Last week I did a short piece looking at a paper published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases in which researchers from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) reported high rates of infection and reinfection of common sexually transmitted diseases in performers in the adult film industry.
In addition, based on their numbers, they promote the use of condoms, in fact, want more legislation in place to enforce condom use in adult films. It all sounded logical and with a good dose of common sense.
A short time later, I received an email from a man named Michael Whiteacre. In the correspondence, Mr. Whiteacre asked me if I was aware of an analysis by prominent epidemiologist, Lawrence Mayer, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University. I wasn’t aware of this assessment which essentially said that the data coming from the LACDPH were “fundamentally flawed” and that the analysis are “without basis in science”.
This was obviously intriguing and corresponded with Whiteacre a few more times only to find out how little did I know what was going on in LA County, and the strife between the adult film industry, county health officials and an organization called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF).
Mr. Whiteacre agreed to answer some questions concerning the study, mandatory condom use and his view on the ongoing battle in California between the porn industry and those that oppose it for various reasons.
Michael Whiteacre is an attorney, a filmmaker, writer and political activist in Los Angeles. He has worked as a journalist who on occasion did stories about the adult industry and interviews with its stars.
In addition, he been a distributor of various forms of adult entertainment and has produced/directed softcore erotic films.
He has done PSAs and documentaries, on a pro bono basis, such as anti-piracy spots with the Free Speech Coalition.
Robert Herriman: I know Dr. Lawrence Mayer is a highly respected epidemiologist and he clearly found holes in the Drs. Kim‐Farley and Kerndt presentation earlier this year, however as Kerndt points out in The Adult Film Industry: Time to Regulate?, “Adult film performers engage in prolonged and repeated sexual acts with multiple sexual partners over short periods of time, creating ideal conditions for transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). All the more concerning, high-risk practices are on the rise. These practices include sex acts that involve simultaneous double penetration (double-anal and vaginal–anal intercourse) and repeated facial ejaculations. At the same time, condom use is reportedly low in heterosexual adult films—approximately 17% for adult performers.”
Though the Kerndt presentation and the more recent Dr. Binh Goldstein paper in Sexually Transmitted Diseases may indeed have flawed data, doesn’t common sense dictate and the performance of the above sexual activities in such quantity suggest a real danger for an increase in sexually transmitted infections?
Michael Whiteacre: "Common sense" also demands that one ask why doctors and medical researchers who are working for our government, and entrusted with serving the public good and promoting public health, would forgo scientific methodology in favor of creating what amounts to a political "hit piece" that instead serves their own philosophical biases and the political agenda of Michael Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF)?
I also believe that Dr. Kerndt'sassertion that "high-risk practices are on the rise" represents yet another of his many claims which are unsubstantiated by data.
Since all sexual activity involves risk, it does follow that increased sexual activity involves increased risk. However, the issue at hand is not that simple corollary, the issues are 1) whether there exists a statistical (or other) basis to conclude that the sexual freedom and choice of consenting adults to use their own bodies in a certain manner should be regulated and restrained by the government; 2) whether the dire "public health" problems claimed have been properly identified and diagnosed; and 3) whether the solutions proposed are sound and will be effective, or whether they will actually make the situation worse. In short, these are matters of diagnostics and prognostics, both built upon the premise that there actually exists a real public health problem in the first place.
STIs are not magically caused by sexual activity, but instead transmitted by it; one has to have it to transmit it. The adult production industry is not a world unto itself, this group, this community, is a microcosm and a subset of the society that surrounds it. It is neither a breeding ground, nor a collection of Typhoid Marys. As in any other industry, people may have problems of all kinds that they bring with them into their workplace. The difference is, in porn there has existed a highly-effective mitigation program involving monthly HIV/STI testing for performers (plus treatment for STIs), as well as the choice for performers to use condoms. Yes, choosing to work condom-only has financial repercussions, but the adult industry is not immune to the laws of supply and demand. Porn, like public health, constitutes a field where politics, health and economics intersect.
You ask,"doesn’t common sense dictate and the performance of the above sexual activities in such quantity suggest a real danger for an increase in sexually transmitted infections?"Transmission to whom? Are we talking about within the industry or without?
There exist people everywhere in the world who do not engage in what Dr. Kerndt would consider "high-risk" sex but who contract incurable and even fatal diseases after few sexual encounters; sometimes after only one. Many, many American have never sought testing for STIs -- not even once. Why aren't Dr. Kerndt and Michael Weinstein focusing their efforts on outreach and education of those people? Why instead are they focusing on, a unique sub-group which IS well-informed?Adult performers are tested 12 times a year or more, and make an informed choice about their health and the work they do. Performer Danny Wylde notes,"We all take a risk going to work every day. In my opinion, it’s a managed risk. And it’s something I choose to participate in so that I can get a paycheck at the end of my day."
This effort to turn adult performers into the new typhoid Mary's represents, in my opinion, meritless political grandstanding, as well as a convenient diversion from the failures of those entrusted to promote the public good and the welfare of our citizens.
RH: Dr. Kerndt says in his paper, “The current practice of periodic HIV and STD testing may detect some disease early, but often fails to prevent transmission”. If adult performers, as Goldstein points out, are only tested monthly, and I quote “The current industry standard is voluntary testing every 30 days—performers must provide a negative test results within the previous 30 days in order to work”, and have dozens if not more unprotected sexual encounters, wouldn’t Kerndt’s point be absolutely valid?
MW: No one claims that testing constitutes an infallible method of protection against STIs. No method is infallible. Instead, I'm saying that it defies all reason to replace this system with a weaker one, and further, that if one is seeking for a zero-risk standard, that would mean no more pornography; it's that simple. No other industry is held to a zero-risk standard, because it is ridiculous and impractical in the extreme. Supporting such a rule, which amount to saying that adult citizens do not have the right to do what they will with their own bodes, would potentially havecatastrophic consequences for other rights citizens enjoy.
“The current practice of periodic HIV and STD testing may detect some disease early, but often fails to prevent transmission” - This is another misleading statement by Dr. Kerndt. There has not ben a single proven HIV transmission on a porn set since 2004. Such ambiguous statements can be attributed, in my opinion, to the fact that AIDS fear and hysteria not only makes good copy, it's also big business.
"[Performers] are only tested monthly. . . . and have dozens if not more unprotected sexual encounters" -- So, what is your prescription? Do citizens not have the right to be sexually active? At least performers can see each other's current HIV/STI test results before consenting to have sex with each other.
The Porn Industry fights back: a few words with Michael Whiteacre- Part 2
The Porn Industry fights back: a few words with Michael Whiteacre- Part 3
Comments