This is The FSC Version “A production hold was called when it was determined that a performer in the PASS database might have been exposed to HIV in late September, after off-set contact with a performer from an out-of-state set that was not observing PASS protocols.”
Now let me run that through the bullshit translator for y’all
A male performer who travels between LA and Vegas and works in both straight and gay porn was exposed to HIV during an encounter with one of his clients on an escorting gig. The client was positive, the performer and his first generation exposures have since tested negative.
I have two possible names and neither is a big name, as of right now theres no point in releasing the name….but do pay attention how within hours of my post yesterday the FSC jumped to lift the moratorium and release the above statement.
And performers trust these people with their very lives….SMFH.
yesterday we caught lots of speckled trout aka weakfish aka sea trout, the weather is gorgeous and I am enjoying it immensely.
13 Responses
I think it is important to emphasise the most important part of this post, and that is,,,,”Yesterday we caught alot of speckled trout,,,,,” Few things in this world are as important to hooking up on some great seafood.
This is supposed to be a PERFORMER program. Performers pay for everyting.
But if this is the level of communication performers are getting from the FSC regarding the program that performers pay for, then something needs to change. How is it tha the FSC, Mike South, and Michael Whiteacre know more about whats going on than performers?
An offset encounter, out of state, with someone not following PASS protocols, what bullshit is this. Tis is not proof that the system works, it is proof of the serious flaws that need to be addressed.
Again, this particular case is all you need to know that this system is seriously flawed. You got the trifecta, crossover, escort, and not testing inside the PASS system. Unfortunately you can bet your bottom dollar this is not isolated, and as such, it renders the system ineffective. The ‘system’ PREVENTED nothing, and this same scenario is bound to happen again.
I’ve refrained from commenting on much of anything as of late, but I wanted to note a couple of things.
Recently James Deen (who seems to be one of the FSC’s primary voices) was interviewed by a Daily Beast reporter – here is the link http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/17/dinner-with-james-deen-during-porn-s-latest-hiv-scare.html and this paragraph is what caught my attention:
“Despite the multiple HIV scares since Measure B was passed, Deen rejects the condom mandate. In general, he is wary of government regulation of the porn industry. He says some people have suggested that adult film actors should register with the state as a public health measure, but, unsurprisingly, that’s even more abhorrent to him. “I’m against that because I am a Jew, and the last time we had to register with the state, it didn’t work out so well.”
Secondly I’d like to point Mike South’s readers to Alana Evan’s twitter feed – she’s interesting to me because she’s one of the last of what I’d consider the “old school” porn industry (an industry I’d have far rather have been a part of opposed to what I experienced and witnessed beginning in 2008). She’s showing genuine concern for performer safety as of current as rightfully so. I don’t like the way she’s currently being bullied and intimidated (by you know who). Alana has been in the industry for a very long time and from my perspective is speaking from a standpoint that active performers need to listen to:
https://twitter.com/alanaevansxxx/with_replies
Maybe at some point Alana will write a few pieces for your blog Mike – she really should.
Though I doubt Alana would ever say a positive word about me (she has her reasons I’m sure), I like her. I’m not sure why, but throughout my time in the industry and since my departure I’ve been fortunate enough to get to know quite a few “old school porn” people fairly well (probably because of my blogs), and much of what Alana tweets echos what I’ve learned and heard first hand from them.
Jilted is correct in regards to it being very odd that bloggers who are removed from the industry know far more at this point in regards to vital performer safety information and alerts than the talent. As most of Mike’s readers know, unfortunately the GOAL of porn’s “power elite” IS to keep performers in the dark (otherwise most wouldn’t stick around too long).
I hate to say it, but the porn industry is FAR more than just an “industry”. It really is a community and a sort of family. I think porn DOES need to be operated as a legitimate industry, but when it comes to those who speak for performers and disseminate information, notices, alerts, etc – it needs to be someone who’s actually “in the trenches” and who has put in their time such as Alana Evans (rather than some big mouth midget on a power trip who’s never even been in an adult movie or his fat balding sidekick who has so many skeletons in his closet that he’d better pray that no one takes the time spend a month or so in the Lone Star state to really investigate what’s what).
I wish the best to you all – be you friend or foe. Stay safe and if something doesn’t FEEL RIGHT listen to your gut – the money isn’t worth the problems in the long run – especially when it comes to your health.
Oh My Gawd. The love of my life who rejected me for weekend of sex is posting on here. I can’t believe Monica Foster is posting here. All I wanted was just one weekend alone with you and you rejected me because of my severe body odor and retched dirty mouth with severe tooth decay. Oh well.
It would be good for some of the performers to know who the guy was so they can make a safe decision to work with him. And Jilted the only reason Michael Whiteacre know so much is because he sits on his ass all day ,unemployed and stalking the talent on the internet and uses about 20 different twitter account to be one of the most ignorant ass’s that the porn industry has ever seen. He is irrelevant porn fan.
Could have sworn you reported it was a Florida performer.
I am glad that only the john was HIV+ (although I wish no one had HIV). This is why we need to legalize and regulate prostitution. If we legalized and regulated it we could require a recent VD test using adult industry protocol before a john could use the services of a prostitute. The way it is currently it is really a crapshoot whether a prostitute’s clients have a VD or not. Legalization and regulation of prostitution is the answer, not forcing condoms use in porn (which will run the industry out of the state/country, not protect performers) and continuing the insane attempt to legislate morality by locking up prostitutes and their johns.
I know someone will come on here saying that performers should pick between porn and prostitution. Unfortunately as it stands now at least a third of all porn performers (I have read figures as high as 50-60%) are also prostitutes, as only those without moral hangups about sex would perform in adult film (and prostitute themselves) in the first place. If we forced people to choose between porn and prostitution we would lose a large portion of our performers because porn pays less than prostitution, most people would choose the option that makes them a better living. Fewer performers means fewer movies and internet scenes for us to watch and a requirement to choose is unnecessary if we just legalized and regulated prostitution requiring VD testing before using the services of a prostitute.
@erik2690
Wouldn’t count on folks backing any bets with your word anytime soon.
“Could have sworn you reported it was a Florida performer.”
WTF?? Wouldn’t have been easier to review a couple posts than pop this comment …1st post = heads up, 2nd LV enters the picture and remained constant.
The girls are also being pushed hard by agents to prostitute for the very simple economics; less scenes means agents have less income, so it is needed. Back in the gonzo glory days, the girls who hooked were making good money in porn, lots of scenes, and they hooked because they wanted to (for the most part). Now, they basically do it or they will not make enough money, be blackballed by agents, or will have to quit. Of course the big names don’t have to, but they are few and far between. The days of a mid range girl pulling in 20 grand a month in scenes are long gone, and they won’t get booked much if they turn their nose up at the escorting their agents wish to arrange. A sign of the times.
Read all three FSC Pressers last night (too busy to give a shit what they said before then)
October 15th FSC calls a moratorium (production hold) with not one word performers at large can use to assess, measure or mitigate their risks beyond trusting promise of an ‘alert’ as more information is available and/or past promises that the FSC will notify affected performers for risk assessment testing.
In other words…jack shit for performers and the production company’s being told to put their livelihood and paychecks on hold. Meanwhile some nice CYA for FSC “working with the public health department, the production company, and the performer”
Second presser…platitude = tough shit your paycheck is on hold but we goofed saying three days and need you to take the weekend off too. Another Duke quote re-wording FSC CYA about working with “producers, performers and the health department to investigate,”
Two thing stand out ‘the health department’ remains singular and just what are “producers” doing to “investigate”?
Third Presser…production hold over with this explanation ” production hold was called when it was determined that a performer in the PASS database might have been exposed to HIV in late September, after off-set contact with a performer from an out-of-state set that was not observing PASS protocols.”
One sentence raises a ton of questions…
1. “performer in the PASS database” so what happens in same situation for performers who aren’t in PASS database?
2. “might have been exposed to HIV in late September” seems to indicate something other than a scarlet x (failed test within test panel) in the PASS database led to the production hold. If something other than a scarlet x in PASS database led to production hold, what was it? Performer, facility or ‘the health department’ notification?
3. “might have been exposed in late September” Is the FSC mincing words or did they change their moratorium policy to include ‘unconfirmed’ off-set performer HIV exposure?
4. “might have been exposed in late September” would that be 25-30th? 20-30th? Or rounded like accounting 16-30th? Given the inconsistent use of 14 day testing by producers using PASS there is no way to narrow down “late September” so once again covering the FSC/stakeholders collective ass was more important than informing performers even about the locations or window of increased risk.
5. Nice how they gave no details or apologize for the pie in sky initial three day estimate…to contact and have more than two weeks of on-set contacts who had to arrange fresh tests for processing and reporting.
6 “after off-set contact with a performer from an out-of-state set that was not observing PASS protocols.” Huh? WTF???
So a out of state performer isn’t in the PASS database and is somehow associated with a set (producer) that doesn’t observe PASS protocols had off-set contact sometime after September 15th with a performer in the PASS database and MIGHT have exposed the PASS participant. Who is the FSC is targeting with this blatantly transparent CYA? Performers and producers aren’t fooled, nor are the regulatory agencies FSC is playing three card monte with.
“We called a production hold while we conducted precautionary testing with that performer and anyone he or she performed with. All precautionary testing has been completed and there is a medical determination that the performer pool has not been compromised.”
At this point of the FSC Presser it was time to swap the waders for a specially covered neoprene toe to scalp hazmat approved bullshit suit.
7. “precautionary testing” huh? Doesn’t the 14 day PASS protocol act as “precautionary testing” for PASS participants who “might” have been exposed off-set? If it was “might” “precautionary” and “off-set” then why a moratorium?
8. He or she? Okay so FSC finds it necessary to use questions vs sticking to “performer” or other neutral singular language to show how much they respect HIIPA.
9. “All precautionary testing has been completed” Where was this “precautionary testing” performed? FSC PASS facility(ies) “the health department” or a combination of both?
10. “a medical determination that the performer pool has not been compromised.” Does that mean there were no exposures or no on-set transmission? Who made this “medical determination” was it a Qualified Medical professional? (Will assume it wasn’t someone from “the health department” mentioned in Presser one & two but strangely absent in third presser.)
Even Hazmat approved bullshit suit isn’t sufficient to break down the standard FSC party lines they close third presser with.
Some glaring questions remain…how can PASS protocols magically prevent HIV transmissions when they allowed an unknown number of on-set exposures by a performer who “might” have been exposed by a fellow performer? “Out if state” is handy for regulatory shell games but lends doubt to ‘no on-set nationwide ten year claims’ especially with the absence of any information about the performer who isn’t in PASS database and works for a set (producer) who isn’t using PASS protocols.
FSC does a great job distancing itself from the source who “might” have exposed the performer in PASS database and pretending that performer isn’t part of the performer pool. Do they hope no one noticed FSC hasn’t said diddly squat about the performer who works on a set (for a producer) that doesn’t use PASS protocols and isn’t in the PASS database? Not one reference to testing “precautionary” or otherwise for that performer and their on-set partners or if that performer “might” have exposed other performers in the PASS database or otherwise.
Yeah, maybe it was just ‘not LA’ that I remember and my brain just made that jump.
we need to increase the pressure on producers who book crossovers!
Partially correct Whistler. We need to increase pressure on, AGENTS who book these performers, producers who hire these performers, and MOST OF ALL, put pressure on APAC, the group that SUPPOSEDLY represents performers, to get their members to stop working with these guys one day, then with a straight girl, no condom the next day.
We know, everybody knows, producers and agents could give a flying about performer health, performers can be relpaced at the drop of a hat.
It is the PERFORMER organization, APAC that can make a real difference here, by educating their members about NOT the risk that they are taking,,,,,but the risk they are putting others at. Try to tell me that a performer who works with a crossover one day, then on a straight set the next day with no condom CARES about that other perforer. Give me a fucking break
The risk you say that you are willing to take is meaningless,,,,,its the risk that your partner is willing to put you at that matters. And you have NO IDEA what your partner has been doing, thats just simply a fact. That is why you are stuck with a last resort, all else has failed, Harm Reduction Program. Dont you get it?