• print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size

Should HIV-Positive Workers Be Allowed in the Sex Industry? Some Advocates Say Yes.

Share this post

Carrie WeismanIndividuals who are HIV-positive are not permitted to participate in the adult entertainment industry. That standard is enforced through the Performer Availability Screening Services, otherwise known as PASS. Anyone who tests positive for HIV is permanently banned from the system.

The same applies to other regulated subsets of sex work. To date, Nevada is the only state where full-service sex work is legal. All individuals who apply for work must undergo medical testing for STIs, including HIV. According to Jeremy Lemur, a P.R. representative for one of Nevada’s 21 legal brothels, anyone who tests positive for the virus is not welcome to work at any legal establishment within the state.

But not all sex workers think HIV-positive people should be banned from the field. Jacen Zhu is an adult performer and LGBTQIA activist. According to him, there are schools of queer performers who believe in opening up the industry gates to those living with an undetectable HIV status.

The word “undetectable” is important to emphasize here. The advance of antiretroviral therapy has dramatically shifted the prognosis of those who test positive for HIV. The medication works by preventing copies of the exciting virus from replicating and blocking new ones from entering human cells. So long as they remain vigilant with this medication regime, HIV positive individuals are able to maintain a normal lifespan. In fact, the medication is able to suppress viral loads so effectively that standard blood tests will not be able to detect any trace of the virus. This is what it means to become “undetectable.” And that’s an important status to carry, especially in the context of intimate relationships. A 2017 report conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 49% of people living with HIV in the United States had reduced their viral loads to an undetectable level.

“If you have an undetectable viral load for an extended period of time, say 6 months, it is extremely unlikely that you would transmit the virus to an uninfected partner,” explains Dr. William Short, an infectious disease specialist based in Philadelphia. Short is also an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the board of directors for the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Thousands and thousands of acts of condom-less sex have been studied,” he adds. “The science is very clear.”

“Many gay and queer performers are rallying in support of undetectable performers being able to work,” says Zhu. “[We are] fighting stigma from within our own safe-spaces. These performers are proactive in their sexual health. If we’re in an industry promoting sex, we also hold the responsibility of being sexual health advocates.”

While there is a notorious lack of data about sex work, it’s safe to say that some will face financial hardship if they are no longer able to work in this field. Sure, there are the headlines that suggest some individuals have been able to amass incredible earnings from their time in the field, but the more likely reality is that the many more turn to sex work as a means of survival. This is especially true of marginalized communities who experience difficulty securing housing, employment and the proper documentation required to enjoy a safe and stable existence.

To be sure, people in the industry have genuine fears. Some of the backlash is coming from other performers. In January of this year, thousands of people poured into the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas in anticipation of the Adult Entertainment Expo. The annual event is designed to spotlight new products and services related to the adult entertainment industry. This year, the organizers agreed to throw in a discussion surrounding HIV, a subject that is often shunned from conversations concerning mainstream porn. The idea was to decrease the stigma of what has now become a controllable diagnosis, open up a dialogue about safety and consent, and explore how HIV and the adult entertainment industry may interact in the future. But hopes of what that conversation may blossom into disintegrated the moment performers hit the web with concerns over what a more lax approach to the virus could mean for the industry.

Some grassroots organizers emphasize that the decriminalization of sex work is critical to protecting the health of workers and clients.

Nina Luo is a community organization at Vocal-NY, a grassroots organization that provides harm-reduction services to low-income individuals affected by HIV/AIDS. She’s also the press coordinator for Decrim NY, a coalition designed to decriminalize the sex trade in New York City and State. According to her, decriminalization gives sex workers a better shot at actually tracking their interaction with the virus. Without the fear of police, they are in a better position to do things like negotiate condom use, disclose their status and access medical resources. This, in turn, gives clients the ability to utilize informed consent when deciding whether or not they want to move forward with things. According to a Lancet study, decriminalization can reduce new HIV infections amongst sex workers, partners and clients up to 45%.

This is important to keep in mind, even for those currently working within legal environments. Sky (who prefers to be identified by her professional name) has been working at Sheri’s Ranch in Nevada for a little over a year. Earlier this year, a federal lawsuit was introduced aiming to outlaw the brothels. “If the brothels go away, none of the women I’m speaking with are talking about how to leave the sex industry,” she says. They’re all talking about how they’re going to survive in a sex industry that’s no longer legal.” At the brothels, the women are required to use barrier methods during any sexual interaction with a client. Escorts don’t typically enjoy that same security working independently, and illegally.

According to an investigation conducted by UNAIDS in 2014, stigma, discrimination and “punitive legal environments,” are key determinants in HIV vulnerability. UNAIDS found that of as many as 48% of U.S. sex workers say they have had their condoms confiscated by police.

It’s a tightrope to walk between forging a system designed to protect the health and wellness of those in the industry and protecting the individual freedoms of sex workers. Decriminalizing the industry means law-enforcement officials would be unable to intervene in activities and transactions related to sex work. This would give both clients and providers more say in whom they choose to work with and in what capacity. Legalizing it, on the other hand, would require a series of regulations be put into place, ones that would likely alienate certain individuals from the field, particularly those who test positive for HIV, even if undetectable.

Loosening up stigmas surrounding the virus, meanwhile, would serve sex workers even—when off the clock.

“Sex workers are afraid of disclosing their work to healthcare providers for fear of lower quality service, discrimination, criminalization or harassment. This linkage between a patient and healthcare provider is critical to identifying violence, exploitation, trafficking, yet it’s disrupted by criminalization,” says Luo.

“We’re not trying to create a new industry,” she adds. “But we do want to remove policing and criminalization from sex workers’ lives.”

This article was originally published at In These Times on July 10, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Carrie Weisman is a journalist based in New York City. She reports on sex, relationships and culture.

Share this post

Federal judge blocks military from discharging service members with HIV

Share this post

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday that the U.S. military must suspend its practice of discharging service members because they have HIV.

The injunction followed a lawsuit filed by two airmen who learned in November that they would not be permitted to continuing serving in the military because of their HIV status. This is despite the fact that both were in treatment and had undetectable viral loads, making it virtually impossible for them to transmit the virus to others.

The discharges were part of a policy the Pentagon implemented last year colloquially known as “deploy or get out” (DOGO). It was an attempt to trim military personnel based on who was fit to serve across the globe at any given time. In the case of the two plaintiffs, they were deemed unfit to deploy despite supporting recommendations from medical personnel.

Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, agreed the new policy discriminated against people with HIV. “Plaintiffs have made a strong and clear showing that defendants’ policies are irrational, outdated, and unnecessary and their decisions arbitrary, unreasoned, and inconsistent,” she wrote.


The military, she explained, is operating “based on a flawed understanding of HIV” that is causing HIV-positive service members to be “irrationally and arbitrarily swept from the ranks.”

“Because of advances in medicine and science, HIV is no longer a progressive, terminal illness,” Brinkema wrote. Considering the medical expertise the plaintiffs brought forward, she noted that even if there is a sustained disruption to an HIV-positive service member receiving their medication, “an individual’s risk of transmitting HIV during military service remains vanishingly low.”

The military, by contrast, could not present any recorded cases of accidental HIV transmission on the battlefield.

Plenty of other medical conditions, including some that require regular medication, still allow for service members to be deployed. “There appears to be no reason why asymptomatic HIV is singled out for treatment so different from that given to other chronic conditions, all of which are subject to worsening upon disruption of daily medication,” the decision read.

Moreover, the military did not present a single expert of its own to justify the double standard. Brinkema chastised the military for citing a report that “contains no scientific data, evidence, or real-life accounts, but rather is a mere recitation of defendants’ policies.”


In addition to the two plaintiffs, the LGBTQ military organization OutServe-SLDN also joined the lawsuit on behalf of several other service members who feared they might also be discharged based on their HIV status, and Brinkema agreed that the DOGO policy could potentially impact others.

The judge’s order enjoins the military from separating or discharging not only the plaintiffs, but any similarly situated active-duty member of the Air Force because of their HIV status.

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on February 15, 2019. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Zack Ford is the LGBTQ Editor at ThinkProgress.org, where he has covered issues related to marriage equality, transgender rights, education, and “religious freedom,” in additional to daily political news.

Share this post

This man was denied a job as a sheriff’s deputy just because he has HIV. Now he’s suing.

Share this post

A Louisiana man has filed a federal lawsuit against the Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office (IPSO) for allegedly discriminating against him in 2012. According to the complaint, filed last week by Lambda Legal, IPSO was prepared to hire Liam Pierce as a deputy sheriff, but allegedly opted not to after learning that Pierce has HIV.

“It was like a punch to the gut,” Pierce, 46, told ThinkProgress in a phone interview. “It really frustrated me that for all the wonderful things that are here in Louisiana and all the wonderful people we have, we still have people that are not appropriately educated with HIV, how it’s transmitted, what the risks are, and what isn’t risky.”

As the complaint recounts, two days after Pierce had his in-person interview with IPSO in March, 2012, Captain Rickey Boudreaux told him that was going to be hired by the department, pending a medical examination. That examination, completed two weeks later, found that Pierce indicated “no significant abnormalities or medical findings,” with all physical findings “within normal limits.” But it did state that he is HIV-positive. Two days after submitting the medical examination, Pierce received a letter from IPSO indicating that he would not be hired.

“It’s clear on the medical evaluation: The only thing negative was the HIV status,” Pierce said, adding that a friend’s contact at the department relayed to him that he wasn’t hired because he failed the medical. He immediately knew it was because of his HIV status. “Anybody with a simple amount of education is able to see right and wrong and this is plainly wrong. It’s no different than discriminating against somebody because they have diabetes or because they have cancer. You can’t discriminate against that. It’s wrong.”

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice has resources dedicated specifically to educating the public about how discrimination on the basis of HIV status is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Pierce has a long history of service to others. He’s been an EMT, a paramedic, a firefighter, and a police officer. It was actually Hurricane Katrina that brought him to Louisiana in the first place; he ditched his old job after securing authorization to join the first-responder recovery efforts. He was hired full-time shortly thereafter by a local agency. To this day, he still teaches various public safety courses, including firearm safety, first aid, CPR, and — ironically — blood-born pathogens. His enthusiasm for helping others even convinced his husband to take an interest in firearm safety and they now teach the classes together.

Share this post

Subscribe For Updates

Sign Up:

* indicates required

Recent Posts

Forbes Best of the Web, Summer 2004
A Forbes "Best of the Web" Blog


  • Tracking image for JustAnswer widget
  • Find an Employment Lawyer

  • Support Workplace Fairness


Find an Employment Attorney

The Workplace Fairness Attorney Directory features lawyers from across the United States who primarily represent workers in employment cases. Please note that Workplace Fairness does not operate a lawyer referral service and does not provide legal advice, and that Workplace Fairness is not responsible for any advice that you receive from anyone, attorney or non-attorney, you may contact from this site.