of the major adult film companies stopped production
in mid-April when it was announced that woodman Darren
James and his fav partner Laura Roxx tested positive
for HIV. According to an AP wire story last week the
two-month ban has already been “partially lifted,”
whatever that means.
While the 60-day respite provided good PR for Vivid,
Hustler Video and a few other multi-million dollar
pussy-grinding machines, most companies continued
to churn out DVDs. The fundamental issue boils down
to this: rubbers. Vivid and a few other companies
began making condom-only films after the last scare
in 1998 when John Stagliano and four porn queens tested
positive for the HIV virus.
Problem is most guys who buy porn find the safe-sex
routines a complete turn-off. Vivid can afford to
absorb the loss. The vacuum has been filled by plenty
of other companies willing to churn out naked lungings.
Since it is impossible to get the entire industry
on the rubber bandwagon, the worst possible solution
has been proposed in California. State assemblyman
Tim Leslie, a republican from Lake Tahoe, offered
up a bill mandating condom use in all adult films.
Keep in mind this bill is in the initial stages. It
may never come to pass or if it does many changes
could be made throughout its long legislative journey.
The bill would require frequent testing for STD’s,
something the industry has been doing since 1998.
What makes the bill intriguing is a clever bit of
buck-passing. It does not mandate condoms. Instead,
it calls for the California Department of Health “to
set standards necessary for adult performers.”
It’s almost a foregone conclusion the health
department would determine one standard that must
be met is the use of condoms in every film whether
produced in Porn Valley or a porn 101-ers basement.
The politician from Lake Tahoe is shrewd enough to
realize the condom-only provision will be tough to
get through the legislature. Not that Tim Leslie or
any of the other legislators have an iota of sympathy
or respect for the porn industry, but if the state
decrees such a measure for fuck vids, why not make
it apply to... oh, say everyone in California? No
way that could happen. Having the provision slip through
the, uh, back door as a safe sex measure administered
by the health department is a more viable option.
Although by no means a good option. If this comes
to pass, gonna be a lot of underground porn circumventing
One must give credit to assemblyman Leslie’s
press secretary, Brian O’Neel, for introducing
a novel but perhaps viable solution to the problem:
digital imaging. “If Mel Gibson can make a cannonball
look like it’s about to take your head off in
The Patriot, then there’s amazing things they
could do with penises and vaginas,” O’Neel
Coming from the spin control artist for a reactionary
republican politician who would just as soon behead
anybody working in Porn Valley, that is a refreshing
bit of candor. I suspect the cost of removing the
raincoat on every stiff stoker in every scene through
digital imaging would be very pricey. Nonetheless,
this is something Vivid and all those producers in
the coalition of the willing sperm tossers should
While I don’t support the mandatory second skin
idea, I’ll do my part to support the current
temporary ban on porn production this month by not
reviewing any DVDs. But I gotta admit this is a ruse
so I can finish off my lonely night with a few words
on the recent baby-sitting scandal in our fair city.
Amazing the lid was kept tight on the affair between
then-mayor Goldschmidt and the babysitter for 30 years.
While there’s plenty of talk around town about
the former mayor bonking a 14-year-old Lolita, seems
like the central concern is whether or not Willamette
Week should have blown the whistle on Neil Goldshmidt
as he teeters into old age with a bad ticker. There’s
a statute of limitation on statutory rape, but none
on reporting a juicy scandal.
One windbag editorial writer at the Oregonian penned
a screed against WW, saying he was more sickened by
the alt-weekly’s dredging up and exposing Neil’s
deep affection for his not-even-barely-legal hottie
than the deed itself. I’m with him half way.
If you can’t get the goods on the guy while
he’s in office, it does seem kind of slimy to
chop off his balls in the 42nd inning of a 9 inning
game. At the same time, would the editorial writer
have written that column if it had been the Oregonian
instead of WW that splashed the scoop on page one?
No fucking way. He’d remain silent if he had
any integrity or more likely he’d write a piece
blabbing on about the importance of getting the truth
WW didn’t do the right thing, only the natural
thing any paper would do when the whispered rumors
from long ago bubble up into the sunlight of the courtroom.
In this case Neil got the shaft when the woman threatened
to file a lawsuit against him in 1994, twenty years
after they licked each others’ lollipops and
what not. Instead of filing a personal-injury lawsuit
she settled for $250,000. The enterprising reporter
from WW found that in the court records.
Call it payback or a proper settlement for the victim
of abuse if you like. Frankly, I’d call it extortion.
This babe did him in and got a quarter of a mil out
of him to boot. Still, Neil brought it on himself.