Mandatory Condoms in Porn

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah.

The Amerikan porn industry has set up a self-policing body to test performers and shut down production if an HIV case is detected. This has happened every so often, often via a porn performer sleeping with a non porn-performer and bringing the virus "into the system."

Despite this, by many accounts the porn industry has below-average HIV infection rates (though above average rates for some other STDs).

This has brought up the question of whether condoms should be mandatory in pornography. Is it a public safety hazard? Would such a requirement impede art/entertainment? Is it an infringement on freedom to make some people wear condoms and not others?

I'm mixed, but curious what others think.

latimes.com/health/la-me-porn-hiv-20101013,0,4717128.story

Porn film performer tests positive for HIV

At least two production companies shut down and more people are being tested.

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times

October 13, 2010

An adult film performer in San Fernando Valley's lucrative porn industry has tested HIV-positive, prompting at least two well-known adult movie production companies to suspend filming as a precaution.

The HIV infection of an active porn performer is the first known local case in more than a year and immediately strengthened calls by AIDS activists for the state to mandate condom use on porn sets and to increase regulation.

The case was confirmed to The Times on Tuesday by officials at the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation, known as AIM, a Sherman Oaks clinic that primarily serves porn industry workers.

"We are quarantining and testing all exposed partners to the individual," said Jennifer Miller, an HIV/STD counselor at the clinic.

Miller declined to disclose the gender of the person who tested positive, what companies he or she worked for, when the person was tested and whether AIM had notified state and county officials.

"We're doing what we can to notify the individuals involved," Miller said.

She said AIM officials plan to release more information at the end of the week.

In the meantime, Vivid Entertainment, based in Van Nuys, and Wicked Pictures, based in Canoga Park, both suspended production Tuesday, citing the positive HIV test.

"We did this as a precaution and will continue to monitor the situation," said Steven Hirsch, Vivid's founder and co-chairman. "We will wait for all of the facts to emerge before resume production."

Wicked Pictures officials, who described their productions as "condom-mandatory," said they halted filming to allow AIM to create a "comprehensive quarantine list."

Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a Canoga Park-based porn trade association, said it was too early Tuesday to draw conclusions.

"What we know is someone tested HIV-positive; we don't know the circumstances. What we do know is AIM has identified that someone is HIV-positive and is taking care of it," Duke said.

However, local AIDS activists, who have petitioned the state's Division of Occupational Safety and Health and unsuccessfully sued the county Department of Public Health to mandate condom use by performers, demanded that Los Angeles public health officials investigate AIM immediately, seizing records if necessary.

"How many more people have to be infected with HIV before Los Angeles County steps in to do its job and protect performers' and the public's health?" asked Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Weinstein said county health officials should demand that the clinic disclose which performers were affected and name the production companies involved so that Cal/OSHA can investigate. Otherwise, he said, "AIM and the industry will do everything in its power to prevent us from knowing how many people were affected."

Los Angeles County health officials said they had received no notification of the new case but noted that requirements allow seven days for reporting. Cal/OSHA officials said AIM had not notified them Tuesday that a performer had tested HIV positive.

"We think that's a problem," said Amy Martin, the agency's chief counsel. "We're being stymied right now. We believe it's critically important that we be able to pursue this for the health and safety of the workers."

When a performer tested HIV positive at AIM last year, Martin said, state officials demanded that AIM disclose the performer's work history. The performer filed a restraining order in Alameda County Superior Court barring AIM from releasing the information to state officials; the case is pending, Martin said.

Industry officials said that the actress had worked rarely and that no one else in the industry was infected as a result.

It was unclear immediately how far-reaching the implications were in the most recent case.

A 2004 HIV outbreak in the San Fernando Valley-based porn industry shut down production for a month.

In that case, also detected through testing at the AIM clinic, more than 30 companies voluntarily stopped filming to wait for results on dozens of adult performers who had engaged in sex scenes with either Darren James or the three female performers he infected with HIV. James, who had recently worked outside the U.S., had tested negative just days before performing and was not aware of his positive status when he infected his costars.

On Tuesday, James sharply criticized the industry.

"I knew it was going to happen. And how many years has it been? Again. They went right back to the same habits," James said.

James has emerged in the last year as a vocal advocate for mandatory condoms on porn sets. At a Cal/OSHA hearing in Orange County in March, James questioned the industry's reliance on testing performers for HIV.

He reiterated that message Tuesday. "There should have been mandatory condoms. Good grief, it's like my deal all over again. I hate that."

The new case may fuel the continuing controversy over whether the industry does enough to protect performers.

State officials maintain condoms already are required under workplace rules that protect workers from exposure to bodily fluids. But the rules are widely flouted, and condoms are rarely used in straight porn films because producers say they depress sales. Some in the industry say the believe regular testing is sufficient to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"This shows one more time why testing isn't prevention," said Deborah Gold, a Cal/OSHA senior safety engineer. "They are now going out and testing a whole bunch of other people to see if they can prevent more exposure, whereas the approach of Cal/OSHA is to prevent that exposure in the first place."

An advisory panel considering whether the state should strengthen rules on condom use and testing for sexually transmitted disease for California's porn industry is scheduled meet again Oct. 25 in Oakland.

[EyeKhan]

No. They seem to police it well enough.

[Ominous Gamer]

Nope, and its honestly a non-issue, especially considering that porn is going into smaller bedroom productions in place of the larger studios. No way you're going to be able to enforce such a measure. If the actors want that level of protection then they work with the people that allow it. Simple as that

[Dreadnaught]

But aren't many of those "smaller bedroom productions" often distributed by larger studios anyway? I agree enforcement isn't exactly easy, but in theory the violators are breaking the law on camera so it's not like the highest profile folks can't get nabbed.

[Ominous Gamer]

They may be distributed by larger studios, but as usual the porn industry is years ahead of other industries, a very large percentage of porn is digital only, and a lot of smaller productions go solely that route. Its like Valve, they are mainly a digital distribution service for games, but when it comes to physical discs, they use EA. They don't have to, and are currently working for no physical discs, but they are still in transition. Porn on the other hand made the transition years ago. Porn DVDs have been dead for a long while, and anyone can setup a pay-to-view site. Hell, a very large part of reddit are the nsfw and gonewild subreddits, almost all amateurs.

Requiring condoms will be about as useless and pointless as the Japanese blurring out genitals.

[Dreadnaught]

I think the difference is that the Japanese blurring genitals is a weird cultural thing. Mandating condoms is about public safety. Maybe it's even more of a public safety concern is the trend is more towards home-grown, quasi-amateur pornography. Where the talent is more flexible and less professional.

If it were enforced and people were made into high-profile examples, would the public safety concerns justify such a move?

[Hazir]

I always wondered about this; there is hardly any gay porn available where no condoms are used. And if the action is 'bare' usually this is used as a selling point and typically comes with a disclaimer to 'not do this at home'.

[Nessus]

Given how much of the streaming porn sites seem to feature content filmed by amateurs or non-big-studio-people, enforcing this kind of thing would be very tricky. The same couple can have sex off-camera without the rubber, but when they turn the camera on, they're suddenly in the middle of a misdemeanor or felony? Seems kinda weird. But on the other hand, you can't take money from having sex unless you film that too, so maybe there's some karmic symmetry here.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think the difference is that the Japanese blurring genitals is a weird cultural thing.

Its a law, enacted to protect the public, its one of those laws that predates the publics use of the internet I'm pretty sure the Japanese aren't afraid of cocks. Their consumption of foreign porn that isn't regulated should highlight that.

If it were enforced and people were made into high-profile examples, would the public safety concerns justify such a move?

Only thing it would justify is to film outside of the US, much like most of the Japanese "consumed" porn is. Or at least claim its filmed outside the US, or to setup your website outside of US servers.



This isn't even getting into home videos that are turned into pay to view porn after the fact.

[Lewkowski]

Is it an infringement on freedom to make some people wear condoms and not others?

Duh.

[LittleFuzzy]

They police it well enough that California can order whatever condom regulations it likes, any studio producing for the bareback market simply won't film/keep its offices in the state. Pretty meaningless.

[']['ear]

Think about it this way: the rationale for banning smoking in bars and restaurants is that an employer cannot have an unsafe work environment. Well, wouldn't unsafe sex qualify? By that standard condoms should be mandatory.

Also, self-monitoring is a joke in any industry. The fox watching the hen house.

[Lewkowski]

Think about it this way: the rationale for banning smoking in bars and restaurants is that an employer cannot have an unsafe work environment. Well, wouldn't unsafe sex qualify? By that standard condoms should be mandatory.

Yeah that rational was pretty stupid as well. If you dislike being around smoke and the lawful owner/creator/absolute ruler of the establishment wants smoking... find another damn job.

[']['ear]

Yeah that rational was pretty stupid as well. If you dislike being around smoke and the lawful owner/creator/absolute ruler of the establishment wants smoking... find another damn job.

Yes, and your rationale is pretty stupid is well. That law prevents sweatshops, firetraps, poisoning, etc., etc. There are two facts you are missing: first, many people cannot afford to pick and choose between jobs; they need to earn money however they can get it. Second, while the rational and all-knowing consumer (and employee) are a matter of ecstatic Faith for Marketeers, they are also impossible in any society advanced past a middle ages level of technology. Why? It is impossible for even an exceptionally intelligent and well-educated person to know and understand all of the risks associated with every possible job, or even a fraction of them. You know all the building codes and their underpinnings, do ya? And guess what? Most people are neither intelligent nor well-educated.

It is one reason why the wet dream of unfettered free markets is ludicrous. Checks and balances are essential because it is impossible for all players, or really ANY of them, to be fully informed. Your Faith in this particular religion is as blind an unquestioning as your Faith in your other religions.

Consequently, it is a great law. In fact, it is the only way to handle employment, unless you are the type *cough* who relishes the "right" of employers to use employees like cattle.

[Lewkowski]

Consequently, it is a great law. In fact, it is the only way to handle employment, unless you are the type *cough* who relishes the "right" of employers to use employees like cattle.

Because Big Brother knows best. Because in your eyes people are too stupid to function without a central authority telling them how to do everything from how to have sex to weather or not they can smoke in their own place of business.

[Ominous Gamer]

people are too stupid to function without a central authority telling them how to do everything

This is irony right? Lewk complaining about people being too stupid to think on their own....

[']['ear]

Because Big Brother knows best. Because in your eyes people are too stupid to function without a central authority telling them how to do everything from how to have sex to weather or not they can smoke in their own place of business.

Which gives you a bigger woody, lying about what I've said or knocking down a straw man?

[Lewkowski]

This is irony right? Lewk complaining about people being too stupid to think on their own....

Wow good job completely missing the context.

[Ominous Gamer]

Wow good job completely missing the context.

Nope, but I can't be the only one who has noticed that you are a prime example of the type of person you think the government uses as an excuse to act like Big Brother.

[GGT]

I was under the impression that the "industry" is consistent in using and promoting condoms. For the safety of their actors more than anything.

Unfortunately, it took a long time for HIV to make its mark, and hard-core porn stars were often the first to get sick and DIE. That may have been back when porn was still mostly "underground", and the actors were often desperate (and exploited) people who were used and thrown away. The irony is that on-line porn seems to have improved the actors' working conditions.

A federal law wouldn't make much sense, not in the US climate. Some folks would love to take that one step further and dictate "healthy topical content", or something slippery like that. Then, before ya know it, they've managed to ban all hard-core porn that doesn't meet certain guidelines. Then the black market underground hard-core porn producers would have a new niche. Again.

[Dreadnaught]

That's an interesting point about this kind of thing being a precursor to more disturbing moralistic/puritanical regulation, I hadn't considered that.

But the industry definitely isn't big on using condoms. They just aggressively and routinely test, try and keep the populations "controlled" and shut down if someone contracts HIV. This is where the controversy lies-

HIV-Positive Porn Star Was Gay-To-Straight

http://jezebel.com/5663052/hiv+posit...ay+to+straight (link NSFW)

In the discussion of one porn performer testing positive for HIV, a detail has been overlooked: the performer crossed over from gay porn to straight, which matters to the extent that the two industry sectors have very different safety norms.

AVN.com says that the performer who tested positive "performed in both straight and gay adult videos," generally a pretty rare phenomenon in the industry. His partners, both professional and personal, have been quarantined, but in the meantime it's reignited a longstanding debate over how best protect the health of performers.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is pushing for mandatory condom use in all porn produced in California, said the performer's infection was "totally preventable" and "living proof that testing is not adequate protection against HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases."

But the truth may be more complex, because this particular performer (whom AVN is referring to as Patient Zero) came from the world of gay porn, where condom use is mainstream and testing is not, to the world of hetero porn, where testing is mainstream and condoms are not.

In gay porn, political pressure from health and rights groups has meant that, except for a few fringe studios, condoms are the norm. Because of the implicit assumption that many of the performers are HIV positive and that open knowledge of that would end their careers, testing is not usually a requirement.

By contrast, the current standard for heterosexual porn is to be tested at least once every 28 days for HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, every sixty days for syphilis, and to "authorize access to the results of those tests through a computerized data base to both other performers with whom they might be hired to work and to producers who might hire them," according to a highly informative (and opinionated) blog post written last year by director and pro-porn activist Ernest Greene (also known as Ira Levine and Nina Hartley's husband.)

Greene, who's closely involved with AIM, an organization that offers HIV tests to performers that have shorter windows of detection than the tests usually available in clinics, pointed out in 2009 that this practice has kept HIV infection extremely low. "During [the past] dozen years, a total of five active players on the heterosexual side of the industry have been diagnosed as HIV positive. Four cases were discovered in 2004 and one on June 4 this year," he writes. "Our good fortune in porn is directly attributable to two things: constant voluntary testing and the much-derided conceit of the external ejaculation, which significantly reduces the risk of serum transmission through mucous membranes." That's heterosexual porn in particular; Greene says the rates are probably much higher in gay porn, but no one can know without widespread testing.

Why not just require all performers to use condoms always? As Fleshbot editor and Jezebel contributor Lux Alptraum wrote the last time this issue came to the fore,

The reason for condom scarcity in straight porn, ultimately, is you: the consumer. Porn companies make porn without condoms because that is the kind of porn that patrons want to see. And porn companies want to give you what you want-it's how they make a living.

The one porn production house that has mandated condom use, Wicked Pictures, says the decision hurt sales.
Greene also says that condoms are less effective in commercial use than they are in personal use. He says it takes two and a half hours to shoot a hetero sex scene,

"during which male performer's erections rise and fall, condoms frequently tear or unravel and the degree of latex abrasion on the internal membranes of female performers' vaginas lead to micro-abrasions that make them more vulnerable to all kinds of STIs. Most condom-only female performers eventually abandon condom use, not under pressure from producers, but rather because of the constant rawness and end-on-end bacterial infections produced by countless hours of latex drag.

If that made you cross your legs in sympathetic pain, you're not alone. And what all of this actually means, Greene says, is that condoms can be a less safe choice for female performers than tested barebacking. Greene also argues that it is "legally impossible" to require both condoms and testing, since anti-discrimination laws would mean that employers couldn't keep out HIV-positive performers. [Dreadnt: What?

That reasoning has its skeptics: one blogger notes an inconsistency in this reasoning: "If it is illegal for producers to 'even ask about a potential employee's HIV status,' as [Ernest Greene] states, could it be considered illegal for AIM to give those employers that information?" In other words, if disclosure of HIV status is already taking place and taking performers out of the industry, why would adding condoms to that mix change anything?

In any case, given the frequency of testing in the straight porn community, it is likely that Patient Zero was infected from someone in his personal life, which may end up limiting the scope of infection. We'll find out soon enough.

http://jezebel.com/5663052/hiv+posit...ay+to+straight (Link NSFW)

[GGT]

Most condom-only female performers eventually abandon condom use, not under pressure from producers, but rather because of the constant rawness and end-on-end bacterial infections produced by countless hours of latex drag.

Sounds like a challenge for condom or lube science more than anything else. (Anyone else notice the mainstream ads for his/hers KY?) Or creative filming and editing that could crop out the appearance of using condoms, with their ribbed opening. Maybe with disclaimers like the reality tv shows or driving ads: "Professional actor on controlled set, do not attempt".

[LittleFuzzy]

That assertion that it's rare to cross from straight to gay porn strikes me as odd. A whole lot of performers on the gay side also perform for the straight side of the industry.

[Timbuk2]

Some very interesting points coming out of the article Dread posted there that I didn't know ...

Greene also says that condoms are less effective in commercial use than they are in personal use. He says it takes two and a half hours to shoot a hetero sex scene,

"during which male performer's erections rise and fall, condoms frequently tear or unravel and the degree of latex abrasion on the internal membranes of female performers' vaginas lead to micro-abrasions that make them more vulnerable to all kinds of STIs. Most condom-only female performers eventually abandon condom use, not under pressure from producers, but rather because of the constant rawness and end-on-end bacterial infections produced by countless hours of latex drag.

Ouch! Didn't consider that latex could be quite so abrasive. It is a little uncomfortable (from the male pov, and in a few discussions with partners, from the female pov too) on the odd personal occasion I've used them. I guess it follows that hour after hour of condom use will have quite a nasty effect on the vaginal wall. Eeesh.

Greene also argues that it is "legally impossible" to require both condoms and testing, since anti-discrimination laws would mean that employers couldn't keep out HIV-positive performers.

Anti-discriminatory laws against hiring those who are HIV-positive on the factory floor or in the office is one thing, but it's ridiculous for the same law to apply to porn. Surely porn is now mainstream enough for it to have its own subset of laws which apply to the unique nature of the work involved?

[earthJoker]

I always wondered about this; there is hardly any gay porn available where no condoms are used. And if the action is 'bare' usually this is used as a selling point and typically comes with a disclaimer to 'not do this at home'.

Well viruses don't know anything about political correctness. The chance to get HIV from a gay person is several times higher.

[']['ear]

Yeah, it's just mechanics.

[earthJoker]

Well anal sex has a higher risk. And higher promiscuity also plays into it. And once the ratio is high the risk is higher and that pushed the ratio up as well

[Aimless]

Sounds like a challenge for condom or lube science more than anything else. (Anyone else notice the mainstream ads for his/hers KY?) Or creative filming and editing that could crop out the appearance of using condoms, with their ribbed opening. Maybe with disclaimers like the reality tv shows or driving ads: "Professional actor on controlled set, do not attempt".

I have invented condoms with green rings that can be edited out very easily.

[Dreadnaught]

Last I read, the "patient zero" in this case amazingly didn't give any of his professional partners HIV. At least based on testing so far.

The idea of porn as a cloistered world where folks try to avoid having sex with outsiders is an odd thing to think about.

[']['ear]

It's an industry where cosmetic genital surgeries are commonplace, which pretty much blows the doors off of preconceptions. After what I've been through, surgery to make your junk look better for the camera is inconceivable, and any knife touching your junk undesirable unless there are serious identity issues involved (hat tip to Angel).