AIDS Healthcare Files Complaints On 16 Porn Compan

Author	Post
hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:31PM what do you think? they want to force all the companies to use condoms. We give the girls a choice, as do most companies. Should it be mandatory? [Link]
smutlover65 Member 359 Posts 10/07	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:42PM ^Mandatory? Absolutely not! [Link]
bono-ONE All-Star Member SAMCRO 8571 Posts 8/00	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:44PM Well if it comes down to a black and white choice of either you use condoms or there's no porn then yeah use condoms. Otherwise I favor the choice option and above all I want the performers to be as safe as they can be. There are risks but you are all adults presumably and can make an informed decision if given all the pertinent facts pertaining to this career choice and the hazards one can face. [Link]
hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:52PM bono-ONE wrote: Well if it comes down to a black and white choice of either you use condoms or there's no porn then yeah use condoms. Otherwise I favor the choice option and above all I want the performers to be as safe as they can be. There are risks but you are all adults presumably and can make an informed decision if given all the pertinent facts pertaining to this career choice and the hazards one can face. Click to expand I think if it comes down to that you must use condoms, you will see an most companies relocate to Nevada. Vivid made a statement on the news last night they would move. The performers are tested, they have the choice to use or not use condoms. For the government to dictate that they must use condoms reminds me of the helmet laws for motorcycles, in more ways than one. Edited by - hollywood woody on 8/21/2009 5:52:53 PM [Link]
bono-ONE All-Star Member SAMCRO 8571 Posts 8/00	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:56PM What about Arizona-- we're better than Nevada and I don't have to fly to sets anymore, lol. [Link]

hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 6:24PM bono-ONE wrote: What about Arizona-- we're better than Nevada and I don't have to fly to sets anymore, lol. Click to expand I love AZ. little hot during the summer, but much more beautiful than NV. [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 6:47PM Woody, Fair to say that the subtext of the 'choice' performers are offered by directors is 'choose not to use a condom, if you plan to ever shoot with us again.' How many titles in the past two years do you think Vivid has put out, where any condom was used? I'm not a pro-condom advocate, mind you. I prefer not to have to use one for my shoots. I am a pro-choice advocate, and feel that real condom choice is rare on set. John [Link]
hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:11PM JohnHenry wrote: Woody, Fair to say that the subtext of the 'choice' performers are offered by directors is 'choose not to use a condom, if you plan to ever shoot with us again.' How many titles in the past two years do you think Vivid has put out, where any condom was used? I'm not a pro-condom advocate, mind you. I prefer not to have to use one for my shoots. I am a pro-choice advocate, and feel that real condom choice is rare on set. John Click to expand I totally disagree with you. On our sets they are given a real choice. Monique for example prefers them, she has shot plenty for Vivid and was never told if she uses them she will not shoot.That is a very irresponsible message you are sending out.To answer your first question, there are plenty of Vivid movies over the last 2 years where condoms are used. [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:37PM Having never shot for Vivid, I'll concede the girls who shoot for them may very well feel they have a real choice. The only company I've shot for that made it clear condoms were actually an option was kink.com. Again, I agree with you that condoms should be at the performers discretion. This could be implemented by incorporating a 'condom preference' yes/no checkbox within the model release. If one performer checks yes, all performers use one for the scene, no further questions asked. John [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14596 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:49PM Who is "AIDS Healthcare" and why should they have any standing in court? [Link]
picman Senior Member Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 8:06PM It'll just mean more porn shot in Florida. [Link]
Ramsey Senior Member Trina Michaels fan 10332 Posts 10/02	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 8:32PM Is this a poll? Should it be mandatory? Hell no! Condoms may prevent certain germs but they also kill every heat in a scene! [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 10:46PM Hardware wrote: Who is "AIDS Healthcare" and why should they have any standing in court? Click to expand Link [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 1:45AM I think it should be performer choice, male or female. IE, either the male or female can request. [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 10:46AM Press release from AIDs-healthcare: http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-calosha.html There are doing it together with Pink Cross Foundation which was founded by Shelley Lubben, ex-porn girl/escort who found Jesus. No, seriously.. she did: After finding God through Christianity and enduring eight hard years of recovery at the Champion's Center, Shelley conquered the horrible effects of her past and became a Champion in life through the power of Jesus Christ. Click to expand I knew it. [Link]

BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:03AM We've had more Walt Disney World employees die in the last 60-days (three), than we have had working porn actors infected with HIV since the "Darren James" outbreak. How many coal-miners die every year -- in an industry supposedly government regulated? Add in the environmental degradation and adverse affects on worker's and local people's health? The government and the do-gooders (as opposed to the goo-doers :) don't give a rat's ass about us and/or anyone working in the sex business. Their only agenda is to destroy porn by any and all means they can seize upon. Fuck all of them. [Link]
JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:03AM sigh I mean, it's a valid point of view. It should be part of the debate. But keep the nutjobs out of it if you want to be taken seriously. [Link]
JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:04AM BigBobxxx wrote: The government and the do-gooders (as opposed to the goo-doers :) Click to expand [Link]
torris Senior Member Deep within Mila's anus 1827 Posts 1/00	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:55AM hollywood woody wrote: what do you think? they want to force all the companies to use condoms. We give the girls a choice, as do most companies. Should it be mandatory? Click to expand ========== I don't buy porn that knowingly employs condoms. That is a huge turnoff from the sexual heat of the scene(s) and is a buzzkill from how I watch porn from a voyeuristic experience. I don't want to see anybody get infected or die for this, but I would say that personal choice still should matter in this country. I don't want leftist fascism anymore than I liked it under Bush and the Neocons. Consider the thousands and thousands of couplings in the past 40 years, (the same time period AIDS started percolating) if AIDS were transmitted through unprotected sex than porn performers should be dying in droves. I would guess that some forensic accountant could show that considering the exposure, porn is not a common conveyor of HIV infections. And for those who call me a selfish Neanderthal? meh. As a consumer of anything, I'm always selfish. There will be plenty of non condom porn and if you want my future business you will highlight your condom free status as many companies did the last time this happened with AIM's fuckup and Marc Wallice [Link]
PhoenixJo Member 231 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 12:03PM I avoid all porn where condoms are used so if it becomes manadatory I will probably reduce the amount of porn viewed/purchased. Thats not to say I take the health issues lightly as they are very serious indeed and I respect anyone who doesnt want to perform because of no condoms. I just wont watch their scene. I dont enjoy watching a girl suck on a condom - it is a massive turn off! There are other measures that could be taken to ensure greater safety if required. [Link]
torris Senior Member Deep within Mila's anus 1827 Posts 1/00	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 12:07PM Hardware wrote: Who is "AIDS Healthcare" and why should they have any standing in court? Click to expand ======== You should pick up August's AVN. They cover the twin problems porn has on the legal front at the moment: Cal Osha demanding condoms in the workplace and a positive (performer un-named) result announced by AIM that got the usual hysterical "if it bleeds, it leads" coverage in the SoCal press [Link]
Christopher256 Member 146 Posts 8/05	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 3:17PM BigBobxxx wrote: We've had more Walt Disney World employees die in the last 60-days (three), than we have had working porn actors infected with HIV since the "Darren James" outbreak. Click to expand Yeah. The industry is extremely safe. Over thoudands and thousands of scenes with unprotected sex the porn industry has been almost flawless in modern times in preventing the spread of HIV. Lets get real, the industry knows what it's doing. This is all about sensationalism and not about setting real priorities for society. Get off the porn industry's ass. [Link]
satchman23 Studios - do not send screeners to this person. 1906 Posts 12/06	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 3:23PM bono-ONE wrote: Well if it comes down to a black and white choice of either you use condoms or there's no porn then yeah use condoms. Otherwise I favor the choice option and above all I want the performers to be as safe as they can be. There are risks but you are all adults presumably and can make an informed decision if given all the pertinent facts pertaining to this career choice and the hazards one can face. Click to expand I could not of said it any better! I agree! [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14596 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 4:36PM Zoid wrote: Press release from AIDs-healthcare: http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-calosha.html Click to expand Thanks, Zoid. So, they aren't filing in court, they're filing a complaint with Cal/OSHA. I don't know what that agency's rules are, but showing unprotected sex is not the same as proving the assertions that porn valley is spreading STD's, nor does it prove the assertion that a blacklist exists. So, whether it is meaningful to the agency in demonstrating that the industry is an unhealthy workplace remains to be seen. Furthermore, as BigBobxxx points out, there is no real attempt by government agencies to make workplaces completely safe. There's usually an attempt to balance safety and profitability. It remains to be seen whether porn makers have the clout to get the same consideration as the coal industry, et al. PS - I read the Lubben's and Merritt's arguments; they're crap. That's not to say that there's no validity to their assertions, merely that their supposed proof is no such thing. [Link]
MistyMassage Member I Wana Be A Porn Star! 24 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 5:31PM I love sex! But, not enough to jeopardise my health or die from contracting AIDS. I have been with many men that want a real porn experience so they don't want to use a condom. I have noticed that if I apply a condom without their knowledge "using my mouth" they never complain and are greatly surprised that they had no idea but if I ask them to put one on a lot of them freak out or get mad. It is my belief that if the Porn industry would glamorize condom use a little more then it would catch on through-out the sexually active outside the Porn Industry "those that watch it" and the spread of STD's would be considerably less. At a minimum I think there should be more frequent testing in the industry. When I was at The Bunny Ranch condom use was a MUST and we got tested weekly. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there has never been a case of a STD being contracted from the Bunny Ranch. I think that was stated by Dennis Hoff in the HBO Cathouse movie. I'm sure more girls would like the idea of more condom use if they could still get work and get paid the same but I think most of the guys and producers would hate the idea. I guess it comes down to what is more important to you, money or health. Misty Massage [Link]

pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 6:32PM This one might hit the industry hard. From the comments made by a rep from Cal-OSHA, they might take these complaints serious. If they do, the companies on the list are looking at inspections, fines and possible temporary shut downs. If condoms become mandatory, which I dont think the current regs require, I do believe the industry will move out of state. However AHF tried to find a California legislator to shop the bill and they came up empty. Thats why they are taking this position. I went to the press conference and discussed this issue directly with members of AHF. The problem that they didnt consider is that the bloodborne pathogen law they are using to try to enforce condom use can be used against other industries. There are exchanges of bodily fluids in most pro-sports such as MMA, Wrestling, Boxing, the NFL, NBA and MLB. It is impossible to completely prevent the spread of bodily fluids in full contact sports and porn. The difference is that porn production is a First Amendment right while MMA isnt. One of their attorneys had to admit that they had not thought of this ramification before filing these complaints. Michael www.2257Safe.com www.AdultBizLaw.com [Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 6:46PM hollywood woody wrote: For the government to dictate that they must use condoms reminds me of the helmet laws for motorcycles, in more ways than one. Click to expand I think this is the first thing you and I have ever agreed on. [Link]
MistyMassage Member I Wana Be A Porn Star! 24 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 7:28PM hollywood woody wrote: For the government to dictate that they must use condoms reminds me of the helmet laws for motorcycles, in more ways than one. Click to expand How is that anything like the helmet law? If I ride without a helmet it only puts me at risk. If I have unproted sex it not only puts me at risk but it puts everyone I come in contact with at risk. Misty Massage Edited by - MistyMassage on 8/22/2009 7:29:39 PM [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 9:33PM MistyMassage wrote: hollywood woody wrote: For the government to dictate that they must use condoms reminds me of the helmet laws for motorcycles, in more ways than one. Click to expand How is that anything like the helmet law? If I ride without a helmet it only puts me at risk. If I have unproted sex it not only puts me at risk but it puts everyone I come in contact with at risk. Misty Massage Edited by - MistyMassage on 8/22/2009 7:29:39 PM Click to expand I disagree. Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets can end up in comas for years (at the public's expense) where wearing a helmet might have just meant a concussion. It isn't just the motorcyclist who pays, if they're hurt when not wearing a helmet. Having said that, I'd rather no laws requiring helmets. Instead, I'd like to be able to sign a waiver when I get my license stating that if I am in a wreck where a helmet would have had an impact, I (and/or my estate) is 100% liable for the costs associated with my care. If I can't afford to care for myself, then I expect zero care. I should have the right to do things as dangerous to myself as I like, so long as I am not endangering anyone else, and am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. John [Link]
Bluto Deactivated User 511 Posts 3/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 10:24PM - Motorcycles wouldn't exist if they didn't make lots and lots of noise. - The children who drive them should be required to carry $1M in medical insurance, or they don't ride. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:26PM hollywood woody wrote: what do you think? they want to force all the companies to use condoms. We give the girls a choice, as do most companies. Should it be mandatory? Click to expand I don't think forcing companies to use condoms would work. Unless the government bans condomless porn altogether and makes it illegal to buy and to sell. But I wouldn't mind seeing more voluntary condoms in today's porn films. I use condoms in my real life. And once in a while I'd like to see realistic type of sex that resembles my experience. Sex fantasy is fine. But sex realism is good too. And there is no good reason why sex-reality type of shows can't be popular too. [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:50PM Now that Monique Alexander isn't under the protection of a contract, she works without condoms. The "condom choice" policy is for all practical purposes a myth. Kinda like fluffers. Seems very, very few companies practice it and many, many girls write about how in reality, the choice to be a condom-only performer carries great penalties for their career. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:20AM picman wrote: It'll just mean more porn shot in Florida. Click to expand Which would mean more obscenity convictions. There's a reason everyone is in California. [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:22AM ^Heh! For real... And for those in know, wouldn't running off an entire industry fuck with the state finances? If so, that's why it seems to me to be a whole lot of nonsense over something that is not going to change. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 7:15AM JohnHenry wrote: I disagree. Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets can end up in comas for years (at the public's expense) where wearing a helmet might have just meant a concussion. It isn't just the motorcyclist who pays, if they're hurt when not wearing a helmet. Click to expand The flip side of that coin is the question of where does it end? Suppose we have mandatory helmet laws and the "everything has to be 100% safe 100% of the time" crowd still isn't happy? Suppose they decide too many people are still getting hurt and killed even with helmets and that motorcycles need to be banned completely? That's what it will come to and everyone knows it. These kinds of people are never satisfied. They're always mooing about something. In the meantime, they vote for people who spend billions on hanging Saddam Hussein in Iraq. [Link]

picman Senior Member Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 9:37AM Savoy wrote: And for those in know, wouldn't running off an entire industry fuck with the state finances? Click to expand That would be the reason porn enjoys quasi-legal status in CA anyway. That nod, nod, wink, wink court decision that stated that it's not prostitution (pandering, technically) if someone else is paying for it assured the state a cut of the profits without actually codifying a legal status for the industry. Funny thing is that if work rules are handed down by the state it would actually validate the industry more by acknowledging it as a legitimate enterprise, and have a possible ripple effect on prosecutions out of state because it was legally made in CA. [Link]
caroline-NL Member 543 Posts 3/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 9:40AM HIV tests should be mandatory, but not the use of condoms. Even condoms arent 100% safe, swallowing sperm isnt 100% safe, condoms can crack apart. HIV tests arent 100% sure too, but 99%. There is no 100% security in life. The HIV incubation rate among young adult singles is much, much higher as among porn models. Excluding this topic, the 2257 regulations and the stricter and stricter legal interpretation of the word "obscene", have already reduced the interest in (US) porn. If this goes on, in some years we can only watch Playboy DVDs, because everything else is "illegal pornography". Edited by - Caroline-NL on 8/23/2009 9:43:55 AM [Link]
pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:56AM That would be the reason porn enjoys quasi-legal status in CA anyway. Click to expand No its legal - not quasi legal. California based porn production companies can be insured, their contracts enforced and they have access to all state agencies and courts. In Florida, Nevada and Arizona the companies are considered quasi-legal. Freeman protects the production of content in California. What is your definition of legal ? Michael www.2257Safe.com www.AdultBizLaw.com [Link]
Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:05PM Savoy wrote: Now that Monique Alexander isn't under the protection of a contract, she works without condoms. The "condom choice" policy is for all practical purposes a myth. Kinda like fluffers. Seems very, very few companies practice it and many, many girls write about how in reality, the choice to be a condom-only performer carries great penalties for their career. Click to expand I believe the "condom Choice" policy is a myth, or rather has become a myth too. The public has spoken and spoken clearly. The majority, and it's an extremely high majority IMO, simply do not want to see sex scenes where condoms are used. And they most certainly are voting with their dollars. Clear to me the porn industry has recognized this, and has acted accordingly. Most, other than maybe Wicked, have gone "condom optional" and now very few scenes are made with them. I don't think this is a coincidence. The not-so-subtle pressure has clearly won out. It became clear to me once Vivid even bowed to it. Most performers, well at least the ones I've ever heard address it, say they prefer to work without them. The sex flows better, and the sex simply feels better without them. As long as they are making the chose they want, I see or have no problems with it though. Just not convinced the true choice really exists anymore. [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 1:33PM RandomPrecision wrote: JohnHenry wrote: I disagree. Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets can end up in comas for years (at the public's expense) where wearing a helmet might have just meant a concussion. It isn't just the motorcyclist who pays, if they're hurt when not wearing a helmet. Click to expand The flip side of that coin is the question of where does it end? Suppose we have mandatory helmet laws and the "everything has to be 100% safe 100% of the time" crowd still isn't happy? Suppose they decide too many people are still getting hurt and killed even with helmets and that motorcycles need to be banned completely? That's what it will come to and everyone knows it. These kinds of people are never satisfied. They're always mooing about something. In the meantime, they vote for people who spend billions on hanging Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Click to expand I completely agree. I think there should be laws to protect the protectionists from themselves. Fundamentally, I believe in two very important things. A) I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it on god's green earth, so long as it doesn't hurt other people. B) I should be held 100% responsible and accountable for my actions. Bars should be open all night. Drunk drivers should have their vehicles seized the moment they pop on their breathalyzer. I shouldn't have to wear my seatbelt. My medical insurance and such should have clearly written language saying they won't pay for it if I get in an accident without a seatbelt. If people want to do things that hurt themselves or others, they should be held severely accountable. Period. Aplus, Thank you for illustrating a very important point. This isn't intended as a personal attack on you, but rather you post reflects exactly the attitude that is wrong with the current 'condom-optional' policies; which is to say, condoms generally aren't an option. The viewers, like the directors, rationalize that it should be the talent's choice. The reality is that unless a girl is in the top 5% elite, generally her choosing to use a condom will result in directors and producers choosing not to use her. It's a de facto situation that says "you can use condoms, you just can't use them in my movie." That isn't really choice, it's rationalizing why your individual preference and industry trend should be acceptable. There isn't real choice in the status quo. Until that changes, it's a good bet that HIV prevention advocates are going to stay elbow deep in the system. If even a third of porn showed performers using condoms that would represent choice, it would then be very difficult for those groups to gain any traction in their 'fight.' Believe me, I'd rather choose not to use a condom, than have one forced on me. John [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 2:01PM ^ I agree that condom usage should be between the people having sex. I just wonder what a director (or producer) should do if one person insists on using a condom and the other insists on no condom usage. Who would you fire in that instance and what should guide your decision? BTW, I have viewed condom scenes and don't feel it detracts from the scene one iota! Cumming on the girl's tits or face does more to detract than a condom does in my opinion (and that is at the end of a scene). [Link]
picman Senior Member Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 2:18PM pornlaw wrote: That would be the reason porn enjoys quasi-legal status in CA anyway. Click to expand No its legal - not quasi legal. California based porn production companies can be insured, their contracts enforced and they have access to all state agencies and courts. In Florida, Nevada and Arizona the companies are considered quasi-legal. Freeman protects the production of content in California. What is your definition of legal ? Michael Click to expand Obviously, you would know more about exact law, but it seems Freeman made it basically unprosecutable, not specifically legal. Maybe similar to Holland's attitude toward cannabis. Not legal, but tolerated and controlled, unless something has changed since I was there many years ago. I think if the state truly considered porn "legal", there would be far more interference on their part than exists, including condoms, insurance, and affirmative action. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 3:48PM RandomPrecision wrote: The flip side of that coin is the question of where does it end? Suppose we have mandatory helmet laws and the "everything has to be 100% safe 100% of the time" crowd still isn't happy? Suppose they decide too many people are still getting hurt and killed even with helmets and that motorcycles need to be banned completely? That's what it will come to and everyone knows it. Click to expand The relevance of the motorcycle/helmet debate to this porn issue is officially overstretched. No we don't know that, this is called a slippery slope argument and it's nonsense. We have a law in Canada that everyone has to wear a seatbelt when in a car. If you don't you get a ticket, same as speeding. Our civil rights are not in some serious decline because of this (our anti-terrorism laws on the other hand...), people need to have keep some perspective. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 3:50PM picman wrote: Obviously, you would know more about exact law, but it seems Freeman made it basically unprosecutable, not specifically legal. Click to expand You're right, pornlaw does know more than you. It is legal. Period. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 6:37PM BlackSix wrote: The relevance of the motorcycle/helmet debate to this porn issue is officially overstretched. No we don't know that, this is called a slippery slope argument and it's nonsense. We have a law in Canada that everyone has to wear a seatbelt when in a car. If you don't you get a ticket, same as speeding. Our civil rights are not in some serious decline because of this (our anti-terrorism laws on the other hand...), people need to have keep some perspective. Click to expand I have plenty of perspective. I've seen the slippery slope in action and I know it isn't nonsense. It's common sense. Obviously, the chain of events will stop somewhere. It's where it stops that's the problem and that was my question. Where will it end? We know that if they succeed in enforcing mandatory condom usage, it won't end there. Why? Because porn will still have too many enemies (They don't hate porn because it's moderately unsafe in a medical sense. They hate it because it exists) and it still won't be safe enough for those people who are just never satisfied with any level of safety. You know that and if you think it won't, you're either in denial or you're just being fundamentally dishonest about it. That's why the slippery slope isn't really nonsense. The next level of sex nazism is as inevitable as this one was. I prefer to call it "the hole in the cup theory". Which means if you poke a hole in the bottom of a cup full of water, the water will leak out until either the cup is empty or you plug the hole. It's pretty obvious that if nobody plugs the hole when they notice they're losing water, they probably never will unless they're just playing games with a cup full of water (Which is not a good analogy for law). If the water leakage just happens to be stopped by some freak circumstance of chance, well, that's how it goes. It's possible something crazy will happen and some of the water will be saved. But how likely is it? Not very. If they're successful at this, many of porn's biggest supporters will simply go away overnight. I agree that some will stay because they don't think they have a choice and some people will put up with anything just because. People who won't watch porn with condoms won't watch it just because condomless porn is no longer made. They'll either - 1. Resort to collecting as much condomless porn as they can get their hands on 2. Make their own 3. Just give it up altogether. In all of these situations, the business of making new porn will suffer even more than it is. Edited by - randomprecision on 8/23/2009 6:51:59 PM [Link]
Christopher256 Member 146 Posts 8/05	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 7:20PM How did this one issue become a debate on libertarianism? I absolutely support laws requiring seat belts and motorcycle helmets. I don't support requiring condoms in porn because doing porn without a condom is far far far far far far safer than riding a motocycle without a helmet. There's just no comparison what so ever. The industry has proven it can protect its stars. If it could not, then I would support mandated condom use. If you believe in true liberterianism, something I think is pretty insane, than that's your opinion, but equating these two issues is pretty absurd. Edited by - Christopher256 on 8/23/2009 7:25:12 PM [Link]
jasonjason Deactivated User 12 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 8:06PM To Mr. Pornlaw, Arent MMA fighters and boxers governed by the State Athlectic Commision. Dont fighters have to pass a state madated physcial and get a license from the State to fight. Are you suggesting that the State should sanction porn workers? And isnt their 'follow-up' medical treatment provided as well as doctors right at ringside? Or are you advocating the licensing of sex workers like they do in Nevada? You also bought up MRSA(a very infectios form of staph) Is that a problem in por and should they test for it? What is the IC vs. employee relationship with MMA, boxers, football etc.? Given the FACT that over 200o porn employees have gotten just gon.chlam in the last three years, I think it will be very easy to prove that bllod borne pathogen related diseases are, wtihout any reasonable doubt, being transmitted in the porn workplace. AIM says they test between 1000 to 1200 performers(employess) per month. Given the turnover rate in porn I will say that AIM has tested no more than 10000 indiviuals in the last three years. If any other inustry had 2000 of their 10000 employees test positive for work related BBP diseases do you think OSHA would ignore it?(and that 2000 is ONLY gonn/chlam,throw in HPV herpes,PID, bacterial vaginosis, MRSA(staph)etc.) Everyone in the business knows, if they are honest, that the 2000 number would SDYROCKET if those were included [Link]
dseed Member 29 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 9:47PM As a producer in Florida I must say that while I always debate coming to Cali to set my roots it's things like this bs with Cal/OSHA that make me want to stay here in Florida. Condom Only performances historically sell less whether it be online or DVD purchases. In order for this condom optional thing to even be feasible from a business point of view the female performers need to make a concession on price of the scene at that point. Going in I know that no matter how hot the scene is or what kinds of bells and whistles I throw in to sweeten the pot that it will sell less JUST because of the condom use. We have seen that in at least 2 or 3 posts on this topic alone that the people don't like condoms. The other dark side of mandatory condom use in my opinion will be a drastic reduction in testing and studios requiring tests for ANYTHING. If Cal/OSHA wants to make a real impact then they should require testing for all studios,big and small then this would be even less of an issue. Let's not forget that Patient Zero or w/e only caused a problem because A.) Her test was outdated and B.) The studio didn't care or check to notice that it was out of date. She may have contracted HIV from her personal life for all we know.It's beyond insane to not use condoms outside of "pornland" if you will and those choices are what causes these problems for the rest of the industry. The only positive will be the mass exodus from Cali if this happens and perhaps we will have even more models in our neck of the woods than we already do :) Rob Demon Seed Pictures Edited by - dseed on 8/23/2009 9:48:42 PM Edited by - dseed on 8/23/2009 9:49:14 PM [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:23PM RandomPrecision wrote: I've seen the slippery slope in action and I know it isn't nonsense. It's common sense. Obviously, the chain of events will stop somewhere. Click to expand By the same logic speeding limit should lead to the banning of cars. I'm still waiting for the hammer to drop on that one... [Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:53PM Blah blah blah, the issue here isn't seat belts, speeding, helmets, MMA, etc, it's condoms in porn. The use of condoms in porn or in real life is silly overall. I can't stand them in general. I go down on a girl and stick my tongue and fingers in her. She goes down on me and sticks my dick in her mouth. So, it's okay for the body parts to be used orally, but the minute my dick goes in her, there is something wrong with it and it needs to be protected. The other reason I feel condoms are a joke in porn is that its one of those things that gets brought up so everyone can feel good about themselves and say they care about the performer. Personally, I feel that it's all BS because I've seen scenes of Ramon's junk and there is an obvious growth on it and no one says a thing. Lastly, who would enforce the whole issue anyway? "Sorry Mrs. Jones that we can't find your kidnapped child, all of our available manpower is currently doing condom checks on the porn shoots!" As if any reasonably intelligent elected official is going to want to make that statement. Let the porn industry move to Vegas, stripping is already an accepted career choice right out of high school, and it seems so many porn girls are from Vegas already, it would just save them the drive to LA. [Link]
pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 12:43AM jasonjason wrote: To Mr. Pornlaw, Arent MMA fighters and boxers governed by the State Athlectic Commision. Dont fighters have to pass a state madated physcial and get a license from the State to fight. Are you suggesting that the State should sanction porn workers? And isnt their 'follow-up' medical treatment provided as well as doctors right at ringside? Or are you advocating the licensing of sex workers like they do in Nevada? Click to expand Interesting... havent thought about licensing, but I do not see a problem with it. You also bought up MRSA(a very infectios form of staph) Is that a problem in por and should they test for it? Click to expand MRSA is a problem anytime you have skin-to-skin contact. It kills more people each year than AIDS. What is the IC vs. employee relationship with MMA, boxers, football etc.? Click to expand In professional sports such as the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB all players are employees. I use to represent the Dodgers and even their minor league players were employees. Given the FACT that over 200o porn employees have gotten just gon.chlam in the last three years, I think it will be very easy to prove that bllod borne pathogen related diseases are, wtihout any reasonable doubt, being transmitted in the porn workplace. AIM says they test between 1000 to 1200 performers(employess) per month. Given the turnover rate in porn I will say that AIM has tested no more than 10000 indiviuals in the last three years. If any other inustry had 2000 of their 10000 employees test positive for work related BBP diseases do you think OSHA would ignore it?(and that 2000 is ONLY gonn/chlam,throw in HPV herpes,PID, bacterial vaginosis, MRSA(staph)etc.) Everyone in the business knows, if they are honest, that the 2000 number would SDYROCKET if those were included Click to expand Thats not the issue. Do you realize the issues that Cal-OSHA deals with ? This is nothing compared to -- let's say lumbar spine injuries in the workplace. If Cal-OSHA wanted to go after a real issue let them go after companies that have statistically higher than average back injuries on the job. Here's a report from 1998 -- sorry I was too lazy to find a newer one - they exist though... Ergonomic Injuries in California... House of Representatives The report indicates in 1998 ergonomic injuries cost California $4.5 billion dollars. Thats billion with 8 zeros ($4,500,000,000). Can you imagine what that number is today -- $10 billion ?? In a time when California is running out of money, and taxpayer dollars have to be used for the greater good, wouldnt Cal-OSHA's time be better spent figuring out how to prevent workplace injuries costing taxpayers $10 billion dollars instead ? Dont get me wrong, I fully believe in protecting the health of pornstars -- because its MY health as well. (sorry if this bothers some) But my GF is a pornstar. I have a dog in this fight, literally and figuratively speaking, but I sincerely think that AHF and Shelly Lubben are on a crusade that they are asking the taxpayers of California to pay the bill for. And personally I dont want to pay taxes to investigate porn companies. Perhaps a more reasonable way to deal with this is to enforce an existing law that requires all companies in California (including porn companies) to carry workers compensation insurance so that way if in fact someone catches something nasty or deadly on set they will have work comp insurance to pay for the treatment. And once again my tax dollars can be spent on better things like police, fire, and widening roads and building mass transit. [Link]

Author

Post

Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin
1567 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:31PM

what do you think?
they want to force all the companies to use condoms.
We give the girls a choice, as do most companies.
Should it be mandatory?

[Link]

smutlover65
Member

359 Posts
10/07

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:42PM

^Mandatory? Absolutely not!

[Link]

bono-ONE

All-Star Member

SAMCRO
8571 Posts
8/00

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:44PM

Well if it comes down to a black and white choice of either you use condoms or there's no porn then yeah use condoms. Otherwise I favor the choice option and above all I want the performers to be as safe as they can be. There are risks but you are all adults presumably and can make an informed decision if given all the pertinent facts pertaining to this career choice and the hazards one can face.

[Link]

hollywood woody
Senior Member

Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin
1567 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:52PM

I think if it comes down to that you must use condoms, you will see an most companies relocate to Nevada.
Vivid made a statement on the news last night they would move.
The performers are tested, they have the choice to use or not use condoms.
For the government to dictate that they must use condoms reminds me of the helmet laws for motorcycles, in more ways than one.
Edited by - hollywood woody on 8/21/2009 5:52:53 PM

[Link]

bono-ONE

All-Star Member

SAMCRO
8571 Posts
8/00

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 5:56PM

What about Arizona-- we're better than Nevada and I don't have to fly to sets anymore, lol.

[Link]

hollywood woody
Senior Member

Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin
1567 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 6:24PM

I love AZ. little hot during the summer, but much more beautiful than NV.

[Link]

JohnHenry
Member

165 Posts
3/09

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 6:47PM

Woody,
Fair to say that the subtext of the 'choice' performers are offered by directors is 'choose not to use a condom, if you plan to ever shoot with us again.'
How many titles in the past two years do you think Vivid has put out, where any condom was used?
I'm not a pro-condom advocate, mind you. I prefer not to have to use one for my shoots. I *am* a pro-choice advocate, and feel that real condom choice is rare on set.
John

[Link]

hollywood woody
Senior Member

Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin
1567 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:11PM

I totally disagree with you. On our sets they are given a real choice. Monique for example prefers them, she has shot plenty for Vivid and was never told if she uses them she will not shoot.That is a very irresponsible message you are sending out.To answer your first question, there are plenty of Vivid movies over the last 2 years where condoms are used.

[Link]

JohnHenry
Member

165 Posts
3/09

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:37PM

Having never shot for Vivid, I'll concede the girls who shoot for them may very well feel they have a real choice. The only company I've shot for that made it clear condoms were actually an option was kink.com.
Again, I agree with you that condoms should be at the performers discretion. This could be implemented by incorporating a 'condom preference' yes/no checkbox within the model release. If one performer checks yes, all performers use one for the scene, no further questions asked.
John

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14596 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:49PM

Who is "AIDS Healthcare" and why should they have any standing in court?

[Link]

picman
Senior Member

Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass.
2884 Posts
1/03

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 8:06PM

It'll just mean more porn shot in Florida.

[Link]

Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 8:32PM

Is this a poll? Should it be mandatory? Hell no! Condoms may prevent certain germs but they also kill every heat in a scene!

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 10:46PM

Link

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 1:45AM

I think it should be performer choice, male or female. IE, either the male or female can request.

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 10:46AM

Press release from AIDs-healthcare:
http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-calosha.html
There are doing it together with Pink Cross Foundation which was founded by Shelley Lubben, ex-porn girl/escort who found Jesus. No, seriously.. she did:

I knew it.

[Link]

BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:03AM

We've had more Walt Disney World employees *die* in the last 60-days (three), than we have had working porn actors infected with HIV since the "Darren James" outbreak.
How many coal-miners die every year -- in an industry supposedly government regulated?
Add in the environmental degradation and adverse affects on worker's and local people's health?
The government and the do-gooders (as opposed to the goo-doers :) don't give a rat's ass about us and/or anyone working in the sex business. Their only agenda is to destroy porn by any and all means they can seize upon. Fuck all of them.

[Link]

JohnW
Senior Member

1351 Posts
6/08

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:03AM

*sigh*
I mean, it's a valid point of view. It should be part of the debate. But keep the nutjobs out of it if you want to be taken seriously.

[Link]

JohnW
Senior Member

1351 Posts
6/08

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:04AM

[Link]

torris
Senior Member

Deep within Mila's anus
1827 Posts
1/00

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:55AM

==========
I don't buy porn that knowingly employs condoms. That is a huge turnoff from the sexual heat of the scene(s) and is a buzzkill from how I watch porn from a voyeuristic experience. I don't want to see anybody get infected or die for this, but I would say that personal choice still should matter in this country. I don't want leftist fascism anymore than I liked it under Bush and the Neocons.
Consider the thousands and thousands of couplings in the past 40 years, (the same time period AIDS started percolating) if AIDS were transmitted through unprotected sex than porn performers should be dying in droves. I would guess that some forensic accountant could show that considering the exposure, porn is not a common conveyor of HIV infections.
And for those who call me a selfish Neanderthal? meh. As a consumer of anything, I'm always selfish.
There will be plenty of non condom porn and if you want my future business you will highlight your condom free status as many companies did the last time this happened with AIM's fuckup and Marc Wallice

[Link]

PhoenixJo
Member

231 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 12:03PM

I avoid all porn where condoms are used so if it becomes manadatory I will probably reduce the amount of porn viewed/purchased. Thats not to say I take the health issues lightly as they are very serious indeed and I respect anyone who doesnt want to perform because of no condoms. I just wont watch their scene. I dont enjoy watching a girl suck on a condom - it is a massive turn off!
There are other measures that could be taken to ensure greater safety if required.

[Link]

torris
Senior Member

Deep within Mila's anus
1827 Posts
1/00

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 12:07PM

========
You should pick up August's AVN. They cover the twin problems porn has on the legal front at the moment: Cal Osha demanding condoms in the workplace and a positive (performer un-named) result announced by AIM that got the usual hysterical "if it bleeds, it leads" coverage in the SoCal press

[Link]

Christopher256
Member

146 Posts
8/05

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 3:17PM

Yeah. The industry is extremely safe. Over thoudands and thousands of scenes with unprotected sex the porn industry has been almost flawless in modern times in preventing the spread of HIV. Lets get real, the industry knows what it's doing.
This is all about sensationalism and not about setting real priorities for society. Get off the porn industry's ass.

[Link]

satchman23
Studios - do not send screeners to this person.

1906 Posts
12/06

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 3:23PM

I could not of said it any better! I agree!

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14596 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 4:36PM

Thanks, Zoid. So, they aren't filing in court, they're filing a complaint with Cal/OSHA. I don't know what that agency's rules are, but showing unprotected sex is not the same as proving the assertions that porn valley is spreading STD's, nor does it prove the assertion that a blacklist exists. So, whether it is meaningful to the agency in demonstrating that the industry is an unhealthy workplace remains to be seen.
Furthermore, as BigBobxxx points out, there is no real attempt by government agencies to make workplaces completely safe. There's usually an attempt to balance safety and profitability. It remains to be seen whether porn makers have the clout to get the same consideration as the coal industry, et al.
PS - I read the Lubben's and Merritt's arguments; they're crap. That's not to say that there's no validity to their assertions, merely that their supposed proof is no such thing.

[Link]

MistyMassage
Member

I Wana Be A Porn Star!
24 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 5:31PM

I love sex! But, not enough to jeopardise my health or die from contracting AIDS. I have been with many men that want a real porn experience so they don't want to use a condom. I have noticed that if I apply a condom without their knowledge "using my mouth" they never complain and are greatly surprised that they had no idea but if I ask them to put one on a lot of them freak out or get mad.
It is my belief that if the Porn industry would glamorize condom use a little more then it would catch on through-out the sexually active outside the Porn Industry "those that watch it" and the spread of STD's would be considerably less. At a minimum I think there should be more frequent testing in the industry.
When I was at The Bunny Ranch condom use was a MUST and we got tested weekly. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there has never been a case of a STD being contracted from the Bunny Ranch. I think that was stated by Dennis Hoff in the HBO Cathouse movie.
I'm sure more girls would like the idea of more condom use if they could still get work and get paid the same but I think most of the guys and producers would hate the idea.
I guess it comes down to what is more important to you, money or health.
Misty Massage

[Link]

pornlaw
Member

578 Posts
10/05

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 6:32PM

This one might hit the industry hard. From the comments made by a rep from Cal-OSHA, they might take these complaints serious. If they do, the companies on the list are looking at inspections, fines and possible temporary shut downs.
If condoms become mandatory, which I dont think the current regs require, I do believe the industry will move out of state. However AHF tried to find a California legislator to shop the bill and they came up empty. Thats why they are taking this position.
I went to the press conference and discussed this issue directly with members of AHF. The problem that they didnt consider is that the bloodborne pathogen law they are using to try to enforce condom use can be used against other industries. There are exchanges of bodily fluids in most pro-sports such as MMA, Wrestling, Boxing, the NFL, NBA and MLB.
It is impossible to completely prevent the spread of bodily fluids in full contact sports and porn. The difference is that porn production is a First Amendment right while MMA isnt.
One of their attorneys had to admit that they had not thought of this ramification before filing these complaints.
Michael
www.2257Safe.com
www.AdultBizLaw.com

[Link]

the unknown pervert
Deactivated User

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
3243 Posts
5/06

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 6:46PM

I think this is the first thing you and I have ever agreed on.

[Link]

MistyMassage
Member

I Wana Be A Porn Star!
24 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 7:28PM

JohnHenry
Member

165 Posts
3/09

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 9:33PM

MistyMassage wrote:
hollywood woody wrote:
For the government to dictate that they must use condoms reminds me of the helmet laws for motorcycles, in more ways than one.
Click to expand
How is that anything like the helmet law?
If I ride without a helmet it only puts me at risk.
If I have unproted sex it not only puts me at risk but it puts everyone I come in contact with at risk.
Misty Massage
Edited by - MistyMassage on 8/22/2009 7:29:39 PM
Click to expand
I disagree. Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets can end up in comas for years (at the public's expense) where wearing a helmet might have just meant a concussion. It isn't just the motorcyclist who pays, if they're hurt when not wearing a helmet.
Having said that, I'd rather no laws requiring helmets. Instead, I'd like to be able to sign a waiver when I get my license stating that if I am in a wreck where a helmet would have had an impact, I (and/or my estate) is 100% liable for the costs associated with my care. If I can't afford to care for myself, then I expect zero care. I should have the right to do things as dangerous to myself as I like, so long as I am not endangering anyone else, and am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.
John

[Link]

Bluto
Deactivated User

511 Posts
3/09

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 10:24PM

- Motorcycles wouldn't exist if they didn't make lots and lots of noise.
- The children who drive them should be required to carry $1M in medical insurance, or they don't ride.

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:26PM

I don't think forcing companies to use condoms would work. Unless the government bans condomless porn altogether and makes it illegal to buy and to sell.
But I wouldn't mind seeing more voluntary condoms in today's porn films. I use condoms in my real life. And once in a while I'd like to see realistic type of sex that resembles my experience.
Sex fantasy is fine. But sex realism is good too. And there is no good reason why sex-reality type of shows can't be popular too.

[Link]

Savoy

All-Star Member

Sucker for Sinners
1844 Posts
12/06

Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:50PM

Now that Monique Alexander isn't under the protection of a contract, she works without condoms.
The "condom choice" policy is for all practical purposes a myth. Kinda like fluffers. Seems very, very few companies practice it and many, many girls write about how in reality, the choice to be a condom-only performer carries great penalties for their career.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:20AM

Which would mean more obscenity convictions. There's a reason everyone is in California.

[Link]

Savoy

All-Star Member

Sucker for Sinners
1844 Posts
12/06

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:22AM

^Heh! For real...
And for those in know, wouldn't running off an entire industry fuck with the state finances?
If so, that's why it seems to me to be a whole lot of nonsense over something that is not going to change.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 7:15AM

The flip side of that coin is the question of where does it end? Suppose we have mandatory helmet laws and the "everything has to be 100% safe 100% of the time" crowd still isn't happy? Suppose they decide too many people are still getting hurt and killed even with helmets and that motorcycles need to be banned completely? That's what it will come to and everyone knows it. These kinds of people are never satisfied. They're always mooing about something. In the meantime, they vote for people who spend billions on hanging Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

[Link]

picman
Senior Member

Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass.
2884 Posts
1/03

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 9:37AM

That would be the reason porn enjoys quasi-legal status in CA anyway. That nod, nod, wink, wink court decision that stated that it's not prostitution (pandering, technically) if someone else is paying for it assured the state a cut of the profits without actually codifying a legal status for the industry. Funny thing is that if work rules are handed down by the state it would actually validate the industry more by acknowledging it as a legitimate enterprise, and have a possible ripple effect on prosecutions out of state because it was legally made in CA.

[Link]

caroline-NL
Member

543 Posts
3/07

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 9:40AM

HIV tests should be mandatory, but not the use of condoms. Even condoms arent 100% safe, swallowing sperm isnt 100% safe, condoms can crack apart. HIV tests arent 100% sure too, but 99%. There is no 100% security in life. The HIV incubation rate among young adult singles is much, much higher as among porn models.
Excluding this topic, the 2257 regulations and the stricter and stricter legal interpretation of the word "obscene", have already reduced the interest in (US) porn. If this goes on, in some years we can only watch Playboy DVDs, because everything else is "illegal pornography".
Edited by - Caroline-NL on 8/23/2009 9:43:55 AM

[Link]

pornlaw
Member

578 Posts
10/05

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:56AM

No its legal - not quasi legal. California based porn production companies can be insured, their contracts enforced and they have access to all state agencies and courts.
In Florida, Nevada and Arizona the companies are considered quasi-legal. Freeman protects the production of content in California.
What is your definition of legal ?
Michael
www.2257Safe.com
www.AdultBizLaw.com

[Link]

Aplus
Senior Member

1431 Posts
5/05

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:05PM

I believe the "condom Choice" policy is a myth, or rather has become a myth too. The public has spoken and spoken clearly. The majority, and it's an extremely high majority IMO, simply do not want to see sex scenes where condoms are used. And they most certainly are voting with their dollars. Clear to me the porn industry has recognized this, and has acted accordingly. Most, other than maybe Wicked, have gone "condom optional" and now very few scenes are made with them. I don't think this is a coincidence. The not-so-subtle pressure has clearly won out. It became clear to me once Vivid even bowed to it.
Most performers, well at least the ones I've ever heard address it, say they prefer to work without them. The sex flows better, and the sex simply feels better without them. As long as they are making the chose they want, I see or have no problems with it though. Just not convinced the true choice really exists anymore.

[Link]

JohnHenry
Member

165 Posts
3/09

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 1:33PM

RandomPrecision wrote:
JohnHenry wrote:
I disagree. Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets can end up in comas for years (at the public's expense) where wearing a helmet might have just meant a concussion. It isn't just the motorcyclist who pays, if they're hurt when not wearing a helmet.
Click to expand
The flip side of that coin is the question of where does it end? Suppose we have mandatory helmet laws and the "everything has to be 100% safe 100% of the time" crowd still isn't happy? Suppose they decide too many people are still getting hurt and killed even with helmets and that motorcycles need to be banned completely? That's what it will come to and everyone knows it. These kinds of people are never satisfied. They're always mooing about something. In the meantime, they vote for people who spend billions on hanging Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Click to expand

I completely agree. I think there should be laws to protect the protectionists from themselves.
Fundamentally, I believe in two very important things. A) I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it on god's green earth, so long as it doesn't hurt other people. B) I should be held 100% responsible and accountable for my actions.
Bars should be open all night. Drunk drivers should have their vehicles seized the moment they pop on their breathalyzer. I shouldn't have to wear my seatbelt. My medical insurance and such should have clearly written language saying they *won't pay* for it if I get in an accident without a seatbelt. If people want to do things that hurt themselves or others, they should be held severely accountable. Period.
Aplus,
Thank you for illustrating a very important point. This isn't intended as a personal attack on you, but rather you post reflects exactly the attitude that is wrong with the current 'condom-optional' policies; which is to say, condoms generally aren't an option. The viewers, like the directors, rationalize that it should be the talent's choice. The reality is that unless a girl is in the top 5% elite, generally her choosing to use a condom will result in directors and producers choosing not to use her. It's a de facto situation that says "you can use condoms, you just can't use them in my movie." That isn't really choice, it's rationalizing why your individual preference and industry trend should be acceptable.
There isn't real choice in the status quo. Until that changes, it's a good bet that HIV prevention advocates are going to stay elbow deep in the system. If even a third of porn showed performers using condoms that would represent choice, it would then be very difficult for those groups to gain any traction in their 'fight.' Believe me, I'd rather choose not to use a condom, than have one forced on me.
John

[Link]

mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 2:01PM

^ I agree that condom usage should be between the people having sex. I just wonder what a director (or producer) should do if one person insists on using a condom and the other insists on no condom usage. Who would you fire in that instance and what should guide your decision?
BTW, I have viewed condom scenes and don't feel it detracts from the scene one iota! Cumming on the girl's tits or face does more to detract than a condom does in my opinion (and that is at the end of a scene).

[Link]

picman
Senior Member

Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass.
2884 Posts
1/03

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 2:18PM

Obviously, you would know more about exact law, but it seems Freeman made it basically unprosecutable, not specifically legal. Maybe similar to Holland's attitude toward cannabis. Not legal, but tolerated and controlled, unless something has changed since I was there many years ago. I think if the state truly considered porn "legal", there would be far more interference on their part than exists, including condoms, insurance, and affirmative action.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 3:48PM

The relevance of the motorcycle/helmet debate to this porn issue is officially overstretched.
No we don't know that, this is called a slippery slope argument and it's nonsense. We have a law in Canada that everyone has to wear a seatbelt when in a car. If you don't you get a ticket, same as speeding. Our civil rights are not in some serious decline because of this (our anti-terrorism laws on the other hand...), people need to have keep some perspective.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 3:50PM

You're right, pornlaw does know more than you. It is legal. Period.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 6:37PM

I have plenty of perspective. I've seen the slippery slope in action and I know it isn't nonsense. It's common sense. Obviously, the chain of events will stop somewhere. It's where it stops that's the problem and that was my question. Where will it end? We know that if they succeed in enforcing mandatory condom usage, it won't end there. Why? Because porn will still have too many enemies (They don't hate porn because it's moderately unsafe in a medical sense. They hate it because it exists) and it still won't be safe enough for those people who are just never satisfied with any level of safety. You know that and if you think it won't, you're either in denial or you're just being fundamentally dishonest about it. That's why the slippery slope isn't really nonsense. The next level of sex nazism is as inevitable as this one was.
I prefer to call it "the hole in the cup theory". Which means if you poke a hole in the bottom of a cup full of water, the water will leak out until either the cup is empty or you plug the hole. It's pretty obvious that if nobody plugs the hole when they notice they're losing water, they probably never will unless they're just playing games with a cup full of water (Which is not a good analogy for law). If the water leakage just happens to be stopped by some freak circumstance of chance, well, that's how it goes. It's possible something crazy will happen and some of the water will be saved. But how likely is it? Not very.
If they're successful at this, many of porn's biggest supporters will simply go away overnight. I agree that some will stay because they don't think they have a choice and some people will put up with anything just because. People who won't watch porn with condoms won't watch it just because condomless porn is no longer made. They'll either -
1. Resort to collecting as much condomless porn as they can get their hands on
2. Make their own
3. Just give it up altogether.
In all of these situations, the business of making new porn will suffer even more than it is.
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/23/2009 6:51:59 PM

[Link]

Christopher256
Member

146 Posts
8/05

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 7:20PM

How did this one issue become a debate on libertarianism? I absolutely support laws requiring seat belts and motorcycle helmets. I don't support requiring condoms in porn because doing porn without a condom is far far far far far far safer than riding a motocycle without a helmet. There's just no comparison what so ever. The industry has proven it can protect its stars. If it could not, then I would support mandated condom use.
If you believe in true liberterianism, something I think is pretty insane, than that's your opinion, but equating these two issues is pretty absurd.
Edited by - Christopher256 on 8/23/2009 7:25:12 PM

[Link]

jasonjason
Deactivated User

12 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 8:06PM

To Mr. Pornlaw,
Arent MMA fighters and boxers governed by the State Athlectic Commision. Dont fighters have to pass a state madated physcial and get a license from the State to fight. Are you suggesting that the State should sanction porn workers? And isnt their 'follow-up' medical treatment provided as well as doctors right at ringside? Or are you advocating the licensing of sex workers like they do in Nevada?
You also bought up MRSA(a very infectios form of staph) Is that a problem in por and should they test for it?
What is the IC vs. employee relationship with MMA, boxers, football etc.?
Given the FACT that over 200o porn employees have gotten just gon.chlam in the last three years, I think it will be very easy to prove that bllod borne pathogen related diseases are, wtihout any reasonable doubt, being transmitted in the porn workplace. AIM says they test between 1000 to 1200 performers(employess) per month. Given the turnover rate in porn I will say that AIM has tested no more than 10000 indiviuals in the last three years. If any other inustry had 2000 of their 10000 employees test positive for work related BBP diseases do you think OSHA would ignore it?(and that 2000 is ONLY gonn/chlam,throw in HPV herpes,PID, bacterial vaginosis, MRSA(staph)etc.) Everyone in the business knows, if they are honest, that the 2000 number would SDYROCKET if those were included

[Link]

dseed
Member

29 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 9:47PM

As a producer in Florida I must say that while I always debate coming to Cali to set my roots it's things like this bs with Cal/OSHA that make me want to stay here in Florida.
Condom Only performances historically sell less whether it be online or DVD purchases. In order for this condom optional thing to even be feasible from a business point of view the female performers need to make a concession on price of the scene at that point. Going in I know that no matter how hot the scene is or what kinds of bells and whistles I throw in to sweeten the pot that it will sell less JUST because of the condom use. We have seen that in at least 2 or 3 posts on this topic alone that the people don't like condoms.
The other dark side of mandatory condom use in my opinion will be a drastic reduction in testing and studios requiring tests for ANYTHING. If Cal/OSHA wants to make a real impact then they should require testing for all studios,big and small then this would be even less of an issue. Let's not forget that Patient Zero or w/e only caused a problem because A.) Her test was outdated and B.) The studio didn't care or check to notice that it was out of date. She may have contracted HIV from her personal life for all we know.It's beyond insane to not use condoms outside of "pornland" if you will and those choices are what causes these problems for the rest of the industry.
The only positive will be the mass exodus from Cali if this happens and perhaps we will have even more models in our neck of the woods than we already do :)
Rob
Demon Seed Pictures
Edited by - dseed on 8/23/2009 9:48:42 PM
Edited by - dseed on 8/23/2009 9:49:14 PM

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:23PM

By the same logic speeding limit should lead to the banning of cars. I'm still waiting for the hammer to drop on that one...

[Link]

Rosco Fuji
Deactivated User

On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick!
3309 Posts
2/09

Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:53PM

Blah blah blah, the issue here isn't seat belts, speeding, helmets, MMA, etc, it's condoms in porn. The use of condoms in porn or in real life is silly overall. I can't stand them in general. I go down on a girl and stick my tongue and fingers in her. She goes down on me and sticks my dick in her mouth. So, it's okay for the body parts to be used orally, but the minute my dick goes in her, there is something wrong with it and it needs to be protected. The other reason I feel condoms are a joke in porn is that its one of those things that gets brought up so everyone can feel good about themselves and say they care about the performer. Personally, I feel that it's all BS because I've seen scenes of Ramon's junk and there is an obvious growth on it and no one says a thing. Lastly, who would enforce the whole issue anyway? "Sorry Mrs. Jones that we can't find your kidnapped child, all of our available manpower is currently doing condom checks on the porn shoots!" As if any reasonably intelligent elected official is going to want to make that statement. Let the porn industry move to Vegas, stripping is already an accepted career choice right out of high school, and it seems so many porn girls are from Vegas already, it would just save them the drive to LA.

[Link]

pornlaw
Member

578 Posts
10/05

Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 12:43AM

Interesting... havent thought about licensing, but I do not see a problem with it.

MRSA is a problem anytime you have skin-to-skin contact. It kills more people each year than AIDS.

In professional sports such as the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB all players are employees. I use to represent the Dodgers and even their minor league players were employees.

Given the FACT that over 200o porn employees have gotten just gon.chlam in the last three years, I think it will be very easy to prove that bllod borne pathogen related diseases are, wtihout any reasonable doubt, being transmitted in the porn workplace. AIM says they test between 1000 to 1200 performers(employess) per month. Given the turnover rate in porn I will say that AIM has tested no more than 10000 indiviuals in the last three years. If any other inustry had 2000 of their 10000 employees test positive for work related BBP diseases do you think OSHA would ignore it?(and that 2000 is ONLY gonn/chlam,throw in HPV herpes,PID, bacterial vaginosis, MRSA(staph)etc.) Everyone in the business knows, if they are honest, that the 2000 number would SDYROCKET if those were included
Click to expand

Thats not the issue. Do you realize the issues that Cal-OSHA deals with ? This is nothing compared to -- let's say lumbar spine injuries in the workplace. If Cal-OSHA wanted to go after a real issue let them go after companies that have statistically higher than average back injuries on the job.
Here's a report from 1998 -- sorry I was too lazy to find a newer one - they exist though...
Ergonomic Injuries in California... House of Representatives
The report indicates in 1998 ergonomic injuries cost California $4.5 billion dollars. Thats billion with 8 zeros ($4,500,000,000). Can you imagine what that number is today -- $10 billion ?? In a time when California is running out of money, and taxpayer dollars have to be used for the greater good, wouldnt Cal-OSHA's time be better spent figuring out how to prevent workplace injuries costing taxpayers $10 billion dollars instead ?
Dont get me wrong, I fully believe in protecting the health of pornstars -- because its MY health as well. (sorry if this bothers some) But my GF is a pornstar. I have a dog in this fight, literally and figuratively speaking, but I sincerely think that AHF and Shelly Lubben are on a crusade that they are asking the taxpayers of California to pay the bill for. And personally I dont want to pay taxes to investigate porn companies.
Perhaps a more reasonable way to deal with this is to enforce an existing law that requires all companies in California (including porn companies) to carry workers compensation insurance so that way if in fact someone catches something nasty or deadly on set they will have work comp insurance to pay for the treatment. And once again my tax dollars can be spent on better things like police, fire, and widening roads and building mass transit.

[Link]