1. raise the minimum age to 21
2. require a federal license
3. require weekly std testing
4. must pass a psychological exam before you can get a license - with monthly checkups
5. must be drug free (weekly test) no drug addicts in porn

Cyberchicken

[Link]

Why don't we let laissez faire do it's thing. Company's that do better by the consumer and the talent will flourish. Those that don't, won't. End of story... no legislation necessary!

[Link]

What makes sense from a business standpoint is testing for all STDs. I've heard of sets being held up due to "red dots". Healthy performers make for better performances - and it ensures they can keep working.

I do agree that the constant "no condoms" outcry is irresponsible. But pornographers need to have better ways of using condoms - where putting on condoms are part of the sex play - rather than the mysteriously appearing condom, or the opaque pink condom.

[Link]

I think this thread is much more productive and realistic than the rantings about the lack of objective journalism and mainstream news media bashing that's going on elsewhere.

I haven't seen the piece yet. It's on the TiVo and I'll get to it when I have the chance, and I won't weigh in too heavily on this subject until I do. I want to say though, that at this point, my feelings echo those of Endorphin (who made his post in Lainy's thread in Star Crossed) and Pontus as he expressed himself in this thread.

I think a large amount of the problem with porn is the stigma against it, however. It's looked down upon... largely ignored and unregulated, employs young girls who often get into it for the wrong reasons, and has fans who demand every hardcore act under the sun. I don't think pornography is inherently exploitive. I don't believe in sex as a cherished, sacred act that can only be shared between two people who love each other. I DO believe, though, that the precarious position of sex as an outlet of entertainment needs to be taken into account in the production of porn--while we continually make the case for this stigma to disappear. I think the fans are as much a part of this dark side of the porn industry as anyone is. As Pontus said, would it hurt to treat and to talk of these performers with a little more respect? Would it kill us to watch porn with condoms if it makes it a safer working environment? Would it kill us to pay a little more money for our porn so that the talent in the industry can be 1.) Paid more, 2.) Safer, and 3.) able to participate in unionization where healthcare, financial planning, and counseling are among the services provided?

As fans, we need to not be so damn selfish and realize that yes, even though these people are performing a service for a fee, they deserve the same long term benefits and safety standards that many of us get with our jobs. This is just common sense! It's these things that I think should be touched on in a mainstream news story. From what I hear, it sounds like they were touched on in ABC last night. Again, I'll watch it for myself and post again.

The idea that many of these women are performing acts that they later regret... and feel exploited for upsets me. It upsets me as a fan... and it upsets me as a member of society. I wonder if the male performers in the industry feel this way? If they don't, I wonder if the difference is in the way they are looked at by society in general for what they do--the old double standard, a male having sex is healthy, and a woman having sex is a slut. My guess is, though that the males don't feel that much different from the women (unless you happen to be a performer who can make it behind the camera as well--where the real money in this industry is).

Anyway, I'm rambling an awful lot for someone who hasn't seen this special, but it's not like I haven't thought about these topics before. It's not like we ALL haven't thought about it before. I think this is important dialogue, and the porn inustry needs to listen to it--despite any possible one sidedness that Diane Sawyer and ABC might have exhibited.

Mike L.

[Link]

As for feeling guilty about Belladonna and others because of the show, my viewpoint didn't change at all in a before/after sense. I was just as aware of the good and bad before as I was after. In fact, the only thing the show accomplished, for me, was to make me lose even more respect for that type of journalism. But if, as a tool, it helps raise people's awareness of the negative things happening, and also helps bring about changes, then it was a good thing overall. (Even if I still think the biased reporting was irresponsible, and could have urged for reform after informing the public of what goes on while at the same time also representing the good side of the industry - discourage the bad, encourage the good.)

Back to the condom use issue. Girls should be allowed to do whatever they want and, yes, studios should be more accepting of condom use. Even if it drops revenue (and I'm not sure that there's anything more than fear of that here) I think there's a moral obligation that outweighs financial concerns. Considering just how much money the industry brings in, having that decrease a little would do no harm - it would still be a staggering figure despite any drop off. Also, studios that have condom-by-choice policies would only end up giving themselves a better reputation.

I don't think that viewers are wrong to want harder sex and/or condom-less scenes. You're never wrong when you're simply expressing what turns you on. What is wrong is an environment that forces girls into providing that against their will. While I dislike seeing condoms, and have gone out of my way to not by movies with condoms (even though they might otherwise be good), I would still far rather watch a movie with a cast of people genuinely enjoying themselves with condoms than I would of one without condoms where the cast is not enjoying themselves, and doing it only because they've been forced into it.

[Link]

Bringing back Safer sex in porn is a good idea, but doing it through legislation is a BAD idea.

My 2¢.

Kurt Hardy

[Link]

I really do think that the straight porn industry should follow the standards set by the gay porn industry where safe sex is concerned. The gay porn industry is doing this without government intervention or regulation. Why can't the straight porn industry do the same? (And of course, I'm referring primarily to gonzo studios.)

Pontus

[Link]

Having said that, I recognize that performers in porn face two unique problems:
1) sexually transmitted diseases, and
2) social stigmatization.

The first can and should be dealt with as has been done by the gay film community. Testing is not sufficient in an environment where germs can be contracted and passed before a test can catch them. I don't see that this requires any new legislation. It seems to me that the local health departments have been ignoring their responsibilites to the workers by not enforcing safe-workplace rules.

The second I have no answer for except to reflect that my time on this forum has introduced me to a large number of people who not only enjoy porn but respect and admire the women who perform in it. Yes, that attitude is not universal, but it does indicate that a healthy subculture can and does exist, and that support for these men and women is there if they know how to get it.

Pontus, in regards to the categorization of "we gonzo fans" I think we're no more generic than football fans are. For myself, I don't care if I ever see a DP, DAP, bukkake or other 'circus act.' In fact, my enjoyment of anal movies not withstanding, I have no interest in making any woman perform an act she's not comfortable with or that doesn't convey some sense of pleasure and intimacy to me.

[Link]

Pontus

Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 1/24/2003 1:04:38 PM

[Link]

I'm not sure if I am answering anything you asked, or bringing anything new to the table, but at what point do we look in the mirror and see that this isn't about exploitation and morality. Haven't we (society) learned anything from our war on drugs? There is a basic economic current running underneath all of this: supply and demand. I thought the biggest joke was the hotel companies making money off of porn by showing it in their rooms. The formula is simple: These companies have porn available in the rooms because there is a demand for it. If nobody was watching the movies, then the company would see the product offering as a loser and dump it. There are very few companies who continue to supply a product even though it's losing money.

The same supply/demand principle applies to the pornagraphy industry. You can throw the morality issue out the window - there is no room for morality in economics.

We, as consumers of porn, create the wind direction of the industry. We have the ability now to purchase porn where the actors where condoms. If the demand for that type of product was so great, then you would see more companies use condoms. The reality is the demand is greater for condomless scenes. Even if regulation was to occur and condoms were made mandatory - it will only work if it's government mandated. And we all now how successful that would be.

Industry regulation works only if all participants are willing to play by the same rules. We exist in a free market. If the porn industry was to require condom use in all scenes, there is nothing to stop a new company from coming in and shooting condomless scenes. And history has shown, demand would be high for this product. As soon as the other companies who toe the line see the money this new company is making, guess what happens? Self regulation falls apart...

That's my short answer on condom use. As for some of your other questions...

Yes, the age limit should be raised to 21. But in order to do so, you have to bring in more govt. regulation. And do you really want the govt. to have anything to do with porn legislation? Tough call, but yes, 21 is the way to go.

1. and 2. For any industry that is maligned in the media and society, it's always good to show a certain level of concern about safety. More testing is appropriate, both phyical and psychological. What bad can come of that? Loss in revenue? That seems to be a cop-out.

3. Why not? It can only help the image of the industry.

4 and 5. I tried to answer above in my long winded discussion of supply/demand.

6. I like your comments and ideas. But like taped police confessions, someone will inevitably say they we're coerced before the tape started rolling.

7. Being judgmental is being human. Each of us has controls how judgemental we are.

The following are some quick hit questions and random thoughts
...
What happens to the US economy if you take a 10 Billion dollar industry out of it?

The US spends billions on the drug war. What's become of that? What can we learn from that disaster and apply it to the porn industry. (BTW: I am not a drug user, just a tax payer).

As I look at a map of the US in my office, I can't help but think that there are so many people who watch porn, but do not come out and promote it because of the stigma associated with it. What an interesting dichotomy...

I would much rather discuss these topics of pornagraphy than join the rant against the biased opinion of an ABC Primetime Report. The media world is so full of hypocrisy that it's not worth spending the effort.

Just my 2 cents. I'll sit back and enjoy this thread as long as it lasts. And it could go a while...

[Link]

The issue which Pontus raised which DOES concern me is the one about respect. I'm very glad that Adult DVD Talk encourages an atmosphere of respect, instead of the insults and sarcasm often found elsewhere. I cherish the opportunity to watch many of the lovely ladies in porn, and that's why I never refer to them as "cum burping road whores," or similar terms. I'm still not sure how to extend a notion of respect, since I suppose some people NEED to put themselves above the porn they watch. Maybe one answer would be to work towards removing the guilt stigma attached to porn viewing. I have no trouble wearing an Adult DVD Talk t-shirt in public, but apparently others don't feel this way.

[Link]

Pontus

[Link]

When society proclaims an individual as an adult, at whatever age, the inference isn't that they will no longer screw up, but that it's time they took responsibility for their screw ups.

I know that parents want to protect their offspring from the dangers the world contains but this is impossible. In fact, Americans tend to do their children a disservice by being over-protective. One has to make a mistake before one can learn from it. This is not to suggest that being an adult performer is, ipso facto, a mistake, but rather a recognition of the fact that many young people don't know what they want to do and enter into lifestyles that ultimately don't suit them.

[Link]

I wasn't aware of the Gay Porn industry's successful ability to self regulate. That's a nice counterpoint.

I am feeling stronger and stronger about the 21 age limit. There seems to be many more upsides to it that overcome the detriments. It's interesting to note, we won't allow persons under the age of 21 to drink legally, yet we allow them to join our military and go fight in foreign contries and also allow them to make movies where they have sex in front of millions.

I'm 31, so I don't know many teenages, but I think there is a differnce in understanding the way the world works between an 18 year old and a 21 year old. I remember being 18 and not having a clue about financial or morality issues. By 21 though, I figured some of it out(Still learning daily in fact).

Let me put it another way: What really is the difference between one who is 17 and one who is 18?

[Link]

I don't think I need to add to that, but like so many have said here: ultimately it's up to the performers to be responsible for what they do. They ultimately have the power here, it just seems that on the whole, they haven't quite figured that out yet...

Mike L.

[Link]

Even though I just posted in favor of a 21 age limit, I agree with a lot of what you say. Amen to the fact that being 'proclaimed' an adult means you take responsibility for your actions. I couldn't agree more, but there's always a but...

I think being 18 is the toughest and most confusing. Yes, you can buy a gun and vote, no you cannot drink. Being 18 is too close to being 16. It's too much to ask anyone to be wise to the world 2 years removed from getting your drivers license.

[Link]

Why pick any one age over any other? Because there has to be SOME age picked. Everybody agrees that 13 is too young. But where in the "gray" area do you put the mark?

Again, I say it's better to err on the side of caution. Of course, I can't make an argument from a business perspective because studios would start to lose money if the youngest girls they could use were 21 year olds. So, how much of this thread is about what should be the case, and how much is about what's realistic?

Edited by - Mythsong on 1/24/2003 2:44:36 PM

[Link]

I disagree. If you would like to rephrase that to 'ask everyone' then I would agree, but I refuse to paint everyone with the same brush. If there were a test to determine who is an adult and who isn't then we could all take it and the point would be moot. Since there isn't, I have to say that when you proclaim an individual to be an adult you'd best be letting him (or her) get on with it.

BTW Steph, good point about condom use.

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 1/24/2003 3:55:39 PM

[Link]

OK, poor word choice on using the word 'anyone'. It certainly is a broad stroke. Anyone is the same as saying always, or perfect, or never. There are always exceptions (intentional use of 'always').

I'll try a re-phrase...how about "It's pretty difficult to be wise to the world 2 years removed from getting your drivers license."

Any argument for age limits is, using Mythsong's words, a slippery slope.

Measuring age is objective, measuring wisdom is subjective.

But do you think by using an age limit of 21, the porn industry might be able to diffuse some of the criticism about taking advantage of younger women and men?

My intention was not to focus on this one issue. Pontus threw a lot at the wall, it just seems this point has stuck.

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere thinking copyright infringment

[Link]

However, age aside, I think they might get more positive feedback if they were able to show that most of the people in the business wanted to be there and weren't taken advantage of. Of course, since a lot of women in the business are taken advantage of (while many others are not), getting rid of the "coerced" section of their talent pool could have an even greater negative effect (less talent, less production) than just upping the age limit.

Of course, there are ways to not be coercive while still keeping the talent. Just treat them with a bit more respect and actively positive encouragement. For instance, if it was true that things happened to Belladonna that she didn't like, and because she hadn't been aware of them - they were "sprung" on her - she might have had a much more pleasant experience (if it's true that she didn't) if the studios/producers/directors had been more forthcoming with her about what was going to happen. If she'd had some time to think it over and get used to the idea, and had known what to expect, she probably would have handled it with much less stress.

[Link]

As the ABC Primetime show fades in memory, emotions will subside, and people will gradually become lackadaisical and complacent again. If that happens, then the porn talent who enrich our lives so much, will suffer. I sincerely hope we don't let that happen. Yes, I know that Diane Sawyer and company only presented half-truths about the porn industry (focusing exclusively on the negative aspects and almost completely ignoring the positive aspects). Nonetheless, those negative aspects do exist and need to be addressed in a constructive way.

I also hope that the porn studio heads catch wind of this thread and seriously consider making some real changes in how they operate. This is not to be judgmental or to criticize them. But by the same token, I would ask that all studio heads contemplate the following hypothetical situation.

Imagine that you weren't involved in porn at all, but found out that your 18-year old son or daughter had chosen a career as a porn star. And let's say that, no matter how much you tried to dissuade them, they were bent on pursuing a career in porn. Wouldn't you at least want the porn studios to take care of Points 1, 2, 3, and 6 of my original seven points? Wouldn't it distress you a great deal if they, instead, chose to just continue on as usual?

I'm not saying that the studio heads are villains if they do choose to continue on as usual. I'm just saying that it would ultimately be better for all of us if real and positive changes were made in the porn industry as a direct fallout from the highly slanted ABC Primetime show.

Let me leave you with a few "what ifs." What if companies like Anabolic/Diabolic, Red Light District Video, West Coast Productions, etc., all met somewhere to discuss these issues and arrived at a unanimous agreement on at least one of the points made (or at least some variation of it)? What if all that came out of the meeting was that mandatory condom use would be the standard at all of the companies at the meeting? Even that little bit of progress would be a triumph.

Pontus

[Link]

They used footage from Bella's scene in Gang Bang Girl #29:

When she's walking into the cell wearing a white coat. And also parts of the actual sex scene where Bobby Vitale's got her by the neck and another dude is shoving his hand down Bella's mouth and her getting chocked and slapped .What really pissed me off was that every time they showed footage of a sex scene it was almost always Bella getting slapped around and treated rough, like they wanted to sensationalize it. for instance:

Buttwoman Iz Bella (Elegant Angel) - Nacho is fucking her and is slapping her in the face. They showed this clip about 4 or 5 times throughout the show, probably because she was being slapped in the face. What assholes.

Gang Bang Girl #29 (Anabolic) - see above description.

Fashionistas (Evil Angel) - With the exception being Bella's strip tease, the rest of the footage shown from this movie was all Bella getting slapped in the face, tied up and getting slapped on the ass by another chick, or having her hair pulled.

At no time during the showing of any of these clips did the caption appear at the bottom of the screen " footage courtesy of". As far as I know, ABC didn't ask anyone for permission to use footage except for maybe Elegant Angel because Patrick Collins appears in some of the footage shot at the airport and in the Czech Republic.

Sue their ass man. If they would have at least showed a caption at the bottom of the screen naming the movie title and company name you guys could have gotten some publicity out of it.

[Link]

I can't disagree with you more about the last part.
The companies you mentioned are all "gonzo" companies and would would be shooting themselves in the foot to adopt a policy liike that.
I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of their regular customers rent and buy their movies becuase they know there are no condoms in them.
Let's face it, couples may be watching porn more these days than ever before. But, the bread and butter of the porn business is the single guy or the "raincoater" that rent or buy every week, sometimes even more. These dudes would abandon a company with policies like that, and would probably turn to Euro porn for their non condom porn fix. I know I would.

[Link]

I have never understood why I can't watch porn when condoms are being used. Rubber On = Wood down. I mean I can watch it, but not for wanking purposes. I would rather use soft-core girlie magazines or Real Adventure type videos. But I care about the health of the performers. If it is that much safer with condoms, so be it. I just don't think I'll be watching anymore. And theres no loss there in comparison to peoples health.

The other point is the question of Bellas acting ability. If she truly hated doing porn then she is the greatest actress the industry has ever seen.

I actually became suspicious that there was quite a bit of Bella acting during the interview segment. Momma (and childhood) was sitting a few feet away and, well, Diane Saywer could probably get me crying about my life in less than 2 minutes.

And when Bella describes how "they" even do DAPs now, with some shock in her voice, she neglected to mention that "she" is the queen of DAPs and extreme sex in general. Bella wants to be loved by the people around her. Don't we all?

But I do love Bella, she has brought considerable joy into my poor, pathetic life, and probably many others, and I hope she maybe can find some solace in that.

[Link]

nobody has the right to tell you what to do .. ever.

legislation is always trouble, all it will result in is more red tape and law suits.

If conditions aren't good in the porn industry it's up to the pornstars to say, I'm not doing this .. if you are worried about STDs then use condoms .. if they don't allow you - you have the right to walk away..

Saying the money is too good is just crap, you make your choice.. money or not.

Personally I'd favour a union and I'm very surprised none of the girls have pushed for this .. so perhaps the industry isn't as bad as Ms. Sawyer says it is.. because we all know if anyone knows she would..

[Link]

Yes, but it begs the question "Do these people all know about STD's in the first place?"

[Link]

I'd like to try to address as many of them as I can.

The 21 years-old minimum age:
I don't think this would solve the problem. I know some 18 year olds who are more mature than mid-20 year-olds. I know MANY mid-20 year-olds who have no maturity or responsibility whatsoever. And this is in the porn business and the non-porn world.

Psychological testing:
If these girls who later say that they regretted doing the scene and felt bad about it even when they were doing the scene can fool most porn fans into believing that they have no problems with being a porn girl, I think they could easily fool a psychologist. Plus, this is a form of regulation I don't believe in. It wouldn't be any different than having the possibility that pro football teams are paying off their Dr. training staff into letting an injured athlete go back to playing before he should.

STD testing:
I DO support this. Even if it doesn't become mandatory, I feel that no performer should be expected to work with someone else if they're not fully comfortable. If they need to know that their co-performer is STD-free in order to be comfortable, then that should be accomodated. In some cases, Evil Angel has asked a performer to get STD tests other than just HIV tests. If we need to foot the bill for this, I don't see a problem.

Financial counseling:
I don't mean to sound like a hard-ass here, but if they're making enough money to need financial counseling, they should be able to pay for it themselves. If they are compulsive spenders, a one-time free visit with a counselor isn't going to solve that.

Pressuring the performers:
It should never happen.

"Viewer assurance":
This doesn't have any more credibility than the performance itself.

Condom use:
Condoms should always be optional and something that the performer is allowed to request.

Unionization:
The porn business is great in part because we are made up by a huge group of rebellious, free-thinking individuals. Even the most clear-minded of us usually don't believe in unions of any kind.
And even if we did, there would be other companies that didn't, and they would make "independent" productions that don't require use of the unions, and therefore are able to provide the fans who want edgier content with the stuff to satisfy them.

[Link]

Financial Counseling - Can somebody name me a job somebody can get where you DON'T have the chance to piss away your own money?

Psychological Counseling - I just gotta say HUH? I never thought I'd say this, and it's one of my most hated excuses, but this is just porn! There's nothing life threatening here!

Let's look at both of these counseling options for people in government first! Their decisions actually affect something much bigger, and a good portion of them have shown themselves to be below the standards of most adult stars!

STD Testing - I haven't had time to transcribe it yet, but in my interview with Violet Blue, she stated that one of the things she'd change about the adult industry is that she'd have adult stars tested just like the girls in the Nevada cathouses. This seems like a more than reasonable, as well as fair, solution since they're pretty much the same industry.

Unions - I'll admit that in most cases I'm anti-union, but come on! Do we really want striking porn stars to be replaced with scabs???!!!

[Link]

Since we hardly ever see condoms being used on EA productions (except for the Brazilian visits) does that mean that performers, including Bella, don't ask to use condoms, or do they know up front that if they want to appear in an EA movie there won't be condoms?

If Bella had asked to use condoms in Fashionistas, would her request been granted or would another actress have been employed?

[Link]

M.B., here's the funny thing about what you're saying (and the "funny" aspect is directed at myself). Prior to watching the ABC Primetime show, I felt exactly as you do regarding the condom issue . However, after that show, my feelings changed on that issue sharply. As I said, M.B., I don't like condom scenes either, in fact, sometimes I absolutely hate them. But I am now willing to accept them and support the studios and the talent on this issue. I know that not everyone feels the same as I do, but many people do (and probably a lot more than you might think). By the way, M.B., even now in gonzo movies, for example the scene with Lexington Steele and April Flowers in Lex the Impaler # 1, the use of condoms is not unheard of. I loved that scene, BTW, despite the condom.

This is why, in my initial post, I took a two-prong approach and addressed both the porn studios and the porn fans regarding the need to make some changes. M.B., I really respect that you remain unchanged on the condom issue. I knew that many porn fans would continue to feel that way. And I guess I shouldn't have tried to put anyone on a guilt trip on the condom issue.

However, M.B., to my way of thinking, and perhaps I should only speak strictly for myself and no one else when I say this, I personally feel very uncomfortable now (even somewhat guilty) at putting my preference to not see condoms used, above the safety of the porn talent. This is why in that Primetime show, Belladonna told Diane Sawyer that she felt she had to have sex without condoms in order to get work. However, M.B, if that same level of safety could be provided without the mandatory condom use (for example, possibly through a more inclusive set of STD tests), then that would be fine. But, M.B., I don't know that that would really be possible (otherwise, why is condom use so prevalent in gay porn?). Plus, it would be so much easier, faster, and cheaper to get the porn studios to change on the condom issue than it would be to get them to change on the testing issue.

M.B., I understand that we simply disagree on this point and we probably always will. I'm sure that a great many people would side with you on this issue (maybe even the majority as you've said). But still, M.B., wouldn't you agree that something needs to be done to better protect the porn talent heathwise? I'm certainly not trying to be inflexible on this (or any other) issue. Perhaps more inclusive and strict STD testing is a good compromise. I think I could live with that.

But what would be hard for me to live with, personally, is if nothing changes in the porn industry. Over the years, I have heard and read about a great many of the porn talent themselves commenting on how dangerous and unsafe it is to be a porn star and work without condoms. Heck, you can even count our beloved Tricia Devereaux in that group. And that L.A. Times article did showcase the ugly reality the exists directly as a result of rampant STDs in the porn industry. Also, you might recall that statement that Rocco Siffredi said that every porn star has (or will have) herpes. He probably exaggerated a little, but it's almost certainly widespread among porn stars (even Tricia alluded to this). Also, I believe the Primetime show said that Chlamydia (or possibly it was some other common STD), can lead to women becoming sterile (Belladonna has that particular STD).

But my purpose, M.B., is not to argue and dissent. I'm just trying to influence some positive changes in the porn industry. I really do feel that changes are needed. Let me repeat and paraphrase something I said in an earlier post: if at least one of my points (or some variation of it) could be adopted, then that would be a triumph. But I wasn't trying to get hung up about condom use, per see. I was looking at the bigger picture.

Pontus

[Link]

We REQUIRE condoms in the Brazilian scenes. As for the American scenes, if there is a girl who we REALLY want to shoot that is a condom-only girl, then I believe that almost all of our directors (without consulting them on this, I am going on my gut feelings about them) would use that girl. But notice that I said if she is a condom-only girl.
If it's a girl who will be doing 10 other scenes that month, all no-condom anal scenes, then her asking us to shoot her with in a condom scene would seem fairly ridiculous. She should either ask us to pair her with one of the guys she felt comfortable enough to work with without a condom, or decide that she doesn't feel like doing the scene.

NO ONE is forcing these girls. Any of the girls who claim to have their lives fucked up by the porn business are almost always girls who brought lots of problems with them.
In the best case scenario, a girl without much money comes into the porn business, she makes a decent amount of money, saves most of it, and goes on to college or a stable job somewhere. This doesn't always happen. But if it doesn't, it's NOT the fault of the studios.

This is a free world. Should Las Vegas have to stop allowing gambling because there's people out there who can't handle themselves?

[Link]

Our capitalistic society keeps insisting that "laissez-faire" should mean that a corporation bears no overall responsibility when a worker gets hurt or needs medical attention, but our own ethical values should tell us otherwise.

The independant contractor state of the actresses and actors in any adult movie production means that if an accident were to happen at work, then there would be NO medical or disability payment protection afforded to that performer under the law.

In California and in the vast majority of sates, if you broke your leg while at work, you would be entitled to Workers' Compensation and the employer insurance company would pay for the cast and pain pills. But if a boom mike hits adult star Jeanna Johnassen on the neck during the filming of her latest feature, she would be on her own as far as any medical care is concerned.

(I do realize that many individuals do carry their own form of medical insurance and have saved money in case of a catastrophe or an inability to work, but they is by far the exception. What 18 year old Barely Legal girl knows about or thinks about medical coverage?)

Edited by - Diesel on 1/24/2003 8:30:41 PM

Edited by - Diesel on 1/24/2003 8:32:06 PM

[Link]

I agree about testing for all STD's, it would make a lot of sense. But here's where problems may arise:

Let's say tomorrow they started testing all peformers for all STD's, herpes etc. I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of the performers would fail due to having some kind of STD like herpes etc.
You would all of a sudden have a large group of performers not allowed to work and earn money.
I'm sure some would be pretty pissed off thinking that they made a lot of people a lot of money and now they are being left out in the cold.
Or would they be allowed to work if they had a disease yet used a condom? And if they not, would someone say to hell with it, I'm forming a non condom company with performers that have some sort of STD (not AIDS of course) and we'll blow everyone else out of the water because we will be the only ones not using rubbers.
These are just questions I'm posing here and possible scenarios.
Let's not forget, Extreme Associates may be having hard times right now, but when they first started out their promotional campaign was heavily advertised as non condom which was a big selling point at the time, and could be again if a condom policy were to be adopted by most companies. But I just don't see it happening in straight porn under the current conditions.
I really enjoy watching porn and want the performers to be healthy and stay around a long time so we can watch them do what they do for a long time. I'm also one of the few who doesn't mind seeing the women that have been in the business for a while. Everybody is always saying "I want to see new girls, new, new, new". I'm content seeing women who dig fucking on camera no matter how long they have been in the business. I appreciate the fact that someone is willing to be filmed having hot sex so we can get our rocks off watching them.

Edited by - M.B. on 1/24/2003 9:35:53 PM

[Link]

Well, if that's the trade off, I don't think we should be so quick to simply say something like, "Well, so what, that's their problem, and if they want to squander their money, it's their right (and of course, it is)." But what typically happens? Eighteen year-olds immediately go squander all of their money. Then what often happens, if they had drifted away from porn for awhile, they come desperately running back to make more fast cash. The cycle repeats itself. Eventually, no studios want to hire them and they leave the industry embittered. Then what all too often happens down the line? They end up being featured on television, on the radio, or in print media badmouthing the porn industry.

But do you think that a woman who puts herself through medical school and becomes a doctor is ever going to badmouth porn to the media? I don't think so (I think Claudia Adkins is a real-life example of an ex-porn star who put herself through med school by doing porn). Daniella Rush, once she completes her recovery from that car accident, said she plans on doing the same thing.

Now, the point is not about every ex-porn star becoming a doctor. The point isn't even really about ex-porn stars badmouthing the industry. The point is that we should give porn stars their best shot at really making good on that trade-off I referred to earlier. Will many of them not listen to reason and go squander their money anyway? Of course, but then again, at least some of them will heed it (and many others who didn't heed the advice initially, might do so subsequently). And a side benefit is that there will be fewer ex-porn stars running to the media and coming across as victims.

Things worked out very well for you, Tricia. You married a millionaire and are living a lifestyle that most Americans can only dream of. But that's in stark contrast to what usually happens to ex-porn stars. They DO need help to make that very serious trade-off really be worth it. By the way, this financial counseling could be done by financially wise current porn stars and/or ex-porn stars once newbies have gone through the initial career counseling and been hired for their first job. And this counseling could also involve these newbies being supplied a list of reputable, professional financial advisors/planners who are among the very best at what they do.

Maybe people in this discussion simply won't buy the points about career counseling and financial counseling as I've described them here, but I just wanted to make one more attempt at getting everyone to more seriously consider these points (or some variations on these points) before casting them aside. But if after people have considered these points more carefully they still decide to cast them aside, then that's fine.

Yet, I know that many porn fans like/love the rough sex theme and that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the women are freely consenting. Sensitive issue.

The "viewer assurance" idea, frankly, was the only thing I could come up with that might possibly help diffuse the issue. What about this twist to it. In the opening interview scene, in addition to everything I mentioned before, also mention that the women have signed a sworn affidavit in the presence of a disinterested third party validating that they're really participating in the scene voluntarily and that the affidavit is kept on file for review at anytime? This idea could also really weigh in porn producers' favor if they ever found themselves being taken to court by an overzealous prosecutor.

I don't know, Tricia, I just think that something needs to be done to diffuse the rough sex issue. It's extremely controversial, even among porn insiders.

I hope that all of the issues in this thread are receiving widespread attention (whether directly or indirectly). This might even influence some studio heads who are lurking and following this thread, to perhaps make some unilateral changes in their operating procedures that could somehow help the overall plight of porn stars.

Pontus

[Link]

Regarding Evil Angel, I especially appreciate comments like this:

Pontus

[Link]

Edited by - Mythsong on 1/24/2003 10:22:53 PM

[Link]

the funny thing is that every point can be appplied to every industry in this world ..

except maybe for the std worry .. but in other businesses there are plenty of other "std's" out there...

you don't need to look another further than places like Enron and Worldcom to see that even if everything "looks" right, doesn't mean it is right.. bad shit happens everywhere and it's up to person in it to decide whether they want to take the chance or not.. and live with the choices they make.

[Link]

I feel that the prolonging of adolescence in our culture is kinda peculiar. Adults in their mid 20s are often referred to as "kids". The sooner one learns to take responsibility for ones actions the better.

[Link]