LUKE IS BACK IS A SITE FOR ADULTS ONLY. All posts, stories, opinions, comments etc. on the LukeisBack (LIB for short) web site are not necessarily the views of those who run, advertise on or own Likewise those that run or own Luke is Back will not be held liable for any content or comments contained on this site. believes in Freedom of Speech, and as such allows all opinions to be represented and posted by their authors autonomously. Comments are NOT moderated on a regular basis. We strongly discourage the use of racial slurs, accusations of criminal activity and/or use of legal names for those that use stage names. We reserve the right to edit or delete any post for any reason or terminate anyone's ability to post for any reason. After all, we do pay the bills around here. Long story short, you are adults, so act like it.

Courtney Stodden Sex Tape

Manwin On Board to Help Fund Performer Testing… NICE!

from Thanks Dan :)

Manwin to Donate $50K Monthly for APHSS Performer Testing

CANOGA PARK, Calif. — Officials from Manwin and the Free Speech Coalition’s APHSS program said today that they will start up next month a "Performer Subsidy Fund" to subsidize talent testing.

Manwin plans to donate $50,000 monthly to the fund through the rest of the year, according to the plan that will use the FSC’s APHSS database. The FSC would be responsible for reimbursing performers who tested through the database.

The program, unprecedented for the adult entertainment industry, is scheduled to begin Aug. 1 and is available for all adult talent, even if they do not perform in a Manwin production.
The "FSC will set up a separate accounting database that will be used for payment , keeping performer addresses separate from the APHSS database," said the trade group, which noted that checks cut to performers will be mailed in the first week of each month.

Manwin’s role for the Performer Subsidy Fund goes further than the $50,000-a-month donation; the Luxembourg-based adult entertainment conglomerate, which initiated the program, plans to contribute $35,000 for administrative costs through the end of year.

There also are hopes, FSC and Manwin officials said, that other adult content producers will come forward and contribute to the fund.  
The FSC, Manwin and other participating producers could take the program into the next year after an evaluation of the first 90 days in mid December. The FSC plans to utilize Zoomerang to survey performers for analysis.

The fund will have its own bank account and associated accounting database and, according to the project plan, the stakeholders would create an emergency fund from returned checks for first- and second-generation identification and testing in the case of an HIV positive result.
Communications efforts, Manwin and FSC said, would be implemented through email and Twitter to performers, agents and providers on how to sign up for the program. And on Tuesday, the fund’s stakeholders plan on actively seeking out other producers inviting them to contribute to the fund.

Manwin’s latest move into the arena of performer testing is an unparalleled move for the business, and one that shows the muscle power of one of the largest operators of adult properties. It also represents Manwin’s commitment to the adult industry trade group’s efforts with APHSS, which was launched shortly after the former AIM Healthcare Clinic shut down.
Just last month, Manwin — whose portfolio includes Brazzers,  Reality Kings, Digital Playground, Twistys and a slew of adult tube sites as well as licensor of Playboy Premium — said that it would adopt APHSS’ performer testing standards and announced it purchased the Gen Probe Aptima machine for Cutting Edge Testing. The piece of equipment performs the Aptima RNA Qualitive Assay for HIV detection.

Manwin Managing Partner, Fabian Thylmann said: “This Fund was conceptualized to alleviate some of the expenses, and financial burden, performers may be facing due to occupational testing. We’re grateful the FSC agreed to support this project, and hope others in the industry will back it as well.”

FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said that "when Manwin called and told me that they wanted to help all performers by subsidizing the cost of test, we were thrilled."
"They put up the funds and we will implement the program," she said. "The program is open for other producers to contribute as well — the more money that comes in, the more we will be able to send to performers."

The following two tabs change content below. offers the latest and greatest in adult Industry news, porn star interviews and other related stories.

Latest posts by LUKE IS BACK (see all)

56 Responses to “Manwin On Board to Help Fund Performer Testing… NICE!”

  1. Third Axis Says:

    Now finally we’re getting somewhere. The industry is putting their money where their mouth has been. OK, that was an unintended joke, but I really applaud those involved for getting something right for a change. Now we’ll just have to wait and see if they follow through on the promise. Who cares if Manwin uses stolen money to do it? At least some of the cash is coming back to benefit the industry.

  2. Karmafan Says:

    Manwin “owns” most of the american porn industry in some fashion. Being businessmen perhaps they realize that their talent is not disposable and easily replaceable and this was needed. Not to mention the good publicity it will bring to them.

  3. Third Axis Says:

    Karmafan, with respect, you’re incorrect in stating that Manwin “owns most of the American porn industry.” They do not.

    Manwin actually only owns Brazzers, Twistys, Mofos, and Digital Playground—hardly a monopoly. Additionally, the company only manages the websites owned by Wicked Pictures, and is only an operating partner with Playboy Ent. for its broadcast and online operations. Last is its merger with Reality Kings, and whether Manwin owns them outright or is simply partnered in some way is unknown. Of course, they own and operate the half-dozen largest tube sites.

    All of these companies are large, but hardly constitute the biggest in the entire industry. Here again, people are making Manwin out to be far more powerful in the overall business than they actually are. Certainly they don’t “own” it, or run it, or steer it in any shape or fashion. The boogie man is still hiding under your bed.

    To put over a half million dollars a year into performer testing—and non-performer, by virtue of the general community testing also done by these facilities—will obviously garner them some very beneficial PR. I’m not being an apologist here, but Fabian is an excellent businessman, whatever we think about him otherwise.

  4. Third Axis Says:

    Pardon me, Manwin’s donation will only go toward adult performers, not testing for the general public.

  5. Kelli Says:

    Manwin has made so many millions (and continue to do so) by stealing from us, now they want us to think they are the good guys? -rolls eyes-

    I’m just sick at how many people are falling for their nice guy act. I knew this was going to happen. Well I for one will never forgot what they have done and who they really are.

  6. RickMadrid Says:

    Mike; if your ready this. They want social security number’s. with that info for they’re data. You just these days don’t do that. Scammer’s and content pirates at their best. Third asskisser’s at his.

  7. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    I don’t see a reference to SS numbers. In any case, if Manwin (or other participating producers) ever hired the performer, they already have their SS #.

  8. Third Axis Says:

    So, Rickmula, are you saying that you’re NOT going to use APHSS for your testing because Manwin is donating directly to their operation? Put your dick where your mouth is, asshole.

    I don’t support Manwin in any way, shape, or form, but I’ll sure as hell take their money away. Fuck them and you, pinche Oaxacan indio.

  9. areyoukiddingme Says:

    The FSC is an organization that is bought & sold by a conglomerate that runs tube sites with stolen content. How nice.

  10. Third Axis Says:

    @Kelli, I agree with you completely; however, would you refuse this very significant amount of money going toward making performers safer in their workplace?

    Yes, Fabian and Manwin are thieves, that is indisputable, but I’m saying that taking some money back from them doesn’t in any way constitute an endorsement of their business activities. They will eventually pull some major shenanigans that will land them in court or jail. Guys like Fabian rise to great heights then go bankrupt all the time. Karma’s a bitch.

  11. Kelli Says:

    This doesn’t make them any safer than they are now. It only offers performers a cost in getting the tests they were already going to get anyway.

    If a test cost $120 and they have to test twice a month and they get $100 refund from Manwin via the FSC that means the $240 a month they were going to spend is now $140 but it doesn’t make the girls any more safe than they were. It just gives girls $100 a month.

  12. Michael Whiteacre Says:


    You wrote, “It only offers performers a cost in getting the tests they were already going to get anyway.”

    Not exactly. At this time, the universal industry standard is not that performers test twice a month. It is Manwin’s requirement that performers test every 14 days to work for them.

    But even if they don’t shoot for Manwin, and test every 28 days, performers still receive the reimbursement — regardless of whether the performers test at any APHSS facility or TTS.

  13. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    My point being, reimbursement incentivizes more frequent testing by performers.

    Right now, only those hired by Manwin “have to test twice a month.” Hopefully other producers will follow suit with contributions to this fund (I’m already hearing things…), and also begin demanding 14-day testing. Under that scenario, simply as a matter of statistical probability, performers will undoubtedly be safer.

  14. Third Axis Says:

    Exactly right, Michael. That was part of my point.

    The question stands as to why it took this long for any industry member to step up and put their money where their mouth is? Manwinn certainly isn’t the biggest or richest company in the biz. Why haven’t Larry Flynt, or Steve Hirsch, or any of the other big shots, who so often have something to say about the issues, bust out their checkbooks. Talk is cheap.

    So may people crack on the FSC, but they are the ONLY organization collectively speaking for the industry and trying to come up with solutions and a defense strategy against further government intrusion. If one of the gumflappers on here (*cough* Mike South) has a real alternative, I’d definitely like to see it. Not hear it, see it.

  15. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Third Axis — My guess as to why it took this long for any industry member to step up is rooted the original AIM model.

    AIM was initially conceived as being by and for performers, and initially was fiercely opposed by the players of 1997-98 — guys like Russ Hampshire — because they viewed it as a step toward unionization. Over time the producers came on board (and some would argue they became too buddy-buddy with AIM) in part because they began to see industry self-regulation as a shield against government intrusion. (And for the record, Larry Flynt did come to AIM’s aid time and time again.)

    AHF’s fanatical crusade has taken the whole game up a notch, and while it took the industry a while to warm up to AIM, the sudden demise of AIM led to the sudden appearance of APHSS. APHSS’ courtship period with the industry is not yet complete, although it has made tremendous strides — and this latest chess move by Manwin/APHSS is masterful.

    Perhaps the Manwin/APHSS announcement should be viewed from a historical perspective: most if not all of the advances in adult industry protocols came after an incident or scare, and were undertaken b y AIM to appease the government (mainly LA County Dept. of Public Health), e.g., the addition of G/C STD testing a few years in; the switch to PCR; as well as the addition of syphilis testing every six months.

    But now, it’s no longer the producers who fear organizations such as AIM or FSC or APHSS; it’s (many of) the agents. One agent in particular tried to assert control of the moratorium that was called last year in response to what turned out to be a false positive.

    It’s in the interests of the agents to see the shortest possible work stoppages, yes, but I’ve observed that the impulse to “control” things has shifted from producers (who are more focused on the problem of having to lay out production dollars in exchange for ever-diminishing returns) to the agents (who see themselves as power brokers).

  16. RickMadrid Says:

    Manwin bought the FSC. Now maybe the Talent can unionize.

  17. Third Axis Says:

    Good points, Michael. The whole power shift from producers to agents is interesting to note, and mirrors identical shifts in the music and film industries. In porn, performers’ reps have a more direct stake in the welfare of their clients than producers, so I think agents will be more involved in this as time goes on.

    There’s one tangent of this condom issue that to my knowledge hasn’t been openly discussed. That is the potential legal liability to which the City/County of Los Angeles—or any other city/county which is considering similar measures—subjects themselves from performer/worker lawsuits directly.

    Currently, the city is stalling on full enactment due to the city attorney putting on the brakes over possible challenges to its constitutionality. That’s my understanding anyway. However, as soon as the city put this ordinance on the books they became a potential defendant (as well as any other agency or organization like Film L.A. eventually assigned to be part of the regulatory process) in any lawsuit brought by a performer who contracts a “preventable” life-threatening illness on the job, and can prove inadequate inspection and/or enforcement by the agencies administering those duties. The agencies would have to run a very tight ship indeed to police every single porn producer both large and small in the entire area and keep them up to code. If food safety inspection in L.A. alone is any indication of this type of capability, then there should be general cause for concern.

    To prove that any such injury occurred in the actual workplace and not somewhere else is problematic, of course, but such a suit could ultimately cost the city significant resources to defend even if dismissed. It’s even possible that AHF could be named in a suit like this. I’d be interested to hear what LIB’s legal circle think.

    Seems to me that the City of Los Angeles now, and potentially the county if that measure passes in Nov., are placing themselves squarely in the legal crosshairs over this quagmire. But their lawyers are smart, and I’m sure they’ve thought this whole idea through…

  18. Third Axis Says:

    As I got to thinking about what I wrote above, about agents regarding their clients’ welfare, it occurs to me that this is shockingly not true. Some of the major agents regularly book female performers with cross-over males, placing them at increased risk. Some agents also facilitate escorting, which poses an unacceptable risk to performer safety. Agents need more regulation than anything else.

  19. Karmafan Says:

    At least Mark Spiegler (used to post here) appears to be a decent agent looking out for the best welfare of his girls.

  20. Third Axis Says:

    Spiegler does have a decent rep for that. There are many good agents who won’t approve cross-overs or handle privates. It’s the ones that do who seem to get all the press.

    I call for the institution of regular floggings.

  21. Caesar Says:

    Regulate those agents are needed. And don’t sign up on that website for testing to get some piece of shit $ 100 bucks back. ID scam is in the work’s next. The tubesites are going to crash. I bet you.

  22. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Spiegler used to wear a t-shirt that read, “The Floggings will continue until morale improves.” He’s also as solid a guy as I’ve ever had the privilege to know.

    As for the issue of legal exposure and associated costs, LA County has already expressed it is very concerned about the issue.

    The sense I get from the good folks in LA City government to whom I’ve spoken is that they fully expect the city ordinance to be overturned and are just trying to keep their heads down.

    It was only the pandering politicians on the City Council who wanted the ordinance. LAPD is making the most of it at the moment, hoping to get a budget boost in order to enforce the permits rules on poor souls like Porno Dan who use a fixed shooting location, but that’s about it. The political rivals of councilmembers who are presently in other departments of city government are licking their chops for the hour when the bill comes due.

    The November countywide Ballot Initiative is shockingly unconstitutional. I encourage you all to read it. It’s truly stunning.

    There’s no two ways about it — as I’ve been saying for hearts, this will all be resolved in the courts. Nothing will discourage a fanatic like Weinstein. The only way to stop him is to deny him the political and legal avenues to wreak havoc, one at a time. Thus far, AHF and its buddies (Cal/OSHA, et al) have lost every single court action in this war. While I am disgusted at LA politics, I am optimistic regarding the California courts.

  23. christianx Says:

    the agents are resistant to twice a month mandatory testing because they know how hard it is to get their girls to test once a month much less twice. I don’t think the outside world realizes just how many shoots get moved or canceled because the girl hasn’t got tested. The agents all have to call and call and text and email many girls almost begging them to test.

    Almost all of the agents actually pay for some girls tests because the girls are broke and have to repay the agents for them at a later point. I wish I were kidding.

    twice a month testing is a huge huge obstacle that all the agents are going to have trouble accomplishing.

  24. Third Axis Says:

    That’s so true, christianx. When I was shooting for companies in San Diego, ’02 through ’04, we had lots of shoot cancellations or delays because girls would show up with expired paperwork, or none at all—usually accompanied by some convoluted story explaining why (“I have a current test, but it’s in my other suitcase, and my boyfriend blahblahblah…”), which would end with an impassioned plea to shoot anyway. I took great pleasure in sending them back to where they came from, even though it meant a lost day of production if we couldn’t book a replacement on the fly. Pain in the ass.

    I definitely see increased testing frequency as the most positive step yet, but the problems you cite are going to happen, for sure.

  25. Third Axis Says:

    Much to their professional credit, male talent I’ve worked with, over the course of nine years, never once showed up without current tests.

  26. origen Says:

    Let’s not over-simplify things or make sexist assumptions. How many female performers have access to comprehensive health insurance? Why aren’t agencies concerned with the level of un/underinsured performers in this industry given that one is bound to get a disease at some point…

    An image of Lautrec’s “The Medical Inspection” comes to mind…

    Things have got to change and I applaud Manwin for setting up this subsidy but more has to be done.

  27. Karmafan Says:

    Too many guys that pull the strings in porn have the mentality that talent is an easily replaceable commodity. If a talent has alcohol, drug, or mental health problems you just kick them to the curb and get the next one in line waiting to work.

    They become blind, deaf and dumb (like the 3 monkeys statue) once someone says they might have to reach in their pockets and help keep the industry going. Which is why Manwin must have a hook somewhere to be offering to subsidize the testing.

  28. Third Axis Says:

    Ah, here we go again. Origen—Champion of the Porn Class.

    “…Over-simplify?” “… sexist assumptions…?” Who did that, exactly?

    Allow me to address your concerns, item by item:
    “How many female performers have access to comprehensive health insurance?”

    The same amount—male or female—that spent their money on purchasing comprehensive health insurance instead of shoes, clothes, alcoholic beverages and/or other intoxicants, or other methods used to piss away money. Everybody has “access,” one simply needs to utilize it.

    “Why aren’t agencies concerned with the level of un/underinsured performers in this industry given that one is bound to get a disease at some point.”

    It’s not the responsibility of an agent, manager, or anybody else other than the actual employer (to supply legally required workmans’ comp), or the individual. Again, the responsibility lies with the individual.

    People need to take responsibility for themselves, and accept accountability for their lack thereof. But here’s a suggestion, origen. Start a foundation and hand out money to every porn performer who requests it. Good luck with that.

  29. origen Says:

    I’m just saying…I know it is really no one else’s responsibility besides the performers’ but other parties should still be concerned. Can agencies set up flexible spending accounts? FSAs seem more organized than “I’ll pay for you then you’ll pay me…”

  30. Third Axis Says:

    Again, origen, it’s not the responsibility of an agent to provide any financial provision to a client, outside of the contractual obligations to promote and procure working engagements. For that, the agent receives a percentage of the client’s earnings, generally equaling 10 percent; some may get more depending on the arrangement. Agents don’t set up “spending accounts” for their clients—not in porn, and not in any other agent/client relationship in any other area of entertainment of which I’m aware.

    In this new scenario orchestrated by APHSS and partly facilitated by Manwin—along with hopefully others on the production side—it appears there will be a general fund out of which monies will be administered. I sincerely hope that it will be closely overseen and not subject to future shenanigans, but the potential for mismanagement is ever present.

    Your statement that, “…performers in this industry [are] bound to get a disease at some point,” is a gross generalization and patently false given the fact that the majority of performers do not contract STIs in the workplace. I’d be interested to see the statistics from which you draw that conclusion.

    Lastly, the majority of industry people I’ve talked with about the current medical issues, from performers to web masters to production folks, are indeed “concerned.”

  31. Third Axis Says:

    I should clarify my statement above, to say that the majority of performers do not contract STIs at all, from any source, work or personal.

  32. origen Says:

    “majority of performers do not contract STIs in the workplace”

    “the majority of performers do not contract STIs at all, from any source, work or personal.”

    I’m sorry but I don’t believe you. It is EXTREMELY common to acquire an STD living a “normal” lifestyle, imagine a promiscuous one. HPV is now used as a medical marker to determine whether an individual has had sex. Plus, the above statements are not in line with the many anecdotes I have read from talent and producers.

    We don’t have any good stats at all about the STI rate in the Industry–not to mention data pinpointing sources of transmission–but several of performers have admitted to acquiring an STD while working in the adult business.

    Sasha Grey
    Jenna Jameson
    Bobbi Starr
    Rocco Siffredi
    Jasmin Cashmere
    Lexi Love
    Tiffany Mynx

    Hardly a simple random sample, I know, but these anecdotes (including those from individuals whose names I did not post) really highlight the need for a comprehensive examination of STDs in the Industry.

    Whether performers acquire STIs “at home” or “at work” is irrelevant because the possibility of a high infection rate puts them at a high risk of transmitting infections on set before their periodical medical examination.

  33. Third Axis Says:

    Your assertion was, by performing in porn, “one is bound to get a disease at some point.” That is a generalization with no factual basis.

    The MAJORITY of performers in porn do not contract STIs, and I’ll stand by that statement. And there are indeed hard stats for that, or at least as good as we have to constitute verifiable data. AIM maintained such data on all reported STIs for which they tested at the time and made it available during the last incident. Of course, that was only a representative sample of those testing at AIM facilities in L.A., so not nationwide; however, one could reasonably extrapolate those numbers for the larger performer population. You can go hunt that data down for yourself.

    So you’ve heard “many anecdotes.” Anecdotal evidence holds little water; statistical data does. You are making empty, unsupported statements. In this you share a definite kinship to Michael Weinstein and AHF. You list 10 performers (Holy cow! Ten out of how many in the entire porn workforce? Several thousand, conservatively estimated?) who admit to contracting an STI, although only you and the man in the moon could give a wild guess where the infections actually occurred. To assert that working in porn was somehow the culprit is absurd.

    To say that there exists “the possibility of a high infection rate” is yet another unsupported statement. I would refer you to the aforementioned data which is available. An infection rate does in fact exist—just the same as it does for you, me, or anybody else in the world—but to state that porn performers have a higher one than, say, ethnic populations within a certain income parameter, is pure conjecture.

    For porn performers who are regularly tested, and even more so with the stepped-up frequency currently being promoted, that infection rate is estimably lower than for the general population, who rarely get tested at all. Those, origen, are supportable facts.

  34. origen Says:

    “For porn performers who are regularly tested, and even more so with the stepped-up frequency currently being promoted, that infection rate is estimably lower than for the general population, who rarely get tested at all. Those, origen, are supportable facts.”

    No they are not. Use Occam’s Razor. Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence at all. On what basis do you draw the inference that the majority of porn performers do not contract STIs at all?

    You are being disingenuous. You are using the fact that I’m not in Porn Valley right now to piss on my head and tell me it’s cum. It would have been so easy to conduct an anonymous statistical survey of STDs when AIM was around yet nobody ever tried because nobody ever cared.

    And BTW, the medical community does have reason to believe that porn performers are at greater risk. It is frequent sex, high-risk sex (of course, the best kind), with multiple partners in an industry that is decentralized and disorganized. Testing helps detect infection but testing is not a barrier to infection and performers do not require a clean test for EVERY performance.

    Look, I’m not pro-Condom Mandate or pro-regulation but the truth is the truth and, frankly, it’s immoral and sad.

  35. Third Axis Says:

    Occam’s razor, really? So for you, a guess—the simplest explanation—is better than actual data, even if that data is incomplete. There is actual evidence in this discussion, so saying there is none blows your argument at the outset. That you know a guy who knows a guy whose girlfriend got chlamydia during the time she worked in porn does not by any stretch constitute an accurate implication of fault.

    AIM did in fact present data on the number of detected infections through its testing facilities. Of course, they didn’t test for every type of infection, so admittedly that data was incomplete, and it only covered a certain period of time. However, I’m comfortable in accepting that data as representative of the statistical incidence of infection in the porn performer population, and it indicated a relatively low percentage overall, and much lower than data coming from the CDC and Planned Parenthood covering the general population. That data was used by both sides, including city, county, Cal-OSHA, and every other dog and pony in the debate over performer safety, so it does carry some weight. Whether it is acceptable to you or not is irrelevant.

    The medical community… yes, how many members of the medical community “have reason to believe that porn performers are at greater risk”? Ten, twenty, all of them? Please present your facts here, origen. Was there an article in JAMA that I didn’t hear about? Actually, to use “the medical community” as some all-encompassing body of finger-pointers is disingenuous on your part.

    But you’re really far off the mark when you state, “Testing helps detect infection but testing is not a barrier to infection and performers do not require a clean test for EVERY performance.”

    Testing is in fact a “barrier” in as much as it prevents infected performers from working with others, until their infections are treated and cleared by further testing. With increased frequency of testing, I’m confident that the risk window will be narrowed even further.

    In almost a decade of personally working in porn and being part of this community, I have never heard of a single company or director that did not require a current, valid test for EVERY performance (some rouge assholes possibly ignore this, but what can anybody do about that?). There’s some Occam’s razor for you to play with while you ponder the sad and immoral porn industry.

    A much more beneficial use of government time and money would be in analyzing and regulating the tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical, and food industries. These coddled corporations actually kill or debilitate millions of people, at a cost to society that is outrageous by any standards. Sad and immoral indeed.

  36. origen Says:

    “AIM did in fact present data on the number of detected infections through its testing facilities. Of course, they didn’t test for every type of infection, so admittedly that data was incomplete, and it only covered a certain period of time. However, I’m comfortable in accepting that data as representative of the statistical incidence of infection in the porn performer population, and it indicated a relatively low percentage overall, and much lower than data coming from the CDC and Planned Parenthood covering the general population. That data was used by both sides, including city, county, Cal-OSHA, and every other dog and pony in the debate over performer safety, so it does carry some weight. Whether it is acceptable to you or not is irrelevant. ”

    Well, by all means, direct me to this data…

  37. Third Axis Says:

    If you’re sincerely interested then do your own legwork. The info was contained in articles presented here on LIB, so search the archived stories. It was also presented during numerous meetings between AIM and L.A. County Dept. of Health, the city, and others involved. I’m sure with little effort you can find that information as well, in back issues of the L.A. Times and other local publications, and in the available minutes of those meetings. Additionally, you can request infection data from the CDC and Planned Parenthood.

    Unless you can present any other substantiated argument on this issue, I don’t care to discuss it further with you. Go chase your own tail.

  38. origen Says:

    I remember reading such articles, Third Axis, that’s why I’m calling BS. There has never been an STI survey done on Porn Valley.

  39. Third Axis Says:


  40. origen Says:

    Let’s just say you’re wrong and move on…

    More important question: how is Obamacare gonna effect Porn Valley? I’ve read that performers are considered employees for purposes of workers’ comp–what is there designation in regards to the Affordable Care Act?

  41. origen Says:

    *their not “there”…I hate that shit…

  42. Third Axis Says:

    For anybody following the performer safety debate and pending ordinances, there is a good post on the the Blog of Pro-Porn Activism, written by Ernest Greene with contributions from Anthony Kennerson. It’s comprised of two parts, updating an earlier article by Greene which gives some perspective on this complex issue and its various players. It can be found at

  43. Anthony Kennerson Says:

    TA….thanks for the props and the promo for the BPPA post.

    But to clarify, it is essentially a reset of Ernest’s 2009 post during the heart of that year’s particular “scare” (where a performer was found to be HIV+, but ended up infecting no one, because she had just started in the industry); with some “friendly fisking” by me to update info to the current situation.

    For posterity’s sake, here are the addys for the two parts: (Part 1) (Part 2)

  44. Karmafan Says:

    Wow that really sucked for her. Just starting and right off the bat she gets HIV+? I feel so sorry for her. Hopefully she was able to get some help.

  45. origen Says:

    Ernest Greene:

    “Now, here is where the “sex-positive” wing of the pro-condom mandate crowd would shout in unison: “But…but…b-b-b-b-b-b-but….that’s nothing that lots of lube can’t prevent!! You’re just making excuses not to wrap up for the good of mankind…and you’re a selfish traitor who puts your own profits and pleasure above everyone else’s safety!!!” And on the side, you will find that minority of performers (such as legend Brittany Andrews) who will add: “Oh, yeah?? What about those of us who would love to perform with condoms for safety’s sake, but are pushed aside by greedhead producers who won’t hire someone like me because we insist on condoms?? We’re for performer choice long as they all insist on wrapping up!!!”

    Their concerns are totally legitimate and should be addressed seriously by anyone opposed to the condom mandate as I am (and Ernest Greene is and has been). It should be a given that NO performer who wants to insist on condoms should be blackballed or denied gigs merely because they prefer their partners to be wrapped. Our point, though, is that the same right of choice should also go to those performers who would prefer unwrapped dick, and insist on other means of protecting themselves, such as frequent testing and verified clean tests using the most up-to-date technology and a commitment to responsibility for their profession and craft.”

    Well hot damn. That’s a good position but it would only be significant if it were reflective of the status quo. AHF wouldn’t have any ground to stand on if it was. Unfortunately, performers who prefer condoms are generally at a financial disadvantage so this proposition is a fantasy–unless Ernest wants to introduce some kind of incentive to make it work.

    And Ernest talks jack diddly about the potential prevalence of other STIs such as HPV, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia or Hepatitis. And why the FUCK is no one testing for Hepatitis B & C?

  46. Karmafan Says:

    The vast majority of the porn buying crowd don’t want to see condom wearing porn. Producers know if the girl insists on a condom its going to cut deeply into any potential profits from the film so they shy away from those girls like Brittany.

  47. Anthony Kennerson Says:

    Ahhh, Origen?? That’s ME talking there, not Ernest.

    All I did was to quote from Ernest’s original essay, and add my own commentary.

    For starters, I am NOT opposed to expanding performer testing to include the full gamut of STI screening, including Hepatitis B and C, HPV, and others. But, ultimately, the question remains: Who would pay for all these expanded tests, and how many performers already screen themselves for all these tests already out of their own pockets?

    Secondly, Origen, you make the assumption that porn performers are more likely than the general population to contract STI’s due to the nature of their occupation. How do we know that, considering that most of the general population isn’t tested even close to the degree that porn perfomers are? Most data I’ve seen state that STI infections are probably more common outside of porn than inside; it’s just that most “civilians” don’t catch their infections until they seek medical attention.

    Secondly….a “financial disadvantage”?? Seriously?? When there are numerous performers who are able to insist on condom only shoots for their websites and scenes?? When performers have the option to require 2-day clean tests for their performing partners??

    And, how in the hell is that solved by creating a new financial disadvantage that privileges those performers who insist on mandating condom usage?? Why is allowing Brittany Andrews to seek a free reign of work by mandating condoms so important that performers like Nina Hartley or Kayden Kross should be forced to endure condoms against their will??

    Neither me or Ernest Greene has ever said that performers like Brittany Andrews should be denied her right to insist on her partners using condoms. She has earned that right through her work. She should NOT, however, be allowed to undermine and undercut other performers who have an equal right to reject condoms for whatever reason….and most importantly, back a proposal that takes away the majority of performers’ rights just so she can get automatic gigs.

    I adore Brittany as a performer and a woman, but I have to beg to differ with her on this issue.


  48. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    “Performers who prefer condoms are generally at a financial disadvantage” — no more than any job hunters who have issues with fully performing the job at hand.

    If you apply for a job in a restaurant’s kitchen, but told them, “I kind of have a thing about knives. Oh, and heat — yeah, I don’t like being around that, either” are you going to get that job?

    If a stunt man applies to double an actor who, in the scene in question, must fall down a flight of stairs without a helmet, but says, “I only wear helmets when I do falls” is he going to get that job?

    Those job applicants are NOT “blackballed” — they are simply not hired because the job requires things they are not able or willing to do. They’re not being discriminated against — they can’t / won’t do the fucking job.

    If a performer insists on only using condoms for b/g and can’t find gigs, there’s nothing to stop them from shooting other types of content instead. Brittany can shoot g/g or pegging videos. Neither she nor anyone else has a right to be hired to shoot b/g.

  49. Mike South Says:

    Congrats MW that’s the dumbest fucking analogy ever made.

    Try If you apply for a job in a restaurant’s kitchen, but they told you, “You can’t wear a hair net” Thats a bit closer


    If a stunt man applies to double an actor who, in the scene in question, must fall down a flight of stairs without a helmet, but says, “I only wear helmets when I do falls” is he going to get that job?

    Only a complete fucking moron would use this analogy, stuntmen are trained professionals and if one can’t do that fall he wouldn’t take the job, but the point is when he takes that fall he is in complete control of the situation, not so with a porn shoot. On that movie set there are dozens of people around ensuring his safety.

    If this is the best you can do you might want to consider keeping moot. It does more harm than good.

    I am and have been condom optional since 1992 it doesn’t have any effect on my sales, never has.

    But the point for Cali is it aint gonna matter, it’s gonna be the law and it’s gonna be tied to not only the filming permit but the companies operating permit and it’s all because people in porn are too fucking stupid to head off what Stevie Wonder coulda seen coming.

  50. Larry Horse Says:

    Mike, you still film new content? Even if you stopped in 2009 it is still fresher than Roy.

  51. Karmafan Says:

    I thought Michael’s analogy was pretty spot on MS. Its kinda comparing apples and oranges but still gets the point across quite well.

  52. Anthony Kennerson Says:

    Uhhh…Mr. South???

    Porn performers are professionals, too…and they generally are capable of assessing the risks of certain scenes before they agree to do them.

    Also, there isn’t planning involved in doing porn scenes?? Really?? You mean, anyone off the street can be recruited and paid to perform porn scenes??

    Oh..and there is a sizable difference between Manwin or Adam & Eve or Digital Playground producing a scene, and someone with their digital camera simply taping themselves fooling around. Would you want the authorities to invade personal, private homes to stop the latter from performing bareback sex??

    And, finally….most performers who don’t rely on condoms insist on one- to two-day clean test results before they even sign on the dotted line. Or, they restrict themselves only to performers they know and trust. I guess that they’re too stupid to protect themselves, too, and need the healing powers of AHF and Cal-OSHA to ruin them??

  53. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Let me break it down so even an angry, broken-down, self-important, old, jilted hillbilly who despises porn people can understand it — maybe…

    A) A certain JOB exists, meaning someone is willing to pay valuable consideration
    to have a certain job performed. This person is willing to enter a bargain to have it performed, and offers a quid pro quo.

    B) That job has basic, elemental requirements. These requirements are defined by the person offering the position.

    c) There exist persons who want to be paid the consideration that the offeror is offering, and apply for the job.

    D) Some of these applicants are willing to perform the job to the letter, and others wish to only perform part of the job. In other words, they seek to negotiate.

    E) It is then up to the person offering to trade valuable consideration in exchange for the job being performed to decide:

    1) whether he wishes to negotiate AT ALL (he may have a reason, such as his inability to sell the finished product it it diverges from his plan, to demand that the job be performed exactly as he demands); or

    2) which, IF ANY, of those who have applied are offering something else of value which might mitigate the fact that they refuse to perform the job as originally conceived (i.e., the person has sufficient “star” value” as to compensate for their unwillingness to perform certain elements of the job).

    Our hillbilly writes, “If this is the best you can do you might want to consider keeping moot.”

    Umm, I think you mean “mute” not “moot” you moron. LMFAO

    Mike, your assertions and insults prove constantly that “people in porn” weren’t “fucking stupid” when they kicked your ass to the curb many moons ago. Hell, you couldn’t even manage a strip club in fucking Ohio without getting yourself crippled on the job.

    Kiss my ass, you ignorant hick sack of shit.

  54. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    And, incidentally, South’s “hair net” example is, without question, the dumbest analogy I’ve ever read. Kitchen employees wear hair nets not as safety equipment, but to prevent hair, dandruff, head lice, etc. from getting in the customers’ food. It’s protection for the customers, not the worker.

    Health and safety regulations for workplaces are tailored to protect workers from harms incurred on the job — harms that are EXTERNAL to the job, not the job itself. For instance, laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars are designed to protect food servers and bar staff from smoking-related illness. That’s because a bartender is hired to pour drinks, not to inhale smoke. Inhaling smoke, or being “exposed to” smoke, is not what he or she is being paid to do.

    In the case of porn, for condom-less scenes, the performers are being paid to perform sex for the cameras without condoms. They were not paid only to act but yet are being “exposed to” condom-less sex by evil producers. They are being paid to perform without a condom, just as a stunt person is paid to fall down a flight of steps without a helmet. That stunt person can and should use every single piece of safety equipment possible SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHOT. In no-condom porn, sex without a condom is that shot.

    South also asserts, idiotically, that when a stunt person “takes that fall he is in complete control of the situation…” Really? So, you;re saying there are never accidents or injuries on movie sets, Mike? You can find the numbers of on-set injuries online. There are likely more injuries on mainstream sets in California in a single fiscal quarter than there has ever been in the history of adult movies in California. Stunt people (and others) have DIED making mainstream movies. NO OTHER industry has ever been held to the “zero-risk” standard that these fanatics are seeking to apply to porn production.

  55. Third Axis Says:

    I’ve been drawing that same analogy on these boards since back in ’09, when this debate started up again. One can name just about any other industry where risk to life and limb occurs every single day, with statistics that blow porn’s risk factor out of the water.

    How about, oh say, the construction industry. I’m not even going to cite data because only a fool would disregard the THOUSANDS of instances of crushed/severed limbs; incapacitation and/or slow death from chemicals and other substances present in building materials; injury and death from malfunctioning equipment; stuff falling on your fucking head from high places.

    Or you have the agriculture and myriad food industries. Much of the same risks cited above apply here as well, but add in staph infection and other potentially dangerous and lethal risks, like being gored/stomped/crushed by large animals.

    Then you have the military. Sign on the dotted line, then you die. Even with LOTS of safety equipment at your disposal. But the military loves to advertise itself as some kind of high-tech computer gaming convention where young people can gain valuable work skills. The many thousands of crippled vets would disagree, I think.

    And yes, the motion picture industry. Many injuries occur there every year, but thankfully few deaths. Although actor Vic Morrow didn’t fare so well, nor did the two children, My-Ca Dinh Le (age 7), and Renee Shin-Yi Chen (age 6), who died along with him in an accident while filming on a California location back in 1989. Or Brandon Lee, also killed on location, in North Carolina in 1993. Between those two incidents, you already have more fatalities than in all of porn production history.

    The adult industry is undoubtedly being held to a different standard of risk management, and only because it involves people working in a field that is perceived by our society as being morally wrong.

    That is discrimination, plain and simple.

  56. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Yes, it is, Third Axis. Absolutely.

    It’s so simple even a child could understand it. Only bitter, axe-griding, hillbilly trash seem to have trouble digesting the logic.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© 2015 LUKE IS BACK | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Design by Web4. This site is powered by Wordpress