Printable View
Dev,Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVELISH
Thanks, and that is our hope as well, that condom and non-com studios start testing not only for HIV but other STD's as well. Since testing and response times have improved greatly there really isn't any excuse not to do testing thus providing the safest work environment possible for our talent.
Bill
I don't want to distract from your thread, but as a condom only producer, I still get my models tested. I do not mean to steal your star, but I cannot believe that this is breaking news that you are testing models. Shouldn't this have been a given and have been done all along? Maybe I am just naive, but I have tested my safe sex models from the beginning. Sorry if I am raining on you press parade.
P.S. Kudos for spreading the message of getting everyone tested.
Absolutely. This is the normal way. All models must be tested before a photo or video shooting. It's just a blame, if that normal process step of a shooting is worth a press release.
Dean,Quote:
Originally Posted by deanb
You aren't raining on my parade. I'm glad to see that you have always tested models. We had a thread going, which I haven't checked recently where I asked how many condom-studios actually did test models before a filming shoot. The last time I checked only Chip had responded that his studio tested all models before each shoot.
But I guess the actual facts are that by far the majority of the gay studios who do use condoms do not test, especially those that are considered the "major" which includes those that are most vocal against bareback studios.
Alex, just a thought, but why in the world would you test before a photo shoot? Unless, of course, your photo shoot involves sex between two guys then it's understandable.
Bill
I definitely think a press release is a good idea. It gets people talking. The bottom line is..... EVERYONE SHOULD TEST IF THERE IS SEX INVOLVED. We are in an industry that has it's risks. Minimizing them to the best of our capabilities is time consuming and not always easy. But, it has to be done!
I am going to throw this out there... and lets see what comes back...
I do believe it is the responsibility of the producer to make sure there is testing involved. But for the studios that don't test. Don't you think the models should step up to the plate and say something. I know if i was a model. I wouldn't shoot with a company that didn't test. As people we have the right to say "no... I wont shoot unless there are condoms and/or we are tested". I know a few of my models aren't smart enough to get out of the rain. But what about the rest? You cannot tell me that producers that don't test are that manipulative and throwing that much money around for a model to believe there is a difference between right and wrong.
????
It seems like a lot of the testing that I hear about is "the model has to have proof of a test for HIV that's less than 30 days old." There is a lot of responsibility dumped on the models. The difference between requiring the models to be tested for HIV and having them tested for a full spectrum of STDs is huge. The possibility of a network of models that are tested every month would do great things for the industry. I don't think that network would need to include bareback and condom studios. It would make it easier for clean models to stay clean.
I'm a little out of touch with production costs, but as for model responsibilities, how much does a model get paid for a scene, and how does that compare with the cost of one month of HIV drugs? Unless the pay per scene is much higher than drug costs, it would seem that the models aren't paid enough to take on that responsibility.
I agree with Dean why hasn't this been started a long time ago? If a studio bareback or otherwise claim they care so much about their models waiting for the results shouldn't matter.
I wonder if this is to try to head off mandatory condom useage, or has someone talked to their lawyer or insurance carrier and found out about the studios liability?
There are several reasons that waiting for results is not preferable... One, if the talent is from out of town and were traveling to shoot, then they'd either have to travel twice, or be housed in the interim. This could be expensive.
Secondarily, if you're having to wait for results, you would need to keep the talent under lock and key to make sure that they had no sexual relations during the wait period. If they did, that would compromise the test. Taking the word of a model in regards to them not having sexual relations during the wait time... is the same as accepting their word and not having a test done at all.
In the advent of swifter, more accurate testing, these issues are fading into the background - it's becoming more of an issue of whether the studio is willing to make these sacrifices or not, for whatever reasons happen to motivate them.
I don't work for a productions company, so I'm not versed in costs of filming, travel, model payments, equipment and the like - but what I mentioned above are the problems that I would logically find in having to wait for a test, there may be more that are beyond my kenning, but those are two that stick out the most to me.
Kindest regards.
For us it's social responsibility rather than a liability issue. Others may be doing it out of liability concerns or to avoid regulatory action.
We currently shoot only in the twink sector, so all my knowledge relates to that, but in that marketplace, I think a lot of the models are actually afraid of testing. I know for a fact that some of our models, the testing we do is the first time they've ever been tested, and I strongly suspect that some of them wouldn't be tested at all if we didn't require it. Denial is an incredibly powerful motivator.
We do find that the testing process provides us with an opening to discuss safer sex in a fairly in-depth manner and talk about the risks not just of HIV but of other STDs as well. It constantly amazes me how many of our models tell us that no one, including their health teachers at school, have provided them with the facts and simple information about risks, prevention, transmission, latency, etc.
Sorry I haven't been on the board for a few days but had to make a fast trip to the midwest and just got back.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdynow
I can't speak for other studios but HDK did not decide to start testing due to an attempt to head off mandatory condom usage. To the best of my knowledge no one is talking about mandatory condom usage and if they were, I believe it would be directed more at the straight industry since they are much larger and most do not require or allow condoms in their films.
As for advice from lawyers, nope not that either. Actually, the model release we've been using since we started in business 10 years ago was created by one of our attorneys and pretty thoroughly covered the liability issues surrounding not using condoms.
In regards to insurance carriers, that brings up an interesting question, or perhaps many questions. To the best of my knowledge most adult studios consider their models to be independent contractors. As such, they do not cover their models under workers compensation insurance. Only their acutal W-2 employees are covered.
In California this is a big mistake. The EED has, in many rulings and appeals, determined that models are in fact employees. As such, they would need to be covered by workers compensation. Again, to the best of my knowledge, most studios in California, both gay and straight, still pay their models as independent contractors. I think it would be very difficult to even obtain workers compensation for models without having to go to the state pool to obtain it and, of course, it would be very costly.
Chip, why are you "amazed" that many of your models don't know much about "HIV risks, prevention, transmission, latency, etc. by their health teachers at school?" If they went to a public school, which is funded by state and federal funds, the health teachers are NOT permitted to discuss anything pertaining to sex education except abstinence. I have referred to this many times in many different threads. Thanks to the influence of the religious fundamentalist, or religious right or whatever you want to call them, the current administration refuses to allow public schools to teach anything except abstinence. If they do, they lost their public funding.
Unfortunately, those of us who live in the USA, live in one of the most sexually repressed nations in the world. Remember about 10 years ago when former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders mentioned that she recommended that condom usage be taught in high school? The uproar was so great she was forced to resign.
Kushiel, AIM uses LabCorp for testing purposes. LabCorp has approximately 3,000 locations all across the US. It is our intention to have the model test at a location near where he lives and then come to the shooting location. As for locking them up, you are right, their is nothing we can do to prevent the model from testing and then having unsafe sex and then shooting for us. That is risk that we have to take. But, by testing, at least we minimize the risk. That's really about the best we can do. Fortunately, the turn around times for the test results are very quick.
James, we prefer to do our own testing and get the results directly as opposed to having a model provide us with a test which is less than 30 days old. Many reasons for this. It minimizes any chance the test result may be fake, plus we are testing for a number of STD's that most models would not pay to have done because of the expense. For a model walking off the street into a doctors office and being referred to the battery of tests we are testing for, the cost would average between $400 to $600 for the doctor visit plus testing. Most models cannot afford that type of expense. AIM, due to the economies of scale, can have the testing done much cheaper.
Also James, you asked about production costs and what a model gets paid. The pay for a model ranges all over the board based on many factors. How many times has he filmed? Is he well known? What will he be doing in the film? How many scenes, etc., etc. Most studios don't want to share what they pay models but I can tell you that at what most models are paid, they absolutely cannot afford to spend out of their own pocket between $400 to $600 for a doctors visit plus testing. And, you are absolutely correct, asking a model to do that places way to much burden on the model. And, as Chip pointed out, many models have never been tested. Chip refers to "twinks" but I can tell you it is also true for models in the 30's and 40's as well. I have always found that to be amazing, but it's true.
Alex, if you test a model that is only going to be in a photo shoot by himself, God bless you I suppose, but I really don't understand the rationale behind it.
Bill
Just to make clear, I wasn't disparaging your process in the least; I was just trying to shed light on some issues regarding the veracity of a test if it was administered under uncontrolled conditions. I happen the laud your efforts for bettering the community, and the industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
Without derailing the thread, how long does the LabCorp processing of the test take? I'm curious about the turn-around time available.
Kushiel,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushiel
Thanks. I understood and was only trying to make it clear that I guess that in this situation all we can do is all we can do.
Turn around for HIV result generally occur within 24 hours. The HIV testing is done with a saliva swab using the latest PRC/DNA testing. The other testing we have choosen to do requires a blood draw and the estimate is approximate 5 business days to get the results.
Bill
hdkbill, in case you are not a member of FSC you might want to join. Their latest newsletter states that a Jane Steinberg of LA County is circulating a legislative proposal making condom use mandatory. Plus she is trying to advance other things such as a California record keeping and increasing union memberships.
Thanks for the heads up. I am a member of the FSC and have been for several years now. Hot Desert Knights, Inc. used to be located in California but we moved from there 4 years ago. We do still have our distribution company, HDK Distribution, Inc., located in Palm Springs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdynow
Hot desert Knights, Inc., the production company, is in Las Vegas and we've just opened an office on the East Coast so we really aren't affected by by what Ms. Steinberg is doing. Of course what she is doing will not stand scrutiny and is totally unnecessary since Cal-OSHA already has regs which require "protective barriers"; meaning condoms, dental dams, etc., for the adult film industry. They also have regs that prevent cumming on someone's back or anywhere on their body and they have a reg that requires that adult film producers must offer their models a Hep A&B shot before filming. Most of the industry isn't even aware of that.
She really is wasting her time since the regulations already exist in California. No where else that I'm aware of, just good ol' California.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill first Thanks for this move I hope we can get all the studios to make this an industry standard.
I was away for a week but I posted your press release on my Blog (second news item) right after your announcement.
I have a question and I made a comment about it on my blog.
Did CalOSHA's stance toward the straight industry in 2005 (the bareback poz test of 3 str workers) have something to do with the reticence of your company and other Bareback studios in California to test for HIV's because of CalOSHA's rule that if a model was HIV Poz they cannot "work in Cali"
Here is what I said and if you enlighten me I will correct my blog
Thanks DeWayneQuote:
While certainly a commendable step I wonder how CalOSHA will react, my understanding was the reason Treasure Island and HDK did not test, is because it is a Health violation to have a KNOWN HIV Poz performer perform in Porn. Indeed in straight porn a POZ test is a Career ender!