rebuttal to the last scare in 2009 that was posted here remains as solid today as it was then.(I will add a link to that particular post and the ensuing comment thread it instigated to the sidebar here soon for easy access.)

But the best case against simply throwing condoms around as the ultimate panacea without actually listening to those who would have to actually use them comes from none other than Nina Hartley, who posted this at her website forum in response to similar calls last year:

[...]

Since then, the usual talking heads have gotten their panties in a wad about how Porn Sets Bad Example For The Viewing Public, and Porn Is A Menace To All Who Work In It, and Those Poor Women Who End Up In Porn: What Shall We Do To Save Them?

For the best response to all of this, do a search for "the blog for pro-porn activism," and read the 5,000 word essay that Ernest so generously took the time to write. It tells it like it is much better than I can, so why duplicate work? It won't take long to read, trust me.

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.

There are a few men who are voluntarily condom-only and so have little trouble with them, and their work is cut by 2/3, at least.

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.

I hate it when those who are made uncomfortable by sex or porn project their issues onto our business.

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.

Of all of the dead porn stars on the Dead Porn Star site, most have died from auto accidents.

And then, there is Belladonna, who adds her nickel's worth on the responsibility of porn performers to protect themselves:

[...]

First of all, I’d like to say that I am thankful that the adult industry has become exceptionally safer since I first started performing back in 1999. Back then, testing for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea was not required, which I found to be ridiculous since those were the most common STDs. However, I do believe that if the 30 day window were shortened to at MOST, 7 days, we could BETTER prevent the spread of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, not to mention HIV.

Since I started testing people that I have sex with 3 days prior to our engagement, it has been over 5 years since I’ve contracted Chlamydia or Gonorrhea. I knowingly caught over a handful of performers with STDs by using this rule. As a female in this industry, I can say it feels DAMN good to not have to spend every week at the doctor’s office clearing up an STD and being out of work. I feel like I’m more excited about having sex and performing, knowing that I’m going to be STD free. I also think it would be smart for new performers in the business to be required to get a full panel test, prior to performing, not only for themselves to see where they stand, but for our industry as well. I think a lot of performers get into the business and already have the herpes virus and don’t know about it and then try to blame it on the industry.

Performers in this business need to be safer when having sexual relations OUTSIDE of the industry. They need to be more responsible with safe sex because they DO know more than the average person when it comes to STDs and safe sex. If this were happening, the spread of STDs inside the business would be a fraction of what it is now. As for condoms, personally, I can only be as safe as I can be without diminishing the value of what I’m trying to accomplish. Condoms just don’t feel good to suck on, or to take in the ass, hard and fast. If I were required to use condoms, my performance would most likely suffer, and in the end I would suffer. I’m not trying to debate with anyone here, I’m just saying, if my co-workers were more responsible, we could all make some great porn and be STD free at the same time.

Now, the prevailing attitude of those wanting mandatory condom usage would probably be that women like Nina and Belladonna are merely elitists and paid shills for "the industry" who really don't give a damn about the risks of other female performers (and, if the likes of Shelley Lubben are to be believed, are in denial about the risks to themselves...as Lubben's recent crackback -- referenced here -- about Nina "being infected with chlamydia four times" in her porn career shows).

My response to that would simply be: Well...better them who have to take the risk themselves than those who simply talk about it. It's their asses and pussies and mouths that are on the line, now isn't it??

Oh...and one other thing: The only response that will be allowed here for "Patient Zero" regarding his sexual orientation is empathy and support. Those who will exploit this situation to spread unconfirmed rumors or vent their homophobia and rants about the "gay menace" simply will get no love or even bandwidth here. Until the actual test results are made public, the best thing is to wait and see, and make the necessary precautions.

HIV-Porn "Outbreak" Update: Cal Judge Stones Cal-OSHA, Keeps "Patient Zero" Med Records Private

Well, well, well....it seems that there is respect for privacy regarding medical records after all.  Even for porn performers.

This latest from XBiz.com:

Cal-OSHA Can’t Seek AIM Healthcare Medical Records

 OAKLAND, Calif. — A judge last week OK'd a protective order sought by "Patient Zero" over five years’ worth of information from the AIM Healthcare Foundation that Cal-OSHA had been seeking.

Patient Zero, the adult industry performer who was found to be HIV-positive in June, asked the court to seek an injunction against Cal-OSHA and AIM because released patient-identifying information would violate Patient Zero’s right to privacy and give irreparable harm to her, according to a suit filed by ACLU attorneys.



Alameda Superior Court Judge Judge Winifred Smith, in her ruling said that "once [Patient Zero’s] identifying information is revealed, the disclosure cannot be undone,” and that Cal-OSHA can carry out its probe with a variety of other options.


Smith also said that Cal-OSHA was not acting within its jurisdiction in subpoenaing the data through the years 2004-2009.


“Cal-OSHA is charged with, among other things, investigating 'causes of any employment accident that ... results in a serious injury or illness, or a serious exposure, unless it determines that an investigation is unnecessary.' Smith said in her ruling. “Plaintiff is concededly not an employee of AIM, and Cal-OSHA is admittedly not investigating the safety of AIM's employees, but of adult film industry employers."


Smith further said that Cal-OSHA is limited to investigating employers and their agents.


“There is no apparent need for identifying information of Patient Zero, or of patient-identifying information generally, for the purposes of investigation of AIM as an employer," she said.


The suit over Patient Zero information was put on the fast track after her counsel from the ACLU learned of a meeting slated in July between Cal-OSHA officials and AIM personnel.


The court filing detailed the extent Cal-OSHA used its regulatory power to seek patient medical records at AIM, which provides HIV and STD testing and treatment mostly for adult industry performers.

Cal-OSHA, which conducted a surprise inspection of the AIM facility in Sherman Oaks, Calif., on June 17, later issued a subpoena to AIM but not to Patient Zero, who was informed by AIM on June 6 that results of an HIV test showed her preliminarily testing positive for HIV. (Patient Zero’s identity has never been revealed publicly.)


The subpoena issued by Cal-OSHA included requests for confidential public health records and “personally identifying information of AIM patents who tested positive for HIV that could reasonably be expected to identify or lead to the identification of Patient Zero.”


At the time, AIM personnel refused to produce records.


But Cal-OSHA officials scheduled a follow-up investigatory interview with AIM staff in Oakland, Calif., according to the suit.


Once Patient Zero’s attorneys got wind of the interview with AIM staff, they immediately shot off a request to Cal-OSHA objecting to it.


Patient Zero’s counsel said they never received any response from Cal-OSHA relative to the request; however a receipt of the letter showed that Cal-OSHA special counsel did receive the letter.


Patient Zero's counsel later filed its suit at Alameda Superior Court. Last week, they were successful with the injunction.

Notice especially the graph dealing with Judge Smith's ruling that Cal-OSHA has no jurisdiction over AIM's testing activities of porn performers, since the performers themselves are not employees of AIM.  That alone should put an abrupt end to the screeching of Michael Weinstein that Cal-OSHA or the LA County health officials can use this latest "scare" to impose mandatory condom usage or other punitive measures intended to impose their brand of social engineering.

Now...whether that ruling affects Weinstein's ongoing suit against the LA health officials to enforce the mandatory condom rules through local legislation is still up in the air...but considering that it would be Cal-OSHA that would have been responsible for enforcing the rules in the first place, it would seem to be a fatal blow to such efforts.

Of course, that probably won't stop Weinstein from holding one of his pressers condemning Judge Smith as an enabler and a tool of the porn industry who is sacrificing women to their deaths. I wonder if Shelley Lubben or any of the antiporn radicalfems will be accompanying him with the usual horror tales then??