Shane Diesel

The presumption being that since he is still with Jessica, that the two of them still have sex (presumably with a condom, etc) but this still risky/unethical/unprofessional, and that he really should move behind the camera instead.

Apparently, Luke has something on the situation on his webpage.

[Link]

Ashley Blue posted this on the other board:

[Link]

It is quite possible for Shane to remain with his girlfriend -- quite commendable, in fact -- and still essentially guarantee that he, himself, and others with whom he works, are kept from risk.

He certainly should explain the situation to the producers, directors and partners with whom he works. And he should certainly make available all pertinent medical records to the proper medical testing facilities.

For the rest of us, it seems to me that it's none of our business.

~ GaySatyr (ABB)

[Link]

The beef here is that the female talent are not being told that Shane is involved in an intimate way with a known hiv positive woman. They have no clue that he may be taking risks larger than any other member of the male talent pool.

That's it in a nutshell. I have two private emails from female talent who may have acted differently had they known. No one bothered to connect the dots for them.

At least now, between here and the other sites these women have a little more information.

[Link]

The level of ignorance about HIV and AIDS amongst performers is staggering – nearly as bad as the ignorance in the general population – and it's not out of the question that Shane might believe that if he's careful to use a condom he's protected. And even if he understands and accepts the risk it's not clear the other performers are willing to accept that that same level of risk.

The fundamental basis of the strategy to avoid HIV in the US straight porn industry can be summed up as “If all of your partners, and all of their partners, etc, are HIV-, then you can't be infected”. In other words, it's not what you do, but rather who you do it with. God does not smite the wicked with AIDS as the religious kooks sometimes suggest: people get HIV from another HIV+ person.

Somebody will see Shane at a shoot next week or just give him a call. Or perhaps he'll just call Luke himself. Either way more information will appear in a few days at most. Then we'll see if the other performers believe their level of contact & risk is safe enough (and if the claims of risk avoidance are believed in the first place).

[Link]

The responsible thing for a performer with an HIV+ partner who's working in an area of the sex industry where he has unprotected sex on a daily basis with others is to retire from that facet of the industry. Period.

Anything other than that I would consider to be incredibly self-centered & irresponsible. I would certainly never knowingly hire a performer bringing such health concerns to the set, nor ask anyone else to perform with them. That would make ME selfish & irresponsible, as well.

[Link]

Isn't it an open secret that many of straight porn's male performers are in fact gay or at least bi-sexual in their personal lives? Certainly I've heard more than one industry insider make (usually snide) remarks to that effect.

If this is the case, is it not reasonable to assume that at least some of these men are engaging in (hopefully barrier protected) sex acts within a population that has an elevated insidence of HIV. As jrv points out, condoms are mitigation, not protection; and the risk of HIV tranmission from anus to penis is significantly greater than from vagina to penis.

(Of course we dismiss the risks associated with any and all off-screen promiscuous heterosexual activity. This is akin to the fact that everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac, everyone who drives slower than me (not many of them) is an idiot.)

To me, whole morrass (of which Mr. Diesel is only the latest chapter) speaks to the difficulty of truly understanding risk, and then acting appropriately. A gay man who can bring the wood will be tolerated because he might be having sex with HIV+ partners. There is a hue and cry over Mr. Diesel because he is known to be .

Symantically these are different, cognitively they are different, but from the standpoint of the risks associated with the testing regime, they are both manefestations of the same thing: "the industry" cannot control, or even know about what performers do on their own time, some performers are going to do things that put them at a higher risk for contracting HIV, some performers are going to contract HIV, and testing cannot possibly detect every case of HIV before there is a risk off on-set trasmission. Regardless of what papers are exchanged before hand, scene partners are ultimately putting their trust in each other. And the performers, not directors, producers, or viewers, are the ones who will pay the price if that trust is misplaced.

Edited by - TonyC on 11/5/2005 8:38:58 AM

[Link]

That was the problem with Darren James. He took a test after returning from Brazil (where he apparently contracted HIV), but it didn't show up until his second test 3 weeks later.

Also, don't think for one second that the "some sort of new test" that you mentioned isn't something that researchers haven't been working on for years. If someone could come up with a test like this that could be used by people outside of a doctor's office, provided immediate results and is reasonably priced, whoever owned that patent would quickly become a billionaire.

[Link]

Those that do figures for the PCR tast rate the PCR test as 95% confindent after 28 days. In other words, even with monthly screening, the PCR test will fail to detect HIV infection in 1 out of every 20 cases.

[Link]

-Having regular sex with a known HIV infected partner WILL increase your risk of contracting regardless of precautions.

-You have "NO RIGHT" to increase your co-workers risk, regardless of political correctness or being "nice"

-standing by your lady through her time of need is extremely commendable, BUT, do not involve others.

-In fact it's stupid that this even needs to be a discussion at all. There should be no question, Lives before Livelyhood.

www.alexandrabelle.com / www.lance-strong.com

Edited by - lance on 11/5/2005 3:08:10 PM

[Link]

That was the problem with Darren James. He took a test after returning from Brazil (where he apparently contracted HIV), but it didn't show up until his second test 3 weeks later.

[/quote]
this is why i am unsettled at the RATE of which product is filmed/rushed to market. cant porn producers SLOW the flow just a bit to insure a decent time interval within which to assimilate all of the actors' tests versus work schedules ???
Porn actors/actresses' work cards in some cases have them booked DAILY for weeks at a time, what if last weeks work was done under the assumption that the tests were all clear, but now a week later, new tests taken indicate a positive, ie, now does the previous weeks' work done by the actor have to be assumed to have possibly been done under a false ( UNKNOWINGLY !)negtive test result ?!
Hence my question/point: WHY cant the porn biz SLOW the hell down ??

if " Hellcats 8" was just released 2 WEEKS ago, does " Hellcats 9" HAVE to come out in December ??????

[Link]

The moment that someone had sex with anyone else, they would need to enter that 28 day quarantine period again. Not only is this impractical from a production point of view, it would also cause performers to go broke.

[Link]

Edited by - barrettman on 11/5/2005 7:17:37 PM

[Link]

If you do anything less than what I described above, then your methodology doesn't work.

[Link]

Yes, that the couple takes every precaution to be safe matters, but how much is the risk still increased? The little I know about HIV has kissing being a very low risk thing, but now you get hot and heavy with plenty of spit swapping. How about the considerations of him eating her out and other oral sex concerns. Like Lance said, condoms aren't 100%.

I have to agree with DAC when he said "The responsible thing for a performer with an HIV+ partner who's working in an area of the sex industry where he has unprotected sex on a daily basis with others is to retire from that facet of the industry. Period. ". I'd also take it a few steps further. I see nothing wrong with weekly tests being required for somebody in Shane's alleged situation. Like was pointed out earlier, it took three weeks for Darren's status to be detected. I also think that performers working with somebody in Shane's alleged situation should sign a waiver stating that they do know about their partner's situation and trust both him and the company they're working for harmless if something does happen.

For a final thought, look at what OSHA and the governmental beauracracy did with Darren, and that was a stupid accident. Now thik of what they'd do and what they'd have the public pressure to do if somebody was infected by somebody who was known to have regular sex with an HIV+ partner...

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

Are intraveinous drugs cool, as long as you don't share needles?

Is unprotected sex with an PCR- partner cool, as long as you know your partner isn't having unprotected sex with people of unknown PCR status?

Does AIM or anyone else provide guidence as to what constitutes ethical behaivior?

[Link]

And no, as far as I know -- & considering my place in the industry, if I don't know about it, it sure isn't being put out there -- there has never been any actual attempt at drafting a statement of ethical standards for performers. Such a document would be, in fact, long overdue, & with the absence of any sort of performers' organization or group, I think it would fall on AIM to take the lead here. Can you hear me, Dr. Mitchell?

Of course, that the very term "ethical" would be foreign to most producers, agents & quite a few performers might be a stumbling block ...

[Link]

If he were to infect someone, I believe in some states that would be considered a crime would it not?

[Link]

Because this entire "INDUSTRY" is so fragmented with no organization at all, it sems that all of these types of situations get laid at AIM's footsteps. Talent comes and goes on a regular basis but the producers and direcors are here for the long haul. They are the ones who HIRE the talent. Some if not most or all of the responsibility lies with them,(and the talent themselves) not SHaron Mitchell. She is just there to clean up the mess that this unorganized, i dont give ashit INDUSTRY leaves in its wake.

DAC, i applaud you for stating that you would never use this guy, and more producers/direcors need to follow you 'lead' This is an issue that should be at your doorstep, and you (producers and directors) should 'take the lead.' AIM is not an enfocement agency. The only ones who can enforce anytype of "rules" are the people who pay the talent and that is the producers and direcors, because we all know that in this industry money is more important than anything else, including the spread of HIV.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The fact that some people still hire this guy is proof positive of that!!!!!!!!

Why shouldnt there be a statement of ethical standards for PRODUCERS AND DIRECTORS? After all, the only reason this guy is still working is because they keep hiring him, and thus incresing the risk for the entire talent pool. And yes, i know, using the term ethical standards when reffering to the adult industry is pretty far out there.

Edited by - swifty on 11/7/2005 2:26:11 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Zartyr on 11/7/2005 4:47:13 PM

[Link]

Post deleted by swifty because of possible inaccurate information. My apologies.

Edited by - swifty on 11/7/2005 5:43:02 PM

Edited by - swifty on 11/7/2005 5:44:59 PM

[Link]

www.alexandrabelle.com / www.lance-strong.com

[Link]

I know that you must know Shane. Do you, then, think he should be working? & under what circumstances? Should the talent he's going to be in a scene with be informed when they're booked as to his status? When they show up to the set? After the pop? Never?

& on another note, is Shane doing creampie scenes?

I'm not trying to demonize him. I don't know Shane, but I've been told over the last couple of years that he's a very nice guy by more than one person whose opinion I respect. But this is a health issue, it has nothing to do with "nice."

[Link]

Not to say I disagree with you, because I agree, but until porn has some form of "rules at the top" then mavericks will continue to do whatever they want. I guess this means that porn will either have to find some way to police itself, or eventually the Feds will step in and do it for you..

[Link]

I didn't mean to say that I don't care what everybody does in their private life. I wanted to end the discussion about wheater AIM and Sharon Mitchell should get involved or not. It's not their business, it's up to Shane to make an official statement.
I wish somebody could find out about this and in case it was true could make something happen but nobody can do this and nobody will unfortunalety. I don't know Shane personally and I guess he is a nice guy. If it is not true then he has nothing to hide but if it's true then we, his co workers, have the right to be informed.
I spoke on the phone with him earlier this year but our conversation - let me put it this way - left me very unsatisfied. I do believe that the time is right to let evrybody know what is going on so they know before the scene what they are dealing with. Like I said before a good friend of mine found out after the scene and was totally devastated.

Edited by - katjakassin on 11/8/2005 12:15:59 AM

[Link]

If and when a performer tests positive, by virtue of said performer having signed a release before taking the test, we can and do inform the entire industry through our Web site, via Lab-DAT and through immediate phone and e-mail contact.

However, until a performer tests positive, whatever our concerns or suspicions about his or her personal life might be, we are legally bound to keep them to ourselves. Medical confidentiality, except in the specific instance of positive tests for which the testing party has granted us the right to trace contacts and give out information, prevails by law over whatever we may have heard from a third-party source.

It's not our job to police the private lives of performers, and that's a good thing because we wouldn't want that job and couldn't possibly do it. There's no way to monitor people's off-set behavior.

Now, would we give advice if asked? You bet. We would advise anyone that having sex with someone who is HIV+ is certainly higher risk , despite whatever precautions are taken, than doing so with an uninfected partner. Am I personally comfortable with the idea of anyone with an HIV+ partner having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV-, on camera or anywhere else for that matter? No, I'm not. I think it's a very bad idea.

Would any attempt by AIM, production companies, other performers or any governmental agency prevent this from happening? Clearly, it would not. Nobody can stop anybody from having sex with anybody else if the individuals involved are determined to proceed. That is a lesson many in our society simply refuse to learn, hence the bullshit of so-called "abstinence-only" "sex education," which results neither in abstinence nor in education.

Once again, this is a matter of personal responsibility. I know some people in this industry keep hoping for a big daddy to come along and protect them all, but that simply cannot happen where human beings making human choices are involved.

This is also a reason why even the very finest testing protocols, which we're fortunate to have in our industry, are not foolproof. Nothing in this world is proof against foolishness beyond a certain point.

It's up to individual performers to accept responsibility for their own actions and to concern themselves with the choices of those who do not.

Whatever we all may think about the situation under discussion here, only those directly party to it have any power to affect the ultimate outcome.

For that very reason, I would appeal to anyone facing such decisions to make them with extreme care. The cost of a wrong move, as we have already seen, can be catastrophic.

[Link]

What has been suggested Lance and others is that performers have an ethical responsibility to their scene partners that goes beyond showing up on set with a negative PCR test less than 30 days old.

I'm sure was all can agree that it is unreasonable to expect performers to be celibate off camera; aside from their personal sex lives some performers depend on prostitution for income.

I'm sure we can also agree that given the inherent weaknesses in the industry's testing protocols, engaging in unprotected receptive anal intercourse with an HIV+ partner in one's off-screen life would subject one's scene partners to an unreasonable level of risk.

Might there, between these two extremes, lie a point, upon which those who are willing to bear the risk inherent in the industry's HIV testing protocols can agree constitutes reasonably safe and ethically responsible off-screen behavior? And might AIM, which is at the very front lines of the industry's efforts to minimize the impact of HIV, play a roll, not in enforcing such a standard, but to sponsoring and mediating a discussion among performers in the hopes of forming a consensus as to what constitutes responsible and ethical off-screen behavior with respect to potential exposure to HIV. (Indeed, even if AIM was eager and capable of playing "big daddy" how can a standard be enforced if it does not yet exist?)

If such a "performer's code of conduct" were to exist would it have any value? Would it add some additional measure of harm-reduction? I don't know. But at least it would remind performers (whom ultimately and alone suffer the consequences when the system fails) that the industry's HIV testing protocols are not fool proof, and provide some standard against which foolishness can be judged.

Edited by - TonyC on 11/8/2005 2:14:22 PM

[Link]

Tony - I know nobody has come out and suggest AIM play Big Daddy (and personally, I can see Ernest as more of the "Happy Gilmore type ), but I think there were a few comments that were coming darn close to it.

As for something AIM can do, I've heard from several people (Nina Hartley and Veronica Hart being the first to come to mind) about the video AIM puts out to educate anybody who's considering entering the adult industry. I don't know how old the movie is or how often it's updated, but perhaps something like this should be in there...

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

While I'm not at all against a performer's code of conduct per se, though I doubt it would have much impact, AIM could only advise from a medical standpoint in the creation of such standards rather than trying to sponsor their creation. Otherwise, we run the risk of compromising our credibility where it counts - as a medical clinic - by involving ourselves in what would soon amount to a wide range of non-medical issues of which we have no special knowledge and over which we could claim no particular authority.

In the meantime, if you'll check out our site, you'll find that we have posted a list of various occupational risks associated with this industry and described them in some detail. While it may not be the Hammurabic Code, it does form a basis upon which performers can evaluate the hazards of their own behavior and its potential impact on others.

Astroknight, the tape to which you refer, Porn 101, has just been updated with all the latest information, including lessons learned from last spring, and is made available to all incoming performers and any of our clients who wish to see it. We also continue to offer ongoing educational programs concerning industry health issues and to post new information on the site as it becomes available.

In short, the information is there. What people do with it is, as we all seem to agree, ultimately up to them.

[Link]

It's difficult to estimate the number of performers who take advantage of our educational services. We have a general idea how many visit the Web site, and when we hold educational meetings we usually draw about a dozen at a time. But much of our educational function is performed through one-on-one counseling that deals with individual issues as well.

I thing it's safe to say that almost every working performer in the industry has come to AIM for information concerning health and safety at one time or another. This is also true to a surprising extent for producers and directors.

We have detailed, up to the minute data on virtually every subject pertaining to health issues in the industry, and it's all available for free, so there's really no excuse for ignorance. Sad to say, given the questions we do get, ignorance remains shockingly widespread.

You can learn more about AIM, including draw locations, office hours, services offered, etc. at:

http://www.aim-med.org

Edited by - ernestgreene on 11/8/2005 9:45:25 PM

[Link]

I don't think that he should be performing in any way if he is having sex with someone that's got HIV or AIDs, but I keep reading posts every where saying that the female talent isn't being told, or is being told that other male talent is spreading this as a rumor and no one has addressed which story is true.

Only my opinion, but no one should be having sex with Shane until he's tested and Jessica Dee's tested again (maybe we don't know the whole story - false positives do happen) and they reveal if they are or aren't having sex together . Granted, that may be more difficult for him to confess to than if he had AIDs, unfortunately.

I agree with Katja that what they do on their own time is their business, but I also don't happen to believe that since they've both done porn that being together is a total sex romp. It may be good for PR purposes to let people believe that every porn couple is fucking 24/7 (on and off the set) but in reality it's not always the case.

In the mean time, Shane should be told to stay behind the camera or leave the industry until this is all cleared up.

Black and Blue Media: PR and Publicity

[Link]

Not directed at Earnest, but a generalised thought - I'd have thought that Shane would have made some kind of statement by now, via one of the many porn-industry news sources. The story has been floating around here now for 5 days, and longer than that on XPT and Luke's site...

[Link]

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

Interesting... and not in a good way. It's been over a week since this came up here and on XPT.

Not sure when it came up on Luke's site, but I'd imagine it was the same day, since these forums are never too far behind the rumour sites.

I'm surprised that noone has contacted him and gotten a statement out of him yet. I'm sure people have spoken to him by now, but nothing has come of it publically, which doesn't seem too good..

Edited by - scipio on 11/12/2005 5:32:46 AM

[Link]

In an industry where many performers are willing to fly overseas for untested shoots Shane might well actually be low-risk if Jessica is the only contact he has and the circumstances and precautions make it negligible. The point is, that's not judgment he gets to make for everyone else.

Grant Michaels said Shane has not been returning calls (but Grant didn't say if they were Grant's calls or someone else's). Other than that I have not heard anyone else say they've tried to contact Shane.

[Link]

If, as you assert, these untested overseas shoots are commonplace, why is that more acceptable than Shane Diesel's case. Why do these other men get to "make this judgement for everyone else", but Shane does not?

Edited by - TonyC on 11/12/2005 5:30:24 PM

[Link]