@rawalex

Dickwad? Awww gee making it personal after someone pays you the compliment of dancing around your denials, deflections and deceptions for a week is just piss poor manners.

As for special people who are unable to read what’s written and prefer to post their own version ….clearly you’re unable to read the questions asked or preferred spinning your own fantasy. Having already said fuck you to you for throwing performers from a decade ago under the bus for the failings of today’s system I saw no need to make things personal by asking if you’re a liar or talking out of your ass cuz you’ve never seen a standard performer contract.

Btw …none of the government mandates under consideration eliminate testing…in fact they all maintain the current FSC protocol as a minimum and transfer the fiscal burden to stakeholders.

So…..are you the product of a half dried dickwad short bus window licker or a piece of shit spewing the industry stakeholder partylines? Meh…either way I’m pretty proud of what mom cooked up with dad’s dickwad 😉

Congrats, you just made my “dickwad” list. That is reserved for the very special people in the world who are unable to read what I write, and instead like to post their own version of what I say.

I am all for whatever keeps performers safe in the long run. Condoms quite simply are not the answer, and having a government agency mandate a lower protection level than the currently flawed system provides isn’t going to cut it.

Anyway, have a nice day, dickwad.

@rawalex

The problem you run into is you’re all for maintaining a status quo.
Good luck with that.

“if you know the current system doesn’t work….why are you defending it as superior vs offering something that addresses the obvious concerns?”

The problem I run into is that the current shameful system is STILL generally more effective than condoms only would be. Moreover, the marginal improvement of adding condoms to the current system is too small to make the change valid. it makes for good headlines, but doesn’t fix the problems – it actually makes them worse by encouraging reckless behavior and people who are knowingly infected shoot scenes because “the condom protects everyone”… when we know it fails way too often.

1. Porn is art, like any other video or image produced. So the acts themselves are part of producing art, not a relationship.
2. for the most part they are signing model releases which limit their income to a certain amount of the scene, prove they are of age, etc. It’s not really about ass covering, it’s basically just a contract to permit the images to be used.
3. Model releases generally are NOT negotiable. It’s a standard legal concept, the work or rights granted in return for valuable consideration (fee).

For 4, I don’t think that testing is part of the model release contract, rather it’s a requirement before you even get to the contract. It’s like the camera guy showing up without cameras. It’s a prerequisite to even get in the door, let alone paid.

Lol rawalex gotta love a sense of humor…Taking you on your word FSC is not your baby …Though it might be easier if FSC/stakeholder system (progeny) didn’t resemble the direction you keep heading to.

So….lets get on the same page. Tell me…

What don’t I understand?

WHAT CURRENT SYSTEM???

if you know the current system doesn’t work….why are you defending it as superior vs offering something that addresses the obvious concerns?

1. Is porn a work relationship for pay or a personal relationship?
2. Are performers showing up to sets and signing contracts that cover their asses or stakeholders asses?
3. Are contracts negotiable or not?
4. Are contracts about clear expectations of the parties or stakeholder(s) limiting liability (aka covering their ass with a contract) …if it’s about covering stakeholder asses then they ought to be paying for testing …that is my non negotiable…see I think of performer testing as a uniform of sorts…wear your test or don’t clock in 😉

LR, you just don’t get it.

I think FSC is somewhere between brain dead and criminal. It has long since lost it’s way and turned into something that could easily be mistaken as either totally corrupt or operated by people who just don’t get it.

It’s not my baby.

I am not defending PASS. I am saying that removing PASS (or any other current system) and replacing it with manditory condoms won’t fix the problems, won’t make people safer or healthier, and may in fact lead to more reckless behaviors combined with failures of the condoms that could have serious implications.

The current system isn’t very good – but it’s better than the proposed alternative.

So, to summarize. I don’t like FSC. It’s not my baby (even if the condom broke), and I am not defending them.

How hard is that to understand?

Lmao @rawalex

what am I making easy? My opinion that longstanding unresolved questions will be addressed in this lawsuit and other regulatory, legislative processes in the works?

I admire you for standing by your baby, just know it isn’t mine and from a workplace safety standpoint FSC-PASS not only doesn’t work its primary purpose is further enriching FSC/Stakeholders off the backs of performers.

You keep defending PASS as it exists today as a viable alternative to all the looming regulatory stuff in the air. I’m telling you straight up …PASS is dead!

Go look on the PASS blog…read the copy/paste letter they want performers to send to West Oaks, CET and who knows where else.
Rescinding prior HIPAA permissions will not stop this subpoena which asks for NO Protected Personal Health Information connected with the data. All that copy/paste does is stop medical providers who were sharing protected personal health information with ‘FSC, AIM Foundation, APHSS/PASS and/or other person associated with or involved in making a film’ from continuing to do so.

That’s no IF bullshit…that’s a fucking fact. Here’s some IF for you run it by Karen Tynan as a hypothetical client against a deep pocket employer …ask…IF you didn’t have a conflict would turn down the slam dunk contingency fee?

A performer living in a model house gets booked by her agent for a shoot. She HAS THE JOB contingent on passing preemployment physical.
The employer doesn’t provide the preemployment physical they want
The performer shows up 😉
Or the 1099 contracted labor has the job contingent on pre-employment fitness exam…the doc does exam and says needs a barrier for ten days…ADA, 504 oohhhhh lots of alphabet soup there.

This isn’t about individuals exercising their right to personal autonomy …it’s about balancing that autonomy within the confines of a WORK relationship. Payor/Payee ….

Let me know if you really want a comprehensive comparison of US Division of Labor workplace mortality, injury and illness. Nina Hartley did some cherry picking but I’m an equal opportunity annoyance without a stake in this game.

Still say I’m making it too easy? 🙂

BTW….It isn’t my list…it is the court approved list of defense discovery.
The plaintiffs …Vivid made claims that can only be proven or discredited with this data or the court would not have approved the subpoena.

Hi JW,
HIPAA is an agreement between a patient and their medical provider about IF, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, WHY their private medical will be shared. Email or electronic access via a patient portal allows the patient to actively participate in their medical care.

In this day and age a system like f-buddy is a great resource for sexually active people to use their protected STI medical information outside the diagnostics and treatment medical care model. Sexual partners have a tool of STI prevention without predefined limits. They are free to use or share this information with their partner(s) to negotiate what is or isn’t an acceptable risk for them or their partner(s) in the privacy of their bedrooms so to speak. Whatever the nature of their private PERSONAL relationship it’s no ones beeswax …Very Handy

What’s handy for sexually active people is a pre-requisite for professional sex-workers. Clients pay more for a sexual transaction with tested escort.

The red x in APHSS now PASS is a SCARLET X when it is posted on the screen that says TEST DATE, TEST EXPIRY, TEST PROVIDER because there is only one reason to place unavailable on this screen….the performer did not pass the industry required test panel.

This is a STI database plain and simple…are they good or bad? They are not searching PASS for any other criteria.

If a performer is willing to test where they say, at their price, buying what they want, when they say…the least they could do is limit that performer availability screen to YES cuz that’s what they need to know….are you available, till when.

WIIFM…as a producer they know who’s willing to kiss their ass do what they want when and how they want it for a paycheck …good to know SO is the paycheck in it for the performer.

So now please …somebody..anybody tell me where the FSC gets off running the company store ala days of plantation politics …painting a FUCKING SCARLET XXX on a worker willing to do all that for them before they even show up to work? I’m still waiting for a logical rationale to justify FSC using the STI information performers buy as to tool to LIMIT vs FACILITATING the performers who paid for it.

You are making this too easy.

You understand (as an example) that HPV is not something that can be prevented with condoms, as other forms of contact may spread it. So mentioning HPV gives the perfect example of why “condom mandatory” rule could create false security.

You read down your list, and you need to understand that the porn infection rate and the general population rates are not that much different.

“You say the current system success rate is over 85% …how do you know?”

it’s actually a pretty simple thing, really. If there was a 15% failure rate, then the average porn girl (shooting 3 scenes a day a couple of times a week) would have a new infection every Monday to enjoy. Within 10-12 weeks in the business, they would have pretty much everything you list. If their career went more than a couple of years, statistically they would be dead.

The reality proves that is not the case. There are cases of pornstars getting sick. They are so out of the norm that they are discussion for weeks / months even years.

Oh, another way to figure out that testing has a less than 15% error rate is to just compare the current production list with, say, a similar length list around the times of John Holmes. Plenty of people got sick and just said nothing. Some people died. Can you list any pornstars who have died from work related action in the last, say, 10 years?

Now, here is one other thing you need to understand: I don’t advotcate for anything that the bozos from FSC are involved in. I am not advocating their testing versus condoms. I am saying that condoms alone won’t do the job, and if the legal requirement is “you must wear a condom” then porn producers will very likely lower the bar to that legal minimum and it will be up to the talent to protect themselves. That would be an insanely sad moment and perhaps the end of porn production as we know it.

Even the current swiss cheese testing process is better than a condom.

@rawalex
“The current testing system does not have a 15% failure rate.”
Prove it…which is the point of these subpoenas. Workplace safety isn’t limited to the heterosexual (straight & g/g) career ender HIV.

The subpoena includes STI reasonably expected to be encountered on the job…BV, CT, GC, Hep, genital Herpes, HPV, Syphillis, Trichomoniasis & PID and ….other STI test results shared with FSC/stakeholders. Those are the numbers you’re backing your claims on.

You say the current system success rate is over 85% …how do you know? Did you see all the data? If the current system flaws and all is 85% effective then why are FSC/stakeholders against validating their numbers?

As to major diseases HPV is the number one cause of cervical cancer but that doesn’t matter if you have a prostate. Untreated STI is the primary cause of PID…again seems inconsequential or even beneficial since it reduces the inconveinces of failed birth control and abortions.

I’m not the one advocating condoms, I advocate stakeholder paid testing via shared costing, barrier use if needed. To my way of thinking post editing expenses is like overtime to some working joe, the barrier option keeps the revenue stream flowing more smoothly than start stop without it or a new car in a stakeholders garage with the cost of performer infertility and cancer mixed into the shiny overcoat.

So prove the system you’re advocating succeeds more than 85% of the time to exclude those expected workplace hazards. While you’re at it tell me one thing in this world you’d buy as a reliable product or service because it succeeds 85/100 uses.