Testing Rumours

[Snake Diamond]

porngirlsxrated wrote:

> Here is my suggestion, start wearing condoms in porn films,
> what a great idea but totally unworkable

Bollocks, how the hell do you come up with that idea ?

In the USA, there is a company, named Vivid, if my memory serves me right, make Condom Only movies. I know this as fact, as the amount of trailers, & illegal copies of their vids you can find on the internet, careful watching of these clips/vids clearly shows condoms in use, in all their vids.

If the use of condoms only, was "totally unworkable" then I would see that company as either 1 of 2 things:

1. Going under as unable to maintain production/sales due to lack of interest.
2. Transference to "bareback" so that they can maintain there leadership of the Industry, or at least be able to keep producing films.

Now, if any of the information I have seen on the TV, Internet, or Vivid's own website is to be believed, they are 1 of the main leaders of Porn in the USA, but they a Condom Only system. So, YES, Condoms CAN be workable, & even successful.

OK, if any of the things I have stated as FACT (sourced from TV, Internet, & Vivid's own website) are WRONG, then I would appreciate some1 being able to provide the corrections to my statements, in written proof, from those who actually work inside/run the Adult Porn Industry in the USA.

I.E. any of these type people, to provide proof that what I have said is wrong:
Producer
Director
Performer
Agent/Agency
etc...

[Paul Chaplin]

Sad to see one so misinformed. Try looking at http://www.mckenzie-lee.net/mckenzie-le ... zie08.html
And how about looking at Vivid's website. What actually happend was that, following the Brazilian HIV sourced outbreak in Porno Valley in 2003, most US producers went condom only for a period. They subsequently returned to non-condom shoots, relying on TESTING as the risk ringfence. No reported outbreak of HIV in the US industry since. QED ?

[Paul Chaplin]

Thank you for opening up this interesting legal dimension to the issue. It would perhaps be more helpful if you provided accurate information to the Forum. The 1974 Act applies to employed AND self employed workers. However, you forgot to mention subsection 3(2) of the 1974 Act: "It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety"; and indeed to mention section 7: "It shall be the duty of every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with".
These provisions in fact imposed a statutory duty upon employees and the self employed, so that employers would not have to run the common law defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' [you volunteered so you can't claim compensation]. This was because the Volenti defence applies only to actions in Tort, not to actions in contract and relations between workers (whether employed or self employed) and hirers are contractual. Criminal prosecution would be available only if an employer INSISTED that shoots are conducted without condoms. But the Prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) that the infection was transmitted at that place and time; and (b) that the infection would not have occurred had a condom been used.
As the Forum can readily appreciate, the likelehood of both these circumstances being provable is vanishingly small. Further, BB makes no such contractual insistence and I can't think of a Producer who does. So you can all stop feeling scared now because Big Al is going to go away and learn some elementary undergraduate law before he opinies over his barstool again. !wink!

[Sam Slater]

[quote]By being a responsible Producer and by subsidising testing, Bluebird stands firmly in the circle of risk reduction.[/quote]

...but you do not think sleeping with numerous punters, working as an escort, is an action of 'risk reduction'?

You just stated above that performers must take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and others. Does it then stand to reason, that performers who don't escort are taking more care for themselves and others, than performers that do escort?

Not that you're ever going to get a pornstar taking an escort/pornstar to court suing for loss of earnings, due to chlamydia!

But morally..................

[porngirlsxrated]

Sam Slater wrote:

> [img]http://www.parida.com/img1/head-in-sand.jpg[/img]
>
> Just a bit of humour to lighten the mood..........waddaya say?
>
>

Hi Sam

One of your key proposals is for studios/directors not to hire porn stars who also escort (please correct me if this is wrong)

Please could you remind me of your other proposal?

Also please could you provide details on how the UK Adult Industry could implement your proposals?

For example ?.

1) How would studios/directors be made aware of porn stars who escort, would you suggest creating a blacklist of all porn stars who escort? If so how would you accurately compile, maintain and distribute this blacklist to all studios/directors?

2) Do you foresee any legal issues that may arise from distributing such a black list, e.g. naming porn stars on the black list who are not in fact working as escorts?

These are just a few questions that would need to be answered for your proposals to be successfully implemented

I am sure you have fully thought through all your proposals, so look forward to hearing your lengthy reply

[Sam Slater]

Firstly I'll be a good Samaritan and say: "You're doing it again!"

Sorry; just had to warn you, seeing as you exclaimed, 'you'd been dragged into an argument' last time.

Do I rub you up the wrong way? Like I said before, 'the paper trail isn't so hard to follow'. You're very first post to me was defending UKAP with the Michelle B fiasco earlier in the year, with the others revolving around UKAP or escorting. Now, from what I can gather -I'm no inspector Poirot- is the 'super moderator' of UKAP was the one criticising Michelle B, and he's running a site called..........wait for it........'realpunting', which makes pornographic material based on...........wait for it..........'escorts'.

From this, I'd imagine JayK to be.....pro-ukap, pro-escorting, with a slight grudge against Michelle B. All similar traits -if not identical- to you. Maybe you ought to get to know JayK better eh? Be pals and the like....

Now, onto your questions......

Well, I'm guessing there aren't many producers that will allow performers to work without an up to date test.........no?
There are no black-lists.............no legal ramifications. They just say, 'come back when you're tested'. They'd probably say the same thing if the performers were tested, but had been working with untested performers in Brazil for the last fortnight. Again, no blacklist, no legal ramifications.
Well, it's not hard to find the escorts on the net.....

Same procedure: If you're found escorting/bukkake sex-style parties with untested males outside the industry, then do not book them until they're off the escort sites, and they're retested.

No blacklists, no legal ramifications.......and the same goes for anyone with a dodgy test. Ban them for a month until they come with a new official test.

Yes, they could secretly escort with agencies who'd block out their face in a profile, or something similar, but actively denying escorts a scene, the new girls coming in, would be entering the industry with a mindset that mixing the two professions isn't tolerated.

As it stands now, new girls enter the industry seeing fellow 'seasoned' performers escorting, and so they see it as a good way to earn extra cash. Basically, they're selfish and irresponsible. A performer who doesn't escort in the business right now has to take the extra risk with no financial reward, while the escort gets that financial reward for the extra risk.

Is the following scenario morally right?

In an industry with no escorting = 10% chance of contracting an STD.

An industry where everybody escorts = 20% chance of catching an STD.

Current industry where some escort, while others don't = 15% chance.

The above percentages are just hypothetical just to make the point.

Now, the escorts receive a doubling of their monthly income for the extra risk, but the non-escorts do not. Is it morally right to put a fellow performer at a greater risk, just because you want to take that risk, receiving cash?

If I worked on a building site, that provides helmets for it's workers, then you wear them. If I found I could work faster, and get more money doing so, if I worked without a helmet & other safety gear, then that's my choice, but the analogy with porn/escorting is that I now pick out fellow builders at random and keep knocking their helmets off. I'm taking an extra risk, and I'm causing them to do so as well..........because I'm selfish and irresponsible. I'd be sacked............on the spot. What makes the porn/escort scenario even more deadly, is that me knocking off the builders hats is silent, with them working away, not realising until upto a month later.

A lot of peoples (analogised) attitudes in porn is: If the builders don't like their helmets knocked off, they can go find another trade to work in.

That mindset, and attitude is unfair. At least anyone with any brains would point to the 'building site' scenario and exclaim: 'This is horrendous!'

Like I've already said, people will either ignore me, criticise me, or just plainly abuse me for this. This is because they're either gaining from escorting directly, or indirectly, or have a friend that is.

You can argue there's no extra risk (plainly wrong, go ask you're local GUM clinic, though it should be obvious), and you can argue there's nothing you can do (you can if you put your mind to it and clubbed together), but no matter how much you all deny, ignore, criticise or abuse me, everything I say is for the benefit and health of the industry, and the current situation isn't fair or just.

I haven't got all the answers, but what do they tell alcoholics, drug addicts and gamblers? Firstly admitting there's a problem is half way to controlling it.

No?

[porngirlsxrated]

Sam Slater wrote:

> Firstly I'll be a good Samaritan and say: "You're doing it
> again!"
>
> Sorry; just had to warn you, seeing as you exclaimed, 'you'd
> been dragged into an argument' last time.
>
> Do I rub you up the wrong way? Like I said before, 'the paper
> trail isn't so hard to follow'. You're very first post to me
> was defending UKAP with the Michelle B fiasco earlier in the
> year, with the others revolving around UKAP or escorting. Now,
> from what I can gather -I'm no inspector Poirot- is the 'super
> moderator' of UKAP was the one criticising Michelle B, and he's
> running a site called..........wait for
> it........'realpunting', which makes pornographic material
> based on...........wait for it..........'escorts'.
>
> From this, I'd imagine JayK to be.....pro-ukap, pro-escorting,
> with a slight grudge against Michelle B. All similar traits -if
> not identical- to you. Maybe you ought to get to know JayK
> better eh? Be pals and the like....
>
>

I know I?m doing it again but I had 5 seconds to spare between having my first coffee of the day and taking a piss and luckily for you I can spare you another 5 seconds now

Just for the record I have never met or spoken to JayK or have any affiliation to UKAP, so you missed the target there Miss Marple

So basically under your proposal each studio, director, and performer would be required to search the internet (and other sources) and keep their own up to date list of who is escorting ? there would be no central coordination

Therefore I suggest that studios, directors and performers who do not wish to work with porn stars who escort start to implement the suggestions you have made and refuse to work with porn stars who escort ? and over time if they win hearts and minds the rest of the industry will follow

So on that note I think you have just put yourself out of a job

[bigAl]

Paul, I bow to your knowledge of undergraduate law but not to your arrogant tone, and with respect I think you are missing a fundamental point.

Notwithstanding everyone's duty to conduct their workplace actions in a manner that reduces exposure to risk, if one 'employee' injures another, legal liability will still often fall on the Employer. This could even be the case, for example, in circumstances where it was caused by a stupid prank involving two employees.

In other industries such incidents will result in a claim under the Employer's EL insurance, which for the avoidance of any doubt provides protection in respect of legal liability for injury/illness to both employees and any self-employed persons who happened to be working for the policyholder at the time. Insurers settle the vast majority of such claims by negotiated settlement without redress to the courts, often going against the wishes of the Employer who considered he was not to blame in any way for the incident.

Your theoretical grasp of undergraduate law commends you, but that's how it works in the real world. I'm sure many producers don't actually effect Employers' Liability insurance at all (or if they do then they don't appreciate that it also applies to their self-employed contractors), so it's largely an irrelevant debate anyway. But if something as serious as HIV were to hit the industry, don't you think the victim(s), via their legal representative(s), would seek to track down those responsible?

Notwithstanding the 'volenti' nature of the industry, I'm speaking from 30 years practical experience when I say that victims' attitudes suddenly change when there's a sniff of financial compensation; even more so in today's 'no win/no fee' environment.

Some might consider your reassurance that producers have little to worry about legally conveys a scant regard for the well-being of models.

Much of the industry will be apathetic to this argument, so if you want to continue with this debate I would suggest we do so in private!