View Comments (3)

• An enemy of adult industry performers (and cruel homophobe) used to refer to Sean & I, agents Mark Spiegler and Derek Hay, and many prominent porn insiders as "the gay mafia." However, the sad and undeniable truth is, if such a thing exists, the real gay mafia is comprised of AHF, Cal-OSHA and members of the LA City Council.

  This should be obvious to anyone who ever sat in on any of meetings held by the OSHA Standards Board. Their disgust with, contempt for, and ignorance surrounding the "straight" porn industry, and heterosexual sex practices in general, is palpable and astounding.

  But let me be clear: this is not gays vs. straights. Michael Weinstein, as has been pointed out by his many of his critics in the gay community, is also an enemy of gay men and gay sexuality.

  Weinstein strikes me as a sexphobe -- but a calculated sexphobe with an agenda. He exploits sex-related misfortune, and promotes fear, because fear and hysteria around sex -- all sex, hetero and gay -- are essential elements of the marketing of AIDS Inc. Everyone is at tremendous risk of contracting AIDS! -- the marketing myth goes. Your grandfather and your aunt are going to get AIDS! As a leading purveyor of costly (and frequently deadly) AIDS drugs, Michael Weinstein is one of the most successful drug dealers on the planet. He is an AIDS profiteer.

  On a sociopolitical level, Weinstein and his confederates use a ploy favored by the left -- when addressing a complex social problem, almost without exception, the solution offered is not to raise up those who are downtrodden, but instead to spread the misfortune around to those who are not suffering, or suffering less. They do this in the name of fairness. Note, the acronym of Weinstein's ballot initiative organization is F.A.I.R.

  In short, gays in our society have been taught via acculturation and thirty years of conditioning that they must perceive and treat every sexual partner as if he is HIV-positive, and that they should favor the use condoms as a means of both prevention and harm reduction in gay culture at large, as well as in gay porn.

  “We don’t currently ask [models about their HIV status],” says Kent Taylor, co-owner of gay porn company, Raging Stallion. “We assume everyone is [HIV-positive] and if they say they are not, we assume they are lying.”

  A cycle is created -- gay men assume that every partner is HIV-positive, and, in turn, gay men have to suffer with the perception that they too are likely HIV-positive.

  For AIDS fear and hysteria to be predominant, and "fair," this cycle must be made universal: we must all -- gay and straight -- be constantly reminded that we live in the shadow of AIDS. The mandating of condoms in all pornography, and their integration into "spontaneous" sexual fantasy, equals universal, permanent product placement for AIDS fear and hysteria. That is the bottom line.

  Today, the concept and ramifications (cultural and medical) of unprotected sex for gay men is far different than for straights in large part because the perception is so different. This perception also shapes the view and the role of pornography: "I know gay men that, watching a bareback movie for them is like watching a horror movie," says Keith Webb, president of gay studio Titan Media. In gay porn circles, the idea that pornography constitutes escapist entertainment and not strictly sex education constitutes a dissident viewpoint.

  Paul Morris, the controversial founder of the gay bareback porn company Treasure Island Media, says, "Culture is about catharsis, the experience that releases the audience from the necessity to act out what they watch." Morris is in the minority of producers of gay content, but their numbers may be increasing, and sales of bareback gay DVDs are way up.

  Though it may seem odd to those familiar with the protocols and philosophies in and around "straight" porn, many in the world of gay porn are even terrified that a universal testing regime will open the door to bareback porn becoming more "acceptable."

  However, that is already happening, and Weinstein has acknowledged that he doesn't like it one bit.

  As Weinstein told EDGE reporter Peter Cassles, "I lived through a time when safer sex was the norm and 100 percent of gay videos used condoms -- we’re doing everything we can to return to that time."

  What really pisses off a guy like Weinstein (who refers to himself as a "proud" condom nazi) is what's known as "safe sex fatigue" -- the kind of backlash which naturally results from an oppressive regime affecting an arena of personal behavior and intimate and essential as sexuality. At some point gay men rebel against this regime, and this effect is also measurable in the every-increasing popularity of bareback gay porn titles.

  Weinstein is already wildly unpopular in AIDS advocacy circles; seeing an obviously large constituency for bareback gay porn, he was savvy enough to understand that he couldn't start with a crusade that focused on the gay community. So, instead he attacked the "straight" porn industry and, specifically, the testing system at its core, while choosing a process -- the Cal-OSHA process -- that is blind to the type of on-camera sex it regulates.

  You'll note that, in the leaked AHF emails, Weinstein is asked at one point whether he wants to open a "another front" in his crusade, which his cohort Whitney Engeran-Cordova cautiously refers to as "the conversation about condoms": an assault against Treasure Island Media. Engeran-Cordova sounds alarmed ("looking at their content and site.....wow.") and notes that "barebacking is becoming so much more of a factor in the content produced domestically."

  Weinstein replies, "I think it is a sideline at this point."

  Yes, at this point.

• Of course, Billy Boy will probably respond that since AHF is "voluntarily" paying the fees for any legal challenges to the condom mandate law, and the funding for the enforcement of the law will come mostly from the fat fees imposed on those porn producers stupid enough to pay for film permits, then the city will be mostly off the hook.

  Plus, there's nothing that says that AHF and Cal-OSHA couldn't simply create their own "condom squads" like the Posse Comitatus and the other Militia groups formed during the 80's, deputizing themselves as "agents" and using their newly invented powers to raid porn shoots and perform their "condom tests".

  Let's remember that it was AHF and Cal-OSHA who gave us the infamous "syringe squad volunteers" knocking on performer's doors with syringes and faked up warrants intact, asking for blood samples to test everyone for HIV in the wake of the 2010 outbreak.

  Never underestimate the power of big condom contract money, or the lust of paid right-wing voyeurism.

  Anthony

• Anthony, the "“syringe squad volunteers" you mentioned were actually led by a man who worked at the time for LA County Dept of Public Health, but who had ties with (and is now employed by) AHF. Incidentally, he too is featured in the leaked AHF emails. Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals can recount to you my run-in with that fucker at the last Cal-OSHA meeting, in June 2011.

  Also note that, even if AHF were ponying up the money to fund the inevitable legal challenges, AHF is itself a taxpayer supported organization / non-profit corporation.

  Regarding the myth that this ordinance will be self-funding via the exorbitant fee producers would have to now pay for the privilege of shooting in LA, in order for that to work producers would have to continue pulling permits. One of the more infuriating idiosyncrasies of liberal activism and social engineering is the failure (or refusal) to recognize that human beings attempt to adapt to changes, rather than blindly submit. The rules of economics dictate that when the cost of filming permits (and the attendant harassment factor) goes up, what we will inevitably see is fewer producers filing for permits. Fewer permits equals fewer dollars available to enforce the mandate.

  This whole scheme is wrongheaded, and reminds me of attempts made to fund healthcare through higher taxes on cigarettes. Not only does raising the cost of cigarettes reduce the amount of cigarettes being smoked, invariably the health crusaders partnered their tax with anti-smoking campaigns. Looking at their cock-eyed scheme logically, if they'd truly wanted to effectively use cigarette sales to fund healthcare they would have had to PROMOTE cigarette smoking, not suppress it!

  This entire film permit/condom mandate scheme is a monstrosity: a text book case in how NOT to use government oversight.