Porn condom use put to a vote in LA

Prince Of Dorkness

Now... The gay industry is totally different.

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.)

Prince Of Dorkness

And finally....

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.

Godfather.

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

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!

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.

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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

I appreciate your insight on this, though I don't quite get the different standards between straight and gay porn. It's really all about sales?

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

Godfather. wrote:

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.

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

I appreciate your insight on this, though I don't quite get the different standards between straight and gay porn. It's really all about sales?

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.

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.

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.

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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).

I just don't get the first part - seems common sense would prevail - though I've never been a random hookup kind of woman.

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

I just don't get the first part - seems common sense would prevail - though I've never been a random hookup kind of woman.

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.

As to your second part, many of us in the straight community WERE part of - did see, beyond see - what happened to our friends.

...
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.

Sadly, it's still common for people to react less like you and more like the movers.

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

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!

Godfather. wrote:

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.

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.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

I honestly don't see it that way. I wonder why the double standard between protecting workers in different industries.

Test done every 15 days huh? What about in between? Can a performer work only if the test has been completed that day? or they can work so long as their test is within the last 15 days?

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

I honestly don't see it that way. I wonder why the double standard between protecting workers in different industries.

Just about every job in the entertainment industry comes with it's own dangers. Stuntmen aren't immune to being killed on the job, big stars get stalkers, gaffers are occasionally killed or injured by falling lighting, sets, rigs...

Hey, Oil Rig workers have a 1/10 chance of losing a finger.

Test done every 15 days huh? What about in between? Can a performer work only if the test has been completed that day? or they can work so long as their test is within the last 15 days?

It's within the last 15 days... some studios up to 30 days.

So yes... you're right, there isn't a guarantee of safety.

If you take a job with higher risks, you understand those risks and understand that the higher risk is one of the reasons for the higher pay.

How many thousand dollars did you get the last time you had sex?

aerial

Isn't sex for money called prostitution? I feel sorry for anyone that has to do this.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

I owe you a case of beer for that.

I'm SO sick of people (usually women... sorry....) who go out.. have unprotected sex with someone they don't know and then blame the guy who infected them.

And our sex-phobic society has allowed the For-Profit prison owners push for all sorts of laws that throw people in jail for minor things or for crazy amounts of time.

Recently a gay man had PROTECTED sex (used a condom) with another man... he was HIV+. Now... the guy didn't get HIV but the man with HIV was sentenced to 25 YEARS!!.

(btw... it might interest you to know that the Jan "Wicked Witch of the South West" Brewer laws in Arizona were pushed for by the prison owners so they could open more prisons. It was all about profit, not about Mexicans taking away the jobs in fields from the senior citizens who clutter the desert landscape of Phoenix.)

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

Isn't sex for money called prostitution? I feel sorry for anyone that has to do this.

Oh, everyone's a prostitute.

I'll tell you this... I used to work in an office, 9-6, Mon-Fri with two weeks off per year, paid a shitty $45k plus piddly benefits and sat in my office cubicle feeling like a worker bee.

THOSE are the people you should feel sorry for.

BinauralJam

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

aerial wrote:

Isn't sex for money called prostitution? I feel sorry for anyone that has to do this.

Oh, everyone's a prostitute.

I'll tell you this... I used to work in an office, 9-6, Mon-Fri with two weeks off per year, paid a shitty $45k plus piddly benefits and sat in my office cubicle feeling like a worker bee.

THOSE are the people you should feel sorry for.

it's worth it!

CAVSTARR313

condoms are for sailors..

Prince Of Dorkness

Caveeze wrote:

condoms are for sailors..

Ah.. I love Fleet Week.

I really hate it when my plane is about to leave and I have to leave my marine's behind.

I mean... um... :fp:

JonnyPistachio

aerial wrote:

Isn't sex for money called prostitution? I feel sorry for anyone that has to do this.

:fp:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Oh, everyone's a prostitute.

I'll tell you this... I used to work in an office, 9-6, Mon-Fri with two weeks off per year, paid a shitty $45k plus piddly benefits and sat in my office cubicle feeling like a worker bee.

THOSE are the people you should feel sorry for.

You dont have to feel sorry for me. Now I feel like shit though...any job openings out west there where I can keep my clothes on?
just kidding...You did kinda sum up my job though, but I dig it...and I just make sure I kick ass everyday as soon as I walk out the door. And nobody makes me wear condoms at work either.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

How many thousand dollars did you get the last time you had sex?

None, but I also didn't take it in the ass and my risk of contracting a fatal disease was extremely low if not zero.