Porn condom use put to a vote in LA
PJ_Soul
Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,021
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
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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!
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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)
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...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is exactly what will happen if they pass this. 'Fresneck' is the new Valley.
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
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.
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.
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]
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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!
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.
i have no clue, i dont remember seeing any advertising
:?
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.
The gay industry is shattered into many different ways of doing things.
Most gay studios will use condoms with no testing.
Some will do testing and not use condoms (gay porn with no condoms is called "bareback").
Some studios do testing and use condoms as well.
A few studios only work with HIV+ models and therefore don't test or use condoms.
(the studio I work for uses condoms but does not test models.)
The law will have very little affect on the end product. Straight studios have experimented with condoms and the viewers didn't want it. Straight porn with condoms doesn't sell. All that will happen will be the industry will move production out of LA county. The exodus has already started as studios move out.
Las Vegas is a great destination for a lot of reasons. The gambling industry subsidies air fares so getting models there is cheap. The asinine "everyone wants to live in las Vegas" head-in-ass stories of the mid 2000s means that there are hundreds and hundreds of "luxury" condos sitting empty that are great rental spaces for shooting and with all the escorts, show girls, models and dancers in las Vegas, half your cast lives there anyway.
Los Angeles has really shot themselves in the foot here. Even my studio who shoots condom scenes is leaving because I won't allow an "inspector" onto my set to ruin the vibe and harass my performers.
the actors that may do condomless work must have a social life as well and the spread of STD's will move on from there to outside the the movie set.
Godfather.
Also, I'm all for Las Vegas getting some business out of this. They need it, though I'm sorry to see this city lose yet more income.
Finally, Prince, for all the sense you frequently make, I bristle at the broadbrush (no pun intended) that was painted in the comment quoted above...and I get it comes from a probably-unique perspective.
Sorry... missed this one...
Ok so yes... people pay for porn. The last 15 years has been a very crazy time for the adult industry. When the internet first became widely-used by the general public, the first (and for quite a while, only) business that made money was porn. Before if you wanted it... you had to physically go to the stores that sold it or mail-order it. Most were uncomfortable with the lack of anonymity with buying it.
But with the internet... you could get it right away. And you could get it privately. No need for the mailman or the neighbors to know what you were into. Gay porn especially exploded because people who had only a passing interest were allowed the privacy to look at it. It was very easy to make a fortune producing porn.
AS the years passed and things like file sharing sites and torrents killed a lot of the legitimate commerce, pirating porn became easier than paying for it. Most of the porn sites were poorly-designed and accessing the content was a annoying. It took a while for the industry to catch up with the changing landscape and with companies like iTunes specifically shutting out porn, it became harder to access still.
But as the technology and laws change, the tide turned again... it's now easier to join a good porn site than it is to search for what you want on Torrents while avoiding malware and viruses. Dealing with legit companies instead of giving your credit card number to scammers. And with the laws finally catching up with technology, the ones who pirate the content are being taken down, sent to jail and given HUGE fines.
The studio I work for is part of a small group of studios that just won a $29 Million court case against a pirate tube site that had distributed our content.
Yes... you can make money in porn.
Well except like I'd explained... those performers are tested often and treated for any infections that they might have. People not in the industry get tested for STIs on average every 9 months. Adult performers get tested every 15 days. You're a LOT safer having sex with a porn star than someone who only has sex when they get drunk and take chances.
It's less about sales and more about culture. Straight people generally don't use condoms even for random hookups. Gay people do.
The straight community didn't watch in horror in the 80s and 90s as their friends wasted away and died in front of them from HIV. So the cultural reaction to condoms is very different in our communities. Straight people view sex with condoms to be "dirty." You only need those with dirty women who have diseases (in the minds of the viewers, I'm not talking reality here).
But the gay community sees them as "clean." Guys who only have sex with condoms are viewed as healthy, smart and "better" because they're protecting themselves.
I knew that was a provocative statement when I made it. But being gay, I've been on the receiving end of MANY laws that were really just there to punish me for having sex. I know it when I see it. I spent most of my life being told how to have sex and it's ALWAYS from someone telling me I should do it like THEY want to... not like I want to. This isn't any different.
As to your second part, many of us in the straight community WERE part of - did see, beyond see - what happened to our friends. Fuck, I worked at the Beverly Center in the early to mid 80s...became best friends with my (gay) boss. Became friends with one of his buddies, Carlos.
Flamboyant, sweet, funny man.
I loved him.
We were there for him from when he became sick to when he died.
And when he died, and the movers (mid-move, mind you) found out he died of AIDS, they dumped his belongings on his front lawn and left.
So for what it's worth, many of us do get it, Prince.
I don't get it, either. But very few of my straight friends use condoms for random hookups and the younger generation is very sexual. I also notice that when the guys get an STI, they always blame the "dirty" girl and not the "wow, that was stupid for me not to wrap it up." And the gay community is different. We blame the guy who didn't protect himself, not as much the guy who passed on the infection.
Sadly, it's still common for people to react less like you and more like the movers.
I would start by simply asking your point?
Unless they know they are positive and they are raping people, it takes two to make the decision to bang with or without a condom.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan