Here are possible solutions based on a couple of scenarios. Both scenarios assume that complete testing of STDS (rather than just for HIV alone) is the new standard throughout the porn industry.
Scenario A (no-condom policy or optional condom policy):
1. All performers would be required to show up for work with their current STD test results (no exceptions).
2. Current porn performers who already have an STD (except AIDS), would still be allowed to work.
3. Performers not having any STDs would be allowed to work with one another with or without condoms.
4. Performers already having the same STD, for example herpes, would be allowed to work with one another with or without condoms.
5. A performer with no STDs would be informed upfront if his/her partner had an STD and be given a choice to either work with that person only with a condom or to not work with that person at all, even with a condom.
Scenario B (mandatory condom use policy):
1. All performers would be required to show up for work with their current STD test results (no exceptions).
2. Current performers who already have an STD (except AIDS), would still be allowed to work.
3. All performers would be required to use condoms in their scenes.
4. A performer with no STDs would be informed upfront if his/her partner had an STD and be given the option of not working with that person, even with a condom.
Scenario B is the better solution from a health standpoint. But even Scenario A would be a lot better than what we have now under current industry conditions.
Walter, that is certainly true regarding, for example, a lynch mob mentality. However, what this thread is about is well-reasoned and measured discourse, prompted by the emotional component, but not controlled by it.
Uh, guys, you do know that any US regulations to porn performers would only apply to US made porn. Regs like this could force another industry to go "offshore".
Hmmm... I don't think this Scenerio B is a very good option. Unless of course you want guys wearing condoms for oral sex and big dental dams all over the place. If someone is know to have a non-HIV STD (like herpes or warts) I can't imagine anyone would agree to suck their dick bare.
I think that the first 3 propositions of Pontus are valid . The porn industry should adopt procedures to give to their engaged support psychological , medical attendance, financial consultantship, etc, whose costs could leave of collected taxes of the sale of their products and divided among all of the companies. This would be through the auta-regulation avoiding the government interference. I like films without condoms, 18 year-old girls (seeming underages), anals and dps, then as the other proposals presented in this post am too selfish to accept, unhappily. I didn't see the interview with Belladonna, and in spite of possible editions/cuts, I believe to be true their feelings, and for that I don't go condemn her. The great subject is the prejudice/stigma. We would not be proud of having a sister or daughter known as the queen of the couple penetration. See, a Youth that arrives with dreams of being model or actress, but that has the only option of winning a good money is to act in porn movies tends all their holes filled out simultaneous owes if it feels after like the last person of the world. It would not be very different if it went a couple scene and "conventional" sex, because starting from that moment for all their friends, parents, lovers and for many other she would become a "prostitute." Afterwards with the accumulated money, prizes, friendships, recognition of the fans, she if conformed and until liked to act. Of course has those that has the exact notion than this doing and it is happy with that, but I think in some moment she wondered if that was doing was right. Thus for our pleasure many have risks and suffer. Could it be different? yes, but for that the producers and consumers should put aside some thing. Would all be willing to that? PS. As I have rudimentary English knowledge, I used a translation program to write this text, I hope I have been understood and excuse my mistakes.
Joeblow69, I guess no solution is absolutely foolproof, right?. Can you come up with a better solution that overall makes conditions safer for the performers, yet still gets around the problems that M.B. mentioned?
You can always think of tweaks and adjustments to refine a new proposal to make it work better, right? Therefore, I think it's better to expend thought-energy by coming up with ways to make something work (or work better), rather than to continually come up with reasons why something won't work.
In light of your observation, Joeblow69, one adjustment that I would make, for example, is to never let someone with an STD work with someone who doesn't have an STD, regardless of mandatory condom use.
Well first off I will say that while I taped the show I have not seen it yet but after seeing the posts here I can't say I am looking forward to it.
Okay I guess I will address Pontus's posts one at a time:
1. STD Testing - Should be mandatory and a full battery not just HIV. Just because the others can't necessarily kill you doesn't make them dangerous.
2. Psychological screening is a joke. As someone who had to be screened for their job I can assure you that this will solve nothing. Those tests are designed to make sure you understand what you are doing and your ability to handle things like stress. For the type of screening I think you really mean would require multiple sessions and even then it only would work if the person going to it wants to be there otherwise it would just be a waste of both people's time. Also if the therapist is being paid by the company there is a definate conflict of interest there and would not assure a good outcome. PS I am fairly certain there is a service available to performers called PAW that offers counseling.
3. I have been to financial counselor school and again you can counsel a person all you want but if they don't want to change then you are wasteing your time. I have 18 year old kids that can get a $65,000 tax free bonus and the government doesn't require us to counsel them though it is available. Plus I can't think of many companies that wouldn't help one of the girls out if they walked up and asked where to go for advice on how to set up her finances.
4. Condoms don't concern me one way or the other. Are the fans being selfish. HELL YES! How many of you would go pick up a girl in a bar and have sex with her without a condom? I can hear your response now..But they aren't tested. Okay she pulls out a test from 14 days okay that says she didn't have HIV would you have sex with her without a condom? If the answer was no then you have no business demanding that the women in films perform without condoms.
5. While not a big fan of the types of scenes Pontus mentioned I don't think they are really the source of the problem here. A woman with mental issues isn't going to be any less affected by a two man blowjob scene then she is by a DP. Those issues are going to come out no matter what. Also money is the great motivator. There is supposedly a proposed show where an amateur would train and step in the ring with Mike Tyson. Why would a person risk brain damage or death? Because it is a lot of money. So as long as someone is offering money someone will take them up on it. However, there isn't any real way for someone to say in advance if that person should be doing it or not.
6. Max Hardcore used to have these. However, after talking to some of the women who have worked with him I can tell you there is a big difference between being told what is going to happen and actually having it happen. Even the after thing doesn't necessarily work since one of the women I talked to said she really enjoyed her gangbang scene and it wasn't until later that night that she started wondering what she had done.
7. People are judgemental "porn fans" or not. So this is unlikely.
8. Age limit of 21. While I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea I agree that maturity has no age limit. Also doing this would merely drive the younger women to studios who won't care and would be even more likely to take advantage of them.
Now as far as regulations go I am fairly certain most of the things people are talking about already fall under existing laws it is just that the government doesn't want to enforce it on the adult industry.
The adult industry is way to fragmented for it to really enforce any changes among itself. Some companies would go along and some wouldn't. What I would really like to see is the companies to set up some type of fund for women like Tricia. It could be set up like a HMO or something to cover their medical expenses. The way it is done now where they just go "hope you have insurance" and move on is beyond wrong.
Now I look at the adult industry a lot like the military believe it or not. Both are huge organizations that in the overall big picture care little for the people who work for them. If a member of my unit has mental problems he/she is discharged usually with little or no real treatment and then replaced with the next 18 year old that walks in the door. Both organizations are in reality giant meat grinders that only focus on the individual if they gum up the works. It is the nature of the beast.
In the end I chalk most of this up to personal responsibility. No matter what we may think 18 is an adult. As a society we must stop letting people make excuses for the decisions they make. Learn from your mistakes and move on but don't blame someone else for your mistake. That is only hideing from the truth.
Futureofporn, here are my responses to your earlier post:It's time for some changes, Futureofporn. But I don't say this based merely on the yellow journalism of Primetime. Forget the mainstream media, over the years, the porn industry itself has painted a pretty bleak picture of what life is like for porn stars. I can also point out that it's not just me who feels that changes are needed. Other ADTers, posters at other forums, and even people not involved with porn at all feel that changes are needed in the porn industry.Employers can require things that the law doesn't require as a condition of employment (this is true with any job, right?). Prospective job applications can then choose to either accept those conditions of employment or seek work elsewhere. In gay porn, all of the performers wear condoms. This has been the case for several years now. In straight porn, companies like VCA, Vivid, Wicked, and others require the use of condoms. This, too, has been going on for years.Great to hear, Futureofporn, that's an even better solution. I wish all studio heads thought like you.In a subsequent post (where I responded to Tricia), I mentioned that what I was really thinking of all along was more like career counseling rather than psychological counseling. I went into detail about this in that earlier post.I say it definitely needs changes. But I agree that industry-wide change is hard. Back in 1998, it took five porn performers coming up HIV positive to get the porn industry to voluntarily tighten up its HIV testing procedures. But just because that level of change is hard is no excuse not to at least make the attempt. If no significant changes are made in the porn industry, then I believe it is only a matter of time before unionization and/or legislation impacting the porn industry becomes a reality.Agreed. People (whether involved in porn or not) should be willing to take personal responsibility for their actions.Nowhere have I blamed porn producers. I've merely offered suggestions that I feel would improve the plight of porn stars.Sadly, in my estimation, current conditions in the porn industry are not well enough to leave alone. Something needs to be done, whether voluntarily by the porn industry or by force of law or unionization of porn stars.
I saw this news program too and thought it was a crock of shit. Isn't Belladonna directing her own porn movies now? So she has no problem "exploiting" other young girls. I guess the porn biz must not be so bad after all.
And for all you guys wishing to raise the minimum age limit from 18 to 21. Are you nuts? I hope such a notion never gains any widespread support. We don't need more laws and government regulation interfering with this business. Besides, let's face it, fresh faced eighteen and nineteen year olds are the lifeblood of this business. I'd have to re-title half the series I produce if such a law was enacted. With many of my movies I try to make twenty-one the *upper* age limit for the girls if at all possible.
Girls simply look best when they are legal age teens. Pretty, skinny, natural-breasted and (hopefully) slutty. By the time they are twenty-one they could mature and change their minds about doing porn; put on weight; have kids and ruin their bodies; and have more time to mar themselves with tattoos and implants.
Outkastfan, your observation that much of this is driven by the bottom line is right on target. Plus, your other comments make sense, too.
Lee_carver, your observations are equally compelling. Let me directly address a couple of them:
I love the sentiment, but can something like that be brought about voluntarily by the fragmented porn industry and be managed effectively and ethically? It might be a moot point if the industry adopts more of the safe sex practices and standards that I and others have been advocating.Absolutely. Personal responsibility can't be stressed enough. I'll freely admit that this omission was the most serious flaw of my original post. In fact, Lee, what you said is great advice for every person on the planet, not just for porn stars.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Jan 25 2003 : 5:41PM
Good point, but I'm afraid it backs up your arguments even less. After the 1998 "epidemic", only about half the studios switched to condom scenes. Less than a year or two later, I think there were only 2 major studios still shooting all or even the majority of their scenes with condoms. If something like 4 or 5 girls getting HIV from performing doesn't get the industry to switch to condoms, there's no way a TV show will.But your suggestions all seem to suggest that we are the sole ones responsible for their actions. I didn't see that many of your suggestions account for the girl taking responsibility for herself. Sure, there are girls who get messed up even more because now they have more money to be even crazier.
Lee talked about PAW (Protecting Adult Welfare) and surmised that pretty much any director in the adult business will offer advice and even direct help if we were approached with a question or a specific situation. First of all, he's right about Protecting Adult Welfare. Nina Hartley helped make an EXCELLENT Intro to Porn-type video that PAW gives to as many of the new performers as they can get ahold of, and they see almost everyone new, as they do about 90% of the HIV tests for the American performers. As for the established performers and the studio execs, almost everyone that I know does give the new girls advice here and there. We tell the girls that they don't have to do anything that they're not comfortable with. We tell them where they should get their taxes done. We tell them who our stockbrokers are. Unfortunately, most of these girls (and guys) DON'T WANT that type of help. They want to know how to make more money in the business, but for many of them, saving the money that they make just isn't something that they can comprehend. And for Belladonna, one of the key companies that she pretty harshly slammed during her interview generously co-signed for her on several things, including her SUV.
Finally, as for me, yes, I did marry a millionaire. But I was in the business for over 2 years before I even met him. Towards the end, I wanted to work less often because I wanted to be pickier about which companies I worked for. Not about the type of sex scenes I was doing, I just didn't want to even have to consider working for or with someone I wasn't comfortable with. So I got a job as a waitress so that I had enough money to pay my bills even if I didn't have sex on camera for an entire month. The waitress job was perfect because it was late-night shift. So if a job came up that I wanted to take, I didn't have to worry about my work schedule. I was buying costumes for dancing as a feature and investing in my porn career by scheduling my own promo photo shoots. But that was only a few months before I had to retire, so, unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to make much use out of those investments.
You're welcome, Tricia. Your point about the condom issue was very well-taken. But it does seem to beg the question, "Is legislation and government enforcement the only way to get the entire porn industry to go the mandatory condom use route?"
Tricia, be brutally honest with me about something. Let's say you knew personally and very well an 18 year old woman who made an unwavering decision to become a porn performer. This hypothetical person is a good-looking, blue-eyed, natural blonde with a nice body and no tattoos or piercings. And let's say that she asked you what was the best route to take that would give her her best chance of avoiding being infected by any STDs. And let's also say that she wanted to accomplish this while still being able to maximize her earnings potential in the porn industry. What would you tell her? (Remember, telling her not to become a porn performer is irrelevant because she's made up her mind on that issue.) Would you tell her her only realistic choices are Vivid or VCA, for example?
Pontus
(Updated to correct some grammatical errors.)
Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 1/25/2003 6:45:08 PM
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Jan 25 2003 : 6:22PM
Pontus - I would tell her to NEVER do a scene without a condom. That way, with regards to my previous post, about saying that some companies will use a condom scene for a girl if that is what she ALWAYS does would be valid. However, once they do a non-condom scene once, asking companies to shoot her with a condom from then on becomes a double standard from her towards the companies.
I'd also tell her that if she does this and decides that she can't get enough work to make the money she wants, she could do what I did and dance on tour or get a secondary job to make up the remainder of the money.
That is so wonderful to hear, Tricia. You have no idea how much better this makes me feel. That yellow journalist Diane Sawyer should have pointed this out (and I'm sure, a lot of other positive things about the porn industry).This just raises my already high opinion of Evil Angel. That the performers don't heed the great advice falls under the personal responsibility umbrella again. Tricia, why are we human beings so hard-headed?
Don't get too excited about copyright infringment in this context. It is most likely covered under the "fair use" defense. It was a small clip incident to a news story.
I'm sure sales of that Gangbang Girl episode will skyrocket now! But, it also probably put a target on Anabolic's head in the minds of the obscenity police. I guess you have to take the good with the bad.
As for Belladonna not understanding what would happen in a Gangbang Girl movie? -- no way I'm buying that. I'm starting to think Belladonna may have manipulated ABC by giving them what they wanted (a big dramarama)so that the spotlight would be on her. Look at all the attention this TV show has generated for her.
Why didn't Diane Sawyer follow one of the Private girls around (Lynn Stone, Nikki Anderson)? The answer is, of course, that she would have had to present a much different story, she would not have had the opportunity to blast the industry and cause sensationalism and she would have gotten much lower ratings. I have not seen the interview, but from reading the messages on this forum, it sounds like it was a biased mockery of journalism. I am sure that some companies or directors in the industry are shameful, but there are others that present the most beautiful women doing the most erotic things that many people fantasize about without defecation, urination, violence, etc. If Diane were a responsible journalist, she would have also presented the views of some of the stars that work for probably the best adult video company in the world, Private Video.
atsival - As is almost always true these days Diane Sawyer and ABC were not interested in showing the good with the bad in the adult industry. We could all site good examples for her to have at least talked to but she didn't because that wouldn't have given her the story she wanted. As far as I am concerned these days TV journalism is on the same level with the National Enquirer just a little bit slicker. They only tell you the part of the story they want you to know so you make the conclusion they want instead of being responsible journalists and giving the complete story and lettingyou make your own conclusions.
Let me just say what I would like to see happen. Hopefully my answers will somehow match your questions )
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
This will NEVER happen why....
1. 21...I see producers lobbying hard not to have this. 2. Federal License....No way the federal government will advocate the porn industry in this way. Prostitution is illegal in the US except for all but two counties in Nevada and even though its legal to film porn in Cali the feds would never make such a bold move. 3. AIM would love this but due to the cost and time factors I really don't see this working. 4. Psychological Exams....Yeah right most "talent" already suffer from some major "personality disorder" and if talent should be held to these tests why not directors, producers as well as agents. 5. Drug Free....Yeah sure that's hilarious!!!
[Link]
Planet Sex Deactivated User
1951 Posts 6/01
Posted - Jan 26 2003 : 5:40PM
Is THIS the Diane Sawyer you guys are talking about?
I don't get it. Nobody sues for age discrimination because they can't drink, can't go to war, can't drive a car, etc., before the legal age. Nor do 17 year olds sue because of age discrimination making it so they can't work in the adult industry unless they're 18. What does "21" have to do with illegalities that those other things don't? We're talking about raising the *legal* age here (at least, so I believe), not about just having studios raise their limits despite the law... (Even if we weren't, I don't think I agree with your assumption.)
1. Regarding testing/condom use: Everyone's interests would be best served with an industry standard of informed consent. A performer might be required to provide a producer with current (say a month old at most) test results on potentially fatal and/or chronic STDs, with the understanding that such info would be disclosed to potential partners beforehand. If everyone involved has nothing or the same thing (say herpes or HPV), everyone might be OK with not using condoms. Otherwise, use condoms. Not catching something new means you won't be spreading it further or be blaming porn for all your problems. You won't become more fodder for the crusaders bent on outlawing anything beyond Cosmopolitan magazine, and probably that too.
2&3: Financial/emotional counseling: This needn't take huge resources, especially if done mostly online. You don't need a lot to compose and maintain some FAQs and perhaps a bulletin board. If unethical treatment is as common as many say it is, at least a few people will want to do something about it.
4: See (1). If informed consent became the norm within gonzo as well as high-end, there'd be more safety for performers, less guilt/more satisfaction for consumers and less risk of judicial crackdown for producers. The same holds for raising the legal age to 21. Yes, this means no more titles like "Training Teens." This may not be such a bad thing, as such titles feed the misperception that all porn is child porn victimizing, as Sawyer and Koop put it, "kids" and "youngsters."
5: While there is curiosity for the newly extreme, indulging it carries risks on all levels. Consider: John Ashcroft's first move as AG was to resurrect an obscenity case involving fisting. Sept. 11 gave him other things to do, but this is still on his list. So the fact that John Ashcroft probably knows more than he did last week about double-anal does not bode well for gonzo, high-end, hard-core, soft-core. It's all the same to him and the president. Whatever it is for them, though, porn generally is essentially a way to watch what you think about doing but never will, that which you could make reality but choose to leave as fantasy. Oral, girl-girl, anal, simultaneous sucking and fucking, DP, lite B&D...it's at least theoretically plausible that a girl could be into it, or at least not be hurt by it. If the woman's getting drop-kicked and beaten, or being gang-banged by 1,000 guys, she's 100 percent for sure getting fucked over. I don't have to go over and look to know how sick it is. Same goes for bukkake, toilet sex, zoo sex, lacto/preggo females and she-males, to name a few. The less of this that there is in the industry, the better off it'll be.
6. A box cover indicating that performers gave informed consent both STD-wise (see 1) and rough-sex wise could be a significant selling point.
7. "Too many porn fans disrespect porn stars." Seriously. Fans elsewhere don't typically regard stars as "old and used" in as little as three years." That Veronica Hart and performers have moved into production is great. That Ona Zee is performing after at least 17 years is incredible, as is the fact that she looks pretty much the same as she did in Brazilian Connection. Such people, it seems, would have a lot to add to this discussion. Yet they've been ignored, here on this thread, and in others, and in the PT Live that started it all.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jan 28 2003 : 9:25AM
Jim, if I didn't know you I'd have a very different picture of you reading this. The whole point of changing the age limit to 21 would be to attract women who are sure of themselves, who are confident in their sexuality, who aren't going to regret doing porn and turn against the industry.
Since when is immaturity so attractive? Are men afraid of confident, secure women? Age does not equal unfit body. There's plenty of teenage obesity and there's plenty of hard-bodied women. Some changes to porn and the perception of porn might attract more deeply sensual women rather than confused teenagers looking for a quick buck.
Henri Pachard, as usual, makes some great points in his article on this.
Steph, I am with you 100% on your comments about maturity. I believe mature women are underrepresented in the adult film biz, and know there are fans who would agree. Age dosen't equal unnatractive. We have several performers who have appeared in our videos who are in their 30's and the fans responded very well.
The gay community has even developed a taste for mature men as evidenced by the surge of "bear" magazines and videos that have appeared. Raising the minimum age of performers to 21 would be a positive move.
I particularly liked Pachard's comment on Nevada:It makes a lot of sense to me that everybody should follow the same sort of licensing standards. Regardless of the specifics (age, testing, etc.) it would be a good idea to have a standardized licensing bureau (with whatever specific standards are required to be met) that hands out "membership" to those who meet the qualifications. Only those who are licensed would have full support to pursue their trade in the adult industry. (At first, it wouldn't matter if somebody were license or not, but I think that over time those who were licensed would be accepted as having better "credentials", over all, and newcomers would be encouraged to go that route. It would act as a sort of seque into the changes that everybody's talking about here.)
As for mature women - I almost always am more attracted to women who show maturity, class, and experience. For the most part (and there are always exceptions) I would much rather watch a woman in her mid-twenties or thirties, than any fresh-faced teenager who doesn't seem to know what she's doing. Not only is there far more to sensuality than mere physical appearance, but, even if I did believe that, saying that only teenagers have the best bodies is (I believe) unfair and inaccurate.
I was with you until the above. I think that not only are you generalizing, but you're letting your personal feelings on the subject matter colour your judgement in terms of what anybody could enjoy. You have a point, that I wholeheartedly agree with, in saying that nobody should be forced into performing any of the above scenes, but I think you're wrong in stating that absolutely nobody could ever enjoy doing any of them. Lots of people enjoy things that others find distasteful.
The more I think about it, and the more I've read here... the more I find myself swayed by the 21 year old age restriction. I'm starting to see the benefits of it, and I think ultimately that barely legal fans will still find plenty to like about barely legal 21 year olds.
I think part of the problem with this lack of self regulation in porn is that we've all gotten lazy... we've all been starting to take sex as it's presented in porn for granted. The more extreme acts are being produced more and more because it's what the porn community feels they need to do to sell to an ever more jaded audience. This is not to say that I'm against the more extreme acts, or that I feel they should be regulated. I don't believe that at all, and am pretty much with Mythsong's post above, but I do feel that there should be some context to it.. some reason for it... some genuine passion behind it. This of course is personal taste, but ultimately I think it would behoove the porn industry to raise the minimum age of their own accord. The last thing the industry wants is to be regulated by legislation, and I fear that without the industry showing some responsibility and taking steps to demonstrate itself as a legitimate and safe work place, that is exactly what's going to happen. Porn will always be around... legal or not... but I will only patronize the industry as long as it's legal, and I don't see the benefit to the porn industry or those who work in it for legislation to bring it underground.
Certainly there are many arguments about what constitutes a safe working environment... whether condoms are actually useful or practical or not... whether as Bi-Sexual Britni says, STDs are any more dangerous than walking across the street, etc. I think you might ultimately be stuck with the law of averages. Raising the minimum age to 21 seems, above all else, to make sense to me--if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the world that we want more responsible, mature adults in this business who have made a concsious choice to be here. Granted this isn't going to stop those girls who come in because they have deeper issues, but my guess is that it's going to significantly reduce them.
This idea that porn relies on its forbidden and controversial aspect to survive is a well taken point, but ultimately I hope that porn can be perceived by and large as a legitimate career peopled with passionate and free thinking individuals. This is the way more "mainstream" porn is now, in my view, but it's not how it's perceived. The more respect pornography can gain as a fair and rewarding working environment, the more beautiful and passionate girls we can hope to attract to this business. Ultimately, in that case, everyone wins.
Just my thoughts after having a few days to mull it over. Like I said, I think this is all important dialogue, and that people should listen. We need to put it all in perspective--realize that porn is not necessarily in eminent danger because of one TV program--and in fact sales and web hits have boosted tremendously in the last few days. I look at this as a chance to tell the world who we are... as producers... as fans... and let them judge for themselves. It'll be business as usual for me. I've always cared about that talent... and that will never stop. I've always liked more dominant and rough sex, and that won't stop either. I love porn, and I really like a lot of the people who work in the industry. I will continue to do my thing as a fan and as a po-dunk reviewer, and the industry, while understandably looking carefully at the bottom line, should always strive for improvement. Let's keep talking about it. The fans are as much a part of porn's image as the studios are--and AdultDVDTalk, rame, Pornblography, and other internet sites have some great representatives.
Agreed on all fronts in your last post. Well spoken.
Mythsong:
I agree with you whole-heartedly. Watching a mature women is much more exciting because it appears they are in the industry as a concious choice rather that a financial choice. What's funny to me is that we are talking about mature women as being 21 years or older.
Steph: If I didn't know you, I wouldn't believe that you (and many others apparently) could be suckered into jump-starting a debate about this issue based on what you saw on that crock-of-shit news story that was on Primetime. The lesson of Bella's experience isn't that young girls are being exploited by the adult movie business, despite the fact that that was exactly what the anti-porn mainstream media wanted to portray. On the contray, according to people who know her, Bella is a total slut who loves it up the ass and got into this business willingly. Not only that but instead of fleeing back to a conventional life, she is now directing her own movies and, "exploiting" other young girls in turn. Does this make any sense if the business is such a terrible thing? Since you work in the adult business you should know better than to be hood-winked by the anti-porn slant that the mainstream media almost invariably puts on any porn story they run.If you feel so strongly about not wanting to exploit young girls why don't you do the noble thing and put your money where your mouth is right now by unilaterally refusing to refer sales for any "teen" themed DVDs on your web site or any movie that features even a single 18, 19 & 20 year old female? Males too while you are busy saving the world. Doesn't sound very practical or profitable does it?While I respect Mr. Pachard as a film maker and a writer, I think this essay is total bullshit. We don't need industry apologists trying to control how others run their business in the vague hope of appeasing some supposedly imminent governmental crackdown. Again, if Mr. Pachard wants to be Dudley Do-Right, he can unilaterally refuse to hire any 18, 19 and 20 years olds for all of the movies he produces or directs as of today. You think he will still be in business? Why rain on everyone else's parade?
Of course, you have all overlooked the fact that inviting more governmental interference in this business is a slippery slope that could lead to who knows what. What would be next, a limit on the number of guys in a gangbang? How about a quota on anal sex scenes? Maybe we can outlaw double-anal and spanking and bukkake while we are at it.
This doesn't even address the insurmountable logistical problems with changing the law to make the minumum age 21. Would all the previous tens of thousands of movies and DVDs with 18-20 year old models suddenly be classfiied as kiddie porn? Could the entire business be indicted retroactively for trafficking in kiddie porn? Or would those existing movies produced before the new cut-off date be "grandfathered" in legally? How about new compilations derived from those scenes- legal or not? What about web site content (pics & videos) that do not even exist as a physically seperate tangible product? How would adult webmasters seperate the old legal "kiddie porn" produced in 2002, from the new images of 21+ year olds produced under your new laws?
Not to mention if such a law was passed the US would suddenly be alone in the entire porn-producing world which pretty much adheres to 18 as the legal age of majority like we do currently. So what would happen to all those hundreds (maybe even low thousands) of internationally produced movies that are imported and released in the US every year? Suddenly international licensing commerce would have to stop too? Foreign producers certainly would still film 18-20 year old models and US companies could no longer be able to import and release them. Or would they be exempt?
Bottom line-when you are 18 you are of legal age to sign a contract and that is that. As an adult you can choose any occupation that you want, even dangerous occupations like coal miner; convenience store clerk and yes, even porn star if you want to. Luckilly this is all an academic argument since an incredible amount of inertia would be necessary to change the law which is fine as it is. Thankfully a bunch of talk on some industry forum by people who haven't even clearly thought out the issue isn't enough to do it.
I'll never understand why people think that age discrimination is OK if you are discriminating against young people. How is this any different than discriminating against someone because they are old?
I could understand saying that people must take an IQ test, or a mental health test or something of that nature, regardless of age, in order to be allowed to enter the adult industry.
But, in my opinion, to say that people between 18 & 20 (when 18 is the legal age in our country) are not allowed to make a living doing what they want to do is no different than saying that someone is not allowed to work in the adult industry because of their race or religion.
It is not acceptable and I'm surprised to see that a group of people who tend to share a libertarian belief would think that it is acceptable.
Are you for real? IQ tests are only vaguely accurate measures of inteligence at best. Unless the potential talent are actually mentally retarded and not able to have legal responsibility for their own affairs, I say the dumber the talent is the better. It's not a producers job to be anyone's guidance counsuler or advisor. As long as the producer or director treats the talent fairly and civilly and writes them a pay check that doesn't bounce, that's about all the responsibility involved.That's easy to answer- liberal guilt. A lot of the people in this group, industry people and consumers alike- secretly are ashamed of their involvement or interest in pornography and/or draw some squigly line in the sand of what they personally consider acceptable. Couple that with the ability of people to quickly and easily express any half-baked opinion in an online forum and you get all kinds of reactions to a rigged and slanted news report designed to shock the public at large and get ratings. That it also worked to divide industry insiders and fans is pathetic.
I don't understand why raising the minimum age would be considered discrimination. I am working in a profession which requires state licensure, and the minimum age for my type of work is 19. I believe the legal age for viewing porn in my state is 21. I haven't yet been able to confirm this in the statutes (too much legalese to wade through), but the consent statement at some porn sites does specify a minimum age of 21 for residents of my state and a few others.
The point has been raised elsewhere that if you're old enough to view porn, you're old enough to perform in it. I believe that age varies from state to state, however, which further complicates matters.
Mythsong, good point. I should've been more clear.
Whatever the production, the audience basically falls into two categories, the fantasizers and the gawkers. Chances are, if you're getting off, you're not grossing out and vice versa. Scenes of fucking, blowing, 2-on-1 etc. make most of the audience harder and wetter. Scenes of shitting into an open mouth, say, or two fists going up someone's ass might make some people come harder. Just because most people might not doesn't give anyone the right to judge those who do get turned on, I agree. If they were mostly the ones watching, such films would remain specialized niches dedicated to porn's ultimate purpose: whatever turns you on.
But that's not even the point for a good number of those checking out the Xtreme. They're open-mouthed, soft and dry, but what they want a circus act, a freak show. That sex is involved is almost incidental. That still shouldn't be a problem, and it wouldn't be if we didn't have this problem of Bush & c. trying to get into everyone else's. To shut down porn, they sniff around the most "shocking" example of it but generally don't dig. Some years ago, a v. high-ranking federal official told me personally that the fact that penis-penetrating-vagina scenes were becoming more easy to find was justification for an industry-wide crackdown. Had the double anal triple penetration beating been right next to the stroke tapes that he picked up, it would not have been good. Such a scenario would be more likely today, and would make it more likely that those who DO and those who DON'T get off on Xtreme Whatever will have nothing to get off on stronger than NYPD Blue after everything's taken away. Everyone's fucked, except maybe those who would've gotten more out of going to a real circus in the first place.
What I would prefer, is that there be a line drawn in the sand, between childhood and adulthood. I personally don't give a damn where that line is but insist that it be solid. In other words, after a certain point of life, you are an adult, responsible only for, and to, yourself. I would prefer that this be 18 (if for no other reason for the freedomof the parents), but could live with 21. Please remember that by assuming that all 18 year olds are incapable of running their lives, we make it so. Remember, one age; good for right of contract, vote, freedom from parental orders, the draft, and all other rights of an individual(including performing in a porn movie and watching one).
>>STD testing: I DO support this. Even if it doesn't become mandatory,<<
It should be mandatory for every porn company. Make a testing "alliance" if you will. Any porn companies or performers that do not cooperate with this alliance should be blackballed and made pariahs in the industry. Rigorous, regular and reliable testing is the key here. A performer should never have to go into a scene not knowing what STD's their partners may have. Once they know this they can make a decision based on that knowledge. And it goes without saying that anyone being decietful or attempting to use any kind of fraud to conceal their STD status would face permanent banishment from the industry. But hopefully with rigorous testing from 100% reliable people the possibility of "faking" stuff is eliminated.
We already have this. It's called the age of majority, 18, which applies to all these circumstances. Only the right to drink alcohol was made older because our overprotective Federal government quite literally blackmailed the states into adopting it years ago. Other than this let's leave well enough alone.
Jim, this is NOT all based on that ABC Primetime show. That show was a catalyst for debates throughout the entire porn world, but all of these debates are not based solely on that heavily skewed Primetime show, as I pointed out myself in the very first post that started this thread.
People aren't naive, Jim. Everyone in this thread agrees that the Primetime show was lopsided, hack journalism. But that's not the issue in this thread. The issue is a discussion of the possible changes that the porn industry should voluntarily make to improve the plight of porn stars (which would automatically improve the image of the porn industry, and make it less likely to become regulated--and even possibly banned at some point--by the government).
People aren't "suckers" for believing that positive changes are warrented at this point. Frankly, they've been warranted all along and many of us have sensed it all along. Now, we're getting around to seriously discussing and debating these issues in depth (which I think is a very good sign in and of itself). It means that we are starting to wake up and become more conscientious about the adult business.
Jim, here is information that I got from Jimmy D's website that was too good to pass up. It has great relevance to this whole topic:
I know this is a sensitive issue for you, Jim. But your attitude is only making me glad that I've never bought a teen-themed DVD. ("I say the dumber the talent is the better"—yikes, I hope you typed that in a sarcastic tone, because otherwise you are seriously creeping me out.)
Perhaps, then, I'm assuming something that I shouldn't be assuming. Is it actually the case that every adult studio in every State in the US lets 18 year olds work? Or can somebody name a "rogue" studio/state that has a different minimum? (Nevada was specifically mentioned earler with regards to 21 year old licensing of the sex trade - did that apply to their movie studios too?)
Oh - and just to add some more facts, this discussion, so far, has only mentioned the States. In Canada, the legal drinking age is 19. In at least parts of Europe (I have far fewer facts than I'd like), the legal age to appear in an adult movie is 17 - I can't recall if 16 is allowed anywhere or not. So what we end up with is a range of ages, throughout the world, for all sorts of things, between 16 (?) and 21.
Discrimination- noun: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
In the United States, people are considered to be of legal age when they turn 18. At that point they have the same rights as anybody else who is 18 or older. Determining that someone does not have the right to work in an industry because of some theory that they are not "mature enough" until they are 21 is prejudice. By definition that makes it discrimination.
The fact that it is being done elsewhere doesn't make it right. There were separate water fountains for "colored" people for a long time, that didn't make it right either.
Would you consider it discrimination if someone passed a law that said you couldn't be a member of your profession once you were 30 or older? How is that any different?
The reason that age discrimination is "acceptable" for younger people is that they have no political voice. Not enough of them vote and they certainly don't vote as a block like groups such as AARP do.
I believe that if an 18 year old really wanted to take the time and spend the money to challenge the minimum age requirement for your profession, they would win. However, by the time it went to court and then progressed from court to court on appeals by whomever lost, that person would be 19 and the case would become moot and be dropped.
Children born into slavery in Africa or starving in a famine in some third world country have a plight. American porn stars don't have a "plight". If they are attractive and reliable they are paid handsomely for minimal work. There is no need for pity.Seems pretty unlikely to me that the government could ban the entire business at this point in time since it has grown so many separate tentacles and interwoven itself into the fabric of American society on many diferent levels. Perhaps they could interfere with it legally as they have in the past, but I personally think that even this threat is overstated.With the disturbing and anti-industry comments I have been reading on this forum, I'm thankful that few here with the time to waste to debate this have any real power to do anything about it.-snip of Gerg Z's long commentary about potential prosecution of the business & other bad things that may come to pass-
We'll see. Hopefully none of this will come to pass. I only occasionally film b/g movies so the condom thing doesn't freak me out that much. Nor am I working in California very often so I dont suppose that it affects me directly.There will never be a union, nor should performers expect anyone to supply them with Health Care benefits. There are a lot of people working close to full time hours in other occupations that don't have health care benfits either. If performers want they can do what I personally do and pay for my own health care benefits. As a single person who doesnt smoke cigarettes it can be as low as $149 a month for a pretty comprehensive plan.Remains to be seen. Right now all we have is a lot of sky is falling talk on an industry forum.We'll see. Which of the 50 companies that a performer might work for in the space of a month will be their employer? Each of them in turn for the space of the three hours it might take to film a scene?
Click to expand
I highly doubt it. Anyway, considering the vehement and vocal opposition of a significant minority of the audience that won't stand for watching condom scenes period, those that do use condoms will lose out against other that don't whether they be condomless foreign movies or the unstoppable online distribution of non-condom videos.Never happen in a million years.Nice idea Greg had, but as I said anyone responsible that cares about their health, especially a healthy young person can buy their own coverage through many diferent avenues. I personally joined some National Business Association for about $100 and got several useful benefits including access to reasonably priced and comprehensive health care.I'm going to try and refrain from commenting further because I dont want to give anyone reading this the mistaken impression that there really is any serious debate going on about these issues.
Jim Gunn http://www.JimGunn.com
[Link]
Planet Sex Deactivated User
1951 Posts 6/01
Posted - Jan 29 2003 : 12:11AM
My two cents: NOTHING´S GOING TO CHANGE. People who always hated porn will go on hating it, people who love porn will go on porning, and life will go on exactly as planned by Jah Almighty.
18 is not the legal age for everything, everywhere. In an earlier post, I responded to a similar comment with the following:This still holds. Why would changing the legal age result in lawsuits about discrimination?
And, if we're not talking about state/federal legal ages, but studio policies - are you saying that a support group for battered women, which does not allow the attendance of men, is opening itself up for lawsuits on the basis of discrimination by ex-serial rapists who wish to attend and who are refused admittance?
Currently, in the States, if you're 18 it's legal to work in the industry. This does not mean that it's illegal for a studio to reject anybody who comes through their door. If a mainstream film studio is casting the part of a 10 year old to play somebody's grandchild - I hardly think that it would be "inappropriate" to reject a 15-80 year old for the part. Nor would it be inappropriate to reject a man when it's a woman's role that's being filmed, a caucasian when it's an Asian role, etc. If it's studio policy, it's studio policy.
Of course, anybody can sue in civil court for anything - people sue when they spill hot coffee on their lap. But just because it can happen doesn't mean that it's likely to happen. I hardly think that if a particular studio adopted a higher minimum age that it would suddenly be inundated by a series of civil lawsuits brought by all of its disappointed talent...
Why not? Different places have different laws.Actually, all of the arguments for/against a certain age can apply equally well to arguments for/against a certain IQ score. Let's say you need an IQ of 90 to get work somewhere. What if a certain studio suddenly decides to make their standard of acceptance a minimum IQ score of 91? Surely those who score 90 would have just an arguable case (whether sound or not is beside the point) as those who are 18 years of age would have against studios only casting those 19+. IQ score, like age, is a gradient scale. Not that that says that non-gradient scales are non-discriminatory but, perhaps, they are more easily dealt with in terms of laws/policies.
I just wanted to make one quick comment about what Jim Gunn said. I don't really take a major standpoint one way or another on this, and I kind of have a "no religion, no politics" guideline I like to stick by. Having said that, I pretty much have to agree w/most of what Jim Gunn says. People just need to remember, no one forces anyone to be in the porn business if they don't wanna be.
Bill, glad to hear that you weren't actually advocating an IQ test. However it would indeed be discriminatory against plain old stupid people of which there are an abundance of in this country to say nothing of the porn biz in particular.
And yes YogaGirl, I care much more about a model's looks than her intelligence. If they happen to be dumb on top of being pretty it's no skin off my back. Luckilly I'm a pretty easy director to work for so if they look hot on camera and do what I want it's win-win.
