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?

Yeah, maybe it was just ‘not LA’ that I remember and my brain just made that jump.

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.

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.

@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.

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.