Here’s the PSA just sent to me anonymously (really, you guys, just use your own e-mail address, I’ll protect your identity!), though I guess if I were looking on YouTube for ads about condoms and HIV as opposed to “comedy” videos from fat rednecks and lip syncing child midgets, I could’ve found it myself. It’s from adult film director Michael Whiteacre, and this Michael Weinstein person looks sort of awful!
The notion of making condoms mandatory in adult films is, of course, futile (studios will simply move out of California). So what does Weinstein have to gain? If cases of HIV contracted on the sets of adult productions (which, to my knowledge, no such contraction has ever been proven) were to decrease thanks to condoms, doesn’t that mean the eventual end of Weinstein’s job (i.e., less HIV, less necessity for AHF)? Unless of course he is in bed with the condom companies and somehow profiting from them, as the ad suggests.
But it’s only a suggestion. Show me proof, please. Don’t just show pictures of condoms and say “follow the money.” Prove it! I’m just watching your PSA on the internet; why should I have to follow any money? It’s your cause, not mine. Prove to me that he’s as much of a corrupt dick as he seems to be.
“How does it affect (not Effect) you? ”
Well, I guess I will make it a “a personal act of conscience” to challenge the ‘ethics’ of certain business that profits from unethical practices.
As is your right. Fight the power!
Well, if a “substantial” amount of performers in porn are infected with a variety of STIs in BOTH genres, which you have indicated on separate occasions, then both condoms and tests should be used. According to you then, you should use protection for both HIV and other STI’s.
substantial: “considerable in quantity : significantly great ”
Frankly if you feel that its the performers responsibility– why can’t they get work freely in this market? If its the attitude of the productions to only hire models who work without protection, doesn’t this create a culture where performers cannot earn a livelihood when they what to practice “personal responsibility”?
Why is acceptable in one scenario to practice zero-sorting? Especially when you make it known that its the performers responsibility to know the risks?
Why are tests more effective over condoms in your view, when tests only cover the previous sexual contacts, where condoms protect people in actual sexual activity? Why is this practice acceptable? Or at least for anal sex–studies show that the transmission rates are higher for anal sex.
On a side note, you mention the performers responsibility to know the risks? Does this include public exposure, lack of personal privacy? If you feel being positive is not a shameful thing, then why is it essential to protect people from this information being provided? Where is the danger? Testing wouldn’t be as much of an issue if protection was used in the first place. And the practice of zero-sorting, wouldn’t be the only component included in prevention. Thus, making testing secondary and leaving the issue of public lists of POZ performers off the table. I think more performers should be open about their positive status, to make a brilliant statement: no fear, no illness.
“Can’t someone have an opinion?” Oh yes they can. And for you this is a difficult concept, as demonstrated by your lack of manners and name calling.
“You also overstate things a [bit]sp?” I am sorry, I just had to quote you like this. The temptation was too much.
“Well, if a “substantial” amount of performers in porn are infected with a variety of STIs in BOTH genres, which you have indicated on separate occasions, then both condoms and tests should be used. According to you then, you should use protection for both HIV and other STI’s.” — This partly misrepresents what I’ve written here, although I can understand he confusion because we’ve covered a lot of territory. Yes, many performers in both genres of porn are at one time or another infected with some STI. However, it is MUCH more likely to be the clap than HIV, and that is because both sides have their own system in place. There are no published numbers as to possible HIV transmission rates on the gay side or porn because there’s no testing. We can only evaluate a system as it pertains to HIV where we have actual numbers. These numbers ARE available on the straight side, however, and they reveal that the procedures currently in place are astoundingly effective, vis-a-vis HIV. The attitude toward other STIs (again, like the clap, or mono — I’m not talking about Hep C or Syphillis) within the straight side of porn, I can tell you, is that they are occupational hazards. You may not be comfortable with that, and I can tell you that I, personally, am not all that comfortable with that, but that is the culture. “A couple of antibiotics and you’re good as new,” is the mindset here in LA’s porn business. A lot of it has to do with economics, in my opinion. It’s a bad economy in all sectors, not just porn, and people need to work. Factory workers lose their hearing to loud machines, taxi drivers get robbed and/or murdered for their fare money, coal miners get black lung. Yet these people go to work every day and take the risk — as unfair as it may be. It’s a story old as time.
“If it’s the attitude of the productions to only hire models who work without protection, doesn’t this create a culture where performers cannot earn a livelihood when they what [sic] to practice “personal responsibility”?” — You know, that concept called “supply and demand?” — it also applies to porn. It was like that before these hypothetical performers/models entered the business, and it’ll be like that as long as people hire others for jobs. The job entails risk. Sex entails risk.
“Why are tests more effective over condoms in your view, when tests only cover the previous sexual contacts, where condoms protect people in actual sexual activity? Why is this practice acceptable? Or at least for anal sex–studies show that the transmission rates are higher for anal sex.” — That is not an entirely accurate statement of my view. There are many factors involved here. First, are you speaking about tests being better than condoms across the board, i.e., in people’s personal lives as well as in porn? No, I don’t believe that, and I’ve stated earlier my personal view that people should practice safe sex AND get tested. However, porn is a horse of a different color, for the MANY reasons discussed ad nauseum above. Condoms offer a degree of protection, but they’re certainly not perfect — they do break on occasion. Additionally, I have ready several case studies which indicate, particularly with anal sex but also with vaginal sex, that condoms can increase the risk or ripping and tearing in some people. That’s really not good when one is discussing blood-borne pathogens. I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as you make it out.
Also, I’m making an economic argument in addition to a medical/health argument. Porn and healthcare are both fields where the two intersect. I believe that the goal of AHF is to force all porn shoots of every genre in California to use both testing AND condoms, with AHF set up as the government-sanctioned and ordained “official” testing and treatment clinic. They will provide the condoms and do all the testing in their clinics and receive even more big government grants. That system, for which they have been angling, will deal a devastating blow to the entire adult film community — producers, staff and talent alike — and will either drive porn production underground, or out of the jurisdiction to places where there are fewer health and safety measures in place. It will also have dire economic consequences in this state. Assuming, as I do, that there is in actuality no such thing as a 100% perfect system, we would be trading an imperfect but working system for a free-for-all. This is senseless and needless. The only beneficiary of this new paradigm would be AHF.
“[Y]ou mention the performers responsibility to know the risks? Does this include public exposure, lack of personal privacy?” — It can, when you’re speaking of something like fame intruding upon one’s life, or the fact that it may be difficult to find a non-porn job because of the choice one has made. When it comes to the revelation of someone’s private medical condition, why should someone else have that power? If a performer wants to reveal it, he or she has that right. Not many do it, as you know. I see this fact as evidence of the fact that they consider that information to be “private,” although I admit I’ve not surveyed the talent pool about this. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is ILLEGAL in California for any party — be it the state, or a clinic or doctor — to reveal that information without the express consent of the patient. Because of this performers have every right to expect that privacy to be honored and maintained. The risk that their personal medical status will be made public is one risk they are not voluntarily taking upon entering the porn world. They are told that the law will protect them
“I think more performers should be open about their positive status, to make a brilliant statement: no fear, no illness.” — A lot of people feel that way. I won’t ever say you’re wrong to feel that way; it’s a matter of personal choice.
And I won’t hold you pointing out my spelling error against you either. As Oscar Wilde wrote, “I can resist anything but temptation.”
Cordially,
MW
Substantial does not mean, or imply, more than half, you moron. It means, used in this context, (and I quote) “Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent.” If you infer “more than half” when you read a term that simply DOES NOT mean that, then you are ignorant.
Again you have failed to contribute anything at all to this discussion. I put very simple questions to you about your position on several matters, and you have avoided each and every one.
Yet you continue to query me: “Let us make a case that insulting premise you made is true, HIV isn’t as much of a threat in straight porn, as testing is a preventable measure. Other STI’s exist as well… Aren’t they just as important to protect against?”
Well, first of all, as usual, you purposely misstate my premise — HIV is obviously a threat anywhere, and to everyone – because no system, be it testing, or condoms, or both, is perfect. With sexual activity comes risk. That also includes the risk of other STIs. A world without risk is a world without sex. Perhaps you’re ready for that brave new world, but I’m not. Volenti non fit injuria — porn performers are paid to assume a certain risk when they have sex on camera.
“‘Would you want your private information shared like that, in violation of law?’ I’m not in the limelight or a public figure. And you’ve made a parallel comparison to actual mainstream entertainment– those performers do not have a right to privacy. They have a right to publicity, but I don’t think your HIV status counts as slander, unless you think that having HIV is shameful. Which it is NOT!” — So you think adult performers forfeit their individual right to privacy! I’ve heard this before. I have a feeing, however, some of them who read or post on this board might strongly disagree with you. The state of California certainly disagrees with you.
By the way, slander is spoken, libel is written — both are defamation. Who said that HIV status is shameful? Certainly not me. You don’t even bother reading what I write, you just recite accusations. The fact of the matter is, in this state, a person’s medical information is BY LAW considered extremely private, and is protected. And by the way, the sentence preceding my question about privacy is actually a quote from Paul Morris – so please don’t pretend that there’s some uniform party line within the gay porn community. There’s plenty of room for disagreement.
This one is my favorite: “Drugs are a universal problem–and are not a unique problem to ‘gay culture’. Again, your bias is shown when you imply that straight and gay productions are different. There isn’t a demonstrated gap between the two.” You manage to conflate two issues, and misstate my position on both. I EXPLICITLY wrote, above: “there is drug use and prostitution on BOTH sides of porn, across the entire spectrum gay/straight, condom-only/bareback, Los Angeles/San Francisco — just as there is in mainstream Hollywood.” If you want to hear from someone who assumes that gay culture is drug-fueled, you should talk to Michael Weinstein of AHF. He sued Pfizer over Viagra because he claimed that gay men who used meth were more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior if they could get it up with Viagra. Did you even look at any of the links I posted above? Of course not — your mind was already made up.
And as for there being no demonstrated “gap” or “difference” of an kind between straight and gay productions, this is a fundamentally ridiculous claim. The entire paradigm is different — straight uses testing and largely no condoms, gay largely uses condoms and no testing. What is wrong with you? As for drugs, I NEVER MADE THE CLAIM that there was any difference based on drug use. To the contrary, my quote, above, states THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
“[In] mainstream entertainment … performers get royalties form work, and join a union that protects them. They earn health insurance, and retirement.I have yet to see and adult industry standard for which all performers GAY AND STRAIGHT have access to this level of coverage.” What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You also overstate things a but. If you don’t get enough work as a SAG actor, unless you put up money for your continuing coverage, you are dropped from their medical insurance. And SAG does not provide employment service – they don’t help you find a job. It’s not like heading down to the old union hall. In any case, if things proceed the way the current crusaders want, there’ll be a lot more unemployed adult performers. Don’t you get that? Of course you do, you just don’t care.
“I don’t shoot hardcore sex.” So how does condom mandatory hardcore productions effect you!? Oh wait, it doesn’t.” — More of your idiocy. Do you shoot hardcore scenes? How does it affect (not Effect) you? Can’t someone have an opinion? As I wrote above, the consequences of AHF forcing a testing and condom-only regime on all porn, gay and straight, will result in porn going underground and/or shoots moving to places which have fewer safety requirements and less scrutiny. This not only hurts the California economy, it makes people less safe – directly in contradiction of AHF’s stated goals. Do you understand this? Maybe you should have someone else read it and explain it to you.
“I’m not a figure head for a political organization looking for limelight. You however, might fit within this context.” I’m not a figure head for any organization. I receive no payments, in cash or kind, from ANY organization. As I wrote above, my video was a personal act of conscience. Is that concept foreign to you, sir?
“Did you pass the bar?” Not only did I, I also graduated near the top of my class.
Oh. I am surprised you came back, I thought you were done!
“I NEVER SAID most gay men in porn have HIV. I wrote that a “substantial” number do.” LOL. Substantial implies most if not all, it means more than half!
Where is the proof in that statement? Where the statistics that a ‘substantial’ number exists?
And you have not answered the following question:
Let us make a case that insulting premise you made is true, HIV isn’t as much of a threat in straight porn, as testing is a preventable measure. Other STI’s exist as well… Aren’t they just as important to protect against?
“There is such a thing as business ethics, and when you’re talking about an organization in the field of public health, the standard is high. ” You made the statement that this industry is a BUSINESS…. so this means the adult industry ethical standard is very low?
“Would you want your private information shared like that, in violation of law?” I’m not in the limelight or a public figure. And you’ve made a parallel comparison to actual mainstream entertainment– those performers do not have a right to privacy. They have a right to publicity, but I don’t think your HIV status counts as slander, unless you think that having HIV is shameful. Which it is NOT!
Also upon the practice zero-sorting you effectively remove infected partners from the industry, thus making employment practically impossible. I guess that is a form of workplace discrimination, since you consider the adult industry a legit business and push someone out who isn’t at fault for contracting a disease! You also create a hostile work environment, when certain performer will not work with other under certain presumptions that gay or bisexual men are the carriers of the disease, for which can spread into other communities. Also, those men who tend to contract HIV have a serious meth problem which creates risky behaviors. Drugs are a universal problem–and are not a unique problem to ‘gay culture’. Again, your bias is shown when you imply that straight and gay productions are different. There isn’t a demonstrated gap between the two.
While we are on the topic of mainstream entertainment– those performers get royalties form work, and join a union that protects them. They earn health insurance, and retirement. I have yet to see and adult industry standard for which all performers GAY AND STRAIGHT have access to this level of coverage. Remember, you made mainstream comparison first, when it was discussed that drug use is a factor for which should be considered a threat to health and safety of your performers.
Also, you haven’t discussed the difference between the drug test I mentioned above and the HIV test. And what precautions should be considered if they don’t work!
“First of all, I don’t shoot hardcore sex.” So how does condom mandatory hardcore productions effect you!? Oh wait, it doesn’t.
“It is you who hides.” So remind me, who is doing a vanity project? I’m sorry, I’m not a figure head for a political organization looking for limelight. You however, might fit within this context.
Did you pass the bar?
EVERYONE else is not prejudiced, YOU are, sir.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I’ve written? Is it because you can muster no intellectually sound retort? I NEVER SAID most gay men in porn have HIV. I wrote that a “substantial” number do. No one knows precisely how many because, as you know, there’s no mandated testing in gay porn, but there are plenty of self-proclaimed positive performers. My assessment is based on conversations with many members of the industry, and published interviews and accounts. Are YOU denying that there are positive performers?
Calling someone’s business practices unethical is NOT a moral judgement, you oaf. That’s like saying that criticizing a lawyer who betrays his client, or a doctor who betrays his patient is a moral condemnation. No, it’s holding them to a standard — the standard to which they agreed to be held when they assumed their position. There is such a thing as business ethics, and when you’re talking about an organization in the field of public health, the standard is high.
AHF’s Michael Weinstein believes that it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to covertly funnel extremely private information about the HIV status of patients of public clinics in order to bolster the client-list of AHF. Do YOU agree with that practice? Would you want your private information shared like that, in violation of law? I’d like to know the answer to that. He also thinks it’s a proper settlement with a drug company in a price-gouging lawsuit to take a promise of contributions to AHF instead of lowering the drug price. Do YOU think that was proper, or a betrayal? I’d like to know the answer to that as well.
I also never said that a test constitutes an infallible method of protection against STIs. No method is infallible. I’m saying that if you’re looking for a zero-risk standard, that would mean no more pornography, gay or straight, it’s that simple. Are YOU supporting a zero-risk standard? Again, where do YOU stand on this?
What risk is acceptable then? That’s the heart of the debate, isn’t it? I don’t know the answer – the answer is different for different people in different situations. But if you follow this charge, this crusade of AHF’s, it will lead to universal testing AND condoms in all porn shot in California. Perhaps that’s what you’d like to see, that’s your business. But that doesn’t give you the right to misrepresent what I’m saying.
My mantra is not “tests work so let’s have them universally.” That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it has worked on the straight side of porn, but that does NOT mean I recommend it beyond there. It’s neither my intent nor my place to make any such recommendation, and, in my opinion, the structural and cultural differences between the two sides of porn are too great. Just like the structural difference between California porn production and Nevada brothels is too great. One reason (among many) is that, unlike porn, brothel customers do not have a stack of monthly PCR-DNA tests from a verifiable source to show when they walk in the door. I, personally, think it’s a very good idea for everyone to use protection and get tested for their OWN good — but that’s not the point at issue here. The issue is: do YOU want to see all porn driven underground or out of state (or out of the country, if a trend develops)? Someone, somewhere, will be willing to accept the risks that we will have been prevented from accepting.
“Michael, as a practice [sic] of condom free productions, do you prevent bisexual men for working in your straight productions? Do you think that is acceptable in practice by performers?” First of all, I don’t shoot hardcore sex. In my softcore productions I have worked with straight and bisexual men and women. Do I think it’s acceptable for bisexual men to work on the straight side? If they’re willing to go through the same testing that is required for every other performer in (professionally-produced) California porn today, then of course. I have news for you: there are bisexual men already working in straight hardcore porn. I could not care less about that, as long as EVERYONE in the talent pool in straight porn is held to exactly the same standard, and accorded the same rights. Same tests, same right to decide to work condom-only or condom-free, and the same right to refuse to work with anyone they don’t want to. This isn’t slavery. Individuals have a right to choose.
You dismissed me, above, as “some random person” on a board — au contraire, I have identified myself and supported my position. It is you who hides. Your identity is irrelevant, but I say no more hiding behind carping attacks and insults – will you answer any of the above and actually contribute something to this debate?
“I have little regard for you.” And the same goes for you. You clearly make your case after your agenda to maintain a bottom line of profits versus peoples health. And a legitimate business would have regard for both. And with the items you presented, that a test is an infallible way of protection against STIs, demonstrates your limited concepts of what ‘protection’ is. Tests are not insurance, condoms are a preventable measure of infection. The reduce risk comes from using contraceptives, where a simple test cannot reduce the risk. And you simply have not provided a case as to why a test is preferable over a condom, or that the practice of using both isn’t better than a test alone.
You might chastise someone with a religious view point for being a dogmatic, or extremist. But with your hostile undertones, and your repetitive mantra that ‘tests work’ you are no different than those who you seem to loath so much.
“outright bigotry and stereotyping you’ve displayed toward me”
I see, YOU are the victim here. EVERYONE else is prejudiced, and that is why you can make a personal attack against someone who you perceive as threat to you… on a gay posting board. Yes, this isn’t a gay/straight issue, but most of gay men in porn have HIV… LMAO!
I’d hardly call this a discussion when you clearly made personal attacks against myself and anyone else who might disagree with your stance. You have been incredibly hostile and mean spirited. And I can safely inform you that attitude never goes over well in debate.
“no interest in formulating an intellectual response to anything I’ve written”
You hardly evoke a sense an intellectualism, but rather academic elitism, as you seem to think that you have the inside track of what makes a person intelligent. Maybe you should learn, that it is not using 50 cent words that appear on an SAT exam, criticizing someones lack of patience to do proof reading online, or making references to the insignificant differences between ethics and morals. Both act as codes of behavior to determine what is acceptable in society.
I can inform you, citing your view of John Stuart Mill and taking a personal responsibility stance isn’t the criteria for making a person smart.
You most likely failed the bar.
Good Bye now!
“The huge difference to which I was referring was, mainly, the fact that a substantial percentage of the gay talent pool is already HIV+.”
What was that whole thing about bias again?
“I don’t think I mentioned my sexuality anywhere in the posts above”
I can safely assume from the quotes above what your sexual preferences are. Unless you have something to declare otherwise on this posting board? Do you? Don’t think so.
“This is not a straight/gay issue.”
You’ve completely side stepped the undertones of your argument, which tends to place an ‘exception’ on straight porn. You placed it as legitimate in its practice of condom free productions because you assume HIV is a gay disease, This is also why you assume the majority of men in gay porn have HIV, and without any stats on gay studios to back this assumption up. You rely on a stereotype to make a case. You have made it known you ONLY work in straight productions.
Let us make a case that insulting premise you made is true, HIV isn’t as much of a threat in straight porn, as testing is a preventable measure. Other STI’s exist as well… Aren’t they just as important to protect against?
Michael, as a practice of condom free productions, do you prevent bisexual men for working in your straight productions? Do you think that is acceptable in practice by performers?
“I’m not taking a moral position ”
Yes you are. By calling out some guy as “unethical” you are taking moral stance… Or at least trying to.
“I will let my credibility derive from my acts of conscience”–AGAIN conscience? Yes you are totally taking moral position.
“it’s because I feel it’s a matter of some public importance”
Right, and you made it clear this is about your industry you work in along with other professionals who are affected. Yes, I am sure this argument really amounts to something for the public good and is completely selfless in nature!
“I’m simply saying that we should look very carefully at the people who would enact this, what their motives are, and what the consequences (financial, cultural, and other) might be.” And I am saying that we should look carefully at the people who would prevent this, what their motives are? You think you are above this scrutiny? And its perfectly justified to attack someones character because they aren’t taking your side? I call bullshit on you!
“Piracy is such a massive problem that the industry recently held a large multi-day, industry-only conference in Tucson to address the issue.”
What does that prove!?! ‘Conferences’ tend to be cash cows, and maybe the intent is solely based off of that.
“You can’t single out porn performers for drug testing as a condition to employment. ” Yes you can. Employers do it all the time. Of course you might have a few who fake drug tests… Just like those in the industry who might fake a HIV test to get work. You make it known that drug testing is problematic… How can you make the case that HIV tests are just as verifiable and a lot more solid than a drug test? There are drug tests in which test hair follicles to show drug use by a couple of months and can be done in a reasonable amount of time. This type of drug test is similar, in the sense that an HIV test only accounts for sexual activity in the past couple of months. And most tests don’t account for what happens after them. So again, what is the difference between the two? The latter only affects the drug user, unless they are pregnant, the HIV test affects all potential sexual partners. Both can be compromised in different scenarios, but only one affects multiple people. Protection is the only answer to those instances, instead of the practice of ‘zero sorting’ which totally dependent on the success of the test. This same zero sorting which is also the basis for a lot of prejudice against bisexuals who would otherwise come out as bi if it wasn’t for this bigotry in the straight side of the industry. By the way, HIV can be shared via a intravenous needle for drug use. Of course in your view that wouldn’t matter if that person was a heterosexual.
“pornography in California is a multi-billion dollar business” You might want to take this issue up with Forbes magazine which did state this.
It has become abundantly clear that you have absolutely no interest in formulating an intellectual response to anything I’ve written, but instead merely wish to rattle off talking points and ad hominem attacks.
I would like to thank you for the outright bigotry and stereotyping you’ve displayed toward me — it demonstrates most clearly what a small-minded person you are, and goes miles toward exposing what as disservice mind-numbed name-callers and hacks are to any proper debate. I certainly won’t honor any of your presumptive and dismissive baits with a response. You are a bitter and cynical person, you lack any understanding of the difference between morals and ethics, and I have little regard for you.
I’d like every other reader — whether they agree with me or not — to know, however, that I’m pleased to have volunteered myself into this discussion.
If you think pornography in California is a multi-billion dollar business, then you’ve been drinking the wrong KoolAid, my friend. Unfortunately, braggarts in the adult industry started throwing that number around during the height of the business model, and it wasn’t true then either (maybe it was then if you looked at ALL porn produced across the globe). The only multi-billion dollar business currently involved with pornography is the internet business. The big groups of sites can pull in $100 million a month — and many of the most profitable sites have used pirated content to lure customers in. They give away the stolen stuff, hook you, and then sell you their own content. It’s a great business model, but it’s also illegal and wrong.
Piracy is such a massive problem that the industry recently held a large multi-day, industry-only conference in Tucson to address the issue.
And for the record, (in light of the comment above) there are lots and lots of people across the entire LGBT spectrum working (in various jobs) in straight porn who would be hurt should AHF and the crusaders win this. This is not a straight/gay issue.
“[Y]ou mentioned … that prostitution is similar to porn.” Yes, in some respects it is, but in many it is not. For one thing, there is a huge difference between a live, personal experience, and a video which is produced to portray a fantasy. Porn is a visual medium that deals with fantasies. A visit to a brothel is a live experience, it’s actually sex. Also, in porn (I’m speaking now of straight porn in California) every participant is tested before entering the business and monthly thereafter. That’s not the case with Nevada brothel clients. Absent a strict testing regime, Nevada prostitutes would have to be crazy to see that kind of volume without some manner of protection.
“Nightline ran a piece on the devastating effects of piracy on the porn business. I created two PSAs which are now seen on most straight porn DVDs which address the issue. Are all the companies that put them on their DVDs, and who have engaged attorneys and others to fight online piracy, imagining things?”
And yes the industry is really taking a hit right now, seeing as how profits are in the billions. Guess we can’t buy that Ferrari this year!
“I’m saying that regulations have to be industry-appropriate”
Okay, so you mentioned that in a previous case some would argue that prostitution is similar to porn. And in Nevada, there are regulations that are condom mandatory. That industry seems to be surviving well.
Okay. Trash talk all you want.
And yes, you are in a panic because of the sudden realization that you can’t possibly do any kind of career outside of the industry. Which is why you make totally baseless insults about me without any proof, except for the fact that we have a difference of opinion. And for this reason, I am led to believe you cannot carry out a debate or have an adult conversation.
Pink Cross Foundation — a foundation developed by an defunct porn performer, also A DRUG ABUSER AND PROSTITUTE. Based off this, the industry should be more selective in the casting process, and you should be more concerned about how your treat your performers before they reach this point. I don’t know maybe… drug testing? Oh wait, you don’t like to have a regulation in place. Or what is the point of drug testing, since its a futile problem according to you.
Also, tons of ISP’s have been under fire with the FCC, (oh that pesky federal regulation), to stop changing data rates to slow speeds of piracy downloads.
Well, no I will not take lessons on running a successful business, from you a random person, who spends more time on a posting board screaming into the ether…And no, I don’t spend my time on straight porn boards telling them how to run their business. You just happened to rant on a gay site, for which you clearly stated: ‘a huge difference’ is between the two industries. This totally shows your bias and superiority towards homosexuals, or in other cases, people with difference in belief systems and ideologies. Why don’t you just run off to those ‘straight’ boards and hang with the ‘bros’ before ‘hos’ group?
Go ahead. Post some lame video of me online, to rally village idiots with pitch-forks and torches. It is all you can do. And it makes you, remarkably, as I said earlier, “shameless and insensitive” and totally without credibility.
The PSA, which I did not submit to this board, but which was picked up by someone else as a matter of interest to this board, does not make any recommendations for the gay side of the business — or for the straight side either. If you think the neutral phrase “a huge difference,” regarding the straight and gay sides of porn indicates a bias in favor of heterosexuals then you are either spectacularly ill-informed, or have some grudge of your own. The huge difference to which I was referring was, mainly, the fact that a substantial percentage of the gay talent pool is already HIV+. This has ramifications vis-a-vis condoms, and testing. On the straight side, the talent pool is tested monthly for HIV. The structures of each side of the business are very, very different, largely because of this factor.
Additionally, I don’t think I mentioned my sexuality anywhere in the posts above – nor in my video. You are making assumptions. In any case, why does my sexuality matter to you? How does my sexuality affect or taint the facts I have documented and the points I make? I welcome constructive, useful knowledge and theory from anyone. That’s why I placed myself into the discussion on this board. If you’ve got some problem with that, then that makes you the hater not me.
A question you should ask yourself might be: if a law or regulation mandating condoms in ALL porn is coming, how long will it be before there’s a law mandating testing (a service which the saintly Michael Weinstein also provides) in ALL porn, gay and straight? Maybe you think that’s the way you’d like it, and maybe that’s the way it should be — again, I’m not taking a moral position — I’m simply saying that we should look very carefully at the people who would enact this, what their motives are, and what the consequences (financial, cultural, and other) might be.
As for your assessment of me, personally and financially, you are once again quite wrong. The adult industry is my sideline. I’ve had several successful businesses (only one of which had anything at all to do with pornography), including two publicly-traded companies, and my portfolio is holding up nicely. I have free time to post here because I educated myself (college and law school), worked hard, and planned ahead.
“Post some lame video of me online, to rally village idiots with pitch-forks and torches.” You are not important enough, sir. I don’t do vanity projects. If I devote my efforts to a cause pro bono, it’s because I feel it’s a matter of some public importance. I will let my credibility derive from my acts of conscience — times where I have literally put my money where my mouth is — not from the ravings of a prejudiced, self-satisfied, contrarian board rat like you.
“Those [religious] wing-nutz are not a threat to your industry, as the majority of Americans are secularists. And this particular instance they have nothing to do with your problems with mandatory condoms. In fact, those wing-nutz disagree with the practice of using contraceptives in the first place. They view infections are gods wrath upon the unclean. So they are not the ones who are making a case for condom regulations. They WOULD like to see everyone in your industry come down with HIV or other STI’s that can harm you. So they are not thinking about your safety here.”
Really?
From msnbc, May 2010:
In an interview, [Shelley] Lubben said plainly that she’d “love to see porn come down.”
“America just sees the finished product, so we’re just exposing this terrible evil and slavery,” she said, adding that she was taking on the pornography
industry because “God gave me this vision.”
Lubben acknowledged that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation had different long-term goals, but she said she was happy to work with anyone who could
advance the Pink Cross mission.
“We believe the beast can be stabbed in seven different places and bleed to death,” she said…. Right now, the issue that’s working is workplace safety,
and, through it, Lubben has “found a common denominator” with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Your related comment is a doozy: When Lubben was very briefly in porn, she claims she was also, “A DRUG ABUSER AND PROSTITUTE. Based off this, the industry should be more selective in the casting process.” My God! A drug abuser! Thank goodness there’s none of those in the mainstream film world, or in the music industry!
Yes, there is drug use and prostitution on BOTH sides of porn, across the entire spectrum gay/straight, condom-only/bareback, Los Angeles/San Francisco — just as there is in mainstream Hollywood. I don’t know how exactly one would screen for prostitution, but if you want to add mandatory drug testing to porn in California, then I’m pretty sure that Michael Weinstein or his ilk will find a way to sell you a testing program.
“[Y]ou should be more concerned about how your treat your performers before they reach this point. I don’t know maybe… drug testing? Oh wait, you don’t like to have a regulation in place. Or what is the point of drug testing, since its a futile problem according to you.” Wow.
— a) “how you treat your performers”? – Do you mean to say adult producers are responsible because some performers are drug addicts and sell their bodies to fund heir habits. So, it’s not the casting process, then — it’s as if all performers are somehow susceptible to this. Right — and they need government protection from unscrupulous porn producers. Or, do you mean to say that porn producers somehow turn drug addict prostitutes into religious nutjobs — is it that transformation that they cause? As if that never happens outside of porn either.
— b) The question isn’t whether there’s a point to drug testing, the questions are: 1) do you want to see a mandatory drug testing law applied universally, to all employees and independent contractors in the state? and, 2) how would you apply it? You can’t single out porn performers for drug testing as a condition to employment. How about all Hollywood actors, extras and crew – this is, after all, a workplace safety measure you’re contemplating. Or is your hang-up strictly with adult industry performers? Either way, Big Pharma and Big Latex have just the plan for you — just go see Michael Weinstein.
“I am citing mainly for HIV, yes, and that’s because the most outspoken critic of the adult industry is Mr. Weinstein of AHF (the subject of the video on this page). He has made the so-called alarming risk of HIV “outbreak” and “epidemic” within, and emanating from, the adult industry the cornerstone of his anti-porn crusade.”
Okay. To be clear: the other STI’s that are out there, you don’t want condoms on sets to protect against? HPV is preventable, other treatable STI’s are syphilis and gonorrhea, but Herpes is not. I think those STI’s are just as important as HIV. Why not have condoms for those reasons? Female health should be of importance, and one of the most frequent problems is infertility or cancer after so many infections.
To clarify: Those wing-nutz are not a threat to your industry, as the majority of Americans are secularists. And this particular instance they have nothing to do with your problems with mandatory condoms. In fact, those wing-nutz disagree with the practice of using contraceptives in the first place. They view infections are gods wrath upon the unclean. So they are not the ones who are making a case for condom regulations. They WOULD like to see everyone in your industry come down with HIV or other STI’s that can harm you. So they are not thinking about your safety here.
What year is this, 2001? Piracy is not as much of a problem since some isp’s block shareware. Your biggest threat is free amateur sites. Why should I buy your fake crap, when the real stuff between actual partners is available?
Okay. Based off your statements: complete anarchy is an acceptable way to manage societal problems and business. Deregulation is a perfect way to practice business and the Gov’t because the flawless rationalization is that everyone can act on their own accordance with a concept of personal responsibility… even if we are dealt a serious fallout. Gee, I can’t think of anything that happened within the last three years that really is an example of what can go wrong without any regulations in place to protect people… can you? I AM REALLY STUMPED! LOL!
BTW:
Reactionary would be something like: “Go to hell”
But I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I can’t tell you that.
or.. another reactionary example might be:
“Perhaps you don’t have a lot of faith in your own ability to use good judgement, but if so, that’s your problem. Don’t start telling me how I should live, or where I should eat — and don’t presume to know what the best, most socially conscious way to run a business is. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.”
And quite frankly I am having too much fun seeing you panic.
I’m actually having too much fun reading these ramblings. It’s shocking to me how ill-informed and unintelligent you are. You continually miss the point of what I write, and instead latch on to the strangest elements — but your dedication to attempting a response is rather charming.
“To be clear: the other STI’s that are out there, you don’t want condoms on sets to protect against?” Setting aside from your grammatical shortcomings, your premise is false. I never said that I, personally don’t want condoms on sets. Instead, I wrote that I don’t want government mandated condoms on sets — particularly when a charletain like Weinstein will be profiting from it. This is a money grab by AHF and UCLA, plain and simple. AHF couldn’t care less about the health of porn performers. Also, are you talking about the gay side or the straight side of the business? There’s a huge difference. On the straight side, the plan proposed by AHF will either drive shoots underground or it will force them out of state. Performers will be LESS safe in that instance, not more, for the reasons I stated above.
“Those wing-nutz are not a threat to your industry, as the majority of Americans are secularists.” Are you blind or stupid? We just had an election in which the “tea party” made strong gains. The fringe will jump on any sensational news item and use it to force their agenda, in this case an anti-porn, anti-gay, anti-free thought agenda. There are dozens of anti-porn websites — like the Pink Cross Foundation — which also put forth the idea that gay people either are demonically possessed, or, at the very least, need to be cured. There exists a coalition of religious zealots who demonize people who use their personal freedoms for jobs, or the creation of products, that they deem amoral. They will jump on any bandwagon that hurts the adult industry.
“Piracy is not as much of a problem since some isp’s block shareware.” You are a fool. A recent study clocked hundreds of millions of illegal downloads of adult material over the period of a month or two! That’s $ out of the hands of the rightful owners (now, obviously, not every online viewer was a potential customer, but even so, that’s a HUGE number). Don’t you read or watch TV? Nightline ran a piece on the devastating effects of piracy on the porn business. I created two PSAs which are now seen on most straight porn DVDs which address the issue. Are all the companies that put them on their DVDs, and who have engaged attorneys and others to fight online piracy, imagining things?
As for your riff on anarchy and regulation, obviously you’ve not succeeded far enough in life to ever have a real business of your own, or have employees and independent contractors. I don’t need a lesson in the economics of John Stewart Mill, or Alan Greenspan, or Robert Rubin, and certainly not from you. I’m not saying we need to deregulate business, I’m saying that regulations have to be industry-appropriate.
“I AM REALLY STUMPED!” I’ll bet you are. You probably spend a lot of time completely at a loss. Stay in school, kids!
“[Q]uite frankly I am having too much fun seeing you panic.” You wish, Einstein.
And, if I believed in an afterlife, then Hell would be a place where I’d be forced to try and reason with an ill-informed half-wit like you. In this life, I simply get to watch you struggle to digest my thoughts, and then spit out half-formed ideas using tragically poor grammar. So much for eschatology (look it up). Good evening to you.
And to the confused, reactionary commenter above, no, irony is not lost on me, though logic, history and the art of analogy are clearly lost on you.
Your trust in a benevolent, strong-handed government is at once adorable and terrifying. “Would you oppose legislation to limit McDonalds practices of marketing to kids, in America with an Obesity problem?” Yes, I would — it’s not my congressman’s job. It’s the job of the family to guide children, and of the schools to teach about proper nutrition, not of the legislature to limit our options to make it “easier” for us. We have it easy enough in this country. People have to take personal responsibility. Perhaps you don’t have a lot of faith in your own ability to use good judgement, but if so, that’s your problem. Don’t start telling me how I should live, or where I should eat — and don’t presume to know what the best, most socially conscious way to run a business is. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The cure for HIV is not state-mandated condoms on porn sets, and the cure for obesity is not forced government closure of fast food joints — just as the solution for what ails us as a nation is not simply government coming in and trying to prevent people from doing what they want to do. There has to be some other basis — people have to not want to do it. This is why the war on drugs has failed and will forever fail. It, like what you propose, constitutes reactionary idiocy.
As for the market viability of condom-only porn on the straight side, you’re simply wrong. The adult industry has been hobbled by internet piracy (which is why guys like Weinstein pop up, thinking they’ll take advantage of an industry on the ropes), and they can’t and won’t accept another major hit to their bottom line. I’m not saying this because I’m an advocate for the adult industry, I’m saying it because it’s basic economics. ESPECIALLY, in a world where porn companies can just pick up and shoot somewhere else, where there are fewer safety, health and workplace regulations in place (or at least license even more content shot overseas).
And finally, as to the anti-porn religious groups, if you don’t think these nuts — the same folks who think you need to be cured of your homosexuality, BTW — are enemies of all adult entertainment, you’re crazy. They’re up in arms about South Park and The Family Guy! They want to stamp out this industry (and limit free-thought) not on the grounds of sex, as you claim, but on grounds of MORALITY.
“There is now [sic] such thing as a zero-risk approach to any time [sic] of contraceptives. They are percentages in favor of an result.” Exactly — which is why the zero-risk approach Cal/OSHA is presently taking is ridiculous.
“there is no industry like the ‘adult’ industry so there is no room for comparison since it is unique.” — I agree in part (one might argue that the legalized prostitution business across the border in Nevada is similar, for example), but since it is rather unique, I don’t believe it’s fair to apply early-1990s regulations created for the handling of blood, human waste, infected bandages and blood-borne pathogens at medical clinics to porn sets.
“The numbers in STI vary according to cases of specific diseases. You are only probably citing for only HIV.” I am citing mainly for HIV, yes, and that’s because the most outspoken critic of the adult industry is Mr. Weinstein of AHF (the subject of the video on this page). He has made the so-called alarming risk of HIV “outbreak” and “epidemic” within, and emanating from, the adult industry the cornerstone of his anti-porn crusade.
“A system which, despite the fact that the performing population is so very sexually active, has levels if incidence FAR BELOW the levels in the US population at large.”
Yeah. BELOW in what sense? The numbers in STI vary according to cases of specific diseases. You are only probably citing for only HIV.
“Moreover, Cal/OSHA has taken a zero-risk approach to the adult film community — a standard no other industry is required to meet. ”
There is now such thing as a zero-risk approach to any time of contraceptives. They are percentages in favor of an result. They may perceive this as improving percents and chances of protection from disease.
Also, there is no industry like the ‘adult’ industry so there is no room for comparison since it is unique.
“Consumers demand a certain product, and people step up to the plate to provide it, for money.”
“unethical and shameless”
“exploit them… (financial) ends”
The irony of what you say is totally lost on you here.
So if a really obese person shows up to a McDonalds, is the cashier or upper management unethical? No.
Shameless? maybe.
Would you oppose legislation to limit McDonalds practices of marketing to kids, in America with an Obesity problem?
Or developing business in low income areas, were the fair share of obese people live, despite being a low income?
Obesity, a problem for which the majority of Americans die of and create problems for the health care system, even more deaths than diseases like Cancer or AIDS, for which the majority of medical research goes towards? –My guess would be yes, you would support those issues based off the sound studies.
There is no difference between an agenda I mentioned above and between mandatory health practices on sets. Also, you should know that maybe people buy the material regardless, but at some point the basic demand is there and it will be unfettered by the simple practice of wearing a condom–the gay side has plenty of profits from productions that shoot condom only. Men are men…. very horny and very willing to buy. So stop that argument with out any basis of proof. You haven’t changed shoots and there for have no sales statistics to base that argument off of. When you have two divisions in the industry, one with the majority of condom free productions, you are going to see a majority of profits towards them, by the fact the MAJORITY of productions are condom free. That is fallacy to say the smaller group doesn’t make a profit based off of consumer taste when the output is a majority share.
“anti-porn religious groups” — it isn’t as much about porn but more about sex. And frankly the ‘contact’ between partners on set would hardly constitute sex in some shoots, they just don’t know that because you all market the material to suggest the fantasy is real. So, don’t play victim of religion. And for me as a gay man to tell you that is just plain sad for you.
“This happens all the time … but it isn’t illegal.” I never said it was illegal. It is, however, unethical and shameless.
“You are pissed because it is only relevant to you, otherwise if it was to happen to someone else you wouldn’t give a shit.” How the hell do you know what’s in my heart? First of all, I don’t shoot hardcore scenes — the HIV status of the people I work with is irrelevant to my business model, and no one has any real chance of contracting anything on one of my sets. I made this video because I believe every word of it. Michael Weinstein is habitually the first in line to drag out victims, prop them up in front of a camera, and exploit them for his own political (and financial) ends. You don’t need to be in the adult entertainment industry to see that as shameful and wrong. You must admit, something is, at the very least, a little fishy here.
As for the “culpability” of porn producers, have you ever heard or read the expression, “volenti non fit injuria?” Consumers demand a certain product, and people step up to the plate to provide it, for money. So do coal miners, oil drillers, professional athletes and stunt men. Performers get HIV tested before they can enter the business (on the straight side) and then monthly thereafter. Everyone in the business — a LEGAL BUSINESS — is conscious of the dangers — and that is precisely why they have an extremely effective system in place. A system which, despite the fact that the performing population is so very sexually active, has levels if incidence FAR BELOW the levels in the US population at large. If Michael Weinstein wants to fulfill his organization’s mission, he should go out and target areas of society which have the highest levels of incidence, not the lowest. To make porn a priority is to tacitly admit that this is a money & power grab, first and foremost. But AHF does it because porn gets them headlines, and it also gets hem a measure of support from the anti-porn religious groups. Pass the plate…
AHF and Cal/OSHA are taking the approach that any and all incidents of STIs among porn performers happened at work. In the most recent incident, as well as the one in 2009, that wasn’t the case. Some percentage of all sexually active individuals will contract an STI and/or HIV — that is a statistical fact. One would be naïve to believe that those statistics don’t apply to porn performers as well.
Please also note that the current Cal/OSHA regulations over which Weinstein is up in arms were developed for medical clinics in the early 1990s, and have been arbitrarily imposed upon the adult industry absent any dialogue with adult film professionals whatsoever. Moreover, Cal/OSHA has taken a zero-risk approach to the adult film community — a standard no other industry is required to meet.
“As for Weinstein “changing the law and not breaking it,” if he is attempting to change the law, wouldn’t it be relevant to know if he and his organization stand to benefit greatly from such a change? ”
You live in America right? This happens all the time, laws are made and taken off the books based off of what is good for business–but it isn’t illegal.
You are pissed because it is only relevant to you, otherwise if it was to happen to someone else you wouldn’t give a shit. So what did you mention about grandstanding?
Why do you think there are drug laws? Why do you think that prisons have the highest populations in the US compared to other western countries? Because a division of the funds devoted to it make big business for people.
I noticed you avoided the subject of how studios tend to not hire or promote performers who want to practice safe sex. The industry is somewhat culpable for this as well.
On “shameless self-promotion” — Yes, I’ve seen much worse, but not from non-profit organizations in the field of public health.
The extortion to which I was referring was AHF’s shakedown-style extortion tactics (i.e., pay me or I’ll come up with a bogus lawsuit against you).
As for Weinstein “changing the law and not breaking it,” if he is attempting to change the law, wouldn’t it be relevant to know if he and his organization stand to benefit greatly from such a change?
nor to performers having the choice to use condoms– but the jobs don’t go to the ones that do prefer condoms.
@Michael Whiteacre: Please just move to Nevada and quit your bitching already.
shameless self-promotion– you are in Hollywood, right? I am sure you have seen worse, especially in your field.
grandstanding–same as above.
extortion–he is changing the law and not breaking it. So extortion would not apply in this scenario of your description.
the demeaning of an entire (legal) industry!–lol. By practice the act of what you do is demeaning, you can’t get any lower in the barrel if you tried. Oh wait, maybe if you became a politician.
I’m very glad you picked up my PSA and advanced the discussion. There are plenty of hypocrites in this world, but when someone shamelessly exploits the pain and misfortune of others for their own gain — whether financial or toward the advancement of their own megalomania — I feel that it needs to be raised publicly. Michael Weinstein is a sensationalist who has stoked the fears around HIV and “dangerous” gay male sexuality for too long.
Proof (of the smoking-gun variety) is hard to come by — one would doubt AHF’s masters in Big Pharma and, especially, BIg Latex to be foolhardy enough to leave such evidence out in the sunlight. I’m no private eye, but I can use reason to detect why someone like Weinstein (who, for all I can tell, has no background to qualify him as an expert in these matters. In fact, the only degree I can find that he has is an honorary doctorate from Whittier College) would take the actions he has. Here’s one person’s take on AHF — Clark Baker, founder of the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice:
“AHF pushes condoms because they are an intrinsic part of AIDS marketing and hysteria. If AHF can compel the adult industry to incorporate their condoms into a spontaneous sexual fantasy (Hey Baby… here we are in paradise… just you, me and this AHF condom), they will get the best product placement money can buy. In this way, AHF is a pharmaceutical shill that pushes fear and hysteria to sell tests, drugs and condoms all over the world. Once this scam is discovered, AHF will collapse like Enron and Bernie Madoff – and for the same reasons.
“In 2009, they sold $174 million in so-called HIV “healthcare services,” using fear and hysteria to market HIV tests, drugs and condoms all over the world. Remember, they’re using HIV tests that manufacturers admit do not detect HIV and then they are treating patients based upon questionable test results. So they use these meaningless tests to tell people they’re sick and convince them to take toxic and addictive drugs that eventually cripple and kill. After a while, these people get sick and die and AHF and affiliates then use their mortality as evidence that HIV is killing people around the world.”
My own take on AHF is that Michael Weinstein (who, by the way, lives in a lovely $1.68 million home overlooking the Los Feliz section of LA, far from the City by the Bay), by his own actions, has cast great doubt upon his motives, as well as his organization’s purported mission.
In 2004, AHF filed lawsuits in response to a 400% price increase by Abbott for its drug Norvir, (a protease inhibitor commonly used in small doses to help make other HIV drugs more potent). What was the settlement that AHF accepted? Abbott would not reduce the price of Norvir, but would instead contribute to treatment programs run by AHF. “This was a carefully orchestrated sell-out by AHF,” said Thomas Gegeny, Executive Director of The Center for AIDS in Houston (and an ATAC member) at the time. That’s what it smells like to me.
From what I’ve read about the lawsuits and complaints he has filed more recently, Weinstein is positioning AHF to become the “official,” government-endorsed testing facility for sex workers and all adult performers in California. This means lots and lots more government grant dollars. His primary target is AIM Healthcare Foundation in LA, the testing clinic for the LA-based porn business for the last 12 years. Let’s see, why would an organization that runs clinics attack another testing clinic? Because it’s the competition. The problem is, AHF only offers an ELIZA test to all the people they say they care so much about, while AIM offers the superior PCR-DNA test.
Every single item in my 1st AHF PSA (more are on the way) is backed up by actual sources. The links are below (including Weinstein’s shockingly blatant self-penned Op Ed to the LA Times):
http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1504
http://www.trevorhoppe.com/blog/archives/2008/04/michael_weinste.html
http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/2008/LT080401.html
http://www.aegis.com/NEWS/misc/2004/AT040701.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-baltimore14apr14,0,2709040.story
http://www.healthyskepticism.org/global/library/item/14208/
http://renwl.org/news/records-of-5000-hiv-positive-medi-cal-recipients-released-publicly-by-california-state-health-agency
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weinstein4apr04,0,7369027.story
http://www.aidshealth.org/news/in-the-media/archive/glaxosmithkline-drug-ad-sparks-a-debate.html
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/07/prweb142638.htm
And finally, with regard to the comment above, which indicates that this viewpoint makes the adult industry (with which I’ve been associated since 1993) seem crass or insensitive, let me state that I’m neither opposed to safe sex, nor to testing, nor to performers having the choice to use condoms. What am I decidedly opposed to is shameless self-promotion, grandstanding, extortion, and the demeaning of an entire (legal) industry, as practiced by the self-ordained Latex Messiah, Michael Weinstein.
Cordially,
Michael Whiteacre
Would it be so bad if the studios hitched up the wagons, and moved across the border to Nevada? Seems natural to me to move productions into the state with the legalized gambling and prostitution. Just sayin’
the video makes the industry look insensitive and plain crass [a real stretch] for attacking a guy who simply wants safe sex practices to prevent infections of ALL kinds of STI’s.
Well, if people want to use condoms or not is their decision but HIV/AIDS is a disease that is killing more than any other disease in this planet and some studios dont even bother in testing their performers before every scene. They pay few dollars to the most of the guys for a scene and make millions in profit every year with their movies but those guys dont get anything from the profits. And when a performer gets infected, what happens???? NOTHING!!!!. They dont give a shit for them, They just hire new guys and dont care from those who were infected, they lose their jobs as performers, they are kicked out from their homes, they have a miserable life.
People from those studios say that making a scene with 2 guys who do not know each other is like when you hook up with a guy, you dont know if any of them is positive or not so in this case is the same, they pay, the make profit and they dont care about anything else. Does it really worth to waste your life for not using a condom and for just few dollars? Because none of those performers is millionaire just for making porn, thats why they have to survive dancing, having live sex online, bartending, stealing, being drug dealers, etc
Wow, do you honestly believe anything you just wrote here? I can’t see really one sentence that is not either ill-informed, uneducated or just and outright lie. Let’s go over what you said shall we?
1: “HIV/AIDS is a disease that is killing more than any other disease in this planet” — not even close… I think this actually goes to Malaria, a disease that is actually easier to prevent than AIDS.
2: “make millions in profit every year with their movies” — I don’t think any gay porn studio has made a movie with a million dollar profit, ever. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
3: “And when a performer gets infected, what happens?” — Has a performer EVER become infected through working in porn, the safest of all possible sex I’ve ever known…?
4: ” they lose their jobs as performers, they are kicked out from their homes, they have a miserable life.” — Ironically, it is only the studios who are demanding testing that would ever fire a performer for becoming positive. I’m not even going to touch your comment about “having a miserable life” from becoming positive… that just shows what an ass you are.
5: “People from those studios say that making a scene with 2 guys who do not know each other is like when you hook up with a guy, you dont know if any of them is positive or not so in this case is the same” — Yeah, porn SHOULD be filmed that way, the way any gay man should be having sex, ALWAYS ASSUME every partner is positive. Be safe, use condoms, ALWAYS.
6: ” Because none of those performers is millionaire just for making porn, thats why they have to survive dancing, having live sex online, bartending, stealing, being drug dealers, etc” — Yeah because all pornstars are drug-addicted stripper thieves… you are a fucking ass. I know guys in porn that are everything from physical therapists to technology professionals to directors of non-profit organizations.
If you have such a low opinion of porn performers, stop watching the shit. You are a bigger low-life than 95% of the guys I’ve met in this industry.
Go Samuel Colt!!!