Legal fight over mandatory condoms in California porn biz

Should porn studios have actors wear condoms on screen? Should the government require porn studios to have actors wear condoms? The Los Angeles-area porn industry could be headed toward a legal showdown over the condom issue.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), a private advocacy group, filed complaints against 16 porn studios with the state Occupational Safety and Health department (CAL-OSHA), arguing that onscreen sex without condoms constitutes unsafe working conditions. The complaint included 60 DVDs as evidence, from companies Anarchy, Backend, Blue, Critical X, Hustler, Heatwave Entertainment, Immoral, Latin Media, Legend, Mayhem, Maverick, Raw Flesh, Sin City, Top Dog/Magnus, Vivid and Club Jenna. Last month AHF filed suit against Los Angeles County, charging that public health officials were lax in responding to one porn performer's positive HIV test.

AHF gave a joint press conference with the Pink Cross Foundation, an organization of ex-pornstars which encourages current performers to leave the industry. Three Pink Cross members lobbied for mandatory condoms by giving emotional accounts of their tenure in porn.

"As I continued to do hardcore porn, I started catching STDs all the time," said former porn actress and member of the Pink Cross Foundation, Michelle Avanti. "My lower body hurt so badly and at times my private area felt like it was a blazing fire. I could no longer work because I caught so many STDs and infections. I believe that if condoms had been allowed to be used in my own films, I would not have suffered so many physical ailments and infections." [...]

But former adult film performer Shelly Lubben, who founded the Pink Cross Foundation, said she got herpes and became infected with the human papillomavirus, or HPV, while working in the industry, and had to have half of her cervix removed.

"We want the fans to know what they're contributing to," she told The Times. "They're demanding harder and grosser porn. We want to educate them to exactly what they're watching -- diseased people." [...]

Jan Merritt, former porn actress and member of the Pink Cross Foundation [said,] "There are thousands of porn stars actively working in the adult industry. Can AIM say in all honesty that they are able to accurately test and regulate all of these performers' health? I think not. How is AIM certain that their tests are foolproof when nothing in this life is guaranteed, not even the use of condoms, contraceptives and other prophylactics?"

This final testimonial bugs me. "I think not" is hardly an argument. And sure, "nothing in this life is guaranteed", but that's not an argument for regulating one industry — it's an argument for shutting down every industry and banning all human initiative which involves even the slightest risk.

Porn execs counter that industry self-regulation, based on requiring performers to take frequent HIV tests through the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare clinic (AIM), has worked pretty well.

Industry officials have downplayed the seriousness of the most recent HIV case, which appears to be isolated to one female performer. They argue that voluntary guidelines requiring monthly tests for sexually transmitted diseases and quarantines for anyone who tests positive have kept performers safe.

"The industry has done an admirable job of policing itself," said Steve Hirsch, founder of Vivid Entertainment, adding that he does not believe the industry should be held to the same bodily fluid regulations as a hospital. "If Los Angeles County chooses to enforce mandatory condoms, what you'll see is all adult production leave California. It will move to other places."

In 2004, five LA porn performers contracted HIV and the industry shut down for a month. Since then there has been one documented HIV case by an industry performer. If the industry isn't concealing other HIV infections (a big if), its self-imposed testing and quarantine system has worked pretty well since the 2004 outbreak. Would a state-imposed regulatory system work any better? Would it actually make the industry more dangerous, not less? As the Pink Cross lady says, there's no guarantee.

At the same time, I'm not convinced that more widespread condom use would hurt sales that much. And the LA area offers too many advantages for the industry to just leave California en masse so they can keep shooting sleeveless. Maybe I'm naive on that point.

« Tommy Lee, young love and female ejaculation | Main | Raelians proclaim Go Topless Day »