Porn condom use put to a vote in LA

PJ_Soul

Interesting.... It makes sense to me that they should have to wear condoms for workplace safety. I have to wonder: do blow jobs constitute "penetrative acts"? Because that would be weird. But anyway, isn't the porn industry in LA a multi billion dollar industry? That makes this news a big deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18729624

Porn condom use to be put to Los Angeles voters

An existing ordinance requires condom use for porn actors in the city - but not in the larger county.

A ballot measure proposing that porn actors in Los Angeles County wear condoms during filming will be put to voters in November's election.

The measure gathered enough signatures to qualify, election officials said.

Aids Healthcare Foundation, a supporter of the petition, says the move would shield porn actors from HIV.

If passed, it would expand to county level an ordinance requiring condom use as a condition of receiving a filming permit within the city of Los Angeles.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed that measure into law in January after the Aids Healthcare Foundation (AHF) brought a similar petition to city government.
Viewer turnoff?

The city is still studying how to enforce the ordinance.

A spokeswoman for the Free Speech Coalition, an industry group, told the Los Angles Times in February that such measures were "government overreach".

"It's clearly the government interfering where it really doesn't belong," Diane Duke told the Times.

Adult production companies are threatening to move out of California because of the requirement, but face legal difficulties.

A 1988 ruling prevented producers from being prosecuted under anti-prostitution laws, and only one other state - New Hampshire - has a similar ruling.

Adult film productions in the area have been suspended in the past because of HIV scares.

The ballot measure would require adult film producers to obtain a permit from the county's public health department, requiring actors to use condoms for penetrative sex.

Lori Yeghiayan, a spokeswoman for AHF, told the BBC the ballot measure would be similar to health permits for beauty salons and tattoo parlours, with possible regular inspections.

Breaking the conditions of the potential permit could res­ult in fines or mis­de­mean­or charges.

Ms Yeghiayan added that condom use "is the law of California" under the state's division of Occupational Safety and Health, where it is covered under protections regarding bodily fluids, but "the issue has been enforcement".

Critics of the condom requirement say actors are regularly tested, and such a requirement would hurt business and push production studios underground.

"We found that a lot of viewers at home don't want to see condom porn," Keiran Lee, a British porn actor in Los Angeles, told BBC's Newsbeat in January.

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

Interesting.... It makes sense to me that they should have to wear condoms for workplace safety. I have to wonder: do blow jobs constitute "penetrative acts"? Because that would be weird. But anyway, isn't the porn industry in LA a multi billion dollar industry? That makes this news a big deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18729624

Porn condom use to be put to Los Angeles voters

An existing ordinance requires condom use for porn actors in the city - but not in the larger county.

A ballot measure proposing that porn actors in Los Angeles County wear condoms during filming will be put to voters in November's election.

The measure gathered enough signatures to qualify, election officials said.

Aids Healthcare Foundation, a supporter of the petition, says the move would shield porn actors from HIV.

If passed, it would expand to county level an ordinance requiring condom use as a condition of receiving a filming permit within the city of Los Angeles.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed that measure into law in January after the Aids Healthcare Foundation (AHF) brought a similar petition to city government.
Viewer turnoff?

The city is still studying how to enforce the ordinance.

A spokeswoman for the Free Speech Coalition, an industry group, told the Los Angles Times in February that such measures were "government overreach".

"It's clearly the government interfering where it really doesn't belong," Diane Duke told the Times.

Adult production companies are threatening to move out of California because of the requirement, but face legal difficulties.

A 1988 ruling prevented producers from being prosecuted under anti-prostitution laws, and only one other state - New Hampshire - has a similar ruling.

Adult film productions in the area have been suspended in the past because of HIV scares.

The ballot measure would require adult film producers to obtain a permit from the county's public health department, requiring actors to use condoms for penetrative sex.

Lori Yeghiayan, a spokeswoman for AHF, told the BBC the ballot measure would be similar to health permits for beauty salons and tattoo parlours, with possible regular inspections.

Breaking the conditions of the potential permit could res­ult in fines or mis­de­mean­or charges.

Ms Yeghiayan added that condom use "is the law of California" under the state's division of Occupational Safety and Health, where it is covered under protections regarding bodily fluids, but "the issue has been enforcement".

Critics of the condom requirement say actors are regularly tested, and such a requirement would hurt business and push production studios underground.

"We found that a lot of viewers at home don't want to see condom porn," Keiran Lee, a British porn actor in Los Angeles, told BBC's Newsbeat in January.

while it may be hard, you can catch STI's in your throat. Kind of weird to think about but it is possible.


I don't know how I feel about this...if the actors are willing participants in condom-less scenes I don't understand a problem. All this will do is displace a few studios to shoot outside the greater LA area. Scottsdale here they come!

gimmesometruth27

if the idea is to protect from bodily fluids they might as well ban the money shot as well, because that is basically applying bodily fluids to someone's skin, and if you think about it, that is kind of counter to the idea of using a condom..

hedonist

mikepegg44 wrote:

while it may be hard, you can catch STI's in your throat.

I'm refraining from a Beavis-type laugh at that

And yeah, diseases can be passed via oral sex.

I dunno, everyone's free to do what they want and I'd imagine (read: hope) they go into these situations fully-informed about not being protected, or providing protection. Just seems like now if you're fucking one, you're fucking everyone else they've fucked...and so on. Kinda nasty to me.

(as an aside - in my porn-watching days, whether or not a condom was worn took nothing away from my pleasure of viewing it)

BinauralJam

A) Nobody is going to pay to watch condom porn

Wouldn't the industry just move somewhere else

PJ_Soul

mikepegg44 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Interesting.... It makes sense to me that they should have to wear condoms for workplace safety. I have to wonder: do blow jobs constitute "penetrative acts"? Because that would be weird. But anyway, isn't the porn industry in LA a multi billion dollar industry? That makes this news a big deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18729624

while it may be hard, you can catch STI's in your throat. Kind of weird to think about but it is possible.


I don't know how I feel about this...if the actors are willing participants in condom-less scenes I don't understand a problem. All this will do is displace a few studios to shoot outside the greater LA area. Scottsdale here they come!

I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought about smoking laws. Pretty sure they are quite strict in LA and similar to the ones in Vancouver. Employees cannot be exposed to second hand smoke in the work place even if they don't mind (many of them don't). So people can't smoke on patios where servers work (and obviously not inside), and there can't be smoking within 3 meters of business's door either. It's not up to the workers whether or not they want to be exposed (and many of them do, because the smoking ban cut down business in several bars, and many workers were upset about the ban; many bars and pubs risk being fined and even shut down to allow smokers a reasonable place to smoke still). So if that kind of law is okay, can't see why, legally, this one wouldn't fit under the same laws.

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Interesting.... It makes sense to me that they should have to wear condoms for workplace safety. I have to wonder: do blow jobs constitute "penetrative acts"? Because that would be weird. But anyway, isn't the porn industry in LA a multi billion dollar industry? That makes this news a big deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18729624

while it may be hard, you can catch STI's in your throat. Kind of weird to think about but it is possible.


I don't know how I feel about this...if the actors are willing participants in condom-less scenes I don't understand a problem. All this will do is displace a few studios to shoot outside the greater LA area. Scottsdale here they come!

I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought about smoking laws. Pretty sure they are quite strict in LA and similar to the ones in Vancouver. Employees cannot be exposed to second hand smoke in the work place even if they don't mind (many of them don't). So people can't smoke on patios where servers work (and obviously not inside), and there can't be smoking within 3 meters of business's door either. It's not up to the workers whether or not they want to be exposed (and many of them do, because the smoking ban cut down business in several bars, and many workers were upset about the ban; many bars and pubs risk being fined and even shut down to allow smokers a reasonable place to smoke still). So if that kind of law is okay, can't see why, legally, this one wouldn't fit under the same laws.

I see what you are saying...don't even get me started on smoking bans

either way, it is easier to move a porn production company than a bar. I imagine if it impacts sales that much they will simply move to where they can...

PJ_Soul

mikepegg44 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I see what you are saying...don't even get me started on smoking bans

either way, it is easier to move a porn production company than a bar. I imagine if it impacts sales that much they will simply move to where they can...

Sure... Except that the article says:

"Adult production companies are threatening to move out of California because of the requirement, but face legal difficulties.

A 1988 ruling prevented producers from being prosecuted under anti-prostitution laws, and only one other state - New Hampshire - has a similar ruling."

So... get ready for a porn boom New Hampshire?

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

Sure... Except that the article says:

"Adult production companies are threatening to move out of California because of the requirement, but face legal difficulties.

A 1988 ruling prevented producers from being prosecuted under anti-prostitution laws, and only one other state - New Hampshire - has a similar ruling."

So... get ready for a porn boom New Hampshire?

There are different states with different laws, that is why I said if it impacts sales that much, they will simply move to where they can do it. It may not even have to be the US.

But this may be different than a smoking ban as I am sure they could argue that condom-less sex is freedom of expression. who knows if that has already been done at the federal level...
Also, neighboring states like Arizona may try to change their laws if they have anti porn laws to accommodate the business.

F Me In The Brain

mikepegg44 wrote:

All this will do is displace a few studios to shoot outside the greater LA area. Scottsdale here they come!

This is exactly what will happen if they pass this. 'Fresneck' is the new Valley.

JonnyPistachio

Nothing to see here...move along...

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if the idea is to protect from bodily fluids they might as well ban the money shot as well, because that is basically applying bodily fluids to someone's skin, and if you think about it, that is kind of counter to the idea of using a condom..

Actually not really. The skin provides a very good barrier unless it is broken (cut, etc.)

http://www.usg.edu/facilities/training/ ... s/12.phtml

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't know how I feel about this...if the actors are willing participants in condom-less scenes I don't understand a problem. All this will do is displace a few studios to shoot outside the greater LA area. Scottsdale here they come!

So, if a worker in a factory is ok with the risks of using their bare hands to dip parts into a chrome bath...or to work in a paint booth without a respirator...or to work on live electrical equipment without the proper PPE, then it's ok?

You just got rid of OSHA my friend. Well done.

MotoDC

BinauralJam wrote:

A) Nobody is going to pay to watch condom porn

Does anyone pay for any kind of porn now? Seriously I don't understand how that industry makes a dime with the internet so readily available.

A 1988 ruling prevented producers from being prosecuted under anti-prostitution laws, and only one other state - New Hampshire - has a similar ruling."

This is what I have never understood. How is prostitution illegal, but making porn legal? In both cases, people are getting paid to have sex. I suppose this 1988 ruling explains some of it...

edit: where the hell is Prince of Dorkness? Does he post here anymore? Thought he'd have a comment or three on this topic.

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't know how I feel about this...if the actors are willing participants in condom-less scenes I don't understand a problem. All this will do is displace a few studios to shoot outside the greater LA area. Scottsdale here they come!

So, if a worker in a factory is ok with the risks of using their bare hands to dip parts into a chrome bath...or to work in a paint booth without a respirator...or to work on live electrical equipment without the proper PPE, then it's ok?

You just got rid of OSHA my friend. Well done.

even by accident I get rid of bureaucracy

I think work place safety is important in the sense that the employer should have safety standards in place. If the employee chooses not to follow those, the employer can fire them, but they definitely should not be held responsible if an employee makes the mistake or decision not to comply, as seems to be the case now with OSHA or ISO 9000 or [name acronym here]

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

even by accident I get rid of bureaucracy

This is why I like you!!

Oh, and because you keep your kid in a cage. That is so punk rock! Nobody puts baby in a corner...but mike will put baby in cage that's for damn sure!

hedonist

MotoDC wrote:

edit: where the hell is Prince of Dorkness? Does he post here anymore? Thought he'd have a comment or three on this topic.

I believe he either started or posted on a similar thread awhile back.

Also, I wonder the same thing with regard to paying for porn. Last time I did was in the early '90s

JonnyPistachio

hedonist wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

edit: where the hell is Prince of Dorkness? Does he post here anymore? Thought he'd have a comment or three on this topic.

I believe he either started or posted on a similar thread awhile back.

Also, I wonder the same thing with regard to paying for porn. Last time I did was in the early '90s

Gotta wonder about that -- Who pays for porn? Thats like being charged for oxygen.
Where's Prince, we need to know who is paying for this stuff.

BinauralJam

Product placement perhaps?

i have no clue, i dont remember seeing any advertising

JOEJOEJOE

So let me get this straight...the porn actors would rather pull-out of L.A. instead of using condoms?

:?

Prince Of Dorkness

Ok so... As you all know I'm a porn director and I live in Los Angeles.

So...

Although most people know virtually nothing about how performers are tested and production is carried out, this isn't going to result in reduced STI transmission. The way things work now in the straight industry is that models are tested by an organization that makes test results available online to studios and scene partners. They show up at the studio, the test results are downloaded from the database and shared with all involved. There has never once been an incident of HIV transmission if these guidelines were followed. The few stories that exploded into mainstream news never mentions that.

Many will remember the famous "patient zero" story from a couple years ago revolving around Derek Burts who tested positive for HIV. He was a guy who performed in both gay and straight scenes and the hysteria of a handsome young white guy infecting women was too much for the media to ignore. They just omitted the parts about how he had been out of the industry for months, was infected during that time and when he wanted to return to performing, tested positive and wasn't allowed to work. He never infected anyone.

Insisting on condoms isn't there to protect anyone, it's just uptight, anti-sex people getting their panties in a bunch.