As for Chlamydia mea culpa I was in a rush, for now I will spare replacing it with one of the many other STDs condoms DO protect against.

To ease the tedium about gov intervention and the myth of an HUGHE underground market, I think kperv and TonyC made good points, we will likely never agree on that part. Most people don't like to do something illegal and never underestimate the laziness of humans. Me thinks most casual viewers rent or buy what is available at the moment. Also folks with online DVD stores will tell you they sell best whatever is on the first page or gets the most promotion.

The catastrophic health care system in America speaks more for a complete overhaul than anything in my opinion and while you are at it legalize prostitution. With legal prostitution, the government can regulate it and mandate frequent STD screening, mandatory condoms, etc. So even hybrid professions like prostitute/porntalent are fully sheltered with the same kind of caring. Though it will be a slow process to eliminate prejudices in the minds of many the outcome will have a great benefit for all sexworkers. They are finally seen as a real job rather than paddling through a grey zone of ignorance (except for a few lucky that "made it"). Why make it voluntary when you can make it mandatory like in every other workplace in which we must ensure people do not get exploited.

If there is just no political traction do promote these issues and work together with other publicly sponsored health institutions. You could even develop new concepts together with officals. You grant facilities like age verification systems on websites while at the same time get backing for a new sex industry ruleset that actually makes sense and lifts the industry out of it's current desultoriness. You can definitely catch bees with honey. Do not just wait till the next health hazard hits.

I think European companies like French Marc Dorcel can serve as a model for others. They switched to condoms of their own volition. But sometimes social responsibility has to be forced on people. And while we are at it, reintroducing safer sex awards on erotic fairs could be a first positive signal (in contrast to the negative spur often induced by rules and laws which are nonetheless needed).

Edited by - X-RAY on 12/3/2005 6:22:47 PM

[Link]

ernestgreene wrote

[Link]

2. man private activities vs. commercial activities

[Link]

X-Ray: "Is there maybe a slight chance an agent just rings AIM and sets up an account for a talent via phone? So your usual proceedings are skipped?"

There is exactly no chance, as in zero, of anybody setting up an "account" at AIM for anybody via phone. Not only would this be completely against our policies and regulations, it is also extremely difficult to draw blood by wire.

"Now what about posters? "

Ever been to our office? We have posters up all over the place, warning of risks, offering services, alerting talent to current concerns, etc. Perhaps you should try talking directly to an actual AIM client before making any further unsupported assumptions about what we do or do not do. Many of our clients post here. Ask away.

Now, on a couple of your other points, I completely agree. Speaking for myself, I absolutely favor sex work decriminalization, though I do not favor "legalization" schemes that simply put the government into the pimping business by extracting onerous taxes and imposing regulations that negatively impact sex workers. Check out what's going on in Sweden right now for a fine example of the latter.

I also agree that our healthcare system in this country is a disgrace and that Americans tolerate it as they do says nothing good about the sorry state of political consciousness over here. We need national healthcare, and we need it for everybody.

As to working with sympathetic public officials, AIM would prefer to do exactly that. Unfortunately, for as long as public policy here is essentially hostile to all forms of sex work and porn in particular, we are unable to get them to work with us. Neither the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services nor Cal-OSHA has shown any willingness to support community based programs they do not control, despite many, many frustrating attempts to achieve some degree of voluntary cooperation on our part. This is old ground we've covered many times before..

"Why make it voluntary when you can make it mandatory like in every other workplace in which we must ensure people do not get exploited."

You seem to be under the misapprehension that government regulations in this country ensure that people do not get exploited. In fact, American workers are exploited ruthlessly in many heavily regulated industries and exposure to risk is far higher in most such industries than it is in porn. The most dangerous occupations in the US, according to Labor Department statistics, are agriculture and construction, both of which have plenty of rules that don't seem to protect workers very well.

The unfortunate truth is that in a society ruled by oligarchic greed, worker protection is pretty much of a sham. Lower life expectancies and higher rates of occupational injury and illness by comparison to other advanced societies reflect a governing philosophy that favors big money interests over workers at every turn.

This does not argue for entrusting the public sector with the protection of a new and particularly vulnerable class of workers. Without systemic changes in the American economy, public sector regulation of porn is a bad bet. No sensible scheme is ever likely to make it past the anti-porn, anti-sex-work lobby that dominates policy-making agencies in this country. What regulations might be made would, as I've said over and over, most probably be intended to obstruct all forms of sex work to the detriment of all those who make their livings from it, including performers.

None of which is intended to imply that I believe porn should exist in an atmosphere of lawlessness, as was suggested to me by one of those supposedly sympathetic public officials mentioned earlier. As already stipulated, age requirements and other simple, basic, unambiguous standards can be and are routinely observed and enforced in porn. But the more detailed and specific the regulations become, the greater the probability of their application in a manner calculated to shut the industry down rather than to make it safer.

I do not buy the argument that making "unsafe" porn illegal will prevent consumers from buying it. For a sterling example of how well that theory works in practice, one has only to look at the utterly failed war on drugs that our society has been waging at a huge cost in blood and treasure for decades. So far, drugs appear to be winning. They are cheaper and more plentiful than ever, and while some statistics suggest that illegal drug use may be diminishing in some communities, it appears to be rising in others.

I'm not an anarchist, or even much of a libertarian. I certainly recognize the importance of law in maintaining an orderly society. However, simply making things illegal doesn't stop them from happening. Laws must be supported by a social consensus to uphold them. Otherwise, the result is failed prohbition, an experiment that this country seems to need to repeat over and over again, somewhat insanely, in the vain hope of achieving a different outcome.

This is not a simple matter than can be resolved by writing a few statutes. Once this truth is accepted, it becomes possible to consider measures that actually do work. Reforms are possible. AIM exists as a result of voluntary reforms adopted by an industry that resisted them for a number of years until obvious self-interest compelled their acceptance.

Speaking as someone who generally admires the European model of social democracy, I wish political conditions here more closely resembled those in Europe, but there is no party here of any significant size or influence that supports such a model.

Indeed, even in Europe, as I stated earlier and despite whatever decisions a few individuals like Marc Dorcel might make on their own, the vast majority of porn manufactured is made under conditions less safe than those in place here. We had AIM up and running for half a decade before European producers began regularly testing their performers, and many still do not.

My concern in this matter is always for the safety and well-being of real individuals, not for abstract principles that are more likely to produce unintended negative consequences than real progress.

[Link]

Also, which regulations should be imposed, and who gets to decide these regulations? I wouldn't trust this government to regulate an ant farm. Yet, we're supposed to be able to trust the government, which already has an unfavorable attitude towards porn as it is, to be able to place "reasonable" regulations on porn, depending upon whatever one's subjective definition of "reasonable" is? Plus, where do people keep coming up with these outlandish analogies? People, performing in porn is nowhere near the same as constructing a building. Again, common sense should be able to allow one to decipher the differences.

Although I agree with ernestgreene that this issue "is old ground we've covered many times before..," I am convinced that all this arguing for "regulations" (the new code word for censorship) is nothing more than an attempt at some other hidden agenda, which is simply to make all of porn more suitable to the personal tastes of those arguing for it. It has nothing to do with health, safety, or the welfare of the performers (which is ironically the same arguments that anti-porn activists use), but simply to make any niche which is offensive to them obsolete within the industry. In other words, these arguments appear to be no more than advocating a form of fascism hidden behind the claimed and seemingly pretended concern for others' supposed "safety."

[Link]

"It is also extremely difficult to draw blood by wire."
I bet you know what I meant, pay account costs in advance through the agency then just go there for the vampyres and skip the video with a yawn. I'm glad to hear your team is advised to show this stuff to ALL people who enter the AIM building for the first time for a test (even if they already have a history as performer). I am sorry my advert idea upsets you like that, take it as an idea for just one more poster then. Since you can show your recent European HIV test some foreign talents might not need to visit AIM for a short stay in the States. Besides it never was my intention to make it sound like AIM is responsible for those who claim that they had no clue about the dangers of a2p, I just tried to think about what might have gone wrong. So please don't take it as some kind of attack on you, AIM or your team.

You say "No sensible scheme is ever likely to make it past the anti-porn, anti-sex-work lobby that dominates policy-making agencies in this country."
It is just so hard to believe for me these anti-porn lobbies are such a major force in America, but if you say so you're probably right. Well, besides influencing sexual education programs to raise a more open minded generation I have no idea what to do about that. Honestly if you start an anti porn party in some European state the only impact this will have is an unemployed joke author in some boob zine (except for Poland maybe ).

"My concern in this matter is always for the safety and well-being of real individuals, not for abstract principles that are more likely to produce unintended negative consequences than real progress."

Believe it or not we share the same concern as mine is also the safety and well-being of performers rather than some utopia. It's just that I firmly believe mandatory condoms can be enforced without applying any follow up restrictions to the industry.
Your point is mandatory condoms somehow open pandoras box and lead to a situation that is actually worse than what we have now.

"Laws must be supported by a social consensus to uphold them."
Well well I bet you'd even get the anti-porners in the mandatory condoms boat

"I do not buy the argument that making "unsafe" porn illegal will prevent consumers from buying it"

It may not prevent the production or sale of unsafe porn but make the already small "gonzo" market (compared to major cable and satellite deals which is condom stuff for the most part) an entirely unfruitful money maker. A neglectable fraction of what it is now with to little profit to even bother (in contrast to the drug market with extremely high returns) If you want to set up your store or website compliant to such a law you could not afford to sell illegal stuff. Most peeps will buy what's legally available in the shelves or through online stores. (Customs can effectively filter out all incoming foreign dvds, as it's already done in some European countries) I just can not see this huge out of control underground market happening.

As you pointed out yourself the health care is much better in most European countries. People are not left alone with all the bills to pay in case they are most unfortunate and catch the HIV virus. And because of that we should not compare it to the American situation where not every HIV patient has these kind of insurances reserves to pay for the best treatment possible. Therefore you need stricter regulations and mandatory condoms are the next best and most promising thing to do in my opinion.
Your examples about dangerous jobs like agriculture and construction workers are all well and good, but why look out for wrong doings of others? that condom porn can be sold we know that. that you can build a house without some construction workers I doubt that. To go bareback or do an a2p is no way essential to produce a hardcore movie, nor is the American porn-industry depend on these fetishes to make any profit.

Will you loose some foreign sales in direct competition with condomless Euro-porn? Sure you will, but the unique chance to prevent the next HIV outbreak outweighs these losses by far.

The increasing reputation and mainstream acceptance of the American sex-industry accomplishing such a safer sex model on their own volition is a given and might even bring in new customers (and at the same time wipe out some bullshit labels that depend on a freak show to pay their phone bills.)

[Link]

A building worker, a nurse, a pornstar.

They work for a contractor, a hospital, a producer.

One might fall from scaffolding or get hit by a falling object. One handles potentially infectious needles and does the occasional heavy lifting in unhealthy positions. One may contract a nasty case of VD or other unpleasant infections.

All have consented to work in their chosen field.

Two work in fields governed by various safety regulations. One does not.

Why should it be so wrong to rectify that situation?

(Note: I'm not saying I expect any of this to happen. But I'd like it to.)

That's just plain ridiculous. What would the purpose of any such agenda be?
There's plenty of porn available that fits my tastes just fine. I've no need to stop the production of porn I don't like, to boost the production of stuff I do like.
Heck, I usually find DPs utterly boring and have mostly avoided them, but I've no problem with them being produced.
I'm also completely atheist, so there's no religious agenda either.

[Link]

"Common sense" says sticking a cock from the ass directly into the pussy is a recipe for a bacterial infection.

But I am sure you do not share that view of "common sense". So everything you say about "common sense" is moot.

BTW, I love watching ATP (you can search through other posts I have made that back that up)...but I think the health of the performer should outweigh a few minutes of pleasure that some porn voyeurs get out of watching it.

Edited by - Watcher on 12/4/2005 8:43:16 AM

[Link]

Look, its very simple. If the girl is ok with doing ass to pussy, then do it. If not, don't. Is that so hard?

[Link]

I'll hope you enjoy dieing from a nifty little infection, since some antibiotic lost its effectiveness, because some semiretard, who wants to earn a few quick extra bucks, uses it as preventive means.

[Link]

Lets ban driving as well...I am sure a lot more people die from crashes than ass to pussy...what an idiot.

[Link]

Zartyr, it is a complete waste of time arguing with people like bigbuttlover and realtip. They are not intelligent enough to understand the repercussions of ATP not only to the performers, but to society as a whole.
We have yet to hear from Jon Dough as to whether the performers he mentioned got bacterial infections nor have we heard from one female performer stating that she does NOT get bacterial infections from doing ATP.

I know for a fact that both Kami and Katja Kassin both stated they have gotten bacterial infections and Katja has stated that she no longer does ATP.

[Link]

this is silly.

Melissa and Katja have both said no more A2P. Sandra Romain is one of the nastiest girls out there, and even she has rules of what she will not do.

Mandingo no longer does anal.

The talent ultimately decides what they will do and not do based on lots of factors known only to them.

[Link]

Melissa, I am sorry to hear that you had to get surgery as a result of performing ATP. I hope you are alright now.

[Link]

that's not ever right, it's basically timber then pilots and airplane crews followed by fishermen every year. one of those industries isn't exactly full of exploited illegals and none of them are things you'd choose if you cared about safety rather than making about the most money you can legally if you don't havea good jump shot, it's risk takers going after crab in alaska and they push crew members into an icy death all the time because it's an extra $50k for each one now that they've ellided the new guy. logging's high-risk and pay for low skill as well. i'm taking danger to mean fatality, same as a retrovirus does on an extended timeframe even if you played for the lakers.

we don't do too badly on arv coverage and stuff and overpopulation's a bitch. there's no way some sex-positive female writer who went to barnard or something's going through the same process junkies and 19-year olds do for drugs to get something to talk "unsafe". people with money to buy things tend to care about getting caught for a minutiae of difference in product-very difference from wanting an kiwifruit for lunch or a shot of smack. the other thing you may be overconfident about is who the hell is going to want to show up to a chop-shop to secretly shoot unsafe porn for maybe a little more money then have it out there with their smiling face for the feds to see? you've gotta have talent and i'm questioning the attractiveness of anyone who'll show up given the penalties and potential to end up in the desert somewhere taking a long nap.

[Link]

You are saying that if a girl says she is ok with ass to pussy, she should not be allowed to do it??? That is just obsurd.

[Link]

I know we're wandering further off-topic here, but I think it's important to the overall discussion of mandatory regulation to understand what's really at stake. While I don't agree with the gonzo-is-taking-over paranoia of some posters here, and have in the past argued that other, less harsh products do indeed account for the biggest part of the industry's profits, the dollars made from ultra-hardcore are anything but negligible. We're talking about at least a third of the total revenues porn generates overall and a much larger percentage of the home-video-DVD sector.

Making something illegal merely raises the price, invites an even more unscrupulous element to take advantage of the situation and adds new dangers to those already faced by those working in a business that already exists in limbo somewhere between legality and prohibition. For an economist's perceptive view of how America's underground economy works, I'd suggest an excellent book called Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, which addresses porn, drugs and gambling strictly as business propositions. It won't encourage anyone to think optimistically about the effects of trying to remove "unsafe" porn from distribution in a society ruled by greed and the romance of laissez faire commerce.

To suggest that no significant black market would arise if condom use were made mandatory and that consumers would simply accept licit products rather than seek out what they prefer flies in the face of all past experience with porn buyers. Just check out the other threads on this board to see how passionately a large number of customers pursue their particular interests to the exclusion of all else.

It would be simple enough for companies to service those customers by shooting off the books (and thus outside the supervision of the testing regimen we already have) here, doing sales via the Web from offshore hosting and then shipping from somewhere in the states. Policiing this in a vast nation that can't keep thousands of tons of illegal drugs and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from crossing its borders annually is not a realistic possibility.

Moreover, with all the non-condom porn already in existence, demonstrating for legal purposes that a given scene was shot after such restrictions were put in place rather than before would be beyond the enforcement capabilities or motivation of any agency that could conceivably be created for that purpose. What huge, new bureaucracy would be needed to accomplish such a feat, and where would the money come from to fund it? There are literally three decades of videos that would essentially be grandfathered in if the mandatory regs were put in place tomorrow. The scale of this industry and the lack of resources to do more than randomly harrass a few of its more careless hucksters is much too daunting.

As to the fanciful notion that government regulators would actually take seriously the idea of working with porn industry groups to create workable rules that wouldn't have the real agenda and net effect of shutting down production altogether, I think somebody needs a course in American realpolitik, starting with the "suggested" safety guidelines proposed by Cal-OSHA last spring, which included face masks, rubber gloves, dental dams and the banning of external pop shots on any exposed skin anywhere on the body. No hidden agenda there.

Oh, BTW, California law forbids mandatory HIV testing as a condition of employment, so if legal regulation of porn production is enacted, testing will be banned, opening the doors to HIV+ performers on the grounds that barrier protections are adequate and mandatory testing is discriminatory. I ask any performer who posts on this board if he or she would be comfortable knowingly having sex with an HIV+ player, condom or no. That's the pandora's box that would, in fact, be opened by state regulation. But then, I guess I'm just being paranoid, right?

The political reality is that no public official can afford to be seen as taking anything other than an entirely antagonistic stance toward porn without risking immediate crucifiction at the hands of the powerful anti-porn lobbies of both left and right. If we have any friends in the establishment, they're wise to be very quiet about it.

Now, if a consensus emerges within the industry to refrain from certain practices as not worth the risk, I would be far more optimistic about the possible outcomes. I think we're actually seeing that happen as performers here, along with many we serve at AIM, decide for themselves that high-risk stunts aren't worth the money when weighed against the danger. There will always be those who make that calculation the wrong way, but as someone who works with performers every day and has genuine respect for their intelligence and ability to learn from education and experience, I have real hope for a safer industry arising from within.

The notion that only government agencies standing over producers with a big stick will prevent them from exploiting and endangering hopelessly naive talent gives rather too little credit to a group of men and women who, with obvious exceptions, are as capable of looking out for their own welfare as any other class of workers.

Let's give education and consciousness-raising a chance to work before we start passing yet another raft of ill-advised, unenforceable laws that will ultimately end up on the trash heap after a lot of expensive and needless litigation while exposing the most vulnerable, least experienced players to the risks of underground and/or runaway production.

Just in case anybody still thinks I'm just shilling for certain "interests" here, let me reiterate that I oppose ATPs, creampies, DAs and other high-risk stunts and would prefer to see condom use become standard practice. You'll find them in every picture I shoot as a director, and my products sell quite briskly. It is perfectly possible to make a good living in this business without endangering anybody and I wish others would choose the same approach voluntarily.

Alas, I know many will not and that no outside force can compel them to do so.

[Link]

Probably every woman out there has had an infection down there at one point...how many of them do you think was due to ass to pussy? If you think the extremely small amount of infections due to ass to pussy is a major contributor to antibiotic immunity in the world, you have some serious issues.

Please come back to reality.

[Link]

I owe you an apology on a point of fact. More recent statistics on highest risk occupations do reflect the following:

1 Logging workers
2 Aircraft pilots
3 Fishers and fishing workers
4 Structural iron and steel workers
5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors
6 Farmers and ranchers
7 Roofers
8 Electrical power line installers/repairers
9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs

Your comments on this subject, however, seem to undercut your contention that performers won't be willing to take the risk of working underground for more money. In fact, the overall disrespectful manner in which you describe them suggests that they would be even more willing to do so than fishermen.

I particularly liked this comment: "there's no way some sex-positive female writer who went to barnard or something's going through the same process junkies and 19-year olds do for drugs to get something to talk "unsafe."

First of all, my wife went to SFSC, not Barnard, and has 22 years experience as a performer, not a writer. I think her views, as expressed on the Porn 101 tape, along with those of Sharon Mitchell (who I know you also disdain), are regarded as pretty credible by most other performers.

And the stereotype of junkies and/or 19-year-olds with no common sense as typical porn performers may suit the misogynistic sensibilities of a certain kind of porn consumer inculcated with the madonna-prostitute mythology of a puritanical society, but bears little resemblance to the realities of those who actually make porn. Sorry if this puts a dent in your feelings of moral and intellectual superiority.

[Link]

I know we're wandering further off-topic here, but I think it's important to the overall discussion of mandatory regulation to understand what's really at stake. While I don't agree with the gonzo-is-taking-over paranoia of some posters here, and have in the past argued that other, less harsh products do indeed account for the biggest part of the industry's profits, the dollars made from ultra-hardcore are anything but negligible. We're talking about at least a third of the total revenues porn generates overall and a much larger percentage of the home-video-DVD sector.

Making something illegal merely raises the price, invites an even more unscrupulous element to take advantage of the situation and adds new dangers to those already faced by those working in a business that already exists in limbo somewhere between legality and prohibition. For an economist's perceptive view of how America's underground economy works, I'd suggest an excellent book called Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, which addresses porn, drugs and gambling strictly as business propositions. It won't encourage anyone to think optimistically about the effects of trying to remove "unsafe" porn from distribution in a society ruled by greed and the romance of laissez faire commerce.

To suggest that no significant black market would arise if condom use were made mandatory and that consumers would simply accept licit products rather than seek out what they prefer flies in the face of all past experience with porn buyers. Just check out the other threads on this board to see how passionately a large number of customers pursue their particular interests to the exclusion of all else.

It would be simple enough for companies to service those customers by shooting off the books (and thus outside the supervision of the testing regimen we already have) here, doing sales via the Web from offshore hosting and then shipping from somewhere in the states. Policiing this in a vast nation that can't keep thousands of tons of illegal drugs and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from crossing its borders annually is not a realistic possibility.

Moreover, with all the non-condom porn already in existence, demonstrating for legal purposes that a given scene was shot after such restrictions were put in place rather than before would be beyond the enforcement capabilities or motivation of any agency that could conceivably be created for that purpose. What huge, new bureaucracy would be needed to accomplish such a feat, and where would the money come from to fund it? There are literally three decades of videos that would essentially be grandfathered in if the mandatory regs were put in place tomorrow. The scale of this industry and the lack of resources to do more than randomly harrass a few of its more careless hucksters is much too daunting.

As to the fanciful notion that government regulators would actually take seriously the idea of working with porn industry groups to create workable rules that wouldn't have the real agenda and net effect of shutting down production altogether, I think somebody needs a course in American realpolitik, starting with the "suggested" safety guidelines proposed by Cal-OSHA last spring, which included face masks, rubber gloves, dental dams and the banning of external pop shots on any exposed skin anywhere on the body. No hidden agenda there.

Oh, BTW, California law forbids mandatory HIV testing as a condition of employment, so if legal regulation of porn production is enacted, testing will be banned, opening the doors to HIV+ performers on the grounds that barrier protections are adequate and mandatory testing is discriminatory. I ask any performer who posts on this board if he or she would be comfortable knowingly having sex with an HIV+ player, condom or no. That's the pandora's box that would, in fact, be opened by state regulation. But then, I guess I'm just being paranoid, right?

The political reality is that no public official can afford to be seen as taking anything other than an entirely antagonistic stance toward porn without risking immediate crucifiction at the hands of the powerful anti-porn lobbies of both left and right. If we have any friends in the establishment, they're wise to be very quiet about it.

Now, if a consensus emerges within the industry to refrain from certain practices as not worth the risk, I would be far more optimistic about the possible outcomes. I think we're actually seeing that happen as performers here, along with many we serve at AIM, decide for themselves that high-risk stunts aren't worth the money when weighed against the danger. There will always be those who make that calculation the wrong way, but as someone who works with performers every day and has genuine respect for their intelligence and ability to learn from education and experience, I have real hope for a safer industry arising from within.

The notion that only government agencies standing over producers with a big stick will prevent them from exploiting and endangering hopelessly naive talent gives rather too little credit to a group of men and women who, with obvious exceptions, are as capable of looking out for their own welfare as any other class of workers.

Let's give education and consciousness-raising a chance to work before we start passing yet another raft of ill-advised, unenforceable laws that will ultimately end up on the trash heap after a lot of expensive and needless litigation while exposing the most vulnerable, least experienced players to the risks of underground and/or runaway production.

Just in case anybody still thinks I'm just shilling for certain "interests" here, let me reiterate that I oppose ATPs, creampies, DAs and other high-risk stunts and would prefer to see condom use become standard practice. You'll find them in every picture I shoot as a director, and my products sell quite briskly. It is perfectly possible to make a good living in this business without endangering anybody and I wish others would choose the same approach voluntarily.

Alas, I know many will not and that no outside force can compel them to do so.

[Link]

Secondly, I am intelligent enough to know that this argument is indeed a waste of time, as has been stated previously. Personally, I don't particularly care that much about it, especially since I know that there are far more important issues that really do affect "society as a whole." I enjoy ATP, but unlike many on this thread, I'm not on some crusade either for or against it. If the issue is of that much importance to you, then I just don't know what more I can say that hasn't already been said. Just try to not to keep losing too much sleep over it.

Furthermore, it is plain to see that this topic is seemingly kept alive by people who love to keep posting the same nonsense repeatedly with each progressive post becoming more outlandish than the former. So, the argument against ATP has now gone from being about the supposed health concerns of performers to now being about "society as a whole?" This is priceless! What next? Perhaps ATP will cause the destruction of civilization, or bring about the total annihilation of humankind. I suspect that most people in society don't even know what ATP is in the context of porn (though they could probably guess), and even if they do know, they likely couldn't care less. Yet, we are expected to believe that this one sex act somehow drastically affects "society as a whole." To the contrary, "society as a whole" has far more pertinent matters with which to concern itself. I like watching porn too, but it really seems that some of you have been watching too much of it that you can no longer distinguish between it and the real world.

Additionally, as much as I have grown tired of this whole ridiculous topic, there is another part of me that can't wait to see what overly dramatic argument you come up with next. I guess when all else fails, you just resort to meaningless personal insults and outrageously desperate scare tactics.

[Link]

as for moral superiority-who knows? my life's involved no sexual abuse nor prolonged periods of clinical depression--nor do my views change as dramatically as i gather yours have from luke's interview and your writing ten years earlier. i'm young, they might, but maybe not a 180 coinciding with marrying into it mattering. bragging about "units sold" and how well you're doing is authentically progressive. the peak of humanity has always been the guy who'd speak for the right to choke women until they pass out with no ambulance or anything but some naked dude weeping he didn't mean it. because you know words that rob spallone doesn't and have the hours in your day to win wars of attrition via-wordcount.

you're not dumb, but i'm not sure someone with your life-history shouldn't be questioned as someone representing a take on healthy sexuality(well, for this decade of your life at least). and it's not like abuse begets abuse or anything.

i think you don't realize you're supporting fucking up some people's lives and some exploitation of the girls getting dropped on their heads and contracting horribly visible yeast infections allowed to make it to a boxcover. those girls are OUT of your industry in six months, you won't know their names but you pushed for the people who gave them that 200 bucks and blacklisted for having a face that could bruise and and an agent daring to question them.

you're not dumb for porn, but you're too damaged to know what you're doing. the government didn't get those kids sick or drop them on their face and threaten to ruin their ability to earn money having a 5-year old to support-your company-owning buddies did. what was that osha thing supposed to oppress again? your ability to be photgraphed at the avns in five years with the guy who gave the girl 2 weeks off, 200 bucks and a cracked toe and internet-infamy for getting hurt to remember her "sex-positive" experience in the liberating adult industry?

Edited by - jamesn on 12/5/2005 12:46:10 AM

[Link]

Evidently, you just missed out on what happened during those ten years in between when I co-wrote Coming Attractions and my marriage to Nina. For what it's worth, I've been on AIM's board of directors since day one and before that the cause of greater safety for performers was one I had pretty much all to myself , as it had not yet become the darling of self-righteous outsiders who never risked a dime or their own money or an ounce of their own effort over the things that seem to matter to them so intensely now. Funny about that.

If I had the time to answer every personal attack based on my mental fitness, my personal motives, the impact of my abusive family history on my ability to gauge what constitutes healthy sexuality or whether or not I've done anything worthwhile in this industry or in the world, in my life, you can bet I'd find a more constructive use for it. The conflation of familial abuse and consensual BDSM is just another example of simple ignorance that merits no rebuttal.

What I will point out is that I do not defend the misconduct of anyone in any industry and, since you're such an acute reader, I would have thought my previous statement regarding my views on unsafe practices in the manufacture of porn would be fairly unambiguous at this point. Those views, BTW, are quite unchanged from when I came into this business two decades ago.

This was, in fact, a far uglier enterprise back then than it is now, though in those days most of the ugliness was off-camera. The improvements those of us working in porn now enjoy came about as a result of internal changes in the culture of adult video, not the hostile meddling of uninformed outsiders who think they know what goes on because of what they read on gossip sites or in the popular press. In virtually every important respect, porn is a safer, more professional trade now than in its entire previous history, both before and after legalization.

My arguments against heavy-handed government intervention in this situation are not made in my own interest, as I don't shoot the kind of porn you deplore, and might even benefit by its suppression. If I were going to start kissing up to the powers that be, I would have done so years ago, before I had occasion to brag about all those pieces I've sold. Right now, I care about as much for their opinions as I do for yours. Neither has significant ability to influence my future well-being.

Your problem here is that your reasoning is faulty and you're basically clueless regarding the practical challenges of trying to prevent the very situations you go on to describe toward the end of your last post. I take the time to answer you and others who continue to make these faulty arguments because you are dangerously mistaken and your prescription for curing problems we all acknowledge to exist would greatly worsen those problems.

However damaged I may be, I know more about this business than you ever will and I trust my own judgment based on experience you'll never have. Unlike some, I feel no shame about who I am and what I do and no need to project it onto others.

[Link]

Who are those posters with a gonzo-is-taking-over paranoia? I admit I only read few threads but did not find any topic like that. I'm a bit baffled about the term "ultra-hardcore" though. Me I don't have anything against hardcore or steamy sex. I just tell those who think beating, gagging and choking women to tears is sexy to get the fuck out. What does indeed take over within this product range is a trend to "trash gonzo" and male talent who gag women on cock till they vomit and then come here to meet with applause.
The impotence among producers to create something "erotic" could not be more apparent than it is today. I just clicked on the latest chico trailer. watching paint dry on a wall couldn't be more boring. As for gonzo still being a big part of the sales today, how does that contradict my argument that illegal made gonzo would have a neglectable significance with hardly any marketing opportunities? Normal "hardcore" would still exist just with condoms. The gonzo companies already struggle enough today to re-sale their low-budget product to cable stations and video on demand sites cuz everybody and their grandpa can produce porn and even more so, bad porn.

"Just check out the other threads on this board to see how passionately a large number of customers pursue their particular interests to the exclusion of all else."

This message board is by no means a representative cross section of people who watch porn. It is a vocal minority of raincoaters each crying for their fav fetish. Be it a2p, creampies or whatever.
I estimate a 90% of all people ordering porn movies in paytv never get to a place like ADT.
The people ordering dvds via online stores are already what you call a "porn fan" and most often more than just "casual viewers".
If mandatory condoms would be enforced it would by no means be comparable with the outcry of something like when you had "Prohibition" with illicit distillation and smuggle. In fact nobody in politics would give a damn and there would hardly be a lobby of avowing pornfans.

"doing sales via the Web from offshore hosting and then shipping from somewhere in the states."

If you make huge profits from whatever offshore deals you have going they will sooner or later get you. money laundering is not an easy thing in modern times. that's why I said such offenders should be treated like tax dodgers. shipping from somewhere, yes. and? where is the big market you sale your smuggled stuff then? It is not there easy than that. Today sex-shops face harsh times anyway with all the internet competition now add the notion of illegality and where is your customer? I tell you he (or her) sits at home on the sofa in front of some pay tv decoder or at his computer full of adult fairytales. A tv station can not afford to send illegal smut. Same goes for an American based internet provider. Yes there would be competition from other countries, and yes you would loose a die hard no-condom guy to europorn, but is that a really a significant number? As we both have said before the American sex-industry doesn't need to rely on condom-free porn to make profit. Producers greedy enough to try would become criminals. The thought alone would drive most of them away from shooting unsafe porn. Adapt and overcome.

"Moreover, with all the non-condom porn already in existence, demonstrating for legal purposes that a given scene was shot after such restrictions were put in place rather than before would be beyond the enforcement capabilities or motivation of any agency that could conceivably be created for that purpose."

Right now you already have a mandatory date stamp system on your DVDs established to verify ages of performers with production dates. I don't recall for how long this has been in place... few years, anyway it doesn't matter as guys always want to see NEW stuff. Your big backlog of titles without condoms will soon be of very little interest to the fanbase. In case a company has no archives with production notes. tough luck.

"As to the fanciful notion that government regulators would actually take seriously the idea of working with porn industry groups to create workable rules that wouldn't have the real agenda and net effect of shutting down production altogether, I think somebody needs a course in American realpolitik, starting with the "suggested" safety guidelines proposed by Cal-OSHA last spring, which included face masks, rubber gloves, dental dams and the banning of external pop shots on any exposed skin anywhere on the body."

These guidelines are indeed ludicrous, however I think they are just a warning shot. To date nothing of all this was enforced to my knowledge (Except one fine for someone who called it out). Stuff like that happens when one or two anti-porners develop some kind of rule set without participation from industry insiders. So if you want to create a "sensible" rule set which takes in account the realities of shooting porn you need to get some lobbyists in there. How come the anti-porners managed but no one close to the sex-industry. If people don't care, and most folks in the biz care pretty much about noting as long as it is not a fine or suite, then others decide for you. Besides in my current job I take fanciful as a compliment, my name is not somebody though.

"Oh, BTW, California law forbids mandatory HIV testing as a condition of employment, so if legal regulation of porn production is enacted, testing will be banned, opening the doors to HIV+ performers on the grounds that barrier protections are adequate and mandatory testing is discriminatory. I ask any performer who posts on this board if he or she would be comfortable knowingly having sex with an HIV+ player, condom or no."

Now call me Captain Obvious, but I thought it would be clear that HIV testing would be as mandatory as condoms. To change this is a prerequisite. One cannot be with out the other to be effective. Who sane in mind would work out such a doomed plan? I thought we talk about a "sensible" new ruleset. So I as well ask any performer who posts on this board if he or she would be more comfortable having condoms AND a tested partner to work with or would prefer to just rely on testing instead. Where this leads to we have seen in the last two outbreaks, no?

"The notion that only government agencies standing over producers with a big stick will prevent them from exploiting and endangering hopelessly naive talent gives rather too little credit to a group of men and women who, with obvious exceptions, are as capable of looking out for their own welfare as any other class of workers."

hopelessly naive talent? Who says such things? It can't be me. I assume you are still talking to me since you quoted me on top of your post. As far as talent being capable to say what you think while at the same time playing the fame game, that doesn't work out. Some very brave have spoken out they would wish they could work with condoms but would as far as gonzo goes not be given a choice, so you rather suppress the negativity that comes with such thougts and do the best you can.
If you want to improve something you do it better being independent from the outside.

"Let's give education and consciousness-raising a chance to work before we start passing yet another raft of ill-advised, unenforceable laws that will ultimately end up on the trash heap after a lot of expensive and needless litigation while exposing the most vulnerable, least experienced players to the risks of underground and/or runaway production."

As I said before I do not think mandatory condoms and testing is unenforceable, however I agree on the
education and consciousness-raising part. Though I think those performers following such message boards are already "informed" about health risk and made up their minds. Nonetheless you will see some talent of producer announcing the latest xxx guy creampie gangbang every second day. There is no more direct path to HIV than an infected male cumming into the anus of another person. I wouldn't want to work with someone taking part in these russian roulette jobs. You could as well name yourself Susy Suicide then. Anyway, since you repeatedly stated that you think given time at least voluntary changes are an option, why not tag product promoting safer-sex with some new kind of AIM approved logo, only for companies that follow a sensible voluntary ruleset you worked out together. That way those fans who wish to support safer-sex could easier identify products that support this idea.
I already have the first rule... Each producer has to ask a performer on set wether or not s/he would like to work with condoms.

Overall your last reply was much too hostile for my tastes. Like as you took three steps back and start talking about me instead of with me.

Edited by - X-RAY on 12/5/2005 8:06:15 AM

[Link]

Last things first. My previous post was not in response to you, but rather to another poster, who got personal. Whatever disagreements you and I might have remain cordial as far as I'm concerned and I hope you feel the same. I wasn't talking to or about you, and I do respect your ideas, as much as I think many of them are unworkable.

I think we'd be retreading old ground for me to answer each of your points. I'll just pick one or two for clarification. The gonzo-is-taking-over paranoia doesn't come from you either. It's coming mostly from those outside the industry who want to use it as a propaganda tool to attack all porn and from those within the fan community who have a particular dislike of it, the latter being about as vocal as those who love it.

You and I share the view that the uglier manifestations of this genre enjoy their popularity with a fairly small but highly opinionated and active part of the industry. Because these individuals buy a lot of product, they do make their preferences profitable to service. And if you add in all non-condom porn, you are talking about the majority of the products made both here and in Europe. Rougly 85% of all hardcore scenes shot in the US are non-condom.

I'm still not buying the argument that the economic costs of a forced conversion to condom-only-everything-else-is-illegal industry would be a relatively low-cost option. It would be a huge bottom-line hit for many companies, large and small. This is no excuse for reckless behavior, but it is a substantial obstacle to getting widespread industry cooperation with such a scheme. There would be tremendous resistance, including endless legal challenges, with the outcome very much in doubt.

And it is a fact that California law does and will continue to forbid occupational testing for HIV. The ACLU made it clear at the hearings last spring that they would vigorously oppose any exception for porn. So far, attempts by much more powerful lobbies, such as healthworkers' unions, to challenge this ban, have been struck down by the courts. That no government-mandated program could require testing is reason enough, in my view, to reject the whole notion.

While it would still be possible under such a scheme for partners to test voluntarily and show their tests to each other voluntarily, any producer who required them to do so would be subject to severe legal consequences, leaving performers once again completely on their own to decide when, where, how frequently to test and under what circumstances to reveal the results. This was essentially the situation prior to 1997 that led to the first HIV outbreak in the industry.

So if the cost of mandatory condoms is the loss of mandatory testing, do you think it would be worth it? That is the real question I posed last night, and the most important matter in this whole debate. I still believe that testing, however imperfect, is a necessity greater than condoms and if forced to choose, I'll choose testing. Before you dismiss this as simply too ridiculous to actually occur, I'd suggest you check out the testimony at that hearing. Every lawyer there, including the one from Cal-OHSA, agreed that mandatory testing would be against existing law, and disclosure of test results would also be illegal.

We have tried repeatedly to negotiate some kind of middle-ground approach with public health officials here, but their complete intransigence is one of the reasons I find their motives suspect. It's as if they don't want any sensible reforms made for fear of appearing to approve of porn, which as I've said, is a dangerous thing for any public official over here.

Now, as to your suggestion that AIM offer a seal of approval to safer sex products, I think it's a good one and we have discussed it among ourselves and with industry representatives. I still have some hopes for this coming about, so that consumers who feel as you do could vote with their money, which is the only vote that really counts here. So far, and I think this is very telling, even companies that do have all-condom policies have shown no enthusiasm for such labeling, fearing that more consumers would vote the other way as a result. But we are working on that one and may eventually get something similar to what you suggest.

I am, as I've said before, entirely in favor of voluntary measures help make porn work safer, and if the consumer can be enlisted for this purpose, I think nothing would be more effective. For what it's worth, that approach worked well in gay porn, where condoms have been the rule for years. While some customers seek out bareback products, most choose to buy from major companies that are condom-only in that market. This is the eventual transformation I hope to see in porn overall. In the kind of economy we have here, dollars spent are much more important than any other force in determining industrial policies.

One more time, in conclusion, I would like to make clear, very clear, that my response to your comments wasn't meant to be unfriendly. Those remarks were intended for the arm-chair psychoanalyst who thinks I'm "too damaged" to be taken seriously on this or any other subject. I don't really like flaming people, but there are some slams that require a response in kind.

However strongly I may dissent from your opinions, X-RAY, I think we basically share the same goals and I respect your point of view and the way you state it. Hope that settles things at the personal level.

[Link]

in the last three years, what's aim done to prevent the dramatic increase in acts that leave girls like melissa with need to repair her womb?

there IS something wrong going on in your industry and it's getting worse--sure the mob's not running as much---but why can't you do what vegas did and get the creepy, incompetent old-guard out?

none of the things that would prevent a moderate person from supporting you guys are being addressed or showing progress--they're probably getting worse in ways that SCREAM for some competent regulation and it's not happening. maybe it's time to look at the people who should be making it happen, who happen to be the same ones screaming for the goobernmint to back off because they're evil.

it's always nice to say "i oppose" something. hell i oppose a lot of things and try not to help them continue, which is what you're doing on your sets. let's put it this way, you oppose worker's exploitation and you're on the board of director's at debeers. you are responsible for progress and it's not happening, you're in place to do something,few here are--are you ineffective or are you a mouthpeice?

Edited by - jamesn on 12/5/2005 3:42:57 PM

[Link]

While it would still be possible under such a scheme for partners to test voluntarily and show their tests to each other voluntarily, any producer who required them to do so would be subject to severe legal consequences, leaving performers once again completely on their own to decide when, where, how frequently to test and under what circumstances to reveal the results. This was essentially the situation prior to 1997 that led to the first HIV outbreak in the industry.. Every lawyer there, including the one from Cal-OHSA, agreed that mandatory testing would be against existing law, and disclosure of test results would also be illegal.

Ernst, You made a reference to the 'mandatory' testing that the induustry now "required' thriough AIM, while at the saame time recognizing the california law prohibitng the use of any hiv or std test as a condition of employment. I think it would be helpful to remind people that the AIM system is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. And what about the production companies that currentyly keep the test records of their performers? ARe they violating any laws by keeping copies of the perfomers tests?

You stated "Any producer who required them to do so would be subject ot severe legal consequences...." Arent they at risk of those same severe consequences right now if they are keeping the medical records of the performers?

I thought the AIM program was for Talent to check other TALENTS tests before working with them. So why do prodeucers need to see the performers tests? If producers think that having the test result is going to mitigate their responsibility in a court of law the are dead wrong. Any producer who requires a test before shooting is just admitting that he sees the risk involved. By admitting that he sees the risk, the next question will be what did HE do to mitigate that risk(provide condoms etc.) And knowing that that risk involves the exchange of bodily fluids the first thing any government agencey will ask for is an IPP(Injury Prevention Plan). And I doubt that any porn companies have an IPP in place, and I would further bet that most producers dont even know what an IPP is.

And while we all do not want history to repeat itself, I think it would be safe to say that ABSOLUTELY nothing has changed in the adult industry since last years outbreak.

And what about all the talk on these boards about girls getting dropped on their heads, working with infections, internal injuries to rectums and vaginas, ATP infections and so on. Do you think it is wise for these people to post this stuff publicly where the OSHA's and other government agencies can see them. There is a current story on the 'poular' sites right now discusing a workplace injury with names and dates included. Anybody who wants to could file an OSHA complaint right now based soley of the information that is available on these sites.

Keep us the good work ernst. You were fighting this fight long before anyone else even knew there was a fight going on. Best wishes to you and nina(you've got to be just about the luckies man on earth to have her)

Edited by - swifty on 12/5/2005 6:01:50 PM

Edited by - swifty on 12/5/2005 6:04:21 PM

[Link]

"do you think the pay vs. risk of the average star, who are the workers in need of protection, has gotten better? careers are shorter, condoms non-existant, they're still being sent out to work when they're unhealthy from aim, they're still being bullied, etc."

Talent rates are the highest they've ever been in the history of porn. Not only are girls better compensated then at any previous point, but at long last, guys are starting to get paid commensurate with their abilities. How do I know? I deal with performers and agents and cut checks every day, and I'm happy to see performers paid properly. As for risk levels, they depend on individual behavior. I've already said repeatedly that some current practices represent an unacceptable level of risk and should cease. However, the overall level of safety for most performers is about what it has been since AIM first started testing. In 80,000 tests over eight years, we've turned up a total of seven HIV+ results involving active players. Still too many, but not increasing. Rates for other infections are now much lower than they were before we instituted regular testing for them as well.

Careers are shorter, based on what I believe to be a mistaken perception held by many producers that new is always better. This is an employment issue that no amount of regulation can address. Producers can and will hire who they want. Calfiornia is an open shop state and other than contract players, no business operator can be legally compelled to hire any indivdiual without a clear proof of denial of employment due to discrimination. I fail to see how laws could be written to lengthen any performer's marketability. Meantime, AIM offers an ongoing scholarship program for performers leaving the industry and counseling to assist them in making the transition to other occupations. I guess you didn't bother to read up on that part.

I've already spoken very, very clearly on the subject of condoms on this very thread, along with the repeated references I've made to AIM's list of high-risk practices we oppose, which is clearly posted on our Web site and discussed at length in Porn 101. We're on record loud and clear about this, and you can keep pretending otherwise in the face of the facts to your heart's content. Anyone who wants to know where we stand can just go to the site and read for themselves.

The charge that AIM sends performers out to work when they're known to be unhealthy is simply a scurilous lie and I challenge you to produce proof of a single example of this happening. We treat everyone we diagnose as infected and we don't certify them to work again until their course of treatment is completed. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying just like you.

Are performers still being bullied? Most certainly. Those who work for their livings are being bullied on the job in every industry. This is always wrong and should never be tolerated. The best and most effective solution to the problem is for workers who feel they are being bullied to pick up their gear and go home. In fact, performers walk off sets every day with no consequences to their future hireability except where the particular company they dumped is concerned. Those who lack the self-confidence to set their own boundaries are unsuited to this gig and should get out, period. Once again, no written law will protect those who lack the character to say no to things they don't want to do. No state agency has the authority to negotiate on behalf of performers or any other workers. Agents don't do it either. It's a matter of personal self-regard.

As for the producers and directors who do the bullying, they're assholes and should get out of here too. When one producer took it upon himself to establish a Web site to "evaluate" performers' on-set behavior, I seriously suggested that performers should create a similar site for producers and directors. So far, no one has taken up that challenge, but I hope someone does. No one wants bullies out of this business more than I do. I've walked off plenty of sets in my day and encouraged others to go with me, sometimes successfully.

"in the last three years, what's aim done to prevent the dramatic increase in acts that leave girls like melissa with need to repair her womb? "

Again, AIM conducts continuing education through regular talent meetings, the Web site and by indivdual counseling to inform performers of the risks they face and remind them of their right to refuse those risks. Your continued insistence that we don't know what really goes on "out there" is just a bit ridiculous, given that our clinic is where performers come for treatment when injured or infected. I daresay we know quite a bit more about this subject than those who do most of the talking.

When instances of producers, directors or agents attempting to pressure performers to ignore this information are brought to our attention, you may rest assured, though I doubt you will, that the individuals involved receive clear, unambiguous warnings from us that in doing so they are endangering not only the performer community, but their own abilities to stay in business as well. While the criminal sanctions you'd so dearly love to rain down on these jerks are never likely to come to pass, they can still be sued for civil damages, and we remind them accordingly. Should such litigation arise, with the performer's permission, we wouldn't hesitate a moment to make medical records available to the court documenting any physical injuries for which we have treated them. Absent that permission, California's medical privacy laws prevent us from acting unilaterally.

"there IS something wrong going on in your industry and it's getting worse--sure the mob's not running as much---but why can't you do what vegas did and get the creepy, incompetent old-guard out?"

How would you suggest this be done? Targeted assasinations perhaps? The fact that any jerk with a video camera and a checkbook can call himself a producer makes it pretty much impossible to keep out all the bad guys. Of course, if performers refuse to work for them, they'll be out of business, won't they?

"none of the things that would prevent a moderate person from supporting you guys are being addressed or showing progress--they're probably getting worse in ways that SCREAM for some competent regulation and it's not happening. maybe it's time to look at the people who should be making it happen, who happen to be the same ones screaming for the goobernmint to back off because they're evil."

As I've stated above and many times before, efforts are being made to address these problems by the people you're denouncing. No one else is doing anything. And I don't oppose government attempts to dictate on-set practices because I believe the government is evil. I do believe public officials are mostly hostile to porn and I don't trust hostile institutions to make and enforce workable regulations. Indeed, one very vocal official who has been pushing hard for the power to impose those regulations told representatives of AIM, myself among them, that it wouldn't bother him at all if said regulations had the effect of "driving the porn business right out of California." This is the guy we're supposed to trust?

"it's always nice to say "i oppose" something. hell i oppose a lot of things and try not to help them continue, which is what you're doing on your sets. let's put it this way, you oppose worker's exploitation and you're on the board of director's at debeers. you are responsible for progress and it's not happening, you're in place to do something,few here are--are you ineffective or are you a mouthpeice?"

Neither. While it's flattering to be thought of as such a mighty power in the industry, AIM's situation is in no way that of an executive body. We are a medical service provider with some public advocacy functions incidental to our primary mission of offering medical services. If we were, in fact, empowered to compel changes in certain industry practices, we would do so. However, as always, I must remind you and everybody else that cooperation with AIM is voluntary. We cannot compel compliance, and if we tried, you can bet that the howling would just get louder over the way we did it. AIM is a convenient target for everyone with a beef about how the industry operates, and I can't imagine that this would change if we were somehow empowered to inflict our preferred restrictions on everybody else.

Within the limits of what is possible, we have been extremely effective, as the thousands of clients who have passed through our clinic will attest, and as for being a mouthpiece - that's just another meaningless insult. It would come as news to the producers who woof at us on the phone every day for refusing to bend our rules "just a little" so somebody can work with a test that's a day out of date or whatever other concession said producer would like us to make. We're self-supporting and do not answer to company owners or speak on their behalf.

What really seems to piss everybody off is that AIM simply refuses to be hammered into saying or doing anything we think is wrong, irresponsible or patently counterproductive. We remain independent of both the industry hacks who want a for-profit testing system they can manipulate and the government agencies that just can't stand the idea of a community-based, sex-worker operated healthcare program that works and that they don't control.

I'm done here, so you can go ahead and slam away all you like. It's all been said before.

[Link]

Edited by - jamesn on 12/5/2005 7:00:05 PM

[Link]

80K monthly test over 8 years would seem to indicate an AIM-tested talent pool that by averages about 850 individuals at any one time. Is this more or less correct?

Of the seven detected HIV+ tests involving active players, how many of were potential or actual "patient zeros"? How many were subsequent infections?

[Link]

It's legal for AIM to reveal test results to producers because performers sign a waiver at the time the test is taken giving us permission to do so. Those same waivers also protect the right of producers to request and maintain copies of said results. As you say, the system is voluntary.

And, BTW, we are working on a model IPP for producers who wish to adopt it voluntarily. When it's completed, we'll make it available to all who want it.

As to whether or not requiring test results under the current situation increases or lessens or fails to affect the civil liability of producers, there is no legal precedent to go by. Since it still hasn't been established that non-contract players are employees, the law is quite vague in this area. It could be argued that the first producer who ever asked to see an HIV test result essentially acknowledged risk and assumed unlimited liability for it, but it could just as well be argued that said producer took the most effective precautions available to mitigate the hazard and thereby immunized himself from litigation. So far, no precedent-setting case has come to trial, but common sense argues in favor of what lawyers call ":accepted industry practices."

As to whether I think it's wise for people to publicly discuss their concerns with performer safety, I unconditionally favor freedom of speech and oppose efforts to hush up industry abuses. It's not like porn has a sterling reputation to protect in any case. I would, however, advise readers to consider the sources and motives of the various claims and claimants in these much-discussed incidents. Often times, further investigation reveals the circumstances to be quite different from those originally described. Critical thinking is the best answer to irresponsible accusations, and legitimate accusations deserve to be taken seriously. And no, it's not true that anybody could file a Cal-OHSA complaint based on something read on a gossip site. The complaint procedures are largely worker-initiated and subject to very specific regulations. Only those directly involved, witness to the incident in question or in possession of reliable evidence have standing to file complaints.

The best evidence that something has indeed changed from last spring is the amount of attention currently devoted to discussing these very topics. Finally, consumers and performers, who have the real power to effect change, are starting to take an interest in the future of the industry, and I regard that as an entirely favorable development, however strenuously I may disagree with some of the solutions proposed.

And thanks for the seldom-heard words of encouragement, Swifty. It does get tedious being bashed constantly from every side for doing an unpaid job that takes up lots of valuable hours and returns no material reward. And yes, I am the luckiest man in the world to be married to Nina.

[Link]

Edited by - jamesn on 12/5/2005 7:16:21 PM

[Link]

I also think that the reason so much of this gets laid at AIMS door is because there is NO TALENT ORGANIZATION at all in the industry. And that is because the last thing any producers,agents or direcors want is for the talent to be organized in any way. If a group of the performers got together and decided what was and wasnt accetpable, that would have alot more weight than AIM has. But that would require some real work on behalf of the talent, so we know that aint gonna happen.

[Link]

And i still think it is not wise for people to talk about SPECIFIC incidents of injury that were obviously never reperted to OSHA. Thanks for you reply ernst. YOU're a voice of sanity in an otherwise insane industry.

But as far as change in the industry...while increased discussion is clearly a positive thing, that is all it is....just talk. What ACTIONS have been taken? And I dont mean actions taken by AIM, I mean actions taken by the industry(talent agents producers direcors)

Edited by - swifty on 12/5/2005 7:27:39 PM

Edited by - swifty on 12/5/2005 7:36:58 PM

[Link]

a) does not protect an employer from negligence in any business because it "encroaches upon the Court's jursdiction" in legal jargon. It is considered in negligence cases.

b) Has no role or relevance in employee occupational safety. For example, an employee cannot indemnify an employer for risks related to mining, gas production, steel construction, carpentry, etc because disclaimers are subordinate to State Worker's Compensation Statutes and Federal Occupational / Safety rules and oversight.

Simply said, if porn in considered a legitimate "job" then the actors and actresses are subject to the same protections afforded any employee. If porn is considered a daredevil stunt, say like Evil Kneivel and the porn actress is putting on the stunt (in control of the production, putting themself at risk, etc) then possibly they might be able to make the disclaimer argument. However, we all know the 18-25 year old actress doing ATP is doing a "job" for the money and therefore a disclaimer does not indemnify the producers or directors.

Gman

[Link]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ernestgreene wrote:

In 80,000 tests over eight years, we've turned up a total of seven HIV+ results involving active players.

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

A couple of questions:

80K monthly test over 8 years would seem to indicate an AIM-tested talent pool that by averages about 850 individuals at any one time. Is this more or less correct?

Of the seven detected HIV+ tests involving active players, how many of were potential or actual "patient zeros"? How many were subsequent infections?

TonyC:

Sorry. Didn't mean to overlook your questions when I was already further down the thread.

The statistics are a bit confusing because the size of the talent pool has been steadily expanding and the number of tests AIM does monthly is substantially greater now than it was at the beginning, so we're not dealing with a constant population.

Right now, we're averaging forty tests a day, six days a week, most of them industry people, which suggests an active talent pool of about a thousand performers. However, there is a great deal of turnover in the community, so it isn't the same thousand individuals each month. Given that some also leave and reenter the industry, I would up the number a bit, but this is really guesswork at best.

Of the seven positives we've detected, three had no contacts subsequent to their last negative tests and did not transmit infection to any other performers. One, who tested last spring, appears to have infected the other three, but the evidence is circumstantial, which is one reason why, unlike some others, I never refer to the probable patient zero by name. There is a difference between a strong supposition and absolute proof.

Hope this answers your questions.

[Link]

Of the seven cases, it's common knowledge that one of them is male and three are female. Can you tell me the genders of the remaining three?

Also, do you know what approx. proportion of men to women in the AIM-tested talent pool?

[Link]

As for those people who deride Sexpo as an exercise in poor taste and bad morals, Widman dismisses such views.

"People might look at the porn industry and think it promotes dangerous and bad ideas, but pornography presents one of the safest ways for people to enjoy themselves. People in this industry are incredibly well-educated about health and sex.

"What is dangerous is going to a club and picking up a stranger and having unprotected sex, which a lot of people do all the time. It's not what people in this industry do at all. They can't, or they wouldn't have a job."

I wasn't sure what to make of that statement but it just came to mind when scanning through this thread.

[Link]