Marland "Sledge Hammer" Anderson, Police Taser Abuse, And Porn Performer Stigma

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

Could Scottsdale, Arizona, Become The New "Porn Valley"?

As the day rapidly approaches that the LA condom mandate law takes full effect, the speculation has already began on whether the porn industry either fights the law or takes flight for more secure surroundings.

Some have been talking Las Vegas as a possible target replacement, while others have focused on Florida, where production has already been at full strength for quite a while.

However, the latest speculation is that the metro area of Phoenix, Arizona would be the prime candidate for porn production should there be a mass exodus of the San Fernando Valley.

This has been further strengthened by a story that originally aired on the ABC-TV local Tempe affiliate, then reposted to TheRealPornWikileaks, in which there is a discussion on whether or not the industry moving to the Phoenix area would be a good idea.

The article used two familiar faces for the "debate"; for the pro side, performer Taryn Thomas:

Taryn Thomas tells ABC15 Arizona could see an increase in adult films being made here because of a new regulation in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring condom use on porn sets.

Filming pornography is actually legal in California but that’s not the case in Arizona, here it’s considered pandering.

But Thomas tells ABC15 pornography is shot in Arizona anyway.

In fact, Thomas says the Valley is a breeding ground for adult film stars like her.

Thomas says with porn being a multi-billion dollar industry, Arizona should be happy to have it.

“Ultimately it’s going to bring revenue if it does come here,” said Thomas.

“Arizona should be thankful and begging us to come here because our state is in such a budget deficit.”

Needless to say, there is a contrarian view....and no surprise who ABC15 tapped to present it.

But Shelley Lubben, President of the Pink Cross Foundation, believes talk of the porn industry moving to Arizona is simply a bluff to get the ordinance changed.

If the industry does move to Arizona, Lubben says Arizona will be worse off for it.

“You don’t want this in Arizona because they’re bringing prostitution,” said Lubben. “They’re bringing illegal drugs. They’re having unprotected sex so those sexually transmitted diseases go into the general public. You don’t want this.”

Right, Ministress....because crystal meth labs don't already exist in Arizona, and people aren't already engaging in "unprotected sex".

Actually, probably fitting that the article pits Shelley against Taryn...a few years ago, Lubben had made an attempt to recruit Thomas into her PCF flock, taking advantage of a couple of low days Taryn had. When Thomas politely denied Shelley, the latter went apepoop, threatening to out Taryn for allegedly engaging in "dangerous sex" and using drugs, among other sins. Taryn simply flipped Shelley off and moved on. (A abridged synopsis of the matter can be found here.)

Interestingly enough, there may already be some "casing" going on, since Taryn Thomas hosted one of the first ever porn conventions in Arizona, the Pornstar Ball.  I'm sure that a good time was had by all...just check Taryn's Twitter page for updates.

Update:   WOW...Taryn Thomas just tweeted that apparently ABC15 is tiring of the clown act of Shelley Lubben, because in this morning's coverage of their "porn coming to Arizona" story, they purged all of her "testimony" from their segment. Ouch...even I felt that one.

Why Kayden Kross Kicks More Ass Before 6 AM Than Most Regular Folk Do All Day: The FOXBiz "Condom Mandate" Debate

 [Updated...scroll to bottom.]

A very illuminating debate on the LA condom mandate law took place last week.

Representing the pro-mandate side was Wendy Murphy, crusading prosecuting attorney and long-time TV trial analyst, well known for high-profile prosecutions...and apparently, waist-deep in Gail Dines' antiporn ideology. (Yeah, like Gloria Allred and Marcia Clark and Nancy Grace and other high-profile female prosecutors aren't???)

Repping the anti-side?? Porn performer and Digital Playground contract starlet Kayden Kross, who also knows how to spin a phrase or a thousand, having wrote plenty of pieces for Mike South's blog, and whom was a major contributor to Michael Whiteacre's still-in-the-works expose/documentary on Shelley Lubben.

The venue?? The FOX Business Channel's "The John Stossel Show".

Now, if you weren't aware of Kayden's gift of the tongue, you'd think that she would be mincemeat for the much more seasoned Murphy. Heck, Murphy basically looks like she could be Kayden's mother...and as we shall see, Murphy probably acts like she wants to be Kross' mother, too. After all, the prevailing conventional wisdom is that unless her name happens to be Nina Hartley, porn girls are so obsessed with their boob implants and what/how many dicks they can jam into their vaginas and mouths and buttholes that they aren't really that bright enough to defend their profession.

That day, though, Kayden busted that stereotype and crashed it into a million pieces. To put it simply, she kicked ass.



This was an especially gratifying boat race because apparently Wendy Murphy had gotten the memo from her antiporn colleagues that it was perfectly OK to slut-bait and personally embarrass Kayden for being such an advocate for intelligent porn women...up to and including bringing Kross' parents into the debate and dissing K2's arguments as "the dumbest thing I've ever heard". That K2 handled such an ambush with her usual public grace and class is not too surprising..though, I'm sure that her inner voice had some much...ummmm....earthier phrasing.

But aside from the personalities involved, the most important discussion point of the debate was the conflict between using the law for the purpose of "public safety and protection" -- the main justification used by proponents of the condom mandate law -- and the protection of individual liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention...which happens to be Stossel's main theme as a right-wing libertarian.

I should preface this with my own disclaimer: I am not a fan of John Stossel or of any network associated with Roger Ailes's "Political Crackhouse"....errrrrrrrrr, FOX political propaganda outlet, and I fundamentally reject his base view of libertarian capitalism totally freed of useful regulation and affirmative government as a referee insuring a level playing field.  I may be pro-porn and sex positive, but I'm still also very much a Lefty. Refer all objections to my new Twitter page, @AJK_DontGiveAFuck.  (Please don't..it doesn't exist..but you get my drift.)

However, there are times when I do think that libertarians do have a point or two...and this is one of them.

Allow me to quote from Marv Montag, an adult reviewer who posted at his blog his own review of the FBC's debate.

To start, it should be noted that I have no problem with condoms in my adult films, and I fairly regularly review the one (?) company that I know of that consistently uses them--Wicked Pictures.  I also review the releases of a number of companies that don't.  I'm neutral on the whole issue from the "aesthetics" perspective.

That said, I do have a problem with the unnecessary intrusion of laws on personal freedoms--particularly those dealing with freedom of expression.  In her rebuttals, Ms. Murphy noted that it was the job of the government to protect people.  On the surface, this is a laudable goal and has a good deal of truth to it.  What is lost in her espoused application of this idea, however, is the fact--and it's one fundamental to our nation's very core--that it's as much, or more so, the government's job to protect our liberties.  In watching various shows on television and reading various news articles, I have found that certain prosecutors seem to have a tendency to forget this fact...or at least put it aside when they so choose or when it's most convenient.  Indeed, sometimes the best way for a government to do its job--and to protect its peoples' liberties--is to do nothing at all.  (Thoreau, anyone?)

Now, one argument that invariably arises in this debate is the notion that workplace safety is regularly regulated by law and governmental agencies, etc. and that this should be no different.  It is certainly true that workplace safety is regulated.  As someone who deals with this firsthand in "real life", one might even say that it's regulated too much.  That said, the overall effect--in general--is a positive one.  But, what this argument fails to account for is that those instances most thought of in terms of workplace safety regulation do not deal heavily with inherently-speech-related items.  In the state of California--where this is all going down--the production of adult films falls fully under constitutionally-protected freedom of expression  (ref.:  the Freeman decision).  By forcing adult performers to wear condoms in their scenes--because the government presumes to know "what's best for them"--the art itself is being changed...the expression itself is being substantively and meaningfully altered.  This--to me and as one who holds dear all of our personal liberties--is enough to call this new law a "bad" one. 

Further, it does--as Kayden noted--have serious ramifications in the area of personal choice...sexual choice, which is also a form of personal liberty.  One could envision any myriad of things that could be "regulated" out of existence in the interest of "protecting people against themselves".  Indeed, if given enough leeway, a good many of our rights could be squelched by these same types of arguments.

Mr. Montag's point about prosecutors taking liberties with their power to convict people by appealing to the meme of "Those criminals are really guilty, they're just using their 'Constitutional rights' to trial by jury to game the system and get over from justice!!" is very much a germane and excellent point...especially given my point that most female high-profile prosecutors tend also to be more than a bit biased towards the antiporn crusader position of "rescuing girls from their abusers". That mentality does tend to support more coercive and blunderbuss regulation of public behavior, under the notion that going after the "source" and the "roots" of violent and dangerous behavior will curb the negative impacts of such behavior.  That describes the condom mandate proponents down to the crossed T and dotted I.

My main focus, though, is on the notion that because the government has a role in workplace safety because private business simply can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves, that automatically justifies laws like the condom mandate. Even though I support the use of government in ensuring government safety, I always have qualified that support with the condition that such regulation be limited to the harm that is being mitigated, that such regulation not be excessive as to harm those who are not directly responsible for that harm, and that those who will suffer the full weight of that regulation have some flexibility and some input into how such a regulation should be enforced. In other words, an effective regulation should be focused on the immediate harm, not be used as a wedge to impose even more restrictions on those not directly affected.

I also agree with Marv's position on how the condom mandate would essentially destroy free sexual expression in porn by reducing such expression to a narrow political/"health protection" spectrum. It's one thing for government officials to give rewards to groups who do endorse proper health care goals such as reducing STI's or promoting condom usage broadly as one of many means of prevention. It's quite another to insist that ALL porn performers should be forced to wear condoms and dental dams, and that any portrayal of sexual expression lacking such should be sanctioned, punished, or even censored. The former is proper progressive activism; the latter is what is more common with fascists and Nazis. Art and expression should only be regulated to the point that free and consenting adults are given full rights to engage in such with maximum protection from abuse or coercion. When government or monopolistic business abuses their power to micromanage adult people's sex lives or viewing habits, then we have lost any legitimacy as a representative democracy or a humanist state.

However...my main objections to the condom mandate remain the same as they always were: the law simply addresses a phantom pandemic that simply doesn't exist and never existed; it destroys and scapegoats a community (porn performers) who actually had a system of prescreening and testing that actually DID work well in containing STD's; and it is essentially a Ponzi scheme for the gross profits of shakedown artists like AHF's Michael Weinstein, BS propagandists like "Christian" activists Shelley Lubben and Monica Foster, and ultimately, a drive to regulate porn out of existence in California, and do an end-around over the Freeman decision that legalized porn production.

That "liberals" like Wendy Murphy and Gail Dines and Mike Weinstein can ally with "conservatives" like Pat Trueman and Shelley Lubben in boosting this law says a lot.

A few more eloquent voices like Kayden Kross would do a lot of good. And, I don't even mind the red hair. In fact..it kinda rocks.

Keep kicking 'em, K2.

Update:  Sean over at TheRealPornWikileaks.com has just posted a followup interview with Kayden Kross, where she elaborates on her adventure with Stossel and Murphy and restates her views on the condom mandate's impact. Just go there and read up on it...Kayden's looking better by the second. As if she didn't look damn HOT already.

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…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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??