In an incisive piece on Salon, adult performer Lorelei Lee writes about her concerns with the condom ordinance that the city of Los Angeles recently passed. Like many in the adult industry, Lee questions the motivation of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which set into motion the events that would culminate in this ordinance.

Lee writes:

The ordinance comes in response to a campaign spearheaded by Michael Weinstein, head of the San Francisco-based nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation. In the last few years, Weinstein, alongside similarly agenda-driven Shelley Lubben of the Pink Cross Foundation, has aggressively campaigned to mandate the use of condoms in heterosexual adult films, enlisting half a dozen adult performers, boycotting the Marriott Hotel chain for carrying condom-less porn, suing the L.A. Department of Public Health, and staging protests throughout Los Angeles at industry events and at AIM headquarters. Weinstein called AIM a “fig leaf” over the adult industry and backed the lawsuit that led to the organization’s financial insolvency and shutdown last year, which left a vacuum in health and safety protections in the industry. Weinstein seemed to hope that leaving performers without any kind of health protection would force legislators to mandate condom use. If the city of Los Angeles had not passed the ordinance this week Weinstein had a backup plan: Using AHF funds, he had collected 70,889 signatures to put the condom-mandate question to Los Angeles voters in June, a move that would have cost L.A. $4.4 million.

We’ve written about Shelley Lubben before. She was part of the opposition at the Cambridge debate discussing whether pornography provides a good public service (for those curious, porn won that debate by 44 votes). Other sex bloggers have had occasion to mention Lubben, most notably because of her affiliation with Gail Dines, another tireless sex-negative, anti-porn crusader:

Gail Dines and her colleagues insist that when men view porn, it leads them to child molestation, and when women view porn, it gets them gang-raped. However, the actual data tells a different story. So insidiously effective is this tactic of fomenting moral panic [...] that Gail Dines even headlines in left-wing women’s media.

Look under the hood and you can see Gail Dines’ campaign is promulgated by Christian groups and companies with explicit anti-gay histories, that her most visible sidekick is faith-based Pink Cross “charity” founder Shelley Lubben, or that among her most vocal supporters is former Bush-era Obscenity Task Force Prosecutor Patrick Trueman (whose own “Porn Harms” group crows with obvious delight at censorship of sex-positive discussions). Here too, the fear-inducing messages—and the thinly-veiled threat—is the same: “good girls don’t; men are predators.”

Lubben is no stranger to anyone writing about the issues facing freedom and sexual expression in a sex-negative culture. Her agenda is not limited to pornography, either. Lubben doesn’t see a difference between the abusers who create porn, the monsters who watch it, and homosexuals. The following is a clip from a site created by the adult industry and dedicated to questioning Shelley Lubben’s motives:

In her critique of the condom ordinance, Lee continues:

Among performers I know, there is a mix of opinions as to whether they mind actually using condoms on set themselves — a different question than the one of a legislated condom mandate. Some, like Nina Hartley, who is also a sex educator and has training as a nurse, are strongly opposed to using condoms at work, believing that they may actually increase likelihood of STI transmission. Personally, I’m not opposed to using condoms during my shoots — in fact, I already do. I became a condom-only performer in 2010, after eight years of working non-condom. But during my time as a non-condom performer, I never once contracted an STI on set that condoms would have prevented, and truthfully, I’m not sure that condoms actually keep me safer than testing alone. Further, I would never want to work on a set that required condoms in lieu of STI testing.

[ ... ] What performers like Hartley and I are equally opposed to is being condescended to by hypocritical zealots like Weinstein and Lubben who are obviously motivated by a concern for something other than our health and safety. Who have, in fact, shown a “blatant disregard” for the health and safety of industry workers by making it more difficult for us to use the protections we already have in place when their actions led to the closure of AIM. We’re also opposed to the squandering of AHF resources – resources that could be effectively used to help prevent and treat HIV and AIDS – on a political campaign against an industry whose health and safety regulations are already working. In the decade since AIM began the program of mandatory testing, six performers have tested positive for HIV, and only three of those have shown to be from on-set transmissions. That’s three transmissions during the course of filming tens (or perhaps hundreds) of thousands of scenes. There are no real statistics as to how this compares to transmission rates in the general population. Rather than concrete evidence, Weinstein has used references to AIDS as a scare tactic, leading those who have been affected by the disease, like City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, to believe that a condom mandate would actually have some effect on HIV transmission rates. Condoms, even when used “consistently and correctly,” do not have a 100 percent success rate. Although numbers vary, one study showed condoms to be only 80 percent effective against HIV transmission in couples of different sero-statuses (in which one partner is HIV positive and the other negative). I have a hard time believing that condom mandate, if it is even possible to enforce, is likely to have a higher success rate than testing.

We covered the some of the various attempts the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) launched against the porn industry’s Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation (AIM), which eventually succeeded in May of last year, leaving performers exposed, as Lee writes.

The most unfortunate part of this conversation is that porn carries with it a lot of baggage. Even this, a conversation about workplace safety and employees, is easily derailed by questions about what porn does to men, whether porn exploits women, and what porn teaches children (children? Yes, children! We’re not kidding, this is a question that’s been raised time and time again in the context of this discussion). As a result of these emotionally-charged tangents, the discussion about what would really benefit performers never happens.

Lee writes:

Weinstein has remarked that the L.A. attorney’s office is trying to “thwart” voters’ will, but what stake do Los Angeles voters have in this matter? I’ve heard too many times the claim that the adult industry is acting irresponsibly by portraying barrier-free sex when – as the argument goes – people of all ages are getting their information about sex from pornography. But the overwhelming majority of porn is fiction, and the world it portrays is one of fantasy. I have to believe that most people who encounter porn know this. We don’t generally expect other forms of entertainment to be responsible for disseminating health and safety information. If pornography is in some capacity replacing sex education for people in this country, then mandating condom use is a ludicrously indirect way of addressing that problem.

Image of Lorelei Lee via Twitter.

It’s hard to say how much revenue the porn industry has lost to free porn tube sites. No matter what they do, they can’t seem to bring their sales back to the levels they saw before these sites made access to porn so easy. Tired of fighting, the adult video production company Pink Visual is joining their ranks.

Sort of. They’re working with other studios in the industry to launch an entirely free, ad-supported streaming site that will bring fans the porn they want while still creating a direct source of revenue for the studios that provided the content.

“In talking to the heads of other adult studios about the state of the market, one of the most frustrating things for them in recent years has been seeing their content generate literally millions of views on free sites that are displaying their content without their permission, and yet they get no direct revenue from all those views,” says Pink Visual CEO Allison Vivas. “On the site we’re developing, the advertising revenue generated by views of their content is shared directly with the studio. The more their content is viewed, the more the studio earns.”

This is great news for the consumer — though not entirely surprising. Pink Visual came to be in the time of web, eventually turning itself into the first mobile site for iPhone. By 2009, Pink Visual had developed its mobile offering to run on the majority of popular U.S. smartphones. In 2010, they moved aggressively into the tablet space. They know these here intertubes.

Also, the move to create a tube site that benefits studios directly fits with Pink Visual’s aggressive anti-piracy stance. If they can bring better quality content to viewers, they could stand to really hit the tube sites where it hurts: the bank account.

Their motto “We Innovate, You Masturbate” is right once again. Power to you, Pink Visual. We’ll be in our room if you need us.

Header image via PinkVisualPass.

Patrón knows how bummery it can be to worry about what you’re doing on Valentine’s Day, so they’re throwing you a line. A chocolate-coffee line. No, this isn’t some unholy partnership with Starbucks, but it could be if you took out all the sugary nonsense from your mochaccino. Oh, yes. XO Cafe Dark Cocoa is hardcore. It has no use for that sweetness. Picture the booze power of Patrón Silver rushing through a field of coffee and cocoa beans.

Last week, Google’s social network Google Plus (Google+) opened its doors to users 13 years of age and above. In order to prevent minors from accessing adult content that sometimes appears on this blog, our editrix created a Google+ Page to disseminate our posts (you may have noticed the button on the far right column). To illustrate the page, we put up the same image we have on our Facebook page.

The very next day, we noticed that the image had been yanked. To make sure it wasn’t a glitch, we uploaded it again. No more than six hours later, the image was gone once again.

In protest, tireless anti-censorship campaigner Brandon Campeaux, issued a statement to the network’s photo team this evening, asking why the photo had been censored:

Is it because of the darker skin as we near the pubic region that gives us the impression that there is in fact pubic hair? Or are we offended by the belly-button, ribs, or can we simply not handle the curvature of the female form? I wonder because I don’t see anything wrong with this image and while it was banned twice, this other image (right) of a man’s curves went unscathed.

The Google+ Photo Team will go after this innocuous page avatar for a sex column but pay no attention to images that show up for common keywords relating to porn. First of all, I don’t think anything should ever be censored unless the content is illegal (e.g. child pornography). But the mere fact that Google has not penetrated their porn problem by filtering images that match frequently used keywords for review is a sign that the team isn’t reinvesting their talents in the company. Any first year programmer could write a script that culls images that might violate policy. Instead we have a focused effort to go after the accounts with the most followers — but only some of them, and never in a consistent manner.

Campeaux included the following image as a means of illustrating his point:

Our editrix responded to the post with some critique of the network: “This yanking of content or limiting viewing to the post without warning makes it a little anxiety-inducing to post, which is what I wanted to avoid in the first place when I created the page for Sex and the 405.”

Later that evening, Brian Rose, the community manager for Google+ photos, responded the thread:

I don’t believe … photos of men from behind violate our content policies. You can show a person’s bare buttocks on network (non-cable) TV, like ABC’s “NYPD Blue”. Likewise, the image in your screenshot titled “Banned” should not be flagged as far as I can tell. If what’s visible in your screenshot is the entire image, if you send me a link to the original flagged photo I’ll follow up with our Review team so I can clarify why this judgement was made or un-flag this photo.

When Rose realized the image was a profile picture he added:

Oh, that’s likely the reason — profile photos are held to a stricter standard than photos shared in the stream, I believe because they may also show up on Google.com search result pages, other Google services, etc. I’ll still raise A.V. Flox’s photo with our Review team, and thanks for continuing to share your feedback.

He pointed to the Google+ content policy, which states: “Your Profile Picture cannot include mature or offensive content. For example, do not use a photo that is a close-up of a person’s buttocks or cleavage.”

“I believe you can share photos of buttocks in a post, but that same photo can’t be used as a profile photo,” Rose told another commenter on the thread.

What happens when the profile picture depicts neither breasts nor buttocks? Or are abs really so very inappropriate?

The content on the actual Sex and the 405 page has not been censored or limited and remains accessible to people following that stream.

We just got a curious e-mail from Tod Hunter, an adult industry reporter and blogger, saying there have been “reports of Legionnaires’ Disease” at the Luxor in Las Vegas and that people attending AVN’s Adult Entertainment Expo may have been exposed. Hunter warns:

The incubation period for the disease is between 10 days and two weeks, so anyone exposed during AVN Adult Entertainment Expo would be feeling the effects now. And maybe thinking they’re getting the traditional post-show January cold.

According to the Mayo Clinic, Legionnaires’ symptoms include headache, muscle pain, chills, and fevers that run 104F or higher. By the second or third day, symptoms include coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, loss of appetite, confusion or spaciness, and gastrointestinal issues such as nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea.

A milder form of this disease is Pontiac fever, which usually doesn’t develop beyond primary symptoms and which clears within two to five days. Most healthy people can recover from the disease with antibiotic treatment, but death can occur in five to 30 percent of cases, if symptoms progress and the disease is left untreated, warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There has already been one death associated with this recent outbreak at the Luxor. The Las Vegas Review-Journal writes:

Bacteria that cause Legionnaires’ disease were found in water samples taken earlier this month at the Luxor after a former guest died of the form of pneumonia, officials with the Southern Nevada Health District said Monday.

[ ... ] Testing of the water done after the CDC reported the death to the health district on Jan. 6 found conclusively that the Legionella bacteria were present in the water system, a preliminary investigative report issued by the health district revealed. The incubation period for the disease is between 10 days and two weeks, [senior epidemiologist with the health district, Brian] Labus said.

Early last year, there was a Legionnaires’ outbreak among guests who had attended an event at the Playboy Mansion to benefit Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vax Generation Rescue Autism Foundation. According to the Los Angeles Times, at least 170 fell ill after being exposed to a whirlpool spa on the Holmby Hills mansion grounds.

Photo from AVNs used in the header collage by Michael Dorausch.

Umar Kahn is a 34-year-old computer technician who likes to drive around late at night. Nothing new there — late at night is the only time Los Angeles is not gridlocked in traffic. It’s probably the least annoying time to be on the road in this town. Unless you run a stop sign, that is.

So you get pulled over. Running a stop sign is not that big a deal when there’s no one else on the road. Maybe the cop will understand, you think as the Glendale officer makes his way up to your car. He knocks on the window. License and registration. You know the drill. The cop shines a light in your face. No biggie. You start explaining. Then the light shifts down to your lap.

You’re not wearing any pants.

This should be someone’s nightmare — you know, the L.A. version of showing up naked at a board meeting or to defend your dissertation. Except it’s not. This actually happened last week to the above-mentioned man.

According to CBS2, when the police asked the man to explain why he’d removed his pants and underwear, Kahn explained that he was sexually frustrated. He hadn’t had sex in a month, he told them.

Didn’t Glendale’s Police Department get it? Stripping in his car gave Kahn a sense of freedom. “My thing is the freedom,” the butt-ass naked man elaborated.

And it doesn’t stop there. LAist writes that the drives are only part of the kink. The plan, it seems, is to get high, drive around and find a cul-de-sac where Kahn can park and help himself relieve his sexual frustration.

“Los Angeles County Superior Court records indicate Kahn was convicted for indecent exposure in 1998,” writes LAist’s Lindsay Ross-Williams. He’s being investigated for a situation similar to this more recent incident, which unfolded a year ago — in Pomona! That’s 43 minutes away for those of you who are not from these parts. There is “getting around” and then there’s getting around!

We seriously can’t imagine any kink that’s more L.A., driving around desperately seeking parking, before one can actually get off. Come to think of, it sounds a lot like our sex lives. Except, you know, we wait until we get there to take off our pants.

Photo by Daniel Echeverri.

Tired of real life? Leave your responsibilities behind and enjoy an extravagant evening of eye candy and self-indulgence at the Playboy Mansion’s Venetian-style Kandy Masquerade on Saturday, February 25. You won’t see any elaborate ball gowns here — if previous parties are any indication, the masks on guests’ faces probably cover more than their outfits do. Assuming they’re wearing any. As far as Playboy is concerned, body paint is the height of fashion.

The world hasn’t seen this brand of decadence since Marie Antoinette’s time.

Never mind what the 99 percent did to her! If you have money to burn, what’s a grand? Lux Deluxe is even throwing in a cabana offer for you and nine friends for only $10,000!

Yeah, our editrix doesn’t pay us enough to get in there, either. But before you join us in a homicidal spree around Bel Air, consider that all proceeds from Kandy events go straight to charity organizations. This particular one will benefit the V Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to helping find a cure for cancer through research, advocacy, education, fundraising and philanthropy.

With Valentine’s Day right around the corner, we’re racking our brains to offer you some ideas.

Today, while procrastinating on another article, we happened to encounter this beauty from Les Jeux Du Marquis, a company we mentioned a couple of posts ago when we were gushing about the new ainsley-t boot.

For $480, you can spoil your master or slave something proper — the appropriately named Lovechain Collar is grinded, hand-painted, two-tone black cuoio accessorized with satinated brass. We’re enamored of the level of detail.

Here are some close-ups:

We knew you’d like it. Suddenly, Valentine’s Day doesn’t seem like such a raw deal after all. Or maybe it does — but in just the right way.

We’ve gotten word that AfterDark LA, the LA Weekly‘s sex blog, is pivoting from its L.A. focus to a national one in order to appeal to a wider audience. This no doubt includes taking a step back from adult industry happenings to an extent, which is a damn shame since most other mainstream media properties online have a tendency to be unabashedly sex-negative.

But don’t be sad, we have you covered. To satisfy all your civilian cravings about what’s happening in Porn Valley, we present Porn Valley Vantage, a great blog run by eminent pornologist Dr. Chauntelle, a visiting scholar at USC’s department of sociology and academic whose primary interest is in the expansion of women’s rights and opportunities in the adult film industry.

In Porn Valley Vantage, Dr. Chauntelle reviews films and comments on happenings in the adult entertainment industry.

“Everyone has an opinion about porn -– it’s either good or bad, exploitative or liberating; it’s super hott, or it’s just plain nasty,” she says. “But I’m here to tell you: it’s more complicated than that. Just like real life, porn is multi-dimensional and complex, and every discrete element is also part of a wider socio-cultural past, present, and future … Porn Valley Vantage engages these complexities, connecting the dots and offering readers a unique take on the adult film industry.”

Image of the Valley by Tony Hall.

Valentine’s Day can be stressful, if you or your significant other care about such trifles. Fear not — UrbanDaddy has scored a major win for you. Anytime within the next fifteen days, you can purchase a two-night stay at the boutique Palihotel on Melrose for $400. The room alone would otherwise run you around $550 without the offer — and that doesn’t even include the massage. Oh, yes, this perk comes complete with a couple’s massage, $100 in minibar stock, and $75 at the hotel’s restaurant. That’s a deal if we ever saw it.

Of course, if you hate that kind of stuff — or want to break up with yout significant other but until now didn’t know how — you can send this.