I've heard the logic of "a test is only good for the day the blood was drawn" argument. It's a copout. With PCR-RNA testing, it is highly unlikely that a male would become infected AND have his viral load become so high within the 30 days that he would be infectious enough to transmit the virus to a sex partner.

You have a question to ask yourself. Is this director guy rationalizing, because he wants to save money and hassle... or is he making these statements because he believes SO genuinely that HIV PCR-RNA tests are such a crock.

In answer to a couple of your questions... unfortunately, there are very little, if any, precedents set for many of your questions. Government branches are writing laws as they go, and your director would be operating in Seattle, not Los Angeles County, so he would be subject to Washington government health branches and their decisions.

Is unprotected oral sex risky? With a person who has a LOW HIV viral count - it is VERY low risk - almost negligable. However, without testing and simply relying on condoms, you would not know that they male didn't have a high HIV viral count. And the higher the count, the more dangerous even a blowjob becomes. The amount of HIV in precum from a male with a high viral load could indeed be enough to infect a sex partner - especially if they had compromised integrity of their gum tissues (from something as simple as brushing their teeth).

On a personal note, I'm not sure if all of your questions should be from a "could we get sued" standpoint. Maybe a couple of them could be from a "could I sleep at night if I financed a project that I suspected was dangerous and someone ended up getting infected?" standpoint.

[Link]

I made my personal position clear. Testing is the only way to determine a persons HIV and other STD status. No one should be required to perform with someone whose status they are unsure of.

My phrasing of questions from a legal standpoint is because of his position, not mine:
"Get some advice from an industry based lawyer about the liability issues regarding studio sponsored HIV testing. Formulate a policy for *your* company and stick to it. That's what I have done and am doing. And until I get credible legal advice to the contrary, I plan to stay the course."

To answer your question regarding the level of activity, this is up to the performers. He does not require protection for oral sex, only condoms for penetration.

Edited by - RobHammer on 3/3/2005 12:54:06 PM

[Link]

First of all, there's nothing that works as well as condoms against STDs, if they are used 100% of the time. If usage drops to 90% of the time, they're basically useless. The only people in porn who use condoms 100% of the time are a small number of people who have exclusive contracts with condom-only companies, and the even smaller number of people who can afford to turn down work if it doesn't involve condoms.

Testing works by catching people who are infected and removing them from the talent pool. This reduces the probability of one performer infecting another performer by reducing the number of people who are infected. It provides no guarantee that any given performer is not infected at any given time. It only reduces the probability.

Christian Mann at Video Team tried condom-only with non-contract performers for a couple of years, but gave up the experiment. Not only was he losing market share with safe-sex videos, but he realized that he wasn't protecting the performers. They were having protected sex on his sets, but then they worked for other companies without condoms. Their condom usage was probably below 50%. So they ran the same risk of infection whether they used condoms on his sets or not.

If a producer is only worried about protecting himself from liability, safe sex is the only effective way. But as Trish points out, that means no facials, not shared toys, etc. If a producer wants to protect the performers, the only effective way, given current conditions in the industry, is testing.

[Link]

If this guy thinks that he can film "safe and responsible sex" scenes to the point that "... the risk a performer takes in working with us is no different from the risk that individual takes in having sex with his/her partner(s) in his/her private life," he's a madman.

Proper testing is the only way to level the playing field and ensure performers that some standard has been met by which they can make their own informed decisions as to what types of sex they are willing to perform with given individuals.
Unfortunately, there are the drug-addicted and, even, name-brand stars turning tricks for $50 (which just happened recently) that would put an entire industry at risk were it not for AIM and regular testing.

I've got to believe that there is enough work available that porn professionals -- both in front of and behind the camera -- should simply refuse to work for companies that refuse to adhere to industry standard testing policies.

<end rant>

[Link]