December #150 : Editor's Letter-December 2008 - by Regan Hofmann

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues

Table of Contents

Gimme Shelter

The POZ and AIDSmeds Drug Chart

A Porn Star is Reborn

Rest for the Weary

A Herpes Drug Takes on HIV

Popping "the Pill"



Med Alerts

B Sharp

And We Quote

Kids Meds

Positive Thinking

Credit Karma

Strike a Pose

Back to the Future

Knights in Crown Heights

Reciprocity Is Real

MSM Unite!


Wolf at the Door

You Said It...

Editor's Letter-December 2008

Your Feedback-December 2008


GMHC Treatment Issues-December 2008

Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle


Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV

Scroll down to comment on this story.

email print

December 2008

Editor's Letter-December 2008

by Regan Hofmann

Occupational Hazard?

I remember the panic and the media frenzy around the April 2004 announcement that straight (and now former) porn star Darren James had tested positive for HIV. The adult film industry was shut down for 60 days while other actors got tested to determine the extent of the epidemic.

Recently, I got a call from one of James’s friends who said that James was ready to talk about what happened. Thinking back, I now see that his personal testimony was conspicuously absent from the media coverage. Just after his diagnosis—in part because his HIV status had been blasted around the world before he had a chance to face it himself, and before he had the opportunity to tell anyone close to him—James tried to take his own life. Which is why in all the coverage around the incident, we never heard from James. He was too emotionally and physically incapacitated to respond.

James had contracted HIV between two of his regularly scheduled PCR-DNA HIV tests (the industry requires that actors produce negative results in order to keep working); the test can detect whether someone has contracted HIV in as little as 72 hours after exposure. James voluntarily got tested every three weeks (one week earlier than the industry standard). James worked in the adult film industry for seven years, and until that fateful day, he had remained HIV-free. James never filmed a scene after discovering he was positive—it was not his intention to pass the virus on to others.

Testing protects people—to a point. Just ask the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation (AIM)—the organization responsible for testing all porn performers for HIV, gonorrhea and chlamydia and for enforcing the industry’s self-imposed testing regulations. Unquestionably, AIM has made a positive impact on keeping people HIV negative. However, due to the nature of HIV infection, it’s possible that someone may become HIV positive in between tests and spread the virus unwittingly. Given that it’s impossible to police what adult film actors do off-set, the system should be changed to accommodate the fact that actors will have sex with people of unknown status and that testing, even every 30 days, is not a sufficient safety net.

James was the victim of an industry with a flawed system of protection for its workers. He followed industry regulations to a T. Yet, those regulations failed to protect him. The question I want answered is: Why, after what happened to James and others, did the multibillion dollar adult pornographic industry fail to reassess its safeguards? The answer, I’m afraid, was that it had a fall guy in James. By implying that he was an exception—a deviant—the industry could justify returning to business as usual. And it wouldn’t have to cut its profits by fixing a broken system—even though those changes would save lives.

Whether or not you endorse, or enjoy, porn, it is a legalized industry that makes billions of dollars a year. We expect companies that pay people to fly planes or work on oil rigs or excavate coal mines to ensure the safety of their workers. So why do we not expect the same from those who profit from the skin trade?

Oh yes, and as for condoms? Many actors don’t use them because they get paid more to work without them. If viewers were willing to pay more to watch safe sex, the industry might listen. Regardless, it is high time the adult film industry realized the value—both financial and humanitarian—in minimizing the occupational hazards for porn stars. After all, the industry is uniquely positioned to make safe sex sexy.

Search: HIV testing, porn industry

Scroll down to comment on this story.


(will display; 2-50 characters)


(will NOT display)


(will display; optional)

Comment (500 characters left):

(Note: The POZ team reviews all comments before they are posted. Please do not include either ":" or "@" in your comment. The opinions expressed by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong, which is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by people providing comments.)

Comments require captcha.
Please enter this number for verification:

| Posting Rules

Show comments (0 total)

[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar
POZ on Twitter

Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Did you participate in an event for National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2016?


more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.