pornochromatic

Like the outbreak in 2004, this instance of a porn performer testing positive for HIV and possibly spreading it to other talent has spurred a lot of discussion about changes that need to be made to protect people in the future. The three main suggestions being put forward are mandatory condom use, more testing and overhauling AIM. While HIV may be one of the risks of working in porn, I believe the last two options could significantly improve the chances of preventing future outbreaks.

Mandatory Condom Use
On the surface, condoms seem like the obvious answer to this problem. In fact, several people and organizations that I hold in the highest regard have endorsed this policy. I simply cannot.

Whether it’s true or not, porn producers are very certain that condoms lower sales. Which means legislating the use of condoms in California will have two effects: some producers will move to more hospitable states (Florida, for example) and others will flaunt the law. John Stagliano (himself HIV+) has said, “The market determines whether or not this will be shown. A government agency the size of Los Angeles couldn’t stop it. It’s not going to change.”

Perhaps topping that, condoms could put female performers in more, not less, danger of contracting STIs. According to veteran director (and partner of the lovely Nina Hartley), Ernest Greene:

While the folks who suggest legislation certainly have the best interests of the performers at heart, in my opinion, mandating condoms simply won’t work.

More Testing
In yesterday’s post, I talked about the factors that make the current system untenable. Thirty days is a long window and in the porn business, a person can have dozens of partners in that time. Even with the PCR-DNA test that AIM uses, the window between contracting the virus and it showing up on a test is at least 12 days.

In an unlikely, but entirely possible scenario, a male performer (males are more likely to pass on the virus than females) could contract HIV from a non-industry sex partner on May 1st, receive a negative test on May 10th and go on to infect any number of partners in that 30 days until his next test. At least with a 15 day testing window, only half of those people would be exposed. Obviously not perfect, but I’m sure the people he would’ve worked with in the second half of that month would appreciate it.

Additionally, testing for all life-threatening STIs needs to be conducted on a regular basis. More on that below.

Overhaul AIM
Long-time industry veteran and commentator Mike South put forth a five-point plan for bringing AIM up to the level that it needs to be to adequately protect performers:

While I don’t always side with Mike, I think he’s put a lot of thought into this and it would almost certainly help make AIM more reputable and effective.

I realize my stance may be relatively controversial, but I honestly think something needs to be done before we’re back in this same position again.

As a final note, it’s very important to remember that when we talk about Patient Zero and those who are under quarantine, we’re talking about real people going through a dark and frightening time in their lives. While medical advances have improved the quality of life of those with HIV tremendously, the sad fact is that contracting this disease changes your life forever. My heart goes out to them and I truly hope to never have the occasion to write post like this again.

On the heels of the announcement of a new HIV infection in the porn industry, a lot is being said about what ought to be done to prevent it from happening again. This post is part two of a three-part series on HIV in the porn industry.

This tragedy has provided a stage for a number of industry insiders (and outsiders) to make criticisms about how we ended up in this sad situation. In today’s post, I’ll explain the four main factors that are contributing to the lack of safety in porn:

1. Performers’ personal lives
   Porn performers have sex with people other than their scene partners, be they lovers, tricks or random guys in bars. One of the unfortunate facts of this business is that having sex with the right people gets women work. Directors, producers, agents, you name it – they’re screwing talent. And most of them are not getting tested. Not to mention that a lot of stars escort on the side, possibly without condoms. This is a huge X factor in the STI equation.
2. Agents concerned with profit above girls’ safety
   As director Donny Long very ineloquently pointed out, agencies in LA routinely send their female talent to shoots to work with men they know have done gay/bisexual scenes without telling the girls. This may not sound like a problem on the surface, but as I mentioned before, the gay industry does not test. So many of the performers are HIV+ and rely exclusively on condoms for protection. Between condom failure rates and barebacking movies, the chances of actors who do gay work getting HIV would seem to be far higher than those who only work with women. Combine that with a 30 day testing window and you have a problem.
3. Ineffective testing requirements
   Not only is a 30 day time lapse between HIV tests far too long, there is no requirement to test for all of the sexually transmitted diseases that are at best unhealthy and at worst possibly fatal. Hepatitis B and C can be passed through sexual contact and can ultimately cause death in afflicted individuals. Most talent get only the “AIM Panel” – HIV-1 DNA by PCR & Chlamydia and Gonorrhea by PCR. These are important tests, but they aren’t adequate by themselves.
4. Sharon Mitchell
   You may remember Sharon Mitchell as a performer. She is also the co-founder and director of AIM, the primary organization responsible for keeping talent safe. “Doctor” Mitchell has a Ph.D from an unaccredited university and absolutely no background in public health. To make matters worse, she is so unscrupulous that she agreed to be an expert witness for the defense in a rape trial in 2004. For those unfamiliar with the case, Ms. Mitchell testified that a young girl who’d been drugged and gang-raped was actually attempting to make a porn film and was conscious while having bottles and pool cues unflinchingly shoved into her orifices. Sharon Mitchell apparently knew this even though she is not a medical doctor or qualified in any other way to make that assertion. Her testimony was so worthless that the judge threw it out. The fact that this woman runs the only organization standing between performers and life-threatening diseases is something I find personally reprehensible.

In tomorrow’s post, I’ll discuss the proposals being put forward to protect talent in the industry and why some well-meaning people may be putting performers’ heath in danger.