Porn Panic 2011 Update: New Report Debunks AHF/LACDPH/Cal-OSHA Cooked -Up Stats On Performer STI Transmission Rates..But Will Even THAT Be Enough? (Updated)

Updated...scroll to bottom.

Well....the Cal-OSHA hearings on the condom mandate proposals is tomorrow, and I'm sure that there will be plenty of industry heavyweights out there to make the case against imposing the condom mandate.

Today, they got a nice new weapon at their disposal....in the form of a report that debunks the presentation of officials at Cal-OSHA, the LA County Department of Public Health, and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) regarding  the rates of transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STI's) among performers.

The report's author, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, was asked to review a presentation done by LADPH clinicians Peter Kerndt and Robert Kim-Fairley, which contained detailed statistics on the STI transmission rates amongst porn performers as compared to rates amongst the general population.

One of the fundamental foundations for pushing the condom mandate is that porn performers are infected far more often than the general population is, and without the need for "barrier protections" such as condoms (and dental dams, and the use of personal protection equipment) during sex scenes, performers are literally risking their lives everytime they do a shoot "unprotected".

As Mark Kernes reports at AVN.com in analyzing Dr. Mayer's newly published report, such claims are, to say the least, severely overhyped and distorted...and outright cooked out of thin air.

Perhaps Dr. Mayer's most important finding is that the numbers put forth by the health department doctors for chlamydia and gonnorhea infections in both the adult performer population and the public at large are statistically invalid, and therefore their conclusions are, according to Dr. Mayer, "without basis in science," and that their "conclusions, analysis and advice in these three presentations should be discarded."

That's an incredibly important finding for the adult industry, since one of the main reasons put forth for requiring performers to use condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves, goggles and face shields for all forms of sexual (and even some non-sexual) contact in adult movies is that adult performers have higher infection rates of STDs than, say, the average Joe or Jane at the local nightclub.

The idea that adult performers are more sexually active and must bear the brunt of such "protection" in order to "mentor" the general population on "safer sex" is a key talking point of groups like AHF...never mind that it restates the current right-wing trope about how porn is an incubator for "disease" and merely carries it via porn to general society. And, never mind the fact that people are just as capable of being safe and sexually active and conscious of their own risks and safety all by themselves, without the need for PPE or LADPH jamming condoms and dental dams down their throats.

It is those cooked stats that Dr. Mayer basically refutes...mostly, by attacking the methodology of how performer infections are counted in LADPH's "research". I have added bolded emphasis to particular points.

Dr. Mayer begins his report by analyzing Dr. Kim-Farley's presentation at the first advisory committee meeting, STD/HIV Disease and Health Risks among Workers in the Adult Film Industry, where Dr. Kim-Farley estimated that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 performers involved in the industry between 2004 and 2008, the years which he used in his calculations, and that 3228 sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) of chlamydia or gonorrhea were reported to the LA County Public Health Department during that period. Dr. Mayer points out that Dr. Kim-Farley provides no basis for either his estimate of the size of the performer population, nor does he provide any explanation of how the data on the alleged number of infections was collected.

"This is poor science," Dr. Mayer concluded, "and inexcusable in epidemiology which can be characterized as the science of estimating risk from counts."

Among the flaws that Dr. Mayer found in Dr. Kim-Farley's presentation were that he provided "no information on turnover or longevity in this industry, the proportion of cases that were re‐infections, or multiple testing of performers," thereby calling Dr. Kim-Farley's claim that "one-fourth of all performers are diagnosed" with either or both of those diseases "unfounded and misleading."

Part of the problem in estimating infection rates is that it requires the statistician to divide the number of persons infected with the diseases (the "numerator") by the total number of people in the population under consideration (the "denominator"), and if either of those numbers is inaccurate, the result will also be inaccurate.

"It must be noted that his estimation of the prevalence is based on the false assumption that performers are never re‐infected nor re‐tested within any one year," Dr. Mayer states, regarding the figures provided in Slide 17 of Dr. Kim-Farley's Powerpoint presentation. "He could have estimated the rates of re‐infection and re‐testing and adjusted for both although it would lead to a less startling, albeit more accurate, result.  The oversight is particularly bothersome and misleading because the AFI performers are re‐tested as many as 12 times a year or more. It would be rare indeed for [a] randomly chosen member of the public to be tested so often."

In other words, Dr. Mayer says that Dr. Kim-Farley's statistics apparently don't take into account the fact that an infected performer may have been retested once or even twice before the infection has cleared his/her system, thus jacking up the statistics for that disease, and also that the vast majority of performers are tested on a monthly basis, whereas the overwhelming majority of Los Angeles residents aren't even tested once per year—in fact, many have never been tested—so that comparing the infection rates of those two populations is statistically invalid.

Or, to put it in layman's terms:

Porn performers are required to be tested once a month, and many others test even more than that, as a requirement of future employment, and because many who happen to get infected are retested to insure the STI is cleared before they resume shooting, that will artificially inflate the rates of infection for performers.

For the general public, though, testing is mostly voluntary, based on fear of infection, and most people who ultimately get infected don't even get tested at all, thusly undercounting the rates in the general population.

Whether that's a flaw in the methodology or a deliberate cooking of the books is something I will leave to you to decide.

Regarding the rates of particular STI;s such as chlamydia and gonnorhea amongst porn performers, Kernes reads Mayer's study thusly:

Dr. Mayer deals with the issue of the prevalence of STD infections in the AFI [adult film industry] population later in the report, noting that the CDC recommends calculating chlamydia positivity by "dividing the number of women testing positive for chlamydia (numerator) by the total number of women tested for chlamydia (denominator includes those with valid test results only and excludes unsatisfactory and indeterminate tests) and is expressed as a percentage. The denominator may contain multiple tests from the same individual if that person was tested more than once during the period for which screening data are reported. The numerator may also contain multiple positive test results from the same individual if that person tested positive more than once during the period for which screening data are reported." [Emphasis in original]

However, as Dr. Mayer analyzes the data provided by Drs. Kim-Farley and Kerndt, the prevalence of STDs among the performer population "appears to use all positive tests in the numerator, but does not take into account the number of tests the subjects received. AFI performers are tested every four weeks. Kim‐Farley and Kerndt, lacking a denominator, used an estimate of number of AFI performers (2000 or 3000) when they should have used an estimate of the number of tests given to the performers. The two methodologies yield very different results."

At the end of his report, Dr. Mayer attempts that exact calculation, finding that for the years where data exists to make the calculations, the chlamydia and gonorrhea infection rates within the adult industry are statistically close to those which Drs. Kerndt and Kim-Farley found within the general Los Angeles population.

In other words, there is really no pandemic of STI's within the LA porn industry...at least, not greater than STI's in the general population.

Far more enlightening, though, is the way that Mayer reveals how LACDPH (through AHF and Cal-OSHA) deliberately distorted data they got from the former testing group AIM Medical Foundation to buttress their case for the condom mandate and other "protections". It seems that in the process, they couldn't even synch their stats to match each other.

Inbetween, Dr. Mayer tackles the report of Dr. Kerndt's 18-month "pilot study" (June, 2000-December, 2002) of "straight" performers, Public Health Issues in the Adult Film Industry: Policy Implications of an Outbreak, and finds that to be fatally flawed as well.

While Dr. Kerndt that according to that study, there were approximately three times as many chlamydia infections among straight female performers as among similarly-aged LA County females, and five times as many gonorrhea infections, Dr. Kerndt also failed to provide any data regarding the testing frequency of the "LA County female" population that formed the "denominator" count of his equation. But perhaps more troubling is his note that, "Not all individuals tested and reported by AIM are necessarily AFI performers."

In other words, not only do Dr. Kerndt's statistics attempt to compare apples (tested performers) with oranges (generally untested population at large); he doesn't even know who his "apples" are! They could just as easily be prostitutes or other at-risk women who have never even come close to making an adult movie!

Or as Dr. Mayer puts it: "Again, epidemiology is about counts, not policy. To treat counts so casually cuts against the basic grain of epidemiological reasoning. If the goal was to put numbers on the table to justify changes in policy then why not fabricate the entire analysis?"

Let us remember that AIM not only served industry performers, but also offered testing to private individuals as well...so not controlling for either the prevalency of multiple testing of infected performers or non-industry infections discovered by AIM certainly distorts the data in favor of higher STI rates amongst performers. Again, I'll leave it up to you to judge whether or not this was a slip in analysis or a deliberate con job.

Of course, the condom mandate proponents will probably dismiss Dr. Mayer as a paid stooge of the porn industry, and scream about the recent HIV/AIDS scares (restating the usual libel about how 24 performers have contracted HIV from sex during shoots, and probably using the likes of Ministress Shelley Lubben and Derrick Burts to shed crocidile tears over how "the inddustry failed and destroyed them" in the name of their scheme to impose condoms (and profit immensely from the government and the condom companies).

If they are the only voices heard, of course.

All the more reason why performers who actually care about their rights and livelihood absolutely must pack this meeting tomorrow and stand up and be counted and heard. This isn't about "protection"; this is more about a false choice between paternalism dressed up as "protecting performers" and running porn out of California entirely.

Unless, of course, you like your porn made in sweatshops in Lafvia.


Update:

XBiz.com just posted an article on the Mayer Report that gives further details on its genesis.

It was funded and initiated by the Free Speech Coalition, which has become the key organization that has been resistiing the condom mandate from the beginning, and who recently developed their own, performer-friendly, and far less intrusive, testing/treatment regimen to replace the one maintained by AIM-ORG before they were run out of business by the efforts of Cal-OSHA, LACDPH, and AHF.

Also...the report in its entirity is now available as a PDF file from XBiz, it can be read here.


Update #2:

The FSC just posted a blog entry synopticizing the Mayer Report over at their blog; and it also includes a link to the full report.

The Return (???) Of Sex Hate: Kimberly Kupps Arrested in Polk County, Florida For...Videotaping Sex With Her Husband?!?!?

It's bad enough to face down the proposed condom mandate that is about to be thrown down on the porn industry in California.

It's just as bad to be facing the issue of piracy via tube sites, torrents, and thieves.

But you would think that in the year 2011, the idea that a woman could produce and make a profit off of selling tapes of herself having consensual sex with other consenting adults, and sell those videos to other willing consenting adults would have been an established truth.

You would think that...but apparently, the sheriff of Polk County, Florida, has a fundamentally different view.

And he just used the full power of his office to impose that view on a 55 year old woman whose only crime was to share her joy of sex with her husband with others.

You think this is some nightmare?? For Kimberly Kupps (real name Theresa Taylor), it's all too real.

The story, from XBiz.com:

Kimberly Kupps Faces Obscenity Counts Over Web Content

LAKE WALES, Fla. — Kimberly Kupps, who co-operates namesake site KimberlyKupps.com with her husband, was charged late Friday with 13 obscenity counts for content distributed over the Internet.

The 5’ 10” 55-year-old performer specializes in the big-boobs niche and had been on the radar of the Polk County Sheriffs Department for three months.

The Sheriff’s Department booked her under statute 847.5 on 13 counts of “wholesale promotion of obscene material.”

Kupps, whose real name is Theresa Taylor, started in the biz in March 1990 and currently lives in Lake Wales, Fla. She frequently comes to California for porn and photo shoots, according to her website.

Kupps was jailed along with her husband, Warren Taylor, who remains locked up; Kupps was released Saturday night after posting $7,500 bail.

According to the police report, a deputy paid an initial $19.95 membership fee to her website, where he found videos of Kupps having sex with men and women.

The deputy downloaded six videos, burned them to CDs and asked Judge Reinaldo Ojeda to review them.

Ojeda, according to the police report, said the videos were obscene material under state law.

Taylor, Kupps‘ husband, said he filmed the videos downloaded by the deputy and uploaded them for sale on Clips4Sale.com.

Taylor said the couple made an average of $700 monthly for the past four months.

XBIZ reached Kupps on Sunday, but she declined to give further details or comment on the arrests.

Keep in mind that most of what Kimberly Kupps produced was the standard fare of sex acts with her husband, solo acts, and sex with female friends that most "at home" porn sites provide.

And yet, this was considered "obscene" enough for officials in Polk County to investigate her for three months, gather information on her through her website, and ultimately get a local judge to rule her work as "obscene" under Florida state law, which ultimately cleared the way for her arrest. A local account of her arrest from the local newspaper The Ledger, can be found here.

Turns out that the sheriff, Graddy Judd, happens to be a full-on fundamentalist Christian with a history of using his office to impose his right-wing morals onto his community.

I guess that he feels that he's protecting his people from being corrupted from the power of Kimberly's exposed nipples, or vagina, or something or another. I wonder if he's this aggressive in hunting down actual criminals who commit real crimes and injure people.

Even worse...how many more Grady Judds out there are empowered by the Religious Right and the Antiporn "Feminist Left" to violate the rights and the lives of other women who make their livelihood making consensual sex vids and running consensual sex websites??

Nice Frankenstein monster you created, Gail Dines and Shelley Lubben. I know you are celebrating this. The rest of us, though, should hang our heads in shame and rage...and then fight like hell..
P

The Compleat Danny Wylde Essay On The Upcoming Cal-OSHA Hearings

Danny Wylde has now given me permission to repost the entirity of his excellent essay on the upcoming Cal-OSHA hearings  -- scheduled on June 9th 7th  -- concerning the proposed rules on porn workplace safety....which could include not only the dreaded condom mandate but also requirments to wear dental dams, goggles, and other means of "barrier protection".

Anyone interested in hearing the performer side of the story should read this...and then, if they can, pack that meeting. It's that important.

The Condom Debate (As I See It)  (http://trvewestcoastfiction.blogspot.com/2011/05/condom-debate-as-i-see-it.html?zx=fc0bdfc0b507a937)

The most important part of this post comes first.

If you are a member of the adult industry and located within the vicinity of Los Angeles, California, I believe it is in your best interest to show up to this:

Medical Meeting with the Cal-OSHA (California Division of Occupational Safety and Health) Board of Directors Addressing Adult Industry Regulation
June 7th, 2011
10am
CalTrans Building
100 S. Main St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Now I will attempt to explain why it's important to attend this meeting.




Most adult industry professionals have by now heard about the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's (AHF) increasing efforts to mandate condom use in all US-based pornographic productions. Given that the majority of US-based porn is produced in California, efforts have consisted of filing complaints with Cal-OSHA against production companies for failing to adhere to the “same section of state workplace safety law that requires nurses to wear protective gear to spare them exposure to blood-borne and fluid-borne illnesses.” “One of the complaints filed by AHF in September has resulted in Hustler/LFP being fined more than $14,000 for violating condom regulations, and Forsaken Productions cited for more than $12,000 in violations.”

The (heterosexual) industry's defense of it's predominantly condom-less sex practices is this:

“Vivid Entertainment founder Steven Hirsch has said that such moves could force filming to leave California, causing a blow to the multi-billion porn industry that has many operations in the San Fernando Valley.
Hustler Video head Larry Flynt has said audiences don't want to see actors using condoms because it interrupts porn viewer fantasies with a reminder of disease prevention and birth control.”


But are these concerns – stated by Hirsch and Flynt - valid?




I wrote a blog entry in October, 2010, titled, “Protection.” In my post, I stated (in regards to the fear that condoms might hurt sales), “It's a little difficult to confirm this speculation given that few productions have tested the waters.”

Well, it turns out my statement was false. Production companies have tested the waters. It just happened prior to my involvement in the industry.

During my interview with former AVN editor and current adult producer/director/cameraman, Eli Cross, he told me that shortly after the 2004 HIV outbreak, “All the companies went condom only. Well, the only one that has survived shooting condom-only is Wicked, and Wicked only survived shooting condom-only because Wicked's not really in the business of shooting porn. Wicked is in the business of making these big budget movies that they can sell as R-rated, straight-to-video features in Europe, and in India, or wherever. And that's how Wicked survives. Nobody buys Wicked movies here. You know why? People don't want to see condoms in their porn. In straight porn, they don't want to see condoms.

Everybody tried it, and nobody bought the movies. And the problem is, it's not like we can just say, 'All porn is going to be condom only.' Guess what? Europe is never going to shoot with condoms. It's not going to happen. Suddenly now, miraculously, European porn was outselling American porn, three, four, five to one. Nobody went back to shooting without condoms because they wanted to. They went back to shooting without condoms because they had to.”

I've since heard this claim repeated by several other industry professionals who out-rank me in industry experience. And while there are no financial public records available for adult industry production companies, I have no reason to distrust these people. If anything is at stake, it's their jobs. I have a hard time believing that, beyond financial incentive, producers have some malicious intent to prevent performers from using condoms.




Okay, so here's an argument. Maybe in 2004, porn consumers didn't want to see condoms. But it's been about seven years. In terms of market demographic, it's possible a lot has changed.

Maybe the modern consumer doesn't mind condoms in their porn. Okay. Say this is true. As a business owner, would you be willing to take that chance?

Bear with me on this completely unrealistic scenario. Because I think the point is still valid.

Say you own a restaurant in which spaghetti with marinara sauce is your number one selling dish. And say this special brand of marinara sauce can – under very unlikely circumstances – blow up in the kitchen and severely injure one of your cooks.

Okay, so seven years ago, your kitchen had an accident, and a few of your employees were injured by explosive marinara. You – the responsible business owner - decided to no longer serve spaghetti with marinara. Instead, you served it with pesto. Because the pesto was a much more stable sauce, and much less likely to explode.

Well, no one bought the spaghetti with pesto sauce and your business almost folded. So you went back to using marinara sauce and kind of hoped for the best.

During the course of seven years, only two more cooks were injured (most likely outside of your kitchen). But now the local government wants to ban marinara sauce. And they say, “It's fine, because you can just serve spaghetti with pesto sauce.”

Over that seven year period, the economy has begun to slump. And customers aren't coming out in the droves they used to. So you're already making less money than you're used to. And now the government's telling you to try something that nearly ruined your business in the past.

Maybe things have changed in the past seven years. But are you really going to take that chance? Or are you going to move your business to some place else where marinara sauce is still legal? Because everywhere else in the world, people still buy spaghetti with marinara sauce, and everywhere else in the world, there are cooks willing to make it.




My point is that even if consumers have changed their minds about condoms, the fact that producers are so scared about it makes the change irrelevant. No one wants to run a failing business. And let's keep in mind: this is a business. You can make the argument that porn has positive and/or negative effects on the world, but no one can say it's a charitable operation. We're not doing this out of the goodness of our hearts. We're here to make money.




Okay. But there are plenty of business operations around the world that are completely unethical, dangerous, and/or illegal: sex traffickers, arms dealers, corporations that use sweatshop labor, etc... Is this at all relevant to the adult entertainment industry operating out of the San Fernando Valley? I would argue, “No.”

My experience suggests that the vast majority of performers working in this industry are doing so of their own free will. And when they are working, they are earning livable wages. Further, they are arguably causing harm to no one.

Moreover, there are industry-regulated, monthly testing practices already in place to help curb the spread of STIs. If any performer honestly feels that he/she is risking his/her life on every shoot, I've yet to hear it. And if he/she feels this way, there is always the option not to participate.




Now consider this:

For the past ten-plus years, an organization called AIM (Adult Industry Medical) provided testing and health services to adult industry performers. Both AHF and Cal-OSHA have had a hand in shutting down that organization permanently. There is no longer any industry-specific clinic that provides medical services.

But the adult industry is still following testing protocol through a facility called Talent Testing Service. It is also in the process of setting up a new testing protocol with help from The Free Speech Coalition.

Basically, AHF and Cal-OSHA are shutting down our medical facilities, and The Free Speech Coalition is attempting to help facilitate our testing practices.

So while AHF claims to not have an anti-porn stance, I along with many other industry professionals, question their motives.

The Free Speech Coalition may also have ulterior/financial motives, but at least they're willing to work with us in a way that does not jeopardize our livelihood.




Now, a case has been made for why condoms may not be financially viable. But how about the more practical reasons?

Veteran performer, Nina Hartley, explains on her blog why many performers prefer not to use condoms:

“In a nutshell, performers as a rule don't care for condoms for several reasons. For most of the men (with few exceptions), condoms make for a very-much-more difficult scene; just one more huge distraction to add to the host of other ones on the set: uncomfortable set, no chemistry with the female player, asshole director, late/early hours, too hot/cold, bad food, personal issues, etc.

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see...

...I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period...

...Porn is pretty safe. If a player says "no" to the most egregiously stupid acts (cream pies, whether anal or vaginal), then he or she is unlikely to get a deadly disease at work. People do get the non-lethal ones, but they get treated, as do their partners, and they get to work again when their new test comes back clean.”




Moving on, let's forget the grievances mentioned above. At least for a minute.

There has been a common argument that even with mandatory condom use, consumers won't have to see them in the films. Because if consumers really hate condoms in their product, the financial incentive will force producers to pay FX gurus to digitally remove them from every scene.

This seems great in theory, but the argument obviously comes from someone with no film production or FX background.

I don't claim to be an FX specialist, but I do have a degree in cinematic arts from one of the most prestigious film institutions in the United States (The University of Southern California). From my production experience, the best way to do something like digital condom removal requires a process called rotoscoping. In a frame that is not locked-off, which consists of a moving object that continually changes size and shape (a penis with condom in the midst of penetration), this is literally a frame-by-frame process. In most video, each second consists of 24-to-30 frames. The amount of work that would go into removing something for an average of twenty-to-thirty minutes per scene is astronomical - as would be the cost of doing so.

For example, I shot a spec commercial last year that required a similar process. I paid an FX guy $500 to do this for several seconds of footage. He was straight out of film school and interning at an FX house. So I was even getting a good deal.

This is not cost effective in the least. And it is a completely ridiculous suggestion.

My friend told me that at the last Cal-OSHA meeting, someone stood up to support this notion with an argument like this: “Look at what they did with that Avatar movie.”

Avatar is a major motion picture with a budget of over $200 million. The average pornographic feature film costs less than $25 thousand. Suggesting that we have the budgets to do extensive FX work is unrealistic to the adult industry business model and, in my opinion, completely ludicrous.




Further, even for those who believe that the performers will cope with the added annoyance of condoms, and consumers will get over their appearance in movies, Cal-OSHA's mandate of condoms means more than just slapping on a rubber.

According to the Huffington Post, “Cal/OSHA officials provided the Associated Press with a 17-page draft proposal that contained sometimes graphic details of the bodily fluids, waste matter and other materials that porn actors must protect themselves against to avoid infection...

...The draft says porn producers must provide and require 'use of condoms or other barrier protection to prevent genital and oral contact with the blood or (any other bodily fluids) of another person.'”

This means condoms during oral sex, the strong possibility of dental dams, and exclusion of “cum shots” from US-based pornography.

Obviously, such practices would facilitate a safer environment. But let's take off our political hats for a moment and really answer these question: Have you ever used a condom during a blowjob in real life? And when is the last time you broke out a dental dam?

To me, this is not sexy. And I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that for most people, barrier-protected oral sex is outright inefficient and actually a turn-off. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so.

Further, if we remove any contact with semen from pornography, we are eliminating a vast amount of niche and mainstream product. Like it or not, the “cum shot” has become an integral part of porn. The Cal-OSHA condom mandate eliminates blowbangs, facials, cum eating, cum swapping, creampies, and basically the end of every straight sex scene released in the past discernible history. To say this would have no impact on sales is a very presumptuous statement.




But as a pornographic performer, why should you care? Most of these concerns are for producers. If you don't mind using condoms, and don't particularly care to be splattered with semen, then what is the big deal?

Well, I'm going to assume you've become a performer to make money – and to make the most money possible. You and I both know we're not raking in millions. Even the very top performers are not making more than $200 thousand a year (strictly from performing). In fact, plenty of contract stars don't even reach an annual six figures.

So even if some of the production companies stick it out and try this condom-mandated means of production, how many companies have to leave before you're losing out on one, two, three, four, or five thousand dollars a month? Do you think it's worth it to feel a little bit safer? Are you even concerned with the current risk involved?

We all take a risk going to work every day. In my opinion, it's a managed risk. And it's something I choose to participate in so that I can get a paycheck at the end of my day.

So when I feel that someone else who doesn't really understand our industry is coming in to take away that paycheck, I get kind of pissed about it. And I'd like to have a say in the matter.




I'm asking that regardless of your opinion on the subject, you make it to the June 7th meeting, that you post this information (with whatever you'd like to add or detract) on your blog, website, Twitter feed, Facebook, etc... And that you show that we have a voice.

Because from my perspective, the industry performers (myself included) have been predominantly oblivious to what's going on, uninformed about the previous meetings that have already taken place, and in some cases apathetic. It's not completely our fault, because I don't know that there's any real avenue for all of us to get this information. But if you help spread the word, we can all be informed and approach Cal-OSHA with an actual stance.

My stance should be clear. And I'm of the opinion that many people share it. But if I'm completely off-base, show up anyways and tell the world we want to use condoms.

Whatever the verdict, our bodies are the ones at stake and we should have a say in the matter.

I hope to see you on June 7th.

Posted by Danny Wylde or .... at 5:05 PM  

 I will also post this at my own blogs (Red Garter Club; SmackDog Chronicles, and encourage all porn performers to promote Danny's essay and, if they can, attend the meeting. As I said, it's that important.

Eleven Days To LA Porn Judgment Day: Danny Wylde Makes The Definitive Case Against Condom Mandate...But Will It Matter?

Well...eleven days from now, on June 9th, Cal-OSHA will have their hearing where more than likely we will see the first action to impose the dreaded condom mandate on porn shoots.

On the eve of such, Danny Wylde -- bi porn performer and filmmaker -- just posted over at his Trve West Coast Fiction blog an extended essay post that restates the case against the mandate and for personal performer choice. His words probably will fall on deaf ears, given the collusion between Cal-OSHA and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in developing and boosting the condom mandate, but at least it gives those of us hope that at least some truth will be given a hearing.

The full essay can be found here; but here are some snippages for langiappe.

I wrote a blog entry in October, 2010, titled, “Protection.” In my post, I stated (in regards to the fear that condoms might hurt sales), “It's a little difficult to confirm this speculation given that few productions have tested the waters.”

Well, it turns out my statement was false. Production companies ave tested the waters. It just happened prior to my involvement in the industry.

During my interview with former AVN editor and current adult producer/director/cameraman, Eli Cross, he told me that shortly after the 2004 HIV outbreak, “All the companies went condom only. Well, the only one that has survived shooting condom-only is Wicked, and Wicked only survived shooting condom-only because Wicked's not really in the business of shooting porn. Wicked is in the business of making these big budget movies that they can sell as R-rated, straight-to-video features in Europe, and in India, or wherever. And that's how Wicked survives. Nobody buys Wicked movies here. You know why? People don't want to see condoms in their porn. In straight porn, they don't want to see condoms.

Everybody tried it, and nobody bought the movies. And the problem is, it's not like we can just say, 'All porn is going to be condom only.' Guess what? Europe is never going to shoot with condoms. It's not going to happen. Suddenly now, miraculously, European porn was outselling American porn, three, four, five to one. Nobody went back to shooting without condoms because they wanted to. They went back to shooting without condoms because they had to.”

I've since heard this claim repeated by several other industry professionals who out-rank me in industry experience. And while there are no financial public records available for adult industry production companies, I have no reason to distrust these people. If anything is at stake, it's their jobs. I have a hard time believing that, beyond financial incentive, producers have some malicious intent to prevent performers from using condoms.

 Wylde's essay also includes an extended quote from Nina Hartley (actually, not from her blog but from her site journal from back in 2009 during an earlier HIV porn "outbreak"), which dispatches the practical reasons why many performers oppose mandating condoms during porn scenes.

“In a nutshell, performers as a rule don't care for condoms for several reasons. For most of the men (with few exceptions), condoms make for a very-much-more difficult scene; just one more huge distraction to add to the host of other ones on the set: uncomfortable set, no chemistry with the female player, asshole director, late/early hours, too hot/cold, bad food, personal issues, etc.

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see...

...I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period...

...Porn is pretty safe. If a player says "no" to the most egregiously stupid acts (cream pies, whether anal or vaginal), then he or she is unlikely to get a deadly disease at work. People do get the non-lethal ones, but they get treated, as do their partners, and they get to work again when their new test comes back clean.”

Once again, I strongly recommend you read the entire post over at Danny's blog. It's long overdue.

Presente, Adult Industry Medical Foundation (AIM); Sexual Swiftboating Finally Claims Its Victim

Well..the other shoe finally dropped.

One of the most direct ironies was that it was Violet Blue (the sex blogger notorious for taking the name of a porn performer) who passed on the fatal news today.

Nevertheless, here's how she reported the story of the shutdown of the AIM clinics:

AIM (Adult Industry Medical) Healthcare Clinic Shuts Down

Porn performer  Juliette Stray just tweeted about the sudden closure today of AIM (Adult Industry Medical) Healthcare Clinic. According to  Raincoat Reviews, the Free Speech Coalition (a porn industry legal org) called an industry and member-only meeting last Friday to discuss Workplace Safety, Performer Testing. As you can see by Sarah Shevon’s tweet, only seven porn performers attended the meeting. Apparently at the fateful meeting, they quietly decided to abruptly close the clinic responsible for standardized STD/STI testing, health certificates and community testing enforcement in the mainstream adult industry. AIM was also used by non-porn people for its top-rate tests and fast results.

AIM has not issued a press release nor made any comment or hint on their website that they have closed. Disturbingly, their site AimCheck.net has been taken offline. This means anyone who had good tests can no longer access the test results or have them accessed – the online proof and verification of having clean tests is gone. AIM’s Get Tested link is also broken.

 Considering everything that has happened to them: the HIV scares of 2004, 2009, and 2010, the continuous assaults on their integrity by the likes of the LA local health care establishment, Michael Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the antics of the Pornwikileaks crew in hacking their database and revealing sensitive information, and antiporn activists such as Shelley Lubben and Gail Dines wanting to blow up the testing regime that had worked pretty well to contain sexually transmitted infections amongst the performing community, it's hardly surprising that they would be able to withstand such pressures for too long.

It doesn't make the news any less saddening or tragic, because it shows beyond doubt what a scare campaign built on nothing but fear and lies can do when not directly confronted.

Far worse, though, is the "I got mine, and fuck everyone else" mentality that seems to have infected members of the performer/producer industry when it comes to protecting their rights. Only six performers could be induced to attend a meeting on their very survival as an industry???

In any case, I'm sure that the champagne bottles are popping over at Mike Weinstein's place, since it's a given bet that they will be able to exploit the chaos of not having a standardized testing regime for STI's (though Talent Testing Services is well positioned to take over AIM's duties for the moment) to continue their push for mandating condoms in all porn scenes. I'm just as sure that the tube sites will be celebrating as well, because all this will do is increase the value of stolen bareback scenes ripped to tube sites and stored on PC's and servers, and force performers and producers into venues of less protection and greater risk.

But who the fuck cares, I guess?? Such are the wages of sin..or at least, that's how the usual naysayers and trolls will say it. Porn performers are a bit like children, "illegals", and poor Black men: stepping stones to be used for personal gain and money, but not quite good enough to speak for themselves.

Maybe it's high time they organized themselves and demanded to be treated as humans. And, maybe producers might want to take a very long look in the mirror and see what their foolishness and misplaced pride has gotten them, and get back to what got them their audience in the first place.


Update: The Free Speech Coalition just issued this press release at their website regarding the closure of AIM. I will simply repost it in its entirity:

FSC Responds to Closure of AIM

Last week Free Speech Coalition (FSC) was made aware that AIM Medical Associates (AIM) was in danger of closing its doors. In order to avoid a significant gap in health services for performers, FSC has drawn up preliminary strategies to fill the gap with possible options for performer testing protocols. The FSC Board of Directors will meet tomorrow for an emergency meeting to consider options.

“It is our understanding that AIM is now closed. Our hearts go out to AIM and its dedicated staff. We know that it has been a very difficult time for them,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said. “Rest assured that FSC is committed to making sure that the industry and its performers are well-protected.”
Last Friday, FSC conducted three separate meetings for producers, agents and performers to gather feedback and discuss options with industry stakeholders. The response from those meetings was successful in gathering suggestions from industry members on which options to pursue and for taking action.

AIM has suffered a two-year campaign waged by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and is currently a defendant in litigation associated with AHF involving patient medical privacy. AHF also has struck out at several companies and talent agents in their attempt to mandate condom use on adult sets.

FSC has been working with industrial safety regulation agency CalOSHA to develop industry-appropriate regulations for adult production sets. The next CalOSHA Committee meeting addressing regulations for the adult industry will take place in Los Angeles on June 7. The meeting is open to the public, and scheduled to be held at the CalTrans Building in downtown Los Angeles, at 100 Main Street (at the corner of 1^st and Main).

 

We Saw It Coming

Did anyone really think AIM could hold out forever against the combined onslaught of AHF's rapacious minions, Cal-OHSHA's ideologically motivated abuse of state power, waves of nuisance suits filed by AHF's lawyers on behalf of anyone and everyone who might conceivably make a claim against the organization, the carefully orchestrated media campaign against it mounted by Michael Weinstein and his toadies at the L.A. Times, the whole madness of Ponrolinks being laid at AIM's door with no concrete evidence that it's in any way responsible?

Did people just take it for granted that AIM is indestructible, or that the so-called "Big Players" in porn would rush to its rescue?

Whatever anyone was thinking, other than Weinstein's crew, AIM has always been a fairly fragile institution with one very important constituency that's been little heard from amid all the smoke and mirrors - the performers. They're the ones who need it to survive, and will be in much greater danger if the bullies and bloviators finally succeed in killing AIM, because they're the ones who will be at risk if the highly successful testing and monitoring system that AIM operated for ten years, during which this industry had a total of four work-related HIV transmissions out of the nearly thirty thousand new cases reported in L.A. County during that time, finally closes down and some chaotic patchwork of test facilities with differing methods rush in to take its place. That is, unless AHF and their pals actually succeed in destroying independent testing altogether so they can land that contract with the state to replace it with their own as yet undescribed substitute system?

Only the performers will suffer if AIM closes its doors, and who really gives a fuck about them in all this political chicanery? Certainly not those who stirred it up to begin with.

I'm not ready to hang crepe for AIM as yet. It's still doing remote draws, reporting results in a day and still maintains the all important unified data base that tracks test results for performers and producers, but when you read this, you may come away with the distinct impression that the battle is nearly over and AHF and Co. have won.

If so, congratulations Mr. Weinstein. You'll have destroyed the system that kept performers safe without offering anything useful in its place. If one performer gets sick as a result, the onus for that lands heavily on your balding head.

Read it and weep:

http://business.avn.com/articles/video/AIM-Draw-Stations-Open-Future-of-Organization-Unclear-433382.html

Sex Wars (The Beltway Edition): AGUS Holder Whacks Out DoJ Obscenity Task Force; Wingnutters In Congress ERUPT: "Not So Fast, Hombres!!!"

In the midst of all the drama over the Condom Mandate, the Great Porn HIV Scare(s) and .XXX, this breaking story may have slipped under the radar....but it could have almost as big an impact as the other issues.

A major political firestorm is beginning to brew in Washington, DC, on Capitol Hill over the degree of priority of whether Federal resources should be used to continue the longstanding "war on pornography" that has been ongoing since the Meese Commission released their cooked-up findings in 1987. Since the Bush era, the US Justice Department has been using its Obscenity Task Force as the main tool for prosecuting and persecuting sexually oriented businesses and performers alike through the court system.

Well....make that was rather than "has been", because current Attorney General Eric Holder just last week decided that it was time to shut down the DoD/OTF for good, both as part of the broader goal of reducing the deficit and shifting resources to more fundamentally pressing issues and concerns.

Quoting from XBiz.com (full article):

The recent move by Attorney General Eric Holder to shut down the Justice Department’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force set up during the Bush administration is causing conservatives in Congress to come out swinging.

According to reports, right-wing activists and anti-porn supporters in government led by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch are claiming that Holder and the Obama administration are soft on porn and are calling for a new crackdown on hardcore material.

The Obama team stopped any new obscenity prosecutions when it took over but allowed ongoing cases to continue even though the task force was officially but quietly disbanded earlier this year.

The final blow for dissolving the unit likely came after last July’s trial of John Stagliano when he was acquitted on all obscenity charges for lack of evidence. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon told the Washington Post at that time, “I hope the government will learn a lesson from its experience.”

Problem is...using the DoD to whack porn out of existence has ample support amongst politicians, especially of the Republican/Tea Party/Religious Right variety...and they aren't taking this news lying back.

But the dissolution of the DOJ's porn police is causing a stir on Capitol Hill.

Hatch's resurrected fight against adult began earlier this month when he and 41 other senators — that included some democrats —  sent a letter to Holder pushing for criminal cases against “all major distributors of adult obscenity.”

Hatch told Politico in a statement, “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama administration is giving up without a fight.

“We write to urge the Department of Justice vigorously to enforce federal obscenity laws against major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography. We know more than ever how illegal adult obscenity contributes to violence against women, addiction, harm to children, and sex trafficking. This material harms individuals, families and communities and the problems are only getting worse.”

To be sure, the AG office is NOT saying that they won't pursue antiporn cases...they would simply transfer administration of them to a different division:

But despite the knocks against its effectiveness, the government said it is not giving up the fight against porn but instead wants local U.S. attorneys and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division to handle porn cases.

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said that the decision to discontinue the task force was made by the department’s Criminal Division, which is headed by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

 “Re-incorporating the prosecution of obscenity violations into the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, as opposed to having a separate task force, provides for increased collaboration among experienced attorneys and agents, and gives our prosecutors the most solid foundation possible for pursuing their mission,” Sweeney said.

And the Justice Department didn't take Hatch’s letter lying down. In a response it said it “has charged violations of the federal obscenity laws over 150 times since October 2008, and has recently secured guilty pleas from defendants in several cases involving adult obscenity.”

The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section took over obscenity cases in January but has a carryover pending case against producer Ira Isaacs scheduled for May 17 in Los Angeles. But the Feds said the unit's greater priority is now focusing on the exploitation of children, child porn and obscene depictions of child rape.

In other words, get out of the business of prosecuting adults for producing and consuming adult porn, and stick to the business of prosecuting child porn and exploitation. Sounds reasonable to me, though one could question the notion of how hyperaggressive the child porn laws will be enforced.

But again, the Right wouldn't be the Right without the doctrine of getting into the uteruses and penises of everyone else who don't think like them, and defunding and punishing anyone who dares to question their intervention (see Parenthood, Planned)...and former OTF prosecutor/well known Porn Policeman Pat Trueman gives the game away as to the true motives of antiporn activists:

However, Morality in Media’s Patrick Trueman — a former obscenity prosecutor — disputes the DOJ’s claim of 150 recent obscenity prosecutions and said no adult obscenity prosecutions have been initiated under Obama.

“In various administrations — not just this one — DOJ has tried to sell the notion that it has a vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws underway.  A look at the cases, however, reveals that what are counted as ‘obscenity cases’ are in fact child pornography cases where the defendant is allowed to plead down to an obscenity charge. … To suggest that such cases are adult porn cases is just wrong,” Trueman said.

 And yes, Clones, that would be the same Pat Trueman who hosted that classic Pornography Harms seminar last year on Capitol Hill. the one featuring such antiporn lynchpins as The Ex-Slut Ministeress Lubben and Gail Dines.

Also, that's the same Pat Trueman who just last month sent a form letter to Congressmen and Senators urging them to sign up to his latest campaign blasting the Obama Administration for not beefing up antiporn activism and cracking down hard with more prosecutions. Although their media lists "over 100" legislators as signees to the letter, only 42 actual signatures are shown in their petition; mostly the usual Religious Right/GOTP figures and the typical right-wing Democrats like Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Joe Lieberman...however, a couple of head-turning Democats did sign as well: Senators Amy Kloubohar (MN) and Diane Feinstein (CA).

Interestingly enough, some of the signees are attempting to crawfish their way back from this attempt at adult speech censorship...particularly DiFi:

One of the signers of Hatch’s letter was [D]emocratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California whose constituents make up the bulk of adult production in the country.

In response to Feinstein’s surprising support of Hatch, Duke told Politico, “I have a feeling she’s going to be getting a lot of letters from our area. It’s political season and we’re an easy dog to kick, but Dianne Feinstein needs to understand that a good portion of the economy in California comes from our industry, and we pay taxes and we’re voting members of the community.”

When asked about her interest in the obscenity issue, a spokesman for Feinstein pointed to her support for several measures targeting child porn in recent years.

Actually, it's not so surprising to me, since DiFi has been trending more Rightward for years, and her current husband is the founding editor of Newsweek, which is also tacking hard Right as well.

The real issue here, once you cut through the BS, is that what Hatch and the Right are ticked at is that one weapon in their arsenal to regulate adult behavior and wipe out sex they don't like has been liquidated..and they just can't stand that. Oh, and also, one more brick to be launched against the Dems and President Hussein Obama of Kenya/Sharia/Moscow as "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", too. And...a nice way of squeezing folk for funding, too.

Focusing on abuse of children and prosecuting child porn might still allow for more obtuse attempts to silence more legal adult material under current child exploitation and "trafficking" laws (and keep in mind the current case involving Lupe Fuentes allegedly hiring underage girls to shoot vids; as well as the current brohaha involving Reality Kings and the lawsuit against them by the mom of the alleged 16-year old they shot videos with); but it would preclude the kind of hyperactive prosecution of adult that Trueman, Dines, Lubben, and others would prefer.

Either way, this could get pretty nasty soon. As always, we'll keep you informed with updates as needed.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: BREAKING: AHF Hypocrisy Exposed By TheSword.com: Push Condom Mandate On Others, But Sell Bareback Gay Porn At Home. Niiiiiice!!!

Oh, My. Goodness.

If this turns out to be true, it completely changes the game on the condom mandate.

Apparently, Mike Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation has just a little bit of a problem with walking their talk about forcing condom usage in porn. As in, making money off the sime bareback they would outlaw.

No, I don't just mean making money off banning it, I mean making money off of it directly..by SELLING it.

This story originated over at TheSword.com, a very respected gay male site; I'll just quote them. (WARNING: link to article which contains NSFW images)

Why Is Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation Selling Bareback Porn?

AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s Michael Weinstein, a fierce proponent of condom usage in porn and the leading force behind ongoing efforts to make condom use mandatory in California porn, owns and operates nearly two dozen “Out of the Closet” stores, including the recently opened Wilton Manors, Florida location. In addition to used clothes and furniture, this store is also home to an ‘AHF Pharmacy.’ Also available at Michael Weinstein’s thrift store? Used bareback porn.

When the store opened in 2008, Weinstein announced that “Ninety-six cents of every dollar raised through the Wilton Manors store and through ‘AHF Pharmacy’ will benefit AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s HIV/AIDS prevention and education programs in Broward County and statewide,” so selling bareback movies in that same store would be an oddly counterintuitive move on the part of an organization whose sole objective is to prevent the spread of HIV. And yet, here they are.

The bareback movies currently on sale at Michael Weinstein’s Out of the Closet in Wilton Manors include Bareback Joy Riders, Bareback Sailor Pimp, and Cum Inside Me.

This photo of bareback porn currently on sale at Out of the Closet (note: customers have to ask a clerk to view the films, which are typically kept behind a counter) was taken by Out of the Closet employee Ryan Dixon (a.k.a. Kameron Scott), a former adult performer living with HIV. Dixon took issue with AHF/Out of the Closet selling the films, so he brought them–as well as the subject of bareback porn and bareback performers–to the attention of Out of the Closet’s district manager, Matt Lamariana, who rebuffed Dixon, allegedly telling him, “Who cares?”

Yesterday, Dixon quit his job at Out Of The Closet, citing the bareback titles and Lamariana’s attitude. Excerpts from Dixon’s letter of resignation:

This letter is being written to inform you that the weeks of April 10, 2011 and April 17, 2011 will be my final two weeks with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a cashier at Out of the Closet. I have made this decision based on my experiences working at your store, observations about operations I have made and personal beliefs which I cannot compromise.

[...]

Out of the Closet is supposed to be a fundraiser, but to sell bareback porn movies behind the counter just to make money makes me sick. I confronted a fellow employee about it, then the assistant manager, and finally my store manager about not feeling right about selling them because of what this company is supposed to be portraying. When Matt was asked about it, he looked at me, shrugged, and said, “Who cares? It’s been made and they’re probably already dead from whatever they caught.”

As a former adult model living with HIV, that comment was the last straw for me. Are we not the same company that protests studios that make videos without condoms, but yet it’s ok to sell their movies because it’s ‘already made’?

A press rep for AHF/Out of the Closet confirmed to The Sword that porn is sold in some store locations, but couldn’t comment on Dixon’s resignation or the sale of bareback porn. Additional calls to AHF/Out of the Closet in Florida have not been returned.

The Free Speech Coalition’s Diane Duke, a frequent opponent of Weinstein and AHF in the ongoing battle of condoms in porn, told me that AHF’s campaign against the porn industry has never been about the safety of adult performers.

“AHF’s activities have always been about gaining power, fame and fortune,” said Duke. “This is the kind of train wreck that happens when a nonprofit loses site of its mission and follows the money.”

Now, understand that TheSword.com's stated position is in favor of the condom mandate and for ultimately banning bareback gay porn as a enabler of spreading STI's and HIV. So, it's not as if they're necessarily friends of the industry.

On the other hand, though...for all of Mike Wenstein's pontifications about how only condoms can effectively protect performers from HIV, he is, first and foremost, a sucker for raising money...and I guess that he thought that pimping bareback gay porn in Florida wouldn't get him caught in LA.

All I want to know about this is....does Ministeress Lubben know about this??  And if she did, then why hasn't she broken off AHF as violating her "Christian" ethics??  Or...is she a private fan of gay bareback, too??

We will be following this breaking story as it happens, of course.

Update:  Oh, nice....Mark Kernes at AVN just discovered this juicy hanging slider, and just hit it out of the park. His article for AVN is here.

Porn Panic 2011 Update #..Errrr, Whatever: LA City Attorney Nixes AHF Attempt At Imposing Condom Mandate Through LA Film Board

Remember that study that the Los Angeles City Council had induced the local city attorney to produce that looked at whether the city could force the LA Film Board to deny permits to porn shoots within LA unless mandatory condom usage was imposed?? That was the study that was forced when four LA city council members (all of whom took money from AIDS Heathcare Foundation head honcho and leading condom mandate booster Michael Weinstein) urged the council to unaminously investigate whether or not they could simply by feat force condoms on the industry.

Well, the study is now out, and the answer has been given. And it is, as expected, a resounding.....HELL TO THE NO.

I'll just let XBiz take it from there:

City Attorney Says L.A. Can't Enforce Condoms on Set

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich's office has recommended to City Council to leave language regulating permitted porn shoots unchanged because it lacks jurisdiction to control them further.

"It is the opinion of this office that the current permit language covers the use of condoms on all permitted adult film sets to the extent that the city may legally do so," according to a letter sent to councilmembers last month from deputy City Attorney Kimberly Miera and obtained by XBIZ. "Based on the current permit language, along with the jurisdictional concerns in regulating workplace safety issues, our office recommends the permit language remain unchanged."

In February, City Council unanimously voted to instruct the city attorney to investigate mandatory condom use in porn movies. Councilmembers in December, with the insistence from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, introduced a motion that would require production companies to have performers wear condoms in order to receive film permits.  

While a City Council committee slated the issue for discussion today, the advisory to city leaders from the City Attorneys office will likely deaden the measure that was first introduced by Councilman Bill Rosendahl.

In the letter, the City Attorney's office said that while the LAPD has the authority to revoke adult film permits in the event the conditions of the permit are breached, "as a practical matter, due to issues of preemption and the high level of staffing that would be required, it is doubtful the City of Los Angeles can actively enforce the wearing of condoms on adult film sets."

The City Attorney's office also noted that the city is  preempted from enforcing the use of condoms on adult film sets.

"As it presently stands, the city does not have a public health office or officer, and has delegated those functions to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health," the City Attorney said in its opinion.

But the "Department of Public Health, however, indicates that it is Cal-OSHA, and not the city or county, that sets forth and enforces standards for workplace health and safety in reference to acute communicable disease control."

The City Attorney's office said that the issue of regulating porn shoots has been heard in council chambers as late as March 2005 in response to two adult film performers testing positive for HIV. But a resolution "ultimately died in committee."

In other words, Mike Weinstein and Shelley Lubben, you just can't use local LA government to force condoms down the throats of performers. It's either Cal-OSHA or nobody.

Now, it is true that the LA City Council could ignore the wishes of the Attorney and force regulation, but without the means of enforcing such, there's simply no way that that can be anything but a symbolic gesture.

I don't think that we will be seeing any pressers from AHF on this any time soon...they usually do their crowing when they think they've won, but are totally silent otherwise.

So....it's looking like those June Cal-OSHA hearings will be zero hour for when the tornado hits the sewage plant. Start stocking up on gas masks until then, people.

Why Porn Performers Deserve Their Humanity: The Fakery of Porn Wikileaks/Donny Long And The Arrogance Of Slut Shaming

[Originally posted over at my Red Garter Club 3.0 blog; reposted here with slight editing. As always, the views reflect my personal views and no one else's...unless you happen to agree with them. :-)] 

I have been a commentator and fan of the adult sexual media for pretty close to 10 years now.

I've seen porn starlets and stars come and go; some better than others, some prettier than others; some more successful than others.

Some get in it for the quick thrill of the fast money and the easy sex; then fade out never to be heard from again. A few stick around avd become professionals, even icons, whose personas and performances become frozen into the deepest fantasies of fans forever.

A few do become victims of their successes, getting caught up in the fast life of too much money too quick, and they suffer the consequences of their excesses.

Most of them, though, generally make their money, do their damage, live out their fantasies and dreams, and then decide that they've done enough and move on to different phases of their lives...attempting to become just regular folk living their lives.

Of course, the stigma attached to performing active sex on stage or screen or online follows them throughout the rest of their lives. It can be anything from a positive that drives their ambitions, to an albatross that feeds popular prejudice that denies them more "legitimate" employment.

In a truly progressive and sane world, their profession wouldn't even matter...they would be judged as any other person would ask to be judged: by their deeds and actions and their ethical treatment of people.

Unfortunately, we are far removed from that world...and even in 2011 it is still considered perfectly OK to condemn a woman or a man (mostly, the former) for having a sex life not redeemed by the usual conservative stereotypes.

Such is the case with the practice of "forced outing" a performer who would rather keep her/his private life/information out of publc view.

Forced outing is an issue that has long vexed sexual communities; with the conflict between exposing the hypocrisy of those who publically condemn and seek to repress nonviolent, consensual sexual behavior or media depictions thereof while privately partaking in the same behavior they would condemn in others; and respecting the fundamental right of privacy. It can be a tool of forceful social change when done properly; but it can also be, when taken out of control, a tool of social destruction.

In the case of Pornwikileaks.com, it's definitely the latter, in my view.

Their prototype, naturally, is the highly controversial and successful Wikileaks site that has been both praised and derided for revealing corporate and governmental crimes and misdemeanors.

The Pornwilileaks version, however, has a much darker and more sinister motive....laced with liberal amounts of racism, misogyny, utter hatred of performers...and especially deep, entrenched homophobia.

Their "About" page practically leaps out the page with gay hatred; stating that their primary objective is

“To get the gays out of straight porn and illegal gay pimps that have ruined porn and shut it down making condoms mandatory by the government now. The fag loving has got to stop. California is full of gay Mexicans and now they can even marry which is so wrong.”

Now, all of you know my opposition to the condom mandate as proposed by groups like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), and backed by people such as Michael Weinstein and Shelley Lubben.

My opposition is based on respect for the performers' right of free choice and the fact that the existing system of testing and prevention mostly designed and run by AIM has done as effective a job that can be done under the circumstances.  I didn't say that the policy was perfect, only that it was effective, and that forcing condoms down performer's throats would be not only counterproductive, but also highly ineffective.

Yet, for all their professing of wanting to "save" porn, they really have a strange way of showing their it.

Their site claims to have the relevant information of over 14,000 performers, including their real names, current residential addresses, phone numbers, and even medical information. They boast that they would acquire and reveal information on performers' medical condition, including highly illegally obtained information on a performer's STI status.

The site also boasts of a section called "Category High Risk HIV", in which they place people which they describe as "either gay or [you] fuck fags".

And how ironic that they attempt to perceive themselves as opposing the condom mandate, when their actual acts in developing their "database" depends almost entirely on destroying the one organization standing in the way of imposing that mandate...namely, AIM.

You see, the reason Pornwikileaks has such a vast database of illegally pilfered information is because one of their agents were able to somehow break into AIM's database of confidential medical information...thusly making that info available for public posting everywhere.

And then there is the case of a man named Donny Long, whom has been rumored to be the front man
behind Pornwikileaks. Long was a former porn performer who broke from the industry about two years ago, but not before launching everything from a website to a message board casting all kinds of fury against nearly everyone. He has developed a reputation as a misantrope and a troll who basically uses every means necessary to out performers he doesn't like, and he has often used Twitter as his chosen weapon until he got banned due to complaints of stalking from those performers targetted. The language of PW is pretty much a mirror of some of the smack that Long has spread in the past in other venues. (For the record, Long has denied that he is the creator of Pornwikileaks, though he does defend its overall mission.) Opponents and victims of Long's wrath have formed their own website, DonnyLongIsAConvictedFelon.com, to counter his claims and correct the reacod.

Why is that interesting??  Because it wasn't the last time that AIM had their database hacked into and information released to the public.

Remember the case of Desi and Elli Foxx?? They were the mother/daughter performer/sex worker team which filed a public lawsuit against AIM claiming that the latter didn't do enough to protect their private info from being released to a previous forum which predicated Pornwilileaks. (Their case was settled out of court.) It was only a coincidence that the group most aggressively pushing the lawsuit just so happened to be the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who aggessively favors the condom mandate and who would benefit the most from getting AIM out of the business of testing performers. Right...only a coincidence.

Another "coincidence" to ponder?? When gay/bi performer Cameron Reid (aka Derrick Burts) revealed himself to be "Patient Zeta", the performer who tested positive for HIV in the scare last year, it was that very same Donny Long forum who, claiming to refute his charges that he contracted HIV on the set of a mainstream video, (allegedly) put out a YouTube video of Burts with fellow gay performer James Jameson, as proof positive that Burts contracted HIV directly from "those fags". Jameson, for his part, flatly denies that, even going as far as stating that he is HIV-negative and has been his entire life. Interestingly enough, Burts/Reid found his way to the reach of AHF via some contracts, and now he is their biggest booster, as well as pushing the condom mandate while soundly criticizing AIM for not doing enough to help him during his time of need.

Once again, this may be pure coincidence, or it may be just a sign that Donny Long and Pornwikileaks might be in cahoots with AHF, Shelley Lubben, and certain other antiporn groups out to basically dissect the industry for its own ends..even if unwitting allies. I wouldn't put it against the latter scenario..though it's probably more the former.[Note by Anthony: That reflects my personal view and my view alone, not anyone else here at BPPA.]

The obvious issues arisen from this is whether or not AIM is a victim of a malicious racist hack bent on their destruction, or a serial bungler who doesn't know how to handle sensitive information (as former porn director/agent Mike South has written in his analysis), or perhaps even a secret participant in the whole chirade to silence those like AHF who want to overthrow them and impose the condom  mandate (as some commentators over at the LukeIsBack porn gossip blog have suggested).

But, while that question fleshes itself out, there is a much  bigger issue of how those who perform in porn and sex work are seen by the world as large. Unfortunately, in some mainstream venues, the idea that porn stars and prostitutes and even women who gambol in sex for personal pleasure can be seen as fully normal and human seems to be a very foreign principle.

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

Which brings me to the "slut shaming" portion of this blog entry..and the single, cold-hearted brain cell that is Chris Malyszczyk of Cnet.com, who wrote what he considered to be an analysis of the whole PornWikileaks saga.

Apparently, Christopher isn't a fan of porn, and that's his right and his perogatime...but what he says about porn performers being outed against their permission speaks volumes about his disrespect and utter loathing for them....even while he probably jerks off watching them.

For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt's dictum.

You know, the one that went something like: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

It comes to mind because someone whose motivations seem slightly troubling has taken it upon himself to be the Julian Assange of porn.

For there now exists a site called PornWikiLeaks, on which, as you might be able to imagine, certain intimate details of porn stars are displayed for all to see.

The site doesn't display diplomatic messages from one porn star to another. Instead, it attempts to offer a comprehensive revelation of who these stars really are.

Riiight. Because we all know that women who do porn are really diseased sluts and nuts who fall to their knees at the first sight of hard cock, right Christopher?? So, we have every right to know every nook and cranny of what they do, who they do, where they do it, and what disease they catch while they do it. After all, we can't have them damn fags and them "jigaboos" out there polluting normal people with AIDS and other diseases..'ya know, Verne???

And...it's only "slightly troubling" but otherwise totally acceptable for a rogue agent like Donny Long to basically harrass, stalk, and potentially abuse women and men who perform in porn merely because he has a racist/sexist/homophobic fetish, and because he sucked so bad as an aspiring agent?? All because...well, they're evil slutty porn girls?? How touching.

However, many of those who earn an often meager income from their carnal knowledge don't really want their neighbors to know what they do to pay the rent. Moreover, some have left the industry in order to become elementary school teachers or accountants.

So one can only imagine that when PornWikiLeaks reveals not merely their real name, but also address, pictures of their family, and phone numbers, they might just be a little upset.

Oh dear...maybe becuse it's non of those neighbor's damn business what they do?? Or, because the stigma attached to being a porn performer or an erotic actress (unless your name happens to be Kim Kardasian or Paris Hilton or Carrie Prejean) is such that even outright repudiation of your past doesn't prevent you from total embarrassment or even removal of your job and livelihood if your past becomes revealed?? Or, maybe, Chris believes PW to be an excellent way to score a quick and easy lay, since obviously these "sluts" are incapable of being human enough to say "No"??

And besides that, there is this assumption that most normal people are entitled to the right of privacy, of not having either the government or any business entity going into their panty drawers or bedrooms or personal information without their permission and approval But, we all know that sluts, like gays, illegals, inner city Black drug addicts, and other cancers of straight White American society, aren't worthy of having normal people's rights, don't we?? We don't want Big Government in our medicine cabinets or our uteri...but them other people?? No problem.

There is also a suggestion that it is the creator's intention to reveal the STD status of every single porn star, although this hasn't actually happened yet.

But where did PornWikiLeaks get this information? At least some of the leaked data may have come from a database at AIM Medical Associates, a company that routinely tests porn stars for STDs.

AIM told NBC Los Angeles that it is investigating. However, PornWikiLeaks has been going since December, so the investigation might simply be related to the sudden publicity the site is enjoying.

Still, AIM believes it has been violated just as much as the U.S. government. Its spokeswoman, Jennifer Miller, told the Beast: "I can't stress enough, we're victims of a crime. Just like the Pentagon and the FBI, we have been victimized and hacked. We are investigating and we will press all charges."

Oh, but who asked them?? They're just the enabalers of the diseased and vapid sluts who simply don't want to be revealed to be doing their dirty deeds...and besides, who the hell are they to equate themselves to the awesome power of the Pentagon and FBI under assault by the original Wikileaks??

Now, it has been noted that PW has pilfered from a variety of sources to build their "database", not only from AIM...even though it has been confirmed that  much of the medical info and a large portion of the other personal info is straight from AIM's database, which is indeed shared with porn studios as a means of screening out those who might by HIV+ or otherwise affected with STI's. However, it is also a fact that by law AIM is forced to immediately turn in any information about someone testing positive for HIV to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Services...which just so happens to be one of the agencies most motiviated to oust AIM and impose their condom mandate, along with the AHF and the state offices of Cal-OSHA. Not to mention the aformentioned suit by Mimi and Desi Foxx against AIM for not protecting their medical records from being revealed; and a later suit filed by AHF and LACDPH calling for AIM to release to them records about performers possibly linked to the HIV porn scare of 2009. Maybe AIM does have serious issues with handling personal data...but that doesn't excuse stealing their data and outing performers against their will.
It should also be noted that the 2257 laws imposed by the Federal government also require porn individuals and production companies to maintain detailed information about every performer for immediate release to government officials (the latter motivated by the myth of "underage children" getting into the industry following the Traci Lords debacle during the late 1980's; reinforced by the latest scandal in Colombia concerning current superstar Lupe Fuentes). Given the ease to which such information can be accessed and even traded, maybe it would make it quite a bit easier for any hacker to get sensitive information and use it to his own profit against the performer's interests??

But, again, that's a concern for normal people who are assumed to be fully human, not porn girls, sex workers, or other dirty sluts.  At least, not to Chris Malyszczyk.

The porn industry is undergoing considerable changes, especially with the huge proliferation of free online porn. Will the existence of PornWikiLeaks make some think twice about their chosen means of making money?

Or is the expectation now entirely reasonable that anything you do, anywhere, at any time could--at any moment--be revealed online for all the world to see, know, and, of course, judge?

In other words....does the Bill of Rights apply to everyone....or are porn performers exempeted merely because of their chosen profession??

In response to such claptrap, an actual sex worker who was outed by PornWikileaks named Maggie Mayhem was moved to post at her blog a thorough ass-kicking rebuke of Chris Malyszczyk and his slut shaming. The entire piece is worthy of a read, but I will give some snippage.

Let’s clear a couple of things up, hater. First and foremost this information was obtained from private medical records. It isn’t a coincidence that one of the major ways that we protect our health and the health of our partners was sabotaged. It’s a clear message: you are not allowed to have both a non-traditional sex life and good health at the same time. This was an act of terrorism. According to your words, hater, we should just sit back and accept this as proper order of the world. We should just accept that mainstream medical care excludes us and degrades us and that if we develop a community model of care that people will do everything they can to shut it down. I guess we should have thought about that when we tried to pay our rent, have a relationship, be part of a family, or go on living our lives like anyone else. We should have just known that someone would eventually think that they were saving California from “Mexicans and gays trying to get married,” by illegally accessing our medical records and posting them on the internet with our real names and an incitement for harassment against us.

Whether or not our industry is conventional has nothing to do with what happened. For example, I think that it is unethical to set up sweatshops in developing nations to exploit the local labor force. If I hacked into the HMO database for a major corporation with factories in developing nations and published the names and private information of thousands upon thousands of low level employees who worked for that corporation at any point in time on the internet alongside calls for harassment against them I would be immediately denounced as a deranged criminal who must be stopped immediately and that would be absolutely, 100% accurate. No one w0uld be debating whether or not those employees should be ashamed of working in retail. No one would suggest that the reason why they dropped their surname or opted for nickname on their employee badge was because they were trying to hide from their occupation. No one would speak as though they should have known that sooner or later someone would inevitably hack into their medical records and post their badge name next to their full legal name alongside libelous language and calls for harassment against them. We would solely focus on the actions of the deranged criminal and discuss ways that we can prevent that kind of illegal and dangerous behavior from happening again.

Like most haters, you’re getting defensive about the fact that people are calling you out for victim blaming. The opening and closing of an essay is prime real estate in a piece of a writing. It’s what people notice first and what they walk away with at the end.  This essay contained 538 words. The opening and closing  (103 words) constitute just under 1/5 (just about 20%) of the total essay length and both are dedicated to questioning whether or not porn performers should feel shame about what they do for a living rather than what actually happened or any form of compelling analysis. The reason that people are receiving this as victim blaming is because you opened your essay by saying, “For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt’s dictum. You know, the one that went something like: ‘If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.’” It communicates quite a bit about your priorities that you opened and closed your writing with a sentiment of judgement and shame.

Amen and a-women on that, Maggie.

Sad to say, many performers whom I follow and respect -- and some I even worship -- have  found themselves on that list of outed performers. In fact, anyone whom has used AIM's services -- whether they be in porn or not -- have probably had their privacy breached by this hacking, and they are suspect to being violated at any tiime. (Mike South has posted at his blog some means to which performers who think they ave been violaated can act to get their names removed, or to get PW shut down, and porn legal scholar Michael Fattarousi has also acted to bring legal means against Long to end the harrassment and stalking. Efforts by Long to intimidate and expose performers on Twitter have mostly failed in the wake of strong response by the performers themselves.) The resulting tragedy and its impact on AIM and on the current regime of HIV testing remains to be resolved; whether it turns out to be the concluding act in the AHF/CalOSHA/LACDHS takeover of porn testing and the condom mandate is still well up in the air.

However the results go, though, it still reinforces what to me has been one of my fundamental objectives that has driven my support for and respect of women who take the risks and enjoy the benefits of performing in adult explicit sexual entertainment: that they are treated as nothing less than full human beings, worthy of respect, free will, and accountability for their actions.

No woman -- not even Shelley Lubben or Michelle Bachmann,-- or no man -- not even Glenn Beck or Rush Liimbaugh, however I may loathe their political and social views -- deserves to be treated as any less than fully human. Maybe some day, we will apply that standard to porn/sexwork.  Some day.

[See also Violet Blue's rundown of the whole controversy at her Tiny Nibbles blog here. and also FurryGirl (of Feminisnt) with her perspective on how to protect your privacy from the 2257 laws here. Danny Wylde of Trev West Coast Fiction also has a nice smackdown of Donny Long over at his blog as well. ]