AIM says: As of Thursday, March 13, 2003, all performers will be required to carry a full panel test in addition to their PCR-DNA, in order to work. In cooperation with the county health department all testing will be done for a flat fee of $100 up from $85. The testing consists of a blood draw, and a urine sample. As before HIV results will be back in one day, but chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis results will be back in one to two days.
OK, so does this mean that they're NOT testing for anything else (hep. A&B, herpes 2, HPV, trich, etc.)? Also, do ALL distributors/producers require an A-OK from AIM before a shoot? Just wondering.
FastForward: Thank you for reading my site. In the future, could you please credit your source, when you copy something off a site. This story was on http://www.fuckinggossip.com first.
To your question: PCR-DNA is the HIV test, which is already required. Chlamydia and gonorrhea are now tested for every month. Syphilis will be tested bi-yearly. No they are not testing for anything else... yet. AIM is working on getting other test through including hep. And yes, producers/directors do require tests. Many even keep copies of the test, as a record that the test was valid at the time of the shoot.
Just so you guys know there is also a possibility that the state of California will be trying to make condoms mandatory for ALL porn. Sharon Mitchell told AVN "They're will be a distinct possibility of an issue with condoms. I don't think that needs to be addressed right now, I'm trying not to address that right now, because we find know its so important to the economic structure of the industry that we really can't say that it’s a good thing,"
Eddie Tour
Remember, Its just Fucking Gossip http://www.fuckinggossip.com
Hey Eddie, Sorry for not sourcing you properly. On the bright side, if I'd done it that time I would have done it wrong, having gotten that snippet unsourced from setgo.com. Thought Luke wrote it...thanks for clarifying that.
Probably. Not so much government regulation, but definately regulation from Los Angeles County and the state of California...
I think its more than likely that there will be local and state regulations for testing and health inside the adult industry. I think AIM is trying to head them off at the pass and set regulations that are as strict as state regulations are going to be.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Mar 17 2003 : 2:38PM
I see history keeps repeating itself. How and why do you suppose the MPPDA (now MPAA) was brought to life: PR and politics. Question is, is Sharon Mitchell as "politically sound" as Will Hays was?
LA county officials are pushing the state to mandate all condoms, all the time. According to P.J. Huffstutter's 3/13 article:
"Health officials recommended that the Board of Supervisors seek state regulations that would specifically require adult-film actors to use condoms and be tested for a variety of communicable diseases, including HIV and hepatitis."
The best chance the industry has to thwart an all-condom mandate is to screen everyone every month for STDs--not just HIV and hep BUT ALSO herpes and HPV. People tend to blow off the latter as not serious, but it will be a very big deal when someone goes blind after contracting ocular herpes from some cumshot, or when some baby is born blind/dead to someone who insists they got herpes on a set. As it is, such disasters are just waiting to happen.
That's not saying that the two-thirds of performers with herpes should not be allowed to work, just that they use condoms with those who don't have the condition. Yes, this could be a drag, and yes, condoms are imperfect. Still, it's a lot healthier than state-mandated 100 percent condom compliance.
So very true, but few if any studios will heed this advice without some type of coercion (at least by AIM, if not by the county or state of California).
This is interesting...if the state of California came in with a "Condoms only" requirement, I wonder how many studios would head out of state? Red Light's whole company is built on "condom free" sex...would they be hitching up the trailers and moving to Vegas?
[Link]
shameless Deactivated User
Moscow 1313 Posts 1/03
Posted - Mar 17 2003 : 4:24PM
I sure do hope so! Or move over to Europe straight away.
The move for more tests is very good and valuable, I think. Condoms in porn films, however, are not accepatble. And I hope they will never ever be.
Thing is, California's been a uniquely ideal place to do porn ever since the state Supreme Court handed down Freeman nine years ago. Thing is, that decision applies only within the state of California. Other states could still very well say porn was equivalent to prostitution and pandering, and thus illegal.
A condom-only mandate would mean more under the table payment for condom-less Euroversion shots. This would make performers more vulnerable to disease while making it that much harder for Americans to see. The anti-porners would feel better, but no one would win.
Doing nothing while hoping that the whole issue will blow over does nothing other than exposing yourself to the worst that'll happen if the whole issue DOESN'T just go away--and that is a sizable risk. Once governmental regulation limits the industry in order to limit the spread of disease or injury, more stuff will become harder or impossible to find, and there won't be a damn thing anyone can do about it. Only before that happens does the industry have the chance to show that it has come up with a solution far healthier than what the government might impose.
Bisexual Britni voices similar concerns about herpes over at fuckinggossip.com:My point exactly. Of course porn stars with herpes shouldn't be kept from working, but getting herpes whether you want it or not shouldn't be part of the job, either.
Yes, but there have been plenty of porn movies shot in Las Vegas, and plenty shot in Florida as well. So those two states seem to be ones that companies can retreat to, if necessary. Heck, they could probably just move up to Vancouver...
[Link]
shameless Deactivated User
Moscow 1313 Posts 1/03
Posted - Mar 19 2003 : 7:14AM
Moving a company cost a lot of money. Plus there seems to be a lot of established porn-film back-up like talent agencies etc. in California. I think it is not that easy and hope they dont have to do it. But they sure should shout out loud that they move if condoms become mandatory in Calif. Porn is a big biz over there, I heard, so State of Calif might think twice before driving them away. I hope Calif. stays porn-customer friendly, i.e. non-condom in porn films.
you know, im going to have to say that i think its a good idea for the guys to use condoms... better safe than sorry, and im glad AIM is testing for other things, but that doesnt mean that at the end of the day, joe blow (no pun intended) isnt gonna go fuck a hooker (excuse the term) get an STD then bring it to work off the streets, i think condoms are totally cool, and to me if you cant see past latex, you dont ned to watch porn, but thats just me....... i dont want a disease, and neither does anyone else im sure....
Amee Donavan
[Link]
shameless Deactivated User
Moscow 1313 Posts 1/03
Posted - Mar 20 2003 : 10:57AM
I need to watch porn to feel good; and I cannot see past latex. I like latex a lot on a girl as sexy dress, but latex on dick is just killing all heat to me. I do understand health concern; especially of you Amee, who I really adore after you answered so many of my questions, BUT here I have to be selfish. I ask again: Why not test, test, test and test again? Why is testing not enough? Why is condom sex but non-condom facial afterwards more safe?
Posted - Mar 15 2003 : 1:39AM