May 22, 2013

New Documentary Exposes Shelley Lubben’s Lies-UPDATED!

b87457bb8538f263f83b64787d39a3e9 New Documentary Exposes Shelley Lubben’s Lies UPDATED!

Lubben’s told so many different versions of her “path,” she herself may not know which parts are true.

Update: Previously non-working links have been repaired, and Episode 2 expanded by the filmmaker)

LOS ANGELES—Now that the 2011 AVN Awards are over, it’s time to start thinking about 2012… and one of the early favorites for next year’s Reuben Sturman Award might just be documentary makers Michael Whiteacre and Lydia Lee (who performed in movies under the name Julie Meadows).

The reason for considering such an honor? The pair have just released on the first two parts of their upcoming feature-length documentary, The Devil and Shelley Lubben—and it’s a blockbuster!

Anyone who’s been reading AVN for the past few years knows who Shelley Lubben is. She runs the non-profit (though likely not non-profit for her personally) Pink Cross Foundation, whose mission is to “save” porn stars from themselves; that is, from their occupation of making sexually explicit videos.

Lubben, who’s most recently been outspoken on the subject of requiring porn stars to wear condoms and other “barrier protection” while filming—she’s for it, of course—is herself a former performer, in that she made 17 movies in 1993 and 1994 (she claims more but has yet to provide any proof). But part of her schtick is that she claims to have contracted both herpes and papilloma virus (HPV) during her brief stint in front of the cameras—and that’s where Whiteacre and Lee begin their dissection of Lubben’s web of lies.

“As a survivor of the porn industry, I contracted human papilloma virus and herpes, a non-curable disease which later led to my battle with cervical , where I had to have half of my cervix removed,” Lubben is seen announcing from a rostrum in Episode 1. “I also battled with severe anemia due to hemorrhaging I experienced for 12 years—in fact, I am still battling with damages to my reproductive organs. I have suffered much at the hands of the porn industry, but after eight long, hard years of recovery, and by the grace of God almighty, I escaped that hell and stand here, a mom with three beautiful daughters, thanks to a wonderful man, a godly man who stood by me in my horrible recovery. I have the perfect life.”

“I want you all to know that the last thing I want to do, people, is talk about porn,” she continues, “but my compassion for those people who are in modern-day slavery right now—I was overwhelmed, and so I went back to the industry and I began to reach out to them, and of course, I’ve been called every name in the book, you can imagine, but that didn’t stop me, and I founded Pink Cross Foundation, a non-profit organization that reaches out to workers, offering help, a way out, education, friendship. We go to porn conventions; we go to nightclubs, and heck, I even sing porn star karaoke to them.”

There’s just one problem with those statements: They’re likely a pack of lies—and Whiteacre and Lee detail just how false her words are, usually by using… her own words!

But that comes a bit later. The beginning of Episode 1 traces Lubben’s origins, from her birth in Pasadena to her eventual move to nearby Glendora… and her mental move to Cloud Cuckooland.

“Shelley began hearing voices at age 7, when Jesus told her one day she’d be famous,” narrator Sam Phillips intones, followed on-screen with a title card quoting Lubben from her self-published book, The Truth Behind the Fantasy of Porn: “I loved Jesus very much. He used to talk to me all the time. And so I always knew that I was special but it seemed that no-one else saw that about me.”

According to the episode, Lubben’s parents stopped taking her to church at around age 9, and so of course it wasn’t long before she began misbehaving.

“Shelley began making up wild stories about men trying to kidnap her, but she would eventually come clean and nothing would change,” Phillips says over images of family life in the ’60s. “Her mother still called her ‘peculiar’ rather than ‘talented,’ and her father still spent his spare time working in the garage. By turns lazy and hyperactive, and unhappy competing with her baby brother for mom’s attention, Shelley was a difficult child to manage.”

But by Lubben’s own admission, she was a cheat and a liar.

“I cheated my way through high school,” she admits in her book, which is quoted on-screen. “I officially do not deserve my high school diploma, but I was so smart, I was able to cheat my way through. I was a nightmare as a teenager, so I began having sex, smoking pot, drinking alcohol, just partying, and my dad basically said, ‘Listen, if you don’t get your act together, I’m going to kick you out.’ I was about 18 years old, almost 18.”

But sure enough, after losing her driver’s license and being caught stealing from a local store, her dad did just what he promised. But that’s okay, because Lubben had already learned the lessons she’d need for later life.

“I learned to become a hustler in high school, so imagine what I learned on the street,” Lubben is seen telling an audience. “Now I’m a con-artist, now I’m learning how to rip men off, how to get their , how to manipulate con-men out of every last dollar; how to get exactly what I wanted from a man. And I loved it because I got all the attention I ever wanted.”

“The attention was like a drug for me. I was desperate for attention. Of course, the fast money was a major attraction,” title cards quote her as having written. “I became a professional liar and could literally lie my way out of anything,” she wrote on a Christian blog.

It’s a point that Whiteacre and Lee make several times during the course of the episode: One of Lubben’s primary motivations is her insatiable need to be noticed—a desire that easily led her into porn… by way of six years as a prostitute—a part of her history that she quickly forgets whenever it’s convenient to do so.

Fortunately, Lubben has appeared in videos from several seminars at which she spoke after she was “saved” from the horrors of porn, and some of the early ones tell quite a different story than what she related in the clip that begins this episode.

“Working as a prostitute, giving blowjobs—that’s right; did I say that word?—giving blowjobs on the street with men ejaculating on my face, getting blood on my face… I didn’t take care of myself,” she admits to various audiences. “I hadn’t even been to a doctor since I had a baby. That was the only time I ever went [to] doctors. From age 18 to 26, I went to the doctor’s one time… I got pregnant by tricks three times. Two out of the three times I had miscarriages because my reproductive system was messed up from all the multiple partners I was having, and how many times did clients break condoms on me? Too many times. Two of the times ended in miscarriages because I was so physically unhealthy because we don’t go to the doctor and we don’t go to the dentist; there’s no time for that. It’s all about the money.”

Helpfully, the filmmakers remind us that the Centers for Disease Control have some idea of how easily sexually transmitted diseases—like the ones Lubben claims to have contracted while performing—are acquired.

“HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives,” a title card reads. “Condoms may lower the risk of developing HPV-related diseases, but HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a .”

“And the number one reason for getting HPV, the doctor told me, is from having multiple sex partners,” Lubben then tellssome unidentified videographer… and us.

“So according to Shelley,” Lee summarizes, “she was a prostitute for six years before getting into porn, she was a prostitute as a porn star, and she was a prostitute shortly thereafter in 1994, and that’s not multiple partners?”

The end of Episode 1 features Lubben relating some of her memories of her days as a prostitute, when, for instance, she and a madam she was living with would “pull 10, 15 tricks a day.” She also told of a Chinese man who picked her up at a strip club by offering her $200 to spend the night—but once they got to their hotel room, his cock turned out to be so small the condom kept slipping off.

“He ejaculated on me and in me,” Lubben says on tape, then a title card continues with a quote from her book: “I jumped off the and ran to the to try and clean myself out. Tagi asked me in his rough Chinese accent, ‘What’s wong?’[sic] What’s wrong? Was he kidding? Everything was wrong! I didn’t want to get pregnant again from a prostitution act and give birth to some ugly Asian baby.”

Pregnant again? Yep—and as title cards elaborate, “Shelley’s third resulted in the birth of her daughter, Tiffany Ann Moore, on June 29, 1988. That means Shelley had two of her three miscarriages prior to 1988. That’s five and a half years before she walked onto a porn set. However, the story Shelley likes to tell conveniently shifts all the blame from herself—and onto the porn industry.”

And sure enough: “I’ve had several miscarriages due to the trauma in the industry,” Lubben claims on videotape. “I had hemorrhaging for 12 years and severe anemia. I have suffered much at the hands of the porn industry.”

Episode 2, titled “Roxy’s Rape,” deals with another set of Shelley “Roxy” Lubben lies: Her claim that at least some of the sex she had on camera was non-consensual.

“I was in the industry for the years of 1993 to 1994 where I was forced to have unprotected sex,” Lubben tells various audiences in a compiled segment. “I was brutally raped on the set when I contracted herpes in a six-man gangbang, on a dirty ranch, unsupervised, on a dirty picnic table…. I was forced and was coerced to do sex acts that I did not agree with… I was also a drug addict alcoholic, much like many of the other people working in the industry. I also was jaded, mentally ill, and traumatized from all the pornography and sex I was subjected to, all the brutality.”

As Whiteacre points out, her choice of words is interesting, considering that the California Penal Code defines rape in part as, “force, violence, coercion, duress, menace, or the threat of immediate unlawful bodily injury,” as well as if the victim is intoxicated, drugged, mentally ill or mentally deficient.

“Here’s where Mrs. Lubben has a problem: She has to get around the fact that she actively, willingly sought in the porn industry, which by and large does not use condoms; booked the shoot, showed up, shot the scene, signed a contract and model release in the presence of others, acknowledging that she did not have diminished capacity, and that she was giving all necessary consent and waiving all liability,” Whiteacre analyzes. “She did the scene, she was paid, she cashed the check, and then she didn’t file a police report. So how to get around that? Here’s where Shelley goes all in. Short of being a minor, which obviously she wasn’t, she now claims that virtually every other element which might possibly negate her consent was present. She was forced, threatened, drugged, drunk, mentally ill, with no evidence of anything; just her word 15, 16, 17 years later.”

Also weighing in against Lubben’s version is one actor who participated in the “six-man gangbang” (Filmco’s Roxy A Gang Bang Fantasy) which Lubben references, actor Guy DaSilva.

“She was very aggressive in the scene; very aggressive, and so were the guys, but in no kind of dangerous kind of way, in any kind of threatening way, or harmful, where anyone was hurt or forced to do something they didn’t want to do,” DaSilva told Whiteacre and Lee. “That absolutely did not take place. She called the shots and then the guys including myself were just going through what we were told to do, and there was a director involved who was basically shooting it and ‘letting it fly.’ He wasn’t really even ‘directing’ the scene. For the most part, he just let it go and she carried it. She was not drunk or anything. She was capable of knowing what she was doing. Coherent.”

But, according to Lubben, not only was she personally assaulted on the set, but so is everyone who participates in making adult movies—and they all salve the pain by using drugs.

“On the movie set, it’s absolutely horrible and degrading for women,” Lubben claims. “In the background you can hear women throwing up, you can hear them crying—because it hurts… You know what women do before they do a scene? We go outside with other porn actors, we lay down lines of meth, we take big bottles and chug that down, and we’re ready. They beat the girls, they feed them—force-feed them drugs. Drugs are always provided. You can get Vicodin, that’s a huge drug. Xanax, alcohol, meth, cocaine—heroin is very big, and after a day of working with nothing but filth, bodily fluids, an unclean set—because all of the movies are done on private mansions, so there’s nothing regulated about this industry.”

Most of the rest of the episode consists of current and former performers—Melissa Monet, Nina Hartley, Danny Wylde, Monica Foster, Kayden Kross—putting the lie to Lubben’s claims, with Hartley being one of the most eloquent and logical.

“I’ve been on about 700 sets; I’ve done about a thousand scenes, 1200 scenes, give or take, and honestly, in all that, I’ve had ten experiences where I actually went, ‘Ew, never again with that person, that director’,” she tells the filmmakers. “And even then I would never call them rape; I would just call them, ‘Ew, that guy’s a jerk; I just won’t work with him again.’”

“No one ever kept me on a set,” she continues. “It’s not possible to hold somebody on a set against their will, and nowadays, with cell phones, the LAPD would love to have a phone call from some young woman in a closet on a set saying, ‘Please, please, come get me now, please!’ Oh, my God; what a field day they would have with that! It doesn’t happen. We don’t need to force anybody to be on a set; they come every day from the bus station going, ‘Please, please pick me; no, pick me!’”

Equally logical is Kayden Kross’s explanation of why there aren’t rapists in porn.

“She makes it sound like we don’t have a say in the matter; she turns it into rape,” Kross sardonically analyzes. “She says that she was raped, that we’re all being raped every time you show up to set. And I’m just saying, I mean, there would be a lot more rapists, I think, if that were the case, because look how easy we make it: You know, we drive ourselves there; we give you notice when we’re going to be there; we sit down in the makeup chair so you can make us look exactly how you want us to look—it’s really a good gig for rapists, I think. But then, you know, there’s the whole object of having to pay for it and there’s the whole thing where she can just say, ‘No, I’m not showing up.’ It kind of gets in the way if you really want to be a hardcore rapist, but definitely, if you just want to rape on the side, that’s easy.”

Hartley, however, gets to one of the core issues that separates the sexually normal world from the whacky religious one when it comes to sex.

“We’re still battling upstream,” Hartley asserts, “against the idea that women are delicate flowers who need protection from men, that sex is still something men want and women have, or it’s something that men do and women are, and still we are fighting the battle that women have sexual agency of their own; they have their own desires, their own needs, their own wants and their own ways of getting them.”

The religious aspect of this is something that greatly interests Whiteacre.

“What Shelley doesn’t get is that if Satan does exist in this world, he exists in the idea that the world somehow owes you a living,” Whiteacre told AVN. “That’s the philosophy that drives thieves and grifters and other criminals… The key to this ‘new improved’ Shelley Lubben is that her time in exile was spent sojourning at the Champions Centre in Tacoma, Washington. It’s a church and ministry training facility that spits out little clones who all recite the same mantra: ‘I’m a Champion’; ‘Jesus will help me lead a Champion life!’, etc. Shelley learned how to be a convincing public speaker, how to use logical fallacies like proof by assertion and appeal to authority, and how to get people to pass the plate.

“At the core of this kind of religious conversion is the need to make your old life look as as terrible and evil and sinful as possible, so that your salvation appears that much more miraculous,” he continued. “Now that Lubben looks back on her life with these new-found religious perspectives, all the little stray pieces from her old life fit neatly into new packages: The voices she’s been hearing since childhood are actually God and Jesus; Satan entered her body to give her the strength to get through a gang bang; hearing the moon tell her to ‘fuck off’ proves that she was demon-possessed, etc.

“Pornography is Lubben’s dragon, which is a convenient one to tilt at because that sentiment provides enormous job security,” he assessed. ” There will always be a natural human desire to explore sexuality. But, in a Lubben-centric world, her enemy is the enemy of the true church, because Lubben and the true church are one and the same.”

Um… All hail St. Shelley?

In any case, Whiteacre’s and Lee’s documentary promises the best analysis of a vocal enemy of the adult industry than has been produced in many years, and can be enjoyed by adult industry members and fans alike.

Barack Obama ‘friends’ Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg

94ab9cb1aeee3cc7f28b02de158480e0 Barack Obama ‘friends’ Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg

WASHINGTON (CNN) – If President had a personal Facebook account, he might be “friending” executives to help advance his innovation agenda right about now.

But instead Obama has decided to fly to Thursday afternoon to actually meet with Facebook co-founder and other tech executives in person to continue the dialogue he promoted in his State of the Union address about government working with the community to help build American competitiveness.

Zuckerberg, CEO and President of Facebook, will be joined by Eric Schmidt of and Steve Jobs of along with other executives at a private residence in the San Francisco area, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

“I think the focus of the discussion is innovation and job creation, and these are representatives of businesses who can – who know a lot about private sector job growth,” new Press Secretary Jay Carney said at his first on-camera briefing on Wednesday.

Obama last met with Jobs in San Francisco in October during the president’s campaign swing out West right before the midterm election. White House aides said at the time that during the private meeting at a hotel, Obama and Jobs discussed American competitiveness, and the Race to the Top initiative, as well as energy independence.

Since then, Jobs has had to take his second medical leave of absence in two years to battle an undisclosed illness. The 55-year-old Jobs had a liver transplant in 2009 and has previously battled pancreatic .

In a Jan. 17 statement released by Apple, Jobs said he needed to focus on his health but would “continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company.”

News reports have suggested Jobs is receiving treatment at a cancer center in California though the company has been tight-lipped about his health, and this session will be Jobs’ first high-profile meeting with some of his competitors since the company’s announcement last month.

Gay marriage case back in California court, adds delay

8da66dbed85f22274d40eac49cbc8d4a Gay marriage case back in California court, adds delay

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court waded back into the debate on Wednesday, adding about a year’s delay to a landmark case by agreeing to give guidance to federal judges considering the matter.

A California ban on is the center of the federal case and one of several judicial and political battles over same-sex marriage, which is banned in most of the nation and legal in the District of Columbia and five states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont.

The California Supreme Court opened the way to same-sex weddings in the state in 2008, but voters months later approved a ban on gay marriage, called Proposition 8, and the matter has been winding its way through the courts.

It is expected eventually to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would set national policy if it agreed to hear the case.

Last year, a federal district court ruled the ban was unconstitutional, but that ruling is on hold while the current by supporters of the gay marriage ban is considered.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court last month to weigh in on whether Prop 8 supporters had the authority under state to defend a ballot measure when public officials refuse to do so.

Then-Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown declined to sign on to the Prop 8 appeal. Then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took the same stance.

On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously to decide the , saying oral arguments could be heard as soon as September. The court has 90 days after oral arguments to issue an opinion. Initial briefs are due in mid-March.

After the California top court issues its decision, the case will go back to the federal appeals court.

The case in the California Supreme Court is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, S189476.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson and Dan Levine; Editing by Peter Cooney)

New Documentary Exposes Shelley Lubben’s Lies

b87457bb8538f263f83b64787d39a3e9 New Documentary Exposes Shelley Lubben’s Lies

Lubben’s told so many different versions of her “path,” she herself may not know which parts are true.

—Now that the 2011 AVN Awards are over, it’s time to start thinking about 2012… and one of the early favorites for next year’s Reuben Sturman Award might just be documentary makers Michael Whiteacre and Lydia Lee (who performed in adult movies under the name Julie Meadows).

The reason for considering such an honor? The pair have just released on YouTube the first two parts of their upcoming feature-length documentary, The Devil and Shelley Lubben—and it’s a blockbuster!

Anyone who’s been reading AVN for the past few years knows who Shelley Lubben is. She runs the non-profit (though likely not non-profit for her personally) Pink Cross Foundation, whose mission is to “save” porn stars from themselves; that is, from their occupation of making sexually explicit videos.

Lubben, who’s most recently been outspoken on the subject of requiring porn stars to wear condoms and other “barrier protection” while filming—she’s for it, of course—is herself a former performer, in that she made 17 movies in 1993 and 1994 (she claims more but has yet to provide any proof). But part of her schtick is that she claims to have contracted both herpes and human papilloma virus (HPV) during her brief stint in front of the cameras—and that’s where Whiteacre and Lee begin their dissection of Lubben’s web of lies.

“As a survivor of the porn industry, I contracted human papilloma virus and herpes, a non-curable disease which later led to my battle with cervical cancer, where I had to have half of my cervix removed,” Lubben is seen announcing from a rostrum in Episode 1. “I also battled with severe anemia due to hemorrhaging I experienced for 12 years—in fact, I am still battling with damages to my reproductive organs. I have suffered much at the hands of the porn industry, but after eight long, hard years of recovery, and by the grace of God almighty, I escaped that hell and stand here, a mom with three beautiful daughters, thanks to a wonderful man, a godly man who stood by me in my horrible recovery. I have the perfect life.”

“I want you all to know that the last thing I want to do, people, is talk about porn,” she continues, “but my compassion for those people who are in modern-day slavery right now—I was overwhelmed, and so I went back to the industry and I began to reach out to them, and of course, I’ve been called every name in the book, you can imagine, but that didn’t stop me, and I founded Pink Cross Foundation, a non-profit organization that reaches out to workers, offering help, a way out, education, friendship. We go to porn conventions; we go to nightclubs, and heck, I even sing porn star karaoke to them.”

There’s just one problem with those statements: They’re likely a pack of lies—and Whiteacre and Lee detail just how false her words are, usually by using… her own words!

But that comes a bit later. The beginning of Episode 1 traces Lubben’s origins, from her birth in Pasadena to her eventual move to nearby Glendora… and her mental move to Cloud Cuckooland.

“Shelley began hearing voices at age 7, when Jesus told her one day she’d be famous,” narrator Sam Phillips intones, followed on-screen with a title card quoting Lubben from her self-published book, The Truth Behind the of Porn: “I loved Jesus very much. He used to talk to me all the time. And so I always knew that I was special but it seemed that no-one else saw that about me.”

According to the episode, Lubben’s parents stopped taking her to church at around age 9, and so of course it wasn’t long before she began misbehaving.

“Shelley began making up wild stories about men trying to kidnap her, but she would eventually come clean and nothing would change,” Phillips says over images of family life in the ’60s. “Her mother still called her ‘peculiar’ rather than ‘talented,’ and her father still spent his spare time working in the garage. By turns lazy and hyperactive, and unhappy competing with her baby brother for mom’s attention, Shelley was a difficult child to manage.”

But by Lubben’s own admission, she was a cheat and a liar.

“I cheated my way through high school,” she admits in her book, which is quoted on-screen. “I officially do not deserve my high school diploma, but I was so smart, I was able to cheat my way through. I was a nightmare as a teenager, so I began having sex, smoking pot, drinking alcohol, just partying, and my dad basically said, ‘Listen, if you don’t get your act together, I’m going to kick you out.’ I was about 18 years old, almost 18.”

But sure enough, after losing her driver’s license and being caught stealing from a local store, her dad did just what he promised. But that’s okay, because Lubben had already learned the lessons she’d need for later life.

“I learned to become a hustler in high school, so imagine what I learned on the street,” Lubben is seen telling an audience. “Now I’m a con-artist, now I’m learning how to rip men off, how to get their money, how to manipulate con-men out of every last dollar; how to get exactly what I wanted from a man. And I loved it because I got all the attention I ever wanted.”

“The attention was like a drug for me. I was desperate for attention. Of course, the fast money was a major attraction,” title cards quote her as having written. “I became a professional liar and could literally lie my way out of anything,” she wrote on a Christian blog.

It’s a point that Whiteacre and Lee make several times during the course of the episode: One of Lubben’s primary motivations is her insatiable need to be noticed—a desire that easily led her into porn… by way of six years as a prostitute—a part of her history that she quickly forgets whenever it’s convenient to do so.

Fortunately, Lubben has appeared in videos from several seminars at which she spoke after she was “saved” from the horrors of porn, and some of the early ones tell quite a different story than what she related in the clip that begins this episode.

“Working as a prostitute, giving blowjobs—that’s right; did I say that word?—giving blowjobs on the street with men ejaculating on my face, getting blood on my face… I didn’t take care of myself,” she admits to various audiences. “I hadn’t even been to a doctor since I had a baby. That was the only time I ever went [to] doctors. From age 18 to 26, I went to the doctor’s one time… I got pregnant by tricks three times. Two out of the three times I had miscarriages because my reproductive system was messed up from all the multiple partners I was having, and how many times did clients break condoms on me? Too many times. Two of the times ended in miscarriages because I was so physically unhealthy because we don’t go to the doctor and we don’t go to the dentist; there’s no time for that. It’s all about the money.”

Helpfully, the filmmakers remind that the Centers for Disease Control have some idea of how easily sexually transmitted diseases—like the ones Lubben claims to have contracted while performing—are acquired.

“HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and get it at some point in their lives,” a title card reads. “Condoms may lower the risk of developing HPV-related diseases, but HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a .”

“And the number one reason for getting HPV, the doctor told me, is from having multiple sex partners,” Lubben then tellssome unidentified videographer… and us.

“So according to Shelley,” Lee summarizes, “she was a prostitute for six years before getting into porn, she was a prostitute as a porn star, and she was a prostitute shortly thereafter in 1994, and that’s not multiple partners?”

The end of Episode 1 features Lubben relating some of her memories of her days as a prostitute, when, for instance, she and a madam she was living with would “pull 10, 15 tricks a day.” She also told of a Chinese man who picked her up at a strip club by offering her $200 to spend the night—but once they got to their hotel room, his cock turned out to be so small the condom kept slipping off.

“He ejaculated on me and in me,” Lubben says on tape, then a title card continues with a quote from her book: “I jumped off the and ran to the bathroom to try and clean myself out. Tagi asked me in his rough Chinese accent, ‘What’s wong?’[sic] What’s wrong? Was he kidding? Everything was wrong! I didn’t want to get pregnant again from a prostitution act and give birth to some ugly Asian baby.”

Pregnant again? Yep—and as title cards elaborate, “Shelley’s third pregnancy resulted in the birth of her daughter, Tiffany Ann Moore, on June 29, 1988. That means Shelley had two of her three miscarriages prior to 1988. That’s five and a half years before she walked onto a porn set. However, the story Shelley likes to tell conveniently shifts all the blame from herself—and onto the porn industry.”

And sure enough: “I’ve had several miscarriages due to the trauma in the industry,” Lubben claims on videotape. “I had hemorrhaging for 12 years and severe anemia. I have suffered much at the hands of the porn industry.”

Episode 2, titled “Roxy’s Rape,” deals with another set of Shelley “Roxy” Lubben lies: Her claim that at least some of the sex she had on camera was non-consensual.

“I was in the industry for the years of 1993 to 1994 where I was forced to have unprotected sex,” Lubben tells various audiences in a compiled segment. “I was brutally raped on the set when I contracted herpes in a six-man gangbang, on a dirty ranch, unsupervised, on a dirty picnic table…. I was forced and was coerced to do sex acts that I did not agree with… I was also a drug addict alcoholic, much like many of the other people working in the industry. I also was jaded, mentally ill, and traumatized from all the and sex I was subjected to, all the brutality.”

As Whiteacre points out, her choice of words is interesting, considering that the California Penal Code defines rape in part as, “force, violence, coercion, duress, menace, or the threat of immediate unlawful bodily injury,” as well as if the victim is intoxicated, drugged, mentally ill or mentally deficient.

“Here’s where Mrs. Lubben has a problem: She has to get around the fact that she actively, willingly sought in the porn industry, which by and large does not use condoms; booked the shoot, showed up, shot the scene, signed a contract and model release in the presence of others, acknowledging that she did not have diminished capacity, and that she was giving all necessary consent and waiving all liability,” Whiteacre analyzes. “She did the scene, she was paid, she cashed the check, and then she didn’t file a police report. So how to get around that? Here’s where Shelley goes all in. Short of being a minor, which obviously she wasn’t, she now claims that virtually every other element which might possibly negate her consent was present. She was forced, threatened, drugged, drunk, mentally ill, with no evidence of anything; just her word 15, 16, 17 years later.”

Also weighing in against Lubben’s version is one actor who participated in the “six-man gangbang” (Filmco’s Roxy A Gang Bang Fantasy) which Lubben references, actor Guy DaSilva.

“She was very aggressive in the scene; very aggressive, and so were the guys, but in no kind of dangerous kind of way, in any kind of threatening way, or harmful, where anyone was hurt or forced to do something they didn’t want to do,” DaSilva told Whiteacre and Lee. “That absolutely did not take place. She called the shots and then the guys including myself were just going through what we were told to do, and there was a director involved who was basically shooting it and ‘letting it fly.’ He wasn’t really even ‘directing’ the scene. For the most part, he just let it go and she carried it. She was not drunk or anything. She was capable of knowing what she was doing. Coherent.”

But, according to Lubben, not only was she personally assaulted on the set, but so is everyone who participates in making adult movies—and they all salve the pain by using drugs.

“On the movie set, it’s absolutely horrible and degrading for women,” Lubben claims. “In the background you can hear women throwing up, you can hear them crying—because it hurts… You know what women do before they do a scene? We go outside with other porn actors, we lay down lines of meth, we take big bottles and chug that down, and we’re ready. They beat the girls, they feed them—force-feed them drugs. Drugs are always provided. You can get Vicodin, that’s a huge drug. Xanax, alcohol, meth, cocaine—heroin is very big, and after a day of working with nothing but filth, bodily fluids, an unclean set—because all of the movies are done on private mansions, so there’s nothing regulated about this industry.”

Most of the rest of the episode consists of current and former performers—Melissa Monet, Nina Hartley, Danny Wylde, Monica Foster, Kayden Kross—putting the lie to Lubben’s claims, with Hartley being one of the most eloquent and logical.

“I’ve been on about 700 sets; I’ve done about a thousand scenes, 1200 scenes, give or take, and honestly, in all that, I’ve had ten experiences where I actually went, ‘Ew, never again with that person, that director’,” she tells the filmmakers. “And even then I would never call them rape; I would just call them, ‘Ew, that guy’s a jerk; I just won’t work with him again.’”

“No one ever kept me on a set,” she continues. “It’s not possible to hold somebody on a set against their will, and nowadays, with cell phones, the LAPD would love to have a phone call from some young woman in a closet on a set saying, ‘Please, please, come get me now, please!’ Oh, my God; what a field day they would have with that! It doesn’t happen. We don’t need to force anybody to be on a set; they come every day from the bus station going, ‘Please, please pick me; no, pick me!’”

Equally logical is Kayden Kross’s explanation of why there aren’t rapists in porn.

“She makes it sound like we don’t have a say in the matter; she turns it into rape,” Kross sardonically analyzes. “She says that she was raped, that we’re all being raped every time you show up to set. And I’m just saying, I mean, there would be a lot more rapists, I think, if that were the case, because look how easy we make it: You know, we drive ourselves there; we give you notice when we’re going to be there; we sit down in the makeup chair so you can make us look exactly how you want us to look—it’s really a good gig for rapists, I think. But then, you know, there’s the whole object of having to pay for it and there’s the whole thing where she can just say, ‘No, I’m not showing up.’ It kind of gets in the way if you really want to be a hardcore rapist, but definitely, if you just want to rape on the side, that’s easy.”

Hartley, however, gets to one of the core issues that separates the sexually normal world from the whacky religious one when it comes to sex.

“We’re still battling upstream,” Hartley asserts, “against the idea that women are delicate flowers who need protection from men, that sex is still something men want and women have, or it’s something that men do and women are, and still we are fighting the battle that women have sexual agency of their own; they have their own desires, their own needs, their own wants and their own ways of getting them.”

The religious aspect of this is something that greatly interests Whiteacre.

“What Shelley doesn’t get is that if Satan does exist in this world, he exists in the idea that the world somehow owes you a living,” Whiteacre told AVN. “That’s the philosophy that drives thieves and grifters and other criminals… The key to this ‘new improved’ Shelley Lubben is that her time in exile was spent sojourning at the Champions Centre in Tacoma, Washington. It’s a church and ministry training facility that spits out little clones who all recite the same mantra: ‘I’m a Champion’; ‘Jesus will help me lead a Champion life!’, etc. Shelley learned how to be a convincing public speaker, how to use logical fallacies like proof by assertion and appeal to authority, and how to get people to pass the plate.

“At the core of this kind of religious conversion is the need to make your old life look as as terrible and evil and sinful as possible, so that your salvation appears that much more miraculous,” he continued. “Now that Lubben looks back on her life with these new-found religious perspectives, all the little stray pieces from her old life fit neatly into new packages: The voices she’s been hearing since childhood are actually God and Jesus; Satan entered her body to give her the strength to get through a gang bang; hearing the moon tell her to ‘fuck off’ proves that she was demon-possessed, etc.

“Pornography is Lubben’s dragon, which is a convenient one to tilt at because that sentiment provides enormous job security,” he assessed. ” There will always be a natural human desire to explore sexuality. But, in a Lubben-centric world, her enemy is the enemy of the true church, because Lubben and the true church are one and the same.”

Um… All hail St. Shelley?

In any case, Whiteacre’s and Lee’s documentary promises the best analysis of a vocal enemy of the adult industry than has been produced in many years, and can be enjoyed by adult industry members and fans alike.

AVN Editor Calls Out NY Times On Condoms In Porn

2247490ceaa8828bfc0c3bd3aa5ff9ea AVN Editor Calls Out NY Times On Condoms In Porn

PORN VALLEY—The New York Times may be edited 3,000 miles from the “porn capital of the world,” but its ignorance of what happens in the industry gets read worldwide—and someone has to call them on it.

On February 9, Times correspondent Ian Lovett published an article on the current controversy, much covered on this , about whether condom use should be required for all on-camera scenes. That article can be found here—but it is so error-filled that AVN Senior Editor and Chief Legal Analyst Mark Kernes felt that a response was needed. That response, reproduced below, was emailed to The Times on February 10, but to date, there has been no response from the “Paper of Record.”

To the Editor,

I normally respect The New York Times’ coverage of events, but there was so much incorrect in Ian Lovett’s article “Condom Requirement Sought for Sex-Film Sets” that I have to whether he did any at all?

The errors begin with the first paragraph, where he claims that the AIM Healthcare Foundation, the primary testing facility for adult performers, “abruptly shut its doors in December.” Mr. Lovett makes it sound as if this shutdown was voluntary, where in fact the clinic was served with an illegal “cease and desist” order from the Department of Public Health after the California Department of Public Health had given AIM 60 days from November 30 to supplement its application to the agency to become a licensed clinic. (AIM subsequently abandoned that route and became a medical corporation responsible, as the article correctly notes, only to the California Medical Board.)

Next error, paragraph 2: Los Angeles has NOT moved to fill AIM’s role in performer testing, though it has been clear for at least two years that they desperately WANT to do so, thinking that it will bring a large influx in income to the city—which it won’t. But the city has no current plans to open any performer testing facilities, and in fact has not done so.

Paragraph 3 implies that AIM’s closing was somehow connected to the performer who tested HIV positive in October, when in fact that performer allegedly became HIV positive on a gay porn set where condom use was mandated, and AIM picked up his HIV positive status at his next regular monthly test. The exact reason that performer became HIV positive is still under investigation, and the possibility that he contracted the disease through personal contact in his private life—he posted ads on the internet as a “male escort”—is considered likely.

Contrary to statements in the article’s 6th paragraph, there is not currently any legislation being considered by the Los Angeles City Council which would “impose safety standards specifically on the industry.” The bill which just passed calls on the City Attorney to determine if the City Council (or the City Attorney’s office) has the power to force the agency which provides filming permits to all movie producers filming in the Los Angeles area to refuse such permits to adult producers unless the producers guarantee that the movie(s) being filmed will require that their performers use condoms during sex scenes. The City Attorney has been given 45 days to complete his study, and the City Council may take action as a result of his report, but there is currently no legislation proposed that would impact the “safety standards” of the adult movie industry.

Contrary to statements in the article’s 7th paragraph, there has not been a “string of actresses” who “contracted HIV and filed lawsuits against production companies.” Just one actress (stage name Brooke Ashley) filed suit, and it was with the California Department, seeking to force the producer of the movie wherein she caught HIV (in 1998) to provide her with unemployment compensation benefits as a result of her infection. She recently won that case. NO other suits have been filed against production companies due to HIV infection.

Contrary to statements in the article’s 8th paragraph. adult producers have NOT “agreed not to hire performers who had not been tested in the last 30 days,” much as many members of the adult industry wish they would. While it is true that MOST producers will not hire a performer with an “expired test” (one that is more than 28 days old), several have no problem doing so. Fortunately, most PERFORMERS will not work with another actor whose test has expired … but that’s not what Mr. Lovett wrote. Moreover, AIM doesn’t “hound” performers who had possibly been exposed to HIV to get them tested; it simply informs them that they should come in for such testing, and keeps a record (accessible only to movie producers) of whether they have done so, and when.

Contrary to statements in the article’s 10th paragraph, there have NOT been “just five cases of HIV infection among its performers … since a 2004 outbreak shut down the industry for a month”; there have been just five cases INCLUDING the 2004 outbreak, and contrary to Mr. Lovett’s assertion, three of those infections in 2004 were unquestionably due to on-set exposure. One further infection in 2009 was unquestionably NOT due to on-set exposure, and as mentioned earlier, there is some question whether the 2010 infection was set-related.

Contrary to the implications of the article’s 14th paragraph, AIM continued to arrange for performers’ HIV and STD tests during the period when the clinic itself was not open; it simply arranged for the performers’ blood and urine samples to be drawn by outside physicians and clinics, but the results of those tests were disclosed only to AIM and to the performers themselves, and became part of AIM’s producer database as well, a practice to which performers voluntarily agree when tested.

The adult industry continues to question the STD infection statistics promulgated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and AIM is currently in the midst of a self-initiated audit of its records to prove that the County has wildly inflated performers’ infection rates, which are at most 2.4 percent of the performer population during a “bad month,” and 1.8 percent during a “good month.” The idea that “a quarter of all performers each year” are diagnosed with a sexually-transmitted disease is ludicrous. The reason for the discrepency is that not only does the County count original infections in its statistics, but also each time a performer returns to the clinic to be retested before the disease has fully cleared his/her body—which performers frequently do since they are generally anxious to get back to work. Hence, the County statistics improperly record an original report of infection as well as perhaps four or five retests within the following two weeks as if there were five or six original infections.

The County’s flawed statistics seem to have inspired the anti-AIM vendetta by AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s (AHF) Michael Weinstein, but if Mr. Lovett had done even a bit of investigation, he would have discovered that AHF is funded in part by the condom industry, and that AHF’s own HIV testing program, which uses one of the “10 minute” antibody tests for HIV, is itself seriously flawed, and can produce negative results in HIV-positive test subjects for as long as six months after infection. That’s why the adult industry abandoned antibody testing in 1998 as being insufficently timely and accurate for commercial sex work. It has also been rumored that AHF itself would like a piece of what it sees as the “lucrative” field of performer STD testing.

In Mr. Lovett’s 22nd paragraph, he refers to “Previous efforts to pass legislation that would specifically require condom use.” There have been no such legislative attempts, although a reading of the California Health Code, in a section that was originally enacted to protect hospital workers, implies that not only condoms but also dental dams, rubber gloves, goggles and face shields may be required for on-camera sex scenes. This portion of the Health Code has been the subject of five public hearings so far between Cal/OSHA and the adult industry, and is far from being resolved.

Perhaps the next time Mr. Lovett decides to write about the adult movie industry, he might want to speak to some people who have actual working knowledge of the medical and legal issues involved.

Regards,

Mark Kernes, Sr. Editor, Adult Video News (AVN)

BusinessWeek Profiles Top CEOs of Sex

bc56685b8a967e18ff0d05d889b61fd5 BusinessWeek Profiles Top CEOs of Sex

CYBERSPACE — Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek last week profiled 21 of the top people who run adult-oriented companies including CEOs from video, novelty, lingerie, gentlemen’s clubs, hotel PPV, pharmaceuticals and online .

The report briefly bio’d the top tier honchos who make a living “selling ” describing them as businesspeople like all others.

“Despite stigma and cultural assumptions about the industry, some leaders on our list also produce Broadway shows, own teams, or donate millions to family planning,” the report said.

Among the most recognizable to the adult industry were ’s Larry Flynt, Evil Angel’s John Stagliano, Vivid’s Steven Hirsch, Private’s Berth Milton, Adam & Eve’s Phil Harvey, Mantra ’s (Girls Gone Wild) Joe Francis, Adult Friend Finder’s (Penthouse) Marc Bell and Playboy’s Scott Flanders.

Also included were leaders from the burgeoning sex toy and novelty sectors including Castle Megastore’s Mark Franks and California Exotic Novelties’ Susan Colvin among others including Beate Uhse’s Serge Van Der Hooft and Gold Group International’s David Gold.

Although the report pounded the general downturn in sales in its profiles citing Vivid’s and Evil Angel’s declines in those areas, it did give kudos to some like Stagliano whom they called one of “porn’s poster boys” having been acquitted of obscenity charges. The report said, “After facing more than three decades in prison, he [Stagliano] says the process was affirming and said, ‘I believe in my company completely.’”

Mark Frank’s Castle Megastores was described as the “Best Buy equivalent of sex stores” because of its large number of stores and employees and its clean, well-lit customer-friendly atmosphere.

Franks said of the old type sex store, “That business model is dying. Nobody wants to go to those areas.” He added, “You won’t find graphic pictures of women with their breasts hanging out. We don’t do anything in our stores that will be offensive to a female customer.”

Also profiled were Frederick’s of Hollywood’s Thomas Lynch, Rick’s Cabaret’s Eric Langan, New Frontier Media’s Michael Weiner, Church & Dwight’s (condom and ) James Craigie, VCG Holdings’ (gentlemen’s clubs) Troy Lowrie, Victoria’s Secret’s (Limited Brands) Leslie Wexner, LodgeNet Interactive’s Scott Petersen, Pfizer’s Ian Read () and Avid Life Media’s (AshleyMadison.com) Noel Biderman.

The report said that according to company projections, Biderman’s Avid Life is expected to make a $20 million profit in 2011 with most of the revenue coming from the extra-marital affair site AshleyMadison.com, which the company claims has 8.5 million members.

What Do Women Want? Part One

d31f35eb4a93b2a68890bae0f06a14e6 What Do Women Want? Part One

Meredith Chivers is a creator of bonobo . She is a 36-year-old professor at Queen’s University in the small city of Kingston, Ontario, a highly regarded scientist and a member of the editorial board of the world’s leading journal of sexual research, Archives of Sexual Behavior. The bonobo film was part of a series of related experiments she has carried out over the past several years. She found footage of bonobos, a species of ape, as they mated, and then, because the accompanying sounds were dull — “bonobos don’t seem to make much noise in ,” she told me, “though the females give a kind of pleasure grin and make chirpy sounds” — she dubbed in some animated chimpanzee hooting and screeching. She showed the short movie to men and , straight and gay. To the same subjects, she also showed clips of heterosexual sex, male and female homosexual sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a chiseled man walking naked on a beach and a well-toned woman doing calisthenics in the nude.

While the subjects watched on a computer screen, Chivers, who favors high boots and fashionable rectangular glasses, measured their arousal in two ways, objectively and subjectively. The participants sat in a brown leatherette La-Z-Boy chair in her small lab at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, a prestigious psychiatric teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, where Chivers was a postdoctoral fellow and where I first talked with her about her research a few years ago. The genitals of the volunteers were connected to plethysmographs — for the men, an apparatus that fits over the and gauges its swelling; for the women, a little plastic probe that sits in the and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow. An engorgement of blood spurs a lubricating process called vaginal transudation: the seeping of moisture through the walls. The participants were also given a keypad so that they could rate how aroused they felt.

The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.

“I feel like a pioneer at the edge of a giant forest,” Chivers said, describing her ambition to understand the workings of women’s arousal and desire. “There’s a path leading in, but it isn’t much.” She sees herself, she explained, as part of an emerging “critical mass” of female sexologists starting to make their way into those woods. These researchers and clinicians are consumed by the sexual problem Sigmund Freud posed to one of his female disciples almost a century ago: “The great question that has never been answered and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my 30 years of research into the feminine soul, is, What does a woman want?”

Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston, a room she keeps spare to help her mind stay clear to contemplate the intricacies of the erotic. The cinder-block walls are unadorned except for three photographs she took of a temple in India featuring carvings of an entwined couple, an orgy and a man copulating with a horse. She has been pondering sexuality, she recalled, since the age of 5 or 6, when she ruminated over a particular kiss, one she still remembers vividly, between her parents. And she has been discussing sex without much restraint, she said, laughing, at least since the age of 15 or 16, when, for a few male classmates who hoped to please their girlfriends, she drew a picture and clarified the location of the clitoris.

In 1996, when she worked as an assistant to a sexologist at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, then called the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, she found herself the only woman on a floor of researchers investigating male sexual preferences and what are known as paraphilias — erotic desires that fall far outside the norm. She told me that when she asked Kurt Freund, a scientist on that floor who had developed a type of penile plethysmograph and who had been studying male homosexuality and pedophilia since the 1950s, why he never turned his attention to women, he replied: “How am I to know what it is to be a woman? Who am I to study women, when I am a man?”

Freund’s words helped to focus her investigations, work that has made her a central figure among the small force of female sexologists devoted to comprehending female desire. John Bancroft, a former director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, traces sexological studies by women at least as far back as 1929, to a survey of the sexual experiences of 2,200 women carried out by Katharine Bement Davis, a prison reformer who once served as New York City’s first female of corrections. But the discipline remains male-dominated. In the International Academy of Sex Research, the 35-year-old institution that publishes Archives of Sexual Behavior and that can claim, Bancroft said, most of the field’s leading researchers among its 300 or so members, women make up just over a quarter of the organization. Yet in recent years, he continued, in the long wake of the surveys of Alfred Kinsey, the studies of William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the sexual liberation movement and the rise of feminism, there has been a surge of scientific attention, paid by women, to illuminating the realm of women’s desire.

It’s important to distinguish, Julia Heiman, the Kinsey Institute’s current director, said as she elaborated on Bancroft’s history, between behavior and what underlies it. Kinsey’s data on sexuality, published in the late 1940s and early ’50s in his best-selling books “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,” didn’t reveal much about the depths of desire; Kinsey started his scientific career by cataloging species of wasps and may, Heiman went on, have been suspicious of examining . Masters and Johnson, who filmed hundreds of subjects having sex in their lab, drew conclusions in their books of the late ’60s and early ’70s that concentrated on sexual function, not lust. Female desire, and the reasons some women feel little in the way of lust, became a focal point for sexologists, Heiman said, in the ’70s, through the writing of Helen Singer Kaplan, a sex therapist who used psychoanalytic methods — though sexologists prefer to etch a line between what they see as their scientific approach to the subject and the theories of psychoanalysis. Heiman herself, whom Chivers views as one of sexology’s venerable investigators, conducted, as a doctoral candidate in the ’70s, some of the earliest research using the vaginal plethysmograph. But soon the AIDS epidemic engulfed the attention of the field, putting a priority on prevention and making desire not an to explore but an element to be feared, a source of epidemiological disaster.

To account partly for the recent flourishing of research like Chivers’s, Heiman pointed to the arrival of Viagra in the late ’90s. Though aimed at men, the drug, which transformed the treatment of impotence, has dispersed a kind of collateral electric current into the area of women’s sexuality, not only generating an effort — mostly futile so far — to find drugs that can foster female desire as reliably as Viagra and its chemical relatives have facilitated erections, but also helping, indirectly, to inspire the search for a full understanding of women’s lust. This search may reflect, as well, a cultural and scientific trend, a stress on the deterministic role of biology, on nature’s dominance over nurture — and, because of this, on innate differences between the sexes, particularly in the primal domain of sex. “Masters and Johnson saw men and women as extremely similar,” Heiman said. “Now it’s research on differences that gets funded, that gets published, that the public is interested in.” She wondered aloud whether the trend will eventually run its course and reverse itself, but these days it may be among the factors that infuse sexology’s interest in the giant forest.

“No one right now has a unifying theory,” Heiman told me; the interest has brought scattered sightlines, glimpses from all sorts of angles. One study, for instance, published this month in the journal Evolution and by the Kinsey Institute psychologist Heather Rupp, uses magnetic resonance imaging to show that, during the hormonal shifts of ovulation, certain brain regions in heterosexual women are more intensely activated by male faces with especially masculine features. Intriguing glimmers have come not only from female scientists. Richard Lippa, a psychologist at California State University, Fullerton, has employed surveys of thousands of subjects to demonstrate over the past few years that while men with high sex drives report an even more polarized pattern of attraction than most males (to women for heterosexuals and to men for homosexuals), in women the opposite is generally true: the higher the drive, the greater the attraction to both sexes, though this may not be so for lesbians.

Investigating the culmination of female desire, Barry Komisaruk, a neuroscientist at Rutgers University, has subjects bring themselves to while lying with their heads in an fM.R.I. scanner — he aims to chart the activity of the female brain as subjects near and reach four types of climax: orgasms attained by touching the clitoris; by stimulating the anterior wall of the vagina or, more specifically, the G spot; by stimulating the cervix; and by “thinking off,” Komisaruk said, without any touch at all. While the possibility of a purely cervical may be in considerable doubt, in 1992 Komisaruk, collaborating with the Rutgers sexologist Beverly Whipple (who established, more or less, the existence of the G spot in the ’80s), carried out one of the most interesting experiments in female sexuality: by measuring heart rate, perspiration, pupil dilation and pain threshold, they proved that some rare women can think themselves to climax. And meanwhile, at the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas, Austin, the psychologist Cindy Meston and her graduate students deliver studies with names like “Short- and long-term effects of ginkgo biloba extract on sexual dysfunction in women” and “The roles of testosterone and alpha-amylase in exercise-induced in women” and “Sex differences in memory for sexually relevant information” and — an Internet survey of 3,000 participants — “Why humans have sex.”

Heiman questions whether the insights of science, whether they come through high-tech pictures of the hypothalamus, through Internet questionnaires or through intimate interviews, can ever produce an all-encompassing map of terrain as complex as women’s desire. But Chivers, with plenty of self-doubting humor, told me that she hopes one day to develop a scientifically supported model to explain female sexual response, though she wrestles, for the moment, with the preliminary bits of perplexing evidence she has collected — with the question, first, of why women are aroused physiologically by such a wider range of stimuli than men. Are men simply more inhibited, more constrained by the bounds of culture? Chivers has tried to eliminate this explanation by including male-to-female transsexuals as subjects in one of her series of experiments (one that showed only human sex). These trans women, both those who were heterosexual and those who were homosexual, responded genitally and subjectively in categorical ways. They responded like men. This seemed to point to an inborn system of arousal. Yet it wasn’t hard to argue that cultural lessons had taken permanent hold within these subjects long before their emergence as females could have altered the culture’s influence. “The horrible reality of psychological research,” Chivers said, “is that you can’t pull apart the cultural from the biological.”

Part Two on Friday

2011 XBIZ Award Winners Announced

c96ce0529ba50122a8e3ebb2908814f0 2011 XBIZ Award Winners Announced

— The winners of the 2011 XBIZ Awards were announced on Wednesday night at a rousing ceremony at the Hollywood Palladium.

The industry’s biggest business awards show honored the most influential companies and performers who play an essential role in the growth and popularity of adult around the globe. Hosted by contract star Jesse Jane and comedian Whitney Cummings, the show was XBIZ’s ninth annual awards gala.

The winners are:

MOVIES & PRODUCTION
Studio of the Year
Digital Playground

Feature Studio of the Year
Wicked Pictures

Gonzo Studio of the Year
Elegant Angel

Parody Studio of the Year
New Sensations

European Studio of the Year
Marc Dorcel

Niche Studio of the Year
Homegrown Video

Feature Movie of the Year
Speed (Wicked Pictures)

Parody Release of the Year
The Big Lebowski: A XXX Parody (New Sensations)

Gonzo Release of the Year – Non-Feature
Tori, Tarra and (Rocco Siffredi/Evil Angel)

Gonzo Series of the Year
Big Wet Asses (Elegant Angel)

Director of the Year – Body of Work
Lee Roy Myers

Director of the Year – Individual Project
Nicholas Steele, “Bat FXXX: Dark Night” (Bluebird Films)

Female Performer of the Year
Andy San Dimas

Male Performer of the Year
Tommy Gunn

New Starlet of the Year
Chanel Preston

New Male Performer of the Year
Flash Brown

Crossover Star of the Year
Riley Steele

MILF Performer of the Year
Lisa Ann

Performer Comeback of the Year
Dale DaBone

Acting Performance of the Year – Female
Kayden Kross, “Body Heat” (Digital Playground)

Acting Performance of the Year – Male
Keni Styles, “Malice in Lalaland” (Miss Lucifer Prod./Vivid)

Screenplay of the Year
“Rawhide 2: Dirty Deeds” (Adam & Eve Pictures), Nic Andrews

Best Cinematography
“Speed” (Wicked Pictures), Francois Clousot, Jake Jacobs & Mark Nicholson

Best Art Direction
This Ain’t Avatar XXX 3D (Hustler Video)

Best Special Effects
Bat FXXX: Dark Night (Bluebird Films)

Best Editing
“Voyeur Within” (Studio A Entertainment), Andrew Blake

Marketing Campaign of the Year
This Ain’t Avatar XXX (Hustler Video)

Ethnic Release of the Year
Black Ass Master 4 (Alexander DeVoe/Jules Jordan)

Interracial Release of the Year
Lex The Impaler 5 (Jules Jordan Video)

Foreign Male Performer of the Year
Rocco Siffredi

Foreign Female Performer of the Year
Katsuni

Studio of the Year
Titan Media

Gay Movie of the Year
Brutal (Raging Stallion)

Gay Director of the Year
Joe Gage

Gay Performer of the Year
Spencer Reed

Transsexual Release of the Year
America’s Next Top Tranny: Season 6 (Goodfellas/Devil’s Film)

Transexual Performer of the Year
Mia Isabella

WEB & TECH
Affiliate Program of the Year – Multi-Platform
CECash

Affiliate Program of the Year – Single-Platform
BlazingBucks

Emerging Affiliate Program of the Year
Smart Bucks

Studio Affiliate Program of the Year
BangBros (Bang Productions)

Porn Star Affiliate Program of the Year
FameDollars

Solo Girl Affiliate Program of the Year
TwistysCash

European Affiliate Program of the Year
AdultWebmasterEmpire (AWE)

Gay Affiliate Program of the Year
(tie) Buddy Profits and PrideBucks

Specialty Affiliate Program of the Year
Joanna Angel Bucks

Dating Affiliate Program of the Year
AdultFriendFinder

Retail Affiliate Program of the Year
FN Cash (Fleshlight)

VOD Company of the Year
AEBN/NakedSword

Live Cam Company of the Year
Streamate

Content Licensor of the Year
SexEntertain

Web Host of the Year
MojoHost

Design Studio of the Year
(tie) Dickmans Design and Wyldesites

Billing Company of the Year – IPSP
CCBill

Billing Company of the Year – Merchant Services
CommerceGate-DHD Media

Billing Company of the Year – Alternative
Webbilling.com

Software Company of the Year
TooMuchMedia

Traffic Services Company of the Year
JuicyAds

Mobile Company of the Year
TopBucks Mobile/Pink Visual

Gay Web Company of the Year
Lucas Entertainment

Innovative Web Product of the Year
AdultCentro

Progressive Web Company of the Year
Pimproll

Virtual Product of the Year
Vstroker

Marketing Campaign of the Year
eMerchantPay

Web Babe of the Year
Gisele (GotGisele.com)

VOD Site of the Year
HotMovies.com

Live Cam Site of the Year
MyFreeCams.com

Dating Site of the Year
WildMatch.com

Retail Site of the Year
SexToy.com

Portal/Review Site of the Year
(tie) TheBestPorn.com and FreeOnes.com

Studio Site of the Year
EvilAngel.com

Porn Star Site of the Year
Tori Black (ToriBlack.com)

MILF Site of the Year
Kelly Madison (KellyMadison.com)

Solo Girl Site of the Year
Met-Art.com

Gay Site of the Year
CorbinFisher.com

Specialty Site of the Year
Wasteland.com

PRODUCTS
Toy Manufacturer of the Year
Exotic Novelties

Luxury Toy Manufacturer of the Year
JimmyJane

Alternative Product of the Year
Mia Isabella Collection (Pipedream Products)

Innovative Product of the Year
Cobra Libre (Fun Factory USA)

Sexual Enhancement Product Manufacturer of the Year
Sex Voltz (Beamonstar)

Stimulant/Lubricant Company of the Year
Shunga

Lingerie Manufacturer of the Year
Baci Lingerie

Crossover Novelty Company of the Year
The Screaming O

Excellence in Product Packaging
LELO

Marketing Campaign of the Year
(tie) Baci Lingerie and Fleshlight

Luxury Toy/Line of the Year
Form 3 (JimmyJane)

RETAIL & DISTRIBUTION
Retailer of the Year
Castle Megastore

Boutique Retailer of the Year
Good Vibrations

Distributor/Wholesaler of the Year
IVD/East Coast News

Specialty Distributor/Wholesaler of the Year
Stockroom

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
of the Year
Allison Vivas, Pink Visual

Man of the Year
John Stagliano, Evil Angel

Industry Pioneer – Web
Mitch Farber, Netbilling
Dan Hogue, DateCamCash
Allan Henning, Dating Gold

Industry Pioneer – Video
Patrick Collins, Elegant Angel

Industry Pioneer – Novelty
Susan Colvin, California Exotic Novelties

Executive Leadership Award – Web
Brad Estes, Video Secrets
Harmik Gharapetian, Epoch

Executive Leadership Award – Video
Moose, Girlfriends Films

Executive Leadership Award – Novelty
Dennis Paradise, Paradise Marketing

Executive Leadership Award – Retail
Theresa Flynt, Hustler Hollywood

Lifetime Achievement Award
Michael Moran, Lion’s Den

ASACP Service Recognition Award
Scott Rabinowitz
John Van Arnham

FSC Leadership Award
Colin Rowntree, Wasteland.com

Eros Progressive Business Awards
Angelo Abela, Sexyland

Fifth Cal/OSHA Meeting Breaks No New Ground

69c8476d83949c86c0b0c8756a8ddee8 Fifth Cal/OSHA Meeting Breaks No New Ground

OAKLAND, Calif.—It’s rare that meetings of the Cal/OSHA Subcommittees on Blood Borne Pathogens in the Adult Film Industry (AFI) actually make it through their agendas, which made Tuesday morning’s meeting the exception—except that the purpose of the meeting was to finish up the agenda begun in meeting #3, which was the Advisory Subcommittee on Medical Issues.

One reason the meeting was so brief may have been the fact that subcommittee members who might have stoked one or more of the many controversies about adult performers’ health—Gail Bolan, former Chief of the STD Control Branch of the state’s Department of Public Health; Frank Strona, Chief of the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s STD/HIV Unit—STD Prevention & Control Section; Naomi Akers, Executive Director of the St. James Infirmary; and HIV specialist Dr. Aaron Aronow—were absent from the meeting.

Those who were in attendance—Dr. Peter Kerndt, Director of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health’s STD Program; Nurse Denise Bleak of Beyond AIDS and APIC; and Dr. Paula Tavrow of the UCLA School of Public Health—had few disagreements regarding their support for mandatory condom use in the adult industry, and two members present by phone—Dr. John Brooks of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Dr. Bruce Bernard of the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)—were also generally in favor of the requirement.

The meeting was chaired once again by Cal/OSHA Senior Safety Engineer Deborah Gold, assisted by District Manager Peter Riley and attorney Amy Martin, and the audience included representatives from a spectrum of interest groups including attorney Brian Chase of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and attorney Kevin Blank for Free Speech Coalition, attorney Karen Tynan for AIM Medical Associates (formerly AIM Healthcare Foundation), attorney Paul Cambria for various adult companies, Mark Roy McGrath for the L.A. County STD Program, Christina Hart-Rodriguez for UCLA’s Reproductive Health Interest Group, Stacey Swimme of St. James Infirmary and several others.

The meeting began with Gold summarizing the proceedings of the previous medical subcommittee meeting, then launching right into a discussion of Agenda Item #3: Assessing the risks of STD and other infections if condoms were or were not used for finger-fucking (not the term they used, of course), blowjobs, vaginal and anal intercourse and “other sexual or parenteral [-piercing] contact.”

Dr. Kerndt began the discussion by referring to a chart provided at the previous meeting by L.A. County Health Department’s Dr. Robert Kim-Farley and noting that he generally agreed with the “hierarchy of risk” set forth in Dr. Kim-Farley’s chart titled, “Review of Major AFI HIV/STD Health Risks.” That chart places non-condom anal sex as the highest-risk practice for both HIV and STD exposure, followed by vaginal sex, creampies in either the pussy or ass and cum contacting the membranes of the eye. Blowjobs and pussy-licking were considered low-risk for HIV but high for other STDs, while rimming, cumming in the mouth and sharing sex toys were considered low for HIV infection but “moderate” for other STDs, and skin-to-skin contact as “very low” for HIV but still “moderate” for other STDs.

“There is an important need to differentiate between treatable and non-treatable, because it can reduce the risk, mitigate risk through screening and treatment along with barrier protection to reduce it to an acceptable level,” Dr. Kerndt added regarding skin-to-skin contact. “But certainly barrier protection for anal, vaginal exposure, and I think the primary exposure for finger and other skin contact would be much less, and those would be probably the non-blood borne pathogens; the fecal-oral risk and also the ATM risk could be mitigated by cleaning the surfaces and protecting the membranes from exposure.”

When her turn came, Nurse Bleak referenced Free Speech Coalition’s Blood Borne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan, which it had introduced at the subcommittee’s first meeting, and began making minor corrections to the document before being reminded by Gold that she should be addressing the question of which (if any) practices put adult performers at risk for infection. She then voiced general agreement with Dr. Kerndt’s analysis, as did Dr. Tavrow later.

“In response to the statement that this would drive the [adult] companies out of country to do their filming,” Nurse Bleak said of the possible requirement of condoms for blowjobs, “as well as what’s available for college students, where I work in the northern part of Los Angeles County, the San Fernando Valley, great hub of the adult film industry—it’s a large economic force there—so I’ve been told, especially by the Employee Health Services at CalState-Northridge … that many AFI performers are actually CSUN students; they get income from that to go to college. So it made sense to go to the websites of colleges and look at educational content on those college sites to see what kind of STD prevention they have. There’s really no discusson of barrier protection for there,” she noted.

“The adult film industry makes reference in some of their literature to the ‘pounding away’ at a receptive partner,” she continued. “The ‘pounding away’ phrase would mean repeated vigorous forceful insertion of a or other object into an orifice. I believe that’s well-known to cause some micro-abrasions… and that would be a portal of entry for a blood borne pathogen.”

However, when the subcomittee members were later questioned about whether condom use could cause such micro-abrasions, as actress Nina Hartley had reported at a previous meeting, the consensus was that if sufficient lube were used, and the condoms had not been treated with the anti-HIV chemical non-oxynol-9, that wouldn’t happen.

“It’s also pretty well known that condoms aren’t as disgusting as some people make them seem in the adult film industry,” Nurse Bleak added. “I rather liked them when I was handing them out in my homeless clinic duties and my AIDS Control Clinic duties. I like giving out condoms to people. I’m for them.”

Finally, regarding cumshots, she advised, “I just have maybe one term for the adult film industry that’s coming to your local theater: CGI. Computer graphics. So if you’re ready for computer graphics, then you can simulate that and … maybe you can consider not putting people at risk with actual secretions when you can simulate fake secretions; maybe make them more interesting.”

But Dr. Kerndt was not about to agree that condoms shouldn’t be mandatory for blowjobs or dental dams for pussy-licking, and he even had some cautionary words for mere skin-to-skin contact.

“I think there are other factors that aren’t knowable in each instance that may increase risk, such as a performer that may be menstruating, so there would be direct contact with blood without barrier protection that would greatly increase the risk,” he warned. “Also, any sexually transmitted infection that may be on an unscreened anatomic site or even a screened anatomic site but within the incubation period of that disease but outside of the sensitivity of the diagnostic method, and many of the STDs in the oral pharynx and rectum are known to be asymptomiatic, and when you have that STD, the normal protective mucosal membrane is not present, it increases the risk. Even without an STD, there is substantial risk of exosure to a viral or a bacterial sexually transmitted disease. So it really is about measures that can be taken to reduce that risk to an acceptable level through either screening or barrier protection.”

Other relevant factors that Dr. Kerndt noted were increased risks if an extra-large dildo or vibrator were used, or if the performers engaged in double-anal or double-vaginal penetration, which he claimed was the case with some of those infected by “Patient Zero” Darren James in 2004.

There was also lengthy discussion of the difference in risk between those getting blowjobs and those giving them (referred to as “receptors”), and the panel generally agreed that the receptor was more at risk than the the person receiving the stimulus.

“In the 2004 outbreak, where one informer who was infected worked with 13 female performers, infecting three of them, for a 23 percent rate,” Dr. Kerndt said, “and that individual tested negative using PCR viral load, and he infected the first of those three women four days after his negative test, and worked until he was screened again at about 21, 28 days, and I believe… all three of the women were exposed to double-anal.”

However, a review of the movies in which James performed in 2004 indicate that none of the women infected by James participated in double-anal scenes with him.

The subcommittee also discussed whether STD testing such as the AIM testing regimen would be helpful if used with non-condom oral sex and in combination with barrier protections (condoms, dental dams, goggles/face shields, rubber gloves) during vaginal and anal intercourse, and in which types of situations—pre-screening, periodic screening and/or post-exposure screening—it would be most effective?

“If the status of the insertive partner would be known for both the treatable and chronic infections,” Dr. Kerndt stated, referring mainly to oral sex, “basically we would support medical monitoring of all workers and treatment of the treatable. The screening would be consistent with the incubation periods of the diseases, and they would be appropriate for the anatomic site of exposure… Currently, I think the expectation for the industry is that there would be barrier protection for oral sex, that there not be exposures to other potentially infectious material, even in cervical secretions, so right now, if the question is [whether] through screening and through limitations based upon chronic infection, whether the level of exposure and risk to the exposed individual could be reduced to an acceptable level, I would say maybe, but it depends on the infection status of some of these individuals and actually what the exposure in fact would be… If condoms were not used for oral sex, I think that there would have to be screening and limitations placed on the individual who had an untreatable condition. It may be a recurrent herpes outbreak, a primary herpes, it may be an HIV-infected insertive partner—I don’t think, with or without ejaculation, without protection should that be allowed. There should be a limitation placed on that exposure.”

“Certainly, if there was exposure,” he continued, “if there was a breach in the barrier method that exposed that worker, then I think that exposed individual should be screened.”

The subcommittee spent several minutes discussing what steps should be taken regarding contact in sex scenes with a known HIV-positive individual, even though there has never been any such reported incident in the hetero adult moviemaking community.

Dr. Kerndt challenged the frequency of talent testing by AIM.

“Certainly in a one-month interval, we’ve seen several examples where that interval has been insufficient to protect workers in this industry,” he said. “In the 2004 outbreak, the individual was screened, faithfully, monthly for four to seven years, and it worked during that period—or may have; we don’t know, really, how many exposures—but then this individual tested negative, and three days later infected the first of three of 13 women he worked with, and 23 days later when he was tested, it was found that he was infected, and during that 23 day window, 61 first- and second-generation persons were exposed. So the one month interval … is not going to exclude everything, but clearly if condoms had been used in those shoots, three fewer women would be infected with HIV.”

Dr. Kerndt also referenced the recent infection of gay performer Derrick Burts (who allegedly contracted HIV during an all-condom shoot), then claimed, “I think we can expect this is going to occur consistently in the industry, and I think another really important part is, maybe we don’t know all the answers, but we have to have the information as to the industry and the cooperation of the industry to really fully characterize the risk from these risks [sic] and really determine how the infections entered the industry and whether they’re acquired or transmitted in the workplace. Because there is a source for all of these infections; they’re person to person; they don’t spontaneously generate in an individual; they’re all person to person contact, and it’s either exposure in the workplace or exposures out of the workplace brought into the workplace. And obviously we can’t control everythign that occurs in the sexual context outside of the workplace.”

“It sounds to me that what you’re saying is, there’s an unacceptable risk to anything but full barrier protection?” asked Gold.

“Yeah, I think that if there is full barrier protection, the screening is less of an issue, the pre-screening,” Dr. Kerndt replied.

But when Gold asked if there were any point to screening (testing) in situations where “full barrier protection” were used in sex scenes, Dr. Kerndt equivocated, admitting that there might be.

“I think you could have oral exposures unprotected with appropriate screening,” he said.

In the end, all of the subcommittee members agreed that testing of some sort would be useful, even if condoms and other barriers were used for all on-camera sex acts, if for no other reason than to help gather statistics on STD infections rates in the industry.

Gold also noted that the CDC recommends that performers obtain all of the available anti-STD vaccinations, including those to counter Hepatitis A and B infections, as well as the recently-recommended HPV vaccines.

The hearing concluded just after noon, with Gold stating that the next meeting of the subcommittees would take place in March in Van Nuys, Calif., and will be a “ meeting” of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board, during which no public comments will be allowed. However, she said, prior to the commencement of the meeting, audience members would be allowed to comment on the subcommittee recommendations (if any), but that no rule-making would take place at that meeting.

“Our chief, right now, is interested in possibly making a rule-making proposal,” she said. “In addition to that, the petitioner [AIDS Healthcare Foundation] or anybody else can still go back to the Standards Board. So we can propose something, Cal/OSHA can propose something; based on this record, the petitioner can go back and say, ‘Even though the division didn’t propose something we think you should act on, here is our modified petition.’ The Free Speech Coalition or any other person sitting here or not sitting here in this room can go to the Standards Board and say, ‘Look, a record has been created, and this is what we think you should do about it.’ Anybody can go to the Standards Board and say, ‘This is what we think you should do now.’”

Gold further stated that if any rule is proposed, that there would be a public hearing on it and “a lengthy public comment period, and that may modify the proposal.”

While neither Gold nor any other participant at Tuesday’s hearing indicated that they would definitely propose a new rule to modify the current California Health Code requirements, certainly the medical subcommittee seemed poised to advise the board that condom (and possibly other barrier) use be required for sex scenes in all adult movies shot in California, though the subcommittee’s view on requiring condoms for blowjobs appeared unresolved.

Keep checking back with .com for information and analysis of Cal/OSHA’s continuing fight to force the adult industry to be “condom only.”

AIM Healthcare Reopens Under New Name, Status

e1e6fad634e667287ffdc77aa975bcea AIM Healthcare Reopens Under New Name, Status

VAN NUYS, Calif. — AIM Healthcare has changed its status from non profit to a private corporation, reopening for full services under a new name, AIM Medical Associates.

“We’re up and running and here to stay” AIM CEO Sharon Mitchell said.

“Yes, we’re back and still providing the same important services for early detection HIV, STDs (testing and treatment), doctor visits, and general checkups. From pap smears, to pelvic exam, we continue to provide the same stellar service in a one-stop visit.”

As a private corporation, AIM no longer has to answer to County’s Health Department, instead it will now be regulated by the Medical Association.

AIM said it plans to provide more services, both on the and in house, while continuing with current clients and bringing on new ones.

“We at AIM would like to take the opportunity to thank our board of directors for their commitment to the mission, serving without compensation, despite unfair adversities, Mitchell said.

“Most of all, AIM would like to thank you, our clients who kept going these last two months. Through your support, we knew that we would once again look forward to this day, and being of service to you. Thank you.”