Dr. Sharon Mitchell and the Rape Trial
Sharon Mitchell poses in a labcoat embroidered with “Dr. Sharon Mitchell”
Perhaps some readers think I am being unduly harsh with respect to Sharon Mitchell. Perhaps some readers wonder if my reservations about Ms. Mitchell are born out of some personal animosity. They are not.
I have never met Sharon Mitchell. I’ve never spoken to her. My first awareness of her came during the 1998 Marc Wallice outbreak, and at the time my focus was on Wallice’s duplicity. It had simply never occurred to me that, given what was at stake, a person would forge their health documents.
Once that possibility moved from the realm of the unimaginable to the factual, and I realized how vulnerable any system of testing was to human error or malfeasance, I knew that I would never put myself in the position of depending on a testing regime to make my films.
I first took a professional interested in Ms. Mitchell in the days and weeks after the 2004 Darrin James outbreak. In short, I was unimpressed with Mitchell’s/AIM’s/”the adult industry’s response. Given the huge number of sexual contacts involved, AIM’s inability to track contacts, and the latency window of the PCR test, simple mathematics suggested a two testing cycle (60 days) “quarrenten” on first and second gereration contacts, and a moratorium on production.
But instead on April 13 Sharon Mitchell announced that it would be only thirty days until first generation could be cleared, which opened the possibility that Mitchell herself did not understand either the window period or the reliability of the PCR test:
First-generation performers must wait 30 days, the amount of time it could take for HIV to appear in measurable quantities, before taking another PCR-DNA and RNA HIV test. If those tests come back negative, the first-generation performers will be declared “clear,” and they will no longer be quarantined.
The PCR-DNA test is believed to have 95% reliability after 28 days. With eight performers on in “first generation contact” with Darren James, all of whom have to be presumed to be HIV+ until proven otherwise, that’s eight chances for someone to slip through the 1:20 odds.
This is an iteration of a classic climbing problem. If you have two bolts with a 50/50 chance of holding against a fall, and you set up your protection so that if either one of them fails your system fails, you have increased your odds of catastrophic failure from 1:2 to 3:4. (1-(.5 x .5 =. 75)). (Conversely, if you set them up so that both have to fail for your system to fail, the system as a 75% protection rate.)
In the case of the eight first generation contacts, all of whom must be presumed to be HIV+ until proven otherwise, the chance of one infection passing through 95% screen is 1 - (.95 to the eighth power) or about 1:3
Even working with the benefit of hindsight, knowing that there were in fact three HIV+ performers in the “first generation”, the chance that at least one of these three infected performers might have passed through a 30 day testing cycle on a false negative is startlingly high: 1 - (.95 x .95 x .95) or about 1:7
The math quickly became irrelevant. Within a day it became clear that AIM couldn’t track the huge number of contacts involved and that a 60 day moratorium on production to ensure their were no second-generation infections would not be observed. On April 14, AVN, published the following:
While the first-generation has been identified and quarantined, and AIM is rapidly creating a quarantine list for the second-generation, there is no doubt that there is already a third- and even fourth-generation in the outbreak.
The third- and fourth-generation is not being quarantined; AIM simply can’t track down that many people fast enough.
Thus we recommend that all adult companies cease production, or at the minimum shoot condom-only productions, until all women who have worked with Darren James since his last negative test, known as the “first-generation” have cleared. That will be on June 8, 2004.
Within weeks the moratorium was breaking down. On May 10 2004 producer/director/owner Jewel Denyle was publicly asserting that production she had engaged in a week earlier had been personally cleared by Sharon Mitchell, and the industry was rife with whispers about other renegade production. On May 11th, just 27 days after the first announcement of the HIV outbreak the “60 day moratorium” was officially over. AVN’s call to use condoms until June 8 had gone unheeded. AIM declared that the three on-set infections proved that their “protocol” worked, and the “adult industry” went back to business as usual.
It was during this time, and in light of the bizarre and inconsistent response by AIM to the HIV crisis, and after repeatedly seeing Mitchell referred to in the press as “doctor” that I became curious about what sort of doctor she was. It didn’t take long to find out where her degree was from, or what the credentials of that organization were.
Well fine, whatever. It’s a cock-up and people are just doing the best they can, and maybe AIM is better than the alternative, and let’s not be too hasty with our judgment.
Then only two months later Sharon Mitchell gave paid testimony as an expert witness for the defense in a rape trial; a trial in which several teenaged boys were accused of violating a teenaged girl with among other things a pool cue, a lit cigarette and a snapple bottle, while she was drunk, drugged, and in a dubious state of consciousness.
Whether or not the boys actually did these things was never in dispute, because they videotaped the entire assault. This is the OC Weekly’s account of Sharon Mitchell’s testimony:
Tall, thin and wearing a black pantsuit, Mitchell outlined her expertise. She’d acted in, directed or produced more than 1,000 adult films during the past quarter century. She had watched the 21-minute Haidl gangbang film several times, she told Justice Brisea, and concluded that “all in all, it was a very amateur effort to make a porn film.”
Brisea began sinking lower in his chair as Mitchell told him that porn actresses often fake intoxication or unconsciousness to satisfy consumer tastes. “There’s a fantasy and fetish for everything,” she said, noting that some people want to see porn involving actors “pretending to be dead.”
But most important for the defense, Mitchell concluded her 13-minute appearance by claiming that Doe was “clearly conscious.” Her evidence? Doe had assumed a “reverse cowgirl position” during the filmed sex and, at another point, “was positioned to receive objects.” She congratulated the defendants, who kindly “lubed” the foreign objects before using them–indicative, she said, of porn-industry professionalism.
Let’s, for a moment put aside the question of guilt or innocence . (The judge did not admit Mitchell’s testimony, the first jury could not return a verdict and the boys were found guilty in a second trial.) Let’s also leave aside the O.C. Weekly’s tone, which drips with scorn for Sharon Mitchell.
The simple fact is that Sharon Mitchell was under no legal obligation to involve herself in this case. She was not under subpoena by the court; she was hired by the defense, and she could have said “no”.
But she didn’t.
Instead, just weeks after being embroiled in the biggest crisis she had ever faced in her professional life, she chose to go into a court room and given testimony on behalf of several young men who had videotaped themselves shoving a pool cue into a woman’s rectum while she was (at best) half-conscious.
This is not well intentioned bumbling. This is a calamitous error in judgment that in my mind calls into question her fitness to be in a position of making decisions that affect people’s lives.
Addendum, June 24, 09
It has been suggested (in the comments on this post and elsewhere) that my criticisms of Sharon Mitchell do not in any way contravene AIM’s efficacy over the last 10+ years, but I am dubious about these claims. My own number crunching, based on data provided to me by AIM board member Ernest Greene after the 2004 outbreak leads me to be high skeptical of AIM’s assertion that STD transmission, including HIV transmission, is lower in the AIM cohort than in sexual active heterosexuals at large.
But the fact is, my mathematics background (a Bachelor of Science that with an emphasis on math and physics that underlays my BFA) is an insufficient tool for making such an analysis, and Ms. Mitchell’s degree from AISHS is no better, and there is no one else at AIM with any epidemiological expertise.
I have suggested that an independent, peer reviewed analysis of the HIV and other STD infection rates from AIM’s 10+ years of testing, with a comparison to sexually active, non-high risk group young adults would put the facts on the table, giving performers the information they need to make informed choices about their health and welfare, and viewers the information they need to understand the human costs involved in manufacturing pornography.
Such an analysis would end speculation and guess-work as to how STD infection rates related to the manufacture of pornography compared to infection rates among various sexually active “civilian” populations, and I’m sure the end of such speculation would be welcomed by all concerned.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Thank you, Tony, for helping to spread the word about this unfortunate lack of judgment on Sharon Mitchell’s part. I followed that case very closely when it was happening and was shocked to hear that she’d agreed to testify for the defense. It was also shocking to me that no one in the industry knew or cared.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Wow, thats fucked up. I hadn’t heard anything about this. Informative article…and sickening. I’m scared that that woman is considered a “Doctor”. This woman still practices medicine?? Thats outrageous.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Alison, Amber, thanks for stopping by and commenting.
No matter how many times I read the transcript of Mitchell’s testimony, I simply don’t know what to think, and if it wasn’t a part of the public record I wouldn’t believe it. I’m sure having read this you can see why we have no regrets at having decide to forgo AIM’s service and forge our own way.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
TC: YD, welcome back to the blog. It’s been a while. Since your comment was quite long, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve taken the liberty of putting my response directly into your comment. Your comment is plain; my response is in italics.
YG: I’ve seen Sharon Mitchell put her foot in her mouth on more than one occasion. That time was by far the worst.
TC: If “putting her foot in her mouth” is how you characterize giving paid testimony for the defense in a brutal rape case, that’s certainly your prerogative.
YG: But ad hominem attacks aside, I don’t see what that has to do with the efficacy of the AIM protocols as a whole. You argued that the clinic has a 100% failure rate in preventing HIV transmission via a working male performer. That’s an odd way to put it. I think it’s more accurate and honest to say that during the decade that AIM has been in operation, only one has slipped through. That one instance was sad and awful. It did result in three further infections. I was extremely angry about it at the time. But I don’t see how you can predict, from that single event, the certainty of an epidemic in the future. Especially now that there are calls for more frequent screenings. While they wouldn’t be a panacea, I do think that bimonthly testing, at the minimum, would be an improvement.
TC: Similarly, if you consider giving a factual account of Sharon Mitchell’s actual words and deeds, and rendering an opinion of her judgment to be an “ad hominem attack” you are entitled to that opinion. I would invite readers follow the above links and revisit the confused and inconsistent response from AIM to the 2004 HIV outbreak. Responding to something like the 2004 outbreak is exactly what AIM’s mission is, yet by early May, AVN was calling for the industry to go condom-only until June because AIM couldn’t track all the potential contacts, and the moratorium was breaking down. After the 2004 outbreak there were also calls for increased testing, but nothing changed. Until this latest outbreak, AIM has stood by its protocols.
As to whether or not AIM has, as I characterize it, a 100% failure rate, or has only allowed one HIV positive performer to slip through in ten years, and what might or might not be inferred from that, I would invite you and anyone who is interested to read Fooled by Randomness: The role of chance in markets and life by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. When the book was first published in 2001 he was widely derided throughout the financial industry as an overly cautious quant, but recent events have brought new respect to his philosophies on risk.
If in the future, AIM is able to convene an independent board comprised of physicians and other persons with expertise in areas of sexual heath and other relevant disciplines who are willing to put their stamp of approval on the current AIM protocols or any future protocol AIM might develop, I stand ready to revise my opinion. But unless and until this happens, my own interpretation of the data, combined with anecdotes from within the industry, and Sharon Mitchell’s own record of misrepresenting her credentials and other “foot in mouth” behaviors lead me to believe that AIM offers a fundamentally flawed approach to ensuring the health of its clients.
Pray that I am wrong, or that AIM and the rest of the industry changes its ways. But recognize that, if/when a black swan event occurs in Chatsworth the price will be paid, not by the producers or the consumers, but by the performers; and unlike AIG there will be no government bailout.
YG: Here’s the question I have for you. You seem to be strongly advocating the use of condoms in porn, which is something I’d like to see more of myself. But I’ve noticed that condoms are not especially evident in your own movies. I believe that Damon and Hunter, the one gay male couple in your productions, are the only pair I’ve seen who used a condom. It’s not like the couples you’re filming are monogamous. Marie and Jack spoke openly of their porn careers. Xana and Dax didn’t discuss it, but they were in fact already aspiring performers with a few scenes under their belts before they came to Comstock Films. Matt and Khym are kinky swingers. They seem like an especially smart couple, the conscientious type who would use condoms outside of their primary relationship. But we never really know for certain what people do in their private lives, do we?
So, given your worry about the potential ease with which men could pick up an infection somewhere and pass it along to the female partners in a sex scene, I’m wondering if you ever have similar concerns about the couples in your shoots. Do you require them to bring up-to-date test results? I hope so. Because if you don’t require that, and you also don’t require condoms, your standards would arguably be lower than those in the main porn industry served by AIM. And if you do require tests, good for you, but it’s still unclear to me that your standards would be superior to those already in place.
TC: My standard is quite simple: I don’t ask couples to take risks above and beyond those that are already a part of their established, private, off-camera sex life together prior to becoming the subject of my films. Whatever this risk is, it exists whether or not a couple allows me to film them.
YG: I’m honestly confused about how you reconcile your desire for the extra safety of condoms in porn with the content of your own productions. Perhaps it makes sense to you because your approach is that of a documentary filmmaker, and you don’t ask people to do things differently than they normally would. Apparently these couples have decided to forego condoms in their own lovemaking, even though they all have sex with other people. I don’t have any judgments on that; I just think it’s a pity those types of negotiations aren’t addressed in the interviews.
TC: If you’re having trouble reconciling, it’s because you misunderstand my position. I believe that people should choose for themselves what risks they are willing to bear, and what measures they are willing to take to protect their health. I believe that the manufacture of pornography under the AIM protocols puts people in the position of doing things with respect to their sexual health they would not otherwise do; things that go well beyond even the most value-free judgments of prudent sexual behavior. My belief is borne out both anecdotally and by the STD rates among AIM protocol performers.
As to what is or is not included in my films, that’s an interesting part of making any documentary, and I recognize that, as Walter Murch would say, “out of the frame” information influences how people understand a film. It’s always a struggle, sometime creatively and sometimes ethically, to decide what to include, and what to omit; and what to talk about outside the confines of the film, and what should remain private. I did not include mention of Xana’s work as a clothes designer, or the other appearances they’ve made on camera, or other details of their private lives which I will not mention here or anywhere else.
If you find my decision to omit further details of Matt and Khym’s personal life ethically dubious, especially in the context of a discussion of on-camera STD transmission, my response is simple. As with all of my other subjects, I talked with Matt and Khym many times over the course of several months prior to filming them having sex—in part to ascertain what their sexual practices were, including what measures they took with respect to guarding against STDs and unwanted pregnancy, and to assure them that they would not be asked to deviate from those practices while in front of my camera. In addition to spending time enquiring into their sexual habits, I also spent no small amount of time reminding them that becoming the subject of one of my films might open up their lives to scrutiny.
YG: But if your concern about the possibility of transmission is as great as it sounds, perhaps you should encourage condom usage during your own shoots regardless of anyone’s private habits. That way, the chance of anything awful happening while you’re behind the camera would drop to nearly nil. Right?
TC: Again, I would say you have misapprehended my position. My concern is over who is asked to bear what risks, and for what benefit. Unless one subscribes to the sort of magical thinking regarding the power of the camera that underlies obscenity law, the risks to my subjects’ sexual health are unchanged by the photographic documentation of one sexual encounter—under terms of their own choosing with respect to sex acts and protective measures—out of the many hundreds or even thousands they may enjoy with one another during their ongoing relationship.
I do have concerns for less quantifiable risks, especially how my subjects’ future prospects may be harmed by appearing in one of my films. This is simply an unavoidable aspect of the work I make, and I do my best to guard against it by making the best films I am capable of making, and hoping that the films and my subjects’ reasons for consenting to being documented in such an intimate way speak for themselves.
YG: I always think it’s good to put your money where your mouth is. Once you do that, there’s hopefully not much room to squeeze any feet in there.
TC: I take it from the turn of phrase here that you disagree with my assessment of AIM and Sharon Mitchell, and in fact, find it hypocritical in light of the standard to which I hold my own filmmaking. I see a fundamental difference between filming established couples engaged in sexual behaviors which are already a part of their personal sex life, and hiring strangers to engage in high-risk behaviors as it relates to the assumption of risk. I ask my subjects to assume no additional risk beyond that which is already a part of their off-camera personal sex lives together. Employing strangers to engage in high-risk behavior increases their odds of contracting an STD infection with every encounter.
June 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
TC: Again, due to the length of your reply, I’ve opted to include my response in your comment. YD is plain text. My response is in italics.
YG: Okay, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I especially appreciate the description of your interview process when screening couples. I’ll immediately confess that I played a bit of an impish trick, because I already knew the answer. Bear with me, please, and I’ll get to why it’s relevant. First, just to be clear, I certainly don’t mean to defend Sharon Mitchell beyond what I’ve already said. I haven’t met her and know very little about her personally. The only other little point that I think is worth mentioning is that the mainstream media often portrays porn in a very negative and sensationalistic light. We’re not reading a court record of her actual testimony, but a reporter’s accounting of her planned testimony. It’s impossible to know for certain if anything was misquoted or pulled out of context. I have seen mistakes happen over and over, most recently as the incorrect “16 performers” figure. So if I sound less hysterical and outraged by that article than you might wish, sorry, but that’s the reason. I will freely admit, though, that it sounds very bad. And I will also say that even if the trial report was inaccurate (I have no way of knowing one way or the other), Mitchell’s comments in press releases issued directly from AIM have made me cringe more than once. I’ve long been uneasy about her use of the title “Dr.,” as well.
TC: As I explicitly stated in the above post, we can leave aside the OC Weekly’s tone, or even whether or not they have reported her testimony fairly or accurately. The simple fact is she chose to be a paid witness for the defense in this trial. That alone is a lapse in judgment that is simply inexcusable. Moreover, if what has been reported as her testimony is only half-true, that puts her judgment beyond inexcusable and into the realm of utterly incomprehensible.
YG: My main point was that, even you distrust and despise her judgment (or lack thereof), she didn’t concoct the AIM protocols all by her lonesome, in a vacuum. While imperfect, those protocols have evolved with the input of multiple people in the industry as the best system to date for preventing HIV transmission within the industry. So they have to be evaluated on their own merits. To your credit, you have done so, and I think your argument is stronger when you focus on that. I’m short on time this weekend, so I won’t quibble with you about statistics, except to say I’ve reached a conclusion which is less pessimistic than yours. I will look for the book you mention after I finish the three which I’m currently reading. I’m not completely uneducated in these matters, though. I have taken mathematics courses up through the graduate level, and I am coauthor of a published study which employed statistics in its analysis.
TC: The long and the short of Talebs’ premise is that people put too much emphasis on odds (which they poorly understand) and not enough emphasis on down-side consequences.
His analogy is that it doesn’t matter what the payoff is in a game of Russian roulette, or whether the revolver has 6 chambers or 1,000 chambers; if/when your number comes up, you are dead.
Of course Taleb wasn’t talking about Russian roulette or having sex for money. He was talking about leveraged financial situations that would produce unsustainable losses in the event of a “black swan” circumstance, i.e, a confluence of multiple instance of “bad luck” considered so unlikely as to be impossible.
I don’t know what conclusions you’ve reached or by what methods. I do know that you have substantially less at stake in the question than I do, and both of us have less at stake than the performers themselves. I also know that the 2004 outbreak was described by AIM board member Ernest Greene as a “perfect storm”, when in fact what happened was quite ordinary; a male performer contracted HIV through off-set activities, continued to be active while his infection remained undetected, infecting three scene partners. This is hardly a perfect storm. This is an absolutely predictable result under the AIM protocols, and it’s well within the realm of possibility that the same thing would have happened with Marc Wallice had the AIM protocols been in place when he became infected with HIV through his off-set activities.
The reason is the way the PCR window period and 30 day testing cycle interact, and a median number of days an infected performer will remain active with an undetected infection can easily be roughed by combining the testing cycle with the median window period for the PCR test.
The figure I see quoted over and over in the sex industry is 11 days. The medical literature is more like 50% after 21 day, 95% after 28 days. But to make the calculations easier, let’s use the 11 day figure and say that all infections more than 11 days old will be detected and no infections less than 11 days will be caught.
Given the 30 day testing cycle that means that a performer will be infected and undetected for at least 11 days, and at most 41 days, giving a median figure for infected and active of 26 days. Given the number of sexual contacts that are likely to occur, I do not find the prospect of a performer remaining active and undetected for on average 26 days particularly comforting, and that’s just the median scenario, using the rosiest estimate of what the PCR test is capable of.
Let’s imagine a “jackpot” performer who is one of those 1 in 20 whose infection is not going to be detected even 28 days after infection. That raises the specter of a performer being infected and active for almost two full testing cycles – some 60 days. Again, considering the number of sexual contacts needed to keep the industry financially viable, that this exists as a possibility ought to give more than a little pause. Now add in the possibility of female to male transmission or male to male transmission through exposure to semen in a group scene and we might start to be getting into “perfect storm” territory.
Now perhaps a person might say, “If such a thing were likely, don’t you think it would have happened by now?”
But the question isn’t whether or not events are likely, the point is that they are possible, and just like it has now been shown that people who thought they had the risk and consequences inherent in the collateralized debt obligation market properly assessed were tragically mistaken, I believe the risks and consequences inherent in the AIM testing protocol have also been misassessed by the people who rely upon them. And just like the financial implosion, if/when the day comes that there is a true “black swan” event in Chatsworth, it won’t be the people making the bets and taking the profits that pay the price, and it won’t be the people who buy the DVDs. It will be Ms. Mary Just Off the Bus, or Mr. Reliably Working in the Biz for 10 Years He Was a Great Guy and Everybody Liked Him who will be on the anvil when the risk hammer comes down.
It’s about who is asked to bear the risks, who gets the benefit, and who pays when the dice come up snake eyes; and I find it as appalling as sending troops into battle without body armor, and then saying it’s okay because it’s an all volunteer force.
Do I sound like a worry-wort? I am.
I worry tremendously about my subjects, and the effect that being in one of my films might have on their lives. In being allowed to document such an intimate aspect of these couples’ lives, I have been given both a tremendous gift and a tremendous responsibility, and I do my best to be a responsible steward of that gift.
I also recognize that my approach to making films does not lessen the risks that are inherent when two people decide to be physically intimate, including but not limited to HIV, other STDs, and pregnancy; and that while the decision to be a part of one of my films may strengthen a couple’s bond, it may also expose the individuals and/or relationship to unexpected stressors. I recognize that any time a couple decides to be intimate in front of my camera, the result may be the transmission of an STD, or an unwanted pregnancy, or a broken heart, or the loss of an opportunity five or ten years in the future.
It is this last bit that I wrestle with the most. If a woman became pregnant in front of my camera, and complications arose as a result of that pregnancy, I could at least soothe my conscience by telling myself that she as easily could have become pregnant the day before or the day after, or even on that very day, but out-of-sight of my camera. I don’t look forward to making this sort of rationalization, but I stand ready to make it if need be.
But were it to come to my attention that a person who had been in one of my films was unable to avail themselves of a personal or professional opportunity as a result of appearing in one of my films, I don’t know how I would feel about that, beyond knowing that I would feel very bad.
If in their totality you find my ethical standards lacking, that is your prerogative. If you are ready to accept “I could not survive financially if I required performers to use condoms,” or “pornographic sex is different and condoms won’t work,” that is also your prerogative. But let me be clear on this: my films are made with the hope and intention of overturning all manner of presumptions about the collision of sex and the moving image—legal presumptions, cultural presumptions, ethical presumptions, and economic presumptions. If nothing else, what Peggy and I have accomplished in the last ten years proves that commercially and critically successful films can be made in a way that does not require performs to take physical risks above and beyond those already inherent in the most ordinary and commonplace sexual relationships.
In 2004 AIM board member and director Ernest Greene said, “I’m all for condoms and always have been. They’re a minor challenge to a good cameraman and a good editor.” But apparently now he’s changed his mind out of concern for internal abrasion, deference to performer autonomy, and/or his unique interpretation of the laws regarding independent contractors, employees, and discrimination on the basis of HIV status. I can’t say what new information Mr. Greene may have encountered that would account for the difference between his position then and now, but if I had to guess, it would be the same information that caused Steve Hirsch to reverse Vivid’s condom-only policy – the precipitous drop of revenues in the “adult industry” that any fool could have seen coming in 2005.
I do not support state-mandated condom use, because 1) I do not believe the state has the means or will to enforce it; and 2) because I believe it will only push an already highly marginalized population further underground.
Nonetheless, the excuses offered for why condoms can’t be used would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the health and welfare of living human beings are at stake. If your market won’t accept condoms, find a new market. If condoms won’t work in the “extended sessions needed to produce porn” then find a way to shoot sex that does not require marathon sessions. The fact that there is and will likely always be a market for materials produced under cavalier attitudes to performer health is no excuse for catering to that market. Creative risk, financial risk, talent, and simple hard work can be substituted for risks to performer health.
Can creative risk, financial risk, talent, and simple hard work eliminate performer risk entirely? Of course not. Sex is an inherently consequential activity. Any one sexual encounter has the potential to alter the trajectory of the participants lives. But the assumption of risk by the producer can substantially mitigate the risk exposure performers face. Against this simple reality, excuses like “But it’s not what the market wants!” or “But condoms won’t work the way we have to shoot sex!” are just lame.
Testing is an excellent idea. If I were actively dating and having sexual relationships with multiple partners I would avail myself of regular testing. And it would be nothing short of criminal to build a business around such high volumes of sexual contacts without regular testing, for HIV and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases.
But if condoms won’t work because of the “unique realities” of making and marketing pornography, the solution isn’t to abandon condoms. The solution is to change the realities, and that is an option open to every producer; and if they lack the creativity, business acumen, and determination to find a way to make it work, they can lay down their camera and say “If I can’t do this the right way, I will do something else.”
YG: If the tone in my post sounded irritated, it’s because I’ve found the tone in your latest posts, well…irritating. Because as wonderful and thorough as your filmmaking process is, it’s just not a model that would work for most pornographers. Your work is unique. The issue of course is not that your standards are too low. Your standards are just so incredibly high. Do I think the porn industry could be doing a better job of looking after performer health? Absolutely, yes. Do I think it’d be wise to encourage condom use? Yes again, although that issue is considerably more complex than I realized a few years ago. Do I agree with you when you say: “This is a population that no one cares about, not ‘fans,’ not producers, and maybe even not themselves.” No, and if you meant that as strongly as it sounded, I’m offended by it.
TC: I guess you’re going to have to learn to live with your offense. That there is an odd person here or there expressing concern for the work conditions under which pornography is manufactured hardly contravenes the colloquial use of the phrase “no one”. Five years ago there was an outbreak that resulted in the on-set infection of three performers. AIM and its supporters announced this was proof that their system worked, and nothing changed. In fact, things have arguably gotten worse with respect to performer health, Vivid’s backtracking on its condom-only policy being one notable example. If my model “won’t work for most pornographers” I really don’t care, and I’m sorry, but now it’ my turn to be the one who takes offense – it’s not that my standards that are too high, it’s that other people’s standards are too low.
YG: You seem to be fundamentally not okay with the way porn is done. I don’t know what would be required for you to be okay with it. What would it take for you to feel alright about it? Would the ideas you’ve outlined above be enough? I’m guessing no, which is why you make your own movies your own way. Although AIDS is a relatively new phenomenon in the human experience, sex in exchange for money or favors is something that’s been around for all of history. I reject the idea that I should feel any shame for looking for something in more conventional porn that I couldn’t find in your movies. I’ve put a lot of effort into finding a few directors who really do encourage freedom of choice and informed decisions on their sets. And I actively avoid movies which contain the most dangerous practices, such as internal ejaculations. It’s a testament of my faith in you that Matt & Khym is the only movie I’ve bought since 2004 which contains a depiction of that.
TC: I don’t know what you’re asking for here. My prescriptions for the “adult industry”? I’d say “learn how to make and market movies in a way that doesn’t treat human beings as a disposable commodity” but it wouldn’t make a difference.
If starting Monday, AIM adopted my “protocols,” by Tuesday there would be producers and performers doing whatever the hell they wanted, just like there were producers and performers doing whatever the hell they wanted, with Sharon Mitchell’s blessing, within weeks of AIM’s 2004 “quarantine.”
There will always be people willing to put their sexual desires above their ability to see the people providing for their sexual desire as human beings – as brothers, sisters, sons, daughters; and there will always be people willing to trade their scruples or their safety to provide for this market. I don’t think this dynamic is inherent to all sex work, but it will always be a part of sex work, regardless of what rules and regulations are put into place. This is the way the world is. The manufacture of consumer goods in China is no different, and each of us decides the breadth and depth to which we will be complicit in these sort of transactions, based on our knowledge of facts, experience, and values.
But if I don’t have a prescription for the “adult industry”, I do have a maxim by which I decide what sort of depictions of sex I will watch:
Regardless of how novel or baroque the particulars of the sex act being depicted, would I be comfortable having sex under the conditions regarding STDs and pregnancy as those exhibited in the material I am watching as I can best determine? Would I be comfortable having one of my adult children having sex under similar provisions for his or her health? Perhaps this is an invocation of the Golden Rule unanticipated by its author, but I find it provides ethical guidance in this situation as well as others.
YG: If you’re disappointed in the way that I (and other people like me) think, fine. I am confident enough in my views that I am willing to go on record with them. If I encounter new information which convincingly contradicts my views, I’ll change them. I am sometimes wrong. I have no problems admitting that.
TC: I have no claim, and thus no cause or right to be disappointed with you. Between your comments here and other of your writings I am familiar with, I think I understand your point of view, and if I disagree, I disagree more on issues of considerably greater consequence with people I still manage to call “friend”. I must confess I’m not sure what you mean about being “willing to go on the record”. Do you mean commenting here? Or are you planning to write a letter to the local paper elaborating on your views about performer risks in pornography (health and otherwise,) and what constitutes ethical porn buying and watching, or otherwise make your views known? Please do scan and e-mail, or send a link. I’m always curious to hear what you have to say.
YG: Nice talking with you again.
TC: The chance to explain my choices and defend my views is always welcome. In his book, Taleb writes that he admires George Soros because Soros is never emotionally attached to a financial position, and Soros is capable of doing a complete about-face in light of new information. I endeavor to keep my mind similarly open and flexible.
June 21st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yogadame writes:
Dear YogaDame, I can’t speak for TC’s other subjects, but I can tell you about our experience working with him.
Short answer: Khym and I had been together, verifiably, for 17 years, when we met TC. We were hardly representative of the standard couple in adult film. I suppose it is possible that we could have been a pair of liars, intent on bamboozling him into letting us be the subjects…but we interacted with TC by email, phone, and in person many times before we filmed. A large amount of that time was spent establishing that we were a couple, and that we were only going to “perform” in ways in which we were totally comfortable.
Long answer: by the time we met TC, Khym and I were fairly well established in the SF sex-positive community, and fairly well-established on the internet as well. It was easy for TC to “check up” on us from many different angles.
The three of us discussed at length just how much of our involvement in the swinging/polyamorous/kink community was pertinent and appropriate to the film. Because the main thrust of our film was to depict that long-married couples can and do continue to treasure sex with one another, in spite of the challenges, difficulties, barriers, and distractions that life offers, we decided to stay “on message” as it were, and to stick with the bulk of our experiences.
This was not difficult, because at that point Khym and I had been open to kinky swinging, yet were a completely monogamous couple for 15 of our 17 years. Our experience in acting on our “non traditional” sexual interests was miniscule compared to our knowledge of living as a traditional monogamous couple. Khym and I were more comfortable addressing a subject in which we were very well-versed. The three of us decided that sticking with our main experience would be best and clearest in a feature that runs less than one hour.
And on a side note: if we’re going to be characterized by a stereotype such as “kinky swingers,” we’d prefer to also have the phrase “and activists in the sex-positive community” appended to that.
Cheers,
Matt (and Khym, who reviews everything to which her name is attached)
June 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Holy shit. I am aware of that case, and had NO idea about Mitchell’s involvement in it. I’ve totoally lost all respect for the woman now. Thank you for posting this.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Matt & Khym, thanks for coming by and lending your voice to the proceedings. One of the consequences of making oneself a public figure is that people will attach labels to you as it suits their purpose. I’m not always happy with names that get hung around my neck, but I seldom handle it with your grace.
Alexa: The substance of Sharon Mitchell’s testimony as reported at the O.C. Weekly and Rancho Cucamonga Voice are shocking in the extreme. But I want to make sure my point is clear:
Mitchell had to know that giving testimony in this case would reflect badly on the organization heads and the industry she represents. Even if she were convinced that a miscarriage of justice was taking place (dubious), she was in no way obligate to associate herself with the case.
In my estimation, prudence would dictate declining the opportunity to go on the record in relation to this case. Just what her calculus was in making a her decision to take the stand — let alone give the testimony she gave — is utterly beyond me.