OSHA doesn't want owners or family members operating unsafe equipment and losing their hands, either.
Their regulations cover the workplace, regardless of whether the workers are employees, contractors, owners, etc.
I used to work at a copper smelter -- the regulations also protected visitors to a site -- thus, family members, potential investors, industry people touring the site, etc. were required to wear a hardhat and steel-toed workboots with metatarsal guards (with 'loaners' available), and were requested to remove their rings. OSHA could fine the company for allowing anyone onsite without the hardhat and boots, or for exposing them to any other safety violations.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Oct 10 2004 : 7:35PM
David - I would suggest that you get your poster-pity-girl facts straight. Brooke is not dying. She is not even sick right now. She is not penniess. And guess what - she is no longer even in Hawaii. And don't even begin to suggest that I'm dying or sick or miserable. Because guess what? Brooke and I (and the other girls) are no more dying from our disease than say, oh, a person who is medically obese is dying from what their obesity is doing their body.
I am sick and tired of people who are pushing for drastic immediate changes using the "poor defenseless" girls such as Brooke and Kimberly and myself and recently Jessica and Missy and Lara as excuses for the supposed horrible statistics of HIV transmission in porn. Porn can claim much lower per capita HIV transmission rates than the general US population. Check the CDC figures for percentage of HIV+ adults in the US. It's a lot higher than whatever the number would be if you divided 7 by the amount of people in porn who have had sex on camera since 1998.
In 1998, Marc Wallace infected 4 girls over a period of MONTHS. Why did it take so long to discover that Marc had HIV? Well, lots of reasons, but I'm not going to get into that here. But my point it, with the Elisa tests, even if Marc had been getting tested every 30 tests with the screener, it wouldn't have surprised me that he could have tested negative for that many months after he was indeed already infecting people. (I don't believe him of course, but that's for another day.) In the cases this year, Darren James infected 3 girls in a matter of LESS THAN A MONTH. Because of changes which Ernest had a lot to do with back in 1998, the industry switched from self-regulating itself with the Elisa screener to the PCR-DNA test. If that change had not been made, a lot of people coming in to the industry may have slipped through the cracks with an Elisa which didn't detect their HIV+ status, and certainly I believe that Darren James would have passed the virus on to many more girls in the additional weeks it would have taken for the Elisa to detect the virus. For this, Ernest, I thank you. I do not question your motives, and I wish there were more people like you and Nina in this industry and in this country in general.
Do I think that porn producers need to constantly be aware of making sex as safe as possible for the people in the scenes? Yes, I do. But making it as safe as possible means dealing with the situation in a real world environment. Mandating condom-only (especially for non-realistic things such as BJs) or banning sex acts would indeed drive the production of videos out of state and potentially underground. In 1998, after several of the girls in porn were infected with HIV, a lot of the companies went condom-only. It wasn't illegal to shoot without condoms, and a lot of companies did. In fact, many of them advertised NO CONDOMS! on their boxcovers. Some other people have posted in this thread basic libertarian principles of why the war on drugs does not work. And I believe that there is a direct analogy to porn from that. If you stop the companies that DO care about the talent from making the porn that the majority of consumers actually want to buy, there will be other companies that DON'T care about following rules or helping to keep people safe that will be more than willing to fill the gap in demand.
I don't know the solution, but this is not a black/white issue.
David - I find it interesting that you seem offended by Ernest because you think that he is trying to speak for everyone. I don't see him doing that. However, I do see you taking some of the same tones as him in regards to acting as if you know the solution that will magically work for everyone.
Continue to make the porn that you are comfortable with. Continue to do what you believe will protect the performers.
But whatever you do - do NOT use me as an example in your agendas or pretend that you would have known better than I did how to run my life or make my decisions. Deal with your own life and make your decisions, and I'll continue to make my own, thank you very much.
Finally! Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here arguing this side, and I'm not even in the industry.
[Link]
Ren Galskap Deactivated User
35 Posts 9/04
Posted - Oct 10 2004 : 9:52PM
Tricia,
Several months ago, I went through the trouble of looking up the yearly HIV transmission rate for the general population in LA and calculating the average yearly transmission rate for the LA porn industry. They are roughly the same. However, if you are using the average yearly transmission rate in the industry as an estimate of the risk of infection in the industry, the variance on the statistic is so high that it is basically meaningless. As someone with a background in statistics, I wouldn't try to make a comparison based on the available data.
However, it is true that performers in LA are much more responsible than the general population. If everyone did what gay performers do--always use condoms--or what heterosexual performers do--have sex only with people who are regularly tested--then new HIV infections would almost be eliminated and the virus would eventually die out. You don't need to be a statistician to figure that out.
Ernest,
I don't know about CA, but I believe that most states have an incorporation tax or fee that has to be paid every time you create a new corporation. Also, courts tend to reject anything that was obviously done solely to avoid regulation. I don't think that incorporating performers would work. If it did, a lot of employers would start requiring their workers to incorporate so that the employers could avoid paying benefits. Microsoft lost a case several years ago where it tried to avoid paying benefits by hiring temp workers. The court forced MS to pay benefits retroactively.
Hmm. This is interesting. Especially considering it is done by many business, and government agencies . . . Including the Veteran's Administration.
[Link]
Ren Galskap Deactivated User
35 Posts 9/04
Posted - Oct 10 2004 : 10:31PM
Microsoft was hiring programmers as temps and keeping them employed for long periods. I used it as an example because it was a blatant attempt to avoid a legally imposed responsibility. Having performers incorporate themselves would be pretty blatant unless producers came up with another reason for doing it. Less blatant attempts do often slide by. Also, governments often exempt themselves from labor laws. I know that a state motor vehicle agency in my area routinely keeps people employed as temps for years in order to save paying benefits.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 12:05AM
It is not a new thing for porn girls to decide to incorporate on their own. If there were ties to a porn company when they did it, that may look and be suspicious, but there are reasons that it is better for the performer to incorporate that would help the performer too.
Isn't Selena Silver "incorporated?"Yes, I understand. It just reminded me that the VA does the same. They employed my mother as a temp for years, and she couldn't get health insurance. That's another topic.
I meant no sarcasm. It truly is interesting to me that the government doesn't apply the same standards to itself that it applies to corporations like MS. I guess it shouldn't surprise me. Even a supreme Libertarian such as myself expects people who govern to do the right thing sometimes, even though I know they most likely won't. Even I forget Lord Acton's admonition at times.
I just wanted to stop by and thank Tricia Devereaux for her kind words, and to express my whole-hearted agreement with her comments. I deeply believe that individual performers and producers must tailor their own standards of safety to their particular situations. There is no simple, one-size-fits-all plan that works for everybody, or that can be imposed from the outside.
This seems a self-evident truth to those of us who deal directly with the realities of this industry and its risks, but it seems very difficult to accept for those who want simple answers and want them now.
I'm not certain what will eventually emerge as a consensus approach, if anything, but I know if it fails to take those frustrating, individual complexities into account, it will be doomed to collapse, with consequences quite possibly much worse than anything we've seen thus far.
I only hope that reason and sound judgment will prevail in the long run.
Edited by - ernestgreene2000 on 10/11/2004 2:56:11 AM
This is the last I heard of Brooke's situation, and it is well-documented in newspaper articles in the LA WEEKLY and other legit news sources. If her situatution has indeed changed, would you enlighten me and everyone else, rather than just say my facts are out of date?
And would you actually claim that she wasn't in fact threatened out of suing the company on whose set she most evidently contracted HIV, while the guy we all seem to think is responsible for it has been constantly employed by VCA, Simon Wolf, etc? Is this the "companies that DO care about the talent" you're referring to?
Or to everybody's fave, TT, who recently managed to come inside a girl during her very first scene in the business, not let on to her but show it off to the cameraman with a wink and nod, and leave her to the unpleasant surprise of discovering she was one of the stars of his latest creampie epic? In terms of responsible behavior by gonzo companies, one doesn't have to do very much looking around to clearly see that Evil Angel is the primary exception (there are a few others) rather than the rule of the day.
That Darren could in fact infect three girls in LESS THAN A MONTH before any alarm bells went off points towards a real problem not necessarily with AIM but with what the industry that it tries to monitor has grown into: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and pointing out that the transmission rate in porn is not sky-high compared to the overall population ignores the moral question of the increasing number of producers who push uneducated young women (and men, for that matter, though we all know transmission is more difficult in that direction) into HIGH-RISK acts the human body was hardly designed for.
As to your thinly veiled "fat joke" snipe, I certainly haven't attacked you or your physical appearance on any level, and I have not dragged you personally into any of my arguments ... I see no other reason for you to bring up obesity as a disease, since it is not a communicable disease, and it doesn't retire an expensive drug cocktail to combat on a daily basis ... I can lose weight, and am constantly struggling to do so, but once HIV is in your blood, it doesn't go away ....
Your existence as a statistic has nothing to do with the complex reality of "who Tricia Devereux is," and I have never suggested anything of the sort, nor meant to personally offend you ... I'm sincerely glad things have worked out as wonderfully well as they have for you, but they certainly haven't for all the HIV victims of that last outbreak, and somehow I doubt they will for most of these ones, either. My only reference to you in this whole business was a personal email I sent to you during the moratorium asking your position on what was going on and for your and John's opinion on the public statement I was about to make in a movie I was about to release. You chose not even to acknowledge my email, so I shrugged and moved on.
Between you and Nina's webdroid's fatuous attack on my own career, I'm beginning to feel like the unwilling guest of honor at a bukkake -- which, by the way, under OSHA's rules, would still be an acceptable sex act as long as safety goggles were employed :)
This is a point I find hard to fathom . There are already acts beyond the pale and rules which the porn industry has to obey , and the above argument could be used to deny any of them . "If you force us to sign model releases , what about all the companies who don't care about the girls , they won't obey your rule ." "If we can't shoot bondage with sex then what about all the disreputable porners who will ? They might actually be raping girls in their movies ." "The demand won't go away , you'll just drive it underground ." etc ...
Maybe I'm missing something but these rules certainly appear to have been successful . Bondage and non-consensual flicks aren't shot in the States as far as I can tell , and the route to outlawing them appears remarkably similar to the one being followed now by OSHA . No new law or regulation need be enacted , simply the emergence of a new found will to act , and the early importance of making a few examples - in this case starting with TT Boy .
I ask again , if there was a market for rape/bondage themed porn ( and there clearly was/is ) , and this was successfully purged from American porn production , why should there be a different situation with regard to condoms ? This is where the drugs analogy falls down for me . Under that comparison the American rape movies would have continued , just with less reputable companies . They haven't though . Have they ?
Just to spell this out . From my , limited , understanding of laws in the workplace : financial laws and safety laws do not follow the same rules . Just because someone receives special treatment and rights under financial laws does not mean that those same rights will extend to safety regulations as well . Hiding behind the "contractee/employee" argument may prove to be a very dangerous gamble .
Nina's webdroid. Nice. Think that up all by yourself?
For the record, I never attacked your career. As you acknowledge, I've done what I could to support it, despite your repeated attempts at self-immolation of the kind you're clearly trying to commit once again. In fact, if your memory can still clank into gear, you might recall that it was you who went on the attack in the first round of our whole exchange.
For a man of such noble purpose, you certainly devote a great deal of your time and energy to petty, personal grievances. If it's really performers and this industry you care about, perhaps you should commit some of your boundless energies to actually organizing the kind of support for your intentions that might produce some results. Otherwise, it would appear that you're principle motivation is making yourself the center of attention, per usual.
Edited by - ernestgreene2000 on 10/11/2004 5:58:45 AM
LOL ... by "Nina's webdroid," I refer not to you but to some guy who runs her forum or somesuch -- I'm really not going to waste my time searching back for his name, he showed up here solely to defend you and Nina -- who carped about how since I shot a creampie series that I ceased and publically apologized for, that I was scum who was horribly impertinent to question the Holy Ira .... FOR THE RECORD, I never accused you of attacking my career, and indeed have acknowledged that you opened a door for me once, and even warned me where it would likely lead ... So clank up the gears of your own memory, man, before you come out with those guns a'blazing ...
And in fact I was trying to help the performer's union in their meetings during the moratorium, an idea I kind of get the impression you pish-posh ... Those meetings had some legit health professionals there whose salaries aren't tied to the industry to answer performer's questions.
And anyway, I only raise "personal grievances" in answer to personal attacks, my friend. And as for making myself the center of attention, you sound just like Michael Moore's detractors -- "When we state our opinions, it's For Your Own Good; when HE does, it's because he's an egomaniac." So if you are the pot and I am the kettle, can we agree to drop such dreary, pointless and utterly juvenile snipes?
Now excuse me while I go back to editing my latest movie. Despite my "repeated attempts at self-immolation" (I call it not kissing whatever ass is convenient to my career and embracing situational ethics in transparent attempts to "go along to get along." but then we have established that I am indeed the only egomaniac in the room ...), I have at least four more releases to handcraft and have released by the end of the year.
Kick all the personal enmities I have no idea of and aren't interested in either, then I rally behind dac's opinion that the real problem is the "increasing number of producers who push ********** young women (and men, for that matter, though we all know transmission is more difficult in that direction) into HIGH-RISK acts"
Especially high risk acts like DPP/DAP with creampie finish .
Tricia is right that making porn production as safe as possible means dealing with the situation in a real world environment. However let's face it. Would Evil Angel and some other major labels in the States decide to shoot DAP penetration with condoms only and to abandom creampies. All the American talents currently en vogue would be available to their fans only in condom-only porn. Since these lables are distributed the most. Fans would still enjoy condomless blowjobs but learn to accept the appearance of condoms when it comes to DAPs... The ones who really need creampies would have to buy European porn, and they would have to do so online, since for what reason would the major american lables import Europorn and use their distribution capabilities for something that backfires on their own profit margin.
The ones who want to fill the 'gap' could be easily shut down and denounced by such a union. They would have to shoot outside California. Big players could pressure distributors of lables who advertise "no condoms" to take away their own product lines. It would be further in their interest that the Californian example will be spread in every state of the US.
I can't believe Evil Angel would collapse financially by abandoning creampie shoots.
Guys like Chico ,sorry pal, aren't the ones who fight. Once the OSHA instructor waves with a 90k fine he would adopt to the new situation and they would follow the path of the 'lables who do care about talents'.
Should the CAL-OSHA guys want to enforce their overkill regs towards such a union of 'lables who do care' you could go to court at ease as your situation to stand this through has increased by a big deal.
If you ask me if all this is ever gonna happen I say no.
[Link]
major sharp Deactivated User
246 Posts 2/04
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 6:00PM
Isn't swallowing someone who's infected with AIDS just as dangerous as having condom less sex.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 6:31PM
David - the point I was trying to make was that people only see the whirlwind that these girls go through during the first few months or so, and that increases the sensationalism that the media loves so much. I don't really believe that those of us who are industry insiders really need to add to the fire when it comes to perpetuating myths and/or outdated information.
The thing is, in my opinion, and I think most people would agree with me (even Brooke has said she feels this way...), Brooke didn't exactly have the happiest life before or during when she was in the adult business. I knew her during and now after her adult career. In an ironic twist of fate, she is happier now than she was during a lot of times from before or during when she was in the adult business. However, the last that she spoke with any media was when she was still bitter because her life as she knew it had come crashing to a halt.
I will respectfully change my disease analogy to a severe case of diabetes. If a person named X had a severe case of diabetes and X did not take the proper medicines at their proper dosages, X would evetually get sick and possibly die from complications from diabetes. If X takes their medicines properly, it is very likely that they will have to lives their lives a little bit differently medically speaking, but overall, they will not exhibit any secondary symptoms of their disease anytime soon. I have HIV. If I don't take proper medicines at proper doses, I would eventually get sick and possibly die from AIDS-related complications. If I take the proper medicines at proper doses, it is likely that although I will continue to live my life a little special, I will not exhibit any AIDS-related symptoms anytime soon. In fact, on an average day, since I am monogamous with my husband, I don't even think about the fact that I have HIV. Some people may say that I have luxuries that other girls who find themselves in my situation cannot afford. To that I would say that they are mistaken. California has one of the greatest AIDS outreach programs in the nation. I have spoken with Marissa and with Jessica (Lara had already at that point chosen to alienate HERSELF from anyone in the adult business who may have wanted to help her) and they have both done all the research necessary to be able to obtain the proper help that they will need in the future.
My main issue with this thread is when someone, anyone acts as if they have the right answer for everyone involved. Once again, do I think that the situtation is perfect? NO. Do I think there is a perfect situation out there? NO. Do I have some ideas on some things that I think may help? Yes. If you'd like to hear them, I'd be happy to talk with you personally. Unfortunately, I don't think Cal/OSHA wants to hear any ideas. They simply want to swoop in and without finding out about real-world realities that we must deal with, they want to dictate to us what they somehow 'know' will be the best solution for everyone involved. Except they don't know what will be best for everyone anymore than you or I know. And probably not nearly as well as you or I because they don't live in our world on a daily basis.
As for your email to me earlier this year, I do remember it. I thought I had answered it by saying that John was in Vegas most of the time, but if you'd like to send your movie or contact John, to please feel free to. If I'm mistaken, then I apologize. I would have had no right to ignore you, especially since your email also addressed John and not just me - I would have at the very least owed it to John to reply.
Sounds like typical government BS, sticking their noses into something they don't agree with when the country itself is in a greater need of attention.
major sharp, I doubt when you do monthly PCR DNA HIV tests that your viral load in your sperm will ever get high enough to transmit the disease through 'normal' oral sex. Before it gets that far the PCR blood test should alert you. I do think swallowing cum of a HIV positive is less dangerous than having a creampie with him or unprotected penetration. However it's still risky behaviour to avoid at all costs.
I can't see that this thread advances in any direction, nor do I see any producer thinking about making concessions towards performers health or developing any practical ideas. As soon as it may narrow the profit in any way we have silence. So I'll drop it here and resign. Just please don't claim to be oh so caring, that goes out to all the pornfans screaming for creampies and the producers fulfilling the demand in denial. shut up and shoot now, shut down and weep tomorrow.
X-RAY wrote:Wasn't that weep comment lifted from an old Susan Hayward flick? Why all the drama? Your porno spending contributes to the problem every bit as much as Rufus Raincoater's.
[Link]
Ren Galskap Deactivated User
35 Posts 9/04
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 10:48PM
It's a matter of where a ban is enforced. Rob Black is being prosecuted for selling a certain type of movie. You can't sell that type of movie in adult stores because the stores are afraid of prosecution. Except for Internet sales, which is what Black is doing, you can't sell that type of video in the US market. If Rob Black is shut down, no one will step in to take his place and produce similar movies because they won't be able to sell them.
Cal/OSHA is trying to ban production of condom-free porn. This doesn't stop stores from selling it. In fact, stores prefer it because they sell more of it than the safe-sex videos. So if they can't buy it from LA producers, they'll buy it from other producers. Cal/OSHA can only stop production in California. Even there, their ability to enforce the ban is limited.
You may be right. This is determined at the state level and it varies from state to state. The question is how California state courts will react. At this point, nobody is sure. It looks like TT Boy will have an answer for us sometime soon.
I don't think CAL/OSHA is trying to ban production of condom free porn. They are just investigating a complaint and found that a studio may be in violation of not having a "Written Exposure Plan." People in every sector work with dangerous chemicals everyday. There are MSDA sheets, required by law. Tested people's fluids shouldn't be considered "OIM's" or "Hazardous Waste." But studio's should have a "Written exposure plan."
Not so. Check out the Cal-OHSA Web site. They treat all bodily fluids, tested or not, as bio-hazardous waste and subject to the full range of BBP precautions. The lack of a written plan is the least of the infractions cited. They state quite clearly that full BBP barrier protections must be used throughout any form of fluid contact, including goggles and gloves.
[Link]
Ren Galskap Deactivated User
35 Posts 9/04
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 11:31PM
Citation #1; $25,000 fine for not protecting workers against blood-borne pathogens. Citation #2; $5,000 fine for not reporting the infection immediately to the state. Citation #3; $375 fine for not keeping records of work related injuries. Citation #4; $185 fine for not having a written Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP).
I thought I did check it out, gotta link? I think I mentioned before that if bodily fluids are considered bio-hazardous waste then not only must film companies comply but individuals. I might be a little naive asking for a direct link, I have been doing some research on this subject and may have overlooked something. No offense.
If, after using all practical engineering and work practice controls, workers are still exposed to hazards, employers must provide, and ensure employees use, appropriate personal protective equipment. "
Key words I see here are "all practical engineering and work practice controls."
the adult film industry, these requirements include:
Following a written safety and health program, known as an injury and illness prevention program, or IIPP. In simple terms, an IIPP identifies potential hazards specific to the workplace and ways to protect workers from those hazards. Click here to view Cal/OSHA's model IIPP for employers with intermittent workers Training employees in health and safety hazards Protecting employees from electrical hazards, such as those associated with special lighting Protecting employees from hazards associated with bloodborne pathogens Providing sanitation facilities Not discriminating against employees who complain about safety and health conditions.
This statement means no contact between sexual fluids and any part of any other persons body.
No cumshots on any part of the body, no handjobs, no fingering, in fact no touching of the pussy at any time, not even a nude lapdance. This is far beyond the precautions necessary for safety.
If this is enforced the result can only be to force the studios out of the state.
Thanks, Licker. This has been my point all along. If more people had bothered to read what the regulations actually specify, they might have been a little less eager to defend the agency's attempt to impose them on this whole industry, and a little less naive about the true intentions of the politicians who came up with the idea.
Were the video industry forced to comply with these rules as written, it would indeed have the effect of prohibition. That's the real agenda.
But in the end I'll stick with what I've written before. I do not expect anything. I, however, want to be spared from all the lamenting, wailing, moaning, and whining, when this happens.
So far, even the big porn companies have avoided public comment on this issue. I don't see mainstream entertainment coming to porn's defense, even though cable operators make millions from adult product. They're not about to risk the political fallout, especially when adult producers won't lead the charge.
Interestingly, the only part of the new regs that faces a direct legal challenge is the mandatory testing component - the element that makes the most sense. The ACLU has already stated that it will challenge any attempt to make HIV testing a condition of employment in this or any other industry on anti-discrimination grounds.
Others here have maintained that such a court challenge would fail, because Nevada allows mandatory testing for prostitutes or whatever. But this is California, where the anti-HIV-discrimination lobby is extremely powerful and legal precedent is consistent. In this state, any employer who asks for an HIV test before hiring will face legal action from several directions if the requirement is ruled unconstitutional.
Whenever regulations are written in a manner that makes it impossible to comply without violating statutory law, you can assume certain intent from the creators of the regulations.
So if the regs are legally upheld otherwise and mandatory testing is forbidden, I hardly see how anyone will be safer.
Even with full barrier protections, I would never be comfortable with HIV+ performers working with HIV- partners.
Who in this thread said these regulations are 'all good' and must be defended at all costs? What you do here, Ernest, is generalize; oversimplified statements the no-brainers can rally behind. Once you opened pandoras box I may have even more trouble to bring my point of view across but at the same time it may backfire on your own interests. I think you can do better and you already showed. At the very begining of this discussion I was unsure wether the fact that OSHA regulates the case after exposition to body fluids is a hint that these regs are somewhat more 'guidelines of what to avoid' and 'what performers could demand on their workplace' than mandatory, but as soon as I saw my error I dropped the idea. Call me naive but I couldn't believe at first these regs are meant in the way they actually are. As I said elsewhere in the current version of this 'bill' shooting porn as we know it today will be impossible in California. Both DAC and myself pointed out the industry should at least 'try to' begin negotiations with CAL-OSHA. Yes, it's likely to fail, however even if so you would have gathered some more information about the future plans of these guys. Besides many spoke out that this regs are 'overkill'. No one defended gloves'n goggles or the prohibition of body fluids on skin. What I did do, however, was exposing my thoughts that some OSHA regs are in fact quite reasonable. Like HEP vaccines sponsored by the companies and the legal certainty for a talent that in case of an HIV infection the producer pays all subsequent health care costs. By no means this was intended to vindicate the 'whole OSHA package' nor to 'blur' their real intentions.
Moreover I repeatedly stated that I do think the industry does much too less of it's own volition to develop concepts how to face the OSHA threat. Sure you can say we are all 'thinking' about that, but when I see no results why should OSHA? I guess we just have to accept that should OSHA initiate the next wave of fines the porn industry will settle in another state. The 'status quo' with this ongoing trend towards more and more dangerous shoots (just like the 65 guy creampie gangbang recently) will remain. Health care won't improve and the next outbreak will occur for sure. Then all 'pornfans' will weep for two weeks before they rush out again and buy the 150 guy creampie gangbang. As a side effect of OSHA 'getting real' we might even witness the downfall of a few of the smaller companies which have not accrued enough reserves to finance their move. And between me and you, I couldn't care less about that, however I do care about talents health as much as you. Though you're much less vocal when it comes to 'bans' of certain high risk acts, even if these 'bans' are done by free will of the industry not forced by gov at all. Producers who shoot anal creampie gangbangs (I don't think you do, do you?) should be brought to reason. And if this means I have to deal out blows than I do.
I've read somewhere southern California is home to more than 6,000 porn professionals, including 1,200 actors and actresses. I can only imagine it would make quite a dent in AIM's economy to move elsewhere and build up the same infrastructure in a short time. So it should be in your interest as much as in the interest of other producers to actually look ahead, instead of doing buisness as usual and waiting for the hangman. Don't get me wrong Ernest, I think you are one of the lonely voices that warn others from upcoming dangers, however precluding every compromise helps no one. In my eyes things like performer history databases, condoms for porn-first-timers performing A-sex, and a voluntary ban on irresponsibly behaviour like anal cp gangbangs could be a start. However if no one raises a voice the LA industry will face hard times to convince any court from all their 'caring' but maybe your lucky and have a jury full of raincoaters.
<-this kiss is for you to prove I haven't lost my sense of humor
Edited by - x-ray on 10/15/2004 8:32:53 PM
[Link]
whooya Deactivated User
33 Posts 10/04
Posted - Oct 15 2004 : 8:28PM
Ernst, if the adult industry properly funded Aim then it wouldn't matter what types of regulations the govt. imposed. Aim could still operate as it does and provide the low cost testing it always has. Regardless of government interference in the porn industry,AIM could survive and continue withi its mission to keep talent as safe as possible. Its a voluntary system. The government could never stop anyone from going to a no-profit clinic for testing. Regardless of the restrictions put on producers, the talent could still have their voluntary system that has been working quite well for several years.
It seems to me that some people are trying harder to find ways to protect the producers from liability, than the talent from disease. But then again it all boils down to one thing.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I asked this question in another thread.. HOw much money do the major production companies donate to AIM? I guess if anyone knows the answer to this it would be ernst.
First to X-Ray - No, I don't shoot creampies or any other stunt-sex, unless you consider DPs in that category. Condoms are always welcome on my sets.
Now that we've got the personal part out of the way, back to politics. For what it was worth, which turned out to be nothing, AIM had meetings with representatives of Cal-OHSA and the LACDOHS for over a year before the events of last spring in an attempt to find some common ground. Even after the transmissions took place, and after County Health had conducted a coercive search of our offices, we sat down with the department's leadership to try and hammer out some kind of compromise before the big legislative hearing.
It was only after we realized that they didn't take us seriously and had no interest at all in good-faith negotiation that we stopped talking to them. They already have a plan, which is to put porn out of business in California, and they're not going to hear any point of view that might compromise that goal. But we did try.
Would voluntary safety measures like banning creampies really change the official position? I doubt it, since protecting performers isn't their real concern and they don't buy the notion of producers as good citizens and won't no matter what the producers do.
Now, do I think the producers should do more? You bet I do. From any standpoint, morally, legally, politically and, in the long term, financially, I think the industry needs to step up on limiting risks through increased (note I didn't use the word universal because I don't believe that is medically defensible) use of condoms, more frequent testing, temporary quarantines for performers returning from abroad and a decrease in the highest risk behaviors. It's both right and smart to take these common-sense steps.
However, because there is no internal regulatory body in porn such as the MPAA in mainstream film, it would be very difficult to arrive at a consensus on any of these things without punishing responsible producers and rewarding irresponsible producers. I don't have a solution to this difficult problem, but I do believe there needs to be one.
Concerning AIM, as a non-profit organization that works with cooperating clinics all over the US and in Europe, the relocation of the industry poses no threat to us. We're not in it for the money, and we can and will continue to offer voluntary testing no matter how the politics play out. This leads to my answer to the question about how much producers donate to AIM. Answer: Not much. Some kick in a few bucks here and there. Larry Flynt has been particularly generous, but part of AIM's legitimacy results from the fact that it is self-supporting from the revenues generated by testing. Those who argue that the producers should pay for testing have good intentions, but with subsidies come attempts to influence. In it's current form, AIM is truly independent, and that is worth more than money.
Would performers really trust a testing system paid for by the producers? I'm not sure I would.
[Link]
whooya Deactivated User
33 Posts 10/04
Posted - Oct 15 2004 : 9:24PM
Thanks for the reply ernst. I didnt think they donated much. He who pays the bills calls the shots. HOw come the talent doesnt get together to raise money to subsidize the costs of testing. If aim were able to raise enough money they could offer 2x monthly testing and maybe throw in some other things like hepc and herpes(confidentially)
maybe you could answer a few more questions. 1. Does aim have a full time fundraiser on their staff? 2. does aim hold fundraiseing events? if so, when is the nest one. 3. who are any other industry leaders that participate on a regular basis with aims programs?(or do any other industry leaders regularly participate with aim?) 4. Why has the industry taken no steps simce the events of last april to increase the frequency and types of tests?
I would think it would be pretty easy to get performers in the industry to participate in fundraisers to help cover the costs of tests, vaccinations, and medications.
From what i've seen aim does a good job, but with the current political climate the industry needs to do more to have even the slightest chance of surviving the new standards osha may place on them. AIM is the only thing the industry offers in the form of healthcare. Simply testing people once a month for hiv ,gonnorea and chlamydia will never be sufficient to ward off the regulators.
You've done great things along with nina and sharon but its just my opinion that more needs to be done. MOre people in the industry need to stand up and be accountalble.
You may be tottally right that the intentions of the regulators is not healthcare, but the destruction of the porn industry. If this truley is the battle that is being waged, the industry needs more ammunition than just monthly testing. Even if the regulators arent interested in seeing what steps the industry has taken to make it safer doesnt mean that you shouldnt take those steps. Nevada brothel workers get tested every week and use condoms.
Your're obvioulsy a good man ernst, and i wish you the best of luck.
First to Ernest, thanks for your answer, hopefully some more producers draw reasonable conclusions therefrom. Maybe a union of 'caring companies' could accomplish their own regulatory body, it won't solve all problems but it may improve conditions for the majority of performers and help to minimize STD transmission risks. Building up a reputation under their own 'logo' could even lead to financial gains in the distant future.
to valjean4876, Who said I had you in mind when I made that comment? But that you feel addressed speaks volumes. BTW, what is your position on the topic (apart from your surprising encouragement to shelter "no-brainers" )?
And now we have the very point. Why is it very difficult ? Why isn't there a Adult Industry MPAA?
The fact that there were no pre-reactive actions, boils down to sheer incompetence, unwillingness and firm believing that nobody would touch such a "dirty" issue like porn.
Oh yes, some studios - kudos to them - do or did something. Ever vented that there is an 'ethical' Adult Industry on Letterman, Larry King, etc., not some shows only the peer group notices.
People are surprised this did happen? Anybody ever read Sun-Tzu or heard of Murphy? ROTFLMAOSTC.
I mean, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist to anticipate this. It had to be expected such a thing was in the pipeline.
BTW, anyone in the armed forces here? You of course know, what every man and woman has: excuses and ****oles; and that difficulties do not exist; incompetent people and - in consequence - failure, defeat and death exists.
If there is no AIMPAA, start it now, or even better have had it started yesterday.
No, Zartyr shut up now, these are things any 2-day Marine or recruit thinks of, but a multi-(m/b)illion-$-industry has of course it's white collar smartasses from Yale and Harvard, extensively trained in marketing and public relations, who know things much better.
If a similar thing happened to any other industry I'm sure anyone on this board would laugh his ass off on the failure, inexistance or incompetence in industry-wide PR and lobbying.
Thanks for the kind words, Whooya. Never expected. Always appreciated.
To your questions: 1. Does aim have a full time fundraiser on their staff?
No. One of the constant problems of non-profit organizations is administrative costs that cut into funds needed for basic services. We run as lean as we can in terms of staffing to make sure we can afford the work we do.
2. does aim hold fundraiseing events? if so, when is the nest one.
Not as many as we used to. We've discovered that fund-raisers generally don't net much after expenses and they take time away from more important things. We have booths at AdultEx, Erotica LA and other industry events, and we often manage at least one fund-raiser in Vegas during the show. I'll let you know if we're going to this year.
3. who are any other industry leaders that participate on a regular basis with aims programs?(or do any other industry leaders regularly participate with aim?)
Not sure I know what you mean by participate in this sense. We are in constant contact with company owners to answer questions and help with harm-reduction programs. For example, some companies have recently gone to twice-monthly testing, with the company paying for the additional test and we've helped them set up new monitoriing systems for their players. We also provide access to updated testing info through our LabDat data-base. And the producers certainly stay in touch to let us know what's on their minds.
4. Why has the industry taken no steps simce the events of last april to increase the frequency and types of tests?
I think this is an overgeneralization. Different companies have responded in different ways. Some have chosen to go all-condom (admittedly not many) or at least to tolerate them. Others have upped the testing frequency, as I mentioned. I suspect that some companies are re-evaluating certain lines to cut back on the most unsafe practices.
At AIM, we're now offering ongoing STD prevention education at monthly meetings, providing help to companies that want to write IIPPs and we're in the process of creating our own list of suggested risk-reduction practices that encompasses many of the proposed standards in the findings of the Assembly's investigative committee. Whether this will result in the adoption of new standards industry-wide is hard to predict.
As to the creation of an organization with the ability to impose and enforce such standards within the industry, I think it's sensible, but I am skeptical about its prospects. Unlike mainstream entertainment, porn is not controlled by a handful of large companies that can agree on a common set of rules and procedures.
There are literally hundreds of micro-producers in the market in addition to the dozens of well-known manufacturers you read about here every day. Getting consensus among bitter competitors on this scale is daunting. Not impossible, just very difficult.
Not only is there direct economic competition between producers, there are genuine differences of opinion regarding what should and shouldn't be done. Not all of those differences are matters of cynical expediency either. There are sensible arguments for a number of different approaches.
The one thing I agree we should not do is pretend we don't have a problem and go on as usual. I've been saying that for a long, long time. If anybody is finally listening, I'm glad.
If, after using all practical engineering and work practice controls, workers are still exposed to hazards, employers must provide, and ensure employees use, appropriate personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment can include:
This is loaded. How can someone private property rented by the studios or directors up in the California Hills where I believe plenty of porn is filmed be considered a work place? Or even the warehouse of some studio? I tend to believe that those place are not registered as place of business and the OSHA rules don't apply, plus the "actors" getting paid cash money for work would not appear as a regular tax paying worker working under OSHA rules.
If this were true, every company in California would use "private property" and pay their workers under the table to avoid both the Cal/OSHA and the IRS. A workplace is considered anywhere where any business activity takes place, not a "registered" place of business.
And regardless of whether a producer treats the performer as a contractor or an employee, both the producer and performer pay taxes.
If a homeowner hires a professional floor refinishing company, to come and repaint their hardwood floors, and the refinisher uses certain types of polyurethane paints that are regulated by OSHA rules, the rules have to be followed with regard to safe handling of the paint. it doesn't matter that they are being used in a private home, as opposed to being used in an office building.
Making a porn film is going to be considered commercial activity; there's no way to define it as private behavior between individuals. It's being done to produce a product that will be marketed for sale.
If this were true, every company in California would use "private property" and pay their workers under the table to avoid both the Cal/OSHA and the IRS. A workplace is considered anywhere where any business activity takes place, not a "registered" place of business.
And regardless of whether a producer treats the performer as a contractor or an employee, both the producer and performer pay taxes.
With that in mind I guess any street corner in California is a workplace when a prostitute offer her service and gives some guy a blow or fuck him in the back of a minivan then. Or if you anyone calls up an escort service to their house for some prime action then it also become a place of business.
