AHF Push For Mandatory Condoms In Porn Gets Help From L.A. Times, Derrick Burts

In case the L.A. Times’ agenda wasn’t clear before, it is now. Rather than write an objective article on AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s push to make condoms in porn mandatory, reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske (who’s been carrying their water since the Patient Zeta scandal) has done a friendly Q&A with AHF’s Michael Weinstein and Derrick Burts to promote their work on an upcoming ballot initiative. How helpful!

L.A. Times:

Adult film performers would be required to use condoms to obtain Los Angeles city film permits under a measure local AIDS activists hope to put on the city’s June 2012 ballot, activists announced Monday.

Activists must submit a petition with at least 41,138 qualifying signatures (15% of all votes cast in the last mayoral election) by Dec. 23 in order to place the measure on the June ballot, city election officials said. If they succeed, it will be the first time the issue — which has been litigated and disputed during state regulatory meetings — has come before L.A. voters.

The Times discussed the petition drive with three leading proponents Monday: Michael Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles-based nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and former porn performers-turned-activists Derrick Burts and Darren James, who both contracted HIV while working in adult films.

The fuck? The L.A. Times and Ms. Hennessy-Fiske are able to say how and where Burts contracted HIV? Amazing. Why print facts when what people tell you fits so nicely into the narrative of your larger story! Burts, of course, advertised his services on Rentboy while he worked in adult films and could have contracted HIV anywhere, but, uh, whatever? Also, even if Burts did contract HIV while working in adult films (by the way, there has NEVER, ever been a reported case of someone contracting HIV while working in an adult film with condoms–a fact that Ms. Hennessy conveniently/lazily doesn’t point out), the adult films he worked in already used condoms! So, he’s relevant to this discussion how? Because he has HIV? Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? Does feeling sorry for someone with HIV mean that you should also believe whatever they tell you?

Q: Why do you think we need a ballot measure requiring condom use by adult performers as a condition of adult film permits in Los Angeles?

Weinstein: It’s fair to protect performers the same way we protect workers in non-porn films and other workplaces. There’s been a lot of squabbling about whose responsibility it is to enforce these laws. It’s our belief that the city, the county, the state and the federal government have different jurisdictions as it relates to this. The county department of public health is responsible for controlling disease in the community, and the city has the ability to control zoning and issuing permits.

Q: What are the risks of not mandating condoms in porn now?

Burts: My first month I came up with three STDs in a short period of time. I have herpes and that’s something I have forever. It’s not just HIV. My agent told me, when I told him I had herpes, “Well, you might as well continue doing porn, because everybody has it.” That’s the mindset. They don’t care about the safety of performers.

There are more of the same talking points and lies throughout, and even a plug for how you can sign AHF’s petition! Read it if you care.

If this does make it on the ballot, it’ll likely pass because voters are innately stupid and usually have no idea what they’re even voting for. But the problem isn’t that studios will flee the state or “go underground” because they’ll be forced to use condoms (most studios already use condoms anyway); the problem is government being given the authority to regulate how consenting adults have sex and in turn what kind of sex consenting adults get to watch.

Giving state government more control (which is kind of funny considering California is on the brink of bankruptcy and can actually not control anything!) and taking away individual rights is what AHF and Michael Weinstein want–plain and simple. So what’s next? Mandatory condoms during oral sex? Mandatory condoms during mutual masturbation? Maybe a ban on rimming? That Weinstein has tricked a major newspaper into doing his bidding is pathetic. And that’s he using an HIV positive kid as a poster boy for his agenda is disgusting.

 

 [Related: Why Is Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation Selling Bareback Porn?]

 

9 thoughts on “AHF Push For Mandatory Condoms In Porn Gets Help From <em>L.A. Times</em>, Derrick Burts”

  1. I really don’t know where to stand on this issue. Thought I find it ridiculous that Derek is allying himself with this project, the project itself has a pretty viable position.

    Though one question comes to mind; If a performer (heterosexual male or female as gay films always film “safer” unless otherwise noted) decides to refuse to film bareback and prefers condoms, are they removed from the scene? I’ve yet to see a heterosexual sex film that doesn’t tend to include both raw and wrapped scenes.
    In that case it would be discriminatory and could benefit from the proposed legislation.

  2. Your rant is misplaced. The very piece you quote says “contracted HIV while working on adult films.” And you requote it a few times. It does not specifically say “contracted HIV FROM working on adult films.” You may assume that’s what it means, but it doesn’t actually say that.

    Aside from that, I remain amazed that anyone can be against the use of condoms in porn. It’s as if these people want to keep spreading AIDS to their fellow human beings.

    And again, the issue is not “regulating how consenting adults have sex.” It’s regulating the images and examples provided to impressionable youth who get their only sex education from porn.

    1. Ha. You tell me what the average person is going to assume when they read something that says “contracted HIV while working on adult films.” The implication is clear.

      And this has nothing to do whatsoever with being for or against condoms. This is about censorship, and it’s akin to the government telling Hollywood that actors are no longer allowed to smoke in movies.

  3. He is hypocrite but it’s funny how he is trying to let people know he did some kind of philanthropy in his life. Poor dumbass. He is trying to give some dignity to porn models! LMAO!

  4. I don’t understand how AHF keeps waving Derrick Burts around when he’s an example of how the current system works – however he contracted HIV, he was notified before he could infect anyone else through condomless work.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top