Most likely you have heard by now that there was a case of HIV in the porn industry these past few weeks. This is an issue I’ve been interested in since the last outbreak in the porn industry in 2003 so I’ve been following the responses of the “blogosphere” (or whatever the fuck) very closely. I present to you, a meta-analysis of what I’ve seen to describe the situation and then offer up my totally biased opinion.
The LA Times has a long article in their archive from 2003 about the porn industry and some of the problems and issues around STD and HIV testing. The Adult Industry Medical HealthCare Foundation (AIM), which is a clinic founded by Sharon Mitchell (former porn actress) to address the staggering rates of STDs in the industry, has been at the center of these testing issues in the industry.
Of 483 people tested between October 2001 and March 2002, about 40% had at least one disease. Nearly 17% tested positive for chlamydia, 13% for gonorrhea and 10% for hepatitis B and C, according to Sharon Mitchell, a former adult actress who founded AIM. None of the tests came up positive for HIV…
By comparison, 23,277 cases of gonorrhea were reported statewide in 2001, less than one-tenth of 1% of the state’s population, according to the Department of Health Service’s division of communicable disease control. For chlamydia, 101,871 cases were reported for the year, or about three-tenths of 1%–a rate health officials consider epidemic. The chlamydia rates in the porn world are about 57 times higher than those epidemic proportions.
According to this blog post:
The informal but stringently observed practice here in the Los Angeles area requires monthly testing of all performers in heterosexual pornography to be tested no less than once every 28 days for HIV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, every sixty days for Syphilis, and to authorize access to the results of those tests through a computerized data base to both other performers with whom they might be hired to work and to producers who might hire them. The gay side of the industry has opted for barrier protections and does not require performer testing, though some gay performers test on their own initiative.
What happened recently is that an actor tested positive for HIV and had waited longer than the recommended timelines between tests so there’s a little bit of a quarantine to make sure a potential outbreak doesn’t ensue.She should have been tested earlier, the producers should have checked the AIM database to make sure she was following the guidelines, but somehow the system failed.
That’s the background more or less on STDs, HIV and the porn industry in a blog-sized nugget.
More interesting is the response to this recent case. I was going to try to pick through the internet myself, but thankfully Tony Comstock did an EXCELLENT roundup. (directed there via Audacia Ray’s Twitter.)
Much of the argument boils down to whether or not performers should be required to wear condoms. I’m going to paraphrase some of the perspectives because I doubt most of you are as interested in this as I am. I’m also going to give MY response to these arguments because what’s the fun if I can’t have my own soapbox?
The industry doesn’t need condoms because we do so much testing and this prevents transmission.
Testing is awesome but testing isn’t prevention. People have sex after testing and get infected and transmit STDs and HIV. For the folks who continue to get STDs and HIV, this is a preventable failure. Belladonna has partners tested more frequently and this seems to work for her; I think that many women in porn are not Belladonna and don’t have the power to make demands.
If an actor wants to use condoms, they should ask it or demand it.
This is mostly an argument I’ve read from producers who are condom supportive. From what I’ve heard, this is more an exception instead of the rule. Actors who insist on condoms often can’t work – which sort of makes it not a choice right?
As a sex positive community, we should promote condom use in general to maintain healthy bodies. Porn sets this example.
This is a big idea and consciously idealistic. Personally, I think of porn as a business and rarely do businesses see their role as agents of social change. But it’s a nice thought for those smaller indie companies…which are probably the companies that already allow condoms or promote condoms.
Even if there were a requirement, no one would follow it.
Maybe true. I’ve seen lots of comparisons to the porn industry and construction industry and things like that. The fact is that in construction there are LOTS of saftey rules that people don’t follow ALL the time and the fines can be HUGE. It’s not perfect but it provides a little protection for folks who want to be safe at their job (particularly if they are fired). Porn actors could use a little more weight on their side to at least leverage condom use.
Condoms aren’t sexy.
Who gives a shit? This is business. Get creative. Lots of people use condoms in real life and manage to keep sex sexy. Plus, there’s technology to make them disappear in post-production so that’s an option.
Other points:
- HIV is the big deal now, but gonorrhea is getting more and more drug resistant.Could be a problem in the future.
- They don’t test for Hep, which is much more deadly in the U.S. Test for it and provide vaccines as available.
- Actors have to pay for all this stuff themselves (from what I hear); at minimum if you’re only using testing as “prevention” make the producers eat the cost.
- AIM should really think about getting a real doctor as a spokesperson. Dr. Mitchell is not a medical doctor but she’s on the website in a white coat and consistently throws out her “Dr.” status. I think this is dangerous and undermines the credibility of AIM. (Also, defending rapists is really shitty.)
That’s all I can muster right now, and you get a gold star if you read this far. I’m not a sex worker or a performer so this doesn’t affect me in the same way that it affects many of the other folks who have weighed in. I do work in a field that is affected by these issues so I have a small stake nonetheless.
I also posted on this topic earlier and Alexa from The Real Princess Diaries commented with her perspective, which is different from mine. (This was a minor rock star moment in my blogging life because she’s kind of a big deal, so you should read it if you haven’t. )
Phew.
Excellent post. Excuse me while I click through the links.
Disappointed with Mitchell, for sure.
I love that you delve into all of the issues involved in the adult entertainment/sex work field with an open mind and respect to the people involved.
Funny side note–my first choice for a “d” name was Belladonna, until I was schooled why it wasn’t a brilliant idear.
It’s a tricky subject. For awhile I was sort of ambiguous, but more recently I really felt like this is a worker exploitation issue.
I’d love to hear more from the small-time female actors and what they really think about the issue. If they come out publicly they have their work life on the line, but if they speak out anonymously it would be interesting to see where they fall.
Testing is definitely better than nothing, but I also think there is a glossing over of all the other infections that just come with the territory.
Thanks for wrangling this one- it is a HUGE topic. Why can’t they take a lesson from the ‘mos?!
Also, I thought I read somewhere that one of the reasons this was a “big deal” in the media is that they just recently changed their media disclosure rules and that previously stuff like this was happening all the time- they just were not required to tell everyone. I would be interested to know more about that if that is the case.