After reading several news articles and commentaries, I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is real, and how much of it is a scare attempt by the right wing to force the porn industry to use condoms.
One commentary points out that the lab called the star with the results and that labs NEVER do this.
One commentary points out that the lab only said that the sample was "contaminated". That doesn't mean HIV positive - that means something happened to the blood that makes the tests worthless.
Another article points out that the porn industry "has considered running away from Los Angeles to shoot, considered not getting the required permits as well as brazenly continuing to break the law—they’ve considered everything except complying with the law. It is high time these laws requiring condom use by adult film performers—both Measure B and the previously existing Cal/OSHA statutes—are enforced on city, county and statewide basis." making it very clear that the position of the writer is that the porn industry should be using condoms. In fact, the majority of the article was less about the fact that someone may have tested positive and more about the fact that the industry doesn't use condoms. It's as if the writer has an agenda.
One of the things that bothers me about the article is the comment: "Testing is not prevention". Um, excuse me? The industry currently requires stars to get tested, and the production companies verify the test results before allowing anyone to perform. So, yes, testing is prevention in the sense that someone who tests positive won't infect someone else because they won't do any scenes with anyone else. Or at least that's the theory - I suspect that some producers completely ignore the tests. THAT'S where the real problem is. If the industry did proper checking of the tests, and did not allow someone to perform who was infected, it WOULD prevent further transmission of the virus.
And that's where the real tragedy is - if some of the producers weren't so slipshod about the testing, and preventing a person who tests positive from performing, there wouldn't be as much of a need to enforce condoms. Of course that won't stop the right wingers from still shouting to the hilltops that people have to use condoms - they'll simply find another excuse or reason. But, if the industry properly followed its own rules and procedures, there would be fewer problems all around.
Another point to be made here is: assuming the woman is HIV positive. How did she get infected? She's being considered part of the "first generation" of infectees so people seem to be taking the attitude that she brought the virus into the industry and others who performed with her may have also been infected. So, um, how did she get the virus in the first place? It was, if you follow the logic, not from doing porn. So forcing the porn industry to use condoms won't prevent performers from getting HIV - some still can/will get it from sexual activity done outside the industry.
Again, this whole thing is in the early stages and as more information develops and becomes public, we'll be in a better position to judge. But, right now, I really wonder how much of this is paranoia, and how much of it is being exaggerated by the right wingers to force their views upon others, and how much of it indicates that a real problem exists.
Only time will tell how this plays out
