Hiv-Positive Models To Get Banned From Porn?

[Steven_Draker]

WOULD NEW BILL FORCE HIV DISCRIMINATION IN GAY PORN?

April 3rd, 2014

 

http://gaypornblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isadore-hall.jpg

 

 

Yesterday, California State Assembly Bill AB1576 cleared its first hurdle and moved past the Labor and Employment Committee. If passed, the bill would require porn producers in California to not only use condoms, but require testing and screen out any HIV-positive performers. Most of the attention has been focused on the “straight” side of the industry, which currently uses 14-day testing system and now would be required to use condoms as well. But the bill’s affect on the gay porn — and gay men — could be even greater.

 

Currently, the gay porn industry has no unified policy toward HIV. Some bareback gay porn studios, like Treasure Island, celebrate HIV positive performers and allow them to perform without condoms. Other gay porn producers use testing systems similar to the straight side, or serosort (matching positive with positive, negative with negative). Others use condoms exclusively, not only to prevent the transmission of HIV, but also to keep from having to discriminate against HIV positive performers. AB1576 would not only legally require condoms be used in all productions, but it would also seem to keep HIV positive performers from having sex on camera — regardless of whether they used a condom.

 

 

The gay community’s relationship with HIV — and HIV discrimination — is much more nuanced than the straight industry. Reading through some of the straight porn news blogs — the equivalents of sites like Gay Porn Blog and The Sword — is like stepping back in time to 1983. I’ll spare you the nastiest bits, but it boils down to “HIV is a gay disease brought to the straight industry by crossover (bisexual) performers, who should be outted and exiled.” While we’ve spent the last 30 years learning to mitigate risk, to talk viral load and PrEP, and informed consent, they still take up pitchforks against us to protect innocent white women.

 

 

I wish I could say it was different on the political side. But AB1576 is essentially a legislative outgrowth of these same fears. As unbelievable as it seems, given the screaming headlines, the straight industry has not had an on-set transmission of HIV since 2004. But for right-wing bloggers and politicians, HIV is forever lurking at the door. So AB1576, a bill designed with vulnerable women in mind, requires both condoms and testing. While that may make straight people feel safer (and politicians feel grander), it would essentially require the gay porn industry to fire anyone with HIV.

 

There was a time when I was vigorously opposed to bareback porn. I was — and still am — vigorously in support of workplace safety. However, I also know that there’s something wrong in having the state say tell gay men that regardless of viral load, regardless of whether they use a condom in their personal life, regardless of the actual science, or whether you’ve discussed status with your partner, or whether you’re wearing a condom, that if you’re HIV-positive you need to be cast out. (Update: Or outted.)

 

Nevermind that in the past few months, several studies have come out showing that it’s near impossible to transmit the virus from someone with an undetectable viral load, or to someone who is taking a medication like Truvada. This bill — and the moral panic behind it — is from another era.

 

Perhaps not surprisingly, AB1576 is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a controversial LA-based lobby that is similarly opposed to medication like Truvada and has used its high-profile attacks on the porn industry to drive a huge increase in fundraising.

 

Yesterday, I testified in Sacramento against the bill (only to be shut down from the Chair). Instead, what the committee heard — and voted on — was the testimony of two performers, Rod Daily and Cameron Bay, who contracted HIV in their personal life. Nevermind that the bill wouldn’t have prevented either seroconversion (Daily performed exclusively in condom scenes, and everyone that Bay ever performed with tested negative). The committee hearings were part sermon, part scare tactics about the evils of pornography. Science was left at the door. If the bill passes, so too will gay men and three decades of progress against HIV.

____________________

 

 

UPDATE: We just heard back from lawyers who state that the bill doesn’t actually require you to test NEGATIVE for HIV (or chlamydia, syphilis, herpes). I suspect it’s because you can’t require anyone to disclose such information without violating HIPPA regulations. So the requirement is just that you test for it every two weeks, and then … use it as a paper airplane? Present it for inspection? Smoke it? It doesn’t actually say, which makes the whole thing seem even more asinine. You’ll have to forgive my not-so-prescient legal analysis of a bill that doesn’t make much logical sense.

 

Mike @

 

source: http://gaypornblog.com/bill-ab1576-will-force-hiv-discrimination.html

[BaronArtz]

I think it's just political grand-standing, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. This legislative initiative won't go anywhere. A trend I am seeing though, from cruising and speaking with guys on hookup sites, is that SO many guys now use the term 'undetectable HIV+'. As if 'undetectable' means 'safe'. 'Undetectable HIV+' is then used to motivate guys to have 'anything goes' sex with them. It's bizarre. So many men - particularly the 20-something ones - are just in denial about HIV.

 

Disclosure: I live in NYC. This trend could be different elsewhere.

[maninsoma]

I don't know that I agree that this bill will go nowhere. Time will tell.

 

I read an article somewhere recently that talked about how a lot of porn production has already moved to Nevada because of Los Angeles' recently passed law requiring condom use during all porn filming. If the same thing happens statewide, it just means that more porn will be filmed elsewhere.

[jimboivyo]

why again would we want to legally allow openly HIV+ folks to be in porn? is there good reason for it other than pc ism?

[+ quoththeraven]

why again would we want to legally allow openly HIV+ folks to be in porn? is there good reason for it other than pc ism?

 

Why is it not discrimination (as opposed to pc-ism) to ban folks known to be HIV+ from porn? What is the purpose of it, anyway?

 

I'm in favor of mandating testing (so status up through the 14-day window is known) and condoms (both for the example set and subliminal message that it's possible to have a sexy time and still use condoms and as protection against any STDs that might arise during the window period) and disclosing serostatus to scene partners so they're making an informed decision. If a model/actor is willing to accept the risk of condom breakage or failure, that's their decision, and in the case of an HIV- top, the risk of transmission is probably minimal to none even if something goes wrong. All that outlawing HIV+ scene partners (isolated from the issue of transmission prevention) does is reinforce the idea that they're lesser human beings not entitled to the same things other people enjoy. To my mind, the real objection to HIV+ scene partners is the possibility of transmission, and thus the possibility that one is colluding in such by watching the virus (possibly) be transmitted.

 

That doesn't mean bareback porn, straight or gay, will go away; I'm sure plenty of amateur or so-called amateur video will still be posted on tube sites. But at least it makes directly profiting off it harder, and it also means that to the extent this is a form of expression that can't be prohibited under the 1st amendment (which I think is true of non-commercial video), it's still available. People can (and will) take whatever stupid risks they want in their private lives; on the other hand, I don't have a problem with us as a society saying this is unacceptable as a commercial practice, both for the protection of the actors and the moral comfort of the audience. FFS, performing animals get more protection during filming ("no animal was harmed in the making of this movie") than porn actors do.

 

Just so you know: I'm a (mostly) straight woman who is offended that condoms aren't used in straight porn and distressed that their use in gay porn is decreasing. The testing regime is not enough, to a large extent because people can do whatever they want to in their private lives and no one has the ability to police it. Who cares if model/actor zero was infected outside of porn? Because of the testing window (and I'm dubious that retesting is always insisted upon if for some reason the scene doesn't happen as scheduled), s/he is putting other people at risk, minimal as it may be at any given moment. We know it's not possible to police sexual activity outside of the studio, so why this scapegoating of people whose HIV+ status is already known when HIV- actors who don't take precautions in their personal lives are as or more likely to be the problem? To my mind, it's testing and condom usage that's the solution, not banning one group or another from filming.

[Frankly Rich]

why again would we want to legally allow openly HIV+ folks to be in porn? is there good reason for it other than pc ism?

 

jimboivyo obviously prefers only secretly HIV+ guys to be in porn. For some reason, being honest about it is something he would punish.

[+ quoththeraven]

jimboivyo obviously prefers only secretly HIV+ guys to be in porn. For some reason, being honest about it is something he would punish.

 

+1

[jimboivyo]

jimboivyo obviously prefers only secretly HIV+ guys to be in porn. For some reason, being honest about it is something he would punish.

 

rich, you can stop putting words in my mouth thanks. ain't anywhere close to what I said

 

many folks lie about their HIV status anyway, in porn and in escorting. if it were up to me I would mandate testing for all filmed porn. if the guy or gal turns up positive, they can't work in the industry. automatic walking papers. go find another job where there's no risk of infecting other people

 

there are tons of other options in life for people to make their way

[seaboy4hire]

rich, you can stop putting words in my mouth thanks. ain't anywhere close to what I said

 

many folks lie about their HIV status anyway, in porn and in escorting. if it were up to me I would mandate testing for all filmed porn. if the guy or gal turns up positive, they can't work in the industry. automatic walking papers. go find another job where there's no risk of infecting other people

 

there are tons of other options in life for people to make their way

 

What about in their private life? Should we just tell them to stop living or maybe lock them up because they may infect someone else? Fyi, I am hiv positive. I do not hide it. I, and I am sure many on this forum find your comments on this topic to be insensitive. I am an escort and I have done one (wish it could be more) porn. The owner of the company paired neg with neg and positive with positive and condoms were required. No condom, no film, no pay check. It is your rude and insensitive thinking that contributes to the shaming of those of us who are positive. I am a fairly strong person and have no issues with telling people like to to fuck off. But not everyone is like me. Some because of your rude way of thinking will push them further into the hiv closet and will cause them to continue not to disclose their status or maybe even find out what their status is because they are afraid of being shunned by society, friends or family. I hope that one day you do not become positive and have to hear or read words that you have said.

[seaboy4hire]

rich, you can stop putting words in my mouth thanks. ain't anywhere close to what I said

 

many folks lie about their HIV status anyway, in porn and in escorting. if it were up to me I would mandate testing for all filmed porn. if the guy or gal turns up positive, they can't work in the industry. automatic walking papers. go find another job where there's no risk of infecting other people

 

there are tons of other options in life for people to make their way

 

What about in their private life? Should we just tell them to stop living or maybe lock them up because they may infect someone else? Fyi, I am hiv positive. I do not hide it. I, and I am sure many on this forum find your comments on this topic to be insensitive. I am an escort and I have done one (wish it could be more) porn. The owner of the company paired neg with neg and positive with positive and condoms were required. No condom, no film, no pay check. It is your rude and insensitive thinking that contributes to the shaming of those of us who are positive. I am a fairly strong person and have no issues with telling people like to to fuck off. But not everyone is like me. Some because of your rude way of thinking will push them further into the hiv closet and will cause them to continue not to disclose their status or maybe even find out what their status is because they are afraid of being shunned by society, friends or family. I hope that one day you do not become positive and have to hear or read words that you have said.

[jimboivyo]

What about in their private life? Should we just tell them to stop living or maybe lock them up because they may infect someone else? Fyi, I am hiv positive. I do not hide it. I, and I am sure many on this forum find your comments on this topic to be insensitive. I am an escort and I have done one (wish it could be more) porn. The owner of the company paired neg with neg and positive with positive and condoms were required. No condom, no film, no pay check. It is your rude and insensitive thinking that contributes to the shaming of those of us who are positive. I am a fairly strong person and have no issues with telling people like to to fuck off. But not everyone is like me. Some because of your rude way of thinking will push them further into the hiv closet and will cause them to continue not to disclose their status or maybe even find out what their status is because they are afraid of being shunned by society, friends or family. I hope that one day you do not become positive and have to hear or read words that you have said.

 

 

You're changing the argument. What folks do in private is their own business

 

I'm talking about porn as a public business and an irresponsible, relatively unregulated industry.

[+ quoththeraven]

Originally posted by jimboivyo

 

rich, you can stop putting words in my mouth thanks. ain't anywhere close to what I said

 

many folks lie about their HIV status anyway, in porn and in escorting. if it were up to me I would mandate testing for all filmed porn. if the guy or gal turns up positive, they can't work in the industry. automatic walking papers. go find another job where there's no risk of infecting other people

 

there are tons of other options in life for people to make their way

 

Originally posted by seaboy4hire

 

What about in their private life? Should we just tell them to stop living or maybe lock them up because they may infect someone else? Fyi, I am hiv positive. I do not hide it. I, and I am sure many on this forum find your comments on this topic to be insensitive. I am an escort and I have done one (wish it could be more) porn. The owner of the company paired neg with neg and positive with positive and condoms were required. No condom, no film, no pay check. It is your rude and insensitive thinking that contributes to the shaming of those of us who are positive. I am a fairly strong person and have no issues with telling people like to to fuck off. But not everyone is like me. Some because of your rude way of thinking will push them further into the hiv closet and will cause them to continue not to disclose their status or maybe even find out what their status is because they are afraid of being shunned by society, friends or family. I hope that one day you do not become positive and have to hear or read words that you have said.

 

At least we're all agreed that testing is imperative. I was not aware, but am not surprised, that companies pair neg with neg and positive with positive on top of using condoms. (Of course, this may not be true everywhere; it certainly isn't when it comes to condoms, and I'm not sure whether all studios that mandate condom usage mandate testing as well.) At that rate the risk is very low: that one of the partners who tested negative is not in fact negative because of the fourteen-day window or of the possible load boost if there's a condom malfunction between models who are HIV+ but have different strains of the virus.

 

Originally posted by jimboivyo

 

You're changing the argument. What folks do in private is their own business

 

I'm talking about porn as a public business and an irresponsible, relatively unregulated industry.

 

Jimbo, you didn't mention your position on use of condoms in porn, but if they are used and partners are paired according to serostatus, what is the purpose of banning someone from filming? You say "go find another job where there's no risk of infecting other people," but in light of the prevention measures taken, or which could be taken (or mandated), that's a completely illogical stance. Whatever your personal feelings, there are far more opportunities for transmission in the unregulated (and unregulable) world of private behavior. That's why seaboy4hire brought it up, and that's why I am convinced there's another reason for your reaction. You may not know what it is yourself. But if you want to be a less bitter and cynical human being who's more pleasant to be around (virtually speaking, anyway), you might want to find out what it is.

[jimboivyo]

Jimbo, you didn't mention your position on use of condoms in porn, but if they are used and partners are paired according to serostatus, what is the purpose of banning someone from filming? You say "go find another job where there's no risk of infecting other people," but in light of the prevention measures taken, or which could be taken (or mandated), that's a completely illogical stance. Whatever your personal feelings, there are far more opportunities for transmission in the unregulated (and unregulable) world of private behavior. That's why seaboy4hire brought it up, and that's why I am convinced there's another reason for your reaction. You may not know what it is yourself. But if you want to be a less bitter and cynical human being who's more pleasant to be around (virtually speaking, anyway), you might want to find out what it is.

 

I'm for using condoms each time every time. whether its porn or personal

 

and who are you to say whether I'm a bitter person or not? does it make me bitter that I want folks to live long healthy lives, free of HIV? does it makes me cynical that in a business centered around sex that I expect folks to be tested and clean, and if they aren't they should quickly find less risky work? in a world of so many other ways to make a living, why put yourself and others at risk if you're HIV+ in porn? makes no sense. just because you can't doesn't mean you should.

 

its your argument that is illogical my dear. you might not like my opinions on things, but there are a ton of other people out there who agree with me

[Frankly Rich]

Jimboivyo says I am putting words in his mouth, but if you look at my post, I quoted him verbatim.

[PSCoach]

I wish someone would put something else in jimbos mouth. Of course before insertion it should be tested to make sure it does not have any cooties and then be inserted. Maybe then it will give him the time to think before he speaks. Was he appointed the porn police? This is one uninformed mans opinion on a subject that he does not have all of the current facts on. He is living in the late 80's early 90's of the epidemic.

[jimboivyo]

I wish someone would put something else in jimbos mouth. Of course before insertion it should be tested to make sure it does not have any cooties and then be inserted. Maybe then it will give him the time to think before he speaks. Was he appointed the porn police? This is one uninformed mans opinion on a subject that he does not have all of the current facts on. He is living in the late 80's early 90's of the epidemic.

 

keep fooling yourself darling

[PSCoach]

Get educated darhling

[+ dupontversDC]

why again would we want to legally allow openly HIV+ folks to be in porn? is there good reason for it other than pc ism?

 

Wow. You really are a judgmental fool. Hope everything you do meets with others approval. ... you and Putin see the world a lot alike, better just hope you're never judged.

[Frankly Rich]

Why is it not discrimination (as opposed to pc-ism) to ban folks known to be HIV+ from porn? What is the purpose of it, anyway?

 

I'm in favor of mandating testing (so status up through the 14-day window is known) and condoms (both for the example set and subliminal message that it's possible to have a sexy time and still use condoms and as protection against any STDs that might arise during the window period) and disclosing serostatus to scene partners so they're making an informed decision. If a model/actor is willing to accept the risk of condom breakage or failure, that's their decision, and in the case of an HIV- top, the risk of transmission is probably minimal to none even if something goes wrong. All that outlawing HIV+ scene partners (isolated from the issue of transmission prevention) does is reinforce the idea that they're lesser human beings not entitled to the same things other people enjoy. To my mind, the real objection to HIV+ scene partners is the possibility of transmission, and thus the possibility that one is colluding in such by watching the virus (possibly) be transmitted.

 

That doesn't mean bareback porn, straight or gay, will go away; I'm sure plenty of amateur or so-called amateur video will still be posted on tube sites. But at least it makes directly profiting off it harder, and it also means that to the extent this is a form of expression that can't be prohibited under the 1st amendment (which I think is true of non-commercial video), it's still available. People can (and will) take whatever stupid risks they want in their private lives; on the other hand, I don't have a problem with us as a society saying this is unacceptable as a commercial practice, both for the protection of the actors and the moral comfort of the audience. FFS, performing animals get more protection during filming ("no animal was harmed in the making of this movie") than porn actors do.

 

Just so you know: I'm a (mostly) straight woman who is offended that condoms aren't used in straight porn and distressed that their use in gay porn is decreasing. The testing regime is not enough, to a large extent because people can do whatever they want to in their private lives and no one has the ability to police it. Who cares if model/actor zero was infected outside of porn? Because of the testing window (and I'm dubious that retesting is always insisted upon if for some reason the scene doesn't happen as scheduled), s/he is putting other people at risk, minimal as it may be at any given moment. We know it's not possible to police sexual activity outside of the studio, so why this scapegoating of people whose HIV+ status is already known when HIV- actors who don't take precautions in their personal lives are as or more likely to be the problem? To my mind, it's testing and condom usage that's the solution, not banning one group or another from filming.

 

I'm sorry to have overlooked this post earlier when I was caught up with what another poster was saying. It's well-said, and a viewpoint that is welcome- at least to me!

[+ quoththeraven]

I'm for using condoms each time every time. whether its porn or personal

 

and who are you to say whether I'm a bitter person or not? does it make me bitter that I want folks to live long healthy lives, free of HIV? does it makes me cynical that in a business centered around sex that I expect folks to be tested and clean, and if they aren't they should quickly find less risky work? in a world of so many other ways to make a living, why put yourself and others at risk if you're HIV+ in porn? makes no sense. just because you can't doesn't mean you should.

 

its your argument that is illogical my dear. you might not like my opinions on things, but there are a ton of other people out there who agree with me

 

Jimbo - We agree on everything other than the relative risk and appropriateness of HIV+ actors continuing to perform in porn while using condoms after having been tested and identified and, as seaboy4hire said was done in his case, serostatus matching.

 

Facts are facts. I don't understand as a factual matter in what regard an HIV+ actor is taking additional risk continuing to perform other than the possibility of increased viral load due to exposure to another strain of the virus harbored by another HIV+ actor. The risk is all on the HIV- actor and pairing HIV- actors with HIV- actors and the use of condoms comes close to bringing that risk down to zero; the only reason it's not zero is because of the possibility of a false negative due to the 14-day window or other delay and, if for some reason serostatus sorting isn't used, condom breakage or failure.

 

Please, if you think I have these facts wrong, show me where I'm wrong. But otherwise you come across as holding a fervently-held belief about what people who already are positive should and shouldn't do that has nothing to do with the public health concerns you cite as the basis for the belief. Also, how many people agree with you (something not susceptible to confirmation anyway unless they all start piping up) is a measure of the popularity of a belief, not its accuracy.

[+ quoththeraven]

I'm sorry to have overlooked this post earlier when I was caught up with what another poster was saying. It's well-said, and a viewpoint that is welcome- at least to me!

 

Thanks!