SUPERSTAR BRITTANY ANDREWS CELEBRATES A BITTERSWEET COMEBACK
Nominated for an XBiz 2011 Performer Comeback of the Year Award and an AVN 2011 Award Nomination for Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene, Adult Legend Miss Brittany Andrews plans to take AVN by storm with the launch of a new company she will be announcing very soon, but her short comeback to the adult biz has left a bittersweet taste in her mouth.
Returning to the adult business after a 3 year retirement to attend film school in New York City and to focus on mainstream film and television production, Miss Andrews decided to have a little fun by returning to her adult roots by signing on to play her dream role of Samantha in New Sensations Sex & The City Parody – the role for which she was nominated. Always a condom only performer for over 15 years in the industry, Andrews ran into a major road block shortly after wrapping her comeback film.
“I excitingly put the word out to all of the adult agencies and production companies that I was heading to Los Angeles to continue my comeback full force and I immediately was told by every single person that nobody will hire me unless I choose to lose the condoms! This was a very big shock to me as the first thing I learned as a mainstream Producer is to always protect your actors health and safety.” Andrews stood her ground and continued to contact old peers to see who was willing to make exceptions. Which unfortunately did not lead her to many options. Still after 5 months being back in the biz she has still only been able to shoot the one film to her dismay. “Think of how many nominations I could have got if I was able to shoot more then one movie!”
Next year Miss Andrews will have been in the adult business for 20 years. “Over the years I have known so many people who have contracted HIV and or Hep C and other various STDs. It is so sad as you know them and they are family and you see how it affects them all long term. Since I started doing films in 1995 almost every other year or so there is an outbreak of some sort. We also don’t test for Hep C and that is a very dangerous disease as well that many people in the business have and they are suffering from.”
“I have always been an advocate for condom only scenes out of respect for not only myself but for friends who have had to live with these diseases. Sometimes the adult industry wants everything to be about the 1st Amendment and free speech but I feel that this is a performer health and safety issue. People who aren’t performers shouldn’t be able to not give talent a choice. The talent are the ones who have to lie on there backs and spread their legs and live with the consequences– it’s their body and their health. Nobody should be able to take away your right to protect yourself in your workplace. This is America!!“
A lot of other Talent have expressed to Andrews that they agree with her and feel the same way but the majority claim they do not want to jeopardize their reputation in the industry. Miss Andrews hopes that other performers who are hesitant to speak up in fear of losing bookings will band together and be more vocal about there rights to protect themselves and not be swayed by this new industry standard that has no respect for performers health or choices.
“I am very thankful to be nominated among my hard working peers for doing only one comeback film but I am very hopeful that the industry will come to the conclusion that they need to protect there valuable resource which is their talent. As I very much would like to continue my comeback and be able to do other films. This is what I want and what my fans want. I hope the business that I have loved for almost 20 years will give us performers the ability to entertain our audiences while making positive choices concerning our own personal health on film.
Miss Andrews wishes to stand strong and continue being an advocate for Condom Only performers. She has been Condoms Only her Entire Career – which most in this business cannot say. If any press is interested in interviewing Miss Andrews for her thoughts on the war in the adult business over condom use, please contact her office to schedule an interview.
BRITCO PICTURES
Office – 213-620-9383
office@brittanyandrews.com
I wish Miss Andrews a lot of luck – maybe with persistence she will have some producers sign her up.
Most fans (the folks who buy the movies) don’t want to watch condoms in scenes. Im sure some fans will say they don’t mind condoms being used but thats not the same as saying you love when the male talent put the rubber on.
I love Brittany, and I count her among my dearest friends. I’ve known her since 1997, we’ve had countless adventures, she appeared in the first feature I directed (in 2004), and I had dinner with her last night. We debated this very issue last night, and Brittany refuses to recognize the disconnect between saying “I am a twenty-year adult industry veteran, and AVN Hall of Famer, who owned her own studio, produced some of her own product, and had the ability to carve out such a career while being condom-only,” and claiming “The talent has no choice.”
This is because, put bluntly (as she related it to me), Brittany Andrews thinks most adult performers do not have “choice” because they are much less smart (“These bitches are stupid”) and much less special than her; and THAT is the reason why they should be prevented from having the choice to work condom-optional. Unlike her, they need to be protected from their own stupidity. She quite literally believes that no one will be able to follow in her footsteps, emulate her success, or make the right choice on their own, and that the only reason she was able to succeed was because of her inherent specialness.
The fact is, Brittany, though a stunningly beautiful and sexy woman, is less a porn star than an escort who has built up (and maintained) her rate over the years by appearing in some porn movies. If you don’t count her softcore, and mainstream appearances, what remains is actually a very small canon for someone who’s been on video since 1995. Miss Brittany also neglects to acknowledge that there are, by and large, simply fewer options and offers for 37 year old women in porn than for 18 – 25 year olds.
She knows full well that there has not been an outbreak of some sort “almost every other year or so” since 1995. She may indeed know “so many people who have contracted HIV” but, if they were porn talent, they either weren’t in the straight porn industry, or they were in the condom-only gay porn side of the business.
And finally, although press releases are, by their essential nature, self-serving, I find it of questionable taste for Miss Brittany to turn a major crisis in the adult industry into an opportunity for press — by offering herself as an interview subject.
Does Brittany use a condom during fellatio?
@jeremysteele11 – I can’t say categorically, but a quick web search just yielded 8 videos and photo sets where Brittany did not use a condom for fellatio, and none where she did.
The whole “women against choice” thing blows my mind. Should women who believe abortion to be “traumatic” be allowed to prevent other women from making that choice?
To quote Nina Hartley, “Whether or not we agree with or approve of them, the choices made by young women are theirs. If we’re to grant autonomy to people over the age of eighteen, then that means accepting their choices as valid, even if we’d never do such a thing. This includes being able to join the army and get shot or maimed, or become a miner or construction worker. Those are deadly jobs (no one has died from making porn in the thirty-seven years it’s been legal) and no one thinks to tell a young adult, ‘Don’t do that job, it’s dangerous.’ Or if we do tell them, we accept that, being young people, they may disregard our advice.”
To narcissistically argue that one’s “truth” is the ONLY truth, is indefensible. For a woman to strive to take away choices from women on the basis that these women simply won’t make as wise a decision as she has, is contemptible.
Make no mistake, for Miss Brittany, this has everything to do about women — what she thinks about men is for another thread, but suffice to say, one of her favorite things to do is to “rape men’s asses” (and by that she means heterosexual men). When she speaks of “the talent” in her PR, above, she speaks of “the ones who have to lie on there [sic] backs and spread their legs.” For Brittany, this is about limiting choice for young women, gussied up as “protecting them.” Brittany, should we start heading back to pre-Women’s Liberation days, when women couldn’t get credit in their own names (you know these “dumb bitches” may not be good at math), or obtain birth control without their husband’s permission? No, because that would interfere with YOUR freedom. How about the choice of women like Nina Hartley, who prefer to NOT use condoms? Well, I guess they don’t count.
Again, Michael completely ignores the CHOICE that PRODUCERS make to make porn.
Producers are adutls, who make adult choices, to hire employees to take risks, yet they offer NO REEMEDIES for those risks. Michael has dodged this questio too many times.
What remedies do porn producers offer for the risks that they hire people to take? I say they offer none. How about you Michael?
How come Nina only talks about the choices perfomrers make, and NOT the choices PRODUCERS make? Michael, Nina is a smart lady. Dont think for one minute that Nina doesnt know what she’s doing when she refuses to talk about PRODUCERS resposnsibility. I DEFY you Michael to find ONE SINGLE QUOTE where Nina talks about PRODUCERS responsibility! You can look all you want, you wont find one. And I could say the same for you. And dont for one minute say that requiring performers to pay for their own tests before they get hired is the PRODUCERS showing responsibility.
Regarding the ‘no one has died dong porn” unless you count all the gay performers through out the 80’s and early 90’s who died of aids of course. But of course, ALL of them caught it off set, right Michael?
And dont think for one minute that performers who want condoms arent being intimidated to keep quiet. Michaels “attack”(for lack of a better word) right here is a perfect example.
Well, Mr. Whiteacre, it certainly seems Bill Clinton’s assertion that “sexual relations” does not include oral sex has been influential on some performers and producers in the porn industry. Obviously, since oral sex is not really sex, that means there is no reason to worry about oral STDs.
Everyone should have the right to choose. “Intimidation”, as Joe has expressed with his innumerable epithets, comes from those who insist that we don’t have any right to choose.
I’ve used condoms when the producer or female talent insists. It’s not my personal preference but these idiotic and hypocritical claims of “intimidation” are proper to lay against the AHF, who have been accused of “extortion”, as well as those who defend them; not those who fight for freedom of choice.
@joe know — How can you claim that “all the gay performers through out the 80′s and early 90′s who died of aids” caught it doing porn? There are NO STATS on this because there is/was no testing paradigm in place which could track whether or not they had HIV or AIDS when they entered the industry.
If someone who has HIV or AIDS appears in some gay porn movies before they die, that doesn’t mean porn was responsible for their deaths. There are some former porn stars who died of cancer — that would be like saying porn causes cancer. It’s absurd.
That said, I think testing is a very, very good idea. Testing regimes, such as AIM’s, save lives.
Again you drone on and on about the producers; give it a rest. Producers OFFER employment. The employer is the master of his offer. Performers ACCEPT the offer. They sign an agreement, and waive liability. They do so of their own free will. They may not like all the terms, but they agree to them.
Did you ever buy a car, or sign a loan agreement? You may not like the boilerplate, but if you want that car or that loan, you sign. It’s your choice. You may call it a Hobson’s Choice, but no one is going to renegotiate every contract from scratch. Boilerplate is common; in fact it’s the norm. Wake up.
And finally, I don’t want Brittany to keep quiet. She has the right to express herself. Just as you and I have the right to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of her argument. Frankly, I don’t think I am capable of intimidating her, but if you think holding someone accountable for the statements he or she makes = intimidation, then you are deluded.
@jeremysteele11 – Yes, Miss Brittany’s position is inconsistent in that regard as well. She was willing to make that particular compromise in order to work in the industry and build up her name — no, wait –she must have been intimidated.
Of course none of them caught their hiv while doing porn Michael. How could anyone assume such a thing?
Of course YOU are assuming that they all caught it elswhere, with no facts to back that up either.
Producers offer employment,,,glad to see you are finallyaditting that producers are EMPLOYERS.
And with that offer comes legal resposibility, like WORKERS COMP insurance. And the legal resposibilityof privident POST EXPOSURE testing and treatment for any disease of injury that their employees suffer.
Please Michale, show me ONE SINGLE PORN PRODUCER who has ever offered POST EXPOURE testing and treatment for a single performer, which is their LEGAL RESPOSIBILITY. Just one single example Michael, of course you cant, becuase therre is NOT one single example to be had. Sorry if that doesnt fit your agenda but it is a fact and there is no way for you to dispute that with even one single example. Thisis also one of AHF aces that they havent played yet, but you never even thought about that did you Michael, because you were never aware of that section of 5193, whichis obvious by the things you’ve written here.
And there is NO SUCH THING as a legal waiver to waive legal workers comp protection,,get over that. And there is NO SUCH THING as a legal waiver to waive OSHA protection. Get over that.
I could sign a piece of paper that says I absolve my employer from any responsibility, it doesnt make it so. I could sign a piece of paper that says the sky is green, it doesnt make it so.
AGAIN you dodge the question, WHat resposibilities do Producers have.
Michael, you need to read section 5193 of the OSHA regs,,,the section was not TOTALLY based on the medical setting. There are sections that refer specifically to other occupations, perhaps you should get over your SELECTIVE prttions of the regulations and actuall read the ENTIRE code. A little education is a good thing Michael.
Your weak arguments about producer resposibility might get past some people within the industry, but thats as far as you’ll get. virtually every single argument you have made here has already been sumarily dismissed by those who will actuall participate in making the real decisions. Sorry to burts your little buble of outdated, and useless arguments. Stick to making shelley lubben videos.
@joe know — No, I do not make assumptions about where they contracted HIV/AIDS; I wrote it is unknowable “because there is/was no testing paradigm in place which could track whether or not they had HIV or AIDS when they entered the industry.”
This isn’t an employment law forum; I’m not here to debate employment law.
And your assessments of my arguments, as well as of the law — both of which it is clear you fail to understand — mean absolutely nothing to me.
Man has been having sex for many, many years. All of a sudden having sex will kill us and we will have to wear rubbers or we’ll all die. But do not fear, just in time in Man’s long, long history, does the AHF and Big Pharm come along to save us!
Propaganda has been pulled over our heads like a giant condom. But for reasons already stated this con is dumb.
What? Fear and hysteria can be translated into money and publicity?
Then why doesn’t Shelley Lubben do that, and conflate porn with pedophilia and human trafficking?
Oh, right . . . .
Wrong again Michael,
I dont assume anything. What I know for a FACT is that no matter where they get it, they bring it with them to the set the next day, and the next day and the next day after that. And that goes for the gay side, the straight side, and it inculudes every single std out there.
Its about EXPOSURE Michael, and even you wont argue with the FACT that after soemone in the industry gets any std they bring it with them to the set. Unless of course, the instant they get an std, they go get treated immedieatley. But since they only test every 30 days, who knows how many times they bring theri std to the set with them>
Do you have any argument to this, that after they get exposed they bring it with them to the set, until they get tested and treated, perhapls 1 day, or five days or ten days, or twenty days, or even 30 days of working after getting their std, whether it be off set or on set? OF course you dont!!
Jeremiah, what do you think of what I just said here. That even if someone gets an std off set, they bring it with them to every set they work on until they get tested. All the bullshit aside, whats your opinion on this?(forget HIV, what about gonn/chlam,trichomonis, hpv, etc.)
@joe know – Yes, if you posit that this hypothetical performer contracted this hypothetical ailment, and still had it when he or she later actually worked on a set, then yes, he or she brought it with him or her to the set, However, that is not the example you presented earlier.
Yes, Joe, people can and do become exposed to Sexually Transmitted Diseases working in the sex industry. However, I also know many adult performers who NEVER contracted any STD during their time in porn. Nina Hartley contracted how many? — a half dozen or so — in a 26 year career.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking me, Joe, but shit goes around. We have to understand that bacteria comes from feces and viruses feed on compromised immune systems, which certainly happens when you do too many drugs. Healthy humans have a strong immune defense- antibodies which do these miraculous things we take for granted. We have been conned by drug pushers into believing they hold the golden key to “saving” or prolonging our lives. Just like they’re making genetically altered fruit we are having things pushed on us because what we already have that works better doesn’t make enough money for them. Do any of these points answer your question, Joe?
Michael,
there is NOTHING hypothetcal about the over 3000 cases of just gonn/chlam from performers who tested at AIM. And there is NOTHING hypothetical about the fact that many performers get tested a places other than AIM. A significant portiion of poerformers test at TTS alone, and we dont know any numbers from them.
What exactly is yposthetical about the over 3000 cases reported by AIM alone? But of course, NONE of them ever worked on a set while infected. How foolish of anyone to assume such a thing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking all drugs. And all poisons have the effect of attacking everything in the body, good and bad. The problem is regarding the notion that one should just continually take toxic drugs indefinitely. Using drugs to knock something out of the system within a given window, and then allowing the body to naturally recuperate, is one thing; incessant imbibing of DNA terminators is completely another.
@joe know – Was there any actual question in your last post?
There is nothing hypothetical about factual data. The question becomes how to interpret the data, and what to do about it. To do this, one must make assumptions. Yours are different than mine.
You write that “A significant portion of poerformers test at TTS alone.” Has this been positively established as true? I’m not stating it’s untrue, I would just like to know your source.
Michael,
Without naming my source by name, interpet this.
TTS has been in buissines for several years in their reseda Bl. office, and in florida. Must be doing enough to pay the rent, pay the bills, pay the eimployees, and make some profit for the owners. And of course, nobody ever tests psitve at TTS, right Michaael. So lets add them to the 3000 not hypothetical cases, who never transmit anything on set.
@joe know – I really fail to grasp your seething anger at me, and everyone else who has a difference of opinion with you. Why can’t you just have a conversation or debate like a grown-up?
Second, my question was not whether or not TTS can pay its rent, nor whether it tests a significant portion of the performer population, it was whether it is verifiably true that a significant portion of performers tests at TTS ALONE.
Finally, neither you or I know how many performers have or haven’t tested positive for anything at TTS.
Why is it so hard for people in porn, and porn aplogists to simply admit that people in porn, who have massive amounts of unprotected sex, with other poeple who have massive amounts of unprotected sex, who have massive amounts of unprotected sex, are apreading stds amongst themselves without trying to find clever ways to hide the answers that they know are true?
Any group of people, porn stars or not, who have so much unprotected sex, with so many people, are going to get stds,PERIOD. END OF CONVERSATION. Use one ounce of common sense Michael. Do youreally think youre helping the industry by ignoring, or pretending to be ignoring these simple common sense realities. Youre not fooling anybody.
To quote Sharon Mitchell(hows that for a source Michael) “We are up to our asses in chalmydia.” Then she said, “If OSHA ever decides to do anything I will be right behind them tooting my horn.”
And Mitch has also been quoted saying that a three generation list of performers can easily reach 198 people in THREE days. But of course, NONE of them have any stds, right Michael” Is Mitch a good enough source for you Michael?
Yes Joe, people are having unprotected sex everywhere. The ugliest consquence of this behavior is unnecessary, nutty offspring such as yourself.
Regarding AIDS, even mainstream publications have admitted that the heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the western world is a myth.
Regarding other STDS, most everyone has caught one and usually their immune system eradicates it. If not there are some good antibiotics.
One thing a lot of fast-track experimental drug binging gays who were sick and dying of GRID were doing was taking lots of antibiotics every night along with their poppers and club drugs and endless sex with countless strangers. But one of the problems with taking antibiotics everynight is it wears down the immune system. Drug pushers always forget that the immune system is the vital component needed to fight infections and foreign shit in the body.
As I said, Man has been fucking for longer than we can count, but all of sudden sex is going to kill us and unless we have AHF and the Big Pharm who have coincidentally arrived at the perfect point in Man’s long, long history to save us, we’re all gonna die.
It’s bullocks, Sandra!
Jeremy,
You know as well as I, that active porn performers are having much more unprotected sex, with many more partners than a huge percentage of the average population. Jeremy, how many of those people having unprotected sex are doing as an EMPLOYEE?
Again, why is it so hard to admit that porn perfromers, during the course of their employment catch, and spread stds, without the dodgeball answers. Arent you always asking people to answer your questions without dancing around Jeremy?
http://www.sharonmitchell.plazadiscounts.com/page15.html
Some interesting reading for you Michael. I cant wait to see you cherry pick this interview and ignore the parts that make the industry look bad.
198 people in THREEEEEEEEEEE days!!!!!!!! And this was in 2002 or 3, and the industry has about twice as many active performers to day as back then. Do the math.
Is Sharon Mitchell a good enough source?
@joe know — Once again, I am at a loss to understand why you are writing this to me. Do you have some reading comprehension issue? A few posts above I wrote: “Yes, Joe, people can and do become exposed to Sexually Transmitted Diseases working in the sex industry.” What more would you like from me? I’m not an epidemiologist, I’m not a doctor (other than a Juris Doctor), and I’m not a statistician. I’m also not privy to private information from testing facilities such as AIM and TTS.
Yes, people in and out of the sex industry contract STDs, that’s true.
Let me repeat something else I wrote a few posts earlier: “There is nothing hypothetical about factual data. The question becomes how to interpret the data, and what to do about it. To do this, one must make assumptions. Yours are different than mine.” Get it yet? — we’re not going to agree.
Why is it that you feel the need to compulsively drive the same points (the relevant, the inane, and everything in-between) home over and over and over again? Why is it so important to wrangle some sort of concession from me? Is this what gets you off?
Why do you think anyone would give you any credibility when you demand specific answers and then refuse to address the questions I ask you — even when they are merely for clarification of a point or a previous question of yours?
I think I just answered you, Joe. It looks like you’ve recently asked me the same question twice.
@Michael,
In stead of saying that people in and out of the ‘sex’ industry catch stds, why wont you just flat our say, and you know its true, that people in the PORN industry contract stdss, and expose eachother on sets with regularity. Of course you have never flat out enied this, but you have never flat out conceded this fact either. Very lawyer like of you. WHat do you call an empty seat on a bus load of lawyers going over a cliff? A tragedy.
And as far as assuptions, yours will go to any lengths to remove resposibilities from producers, mine are based on common sense, no matter which “side” of the debate they favor. I am willing to concede points, while you have proven time and time again that you will not. thats called intelectual dishonesty. Saying ‘sex’ workers instead of “porn performers” is just one example.
This is a specific group of people we are talking about here. porn performers. Why wont you address this issues as to how it affects this particular group of people? Dodge ball again?
I consistantly drive the same points becuase you consistantly dodge the issue, as I ahve pinted out time and time again.
You have yet to use the words, porn performers catch stds in the sorkplace. Without that simple admission, all of your arguments are worthless.
I will openly admit that porn performers catch stds off set. Of course that is true. But they also catch them on set, that is just common sense. Why wont you concede this SIMPLE point, and say it witout discaimer? “Sex’ workers instead of porn performers. LOTS of sex workers do NOT work in porn. And lots of sex work outside of porn has a much higher use of condoms than porn, which has an astronomical lack of condom use.
@joe know – You write “In stead [sic] of saying that people in and out of the ‘sex’ industry catch stds, why wont you just flat our say, and you know its true, that people in the PORN industry contract stdss,[sic] and expose eachother on sets with regularity.” Define regularity? The rate of exposures on sets is in dispute. Do I agree (I’m not going to use the word concede, because you’re not making an argument) that some number of porn performers sometimes transmit STDs to each other on set? Of course. How many, and at what rate, I could not tell you.
You also write: “I am willing to concede points, while you have proven time and time again that you will not.” Really? What points have you conceded? I must have missed those. No, that’s right — I just wasn’t paying attention.
Also, to be precise, I never wrote of “sex workers.” I wrote of “the sex industry” instead of “the porn industry” because my point was not limited to porn performers. The point was that ALL sex workers, including, but not limited to, porn performers “can and do become exposed to Sexually Transmitted Diseases working in the sex industry.” I was agreeing with that particular (obvious) premise of yours, and even expanding it to a broader spectrum. I was making a larger point which embraced the object your question. Do you really need every single point spelled out for you? I’m not here to hold your hand, Joe. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, I’m afraid you’ll have to move to the “kids’ table.”
I don’t know whether it’s because he can only manage sentences in the form of a question or an insult, but I note again that Common Sense Joe has again completely ignored every one of my previous questions. Please count on me to return the favor henceforth.
Cordially,
MW
@joe know – My mistake — I replied before I saw your second post. You DID actually attempt to answer one of my questions, however your answer was incorrect.
You are not doing very well here at all….
I am not dodging anything, Joe. You just don’t know how to ask a proper question. Try narrowing the questions and using more precise language, Joe. That’s always a good way to box people in. Making an assertion that suits your agenda and then re-phrasing it as a question = INVITING someone who disagrees with you to demur.
Except sometimes your position leaves you in that box. My questions are very specific. Your insistance on specific stats, which could come from AIM if they were willing to make them public, which they arent(wonder why) is at odds with my request that u=you use common sense. Im;ying that youre not an epidemiologist, therefore you cant deduce that performers transmit stds on sets is very lawyer like.
You seem to know everything that Shelley and AHF are up to, and you know all thier motives, without any corraboration, just your opinion, but you claim this type of ignorance when it comes to very easily reached logical conclusions about stds being spread in the porn industry. Where do you get all your information about the motives of AHF, is it just your interpetation of their actions, which suits your agenda. How you can so catagoricly state the motives of AFH and Shelly Lubben, as if everything you are saying is a fact, yet you dont know the motives for industry producers to avoid legal resposiblities, like having workers comp insurance. You fail miserably. Your arguments of “PROVE” it happens on the set were dismissed about two years ago, when Sharon Mitchell testified in front of the State Assembly, and conceded almost every single point that you continually dodge here. Just google Sharon mithcll state assembly, and wath it for yourself. You are contradciting almost everything she says, but you probably know more than her about this issue, dont you?
You say you wrote of the ‘sex’ industry. Except this is about one very specific segment of the sex industry, and that is porn perfromers.
Most ‘sex’ industry workers are not EMPLOYEES, and most use condoms. Trying to lump the undeground illegal sex industry with the legal porn industry is a dodge. The porn industry always makes sure everyone knows that their industry is LEGAL, and it is. Stop trying to lump in the oranges with the apples.
I have a comment with a link to a Sharon Mitchell interview on moderation. Please check it out when it comes up. especially the part where she says she would support OSHA intervention. Funny how AIM went from protecting performers to protecting producers.
Joe writes:
“Your insistance [sic] on specific stats, which could come from AIM if they were willing to make them public, which they aren’t (wonder why) is at odds with my request that you use common sense.”
My insistence on specific stats is based strictly and solely UPON common sense, because it would DEFY common sense to hold forth on these matters without a proper foundation of factually accurate data. If you want idle gossip, join a sewing circle.
Then Joe writes:
“You seem to know everything that Shelley and AHF are up to, and you know all thier motives, without any corraboration [sic]” Wrong. I have corroboration. In many cases, from the horses’ mouths, but also from others who have crossed their paths. A bunch of them. Many on the record. All verified to the highest legal standard. Documents and witnesses. I’m not about to be sued because it did sub-par due diligence. I play like homie, and homie don’t play like that.
However, as I hope even you can appreciate, not every single aspect of ANY matter can be proven; some things are by their very nature secret. People often don’t come out and tell you what they’re thinking, or what their motivation is. Interestingly, Lubben often does come out and make shocking admissions: she’s the brand of professional liar/hustler/con artist (all her words) who thinks she can talk her way out of anything (also her words), so it’s kind of a sick charge for her to tell you a kernel of truth and then distract you with sleight of hand. Unfortunately for her, she’s really sloppy at it. But setting creatures like Lubben aside, how can one ever “know” what’s in someone’s heart? Even in court, attorneys have “a theory of the case.” You add up all the known facts, and you make inferences, by necessity. That theory is then presented to finders of fact, who then render a verdict based upon their own conclusions.
Joe also writes:
“How you can so catagoricly [sic] state the motives of AFH and Shelly Lubben, as if everything you are saying is a fact, yet you dont know the motives for industry producers to avoid legal resposiblities, like having workers comp insurance.” Well, for starters, there are A LOT of industry producers. I don’t know them ALL, and individual specific motives may vary. And, in any event, I have already related my impression of the motives IN GENERAL of the industry’s producers: it’s to make money and incur the fewest costs and liabilities possible. That’s the motive of EVERY business. Why are you so confused about this?
Finally, only someone such as yourself, who lacks even a basic understanding of the things he is mouthing-off about, could conclude that all my points are invalid. It’s one thing to disagree with me, it’s quite another to tut-tut my views into oblivion.
Joe writes:
“You say you wrote of the ‘sex’ industry. Except this is about one very specific segment of the sex industry, and that is porn perfromers.
Most ‘sex’ industry workers are not EMPLOYEES, and most use condoms. Trying to lump the undeground illegal sex industry with the legal porn industry is a dodge. The porn industry always makes sure everyone knows that their industry is LEGAL, and it is. Stop trying to lump in the oranges with the apples.”
Joe, you are truly an idiot.
“Most ‘sex’ industry workers are not employees” — which ones, exactly, are? Brothel workers? Strippers at a club? We keep going around and around on this, but the idea that porn performers are employees for all purposes of the law is NOT COURT-TESTED.
OF COURSE, regulatory agencies want to classify them as such, they want to regulate! And naturally the enemies of the adult industry want to see them labelled employees, for reasons that we’ve gone over perviously, ad nauseum.
“Most use condoms” Really. What’s your source for that? There’s a huge number of sex workers that either do not, or do not use them every time. That’s a fact.
“Trying to lump the undeground illegal sex industry with the legal porn industry is a dodge.” You are a stupid, stupid man. I handed you a point, and even expanded it, and now you throw it back in my face. I answer your stupid, pestering question, and you cannot even comprehend the answer.
Wrong on the facts AGAIN Michael.
Performers being employees IS COURT TESTED. (Dupree v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board) Said and done!!
read it an weep Michael.
https://www.lukeisback.com/essays/essays/OSHA.htm
http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=26129
Micael, Please note whrer Mr. Fattorosi says, “Everyone that is on set is an employee. Thats not really a question anymore.”
A little research goes a long way.
Can you provide the citation for this case? I can’t find it. I don’t have my legal research software on my laptop, so I need the cite (Cal. Rptr etc…).
@joe know – Mr. Fattorosi, Esq.’s FULL quote is:
“The Brooke Ashley case was decided in December and it’s up on partial appeal. However, I assure you that performers, directors, cameramen, lighting crew — basically everyone that is on set is an employee. That’s not really a question anymore.”
Forgive me if I don’t take one attorney’s assurance (from 2008) as a definitive statement of settled LAW.
Joe, on the subject of OSHA, you should also read the recent OSHA presentation which directly contradicts your ridiculous claim that Mark Kernes made up the fact that OSHA would demand performers wear dental dams, safety goggles, etc…
“The [BPP] standard attempts to minimize all contact with blood and OPIM, not just “high risk” activities. . . .
“What About Oral Sex?
BBP standard clearly intends to protect workers from mucous membrane and eye contact with blood or OPIM:
“Exposure Incident” means a specific eye, mouth, other mucous membrane, non-intact skin, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that results from the performance of an employee’s duties.”
“Masks in combination with eye protection devices, such as goggles or glasses with solid side shields, or chin-length face shields, shall be worn whenever splashes, spray, spatter, or droplets of blood or OPIM may be generated and eye, nose, or mouth contamination can be reasonably anticipated. These requirements are in addition to the provisions of Section 3382.”
Read it and weep, Joe!
And, for the record, visiting sites such as AdultFYI and LukeIsBack, charming as they may be, does not legal research make.
Oh, you’re referring to the Brooke Ashley case itself — wow. That’s your case? A Worker’s Comp Board ruling?
No,
I am referring to the court case of Robert Dupree apealing the WCAB rulling. It was decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California.
Robert dupree was declared the employer on the booke Ashley gangbang by the WCAB. Robert Dupree toook it all the way to the California State Supreme COurt and lost.
Just for the hell of it Michael, I suggest you contact Michael Fattorosi. He loves to talk about this case, especially how it has ended the IC v. employee ebate. Fattorosi is a well known industry lawyer, you probably know that. Give him a call and educate yourself. Of course you probably wont becasue it will blow most of your aguments right out of the water. You gave it a good shot though Michael, I got to give you credit for that. But PERFORMERS ARE EMPLOYEES, and it doesnt matter how YOU interpet anything, your wishful thinking wont change the facts.
@joe know – Thanks, but I’d rather read the decision for myself and draw my own conclusion. Would you trust a lawyer that merely took someone else’s word for what a particular case’s holding was?
Is it even a published decision?
Yes, I know who Mr Fattorosi is. Didn’t he unsuccessfully pitch a system for payroll, deductions, etc… that the adult industry turned down?
Michael, i cant get the link to work but heres a few highlights for ya.
“The testimony is that terms were discussed, not that terms were negotiable.”
“Even where a high degree of skill is required, there is an inference that the skilled person is an employee.”
“For all the above stated reasons,an employment relationship was reasonably found.”
“Heresay evidence, unlike civil courts, is ADMISSIBLE in workers compensation.”
“The testimony was unrefuted by ANY person, including Mr. Deupree.”
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/comments/AIDS%20Healthcare%20Foundation%20June%2029%20letter%20to%20CalOSHA%20Advisory%20Panel.pdf
You’ll love this Michael.
@joe know – I still need to read the decision. The few bits you’ve excerpted do not clearly establish that the relationship between a porn producer and a porn performer is PER SE an employer-employee relationship.
This case — again, going off of what you’ve excerpted — at most stands for the proposition that THIS fellow DUPREE was found, for purposes of the Worker’s Comp Board hearing, to have been Brooke Ashley’s employer, based on the facts in that case. Or, put another way, that the Workers Comp Board’s finding that Dupree was an employer in this particular case, was not unreasonable on grounds that hearsay evidence was admitted. Again, this does not establish the precedent you claim. I will be happy to read the decision as soon as I get a copy.
I’d also be cautious taking the word of an attorney (a skilled and experienced one though he may be) who represents disgruntled porn performers. If they constitute his client base, then it would stand to reason he is their zealous advocate.
The hearsay evidence was regarding the HIV status of performers on the set, specifically Marc Wallice.
Keep grasping at your straws Michael. Look it up yourself.
Funny how you tell me you will wait until you read it yourself but you state, “This does not establish the precedent you claim.” You make that assuptionw without reading the case?
it is your wishfull thinking that this deosnt establish the porn employee precendet. IT DOES EXACTLY THAT!!!
Keep looking for every little straw you can to hide the producers responsibility. Your arguments are old, weak, and without merit. Wishful thinking does not make someithing a reality. There is a reason that no porn company has ever fought their OSHA citations in court, becuase they all know, on advice of their attorneys, that they would lose. You deep asking for a court ruling, and you got one, now yo want ot dismiss it. And without even reading this decision you calim it does not set a precendent. The straws are getting thin Michael.
@joe know – WTF are you talking about?
When I wrote “This does not establish the precedent you claim,” the “this” in that sentence refers to the interpretation I gave to the few brief excerpts you offered up as proof of your assertion. It means, simply, that my interpretation, based solely upon the few fragments you presented, is at odds with yours.
How odd that you write “You [k]eep asking for a court ruling, and you got one, now yo[u] want ot dismiss it.” No, I want to READ it, you fool. Is that too much to ask — that I read it before I agree with the interpretation of someone who obviously disagrees with me on very fundamental issues?
And, by the way, if “the hearsay evidence was regarding the HIV status of performers on the set, specifically Marc Wallice” as you claim, then what does that have to do with the inherent nature of the relationship between a producer and a performer? Does the employer-employee relationship somehow rest upon having someone on set actually, or allegedly, or rumored to be, HIV positive? I don’t understand.
For the last time, wishful thinking has nothing to do with it. Point to something in the ruling that specifically holds, as a matter of law, that the relationship between ALL porn producers and the porn performer they hire is PER SE an employer-employee relationship, and this argument will be over. My guess is you would have if it were actually in there.
Once again, I do not expect any meaningful answers from you.
Perhaps you’d like to talk about Mr. Fattorosi some more, instead. I’m willing if you are 🙂
Studies show that non-drug using, busy bare-back prostitutes are not catching HIV:
THE YIN AND YANG OF HIV
By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre
Jan. 1999
excerpt:
The notion that HIV is a virus which “does not discriminate” is also markedly inconsistent with the data obtained from studies of female prostitutes. Even if, as it is widely accepted, by some unknown means a sexually transmitted infectious agent found its way into the promiscuous portion of the gay male population in certain large cities in the United States in the late 1970s, given the facts that prostitutes are frequented by bisexual men and, at the very earliest, “safe” sexual practices date from 1985, one would have expected HIV/AIDS to have spread rapidly through prostitutes and thence to the general community. However, the prevalence of “HIV” antibodies amongst prostitutes is almost entirely confined to those who are drug users. Virtually all other prostitutes have not been, and are not becoming, HIV positive.
In September 1985, 56 non-intravenous drug using (IVDU) prostitutes were tested “In the rue Saint-Denis, the most notorious street in Paris for prostitution. More than a thousand prostitutes work in this area…These women, aged 18-60, have sexual intercourse 15-25 times daily and do not routinely use protection”. None were positive.(109)
In Copenhagen, 101 non-IVDU prostitutes, a quarter of whom “suspected that up to one fifth of their clients were homosexual or bisexual”, were tested during August/October 1985. The median numbers of sexual encounters per week was 20. None were positive.(110)
In 1985, 132 prostitutes (and 55 non-prostitutes) who attended a Sydney STD clinic were tested for HIV antibodies. The average numbers of sexual partners (clients and lovers) in the previous month was 24.5. When an estimate was made to separate clients and lovers, the median number of sexual contacts per year rose from 175 to 450. The partners of only 14 (11%) of prostitutes used condoms at all and 49% of their partners used condoms in fewer than 20% of encounters. No women were positive.(111)
The same Australian Clinic repeatedly tested an additional 491 prostitutes who attended between 1986 and 1988. Of 231 out of the 491 prostitutes surveyed, 19% “had bisexual non-paying partners and 21% had partners who injected drugs. Sixty-nine percent always used condoms for vaginal intercourse with paying clients, but they were rarely used with non-paying partners. Condoms were rarely used by those clients and/or partners for the 18% of prostitutes practising anal intercourse”. No women were positive.
At the time of this report, a decade into the AIDS era, the authors also commented, “there has been no documented case of a female prostitute in Australia becoming infected with HIV through sexual intercourse” (italics ours). Yet, these investigators from the Sydney Sexual Health Centre concluded “there are still many women working as prostitutes in Sydney who remain seriously at risk of HIV infection”.(112) In Spain, of 519 non-IVDU prostitutes tested between May 1989 and December 1990, only 12 (2.3 per cent) had positive test, which was “only slightly higher than that reported 5 years ago in similar surveys”. Some prostitutes had as many as 600 partners a month and the development of a positive antibody test was directly related to the practice of anal intercourse. The authors also noted, “a more striking and disappointing finding was the low proportion of prostitutes who used condoms at all times, despite the several mass-media AIDS prevention campaigns that have been carried out in Spain”.(113)
Similar data from two Scottish studies,(114) the 1993 “European working group on HIV infection in female prostitutes study”,(115) and a 1994 report of 53,903 Filipino prostitutes tested between 1985 to 1992, confirm that non-IVDU prostitutes remain virtually devoid of HIV infection. For example, in the latter study, only 72 (0.01%) women were found to be HIV positive.
In studies where there appear to be a high incidence of HIV amongst prostitutes there are uncertainties that defy explanation. For example, although “HIV has been present in the commercial sex work networks in the Philippines and Indonesia for almost as long as it has been in Thailand and Cambodia”, the prevalence of HIV in the former is 0.13% and 0.02% respectively and 18.8% and 40% in the latter.(116) If these are accurate data, the discrepancy defies epidemiological explanation and has indeed baffled the experts although the latter postulate “behavioural factors” such as one country’s prostitutes and clients being considerably more or less sexually active than another. However, one could also pose another question. What are the “HIV” antibody tests actually measuring? Be that as it may, since 5674 (44%) and 4360 (34%) of the 12785 Cambodian “HIV and AIDS Case Reports” till 31/12/97 are listed as “Unknown” gender and age respectively,(117) data collection, at least by the WHO in Cambodia, must be regarded as problematic.
Contradictions
Why should HIV avoid non-drug using prostitutes? If female prostitutes who do not use drugs do not become HIV infected despite being “seriously at risk of HIV infection”, what is the risk of infection to the majority of Australian women who are neither drug users nor prostitutes? According to data from the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, vanishingly little. A 1989 study testing 10, 217 blood samples of newborn babies (unambiguous evidence of heterosexual activity without condoms), found that no babies or mothers were HIV positive.(118) If such women remain non-infected, how do their non-drug using, male heterosexual partners become infected with HIV?
According to Simon Wain-Hobson, a leading HIV expert from the Pasteur Institute, “a virus’s job” is to spread. “If you don’t spread, you’re dead”. (Weiss, 1998 #1179) The “overwhelming” evidence from studies both in gay men and heterosexuals is that HIV/AIDS is not bidirectionally sexually transmitted. In the whole history of Medicine there has never been such a phenomenon. Since microbes rely on person to person spread for their survival, it is impossible to claim from epidemiological data that HIV/AIDS is an infectious, sexually transmitted disease. Indeed, Professor Stuart Brody, from the University of Tubingen, has argued that physicians ignore the actual heterosexual data and instead promote the politically correct idea that everyone is at risk. “Ideological knowledge about AIDS is far more likely to filter through society than scientific knowledge”.(37)