In an "open letter" to adult entertainment producers and publishers, Assemblymember Paul Koretz took a fairly hard line regarding the health of adult video performers, implying that the state legislature would require condoms in sex scenes if the industry didn't voluntarily adopt their use.
"The very nature of adult media production involves some risk of infection for models and performers," Koretz wrote in his Aug. 16 letter. "Overly stringent requirements may force some productions underground and place performers beyond the reach of workplace safety standards. Acknowledging this possibility, I do not believe it advisable to require the industry to meet the standards employed in healthcare settings. However, there is a responsible level of harm reduction that must be employed to protect the performers and models from potentially fatal hazards.
"Therefore, I strongly encourage and fully expect the adult entertainment industry to require the use of condoms for all performances of non-oral sexual intercourse, if they are not doing so already. This is a sensible request and failure to do so is, in my opinion, irresponsible and invites the legislature to exercise its authority to mandate more stringent actions to protect public health and worker safety."
Attached to Koretz's letter was a list of "harm reduction strategies" which the assemblymember believes should implement immediately as "protective measures" by those involved in creating sexually explicit photos and features. The measures were compiled by UCLA professor Dr. Thomas Coates, one of the witnesses at the June hearing, but many industry professionals believe that the list items, taken together, would form an insurmountable barrier to conducting their businesses.
"It's basically a non-workable proposition, I think, for this business," opined Mark Kulkis, owner of Kick Ass Pictures. "I've compared this before to stunt people. That's like saying you could never have a stuntman leap out a window no matter how much padding you had below him; that was an unacceptable risk that he might still get injured. If that's the way you're going to do it, then there's never going to be any stunts and the movie industry is going to grind to a close, or they'll all go to Australia or somewhere else to film, that's basically what you're looking at here."
Among Dr. Coates' recommendations are the use of condoms for all non-oral sexual intercourse; no ejaculation into the mouth, rectum or vagina, or on mucosal surfaces such as the eyes or nose; the use of a diaphragm for vaginal intercourse; and the use of a "female condom" for anal and vaginal intercourse.
"‘Female condom'? What the hell is that?" was the response from nearly every producer, director and performer contacted about the Koretz letter. None had seen the roomy latex device that is lubricated and inserted into a woman's vagina or anus, whose edges are easily visible outside either opening, and into which a male is supposed to insert his penis and proceed to have sex as if the device were not there.
"I've never seen one of those things," admitted Platinum X Pictures director Brandon Iron, "but I think there are products out there that make a lot of claims, whether they're substantiated or not, about their safety and efficiency in preventing STDs and HIV. There's no better tool than common sense. If we can have our performers tested at a reliable facility that screens for antibodies and HIV and if they come up with clean STD panels, that's good enough for me. So let's put our faith in the doctors and not in female condoms, lubricants, herbicides, pesticides or whatever."
One of Dr. Coates' other suggestions is that performers should consider using a condom for intercourse after the initial penetration.
"This practice, often called ‘dipping,' involves the momentary filming of initial penetration without a condom and before the discharge of pre-ejaculate, followed by the hidden use of a condom for the remainder of the scene," explained Dr. Coates. "This practice may reduce the risk of HIV infection, but is only a less desirable minimum of protection for performers. No performer should ever be asked to perform unprotected non-oral intercourse for any duration of time, but this compromise may empower performers to reduce their risk and still accommodate a producer's request for unprotected sex, however irresponsible it may be."
Since some brands of condoms are already tinted to blend with some skin colorations but are still easily visible in close-ups, some producers failed to see the advantage of "dipping."
"I mean, what's the point?" asked one director who wanted to remain unnamed. "Either you're going to use condoms or you aren't, and if you're going to use condoms, people are going to see them. Nobody's going to be fooled by showing the guy taking a couple of strokes, and then suddenly there's a condom on the base of his dick."
Kulkis, whose company has a cream pie series, also balked at the idea of no ejaculation into the pussy or ass.
"My guys' ejaculations are all real," he noted, recognizing that some series use insertions of fake cum which is allowed to dribble out after the "pop." "I would say, because there's always the issue of liability, that's a strong enough incentive to be careful in what they're doing. Our people are all tested."
One suggestion from Dr. Coates that most producers seemed willing to get behind was the institution of testing every two weeks for HIV, and several also saw no problem with monthly testing for gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis, another Coates suggestion.
"If everyone went to two weeks, I would have no problem with that," said Kulkis. "If Sharon Mitchell came out and said, ‘This is a new standard which we should adopt,' and the Free Speech Coalition agreed, I would fall right in line with that because I have no problem with that. But it's kind of hard to mandate if I'm the only company and everyone else thinks it's too much of a pain to go to two weeks to work for Kick Ass, but if everyone did it, that works fine."
Iron disagreed.
"I'm fine with a month," he declared. "The problem with the fear factor and all this is that just like testing more frequently, we could have daily tests but that's not going to catch all the problems. I don't think we would be catching more people if we got to two-week testing. Yeah, it's a safer window, but the root of the problem in the most recent crisis was a trip down to Brazil.
"We don't want this panacea out there, that ‘Oh, okay, so now we're going to do this, this and this and it's completely safe,' he continued. "Because you know what? It may take weeks, months or years, but there will be another failure in the system, and not that people are looking to get around the system but you can't cover every situation, everybody's personal lives, everybody's travel agenda, and it's just a human problem. If we can come up with some sort of safety procedures, or if we make people wait when they come back, or — I don't know; it's just inherently a risky business. I think the majority of intelligent people in the business realize and appreciate that there are risks and trade-offs to the rewards, and if you're not comfortable with those risks, you shouldn't take them."
Iron also approved of the concept of quarantining performers for a period after they've returned from working abroad.
"I think it's a good idea. I think common sense should prevail on this. If you do go down to Brazil or come back from Europe, maybe there should be a couple of weeks wait, up to a month."
But what about performers new in the business, for whom their first trip to AIM HealthCare may be their first HIV test ever?
"I've got to speak from two perspectives," he cautioned. "As a director, you want to get the people brand new and this and that, and so everyone's going to break that rule. I would never hire anyone or make them do anything they're not comfortable doing. If somebody has an HIV test and it's current and I have one, if everyone's consenting in this, then let's just do this."
Koretz's letter gave no timetable within which he thought universal condom use should be accomplished, but he did imply that it should happen quickly.
"While I see a legitimate role for government on this issue, a prompt voluntary response on the part of the industry is needed to ensure we do not see another series of HIV infections among performers," he stated. "Also of concern is the real risk of the industry becoming an infection source for the public at large. It is in the best interest of the industry, their performers, and the public for producers to respond with a comprehensive and consistent effort including a condom-only policy to reduce the risk of infection."
It appears, however, that the industry's response is to take a wait-and-see attitude, and let the California legislature make the next move — if it dares.
