Condoms, Porn, and HIV

Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


An adult-film performer tested positive for HIV last week, leading several production companies in Los Angeles County to halt filming indefinitely to contain a potential outbreak, the Los Angeles Times reports. The news is rattling a multi-billion dollar industry that routinely tests performers for the virus but does not require them to wear condoms. And therein lies the problem, says Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The medical provider filed a lawsuit against LA County’s Department of Public Health last year to force it to mandate condom use in the porn industry. The foundation lost that case, but it’s appealing. “In any other job, we require companies to protect their workers even if it costs more money for the employers,” Weinstein told me over the phone. “Why should the porn industry be any different?”

25 percent of all female porn performers were reinfected within one year.

The main argument made by actors, directors, and producers against requiring condoms in porn is viewers don’t want to see them so it’ll hurt sales. Vivid Entertainment founder Steven Hirsch told LA Weekly in January that when Vivid went “condom-only,” between 1998 and 2006, it saw a 10 to 20 percent drop in revenues. Then last week, Vivid suspended all film production due to one HIV-positive performer. I emailed Hirsch to ask him how much money his studio anticipates losing during the hiatus, but he has yet to reply.*

The gender and work history of the HIV positive performer, and the date when the test came back positive, have yet to be released by the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit that offers medical services to sex workers. But rumor has it the perfomer is a man who’s worked in both straight and gay porn; those potentially infected could be in the hundreds. An estimated (PDF) 2,000 to 3,000 porn performers work in the San Fernando Valley—the porn capital of the United States—starring in the more than 10,000 adult films made there yearly.

Back in January, Weinstein told LA Weekly: “There’s no other workplace where people routinely get diseases and no one does anything about it.” Although porn industry standards require actors to get tested every 30 days, the lack of preventative measures enforced by studios have made sexually transmitted diseases a scary norm within the profession’s ranks, especially among women. Between 2004 and 2008, LA County’s Department of Public Health (PDF) logged in more than 3,200 cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea. Seventy-five percent of the reported cases were in female performers; 25 percent of all female performers were reinfected within one year. As many as 22 performers have tested positive for HIV since 2004, the notorious year when porn star Darren James infected 3 of the 13 women he had sexual contact with during the six month window period before the virus showed up on his monthly tests.

“Gay porn is done primarily with condoms and it has been for the last 20 years,” Weinstein tells me. “Their business is still going strong. If there was a level playing field and every company was required to wear condoms, then it would not affect one company.” On October 25, California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health is holding its second hearing in Oakland to review condom use in the state’s adult film industry. Weinstein, who’s petition launched the investigation, is optimistic about the verdict to come: “I believe ultimately that there will be more [safe sex] enforcement and the porn industry will be required to use condoms.

 

*UPDATE: Steven Hirsch, the founder of Vivid Entertainment, emailed me this statement today: “We haven’t had any decline in sales because we’re in the fortunate position of having several months of movies in various stages of post production. We don’t expect this situation to change unless production remains closed for an extended period of time.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate