A reader sends this scenario, lets say this reader knows more than a little about the law. Yesterdays post was interesting, this scenario takes it even further
Consider:
This is hypothetical. One model release term (in a three-page release) requires female performer to use Plan B pills on request of producer. It provides that if she fails or refuses to do so and a pregnancy ensues, she will become financially liable to producer in an amount equal to any sum which a court orders a producer or male talent to pay for support of the child. What lawyers would call liability for “contribution” or “indemnification”.
After creampie ejaculation, model states that she’s not on any birth control. Producer gets Plan B pills, has them delivered to her doorstep. Months later, she calls and informs male talent or producer that she’s pregnant. Asked about Plan B pills, she states that she did not take them. Producer and male talent put on their seatbelts cuz this may get nasty.
I’ve asked some domestic relations attorneys their thoughts on whether such a term would be valid/enforceable or “void as against public policy” and none of them have expressed any definite “no”.
It does not seem that there are any well-known cases about these issues – because it’s only in the world of porn that people enter into written contracts to have sex and deal with consequences of sex. That never happens in any other context that I know of. As a result, there are few to no reported cases.
I asked my friend this one and she shook her head and asked if I do this to her on purpose. She sidestepped and said that she wasn’t an expert on contract law. But her thoughts are that it might hold up (note no commitment on this one). We kicked it around a bit. We agreed that she can not be forced to take the Plan B pill no matter what the contract says, so assuming that does not void the entire contract, which depending on the wording it may or may not, The producer would not be liable for child support but the performer could be. The producer could be held responsible for financial damages depending on the circumstances…did either performer request to wear a condom and were not allowed? We both thought that could be a big factor in the civil trial, maybe even the swing factor.
One thing about contract law is that while you may sign away certain rights in a contract, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for a criminal act via the contract. If the law requires a condom and the producer knowingly breaks that law then all bets are off on how it might play out.
This also answers the questions I get about what if there’s a contract…..if the contract is an effort to do an end run around a law it is void, period.
Bear in mind that I am not an attorney and I am not offering any legal advice here, just my opinions and those of my friend(s) who is an attorney, but not having any specifics even these thoughts are just general conversation about a set of what ifs.
That said…This is interesting…what do y’all think?
52 Responses
Something to think about. It is the responsibility of the two performers. The male talent will have to take responsibility. Porn performers forget that sex is two part responsibility. If he didn’t want that responsibility, he should’ve put on a condom, not just leave the responsibility solely on the female performer.
How many performers actually get pregnant by a male talent and carry the kid to full term? Is this type of thing really an issue or is it a tempest in a teacup?
Most porn performers that get pregnant would likely carry to term and raise the kid (fortunately most porn chicks are smart enough to get clipped or take some form of hormonal birth control). Not everyone thinks murdering a baby is OK — actually, most people don’t and that likely includes most porn performers.
There is an interesting old thread on ADT about Alana Evans arguing with Kurt Lockwood about her getting an abortion and it being impossible for anyone but Kurt to be the sperm donor. I tend to believe Alana did actually “abort” her kid, I have read about her reputation but I think she is telling the truth about that — so it does likely happen.
I also believe Jilted’s comment that there was a baby killing clinic that seemed to specialize in killing porno chicks babies in the past but I would tend to bet agents, directors and producers get to the new female performers nowadays and tell them point blank to get clipped or take the Depo-Provera shot or they won’t get work (especially after a new porn chick showed up on Jacky St. James’ set one day to perform with a raging vaginal yeast infection — Jacky made sure she got to a gynecologist ASAP but the talent involved talked Jacky into allowing the scene to go on after he fucked the clumps of infection out of Ms. 21 year old porn chickie doing her first scene, what if that had been an active Herpes infection or Syphilis instead of a yeast infection or a pregnancy because the chickie didn’t know that birth control exists) — I think that one getting around probably made most agents and directors more vocal on telling new female performers what they need to do.
How many performers actually get pregnant by male talent? More than you would think. Carrying to full term, that’s another story.
And a contract that says you agree to take the Plan B pills, not worth the paper its printed on.
If you run this by a labor attorney I’m curious to know…
Wouldn’t a clause like that make it harder to prove either talent was an IC?
What happens in situations where plan b fails…..medically contraindicated…. or causes complications…..missed work time/earnings?
Since this is porn…. lets say she petitions family court, wins child support from the male talent based on paternity tests….Word gets back to producer who sues female and tells male talent GFY….contact says she has to pay but doesn’t include anything about passing that money onto you 🙂
My take on this one is a little bit from left field, but bear with me…
Intent.
Small word, but huge on implications. The question would be the intent of the producer, the performers, and so on. If the girl came to the set knowing she was going to get creampie and taking it even through she’s not taking birth control or using other methods, then you have to ask about her intentions.
If the producer asked “are you on birth control” and the girl says no, and the producer doesn’t tell the male talent and encourages the scene, what are his intentions?
What if the male talent and the producer have conspired to shoot a “creampie surprise” scene, avoiding telling the girl in order to get her actual reaction to getting a creampie?
What if the male performer, instead of pulling out for a facial just says “fuck it” and dumps his load into the girl?
Intent is important, because it could trump an otherwise iron clad contract. Intent is important because the girl’s actions could be seen as setting a trap, intentionally doing something that she knew could very well lead to a pregnancy.
The reality here is that most girls wouldn’t want to get pregnant on the set, and will take the steps to assure it doesn’t happen. Condoms would be good in this regard, but not perfect. Proper use of birth control goes a long way to resolving the issue.
It’s not a easy case, and potentially the porn angle in family court could shut everyone out.
Good catch RA thats a bit I hadnt thought of nor did my friend and it is relevant…interesting food for thought here.
I didn’t comment on the Plan B contracts. However, smart producers are likely requiring letters from the girls gynecologists stating that they are either clipped or have taken a Depo Provera shot within the past 90 days to prevent an on-set conception from being much of a concern. I know if I were a director or producer I would seriously consider such a requirement — legal or not. It might not matter much in my case because I would be reluctant to film creampie scenes (that is a good way to get AIDS especially with anal creampies) but women have (rarely) become pregnant from pre-cum and that can be emitted from men’s dicks throughout the scene.
@mharris
No smart gyn would risk their license providing the letter you describe. Prior to HIPAA my job asked for a letter verifying 11 unpaid absences were due to cancer treatment. My doc wrote back that I was under his care on the days in question then referred then bank to his lawyer when they demanded a diagnosis. The bank was fined by the EEOC when they pressed the matter.
HIPAA put an end to employers accessing medical records of workers enrolled in their group health insurance plans to end discriminatory firings of people with health conditions that raised group insurance rates.
Not sure but I’d expect that requiring birth control would have to be on a form similar to vaccines which include an opt out… with no reason given to the employer.
One last thing to consider is the question of whether birth control affects the risk of HIV transmission as was discussed in the annual AIDS conference this summer. Fact is scientists still don’t understand why PrEP doesn’t prevent vaginal transmission at the same rates seen for anal or needle drug use.
@rawalex
Was worth bearing with you and thanks for going beyond producer intent to CYA.
Curious about your take on family court given custody and support rulings on surrogate contracts and contracted private sperm donor situations.
Then I have a feeling if a few lawsuits on the issue I bring up about on-set conception come up we won’t have a porn industry in the US to speak of — or they will not film vaginal sex if they continue to produce. Insurers (whether liability or workman’s comp) aren’t going to accept being liable for $300K in child support nor are male performers going to be willing to perform vaginal sex on set if one or two get stuck with that $300K child support bill (unless they have been snipped).
I agree that requiring a female talent to take Plan B is not going to fly because there is no manner of verifying that she actually took it nor is it reliable enough for this purpose. Standard birth control regimens are at least 95% effective if used as directed and methods where someone doesn’t have to remember to take a pill each night at 10pm (Depo-Provera, a vasectomy or tubal ligation or an IUD — the latter not advisable for porn performers due to medical issues with them in women that have multiple sex partners) can be up to 99% effective. Frankly it would be stupid for a female to perform without being on reliable birth control (whether using condoms or not) and men if they aren’t snipped but there are always a few with a questionable IQ — at least when dealing with sexual health.
Way outside my area of expertise, so buyer beware. That said, I think for the purposes of this scenario you have to ask: From a workplace perspective, what is the law? If you do that and work backwards, I think it’s actually an easy call.
What’s the law? If you’re going to film sexual intercourse, then the male performer must wear a condom.
While the condom law was not created to prevent unwanted pregnancies onset, it is designed to prevent the exchange of bodily fluids, especially semen, and, well, one of the potential side effects of exchanging semen is pregnancy. This is completely foreseeable. Under the law it’s “knew or should have known.” A producer, and I believe male talent, knows or should have known that a cream pie scene could lead to pregnancy – even if the performer is on the pill, using a condom or heck, takes the morning after pill.
There’s another aspect to employment law here. It is illegal for an employer to inquire into the medical records of an employee. Given that an employer isn’t even allowed to ask about the prescriptions and medications that an employee may be taking, I don’t know, but I have to believe it’s way out of bounds to require as a condition of employment that an employee take a specific medication. I think its doubly wrong – though the law may not make a distinction – to require as a condition of employment that the employee take something that would prevent conception or cause the termination of very early conception. Essentially, the producer is requiring an abortion. Especially when the whole purposes of taking the medication is to absolve the producer of any liability for requiring the talent to violate the law.
So, I think in this scenario, the starting point is that under the law it is illegal to film a cream pie scene that involves unprotected sex with ejaculation. Again, the fact that the law is not enforced is irrelevant.
So, you’d have a producer requiring a performer to conspire to violate the law as a condition of employment and then for the producer to say that the performer was reckless and negligent when violating the law, so I shouldn’t be responsible. That ain’t gonna fly.
Last, I think the analogy is this. A construction firm doesn’t want to pay for hard hats and safety gear designed to protect and reduce injury so it requires construction workers as a condition of employment to sign a contract that says: While I’m on your construction site, I agree to work without legally-mandated safety equipment.
Now, a construction worker gets a head injury because they were working without a hard that. That construction company owner would not only be responsible for the workers injuries, they might also be found to be criminally negligent regardless of whether the construction worker signed a contract.
I know folks go on and on about condoms breaking, they’re not 100%, etc., but a condom is still the law, even if its not enforced.
No idea or opinion about whether the male talent would also be responsible for child support, but I could make an argument that the male talent is knowingly breaking the law, just like the producer, and is equally culpable. If a male talent agrees to do a cream pie scene, he “knows or should have known” that the act could lead to pregnancy and should take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Start with the law, work backwards, and its not such a tough question.
Thanks BT I would say you nailed it even though Plan B isnt prescription (if it were thatd be cut and dry)
Good call man…
I love these things…I learn a lot you guys rock
Ends up sort of in the same place for me, that of intent.
Male talent are not sperm donors or a surrogate. A girl getting pregnant (either intentionally, not taking precautions, not going the plan B route. and even keeping quiet until past the first trimester) shows a certain level of intent that nobody else in the situation might have.
In family court, you can imagine the questions: When you ask the guy “did you have unsafe sex” the answer would be “yes, but the girl indicated that she had taken the pill or had other contraceptive devices in play”. “Did you want to get her pregnant?” “Hell no”/
Ask the producer “Did you want her to get knocked up?” “No, and we made it clear what was involved in the shoot and that she needed to be actively taking birth control and such”.
As the girl “Were you taking birth control?” “No”. “Did you willingly have unprotected sex?” “Yes”. “Did you tell others that you were using birth control or let them believe that you were?” “Yes”. Did you take the Plan B pill that was provided?” “No”.
In that case, the girl looks bad. You can re-write the script for almost any possiblity I suggest, and it still gets back to “having unsafe sex without birth control and not telling anyone”.
Now, would that be enough for a family court to deny child support? Not sure. A vengeful court could make them all liable equally, but it might not stand up on an appeal. The girl will almost always be responsible in the end, as she was the one and only that could truly do something about the situation.
You have to remember: The male talent could “oops” a creampie even when not intended. A cum facial could get on fingers which end up in a pussy which lead to pregnancy. An anal creampie could spill over. A condom could break. In the end, it’s really the girl who needs to do what she needs to do in order not to get randomly knocked up by porn guys – or only do lesbian scenes.
Family courts are a crap shoot, and this sort of scenario has enough crap to make them make bad decisions.
@harris:
Damn, Matt. Do you honestly believe your own bullshit? Pornstars essentially given an ultimatum to get a birth control shot or they don’t get hired? Some of your most outlandish statements to date and that’s saying a lot.
Yes, I know that Plan B is not a prescription. However, it is one of those over-the-counters that can be paid for with FSA funds. In the Hobby Lobby case, corporations were exempted from providing coverage in their plans for the morning after pill, meaning you wouldn’t be able to use those funds or insurance funds to obtain it, even though it is over-the-counter and is included in other insurance plans. So, from an insurance perspective – and from the perspective of the Supreme Court in legislation against the ACA – its treated like other prescription-based forms of birth control. That’s the reason I included it.
Similarly, just because its over-the-counter doesn’t give an employer the right to ask if you’re taking it, or any other over-the-counter medication, for a medical reason. Again, reason I included it. An analogous situation: Its flu season. My employer doesn’t want anyone to miss work, so he thinks it would be great if everyone got a flu shot and took Tamaflu to stop us from getting and spreading the flu and to minimize the impact. Sounds wonderful. But my employer cannot mandate that we do that or ask us if we’ve done it, even though I can get a flu shot just by going to Walgreens and I don’t need a prescription for Tamaflu.
This is stretching things, but I think you could almost make a legal argument that a producer, director, male and female performer and camera and lighting operators who make a legal contract to film a non-condom film with a cream pie are conspiring to commit a crime. In that sense, a porn set is a criminal conspiracy. Now, I think condoms are a regulatory matter and not a criminal matter, but you get my point. Just because its not enforced doesn’t mean its not the law.
To the responsibility of male talent, I think its not unlike the guy who goes into a bar, meets a girl and decides to have sex with her. They get back to her place and he says he doesn’t have a condom and she says no worries I’m on the pill. He knocks her up and finds out after that she lied. Legally, it doesn’t matter. He’s still responsible for the kid. The court doesn’t turn a blind eye to irresponsibility because of deception and punish the kid. I think if a paternity test reveals that male talent is the father, the male talent is responsible regardless of the circumstances. I would think actually that the fact that condoms are the law would strengthen the case against the male talent and highlight his irresponsibility (under the law) by saying: Hey, you not only knew there was a possibility you could get her pregnant, you knew that its the law that you wear a condom and you did it any way.
What saves porn in all of these things is that performers are more or less dysfunctional outlaws who are literally willing to do almost anything for a check – and don’t complain in order to protect the check. I know do anything sounds harsh, but given that female talent are willing to do 10 guy blow bangs, double anal, get slapped and donkey kicked, groped by strangers in a room full of Kink patrons etc sort of makes the point.
Again, I think you start with a simple question: What’s the law?
rawalex – this actually happens all the time in real life. Family courts side with the baby, not the father who says he was deceived. The courts don’t care whether you intended to father a child, whether you didn’t wear a condom because she said she was on birth control. You fathered a kid. You’re responsible. It really is that simple and has been for decades in the courts. That’s why the typical argument isn’t: I didn’t mean to do it, it’s that, the kid isn’t mine and that is solved with a paternity test.
Paternity is what matters, not the circumstances under which the child was conceived.
Hop, think of the liability if female talent does get pregnant. You think producers aren’t trying to reduce that chance any way they reasonably can (condoms aren’t reasonable for adult industry liability reduction purposes). Maybe I am wrong but think about it, Hop. Another commenter said you work in adult so you of all people should know the possible liability if a female performer gets knocked up on your set — it is possible that your company could be on the hook for $300K in child support (over 18 years) via a judgement based on the male talent’s legal liability and it taking place at work. It is possible that your workman’s comp insurer would be liable, raising the workman’s comp insurance rates of every porn company. You can’t say you haven’t at least thought long and hard about this one. I don’t think it unreasonable to require female performers to either be on birth control or have their tubes tied. I don’t wish the first lawsuit on this matter on any producer or on State Fund for that matter. It will be a doozy for sure!
I don’t doubt that the male talent would be responsible for child support. However, the question is can State Fund and/or the production company be responsible via a civil judgement on the theory that it happened at work and is essentially a workplace injury. I think we will eventually find out and the resulting civil trial won’t be pretty.
@rawalex
Family court doesn’t care how the child was conceived. They use procedure and law to ask questions and determine facts as the basis for their decisions.
Have paternity tests been performed? Is he the biological father?
Something no one has mentioned here is married female talent at the time of birth. It doesn’t matter who the biological father is, even if the husband proves he isn’t the biological father he is on the hook for child support if they legally separate or divorce. Tabloids love reporting these situations and are already having a field day with Ed Hartwell/Keisha Pulliam.
California courts have ruled on several cases where a man donates sperm to lesbian couple and winds up on the hook for child support. The court doesn’t care how iron clad their contract was. The contract spelling out their intents with every ‘t’ crossed and dots over every ‘I’ seems to go put the window in family court where they ask… have paternity tests been done? Is he the father?
Interesting tidbit in Ohio if a woman is unmarried at the time of birth she is sole guardian to the child. Our grandson’s father is on the hook for child support and has no legal right to even visit his son absent a custody ruling which means hiring a private attorney and proving it would be in the child’s best interest.
Perhaps Mike can ask his family lawyer friend to lunch to simply explain these oddities and the role courts jurisdiction limits would play in this hypothetical situation. The catch 22 I’m seeing is contracts are a civil matter which is beyond the scope of what family courts can consider. Civil courts can’t rule on family court matters so they delay fact finding until they have a ruling on those issues from the family court, the labor angle adds another distinct area of law…. that’s without the first amendment which is bound to play a role.
Opening big bottle of Aleve anyone else care for some? 😉
Sorry, gentlemen, but you cannot as a matter of law require that someone have a medical procedure or take a medication, supplement or anything else as a condition of employment. As an employer, you’re not even allowed to ask if your employee or potential employee has any medical conditions or is taking a prescription or supplement. So, this is all fun to fantasize about, but the law is the law.
Once again, there are no porn exceptions under the law, even if porn keeps trying to insist that there are.
You can take this one step further and argue that since an employer has a duty to ensure a safe workplace, and since condoms are the law – even if porn wants to keep fantasizing that they aren’t – a producer who allows condom-less sex on a set has a responsibility to the female talent who gets pregnant as a result of a cream pie.
@mharris
“You think producers aren’t trying to reduce that chance any way they reasonably can (condoms aren’t reasonable for adult industry liability reduction purposes).”
Reasonable is the key word here. It’s reasonable to fight pending legislation by any means possible, it’s not reasonable to ignore facts.
Fact…the US has a 100 year history of labor decisions of prioritizing worker safety costs over the stakeholder profitability.
Fact… stakeholders have the burden of balancing costs and potential liability (risks) against sought for profits (rewards).
Fact….to achieve worker safety stakeholders are given limited authority (governance of workers) and the burden of ensuring they do not violate the rights of the workers they govern.
Fact…US constitutional right to freedom of ‘PURSUIT’ is not a guarantee of ‘ATTAINMENT’ nor a promise to protect stakeholders from expensive or bankrupting adversity thwarting their pursuit of a profitable bottom line.
Bottom line it is not reasonable for stakeholders to burden workers or violate their rights in the pursuit of alternative means to achieve worker safety.
Based on the number of POC biopsies that I personally handled for ‘porn chicks’ i have to call BS on the claim that their is any ultimatum to get a birth control shot or not get hired. ONLY IN PORN
How many POC biopsies have you personally handled in the past five years (since AIM went belly-up and performers haven’t had Sharon Mitchell to “help” them kill their unborn babies via referral and/or cajoling a studio or porn related charity to pay — she has admitted to referring for abortion IIRC)? If the abortion rate is high in the adult film industry that makes me wonder if certain studios are cognizant of what I am talking about and offering to pay for abortions to keep from indirectly having to pay through male talent suing them on the basis of a workplace injury (or their Workman’s Comp insurer from having to pay) 18 years of child support when female talent that has worked for them recently brings it to their attention that she was likely impregnated on their set. Maybe I am naive here but those that are irresponsible enough not to use birth control or get clipped/tubes tied would likely be the same ones irresponsible enough not to save for a “rainy day” and be financially able to pay for an abortion (which is not covered by the vast majority of health insurers and specifically not allowed to be covered by Medicaid or an Obamacare policy unless the mother’s life is in dire jeopardy and it is a kill one or two die within days situation).
While we are discussing POC biopsies, why in the fuck is one even necessary? Isn’t the dead baby’s body enough proof for any reasonable person that the kid was conceived? If some entity needs proof of conception that badly, just send them the kid’s corpse and get on with it — the mother certainly doesn’t give a fuck about the dead baby if she is willing to order a hit on it in the first place!
Lurk, we agree on something. Performers should not be paying for VD testing or their asinine weekly antibiotic shot proposal, I am sure Dr. Miao or Dr. Rigg can do that at a reasonable per-injection price. Female performers should also receive a Depo-Provera injection every 85-90 days paid for by the producers (maybe on a percentage of annual total scenes produced basis). Polyurethane condoms (call that one the Leya Falcon rule, she is deathly allergic to latex) should also be available and a condom optional policy enforced. However, I think it is asinine to require condoms when they are just going to break and the irritation caused by them will vastly increase the risk of VD, probably to well above the risk if the damn rubber wasn’t used at all if and when it breaks. Rubbers work fine for ten minute romps in a civilian’s bedroom (preferably with the cute chickie tied to the bed) but they cause way too much irritation to tender vaginas during 45 minute sex marathons (if soft-core is being filmed as well as hard core increase that to 90 minutes). If you don’t believe me have your husband put a condom on a dildo and fuck your vagina with it for 45 minutes straight. Use all the lube and replacement condoms you want. Let me know if that changes your mind about condoms in porn, I bet it does.
@mharris
Since 2011 studies have been showing a possible link between hormonal birth control shots and increased risk for hiv transmission to the patient. Until that risk possibility is eliminated or mitigated you won’t see me advocating the shot.
As much as it pains me to say this (I personally would be happier with creampies than having to look at cum on a woman’s face after every scene) the industry probably shouldn’t be doing creampies. Rodney Moore has posted on here recently that he thinks anal creampies are not appropriate, I would expand that to any creampie vag scenes as well. That would greatly reduce the VD and pregnancy risk (although not completely eliminate it). Swallowing should be negotiated between the talent involved and the producer or director before filming begins.
One issue that no one has brought up is pre-cum. Studies prove that pregnancy can happen from it. Pre-cum is emitted throughout sex by the male penis. That is why I call for mandatory birth control in porn. If I were a male performer my nuts would have been clipped years ago. At a minimum female performers should be required to prove either having had tubal ligation or be actively taking Depo-Provera shots every 85-90 days. My sister takes Depo shots (yes, she is much younger than I), she swears by them — the one time she skipped the shot she got knocked up. When I told her what Sharon Mitchell said on AIM’s Porn 101 about going off of them once a year to prevent nasty pelvic pain (Sharon said that was to have a period, then it was evidently safe to go back on them) she thought I was nuts and that her doctor didn’t have a problem with her taking them year-round for however long she wished. Evidently the Depo shots aren’t a problem for her and she hasn’t came to me saying she got knocked up again.
Here is a sidebar that might be of benefit to someone, when my sister lived in a large city she found a birth control clinic (not Planned Parenthood) that gave the shots and a medical exam for cheap — although I would still suggest someone going to an actual gynecologist’s office rather than a birth control center where they probably have the docs performing a cursory medical exam and giving the Depo shot to a different patient every 15 minutes, that is the standard of care in low-income clinics like those on routine matters. I followed my old doctor to a low-income general practice clinic unrelated to that birth control clinic years ago — they were willing to allow it despite my being employed, having an income way off of their sliding scale chart and made arrangements to take my (then) state employee medical insurance but their main business was Medicaid, their general practice office saw patients for minor issues and prescription refills in very quick succession but they did have psychiatrists on staff which was very convenient with my bipolar disorder as I didn’t have to get to a large city every week to see one. I guess low-income clinics are a great idea in theory and the one I went to was good to me (even though I am not low-income) but I question 15 minute office visits for almost any medical issue, it would seem like a lot could be missed pushing patients out that quickly. To contrast my current internist’s office visits usually take an hour or more, she catches things that I would have never even thought of and has time to do research if she needs to. I hope she is able to remain in practice for a while, she appears to be close to my age so her retirement might be an issue that comes up at some point (that is how I lost my last doctor, he went into semi-retirement and took a job at county mental health as their medical director, obviously the county isn’t going to take a patient that doesn’t qualify for low-income services unlike clinics taking FQHC funding but being privately run like the low-income clinic I followed my doc to years ago so I had to find another internist).
I need to research that one, I was unaware of a possible link between birth control and HIV. However, one concern is that there is a high likelihood of those on birth control having more sex with more partners than monogamous couples — ergo the increase in HIV infection of those taking a form of hormonal birth control. I am not claiming you are wrong but that is a concern I would have regarding such a claim. Also, the HIV rate on porn sets is extremely low anyway. Note I am not repeating the FSC claim that the last non-male homosexual on-set transmission was in 2004, that is not a claim that can be proven either way as some performer could have caught HIV and decided to leave the industry and keep his/her infection quiet — there was rumor of a third and fourth HIV infection when Cameron Bay and Rod Daily caught it and even a name of the third infected porn performer was floated (Sofia Delgado IIRC, she mainly did BDSM scenes from what I could tell and only performed in about ten scenes), it is likely that this would be an essential non-issue with two-week VD testing as the chance of the low number of transmissions on set increasing even with mandatory birth control is probably very low.
Let me get back to you on this one, Lurk even though everyone that isn’t Hop Sing (who I hope is getting his flaccid dick and balls sucked by Bonnie Rotten tonight, unfortunately he will likely have to eat out Bonnie’s pussy next weekend in return) probably loves it when I drive Hop crazy when he thinks I am blowing my keyboard.
@harris
You’ve totally lost it.
Once again …….. all the talk about condoms not working, condoms this, condoms that is great fun but it ignores a simple fact. Condoms are the law. And again, the fact that the law is not enforced except on those few occasions when OSHA has cracked down on a production company and fined them for non use does not change the fact that it is the law.
If you accept that fact – and it is a fact – then the point is to prevent the spread of STDs by stopping the exchange of bodily fluids in the vagina or rectum. If you’re not allowed to exchange bodily fluids in the vagina or rectum then …. you really can’t film a vaginal or anal creampie.
@mharris
Do you know anything about research? Such as study particpant criteria? Even if you don’t rest assured that Gilead and the researchers sharing their grant funded studies at CROI and other annual HIV/AIDS conferences do.
Married monogamous women were excluded from PrEP efficacy studies for women at high risk. Monogamous women married to an HIV partner were also excluded from this study though they may have been referred to studies for serodiscordance.
If you’re serious about researching start with the study Gilead discontinued in 2011-2012 for female sex-workers. Since then all sorts of researchers have been trying to understand the whys of the female sex-worker study failure while the simultaneous MSM study showed astounding success.
Before you start spewing crap about ‘condom rash’ consider a few facts.
The amazing vagina is self-lubricating designed for sex, birthing babies and restoring itself. Proven by a few millennia of human existence.
The vagina is much more resilient than the anal cavity. Proven by the tears and bleeding attributed to a much higher rate of HIV due to anal sex vs vaginal transmission.
The industry had no issue with condom causing abrasions in gay productions for decades… it became an issue when regulators pressed to enforce ‘barrier’ regulation in place since 1992.
Educated professionals rofl at industry propaganda like properly lubricated condoms cause condom rash. A bit like saying chewing sugarless gum for extended periods causing proper dental hygiene and damages oral mucous membranes.
Oops edited wrong line. Last sentence should read.
A bit like saying chewing sugarless gum for extended periods undermines proper dental hygiene causing oral mucous membrane damage.
@BT
I’d have more patience for the industry condom propaganda if it were a preface to viable alternatives with equal or better protection outcomes. FSC’s recent petition to OSHA was the first with alternatives for STD other than HIV and I doubt they’d have gone that route if industry STD events didn’t force them to. 2012 syphilis, 2013 hepC and HIV killed any hope they had to use testing as the gate (barrier) they claimed it to be.
I don’t know everything about medical research but I think I can recognize a scholarly source when I see it (considering I have actually wrote scholarly articles over the years albeit not about any medical issue). I may have to go to a university library to research this issue although I will try a Google search first. I haven’t had the chance to start looking into this theory (I am also very interested in the Gilead study — although I will take it with scepticism as they are a drug manufacturer looking to sell some medication) but regarding condom rash, I would take the word of people who have experienced it (especially when tens of female performers complain about it) over some “educated professional” that is trying to push their morals on the industry — actually they (including Michael Weinstein) know damn well about condom rash and are using it to run the industry out of the state/country by forcing a condom mandate on producers and performers. Remember, Weinstein’s best buddy is a Baptist preacher (Assemblyman Isadore Hall from Compton, he introduced Weinstein’s bullshit moral crusade bills), you can take a look at Baptist doctrine yourself but it puts the Catholics to shame regarding pushing for sex to only be for procreation. I encourage you to look at the other side of this issue and the motives for those pushing a condom mandate in California. The two biggest proponents both have alterior motives — Weinstein to (he thinks) reduce his charity’s medication expenses and probably put that money in his own pocket, Hall has his procreation-only mandate from the Baptist Church making him use this to eliminate porn from his state. Cal-OSHA is simply trying to shut Tweedledee and Tweedledum up and both get them out of their proverbial hair and keep the federal government from trying to take a stab at running porn out of the country via taking over their government agency (whether that one would actually stand a court trial I don’t know but would think the answer to that is no, I don’t think the current administration would even try but a Trump administration might). I don’t think Cal-OSHA cares one way or another about their demands for condoms in porn runs the industry out or not although maybe there are people making the decisions there that feel the same as Isadore Hall and are using their positions to push their religious beliefs on everyone else — I can’t say for certain either way.
As for gays and anal condom rash, they know that the risk of AIDS from anal sex is higher, a high number of gays already have AIDS and therefore they have decided that they will take condom rash over AIDS (whether it actually saves them from that fate is questionable unless directors are stopping to change the condom and lube up every ten minutes — maybe they only do ten minute sex scenes, I wouldn’t know as I don’t watch gay porn). I will also note that not all gay porn studios require condoms — Treasure Island Media is one that does not.
As for Hop, you are the one that has lost it on this issue. Another commenter has said he knows you personally and that you work in the adult film industry. You sure don’t sound like it considering you don’t seem to understand why I want to require birth control in order for women to perform in the biz and my reasons for requiring it. When you outright tell someone they have “lost it” without reasonable provocation you make it sound like you are the one that has “lost it”. I have explained my take on this issue in a coherent, reasonable manner. Maybe you should find some Thorazine or Haldol and some horse tranquilizers to calm you down (you can’t tell me to do the same, I already take a major tranquilizer every night before bed). Also my comment on sending a corpse to whomever requires the POC biopsies was rhetorical. I still can’t figure out why they are necessary, though.
@mharris
The 2011-12 Gilead study I’m referring to was part of their submission to US regulators seeking approval to use Truvada as PrEP. Pharmaceutical companies have more to lose than gain if they submit data that can’t be verified… which is why Gilead included the female sex-worker failure component of their human trials.
If you’re starting with Google try using these combined key words ‘birth control HIV risk’ and feel free to pick and choose your source. Most studies were done in Africa with the primary intent of reducing HIV and pregnancy with a secondary benefit of empowering women in a culture with limited access to healthcare.
In this day and age a bit of skepticism is always a good thing. Must wonder about motives/agenda of someone so ready to defend anecdotal experience as proof against data that has been reviewed by at least ten different governments, their top researchers and competing pharmaceuticals.
If FSC had a leg to stand on re ‘condom rash’ or ‘porn is safer’ they would have presented verifiable data to prove their position vs begging OSHA to pay their chosen epidemiologist to dispute study methods and data used to back OSHA position.
Thanks for responding with more detail, Lurk. We may disagree but what would the world be if we all thought alike? Probably very boring. I actually had mainly heard of PrEP usage by male homosexuals. I had not heard of a study or even much use of PrEP by heterosexuals such as myself. My response to research may take a few days, I don’t want to rush forming my opinion on PrEP and possible higher risk of HIV for birth control users.
As for “condom rash”, if there weren’t 50 or more female porn performers saying it exists I would be more skeptical about the claims. If I thought condom usage would actually be workable in the adult film industry and protect from VD I would wholeheartedly support their use. However, I don’t believe condom use is workable for most performers and directors (although I do support condom optional as a requirement) and believe the authorities and Michael Weinstein are looking to use this to run the industry out of California and eventually the whole country. Unfortunately our government has been on the side of those that want to shut the adult film industry down (in varying degrees, I am old enough to remember the Meese Commission and the overtures to the fanatical religious right in general starting during the Nixon years) so anything they say about the industry I take with a grain of salt. I don’t see President Obama taking a position either way but the people in the DOJ and both houses of Congress are majority conservative (with many looking for the right opening to eliminate our free-will and free-speech rights both in and out of porn) and many liberals and centrists in government either also looking to eliminate porn from the US (current Sen. Feinstein’s war on strip clubs and adult film during the 70’s as Supervisor or Mayor of San Francisco are legendary, I don’t think her opinion has changed over the years) or simply don’t care about or see the slippery slope that will come from restricting non-terrorist speech so I don’t depend on our government for factual information regarding the adult film industry.
FSC’s recent petition to OSHA about mandatory anti-biotics, if I understood Mike’s post correctly, underscores what the industry is all about, which is revenue rather than the health of performers. This was also the case in the Vivid lawsuit, if you read the position of Vivid as well as Kayden Kross and the dude performer. While the industry was publically spewing stuff about condom rash, the actual lawsuit made three arguments.
One was a First Amendment argument, and even that was half-hearted.
The second was that condoms were unnecessary because the testing system works.
The third, and the one on which they spent the most time, was economic. The industry argued that its customers didn’t want to see condoms and would therefore put it at a disadvantage to the porn industry in areas where condoms weren’t required. Kayden argued that she would be put out of business by higher costs because most of her content was shot in her home in LA County. She would now be forced to go outside of LA County and rent studio space so she could film without condoms. And the dude said that he could no longer make a living because studios weren’t shooting as many scenes and therefore there were fewer opportunities for him to work.
No mention of condom rash, condoms breaking. It really came down to: If you make us wear condoms, we can’t make a buck and that’s not fair.
I don’t think condoms make that much of a difference in sales, as a viewer I don’t personally give a fuck if a condom is visible in the scene. My concern here is performer health. Another concern is could the industry get and keep new female talent if there were a condom mandatory policy at all adult film studios. From what current performers claim about condoms causing painful abrasions in their pussies and assholes I would have to say convincing talent to stick around after the first couple of scenes under a condom mandatory policy (and them having painful pussy and ass abrasions that probably take a week or two to heal) would be a big problem. Fifty plus female performers saying the same thing isn’t likely fear of the studios, there is probably something to their claims — as Bill Margold once said (paraphrased) getting performers on the same page about an issue is like herding cats, unless there is actually a problem you won’t get that many performers stating the same opinion or fact.
@BT
Slogged through all that stuff and SMH knowing how many other industries and individual businesses have gone under rather than accept the reduced stakeholder profit.
So, I want to be sure I understand this. Your position is that women who willingly do DPs, double anal, 10 men blow bangs, let male talent slap their breasts and vaginas, shove giant dildos into their orifices, throat fuck them so hard they gag and vomit, lick up cum from the floor that has been expelled from another performer’s vagina or ass and allow the good folks at Kink.com to hog tie them, ball gag them, cattle prod them and bring in strangers to grope them will draw a line in the sand at performing with condoms?
If anyone happens to be in Ludington, Michigan and comes across Matt Harris’ mind, please return it to him. Thank you.
Some performers have said that, BT. Whether they are telling the truth I can’t say but since I can’t read their minds and they haven’t been proven liars (most of them, anyway) I will take them at their word. Casey Calvert for one said (paraphrased) she would likely perform in fewer scenes if she were required to use condoms a couple of years ago for the very reasons I state. I don’t have a pussy but from my research over the years abrasions (or electric shocks for that matter) inside a woman’s pussy likely hurt much more than a slap to the breast or the outside of a pussy (just like someone crushing your dick with whatever is available hurts more than crushing a hand or foot). It is well known that a woman’s pussy (and a man’s dick for that matter) has many more nerve endings (which transmit pain signals to the brain) than the breast or outer crotch of that same woman.
For the record most performers don’t do DPs, multiple man blow bangs, gag fucking, cum licking (or swallowing for that matter), get hog tied, ball gagged, groped by San Francisco strangers or cattle prodded (FYI the “cattle prod” used on a Kink set just looks like the farm implement but only provides a very small shock unlike what you are thinking of, Kink directors aren’t buying farm cattle prods to use on set — if they were multiple porn performers would be dying of electrical shock on their sets). The part of the industry doing BDSM might be willing to accept the extra pain and remain in the biz with a condom requirement, I don’t know.
Hop, thanks for the all points bulletin but I found my mind this afternoon in Traverse City. It was busy getting fucked by a high-class hooker but is now home. My mind has a trip planned tomorrow to an undisclosed location — maybe I will see you and your mind being arrested for being an ass. Now go fuck yourself and take a poorly lubed, condom-clad dick up your ass for 45 minutes straight. 🙂
“Some performers have said that ….” Some performers have said just about everything you can imagine, until someone offers them enough money.
“For the record most performers don’t do DPs, multiple man blow bangs, gag fucking, cum licking (or swallowing for that matter) …..” MHarris, sorry, but as that sports guy used to say on the Today Show, “Roll the video tape.”
Lisa Ann used to say that she would never do anal. At the height of her career, she did anal, DP, double anal and once expelled cum from her ass following an anal cream pie and licked it up. She was arguably the most popular porn star on the planet at the time.
Julia Ann has done anal, DP, double anal and blow bangs. Arguably one of the most recognizable porn stars still performing.
Jesse Jane went years without doing anal – and now, she does anal, has done a blow bang and just filmed a scene where she licks up Manuel’s cum from a glass table. Arguably the most recognizable name in porn.
Dani Daniels has not done anal, but performs regularly for Kink. Possibly the most popular of the next generation.
If you go on Naughty America, there’s a solo scene with Ava Addams where she chides the folks watching her show who are asking her to put her finger or a dildo in her ass. She says: Stop asking. I don’t do that! Of course, that was before she started doing anal and DPs.
Mia Malkova started off not doing anal – until she started doing anal and she’s done multiple guy blow bangs.
I don’t know if Veronica Avluv has done Kink, but she’s done pretty much everything else you can think of from DP to double anal to squirt to blow bangs to swallowing.
Now that Cheri DeVille is doing anal – and with some regularity – I think Nicole Anniston is perhaps the only major name that doesn’t do anal.
So, is it true that not everyone does it? Of course. But think of a major name who doesn’t have anal and/or DP in her repertoire and look at how fast the newcomers in the industry go to their first anal scene.
BT, I suppose everyone has their price for a given act — I will concede that any female performer would probably use a condom in a porn scene — for a billion US dollars. It is unrealistic to expect any porn producer to pay that price, though. Otherwise I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one. I think we might get to find out how many female performers are willing to use condoms in porn scenes for standard pay rates shortly as a few producers may attempt to remain in California when the (condom) shit hits the fan. From what has been said by the performers themselves I suspect not many will — at least not on a regular basis.
For the record Veronica Avluv has almost too many Kink scenes to count, I come up with 36 from a simple search of their site. I happen to like BDSM anyway but I still don’t see the problem here. However, as I said I don’t have a pussy and haven’t performed in any porn scenes so I can only go on what those that do have one and perform in porn regularly claim on the “condom rash” argument. The concept does make sense, though — at least to anyone that has ever had a carpet burn on his/her knees after vigorous fucking on the living room carpet as the concept is very similar.
@mharris
‘Anecdotal’ (adjective) ‘not necessarily true or reliable, based on personal accounts rather than facts or research’
Said it before & saying it again….. if these anecdotal industry talking points had any merit FSC would have spent their researcher money proving it and presenting facts. FSC hires researchers to question study methodology & data…. would be a good strategy if regulatory agencies & courts didn’t keep ruling against FSC. FSC record in the dueling experts game is dismal at best.
LurkingReader – points well made. The “talking points” are just that – talking points. Before going into court, the industry argued all kinds of nonsense, including the contention that the use of condoms would actually lead to the spread of STDs (despite the fact that we have years of experience in the Nevada brothels to the contrary).
The only of those talking points argued in court was that the testing system worked – and the court rejected that.
@mharris
Long but worth reading. Lots of good tid-bits that came out of annual HIV/aids conference this summer if you’re still researching.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/uncovering-female-body-secret-protection-against-hiv/
Thanks, Lurk. I have several articles bookmarked to read and will read this one as well. Unfortunately the scholarly articles I found charge for download (one cost $31.50 for one day of access — screw them) but I did find several summaries that I need to take a close look at (I should have done it last night but I got distracted with something else). The gist of what I saw on a first read is about what you said, PrEP doesn’t work very well with women and birth control can theoretically increase the risk of HIV transmission (my next question is how much of an increase is HIV transmission in women taking hormonal birth control — if it is less than 1-2% IMO the issue is moot). The next question is why and what can be done about it to make it work that is reasonable for the adult film industry. This is a one thing might take most of a day (or even a week) because of other issues that need researching.
I read the PBS article you linked, Lurk. It is very interesting — there is a theory that BV can increase HIV transmission in vaginal sex. How many porn chickies use makeup sponges to absorb blood during their period and forget to remove it or have it get stuck in her vagina directly after a scene — according to Sharon Mitchell quite a few did during her tenure at AIM. For the record makeup sponges aren’t appropriate for the task, porn chickies need to use natural sea sponges, they absorb much more blood and don’t get stuck in the vagina so readily — cut a piece off about the size of an apricot, rinse in very hot water (boil them for 60 seconds or so if possible), squeeze the water out and use for up to two hours.
They also theorize that antibiotic use can increase HIV transmission. I already knew that, it reduces the good bacteria along with the bad. Puts a spin on the Fucking Stupid Cocksuckers trying to make talent take an antibiotic injection every other fucking week — another reason that is stupid and asinine!
A link to another PBS article showed up when I loaded the first one: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/bacteria-stoking-hiv-cases-blocking-hiv-treatment/ . The article states that for PrEP to work women cannot miss even one dose whereas gay men can possibly get by with four doses per week (although I certainly would not recommend gay men purposely skipping doses of Truvada). Another study found that PrEP can almost completely reduce HIV infection in women taking the drug. Studies contradicting each other (my scanning of other articles surmised differently, I need to read them thoroughly like I did these two articles) — really fucking nice. This makes me want to take my computer monitor and shove it up someone’s ass (and that would be difficult as it is a 24 inch monitor).
@mharris
“Jared Baeten, vice chair of global health at the University of Washington and one of the investigators of the PARTNERS PrEP prevention trial and demonstration project, said that their studies have shown that Truvada has virtually eliminated HIV acquisition in women in their studies. So Gardnerella may not impact the protection women get from oral PrEP”
Before you toss your monitor across the room consider study inclusion criteria. This PARTNER PrEP study included women on PrEP with HIV+ partners taking meds. The study participants were told condoms were included in proper use of PrEP and were asked at each follow-up whether they used condoms or not… most did not. Beaten’s study did not take or test vaginal samples. He was just saying there is more research needed on the vaginal microbiome before any specific cause is identified.
I won’t throw my monitor across the room or shove it up Eric Leue’s ass, I promise. I think you saw from my post that I am very sceptical of the whole thing. Researching this issue is just bringing up even more issues IMO. I need to read more on this one but I think it is safe to say that Truvada and bi-weekly antibiotic injections aren’t going to magically eliminate VD. The latter probably would cause more harm than good. I still think because of the vast issues that are caused by women getting knocked up on set (thankfully it isn’t an epidemic) that all female performers should be on birth control or get their tubes tied and preferably all male performers get clipped but evidently the law needs to change before that can be forced. I am not convinced that HIV transmission would increase with mandatory birth control because the incidence of it is extremely low in the biz anyway but it is an issue that needs to be carefully considered. The fact that at least a significant percentage of female performers would kill the kid if they became pregnant on set (and the fact that even one baby could bankrupt a production company and create a lot of inconvenience to both female and male talent) likely overrides the theoretically increased risk of HIV from birth control because killing an innocent person is much worse than someone getting a now treatable HIV infection from porn and (hopefully) having made an informed decision. However, I would like to see what percentage the risk is increased and what the industry can reasonably do to mitigate that (condom required is not reasonable IMO for reasons I have written about many times and it likely wouldn’t even reduce VD transmission in porn). I need to know more before making up my mind, if the increased risk of HIV from birth control is one percent I would call it a wash, if it is 200% I would rethink my position.