This is a guestblog from Audacia Ray of Waking Vixen and author of Naked on the Internet.
This past week it was revealed that there are some new cases of HIV within the adult industry in Los Angeles. The LA Times and LAist have both covered the story, as have adult industry media outlets AVN and Xbiz. A stunning majority of straight porn companies do not require condoms and actively discourage their use - in the business this is called "condom optional" which is euphemistic for "you either perform without a condom or you don't perform for this company." The gay porn industry has slightly different standards than the straight porn business. Gay porn companies do not require testing, with the idea that it is an invasion of privacy and HIV shouldn't prevent people from working/having sex, but the more reputable companies require condom use. The Gay Video News Awards (GayVN) will not consider a film for an award if there is "barebacking" (sex without a condom) in it.
I worked in and around the sex industry (porn and other sectors) for several years, so my take on the news of recent HIV cases and the dynamics of health, safety, and responsibility within the porn business is colored by my experiences in and frustrations with the business. I directed and produced a bisexual feature porn film, The Bi Apple, which was shot in NYC in summer 2006 and released in February 2007. It went on to win a Feminist Porn Award for Hottest Bisexual Scene and was nominated for Best Bisexual Video at the GayVN Awards (where, by the way, it was pretty fun to be the lone girl director). The company I made the film for required performers to be negative for HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and I required all performers to wear condoms for vaginal and anal sex and the option to use condoms for oral sex (no one opted to negotiate condom use for oral). I also paid for tests for the performers who weren't working regularly and didn't have a recent test on hand.
Since an outbreak of HIV in the business in 1998, the heterosexual California-based porn business (which includes both boy-girl and girl-girl scenes - yeah, I know) requires performers to be HIV negative, and many companies also require clean bills of health on chlamydia and gonorrhea. Performers get tested every 30 days using the PCR test; the ELISA test is more common among "civilians." The PCR tests for the presence of HIV itself, while the ELISA tests for the presence of HIV antibodies, and PCR can detect HIV within a much shorter window period (9-11 days) than the ELISA test (1-3 months). Most performers use the services of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM), where they have to pay for their own tests - $120 covers HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea; sometimes there is also a lab fee depending on the testing center.
With the reports of another incidence of HIV infection coming out of porn valley this week, the HIV infection count in the straight business has reached 22 cases since 2004. So what's going on? The straight porn industry regards testing as prevention - and while testing and knowledge of your partners' status is certainly part of a risk reduction strategy, testing is not prevention. Porn production companies argue that the appearance of condoms in porn reduces the fantasy for the viewer, and as a result condom mandatory videos sell fewer units. Yep: sales are more important than sexual health. Both male and female porn performers are disempowered to demand condom usage because most companies actively discourage condoms (even though the option to use condoms is often written into their model release or contract). The reality is that unless the performer is a major star and has leverage or produces his or her own films, performing without condoms is a sure way to get booked frequently and work a lot. Condom mandatory performers work less and get paid less.
Directors who I've talked with about their reluctance to enforce a condom mandatory policy on their productions sometimes sheepishly say that the companies they work for won't have it. Other times they tell me that the performers themselves feel safe enough with the testing policies and don't want to use condoms for a variety of reasons. I believe that it is the producer and director's responsibility to step up and advocate for their workers and protect their health. If this means enforcing a mandatory condom policy that the performers complain about - that's part of being the boss. If a performer had become infected with a STI while on my set, I would have not forgiven myself for that kind of negligence. And that's what the "condom optional" policy is - negligence, piled on top of blatant disregard for sexual health and a lack of respect for the performers as people.
Are directors and producers going to step up and make condoms mandatory? Probably not. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and herpes are all accepted as hazards of the trade, something that happens to everyone at some point. HIV is a big deal, but 22 performers infected over five years is still a pretty small number - clearly not a big enough one for producers and directors to shift the way they run their productions. As a sexual health and rights advocate, I find this really appalling.
This is a guestblog from Audacia Ray of Waking Vixen and author of Naked on the Internet.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A guestblog: HIV outbreak in the porn industry.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14415
Wow, what a shocker!
Thought all those squirting juices
were as safe as milk!
I don't see how that comment is at all appropriate. If you disagree with the porn industry or sex work in general that's one thing, but if you have nothing to contribute to the conversation just go away.
My haiku offends?
Poet's heart insists upon
these odd syllables.
My apologies.
Not to insult or demean,
humor intended.
Hail to sex workers:
Theirs, a noble profession.
Their safety, no joke.
Haiku? Really?
I'm not sure what this comment is about, but it's borderline offensive. Keep it respectful, even in poem form.
No dis intended
but disrespectful all the
same, in retrospect.
A place for humor
on this blog there is, but not
about others' health.
I was purely wrong.
I will try to amend my
flippant behavior.
wow what a shocker! someone making an ignorant comment implying that sex workers are dirty!
have some respect.
Is it appropriate to tell a fellow Feministing regular to fuck off? Because I am about to do that ...must ...show ...discipline ...
Pray, Marc, don't hold back.
I can take your angry jabs.
It's just internet.
You can keep your God
Nothing fails quite like prayers
And your humor, too.
Hoisted upon my
own petard, I am indeed!
Touche, mon ami!
Though I must point out
It's pronounced "prairs," not pray-ers
Better luck next time.
I would just like to thank both of you for making pointless internet bickering more entertaining. :D
Pointless bickering?
Unfairly characterized!
Real stuff discussed here.
"Porn production companies argue that the appearance of condoms in porn reduces the fantasy for the viewer, and as a result condom mandatory videos sell fewer units."
This really ticks me off.
GAH! It's not a fucking fantasy! People are actually having sex! Why is this so hard for people to understand?
And, yet, men's fantasies will always trump the lives of actual people.
One more reason I hate the porn industry.
In my fantasies, people are protected and nobody gets diseases.
My understanding is that some female performers (Nina Hartley, I think, brought this up in her NOW address) prefer sex without condoms because latex creates more chafing during scenes with prolonged vaginal intercourse. Not that this should supersede health concerns — although it's a health issue in its own right, since increased friction would lead to tissue micro-tears, leaving the female performer more susceptible to infection during oral or digital stimulation — just thought it was worth a mention. It seems a condom policy would have to take those objections into consideration, as well as what to do for performers who have latex allergies. (I know there are non-latex options, but I thought that those didn't necessarily come in a size that would accommodate male performers.) Anyway, it's great to see Dacia here on Feministing!
And "squirting juices"? I'm amused. Are you talking about people having sex or a water gun fight?
I don't see how the presence of a condom is going to increase or decrease chafing during vaginal intercourse. Maybe it's just my limited experience, but chafing, for me, implies and absence of lube. A nice lube with a water base does the trick quite nicely for me.
Here's Nina's speech: http://business.avn.com/articles/30170.html
She says it's more drag with or without lube and she's been in the biz long enough to know. For sure, most people's condom intercourse doesn't last 90 minutes, and I defer to those who are the experts.
It seems to me that the problem is not condoms, but the length of the scene.
Maybe if condoms were worn all the time in porn, then it wouldn't be so hard to get people in the real world to wear them. And there wouldn't be this expectation that 'bareback' is the norm for casual sex.
They make non-latex condoms and now they have ones that are vegan too (meaning they aren't made from sheep, which use to be the only alternative) - I think they are made out of vinyl instead of latex (but I could be wrong - I'm not allergic to latex so I've never had to use them).
The directors could rap it up for the day if a woman is in pain from having intercourse - if they gave a shit about the women, then they would re-schedule and do the shoot the next day etc.
The problem isn't condoms, it's that the men directing most porn flicks don't really respect women, nor do they care if they are in pain or not. Which I consider to be the biggest problem. If I hurt myself at work - I get the rest of the day off and even some extra days to heal (if injury requires it). In other words - this is an issue of workers' rights.
Exactly. No one gives a shit about the women, and it shows.
I wasn't advocating against condom use, I was only pointing out that if the *female performers themselves* are resistant to using condoms, it's worth asking why and trying to address their concerns. And while it might be very satisfying to say men making porn don't care about women, women are increasingly directing/producing porn, too. (Usually former performers, like Joanna Angel and--I think--Jenna Jameson, Shane, Belladonna, Tera Patrick, etc.) To my knowledge, this has not resulted in revolutionary practices on set. Just because someone is female is not a guarentee that she will be as thoughtul and ethical as Dacia was. If porn makers of any gender believe that 1)their performers don't want condoms and 2) porn with condoms doesn't sell, it's going to be challenging to get them to use safer sex measures.
Dacia, thanks as always for your informed perspective. This post will definitely serve as a resource for me in the future, when i have questions about what standard practices are and should be on set.
What I don't get is why they can't use condoms and just edit them out in post-production. I can do that on my mini laptop, for heaven's sake, and I'm not making the kind of money they're making.
The problem is just the toxic industry culture, which turns performers into expendable commodities.
And the fact that women are more at risk for getting HIV from intercourse, yet most companies won't take the simplest precautions, just underscores the general misogyny in porn.
I think it costs money to edit out condoms in movies... surely they want to keep it low budget as possible, am I right?
Yep, it definitely costs time + money to edit condoms out, so that's the argument for not doing that. I think there were a few directors that did this in the 80s and 90s but it was quickly phased out.
Yeah, that's what I figured. These producers' greed is always more important than someone's life. And someone's fantasy is more important than someone's life.
I get that HIV is no longer a mandatory death sentence, but it is certainly a life sentence, with those who get it having to take various expensive and debilitating drug cocktails for the rest of their lives (which may or may not work). Do any of these affected performers have health insurance? And what are their chances of getting it after the industry kicks them out? Can we say "pre-existing condition?"
And even if HIV isn't the problem, all the other less deadly STIs can lead to infertility and all sorts of other problems, like cancer. And what about the scary drug-resistant strains of syphilis making the rounds?
But nooo, health is not sexy, and the women and men who get infected are not worth the simplest protection of a thin piece of latex.
Now someone tell me again why I am not a "sex positive" feminist for despising the mainstream porn industry?
Co-sign 100%
I mean there are plenty of industries whose employees must comply with safety regulations that require wearing cumbersome and uncomfortable safety wear or gear. Somehow those laws got passed though.
If anything the safety regulations in the porn industry are to protect the public. Red flags go up in my mind when I hear that an industry is not held accountable because the regulations would be unenforceable. Haven't we already been down this road?
Which is TOTALLY rediculous. Hollywood makes less money than the porn industry, and they have no problem shelling out money for over-paid actors/actresses and special affects. The other thing I want to mention is that mainstream porn is basically owned by other media outlets (HBO, Comcast, DirectTV etc) - these are media companies with tons of money - to say that they couldn't afford to edit out the condoms or to lose the few consumers who won't buy them is rediculous.
Which is TOTALLY rediculous. Hollywood makes less money than the porn industry, and they have no problem shelling out money for over-paid actors/actresses and special affects. The other thing I want to mention is that mainstream porn is basically owned by other media outlets (HBO, Comcast, DirectTV etc) - these are media companies with tons of money - to say that they couldn't afford to edit out the condoms or to lose the few consumers who won't buy them is rediculous.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-porn-hiv17-2009jun17,0,7502132.story
Or it could just be overblown.
I think while the numbers may be overblown and poorly reported: 22? 16? 18? 1? the issue of safer sex in porn remains important. HIV is not the only STI out there, but on some hetero porn sets it's the only once tested for. Porn performers should be encouraged and enabled to protect their sexual health, whatever the statistics of transmission.
Great post Miriam.
I also worked in the industry; managing an adult "swing" club and after a while doing so and after increasing attendance and revenue over the first year of doing so I foolishly felt confident in bringing in a public health nurse/educator as part of the mandatory orientation process. "Coincidentally" the owners decided they wanted to go in "another direction" with the management of the club, of course this had "nothing to do with my decision to bring in more health awareness"; strangely, though, they discontinued the orientation almost entirely and replaced it with a quasi-legal and dubiously informative waiver meanwhile no other changes to my programs were made according to people I know/knew who still went to the club.
The really fucked up thing is that I noticed no dropoff at the door, just more people using condoms and dams I provided with a little help from my local PP office.
I started the program after informal polling and learning how honestly ignorant people were about STI prevention in general, including people using sheep-skin condoms as prevention.
How many of the HIV+ test results are for performers? The article doesn't confirm that they were, only that 22 tested and were reported, as mandatory, HIV+. Many could be for the "gay" porn side of the business.
Also, if enough directors and performs prefer to use condoms during scenes, couldn't they band together and make it happen among themselves? Offer some competition and alternatives instead of forcing everyone to follow laws that would be problematic to enforce.
You're alluding to a kind of unionizing of the industry which simply won't work without outside intervention. Because many people in the industry are easily replaced with someone more desperate and more willing to ignore personal health a "walkout" isn't going to be effective.
How many of the HIV+ test results are for performers? The article doesn't confirm that they were, only that 22 tested and were reported, as mandatory, HIV+. Many could be for the "gay" porn side of the business.
Also, if enough directors and performs prefer to use condoms during scenes, couldn't they band together and make it happen among themselves? Offer some competition and alternatives instead of forcing everyone to follow laws that would be problematic to enforce.
Dacia, why is the porn industry not regulated on this, forcing all licensed porn sets to require condum usage? Does OSHA not have the authority to come in to these sets? and i'm assuming there is no union of performers, like there is for non-porn acting, right? as it would seemingly be in the best interests of a union to fight for a protection like this, even if it took away from the producers profit margins.
I have heard that there have been some incidences of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) leveraging fines against porn producers, to little effect. I would love to see a porn performer who had gotten a STI sue a producer and see what comes of that - to my knowledge that hasn't been done (though I could be wrong about that, haven't looked into it thoroughly).
There was a proposed bill in the state of CA in 2004 (after an outbreak) that would have made condom use mandatory in porn made within the state, but it got shot down. It looks like a similar bill will be reintroduced. This is a state-by-state thing - making porn is not legal in all states in the U.S.
Sadly, I think we are a long ways off from a porn performers' union, in part because most performers don't stay in the business very long (female performers have an average run of 3-5 months in the business), so there isn't the continuity to work on the very arduous and slow process of unionizing. Porn performers have tried to join SAG in the past but haven't been turned down.
thanks. wow, that's a frustrating list of lack of regulation and checks and balances on the profit motives of the companies. i too hope to see a suit like that, and I look forward to your guest post when the CA bill is introduced. if it passed, how would it be enforced?
Not really sure how such a law would be enforced - maybe surprise visits by public health professionals to porn sets? This is how laws about shooting permits are enforced and ticketed. (even when shooting in a private home in CA, you need to have a permit to do so)
it appears that 10 of the positives were in men who have sex with men and likely perform (or performed) in the gay side of the industry. OSHA's authority in the porn industry is fuzzy. they have tried to step in, but because the actors are not employees of the companies, it creates a legal area that is difficult to navigate.
i wrote in detail about the history of testing and condom use in porn and the legalities on my blog at www.sugartheshop.blogspot.com
regardless of concerns about latex and irritation, non-latex condoms or the expense of editing - the porn production companies need to step up and require condom usage. it's a matter of respecting the performers enough to protect their lives.
Sorry, jacqjones, but I find it a bit offensive that you would simply blow off the concerns of active performers who may not be as willing to support mandatory condom usage imposed by the state due to their own concerns about their own risks. Don't their concerns rate as legitimate, too?? Or do you simply think that they are mere pawns of the industry producers who put profit in front of their talent??
Plus...there are already many companies who have attempted condom-only policies....and most of them have failed not only because they lost plenty of consumers, but because the performers themselves objected for their own reasons. Just because you may think that condom usage should be mandated industry wide doesn't mean that every performer will agree with you, whatever your good intentions.
Anthony
"the concerns of active performers who may not be as willing to support mandatory condom usage imposed by the state due to their own concerns about their own risks."
I'm a bit confused. How would performers' concerns about risks translate to NOT supporting condom use? What risks does condom usage increase?
Actually, performers wanting to make condom-only scenes do have the option of simply not performing with studios that insist on not ceding to their wishes..or, in the case of an increasing minority of performers, simply shooting content for their own sites on their command rather than the studios.
As for Cal-OSHA's authority....well, legislation that would have extended that authority to the porn industry was defeated handily due to not just objections from the porn industry (both producers and talent), but from civil liberties groups protesting that any attempt to combine regulation with testing would violate civil liberties protections and privacy laws. Also....there are many performers who are not so much in favor of mandatory condom imposition, for their own reasons not related to company profits.
Personally, I don't see as much panic as some others see, since thus far, most of the outbreak has been contained to that particular performer, and thus far everyone else has been tested HIV-....so in my view the system has worked quite well for what it was intended to do. Obviously, one case of HIV infection is still a tragedy, but considering the rate of infection in the outside world, that we have had only one is a minor miracle, and a testimonial to the work of Sharon Mitchell and AIM. I see way too many personal political agendas and vendettas in the trashing of her.
This article by Ernest Greene makes sense of the whole situation, and makes the case for why mandatory condom usage imposed by law was a bad idea in 2004, and still is now:
Blog of Pro Porn Activism: Latest HIV-in-Porn Panic: Rumor Central Re-Opens For Business
Anthony
I don't find his argument against mandatory condom usage to be compelling in the least. He seems to be taking OSHA's approach to safety in porn in 1994 and rather than saying it could use modifying, dismissing mandatory protection out of hand. He also seems to be lacking in the logic on a number of points. It is legally possible to have testing and mandatory condoms; he's equating any regulation with over-regulation; the independent contractor vs. employee argument is based on a faulty premise and taken to a ridiculous extreme; nobody is arguing that condoms makes sex 100% safe, but they do make sex a lot safer; he often seems to rely on reductio ad absurdum to make a point, like when he proposes locking performers up between shoots, and this really doesn't contribute to his argument. It seems more like a diversionary tactic.
It irritates me that he pats himself on the back for letting his performers' use condoms, while saying that they're totally unnecessary.
A condom failure rate of 15% seems very high, and makes me wonder if the condoms on his sets were being used correctly.
It seems strange to me that using condoms inhibits production to such a great degree, when Kink.com has mandatory condom usage and they seem to have a rather busy and successful business.
I understand that porn is about fantasy and all of that, but I have to wonder that in an industry that has already received so much criticism about the way in which these for-profit fantasies effect the real-life sexuality of its viewers, if they do not have some sort of social obligation to promote safer sex? I remember high school, I remember the arguments I had with male partners over condom usage: "it doesn't feel as good, it's not as sexy, don't you trust me?"
safer sex is a public health issue that effects more than just adult-film workers. and in the industry that sets the standards for "acceptable" adult sexuality, we should expect them to take the health of their workers and their viewers into consideration. especially if the major motivation for preventing condom usage is lower profits.
If they had any obligation to society, they effectively wouldn't exist. Think about it.
What always comes to my mind when it comes to bareback porn is herpes. Unlike chlamydia and gonorrhea, when you get herpes you kind of have it for life. Do any porn companies have their performers test for this? Or is it just expected that you'll probably just get it if you work in the industry? I'm pretty curious about this issue.
No, no one tests for herpes. It's pretty much accepted as a hazard of the trade. I'm not sure what the exact statistics are for porn performers vs "civilians"; but anecdotally, herpes is widespread in the porn business.
Great post, Audacia.
This seems to be the mainstream "legit" porn industry. Do you know about condom and testing policies in the so-called "amateur" porn sector, like the performers who are hired for one time gigs with websites? I would imagine that's even less standardized, but I don't know. It seems to be an area of the sex industry that we don't hear much about.
Apologies in advance for this answer, but: it varies.
A pretty solid chunk of online, non-California "amateur" (in quotes because I'm talking about paysites) porn is made by people who are romantically partnered with their on-screen sex partners or at least have a relationship outside of "here's money, let's make porn." That changes the dynamic of testing and responsibility a bit.
From what I've heard (and experienced), performers outside of the mainstream porn biz are sort of left to their own devices, and it depends on the producers too. Some companies, like Kink.com, have very clear testing policies that are posted publicly on their sites. Some of the other indie porn sites ask the performers to negotiate testing and safer sex among themselves before they shoot, but don't mandate a test (whereas in the mainstream biz, performers sometimes don't communicate with each other at all prior to the day of the shoot). Many other smaller operations don't have formal policies. But also: outside of the CA mainstream biz, there is a huge variety in the kinds of sex acts that are performed on film, many of which don't include exchange of bodily fluids and therefore don't have the same concerns around testing.
(right hand up) "I solemnly swear to only watch porn depicting the use of condoms."
Lots of interesting points on here.
I can understand those performers who choose not to use condoms. I have vulval vestibulitis (read this if you don't know what it is - http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51803), and condoms just make sex stupidly painful.
On the note of post-film editing, it would take millions to build and thousands each year to run the kind of computing system needed (plus employ people to run it etc etc) to complete that level of editing work. This is by no means an excuse, just an area I know a bit about, being someone who works in IT.
Obviously the companies aren't going to opt for this as it would eat into their profit margin (you know, the whole "but we have to make a living!" thing that's really quite pathetic).
I have to wonder if anyone has read Robert Jensen's Pornography and the End of Masculinity. It is a great book, but I'm pretty sure speaks strongly against pornography because of what it does to women (not just how they are portrayed, but how they are treated in general, and how they are kind of cornered into the industry). Taking that book and this post, I think it all goes to show that pornography in and of itself is a horrible business. Any thoughts?
The industry (big business porn, I'm talking about) has gotten too big to fail, at least by conventional means anyway. They've demonstrated the disposability of the actors. They demonstrated that they are essentially above the certain laws. Consumers are apathetic.
When the file sharers dig their claws in like they did the music industry, count me in as one of the people who won't give a sh*t.
Chances are that they already have, but it seems the porn industry is not about to go bleating about it like the RIAA etc.
There are many, many, many labor rights abuses in the porn industry, for sure, but I think the work of people like Audacia shows that it's not all porn.
For anyone who is curious about reactions from the porn industry (including performers) about the possibility of condom-only laws: http://business.avn.com/articles/35596.html
THE CURE for HIV/AIDS.......AMBUSH
THE IDEA that AMBUSH cures AIDS
is being proven by the more than 400 individuals who have taken a dose of 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. The result is that AMBUSH 'KILLS' the virus by causing the protein envelope to rupture and the viral particles are discarded by the white blood cells. AMBUSH is able to 'KILL' the virus that are 'hiding' in the lymph system by its 'natural radioactive' properties. This process allows the body to 'return to normal health' with a corresponding immunity to that or those strains of the virus.
What is AMBUSH ?
AMBUSH is a radioactive isotope of uranium that is found in the 'palm' plant of which there are more than 3000 species. When ingested, AMBUSH causes the body temperature in the trunk area to rise to about 102 degrees when the individual is sleeping. The preparation takes four hours per batch, which is then given to the individuals for consumption 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. AMBUSH is a herbal preparation in this form but it contains an active ingredient which is a 'NEW' crystalline substance, a drug from the 'palm plant' similarly to ASPIRIN originating from the willow tree bark
RESULTS:
After 21 days on AMBUSH, ALL the individuals experienced a decrease in viral load to undetectable, an increase in cd4, increase in RBC, an improvement in general health such as more color to the face, decrease in Buffalo hump, an increase in gluteal muscles, a decrease to having no joint pains whereby individuals can bend to touch their toes, and walk up steps are but a few examples. There is also a dramatic increase in their sexual appetite beginning after the first week of therapy
DISCUSSION:
In any plant concoction such as percolated 'tea', there are 30-40,000 compounds, whi ch would take the scientific community twenty years to isolate one particular ingredient if they knew what they were looking for. The LORD GOD has given me seven steps to isolate the active ingredient, which is soft and metallic in nature and has a carbon- uranium-sulfur-(classified)-phentolamine configuration or structure. This is similar to Federick Kekule and the discovery of the benzene ring where he dreamt the structure.
As an antiviral and 'natural radioactivity' producing agent, AMBUSH is also effective against leukemia, lupus and HPV. Here I am saying that I have 'GIVEN' AMBUSH in the same 'strength' and dosage to patients with leukemia, lupus and HPV. A 35 year old male with HIV found it difficult to impossible to urinate was put on 'green tea' and water while the doctors contemplated prostrate surgery. One of the doctors gave him my number , I sent him a supply of AMBUSH an d he has not been given any more ARV's, since taking AMBUSH 18 months ago, is in 'good' health and has expressed a willingness to be examined by HIV investigators like many others who have taken AMBUSH.
I have sent this 'IDEA' to most HIV research agencies, scientist of the field, universities, hospitals, clinics, politicians and news agencies to which it is REJECTED because the name of THE LORD GOD is mentioned. He has steered me scientifically through the processes such as which plant and how to produce the active ingredient. What are the odds of a Florida Pharmacist picking a plant would contain the CURE for HIV/AIDS ?
I have never charged any of the people for their supply of AMBUSH but a life saving has been spent on the project with NO renumeration from any sources because AMBUSH falls outside the walls of modern medicine and research.
PROPOSAL:
My proposal is that I PROVE that AMBUSH CURES HIV/AIDS by giving it to a number of END-STAGE or DRUG-RESISTANT people and the scientific community watches their recovery. This proposal addresses the problem in that I have already outlaid the results to be obtained.
This IDEA is unconventional in that the scientific community has rejected AMBUSH because I say it is GOD given. Secondly if I wrote it according to certain standards, then it might be peer reviewed. However, THE LORD GOD has also shown me that there are five enzyme systems associated with the virus, reverse transcriptase, protease, fusion and two more of which causes the virus to be AIRBOURNE. This means that without DIVINE intervention mankind and ALL warm- blooded mammals will be extinct in a number of years.
The PROOF of what I am saying is found in scientific papers wherein it is found that when the protease cuts the viral strands, it cuts it at DIFFERENT lengths EVERY time, to which it should always be a valine at the end but is a different amino acid every time. This is why it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a VACCINE.
Since this is NOT a hypothesis but there are about 400 individuals who have taken AMBUSH, here lies a vast area in which to check, recheck and confirm that AMBUSH CURES AIDS. Let it be mentioned that during the HIV reproductive cycle, reverse transcriptase converts viral RNA into DNA compatible to human genetic materials. Thus the human DNA has been 'hijacked' and since each person has a DIFFERENT DNA, then the new viral copy is unique to that person which shows that each individual has a DIFFERENT STRAIN of the virus. Consider two HIV positive people swapping viral strains and increasing its complexity with multiple partners.
It can also be proposed that they be revisited as proof that the strain or strains that they had were 'killed' at the time of taking AMBUSH considering that a person can catch as many different strains as there are people who are infected by HIV.
I am also willing to work with the scientific community in identifying those individuals who took AMBUSH and wish to be identified with this process notwithstanding that some are stigmatized while others are jubilant,
Once AMBUSH is verified as being able to accomplish that which is aforementioned then the next stage might be the natural and artificial synthesis of the substance.
Finally, if this is accepted or not, believed or not, THE LORD GOD always wins and this is the heavenly truth to which AMBUSH was divinely given to mankind for the CURE of HIV/AIDS and it will be here forever. Apostle Shada Mishe.
apostleshadamishe@gmail.com
Here is a video taped presentation that I gave at t he Martin Luther King library in Washington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V53D1w__Po
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPwuwlVBOV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZejptOwMTzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqcTgIAhrhc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7HPKcT_iwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iQfgiYAnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RzRS6tJDM
You know, I don't know how long I've been really paying attention to condoms in popular consciousness (I've obviously *known* about them since I was a teenager. But I've never heard of any serious effort to eroticize them. I'm pretty sure it must happen, I just haven't heard of it. Which is a shame because it's mostly treated as a break in what people really want to be doing, as a necessary but unwanted interruption in an otherwise fluid process, or, at worst, a stress-filled erection wilter. It doesn't have to be.
As for the question of condoms and lube, in other contexts -- for instance sexual activities involving latex or nitrile gloves -- instructors talk about the importance of adding lubricant, using phrases like "drinks" or "soaks up." If that's true then I could see how someone who used condoms for day-long work sessions might have a different opinion of them than people who use them for the 5-15 minutes most people tend to.
The latex issue is probably further complicated thanks to industrial porn's very peculiar aversion to evidence of lubrication or other signs of actual biological, as opposed to acted, arousal in women. Poorly-lubricated intercourse without condoms sounds uncomfortable enough. I imagine it would be even less comfortable with condoms.
---
Using CGI to mask condoms sounds like a great idea, but I'm guessing that the grievously low budgets for individual industrial porn videos will make them unaffordable until they're as automated as red-eye filters in digital cameras.
The aggregate market for porn may or may not be bigger than Hollywood's but if so its only because they make thousands or tens of thousands of videos a year, each done on very low budgets and staying on shelves for a matter of months. So the idea that "Naughty Assistant Dental Hygenists #31" is going to have a budget for editing continuity, let alone a budget for CGI, is... low.
Which, of course, gets to the heart of the problem with industrial porn: it's not so much that there's tons of money in it, it's that there's *not.* With the result that they cut corners, push production, skimp on... well... everything, and just generally tend to respect themselves, their work, their employees, and their customers about as much as their opponents do. With the result that seemingly niche- or boutique-market producers like, say, Kink.com, Pink & White, or Comstock Films can better afford to care for their employees and, thus, can better afford to keep track of, let alone pay for, testing, condoms, workplace safety, etc.
---
I really appreciate this post. Thanks, Miriam, for inviting Dacia to guest blog about the issue.
figleaf
Why can't we expect adults to protect themselves. All these people are adults, and they are old enough to make a decision. We talk about the greed of the producers but pay no mind to sex works who don't lack greed at all. I know this may seem redundant, but screw 'em.