According to Maryn McKenna, author and expert on infectious diseases, gonorrhea is quickly approaching “Superbug” status. Meaning that there may not be a way to cure it in the near future.
Testing and Condoms: Straight Porn vs. Gay Porn
As I continue to research the issue of Ballot Measure B, the “Condoms in Porn” law, it became apparent that we have a divided industry. Actually it is more like two separate and distinct industries. We share common interests. We often share the same distribution channels and profit streams. There are now even companies that produce both gay and straight content ( ie., Naughty America-> http://www.suite703.com/ and Manwin-> http://www.men.com/ ). San Francisco and Los Angeles lie only 382 miles from each other but they might as well be on different coasts. When it comes to the issues of testing and condoms we could not be any more different or diametrically opposed.
The straight industry tests and doesn’t usually use condoms. The gay industry rarely tests and usually uses condoms, though in recent years even the use of condoms in gay porn is diminishing while testing is increasing. For performers in the gay community the issue of HIV status is treated as a closely guarded secret while in the straight industry test results are passed out like candy at a five year old’s birthday party.
In the straight industry if a performer is HIV+ there simply is no work for them. According to an article in Out Magazine, according to Michael Stabile, then Marketing Director for NakedSword.com, it was estimated that nearly 50% of all performers in gay porn are HIV+ ( Please see: http://www.out.com/entertainment/2007/07/23/baring-truth?page=0,1 ). A survey by TheSword.com of 100 gay male performers put that estimate closer to a 30% HIV+ rate (Please see: http://www.advocate.com/health/2009/08/12/business-pleasure?page=0,1 ).
Kent Taylor of Raging Stallion Studio claims;
“We don’t currently ask [about HIV status]. We assume everyone is [HIV-positive], and if they say they are not, we assume they are lying.”
Michael Lucas, owner of Lucas Entertainment, does not believe that HIV status should be discussed in polite circles ( Please see: http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/09/27/oped-live-world-where-everyone-has-hiv )
“I’m in favor of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Not in the military, of course — those days are behind us — but in the bedroom. What I’m talking about, specifically, is HIV. And my point is that, at least when it comes to sex, we should talk about it less.”
So in gay porn it is a matter of not testing and/or not sharing of HIV status and just simply using a condom to protect the performers. However, do condoms really protect the performers ? Does less than complete adherence to condom use even in a performer’s private sexual life keep them safe ? According to Stabile ( Please see: http://www.out.com/entertainment/2007/07/23/baring-truth?page=0,1 );
I’ve talked to some of them [gay male performers], and they say, ‘The only time I ever have sex with a condom is on-screen.’
Therefore, if some gay performers are only using condoms on set and not in their personal lives and not testing, it is impossible to know actually how many HIV transmissions are occurring on gay sets. Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is not concerned with performer health and safety in the gay industry because according to a statement he made to this author at a September 17, 2012 press conference “the majority of gay porn is made with condoms.” His belief is that condoms protect.
This opinion is echoed by Michael Lucas;
“In fact, it’s hard to get HIV even from sex — as long as you use a condom. I dated a positive guy for two years in the 1990s; we had safe sex almost every day, and I never seroconverted. Today, it is even more difficult to become infected through protected sex. Recent studies suggest that HIV-positive men who are taking their medications pose a vastly reduced risk of transmitting the virus.”
Obviously there is a school of thought in the gay porn production community that test results do not really mean much if you are using a condom. Most gay studios only use condoms for anal sex. Rarely are they used for oral sex. Condoms may protect from HIV but they do not protect from oral chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and herpes if they are not being used. How many gay performers have contracted chlamydia, gonnorhea and HPV of the throat or herpes simplex 2 around their mouths ? Without testing there is simply no way to know. And therefore Michael Weinstein’s belief that gay performers are some how better protected from STIs because they use a condom for anal sex is terribly flawed logic.
In straight porn there is almost no one that will work with a known HIV+ positive performer with or without a condom. Matter of fact, the way the FSC/APHSS testing system works is to flag a performer that tests positive for HIV. The database will indicate that they are not cleared to work. At that point the straight industry would undergo a complete shut down of production until a full tree of potential exposures could be established and all performers that had been exposed re-tested. Any positive performers would then be re-tested again to confirm their status. This is a completely different from the gay industry that almost assumes all performers are HIV+.
According to many producers in straight porn, mandatory condoms would decimate the industry in Los Angeles. According to producers in gay porn, mandatory testing would decimate the industry in San Francisco ( Please see: http://www.advocate.com/health/2009/08/12/business-pleasure?page=0,1 ).
So how does an industry divided rectify this situation and come together to be united ? Can that even be achieved ? Can there be common ground reached to ensure profits while maintaining worker safety and participation ? The issues of government mandated condoms or industry mandated testing must be discussed openly. As more performers cross in-between both sides of the industry this topic will only become more heated and divisive if not handled properly.
The Occupational Dangers of Being a Pornstar…
Prior to becoming an adult entertainment attorney I was an employment and workers’ compensation attorney. I have probably handled over 3000 cases for both injured workers and employers. I have represented numerous employers including Fortune 500 aerospace defense contractors, major movie studios, hospitals, the Dodgers, LAPD, LAFD and the Los Angeles Unified School District.
I have represented workers with injuries ranging from simple knee sprains to amputated fingers, back injuries, liver failure and even work related death claims.
I have personally examined chemical plants, manufacturing companies and aerospace companies for safety violations and work place health issues.
Cal-OSHA, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Michael Weinstein would like you to believe that the straight adult entertainment industry in Los Angeles is nothing more than a disease filled cesspool of STIs and HIV. Cal-OSHA would like to treat semen as a hazardous material that any exposure to does results in an injury that requires immediate treatment. They would also like you to believe that all other industries are compliant with Cal-OSHA regulations and are clean and safe work environments. I can assure you that all of those assumptions are flawed.
The only way you can truly understand how dangerous being a pornstar is by looking to other industries’ injury rates for comparison purposes. In the last eight years I only know of one death that can be called work related since it occurred at the studio of a production company ( Please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/swordwielding-attacker-ki_n_597599.html ). That incident involved one performer killing another performer and injuring two others. However, it was not related to condom use or barrier protection.
According to California’s Department of Industrial Relations there were 360 total work related deaths in 2011. The adult entertainment industry had no fatalities on-set in 2011. ( Please see: 2011CaliforniaFatalInjuries ). For 2012, I am unaware of any on-set fatalities as well. Through-out the history of the industry many pornstars and performers have met their untimely demise either from traffic accidents, overdosing on drugs, suicide and murder. However those deaths cannot be listed as work related deaths.
As for non-fatal injuries in 2010 (the 2011 study has not been release yet ), according to the Department of Industrial Relations there were a total of 14,255,000 Californians employed who reported a total of 464,100 work related injuries. The average incident rate for all employees in all industries was 4.2 injuries for every 100 workers in California ( Please see: 2010CaliforniaNonFatalInjuries )
If the industry employed an estimated 7500 on-set content production workers ( performers, videographers, photographers, lighting, production assistants, makeup artists ect ) in the year 2010 that means there should have been 315 significant on-set physical injuries or STI exposures in 2010 based on the average for all workers in the state of California ( Please see: 2010CaliforniaIncidentRates ). The highest injury incident rates were reported in law enforcement (12.2 injuries for every 100 employees) and the least dangerous industry in the report was Data processing, hosting, and related services (less then 1 injury for every 100 employees).
This is where the statistics become confusing. According to the United States Department of Labor, the flu and the common cold are expressly not included in their data for work related injuries ( Please see: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9636 ). This is despite the fact that many workers are in fact infected by a contagious co-worker. Anyone that has worked in an office environment knows how fast the flu can spread through an entire office staff. From a work injury perspective though it would be almost impossible to prove such infection was indeed caused by work or acquired from a co-worker. It really comes down to a matter of proof. How could an office worker conclusively prove that the flu contracted at work was from a co-worker and not from a spouse, child, friend or contracted in a non-work environment. Unless, of course, it was a rare strain of the influenza virus.
For example, let’s say Bob and Mary are co-workers. They are also a dating. Both Bob and Mary come down with the flu. Bob reports to his employer that he caught the flu at work from Mary and wants to file a workers compensation claim so he can receive medical treatment. Do you believe that he caught it from Mary at work ? I can assure you that his claim will be denied as being work related.
In the adult industry we face the same issues in regards to chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and possibly herpes. The HIV virus, hepatitis B and syphilis are different since these infections are much more rare and can be tracked to a Patient Zero. Since all of the performers in porn have sex off set in their personal life with other performers or civilians (those that don’t work in porn) it would be nearly impossible to prove that a performer that tested positive for chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and/or herpes actually contracted it on set. As a matter of law, it is my belief that a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board administrative law judge would find against a performer attempting to claim that chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and/or herpes to be a work related injury. Unless they can conclusively prove that the only exposure occurred on-set, which is unlikely.
Therefore, removing chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and herpes from the potential list of work related injuries that one can suffer on set, the adult industry might have lower than average work related injury rates. In 2010, we should have had an estimated 315 total work related injuries, physical and sexual STI injuries. It is impossible to know with certainty the actual number of 2010 work related physical injuries that occurred in adult entertainment since we are combined with other entertainment industries such as television and film for reporting purposes. However, Ballot Measure B will do nothing to alleviate any possible physical injury on set. Its only focus is on barrier protections to stop the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.
Thus we are left to examine what evidence we do have about on-set sexual disease transmission that would be work related. The only evidence of a potential work related injury that may have occurred on an adult set in 2010 was a possible HIV transmission. There were no known reported syphilis or hepatitis cases in the industry in 2010. Therefore we are left with just one possible injury related to on set transmission.
That person is Derrick Burts. The same Derrick Burts that AHF is using to campaign for condoms in porn. How Derrick Burts contracted HIV is still a mystery. Burts was not only a male performer in the straight industry, he was also a male performer in the gay industry. He also admitted to placing an escort ad on a gay prostitute website to service male clients. However, he denied actually ever seeing any male clients. ( Please see: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/10/hiv-positive-porn-star-derrick-burts-gay-for-pay.html )
Despite Burts being HIV+ no female performers contracted HIV from him nor did any test positive that many have given it to him. However, he may have contracted it on a gay set in Florida. His exposure was tracked to a gay scene. He had performed in a gay movie with a known HIV+ male actor ( Please see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/derrick-burts-hiv-in-pornography-the-naked-truth-2167532.html )
Thus, since AHF and Weinstein’s focus with “condoms in porn” is only on the straight side of the industry it would safe to conclude that Derrick Burts HIV was not a straight porn industrial injury rather one that occurred either in his private life, as a gay male escort or on a gay set. Therefore, once removed, there were no significant on-set transmissions of traceable industrial exposures to HIV, hepatitis or syphilis in 2010.
In 2011 there was one known false positive for an HIV transmission, no known reported syphilis or hepatitis B infections ( Please see: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/hiv-scare-that-led-to-porn-industry-shutdown-a-false-alarm.html ). And in 2012 there was only nine known reported performers that contracted syphilis on set ( Please see: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57498370-10391704/health-officials-9-syphilis-cases-in-la-porn-industry-outbreak-more-expected/ ). I am unaware that any additional cases of syphilis have been found in the last month. Therefore, it is likely that the number of industrial exposures will be limited to nine.
Without a comprehensive study into all work related injuries suffered on an adult entertainment set, physical and STIs, it is difficult as best and impossible at worst to fully understand to have a complete picture of industrial injuries and exposures on set employees might suffer. However, comparing the number of potentially life threatening on-set transmissions compared to the number of scenes shot in Los Angeles since 2004 (the last know HIV transmission on-set) the actual threat of a work related transmission is relatively minor and/or non-existent (again excluding common STIs that could not be conclusively proven to have occurred on set).
AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s support for Ballot Measure B is understandable. It is also understandable that an organization that provides HIV counseling, treatment and prevention measures does not truly understand California employment or workers’ compensation law. From a worker health and safety standpoint, Ballot Measure B is simply overkill. The industry has remained relatively free of life threatening infections for the past eight years.
The mainstream equivalent would be a ballot measure requiring all office workers in the state of California to wear face masks to prevent the transmission and spread of the cold or flu at work. It makes perfect sense but is it necessary. Would you want this to be you ?
Performers, Producers & Escorts: Naked in Public? Register as a Sex Offender!
As part of the ABL’s campaign to educate California voters on Proposition 35 here is a video excerpt from Mr. Francisco Lobaco from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) addressing the California Legislature about his concerns how Prop 35 will infringe upon anonymous free speech on the Internet.
Under Proposition 35, anyone convicted of even a minor crime such as indecent exposure, even decades ago, will now be required to register as a sex offender. And as a register sex offender under Proposition 35, that person will now have to inform law enforcement of any name or alias they use in any online discussion group or social media platform within 24 hours of creating such account.
Failure to do so will be either a felony or misdemeanor – depending on what their underlying crime was which required them to register as a sex offender.
Which means if you are a performer or producer, you have to be very aware of the indecent exposure statutes especially if you produce anything outside in public. Sex/nudity in public can be indecent exposure. If caught you could end up as a registered sex offender and be required to tell the police of every screen name and alias you use on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, FOREVER. If Proposition 35 passes you are going to be treated like a child molester. And according to Mr. Lobaco this might even apply to those that were convicted of or even plead guilty to indecent exposure years ago.
Returning to Work ? Somethings You Should Know…
September 3, 2012, Labor Day, ironically, is the day that the FSC/APHSS has determined to be the best day to return adult performers to a regular production schedule, a mere 10 days after receiving a prophylactic antibiotic shot to hopefully cure the syphilis outbreak in the industry. Now that the moratorium on production has been lifted, be safe and here’s some facts that you should know before you head off to set;
- There are 9 performers in adult confirmed positive for syphilis as of today;
- Syphilis may take up to 90 days to detect through testing with the average range being 21 days;
- Once you test positive for syphilis you may always test positive for syphilis;
- If you are receiving your test results through APHSS you may not know that you are working with another performer that previously tested positive for syphilis – the APHSS database only tells you whether someone is “cleared” to work;
- There is a disagreement between APHSS and TTS as to the proper test to use to detect syphilis;
- APHSS states that their required and mandatory re-test can detect syphilis at 14 days while TTS states two tests are necessary to detect it this quickly.
- Only 300 performers opted to take the antibiotic shot;
- Despite the moratorium on production, there were some production companies and agents that continued to book scenes;
- Some performers continued to escort during the moratorium;
- Condoms may not protect you from catching or spreading syphilis;
- Treatment for syphilis may make birth control pills ineffective;
- Often those with syphilis do not show any symptoms of the disease;
- In the primary and secondary stages syphilis is very contagious;
- If a performer’s off camera sex partner(s) were not treated it is possible to reinfect those that were treated;
- An antibiotic shot is not a vaccine and a performer can be reinfected quite easily;
- If you catch syphilis, receive treatment and then get reinfected it will require 1 shot a week for 3 weeks to cure it;
- Having an open syphilis sore makes it 2 to 5 times more likely that you can transmit/contract HIV during sex.
If there are any facts I have let off this list please feel free to add a comment to this article and I will add them to the list.
AdultBizLaw.com 