Best Sex Writing 2013: The State of Today's Sexual Culture

by Неизвестный

  The Pill has been called the most important invention of the twentieth century, and while some believe that designation is overblown—nuclear weapons, the computer and the World Wide Web are also contenders—there’s no denying its powerful cultural impact.

  The Economist put it well in a special issue published on the brink of the twenty-first century: “[B]efore the 1950s the unpredictability of the arrival of children meant that the rights of many women were more theoretical than actual,” observed the publication. “The Pill really did give a woman the right to choose. And though the consequences of that choice are still working themselves out, as both men and women adjust to the new reality, one difference between the passing millennium and those to come is clear: women have taken a giant step towards their rightful position of equal partnership with men. Technology really is liberation.”

  Fundamentalist Protestants and the male-only Catholic hierarchy, who have never been known for their support of women’s rights, have sought ways to reverse that giant step. Laws banning contraceptives outright are unlikely to win legislative approval in the modern era. But sectarian opponents of birth control don’t have to go that far to curb access. If their “religious freedom” argument carries the day, millions of American men and women may wake up to find out their health care plans no longer pay for birth control pills, IUDs, sterilization operations and other methods—and that, essentially, their ability to use birth control hinges on their employers’ religious beliefs.

  Advocates for contraception say Americans should not be sanguine about this issue.

  “The American public—both men and women, straight and LGBT, both young and post-reproductive age—need to be very frightened about the attacks on reproductive health,” Haffner said. “The current attack on whether contraception will be included in health care reform is actually only a small piece of what’s happening across the country to effectively turn back people’s sexual rights.

  “Once the government is able to deny the right to privacy,” she continued, “they can legislate against anyone’s sex life. All of our ability to make our own informed decisions about our sex lives becomes in jeopardy.”

  Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn agrees. Lynn’s activism in this area may run in his blood: he remembers a story his mother told him about how as a young woman she was kicked out of a coal mining town in eastern Pennsylvania for distributing birth control information.

  “Access to affordable, effective and safe birth control was achieved only by standing up to entrenched sectarian interests who were determined to bend the law to their oppressive dogma,” Lynn said. “We broke their grip, and we simply can’t go back now.”

  Porn Defends the Money Shot

  Dennis Romero

  It’s the staple of porn and an element of Americana so pervasive that it has become a term to describe any crescendo in pop culture, from a game-winning basket by Kobe Bryant to an emphatic punch line by Sarah Palin.

  More than twenty years ago Jeff Koons made his soon-tobe wife, porn star La Cicciolina, the star of his explicit Made in Heaven series of huge photo portraits, which, in part, glorified and immortalized the money shot, giving it a place even in the world of haute art.

  Almost everything in adult video leads up to the final “pop,” as those in the business call the visual release of semen. But most of the rest of the time is spent setting up shots and adjusting body parts for the perfect lead-up. Behind the scenes, it actually can be tedious to witness. And there’s no fast-forward.

  Watching Star Wars XXX: A Porn Parody (released in February 2012) being made this summer was certainly anticlimactic. Billed as the most expensive adult film ever, its production was as professional and deliberate as any big-budget Hollywood project: take after take, flubbed lines, megaphone instructions to the cast, minutes if not hours of breaks to set up shots, makeup, wardrobe, extras walking around in storm trooper costumes.

  Even a furry Chewbacca look-alike paced the set—a stuffy warehouse just west of the Los Angeles River downtown—letting out the occasional, wistful growl.

  And Princess Leia. Oh, Princess Leia—played by Vivid Entertainment’s newest contract star, Allie Haze. If not for Haze strutting around the set, her hair in trademark buns, her obscene curves visible beneath a sheer white gown, it all would have been an absolute bore.

  In the last few years, the rise of free online porn—content-rich sites that tease viewers to subscribe for more—and pay-site juggernauts like Brazzers have put the L.A.—based adult-video industry against the ropes. Its answer, in part, has been the high-dollar parody, designed to attract ComicCon nerds, science fiction fans and other pop culture aficionados who must collect everything within their target oeuvre.

  On the eve of the fortieth anniversary of porn’s introduction to the mainstream via Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door, it might be too little, too late.

  “That’s the main reason for the success of my movies—because I went after a different demographic,” Star Wars XXX director Axel Braun tells the Weekly on set. “I’m not going after fans of porn; I’m going after fans of the original source material.”

  Braun’s films, in partnership with Vivid, the industry’s largest studio, have been blockbusters at a time when—as with mainstream studios, record labels and newspapers—online consumption is draining profits. Porn parodies (Elvis XXX, Spider-Man XXX) are a rare bright spot in an industry that has seen its bottom line rocked.

  Filmmaker and industry activist Michael Whiteacre says porn star unemployment is high, with performers “working a lot less and getting paid a lot less. The money is just not there for these girls.”

  And so many adult actors, particularly the women, are devolving to work as “escorts,” a kinder term for prostitutes. Former performer Gina Rodriguez says that if the girls last one year in porn movies—most last only three to six months—they get hooked on the relatively big money and gravitate toward prostitution when the film producers seek fresh new faces and bodies.

  “It’s a money trap,” Rodriguez says. “They take in the eighteen-, nineteen-year-olds, and within a year they’ll be into escorting.”

  In the past, a porn star taking money for off-camera work might not be a big deal. But the straight-porn biz is under attack for its general refusal to use condoms—even on uber-mainstream sets like Star Wars XXX, where producers say prophylactics are optional, but nobody uses them. Porn leaders insist that once-a-month testing of performers keeps the L.A.—based pool of workers safe from the likes of HIV.

  But when straight-porn actors take side gigs as prostitutes to make a living, having sex with strangers off-set, that changes everything. They’re quietly going outside the safe pool. Some are almost assuredly not using condoms, then returning to local porn sets—two hundred porn productions pull permits every month in the City of Los Angeles alone—without a word.

  The L.A.—based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) is on a mission to get state and local authorities to enforce condoms on set. On the surface, it’s not a bad idea, especially if porn stars freelance as hookers.

  But here’s the key stumbling block: that would also mean the end of the industry’s bread and butter—the sacred money shot, shooting semen and all. Industry leaders are fighting tooth and nail against condoms. Even a relatively mainstream filmmaker like Braun says condoms would push production out of state because the mostly male viewers just don’t want to see films where a key component is sheathed in latex.

  “We’re selling a fantasy,” he says, adding later: “Think about it. If you make something illegal that has so much demand, you’re going to send it underground. You send it underground, you’re going to have people not getting tested anymore.

  “I don’t think it’s the right approach.”

  AIDS Healthcare Foundation seized on news in August of another HIV scare in porn. After a performer in Miami had an initial positive test from a medical clinic for the virus that causes AIDS, a weeklong shutdown of por
n production from coast to coast in early September ensued, affecting scores of major and minor productions.

  Luckily for the titans of this industry, it turned out to be a false positive. They got back to work, but not before accusing AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its leader, Michael Weinstein, of being overzealous in their attacks against the porn industry and its wholesomely named lobbying group, the Free Speech Coalition.

  Weinstein accused the industry of “a full-scale cover-up” in its reaction to the HIV scare, noting that it took nearly a week for the public to find out whether the unnamed porn actor actually was positive and that “the results of any confirmatory tests should already be available” before that.

  Because Free Speech Coalition took the lead in publicly explaining the Miami case, Weinstein criticized the group, telling reporters it “is not qualified to investigate a public health outbreak of this kind.” However, FSC’s leaders dismiss his criticism.

  Free Speech Coalition and Manwin, the porn company that employed the male performer, both called for Weinstein to “retract” his allegations. It has been, to be sure, a war of words.

  Porn’s leaders seem to march in lockstep in accusing AHF and Weinstein of having a profit motive: many of them allege the health care group wants to take over testing for porn, wants a potentially lucrative contract for inspecting sets and even wants to get into the highly competitive business of producing condoms—which it would sell to the adult-video business.

  “This is about money,” says filmmaker Whiteacre.

  Weinstein retorts: “We’re not interested in doing testing for the porn industry. We already have our own brand of condoms, which we give out for free.”

  AHF bills itself as “the nation’s largest provider of HIV/AIDS medical care,” and it had assets of eighteen million dollars in 2010. Condoms and porn first appeared on its map in 2004, when a Los Angeles performer named Darren James contracted HIV, apparently during a trip to Brazil, where he worked and exposed twelve female performers to the possibility of HIV-positive status.

  Ironically, back then, some of the bigger producers like Vivid, which focused on softer-core pay-per-view sales at major hotel chains, were condom-mandatory companies by choice, so condoms were used for everything but oral sex. But tastes got raunchier, even in otherwise buttoned-up hotels that cater to business travelers, and the condoms came off for good. After the 2004 outbreak (at least three women who worked with James after he returned to L.A. from Brazil tested positive for HIV), AHF took an official stance in favor of mandatory condoms. In 2009 the health care group started to lobby actively for the rule.

  That’s when the group discovered that using condoms during porn shoots was already required under federal law—albeit a law everyone had ignored.

  Senior officials at the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) say that its interpretation of federal law prohibiting employees from being exposed to blood-borne pathogens (blood, semen and the like) means that condoms are indeed required on set.

  And so, after AIDS Healthcare Foundation began filing complaints against companies like Larry Flynt’s Hustler video empire, carting boxes of DVDs depicting condom-free sex to the offices of Cal-OSHA, the workplace-safety division started levying fines on a piecemeal basis.

  Flynt’s company was hit last March with fourteen thousand dollars worth of fines for failing to require its actors to use condoms. The multimillion-dollar enterprise didn’t even feel the tiny sting. Flynt practically yawned, declaring he wouldn’t require condoms at Hustler productions.

  Cal-OSHA officials admit to LA Weekly that resources for enforcing the federal blood-borne pathogens law are scarce during this era of multibillion-dollar state deficits. Deborah Gold, Cal-OSHA senior safety engineer, said late last year, “We realize that strong, consistent enforcement is imperative to our program. We’re doing what we can within our resources.”

  Cal-OSHA lead counsel Amy Martin refuted that stance in a recent interview. She says the state is actively investigating possible on-set violations but reveals that the state is focused on reacting to complaints—not on digging up problems through surprise checks. The lack of “resources has not prevented us from opening inspections based on complaints,” she says.

  AHF has pleaded with the City of Los Angeles and the L.A. County Department of Public Health to come down on productions that don’t require condoms. A memo from the office of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich in April indicated that condom use was required under L.A.’s permitting process, noting, “California Code of Regulations Section 5193 [requires] employees exposed to blood-borne pathogens to wear protective gear. In the event any terms of the permit are violated during the permitted activity, LAPD has the discretion to revoke the permit.”

  But that’s not happening, even as more and more porn actors in Southern California turn to prostitution, dragging unknown pathogens into the acting pool, thanks to the recession and the severe economic hit from free online porn.

  Trutanich’s office informed the City Council that “it’s doubtful” Los Angeles can “actively enforce” condom use on set. It seems that lack of resources is to blame: imagine the Los Angeles Police Department acting as prophylactic police. County health chief Jonathan Fielding said the same—that regulating the adult industry’s workplaces is a state duty.

  The industry has argued that the blood-borne pathogen rule doesn’t apply to it, that it was intended to cover medical clinics, and that requiring such possible “protective gear” as latex gloves, goggles and face masks on set would be absurd—but state officials say that’s not what the law requires.

  “The idea they would consider applying a rule created for medical clinics and emergency rooms to an adult production—it’s hard to choose from the variety of insulting words: asinine, mindless, inappropriate,” says attorney Jeffrey Douglas, chair of FSC’s board of directors. “If it were in effect, dental dams would be mandatory and everybody would have to wear rubber gloves. Everyone would have to be more closely protected than a dentist working on your mouth.”

  Some porn insiders also note that mixed martial arts fighters (of the Ultimate Fighting Championship variety) are often exposed to blood during bouts that are sanctioned by the state of California.

  Again, the state responds that its investigators focus on complaints, not on proactively trying to unearth exposure to pathogens. Cal-OSHA’s Martin says that if the agency received complaints about blood exposure in “the octagon”—the eight-sided enclosure where UFC competitors fight—the state agency would investigate and issue citations where necessary.

  So far, the industry’s major straight-porn producers (gay porn largely employs condoms for anal sex but often allows the money shot in other cases) have ignored the federal mandate. Cal-OSHA, at the behest of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, has been working on a specific rule that would cover adult video in California—specifically mentioning condoms and the industry instead of relying on federal law that might or might not have been intended for medical facilities.

  The new rule could be taken up by Cal-OSHA’s standards board by the end of 2011—and that will set off a fury in the already hammered porn industry. Nobody knows if it will contain fines significantly bigger than the fourteen thousand dollar fine on Flynt, which he laughed off.

  Cal-OSHA attorney Martin tells the Weekly there’s no way to know if the proposed new rule, designed to force mandatory condom use squarely upon adult-video makers, would actually change the way the business behaves.

  “I don’t know,” she says, pausing. “Hopefully they’ll comply with the law.”

  At a June meeting to discuss the proposed rule in an auditorium at a state building in downtown L.A., about seventy performers showed up, mostly to protest. You’ve never seen such tight jeans and structurally sound body parts in a Caltrans facility.

  During the hearing a female performer stood up and said, “You guys are discussing what I need to do with my own body.”

  It’s
a point frequently argued by some of the women of porn: this is a privacy issue, just like the right to abortion. “I don’t know how they can tell us what I can and can’t put in my body,” Haze says while on the set of Star Wars XXX. “It’s a choice.”

  At summer’s Adultcon convention downtown, porn star Trinity St. Clair was wearing a schoolgirl uniform, inspiring a gray-haired man to say, “She looks barely old enough,” before he posed for a picture with St. Clair. But talk turned more serious when she said, “We get to decide what we want to do as women. It’s kind of like abortion and those rights.”

  Perhaps the most interesting argument against using condoms in porn movies comes from Roger Jon Diamond, a Santa Monica attorney who has been involved for many years in defending strip clubs and adult businesses. He cites freedom of speech.

  “I would say such a rule would interfere with the First Amendment right of the producer and director to create a product,” he says. “I don’t think the state has the authority to do that. It would be a public health issue versus a freedom-of-expression issue. If it interfered with the artistic nature of the movie, I think there would be a First Amendment argument. But, in terms of politics, I don’t think the industry wants to take on this battle.”

  It would take serious time, dollars and legal might for the adult biz to fight for its right to the money shot as a form of artistic expression. But some in the industry are gung-ho. Mandatory condoms, says porn star and activist Nina Hartley, would be “prior restraint on speech.”

  The death of John Holmes (the inspiration for Mark Wahlberg’s character in Boogie Nights) in 1988 was attributed to AIDS, and many blamed his “crossover” work in gay film and his alleged drug use.

  Denial is a river that overflows in the industry of smut, and Holmes was seen by many performers as a victim of his own lifestyle choices. It wasn’t until 1993, when another HIV outbreak hit the industry, that porn began to think seriously about how to confront the virus and other STDs, says William Margold, an industry veteran and gadfly who has worked as a writer, actor and filmmaker since the early 1970s.