CARNAL NATION

There’s a new ad campaign in the city in which I live: it consists of large signs emblazoned with “AIDS is DC’s Katrina.” Public officials estimate that 5% of DC’s population has HIV; studies have shown conclusively that over 3% does, which puts Washington, DC’s infections above that of Nigeria’s largest city. Nationwide, there’s been an astounding 40% increase from last year’s rate of new HIV infections. (Thanks, abstinence-only education.)

And you’ve been hearing about this nonstop, haven’t you? Everyone’s blogging about the best ways to combat the spread, speculating on what mistakes spurred such high numbers, discussing how to care for those already infected. The Internet’s on fire with HIV debate, alright, but only to the extent that it involves porn—because every aspect of the sex industry presents an exciting new way to be self-righteous and point fingers. That’s perhaps the most important point to keep in mind when examining the recent fracas; critics often seem to care less about HIV as it affects the general public and more about how it will allow them to criticize and police pornographers.

On June 6th, an adult film actress tested positive for HIV. Her name has been kept private and there are currently no known secondary infection cases within the industry. But the finding generated a massive amount of criticism regarding what safer sex measures are or are not undertaken during the making of porn movies. This panic is reminiscent of earlier HIV outbreaks within the industry, such as in 2004, when Darren James infected three female actresses, and in 1989 when admitted intravenous drug user Marc Wallice tested positive.

AIM stands for the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation, the testing body of choice for most performers in California, who are required to be tested every 30 days in order to work. Performers are not required by most production companies to wear condoms, and most don’t when given the option; the understanding is that a performer may not be hired or will be paid less if they do request condom use in their scenes. One notable exception to this is Wicked Pictures, which has retained the 2004 condom-only policy that many companies adopted in the wake of Darren James’s infection, but later dropped with the explanation that condoms equaled less customers.

The line that consumers won’t buy porn made with condoms is by far the most common reason given by adult industry spokespeople when pressed to explain their lack of latex. Lux Alptraum wrote a strong indictment of consumers who criticize the choices of porn companies while supporting those same choices with their purchases, and she’s right that there’s a strong disconnect occurring between what Americans profess to care about and what values our behavior indicates. How can the call for mandatory condom use on adult film sets be so vociferous when we still allow our politicians to allocate massive amounts of tax dollars for abstinence-only education, an approach which often spreads lies about condom effectiveness? Why are we so eager to police the behavior of this select group of adults when we’re not even willing to provide our teenagers with the necessary information to choose condoms in their personal lives?

Sex workers are often the target of social anxiety about morality and disease, and this recent situation seems to be no different. While some individuals calling for increased condom use in porn films (Audacia Ray, for instance) are speaking out of genuine concern, much of this recent discussion reeks of hysteria and scapegoating. The LA Times was the first to report the claim that there had been 16 undisclosed cases within the adult industry, misinformation they retracted five days later with the explanation that those positive cases were of individuals who may not have been working in porn at the time. In this same article, Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Los Angeles county’s health officer, was quoted as saying “The system we have and the laws we have do not facilitate the kind of contact tracing and verification that we'd like to see.” This statement is ominous verging on terrifying for those who fear public exposure as an individual with HIV, or punitive action should they have worked while positive.

If you think such a reaction is melodramatic, consider the following. Utah is one of six states that increases penalties for an HIV positive offender convicted of prostitution. Tennessee is another, where a 28-year-old woman may spend 3 to 15 years in jail for working as a prostitute while HIV positive. Recent presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee advocated quarantining HIV-positive people in 1992 and reaffirmed that position in 2007. Worldwide, AIDS stigma persists and is heightened when the afflicted individual is a sex worker. In Nigeria, Red Cross census results were used by local officials to target HIV-positive sex workers and the UN was compelled to publicly speak out against arresting sex workers as a strategy to stem the spread of HIV after brothel raids in Cambodia.

The adult industry, in addition to defending their current procedures, has pointed out that this push for more policing of the industry feels born out of the disregard with which the industry is held rather than an understanding of performers’ needs and OSHA’s capabilities. Thomas Roche painstakingly attempted to untangle all the he-said, she-said aspects of this drama, and after considerable legwork, arrived at the conclusion that this recent positive test result is not necessarily an indication of failure with the current AIM procedures.

Underneath the blaming and moralizing, there’s the crucial question of what workers themselves want, and why. Nina Hartley and Belladonna have both come out in support of testing and emphasized their desire to keep their sex scenes condom-free. They say that the friction from condoms during long filming periods decreases their desire, thereby affecting their performance, and more importantly, chafes and tears sensitive vaginal tissue.

It’s convenient to believe that the absence of condoms in mainstream porn movies is evidence of a misogynistic male production pool who just don’t care how many women contract AIDS, but if female performers—who, by the way, are increasingly taking the helm as directors and producers—are content with the current system, a change to condoms-only would have to acknowledge and address their concerns. It’s too easy for outsiders rallying for more policing to dismiss these personal statements rather than giving the performers’ interests the weight they deserve. After all, sanctimoniously shouting down sex worker voices is one of the things our country does best.