POLL: Do you Favor or Oppose Mandatory Condom Usage in Porn?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Given the news of the past few days, I thought it would be interesting to find out the industry viewpoint on mandatory condom usage in the porn industry.

Currently, condom usage is the exception rather than the rule.

Please share your opinion and perspective(s) on this issue.

Some interesting reading:

I heard the news while driving home from work: a California porn star tested positive for HIV, resulting in a voluntary industry-wide shutdown. Here we go again, I thought as I waited for the radio announces to cry out for mandatory condom usage in adult films.

It?s an issue that surfaces every other year or so after a news story about an HIV scare in the industry and a topic I have written about in the past, trying to explain why allowing government to get involved in individual?s choices about sex (albeit, sex work) is a very bad idea. To my surprise, the radio announcer made a comment that I think is the right aspect of this story to focus on.

?I?m surprised we don?t hear about porn actors testing positive for HIV more often,? the radio DJ said.

He assumes, like many, that because of the frequency with which adult entertainers engage in sex acts and the variety of partners they generally enjoy that the rates of infection would be higher among porn actors than among the general population. After all, we aren?t surprised when a firefighter gets burned or a shop teacher loses a finger; it sort of goes with the territory.

However, upon investigating the numbers it seems that this assumption is incorrect and perhaps media attention on the few cases of infection that occur among porn actors every few years has skewed our perspectives on the risks.

A porn star contracting HIV is perhaps a little something like a plane crash; the fatality rate of fliers is quite low compared with number of drivers who perish on our nation?s highways every year, yet the media attention associated with each and every plane crash contributes to many people?s feeling that flying is far riskier than driving.

While the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is certainly greater for porn actors, it is part of the deal when they make the decision to go into the industry.

So, does this increased risk actually result in increased incidences? According to the radio DJ and many observers outside of the porn industry, it seems intuitive that infection rates are higher. However, when we look at the numbers it seems that rates of HIV among adult film actors is not higher than the general population. Not by a long shot.

The rate of HIV infection among the general population from my unscientific analysis, is roughly comparable, if not greater ? than it is among the licensed adult film actors working in California. According to CDC data from 2009 (the most recent available) there were 48,100 new cases.

If there are 305 million people living in the US, that means that about 0.0016 percent of the popoulation contracted HIV in 2009. While the numbers for adult film actors are tougher to nail down, we can use the data provided by the Adult Industry Medical Center (AIM), which serviced most of the licensed adult actors in the L.A. area and was required by law to report any positive cases of HIV to the to L.A. County Health Department within seven days.

According to AIM?s reports, there have been only a handful of HIV infections in the adult entertainment community in the last decade. In the first five years AIM operated, there wasn?t a single case of HIV infection among LA area porn actors until 2004 when porn actor Darren James contracted HIV and spread it to four other actors. It was six years until another incidence of HIV in the porn industry would become public ? one actor tested positive.

Add that to this latest case and there have only been around seven cases of porn actors contracting HIV in more than a decade; an average of less than one person a year. This means that the rate of HIV infection among the LA porn population is somewhere around 0.0007% of the population versus the general population?s 0.0016%.

How could this be? Well, my analysis is certainly not definitive and there could be a selection bias among the actors who sought care at AIM (all licensed actors are required to get monthly STI tests): it could simply be that, unlike the general population, adult film actors are extra careful about their sexual health. After all, it is their livelihood ? one day of carelessness could force them to hang up their handcuffs and fishnets for good.

Number-crunching aside, the point remains that a condom mandate will not prevent all cases of porn actors contracting HIV. On the other hand it does strip the right of actors and directors to make decisions about their health and welfare.

As we can see by the numbers, condoms aren?t the only way that porn actors mitigate the risk of contracting HIV. And as sex-tech and medical treatments advance it seems silly for government officials who have never (presumably) worked in the adult entertainment industry to mandate condom use.

For example, some adult actors who have spoken out against the condom mandate claim that using condoms can be counter-productive to STI prevention. In a 2009 hearing on the issue, porn super-star Nina Hartley and her partner came out in defense of actors? right to choose. They explained the dangers, particular for female actors, of such extended use of condoms, including broken condoms and friction abrasions which leave the actors more susceptible to contracting an STI.

The world is filled with risks that we all must weigh and decide on individually. While the average person is considering the best kind of car to drive or whether they want to drink skim or whole milk, adult film actors should have the right to weigh their risks and make their own choices. As the numbers show anyone having sex is taking a chance of contracting an STI and until science finds a cure for HIV it should be up to each individual who is sexually active person, how to deal with that risk.

And this one...(might as well use the production downtime to get educated):

How mandating condoms in adult films will put the industry more at risk.

Last week, several health groups, led by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, announced plans to develop a strategy that will push California legislation to regulate the adult film industry, mainly by mandating the use of condoms in all movies.

The goal of such legislation is to protect adult film workers as well as their partners and the community at large. But the industry is already doing an excellent job protecting its performers. Mandating condoms in all films would lead to unintended consequences that would likely increase, not decrease, HIV outbreaks.

Since the industry's HIV testing policy was implemented in 1998, there has been only one major outbreak. All other cases of performers testing HIV-positive were discovered before they could infect other performers. The PCR-DNA test used by the industry detects HIV much earlier than the standard ELISA test used by the general population. And most adult film performers are tested monthly, while only 10% of the general population reported being tested for HIV in the last year.

There are an estimated 250,000 people living with HIV who are unaware of their infection. AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the supporters of mandating condoms imply that the threat is coming from inside the adult film industry. The reality is that, since the adult film industry implemented its HIV testing policy, all but four performers who tested positive for HIV contracted HIV outside the industry. The threat does not come from inside the industry but from outside.

Condoms undeniably help lower the risks of HIV infection. But that doesn't mean the government should mandate condom use in adult movies--and it certainly doesn't mean that such regulation is a good idea.

For one, the adult film industry would have to make every performer an employee to satisfy the California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, laws. This would be detrimental: California's anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment; therefore the adult film industry's current testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV monthly, would be illegal.

Nor would adult film producers be allowed to "discriminate" by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks--particularly since condom breakage or slippage can occur.

Second, condom-only regulation would also encourage a black market in adult film production. So movies featuring no-condom sex would not only still exist, but those actors and actresses would no longer be required to participate in the industry's HIV testing program, increasing the risk of an HIV outbreak in the industry and the population at large. One need only look at prostitution to see what happens when an industry operates underground.

Third, the porn industry could just pack up and leave California, which would render the law unenforceable and trivial. Since the adult film industry is a significant source of California's revenue, the state's budget crisis will likely get even worse. Thousands of people working directly and indirectly for the industry will also lose their jobs.

Good intentions do not guarantee good results. The costs and consequences of adopting a condom-only regulation far outweigh any benefits. The adult industry has done an excellent job policing and testing itself. The government is likely to do more harm than good to the health of both porn performers and the general public if it meddles in adult entertainment.

ADG

[raymor]

What, if anything, could be done to ENCOURAGE safe practices in the industry without a straight government mandate?

[nikki99]

for fuck sakes

[CyberHustler]

Seems since there has been quite a few HIV cases and scares, the only logical thing is to wear them and promote wearing them. It's the responsible thing to do. You can't trust porn talent when it comes to your life.

[epitome]

I am in favor of wearing them and testing.

I'm not sure how I feel if there would be a bunch of compliance issues though.

I think it's something the industry should move to before others make them do it.

[davecummings]

I worry that Cal/Osha and/or AHF and/or the illegal tube sites will eventually be the cause of shoots going underground, and/or American porn shoots will be replaced by NON-condom content from some Non-American countries which might connote harsh and aggressive "lovemaking" towards women. I don't want my grandson getting the connotation that on his wedding night he "has" to choke/fist/etc to show his wife the "lovemaking" that he might be seeing on some of that non-American porn.

I am against condom shoots being mandatory, as that could speed up the demise of American porn.

Dave (who ALWAYS uses condoms in my Private life)

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Interesting input so far.

I don't shoot every day of the week like the big companies, and I tend to work more with local amateur performers, so it is easier for me to control the conditions for my shoots.

As a start, I would like to see the industry form a panel to seriously study this issue to understand what has gone wrong in the past, and to develop some recommendations for the industry as to how we can move forward more safely with regards to the health of our performers.

Some of the big studios already have some written guidelines. Let's gather up all of this good information and disseminate it as widely as possible within the industry. Health and Safety should not be considered trade secrets.

As a result of this current issue, I saw it proposed somewhere that the studios which constantly shoot from the same talent pool could perform rapid tests prior to each scene as a secondary measure to the monthly testing now in place. I don't know enough about the efficacy of this methodology at this time in order to decide if it is a good solution or not, but I say let's gather up all of these ideas and take a long hard look at them...

More ideas/opinions?

ADG

[Vjo]

I dont have much chance of banging a porn star but I was with the majority (without looking first):

"I Oppose Mandatory Condom Use and Favor Mandatory HIV/STD Testing"

Afterall if you are verified clean then you dont need a condom I would think but havnt read up on it all.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Vjo

I dont have much chance of banging a porn star but I was with the majority (without looking first):

"I Oppose Mandatory Condom Use and Favor Mandatory HIV/STD Testing"

Afterall if you are verified clean then you don't need a condom I would think but haven't read up on it all.

Many (I hope most) of us do more than just go by a 30-day old test result to be safe.

Unfortunately, as we are learning, some do not, and they are mucking things up for the rest of the industry.

Even worse, all of the secrecy after this many days have passed since this issue surfaced last weekend is causing some people to think that is starting to smack of a cover-up.

ADG

[DWB]

1) Mandatory testing for ALL sexually transmitted diseases.

2) Then once tested, everyone has to be accountable for their own actions. Know there are risks and if you end up with something you can't get rid of, you can't blame anyone but yourself. It always comes down to personal responsibility. Either make porn or don't, but if you do, don't count on someone else or an industry group to protect or save you. You're on your own, act accordingly.

3) Anyone who does test positive for anything, waives their right to health privacy. If you don't like that, don't get in the business.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by DWB

1) Mandatory testing for ALL sexually transmitted diseases.

2) Then once tested, everyone has to be accountable for their own actions. Know there are risks and if you end up with something you can't get rid of, you can't blame anyone but yourself. It always comes down to personal responsibility. Either make porn or don't, but if you do, don't count on someone else or an industry group to protect or save you. You're on your own, act accordingly.

3) Anyone who does test positive for anything, waives their right to health privacy. If you don't like that, don't get in the business.

QFT!

...and that is why I love you, Mr Dallas

I still regret that we didn't hook up after the anti-piracy conference in LA a few years ago (it's not what people think), but under the circumstances (Keeani Lei or you), I still consider that we have a raincheck for that night, lol, so get your ass to the Bay Area some day (maybe I can shoot you and Tia when she's out here).

ADG

[Cherry7]

The only safe option is condom use. People lie about sex more than any other subject. So people just cannot be trusted.

The only exceptions are couples that live together and both work.

Shoot less but better.

[Grapesoda]

this is very interesting:

"For one, the adult film industry would have to make every performer an employee to satisfy the California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, laws. This would be detrimental: California's anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment; therefore the adult film industry's current testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV monthly, would be illegal.

Nor would adult film producers be allowed to "discriminate" by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks--particularly since condom breakage or slippage can occur."

my personal opinion is whatever the client wants. if the state mandates and enforces condoms, the client won't but... then I go somewhere else or find a different revenue stream. pretty simple.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by davecummings

I worry that Cal/Osha and/or AHF and/or the illegal tube sites will eventually be the cause of shoots going underground, and/or American porn shoots will be replaced by NON-condom content from some Non-American countries which might connote harsh and aggressive "lovemaking" towards women. I don't want my grandson getting the connotation that on his wedding night he "has" to choke/fist/etc to show his wife the "lovemaking" that he might be seeing on some of that non-American porn.

I am against condom shoots being mandatory, as that could speed up the demise of American porn.

Dave (who ALWAYS uses condoms in my Private life)

Dave, seriously?

here: www.amazingcontent.com - 300+ non-american boy/girl scenes and no one gets choked or fisted.

but as far as i remember Max Hardcore is american

and i can think of dozens of american owned sites and movies that show "harsh lovemaking"...

and if your grandson learns about sex from porn movies but waits until his wedding night then there is something going wrong anyways - no matter what porn he watches

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by DWB

1) Mandatory testing for ALL sexually transmitted diseases.

2) Then once tested, everyone has to be accountable for their own actions. Know there are risks and if you end up with something you can't get rid of, you can't blame anyone but yourself. It always comes down to personal responsibility. Either make porn or don't, but if you do, don't count on someone else or an industry group to protect or save you. You're on your own, act accordingly.

3) Anyone who does test positive for anything, waives their right to health privacy. If you don't like that, don't get in the business.

here is the big FLAW in your theroy: Then once tested, everyone has to be accountable for their own actions.

[Peter Romero]

Hey ADGWD - trying to reach you - hit me up.

[RyuLion]

Voted....

[GatorB]

As someone who also watches porn I can tell you any video where I see the dude wearing a comdom I immediately click the X in the upper righthand corner. You think getting people to pay for porn is hard NOW wait until every porno has dudes wearing rubbers.

[camgirlshide]

I am in favor of testing and condom usage.
I am not in favor of mandatory anything. We shouldn't be legislating against being stupid. If I want to do risky behavior I should have every right to do it.

[amacontent]

Originally Posted by DWB

1) Mandatory testing for ALL sexually transmitted diseases.

2) Then once tested, everyone has to be accountable for their own actions. Know there are risks and if you end up with something you can't get rid of, you can't blame anyone but yourself. It always comes down to personal responsibility. Either make porn or don't, but if you do, don't count on someone else or an industry group to protect or save you. You're on your own, act accordingly.

3) Anyone who does test positive for anything, waives their right to health privacy. If you don't like that, don't get in the business.

Well said, very well said. I think it should even be put in the model releases that talent signs that they give up thier right for privacy if they come up with any STD or HIV positive.

[Redrob]

Just posted in other thread:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Personally, I have considered the risk that talent takes being much the same as professional wrestlers or stunt people.

Professional wrestlers, boxers, cage match fighters, etc.. get into the ring and beat each other to a bloody pulp exchanging all kinds of body fluids. I'm sure they do what they can to minimize their risks for cross infections; but, they realize that some risk goes with the job.

Is an adult star's risk any more or less? Due to testing and the lack of a severe beating, I'd imagine the adult performer's risk to be less.

Also, stunt people are hired to do a dangerous screen shot. They are well trained for the stunt they are undertaking and take all the necessary precautions to minimize the likelihood of personal injury (risk).

However, we should note that they are paid to make "the shot" and, if they don't like the risks involved, they can walk away. Is an adult star's risk any more or less?

Given the public and OSHA's acceptance of the risks involved with fighters and stunt people, it seems that all the attention paid to the risks of adult performers is centered on a hidden pro-censorship agenda with the demise of the industry being the ultimate goal.

Risk is risk.....and to treat the adult industry different than professional sports or stunt people is not justified in my opinion as long as the risk are minimized to a level that is acceptable to the adult performers.

AHF seems to be promoting themselves, aids hysteria, and the hidden pro-censorship agenda that includes "condom-only" productions.

Some fucked-in-the-head individuals in our industry are playing into their hysteria without considering the consequences.

Just my opinion. I'd like to know what you think.

No Fear, Just Knowledge!

[spazlabz]

looks like I am in the majority on this poll.... feels kind of strange

[MrCain]

Porn with condoms does not sell.

[Cherry7]

Remember not all of us are in the US. that is why I have not voted.

Also I don't know the best way to enforce it, and so that couples for example can be exempt.

I think it should be the right of a model to work in a safe environment, and having sex with a person you can't trust is not safe.

[raymor]

The idea that using condoms would magically mean it would be illegal to not hire a pom actor with HIV is totally ridiculous.

[Robbie]

I am in favor of testing and no condom use.
But "mandatory" testing is total bullshit. No straight company I know of will shoot anyway without all talents involved having a current test. And that's the way it should be.

But forcing a person in a supposedly "free" country to have their blood drawn and be tested? No way. And that's what "mandatory" means to me.

But that point is moot because since all companies require talents to be tested it already is "mandatory" if you want to work.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I am in favor of testing and no condom use.
But "mandatory" testing is total bullshit. No straight company I know of will shoot anyway without all talents involved having a current test. And that's the way it should be.

But forcing a person in a supposedly "free" country to have their blood drawn and be tested? No way. And that's what "mandatory" means to me.

But that point is moot because since all companies require talents to be tested it already is "mandatory" if you want to work.

I see your point but counterpoint is simple. It is NOT mandatory to get tested. a model chooses to work in this industry and by doing so falls potentially under any regulations that may apply to the industry. They could always choose to not get tested and not work in this field

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

I see your point but counterpoint is simple. It is NOT mandatory to get tested. a model chooses to work in this industry and by doing so falls potentially under any regulations that may apply to the industry. They could always choose to not get tested and not work in this field

That's kinda what I'm saying.

I'm just nitpicking over the word "mandatory". As you say, it's already "mandatory" IF you want to shoot. Just like it's "mandatory" for people in most professions to have their constitutional rights stomped on by having drug tests performed on them.

In both cases people have the "freedom" to not work and starve to death. Lol.

But yes...I think testing should be a "requirement" I was just being persnickety over the word "mandatory" because it sounds too authoritarian for my rebellious nature.

[thickcash_amo]

It's scary when its more realistic and close to home. I dont want to watch porn with condoms, but I definitely don't want to have models spreading anything....except their legs

[CyberHustler]

Quick, somebody make invisible (but strong) porn condoms....!

There's already fake cum...

[alias]

A porn star contracting HIV is perhaps a little something like a plane crash; the fatality rate of fliers is quite low.. .

Pretty good analogy.

[tony286]

Regardless of all the spin, condoms are the best option. i know some crazyhorny people that go to gangbangs, swing clubs, whores, strippers. People without tests but they use condoms and never had anything. I think the spin that condoms are this false sense of security is based the belief it wont sell..alot of big selling porn has condoms in it.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by tony286

alot of big selling porn has condoms in it.

That may be true. But it would be even BIGGER selling if it had no condoms.

Maybe it's just me...but anytime I see a condom in a porn scene, my thoughts turn to STD's and my cock goes limp.

[porno jew]

only for trannies, queers and junkies.

[slapass]

If it was mandatory, it might help the industry. We would have a date for old porn and new porn sort of like the bush does now. If you see porn with a bush you know it is probably old. Same with no condom porn.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by slapass

If it was mandatory, it might help the industry. We would have a date for old porn and new porn sort of like the bush does now. If you see porn with a bush you know it is probably old. Same with no condom porn.

I'd rather watch old porn without condoms than new porn with condoms.

[My Pimp]

I think it is good when they use condoms. It is good against sexual diseases.

[shimmy2]

Originally Posted by amacontent

Well said, very well said. I think it should even be put in the model releases that talent signs that they give up thier right for privacy if they come up with any STD or HIV positive.

if you test for free @ the local health dept (in florida at least) you have to sign a waiver that says they will alert the health department on a positive. when i renewed my life insurance and they came for the physical part their waiver said the same thing, they will make any positive test results public

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by shimmy2

if you test for free @ the local health dept (in florida at least) you have to sign a waiver that says they will alert the health department on a positive. when i renewed my life insurance and they came for the physical part their waiver said the same thing, they will make any positive test results public

I thought they only made statistics public? In other words patient confidentiality is still in play.

I was under the impression that they report a "positive" to the CDC...but not necessarily the patients identity.

That's the kind of thing that has a huge (and undeserved) stigma in our society. There's so much misunderstanding of HIV and fear, that I think if a person were publicly identified as having HIV he or she would have problems getting employment anywhere.

[Chosen]

I Oppose Mandatory Condom Use and Favor Mandatory HIV/STD Testing