Porn Actress Tests Positive for HIV – Could More Government Oversight Have Prevented It?

Posted by Enrique on 06.18.2009

Cock-up



Big drama in Iran right now, where protests after last week's sham re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been met with violent repercussions by government authorities. On Tuesday, Iran effectively confined foreign journalists to their offices and restricted coverage of "unauthorized" demonstrations. U.S. President Barack Obama has expressed "deep concerns" about the crackdown, but doesn't want to appear to be meddling with Iran's internal affairs. Fears continue to mount that a Tienanmen-style massacre with thousands of dead and wounded looms on the horizon.

So let's forget about all that and turn now to an issue of more immediate concern – the state of the U.S. porn industry following last week's announcement that a female performer has tested positive for HIV. The announcement has led some to criticize the industry's standards and practices, with calls for additional oversight by public health officials. But can more government oversight really prevent occasional cases of HIV in the professional sex sector? And what exactly is the appropriate level of government supervision of high-risk occupations?

The story so far…

The revelation that the as-yet-unidentified actress is HIV positive has revived a feud between local government officials and the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation (AIM), which is the primary provider of disease screening services for U.S. porn producers. According to the Los Angeles Times, there is some disagreement on the question of adequate protection:

Dr. Jonathan Fielding, health officer for Los Angeles County, said Wednesday that his office was launching an investigation.

Officials from the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health also said they will look into the circumstances of the case, which is the first publicly confirmed HIV infection in Southern California's porn industry since 2004, when an HIV outbreak shut down production for four weeks. […]

As [AIM] downplayed the positive test, public health officials cited their ongoing battle with the porn industry over the use of condoms during filming. The two sides have been at odds for years, and despite the intense scrutiny, Fielding said he is concerned that condoms are still not being used.

"You wouldn't send someone to work on a high-rise building without a hard-hat, so why are we allowing these performers to perform without condoms?" Fielding said.

Deborah Gold, a senior safety engineer with the state Occupational Safety and Health Division, said her agency repeatedly had attempted to crack down on unsafe workplaces in the adult entertainment industry, issuing several citations against employers, including a gay male production company that touted its condom-free filming.

If you're like me – and who isn't now and again – you may have noticed in the last decade some porn films have featured condom-wearing male performers. It's not an uncommon practice, although it's far from standard, and it's certainly not required. Dr. Fielding seems to think condom use is a no-brainer, but the reality of the porn business is a little more nuanced.

The biggest reason porn producers choose not to mandate condom use is, generally speaking, the consumer prefers condom-free sex on video. Pornography represents different things to different people, but I think we can all agree many people consume pornography to vicariously experience exciting intercourse that occurs outside the realm of typical human experience. Since many men (perhaps most) consider sex with condoms to be less than ideal, their presence in porn movies can impede the fantasy-development process. Instead of watching incredible sex that you'll never have, you're reminded of mediocre sex that you haven't had recently.

The market for condom-free adult films must be fairly strong if some producers are willing to devote advertising to the issue. Certainly, if condom use affects the bottom line, it has to be balanced with the health and safety of the performers. Even when used correctly, condoms have a failure rate of about 2%. Condoms do tremendously reduce the chances of transmitting disease, but they aren't foolproof, so there would be some incidences of STD even if condoms were required, and performers would still have to be regularly tested.

Condoms aren't necessary if you are reasonably certain you have a clean bill of health (and she's on the pill, natch). So the issue isn't with condoms per se, but the validity of the AIM testing regime. The Times further reports, "The clinic's testing protocol recommends that adult performers get screened for HIV every 30 days. Fielding called that schedule insufficient to protect against transmission because it takes nine to 11 days after exposure for HIV to appear on test results." Presumably, Fielding would prefer a government mandated testing schedule, but that might deprive performers from earning income if they aren't allowed to work during an 11-day time frame while waiting on test results.

Freedom from government interference can be a tricky thing when it comes to high-risk occupations. Porn actors and actresses are adults who have chosen a profession that includes the threat of exposure to HIV (although they are much more likely to be exposed to other STD's such as gonorrhea and chlamydia). Is it really the government's job to manage those risks? Professional athletes constantly face the risk of serious, life-altering injuries, but few would argue the government should be intimately involved in any league's rule-making. For the government to require porn performers to use condoms would be like if the government pressured the NFL to ban horse-collar tackles a few years ago, rather than the private team owners making the decision on their own.

Consider another high-risk occupation dear to our hearts – professional wrestling. Based on all available evidence, pro wrestling is an extremely dangerous career that can dramatically shorten the life spans of its participants. Since the job of the pro wrestler is to batter his/her own body and a regular basis, they arguably face much greater health risks than porn stars. Does that mean government should have the power ban chair shots or ladder matches in the name of public health? Or should government protect the right of adults to voluntarily assume the risks (and rewards) of dangerous professions?

Requiring condoms for porn seems like an inoffensive policy at first blush, but I'm skeptical of the idea additional government oversight can substantially protect individuals in high-risk occupations. The recent track record of government oversight leaves much to be desired. Government regulators were oblivious to Bernie Madoff's multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Government regulators didn't understand the risks of AIG's credit-default swap business, even though it was widely publicized before it led to the firm's collapse and seizure.

Some people have a regrettable tendency to wistfully assume, in the cold light of hindsight, that more government regulations could have prevented such-and-such unfortunate event, in the absence of evidence government regulations frequently accomplish what they intend. One such person is President Obama, who on Wednesday announced a crapload of new regulations on financial firms. I believe this sort of faith in government is wholly unsubstantiated. Pending new data indicating government regulations are effective and worthwhile, I advocate keeping the government out of our porn movies. To paraphrase the National Organization for Women, keep your laws off their bodies. I'm sure small-government conservatives would agree.