nothing major; "willful failure to file tax returns" - there was this guy from Brooklyn, I think his name was Sal, who used to sit around and just listen to what the rest of us were talking about. And since my inmates-of-choice were the brothel owners from D.C. and N.Y.C., the subject was often the sex business - who was getting persecuted and why, and what could be done about it.\n But what I remember best about those discussions was that just when our little cadre was getting down to the nitty-gritty of some plan to blow the Justice Department out of the water through some brilliant Constitutional strategy, Sal would explode into the conversation with, "Fuck 'em! Just drop the bomb! Wipe 'em all out!"\n This outburst would usually bring the conversation to an end while everybody tried to calm Sal down. He tended to spit when he was excited. And none of our plans ever did get put into action. But who knows? With a little ingenuity, we might have saved the world for sex as we know it!\n But I never felt much kinship with Sal until I attended the producers/directors meeting that convened in the wake of this latest HIV crisis to hit the industry.\n I won't go into much detail, as my attendance there was contingent on my promise not to do so, but it's doubtful that anyone who's anyone in the porn business in the Valley hasn't heard how argumentative things became toward the end.\n And I can understand that. There were producers sitting in the audience who seemed to me to be sweating profusely at the prospect that they would soon have to try to make their nut selling videos where every guy in every sex scene had on - gasp! - a condom!\n Now, there's a certain justification to that fear. I gotta tell ya, I periodically read the Internet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.erotica (r.a.m.e.) where a bunch of clueless fans, a couple of knowledgeable ones and several should-know-better pros discuss what they think are the ins and outs of the porn biz. And one of the lines of discussion in April revolved around what some people thought about the use of condoms in porn.\n One of these "good citizens" writes, "Not only do I not enjoy vids with condoms, I make a note of both the performer and label and they both go on my 'never rent' list. I have to put up with condoms in real life, why would I want them intruding on my fantasies?"\n Another clueless anti-condom advocate, "Torris," writes, "To be honest... I really don't think the porn industry cares that a few casualties happen along the way. Acceptable risk. This is still an industry built on making money. Commerce to the tune of $8 billion a year even tho [sic] it is still primarily illegal in large parts of the country and always one step away from being legislated out of existence. To them it's no different than Bhopal [India, site of the Union Carbide chemical spill]. Every once in a while these accidents happen and people lose their lives. You pay them off, write that into the cost of doing business and move on. With porn, there is never a scarcity of supply to use as raw materials for the finished product. I think the reaction [increased condom use] is to show the gov't that they're cleaning their own house, [because] they are vulnerable in the *way* they do business."\n "Torris," in his twisted logic, also writes, "It's nice to be able to say screw you to this industry and their arrogance and greed. Shane comes to mind quickly, I hope to email her this very thing. Sorry Shane, no more of my money will go to your product for your Condoms Only policy. Every action has a consequence."\n Indeed it does...\n One who almost makes sense is Brad Williams: "This is one time I'm glad to see the stupidly short-term argument of 'it sells' stuffed right up the porn industry's ass without lube. The terrible part of it all was performers being HIV+ that caused it, and the fact that the morons in porn always thought that short-term small profits meant something. If porn had put out something of quality, maybe the fans would be willing to give them a chance now instead of immediately condemning condom-only porn."\n And finally, there's Jeannine McArthur, who asks the questions most producers need to ask (and answer) themselves: "Is the price paid by adult performers to be their very lives for the sake of the consumer? Have we as a group of people - male and female alike - become so numbed to the risk that performers take for the sake of our pleasure that we simply say it's the performer's own fault if they contract the HIV virus when a relatively minor inconvenience as a condom can save a person's life? Our fantasies should not be fulfilled at such a high price as the potential sacrifice of a human life."\n A week ago, in answer to Jeannine's excellent argument, I might have pointed out that there had been no source identified within the industry for Tricia Devereaux's, Brooke Ashley's or Caroline's infection, which suggested that it had been practices in the gals' personal lives that brought about the problem. Now we think that the latest victim, Marc Wallice, was "source prime" in all three cases. \n But what about the effects on innocent HIV-negative victims like Kaitlyn Ashley and Carolina, one of whom is having trouble getting work because her stage name too closely resembles Caroline's real name, and the other because Caroline's stage name is too similar? (And may I say that I sincerely hope that those like Luke Ford who posted so-called "well-known HIV+ sources" in the r.a.m.e. newsgroup get the whopping big lawsuit they so richly deserve.)\n However, even if the HIV source were not within the industry, that's not a sufficient argument that condoms are unnecessary. I'm sure there are plenty of construction sites where no one gets hit in the head with a falling brick, but hard hats are still the fashion accessory of choice - and of law.\n Which brings me to another point: Anyone who has any sense of the way government works, and the way it feels about the porn industry, can predict with certainty that given the opportunity, condoms would be required for all sex scenes. If there is anyone who thinks this isn't so, believe me, I'd like to hear their arguments.\n And you can rest assured that if the government does decide to come into the industry, probably through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), they won't stop at mandating condoms. Clyde DeWitt has already written a legal commentary on how performers are actually employees when making a feature. Are producers and directors ready for mandated shorter working hours, site locations, producer-paid health insurance, producer-paid DNA tests (John Stagliano already thinks it's a good idea) and the myriad other regulations and costs that the government already imposes on more-mainstream businesses?\n Another semi-reasonable objection was voiced by Rob Spallone, who wondered whether condoms would be mandated for blowjobs, and whether oral cumshots would be outlawed, not to mention misguided facials that wind up in the eye?\n Those are good questions, and ones that need profound consideration. I recently popped The Huntress, a "safe-sex" vid from 1987, into the VCR for a view. Not only were the condoms pearly-white, ill-fitting and obvious, they even used dental dams for the cunnilingus. Fortunately, technology has helped us since then. Some modern condoms are all but invisible, and it's been determined that HIV is generally not carried in saliva.\n Some producers, though, are apparently already taking a pro-active stance in the other direction. When one performer showed up at a shoot in early April and announced that she had decided to go "condom only," the producer reportedly yelled at her, reduced her to tears, and then after she did her two scenes condomless, had the chutzpah to require her to sign a release saying she'd been offered the use of condoms but had voluntarily refused!\n Incidentally, in the opinion of at least one knowledgeable attorney, in a court of law, these so-called "condom liability release forms" wouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on. Can you imagine a judge or jury siding with a construction company against a crippled worker who had "voluntarily" decided not to wear a hard hat?\n By the way, the inevitable sniping has already started. In my research for this month's lead Boneyard article, two producers told me they'd "heard" that at least one company which had announced it was going "condom-only" was in fact still shooting condomless features. As if someone else's hypocrisy (if it exists; no one's yet presented proof) is reason enough for them to avoid doing the right thing!\n And has anyone considered how difficult it must be for an actress to do a hot, believable sex scene when she's constantly worried that any ejaculation may give her a deadly disease? While the drop in AIDS cases has been widely reported, you had to search for that two-column-inch story in a back page of the April 14 Los Angeles Times to find that the HIV infection rate is as steady as it's been for years.\n The simple fact is, we're doing to ourselves what the government has not yet been able to do to us: drive good performers out of the business, and in the long run, possibly drive everyone out of business entirely.\n And lastly, I'd like to delve for a moment into what may be some of the reasons for both producers' and the public's rejection of condoms in sex scenes.\n I delivered a paper last spring to the International Conference on Prostitution, titled "The Inmates Are Running The Asylum: Religion Vs. Sex In America." One of the points I made was that one does not have to be religious - in fact, one can even be an atheist - to soak up religious views on sexual subjects. How many people just "know" that public nudity, prostitution, fellatio, premarital and/or extramarital sex and many other sexual acts are "just wrong"? I would contend that these ideas are in no way "instinctual"; they come from the religious teachings we soak up just living in our culture.\n Now, couple this with the fact that both orthodox Catholicism and orthodox Judaism, sects of the two dominant religions in the Western world (and especially Europe!), both reject all workable forms of birth control as an option. The reason is simple: Can't have a flock without a constant supply of sheep!\n But I would ask how many people who find condoms unattractive and unsexy in a video feel so because they have soaked up this "anti-birth-control" message from their culture? Considering the ramifications of casual partners not using condoms - spread of disease as well as pregnancy - this view has to be considered neurotic at best! Do XXX producers feel good about catering to this widespread mental illness?\n But I have no doubt that in the months ahead, some producers are going to be watching sales of non-condom productions like the proverbial hawk, and taking any increase or decrease in sales as a sign that condom-only productions work or that they don't. And the meaning(s) of these market fluctuations will be endlessly debated, with the concept of whether condoms are actually a good idea lost in the word shuffle.\n And frankly, I expect to see some sales dips, as the naive fans and unknowingly-religious devotees of the world shake their little fisties and stamp their little feeties more publicly about how the XXX industry is selling out to the pro-condom infidels. Do try to bear in mind that they don't care whether condom use is right or wrong or whether performers live or die; only whether their twisted condomless fantasies get fulfilled.\n If you're looking for video-condom success stories, you need only turn to the gay porn industry, which also had a dip in sales when it decided to go all-condom. Of course, at the time that happened, gay video producers and performers were seeing their comrades dropping like flies from this incurable disease, and so they made, self-protection considerations aside, what they consider to be the only moral choice - and it's paid off well.\n And finally, we might remember these words from Paul Williams' Phantom of the Paradise (© Almo Music Corp.):\n"Winter comes and the winds blow colder.\n"While some grow wiser, you just grew older.\n"You never listened anyway,\n"And that's the hell of it."\n(The above-expressed opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AVN Publications or its employees.)
All models were at least 18 years old at the time of their performance. 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.
