X-ray, your English writing skills are pretty good, but your reading and comprehension skills are pretty bad. It might be interesting to discuss this with you if we could understand each other, but one of us would have to learn the other's language first.

[Link]

first you tell us things like

"The real issue is not producers' revenue, but the health of performers."
[...]

"The biggest single threat to performer health is the fact that we live in a society that is ashamed of sex and refuses to talk honestly about it."
[...]

common phrases to put yourself in a good light, but then we have to read this.

"One of the problems with the current debate is that it is framed as prevention vs freedom. The fact is that prevention is impossible "

Huh? Of course it is possible. Regular pcrdna AND condoms! Ban of Creampies.

I asked you: "What has reducing costs to do with your claim to reduce harmful acts towards talents?"

You answered: I'm not making a claim to reduce harmful acts.
Further you ignored each and every idea on how to improve things brought up by several poster including myself.

You can't fool me like that. I strip you down to the essence of what you say. Derailing and buttering up won't help ya.

[Link]

Porn must unite, and hire serious legal representation. Not to win against Cal/OSHA, but to tie them up in legal limbo to put off what seems to be the inevitable as long as possible.

Will this happen? Shit no. That's why these company owners are in porn and not running a Fortune 500 company. Porn knows dick about consolidation, and I would assume each individual company will just either stick it out until they can no longer shoot, or just flee to wherever they may feel is a safe place to shoot outside of California.

I think every producer/company will fend for themselves and take a hit in productivity rather than come together and try to fight as one unit.

Most producers think that it's too costly to fly elsewhere to shoot or find girls, but they will soon find that it doesn't even compare to what they would have to fork over to keep this case tied up in the legal system. So on the off-chance that porn would want to unite and fight, they will quickly realize that despite making good money in porn, they simply can't afford to fight, even if they were in with other producers for the cost of litigation. Maybe Larry Flynt would fight, but I think those days are long behind him.

Lets face it, porn as we know it is probably over. Who knows how it will reinvent itself and continue?

I believe the best is probably behind us.

My two cents...

Edited by - DIAMOND DOG on 9/24/2004 7:35:14 PM

Edited by - DIAMOND DOG on 9/24/2004 7:39:55 PM

Edited by - DIAMOND DOG on 9/24/2004 8:50:14 PM

[Link]

And perhaps the huge boom in sales that has actually led to an unhealthy industry -- not medically speaking, but finanacially, what with the consumer's dollar being spread over SO many companies, most of them started up by entrepreneurs with no real obsession for sexual expression and entertainment but merely a cockeyed vision of making an easy, quick buck -- is over.

But pornography, as an art form, as a commercial entertainment, as an expression of the complex and countless ways that one of man's two basic drives expresses itself will never die.

This is where we find out who's in the game because they believe in it and are compelled to do it, and who's here out of cynicism, laziness, and incompetence at accomplishing anything else in other arenas.

There was a time when the people who were committed to producing pornography -- the Henri Pachards, the Anthony Spinellis, the Gerard Damianos, the John Staglianos, the John Leslies, the Joey Silveras -- were here for reasons besides it was the kool, hip thing to do. They paid vast social and legal prices to be here, but stayed and contributed and pushed the medium forward, just the same.

Visionaries like these have worked through changing social mores and legal restrictions to create work on different points of the "hardness" spectrum that has successfully entertained and satisified fans. The anything-goes except five-fingers in the same-hole mores the porn industry has subscribed to in the past three to five years represents a blip on the history of porn -- the pendulum will always swing one way or the other.

Those who are mindlessly panicking in the industry over the current challenges that face us are those who left their creativity and love of eroticism at the door -- if they ever had it to begin with. They are in love with nothing more than the almighty dollar -- and it seems to me that the Good Book said that love of money -- not pussy -- was the root of all evil.

Those of us who believe in what we do are not going anywhere, and will find a way to entertain people, help you get your ya's ya's out, help you maybe understand yourselves a little better (one of the higher purposes of art, which is certainly what good pornography aspires on some level to be). Maybe not everybody will be satisified, but certainly everybody is not being served well by the current state of affairs, either.

I am not the only lifelong advocate and fan of cinematic porn who finds a trip to the typical bookstore of today to be soul-sickening and depressing. And I'm no prude -- it was just a year or so ago that Michael Stefano told me I'd be proud of the d/s roleplay that he's learned to incorporate into his work, reminescing to me about our days back at Extreme when I'd try to explain to him how there was more to sex than turning 'em over, pumping them, and turning them back over to desposit one's load on their wrinkled schnozzes.

However, watching the finer points of the sexual dynamic be blunted and appropriated by the cynical, slope-browed idiots who have jumped on what they only see as the brutality-for-bucks bandwagon since then has indeed made me feel almost like a prude, and certainly caused many to accuse me of being such. But hey, tough luck. I'm not here to found the next Spahn Ranch, or to afford a Hummer, or to "get back" at all the peeps that dissed me in high school. I'm here cuz I am attracted to and fascinated by female sexual beauty and the lessons our sex drives can teach us about our own natures, and I really don't give a flying double-anal about what the "kool kids" think or say about me.

Yes, there should be some kind of collective bargaining going on with OSHA. And yes, it's not happening because of the very reasons you state. But porn will always survive. For those who can't stand the heat, maybe it's time to get out of the kitchen, and leave the field to the true believers, and not the carpetbagging hacks.

Edited by - dac on 9/24/2004 8:28:53 PM

[Link]

I'm sorry I can't endorse your simplistic, magic-wand approach to solving what has proved to be a very complex and difficult problem for a decade and a half. Perhaps if you had more direct experience with the day-to-day realities of working in the porn community, you would have a better grasp of the challenges faced by we who actually take responsibility for the protection of performers' health.

Instead, from whatever safe distance, you choose to impugn the motives of those of us who have struggled and sacrificed to put the existing safeguards in place. I don't know what awareness you may have of conditions in this industry prior to the creation of AIM and the adoption of the PCR-DNA testing standard, but you might want to scroll back up this thread and read my initial rebuttal to DAC's similar attempt to smear me as an instrument of the producers' profit motives. As I told him, the producers see me in quite a different light.

You can dismiss my arguments against your dogmatic, unworkable prescription, but I have to say it's just a tad bit annoying to be told that you doubt the sincerity of my committment to the welfare of XXX talent after all the hours I've invested and all the hits I've taken in the service of that committment. I've never made one dime or profited in any way from my labors on AIM's behalf, and if the producers have somehow benefitted from them, they certainly haven't shared any of those benefits with me. I don't know if your Yiddish is any better than your English, but the proper word for your allegation is chutzpahdeh.

I ask you the same thing to you I asked DAC. Where were you during all the years when a handful of us fought the hostility and denial of an entire industry with no help of any kind from the public officials who now seem so concerned with our business? What gives you the right to denigrate my intentions in the light of my long record as a pro-talent activist" What I've read of your comments thus far makes me wonder about your motives.

To Diamond -

I think you're hanging the crepe a bit early. The new regulations haven't been tested yet, in any sense of the word, and this business has a long history of surviving attempts to annihilate it. There's much discussion in progress at the moment, and the picture may be quite different come the end of next week.

Edited by - ernestgreene2000 on 9/24/2004 8:43:42 PM

[Link]

DAC, while we may differ on the specifics of what best serves the community in the current situation, I find myself in basic philosophical agreement with your latest post.

Nina and I both got in here because we care passionately about sexuality and how it is portrayed. We've done our best to be true to our visions, and while we haven't always succeeded, we continue to do our best to bring the subversive message of mutual pleasure to an audience that desperately needs affirmative messages about sex.

Though I would never seek to obstruct the competition of opposing ideas, I still regard the presentation of sex-positive images as an important and worthy mission.

I'm glad we find common cause on this point at least.

[Link]

If this is in fact true, it would mean that having sex on a porn set is safer, on average, than doing so in private with someone you met in the general community.

It seems to me that more frequent testing, and "quarantine" during the time between the test and the shoot would give more safety than condoms (which can break) and dental dams (which can slip) and gloves (which achieve nothing other than to look ridiculous.)

[Link]

Dear Ernest,
I never claimed to have such a magic-wand, I just see how the industry reacts to any voices demanding to improve health care for performers and it makes me angry.
Using a condom is not a complex thing for me. To ban creampies and tell the public as a company you did so is not a complex thing to me either.
Perhaps if you had more direct experience with the day-to-day realities of working in the porn community, you would have a better grasp of the challenges faced by we who actually take responsibility for the protection of performers' health.
THE TALENT HERSELF. The industry gives a fuck about you. You even pay for your tests yourself, you pay for health insurance yourself, you decide in which acts to participate, and only the amount of fame you might have gives you the power to get a job the way you prefer it and not having to endure everything the producer has in mind. As a hooker right from the street you have no rights whatsoever and the agencies & producers will make you feel that. Just read between the lines right here at ADT. If you can't take care of yourself you'll easily end up broke. Mentally and physically.

Where were you during all the years when a handful of us fought the hostility and denial of an entire industry with no help of any kind from the public officials who now seem so concerned with our business?
Somewhere in Europe, having no clue about ever coming in touch with this industry.

the producers see me in quite a different light.
I cheer on your efforts and honorary work for AIM, still I judge you for not advocating mandatory condom use for high risk acts like anal sex, dp's etc.
AIM seems to be the lowest common denominator. You won't go any further than that in your efforts to call for safer-sex. Feel free to show me I am wrong. You could make your statment pro condoms for A, DP and DAP sex right now. However you might lose some of your friends doing so.

What I've read of your comments thus far makes me wonder about your motives.
I want to improve working conditions for talents.
I feel no anger towards you at all.

X-RAY

_____

Licker wrote:
I'm sure I have heard that there is a lower incidence of HIV among porn performers that there is in the general population. This seems to negate your concept of "ultra high risk".

No it does not, due to the nature of the job you're at high risk catching STDs. However I would love to take a look at such a comparison table, especially at the numbers and population used that lead the researchers to that result.

It seems to me that more frequent testing, and "quarantine" during the time between the test and the shoot would give more safety than condoms (which can break)
Due to the nature of the pcrdna test you will always have an uncovered window of a few days up to 4 weeks before an infection is detectable even if you test every day.
It seems to me regulary testing, let's say at least every 3 weeks AND the use of condoms is even more safe?

X-RAY

[Link]

I looked up the numbers and did a statistical analysis, and my conclusion was that there's no statistically valid way of comparing HIV transmission rates between performers and the general population in the LA area. The number of performers who have been infected is so low, and the variance on the resulting statistic is so high, that the whole exercise is pointless. Statistics depends on the Law of Large Numbers for validity, and the number of HIV infections in the porn industry isn't large enough.

If this is in fact true, it would mean that having sex on a porn set is safer, on average, than doing so in private with someone you met in the general community.

This is probably true, simply because only a minority of people in the general population have ever had an HIV test, much less been regularly tested at monthly intervals. On the other hand, I think I remember that the incidence of some other STDs is higher among porn performers. But I don't remember where I got that, so don't trust me on it.

It seems to me that more frequent testing, and "quarantine" during the time between the test and the shoot would give more safety than condoms (which can break) and dental dams (which can slip) and gloves (which achieve nothing other than to look ridiculous.)

Remember that Darren James was already infected when he tested negative on his first PCR-DNA after returning from Brazil. And most or all of the infections that followed happened within two weeks of the initial test. So neither testing every two weeks or a quarantine between testing and shooting would have prevented the last outbreak. That doesn't rule out your suggestions, but it does highlight the difficulty of coming up with workable solutions. For every solution, there's a set of circumstances under which the solution will fail. As you point out, that includes physical barriers. It's impossible to remove all the risk from any act of sex, which is why I said that prevention is impossible.

Most or all of the infections occurred during double anal scenes. They would have been much less likely to happen with condoms. Although prevention is impossible, there are simple measures that would reduce harm. The problem is that there are also strong economic incentives for everyone, from performer to producer, to evade those measures. In economics this is called a market failure; the market is producing something no one wants. The usual response to a market failure is to have the government step in. But porn is an international industry and several governments would have to coordinate their regulations to make that work. The disrepute associated with any form of sex work means that that will probably never happen. In the EU, the influx of prostitutes from other parts of the world has lead religious and women's groups to pressure governments into putting new restrictions or bans on prostitution, which is driving it underground and making it more dangerous. I don't expect to see a more intelligent response to porn performers' problems in Europe than we're presently getting from the US.

[Link]

The industry is going to have to adapt to the coming changes if it gets that far.

You can never predict the future, but the bottoms eventually gotta fall with the explosion in pornography over the past 10 years. That is inevitable.

Chico

[Link]

The legit film/tv industry has already started shooting more and more footage in Canada because it's cheaper.

[Link]

Adult film talent MUST wear condoms?
yet...
Educating high-school students about condom use is no good because "condoms don't always work"
(the ideaological party line is "abstinence only").

I have yet to hear of anyone contracting HIV/Aids from taking a hit in the eye ("must use eye protection")...
or
having cum run down their hands ("must wear gloves").

You mean to tell me that high-school girls can't even give their boyfriend's and/or daddy's friends <snicker> handjobs anymore?

Since NO method of HIV/Aids/STDs protection is 100% effective, how can Cal/OSHA presume to require it?
This will be tossed out in court.

The adult industry's statistics on preventing HIV/Aids is far better than the general populations. Maybe WE should be making the demands here, not Cal/OSHA.

Expect a whole lot more of this shit, not to mention extreme 2257 hassles, if Ashcroft and his cronnies are retained in this year's election.
Honestly, the neocons and "religeous" right don't know when to quit. Always pushing, pushing, pushing...

[Link]

AIM has always strongly advocated the universal use of condoms for both vaginal and anal intercourse. This isn't some nudge-and-wink, half-hearted recommendation. Before we test any new talent for the first time, we sit them down in the office and make them watch Porn 101, a detailed orientation tape in which we make the strongest possible case for condom use and clearly acknwoledge the limits of testing. This tape, and the policy it supports, have made AIM very, very unpopular among certain producers and agents, as has our unwavering support for performers who choose to use condoms.

We supply condoms. We deliver condoms to sets. We educate talent in the use of condoms. We counsel them individually to use condoms. We relentlessly advocate universal condom use in every single public forum where we make any kind of presentation. We have been pushing universal condom use since Day One and are about to issue a new, very specific, set of protection precautions which will stress, once again, the importance of condom use in all scenes involving anal or vaginal intercourse. I don't know how much more strongly we can make this point, but we will continue to harp on it for as long as it takes.

Before you accuse us of accepting "the lowest common denominator" where performer safety is concerned, you might take a moment of your valuable time to investigate our actual policy on the subject. We've been taking heat for pushing condoms for seven years, not only from producers and agents, but from many performers as well, who don't like having their denial in this matter challenged. We intend to continue our pro-condom education efforts, regardless of the outcome of the current controversy, and we'll be needing to do so, whatever official regulations are put in place, and here' s why:

Despite our best intentions, one thing we cannot do is go to sets, hold performers down and put condoms on them. If, in response to whatever pressures or inducements producers might employ, performers will not take the responsibility of protecting themselves, neither AIM nor Cal-OHSA can effectively make them do so.

And that is the root of our opposition to any scheme of mandatory condom use forced on this industry from the outside. There are 200 sex scenes (more or less) shot in LA every day. There is no way that even a tiny percentage of those scenes could be monitored by AIM or any government agency. By creating a rule that cannot be enforced, Cal-OHSA invites unscrupulous producers to take advantage of a perceived market opportuninty by making non-condom porn "off the books." That footage will go up in value, as things do if they becomes rarer, and there is no practical way to prevent greedy and unprincipled shooters from trying to exploit that edge.

The result of a mandatory-condom policy would likely be compliance by the larger, more mainstream companies, many of whom are already headed that way, and wholesale defiance from everybody else. Fewer condom scenes would be shot under a mandatory approach than under a performer-option strategy, precisely because of the market-premium created by any prohibition. By now, the war on drugs should have taught us all this lesson, but clearly it has not.

There is an issue of class discrimination built into a mandatrory-condom approach. The high-end performers who work for the cable-oriented, high-end companies will be protected. The newer, more vulnerable performers will be under even greater pressure to engage in high-risk behavior. Such a two-track system will work to the dangerous disadvantage of the most susceptible players in the industry.

You can claim, if you like, that adequate enforcement will mitigate this problem, but if you do, you once again betray your misapprehension of porn culture, where most people's best judgment is soluable in money.

The only effective alternative is education and consciousness-raising among the players themselves. Is it fair that this economically weaker group should have to take up the main burden of protecting their own safety, as opposed to having the industry or the government do it for them? No. Is any workable alternative ever likely to arise? No. In porn, worker safety has always been and will eternally remain a matter of individual responsibility, which is what AIM stresses in our attempts to educate performers concerning the importance of their own choices.

What I hear, underneath all the rhetoric about who should rightly be held accountable in this situation, is an understandable by wholly unrealistic desire for the industry or the state to act in loco parentis - making sure the kids put on their rubbers before they go out in the rain. Anyone who depends on that strategy is going to get wet.

One more time, neither producers nor the state have a commanding interest in protecting the health of performers, and neither has that as its primary agenda. The producers want to make the most commercial products they can. The state wants to use its regulatory authority to drive porn underground, out of California or out of business.

Only performers can make condoms standard operating procedure by insisting on them, and being prepared to lose work over it. That's why AIM focuses its efforts on them. They are the ones who have the most to lose and the only real power to change the situation.

I hope this clears up continuing misunderstandings about our intentions, but since a certain group of people in this community bear lasting personal grudges against us individually, I have no doubt that such misunderstandings will be perpetuated ad nauseum.

Interestingly, some of those grudge-holders are the very producers with whom we are accused of colluding.

Funny, that.

[Link]

Definite stroke value.

[Link]

Here's a question : where are all the underground US forced-sex vids ? Presumably there were people who loved this fetish before it was outlawed , and very similar arguments as you've applied to condoms could be applied to this too . You'll just drive it underground . It'll be even more unregulated than it is now . The market exists , and will be served somehow . None of that's come to pass from what I can see . Or am I just missing it somehow .

As for rare instances of producers and stars continuing to fuck unprotected on set , that'll still be a marked improvement from the status quo . All hail the Quo !

[Link]

If you go back up there, you'll see that all parties acknowledge the impossibility, given the prospect of digital post-production alterations to the product, of verifying compliance with safer sex regulations by viewing the finished tapes.

And then there is the matter of imported products and pre-existing products. Any ban on such materials would fly in the face of established Constitutional precedent and would undermine the fundamental logic behind the legalization of sexually explicit artistic expression in the first place.

So there will be no underground market in retail sales of non-condom porn. That was not my point. The underground market would arise in the making of non-condom porn, a competitive edge that smaller companies would be certain to exploit to the disadvantage of larger competitors.

And if you think there isn't adequate demand for non-condom porn to make such a nasty business worthwhile to the nasty individuals involved, you must not be reading some of the posts from consumers in other sections of this same site. Many, though by no means all, porn consumers are looking for the dirtiest product they can lay hands on, which is what powers the sales of the extreme-sex-act-driven videos on the market today. Producers wouldn't make them if they didn't sell, and I think there is much denial from those who consider themselves too enlightened and evolved for this kind of entertainment regarding the general character of the porn consumer.

You're quite mistaken if you think I'm part of the anti-helmet-law crowd. I do think some measure of enforced self-preservation is in the public interest, as the taxpayer otherwise ends up footing the bill for cleaning up messes made by irresponsible individuals. And my personal freedom is not on the table here. As I've now pointed out about a dozen times, I shoot primarily condom footage for feature companies. If anything, I stand to benefit from wider use of condoms in porn.

However, as in the war on drugs, which does analagously apply in the macro here, when the mandated precautions produce a paradoxical effect, the social cost is higher than it would have been without the regulations. Based on twenty years of experience in this particular milieu, I believe there is a real risk of creating exactly the kind of lawlessness that unenforceable prohibitions invevitably breed.

Again, because I reluctantly accept this unwanted reality, my motivations seem to keep coming under hostile scrutiny. I am just the messenger here, relaying what I know from having been down this road so many times before. I was a very vocal advocate of a mandatory condom policy in porn as far back as 1993, but when I saw the kind of resistance such a policy would face, I embraced the logic of harm-reduction over the all-or-nothing approach that would clearly have been the only likely alternative. When it's all or nothing in this business, nothing always wins.

If AIM had chosen to take a confrontational, all-condoms-no-compromise stance at the beginning, we would never have gotten producers and performers to agree on testing standards. By now, there would have been a massive HIV outbreak in the industry that would have ended many lives and caused the collapse of the whole business.

What nobody seems to have noticed in the sudden flush of missionary zeal that invariably accompanies each new disease scare is that HIV remains extremely rare in the porn community. Four transmissions in seven years is not insignificant, but it is amazingly low compared with similar demographics of sexually active young people in LA County. This is entirely attributable to the routine acceptance of monthly PCR-DNA testing and reporting, protocols that would be endangered by anti-discrimination laws forbidding the requirement of HIV testing as a condition of employement that are already on the books here in California.

Many here seem to be arguing that the existing approach is reckless and imprudent. I maintain that any abrupt change in the current protocols would most probably elevate the level of risk rather than lower it. That prospect, and not any concern for producers' profits or some misguided idea of personal liberty, makes me extremely leary of what would amount to a science project carried on by ignorant outsiders at the jeopardy of the health of the entire community.

There is nothing utopian in my contention that the primary responsibility for the protection of performers' health will always, ultimately lie with the performers themselves. I regard this as an unfortunate reality. I would prefer for all producers to adopt universal condom use tomorrow. However, they won't, no matter what coercive use of state power is deployed to try and make them do so.

As stated earlier, the only group with the power to create real change in on-set practices in porn is the group with the greatest vested interest in doing so - performers themselves. If the rise in condom use has been slow - and it has been to a disgraceful degree - the unwillingness of performers to demand safer working conditions for themselves, rather than pass up a paid day, has much to do with the seemingly intractible nature of the status quo. It's easier to blame the evil, greedy pimps and producers (for whom I make no defense whatsoever) than to face the fact that labor reform invariably originates from the labor side, rather than from the altruism of employers or the paternalistic intervention of politically-motivated bureaurcrats.

And if you really think the state couldn't do worse than the industry has done on its own, you just wait and see what happens if those Cal-OHSA regs go into effect and the California Supreme Court strikes down the mandatory testing provisions, which directly contravene laws they've already upheld. That's when the body-count really will start to rise.

The law that needs to be considered most carefully in this situation is the Law of Unintended Consequences. It could apply itself here big-time.

Oh, BTW, there is no law against the portrayal of forced sex in porn per se. There is some case law under which depictions of forced sex have been ruled obscene in certain venues, but there exists no statutory ban on such content. That's not the way obscenity laws are written. Give Miller v. California a read sometime. You might find it educational.

There are limits to what can be done by passing a law.

Edited by - ernestgreene2000 on 9/25/2004 11:59:13 PM

[Link]

On the other hand, the health authorities are only going to prosecute condom-free producers if a performer makes a complaint. So a producer who isn't concerned about the health risk to performers will weigh the uncertain possibility of prosecution against the certainty of making more money on a condom-free video.

That's assuming that Cal/OSHA's new interpretation of the law withstands legal challenges.

[Link]

I should note that I was the one who originally refered Ernest Greene (via Nina Hartley's forum board) to the statement of Dr. Gloria Brame which Ernest responded so strongly at that forum. (I am a regular contributor at that forum, though I speak solely for myself and no one else..as I will here.)

Needless to say, there is a lot to respond to..especially to DAC (David A. Clark) and some of his ranting and raving (as I personally see it) on the apparant failures of AIM and the porn industry in general to adequately protect the welfare of the performers, as well as his implicit support for the Cal-OSHA regulations as a wedge to impose his brand of "reform" -- as in mandatory forced condom usage and a outright banishment of "high risk" sexual acts such as double anals and creampies (I wonder...would he also include bukkake and double penetration, too???)

First off, to DAC...whatever your personal beef may be with Ernest Greene, I believe that you are way out of line and out of your freakin' mind when you attempt to call him out for supposedly not paying attention to the welfare of the performers. Since he is more than capable of defending himself and his record (and has done so here so eloquently and completely), I will defer to his posts here; but even the "scoreboard" doesn't support your view that AIM (under his and Sharon Mitchell's leadership) has been lacking in their efforts to contain the latest HIV outbreak this past June. Need I remind you all that only THREE performers were actually found to be infected with the HIV virus when all was said and done; that's less than even when the previous outbreak occured in 1989 with Marc Wallace being at Ground Zero. Considering the rate of HIV/AIDS transmission in the larger society, I would think that that would be seen as a great victory (with,of course, the exception of those who were infected, for whom our deepest symphaties and support should be headed). While even one case of transmission should be seen as a tragedy for that particular person, it should be noted that the actions of AIM in isolating and targeting the sources of the transmission were vital in the ultimate containment of the virus and the protection of all the other performers. Maybe you may have other issues with AIM because of their testing procedures, DAC, but you simply cannot crack them for their lack of effort or their success rate.

Now..on to the topic of "ignorant 18 year old girls" who apparantly need the guiding "leadership" of folks like DAC to protect them from supposedly evil raincoat-wearing vultures who use their cunts and rectum (Recti??) for personal exploitation: Gee, DAC, you make it sound like it was Ernest who made such evil, excessive films, not you. Riddle me this, please: Were any of these girls so "brain dead" when YOU were out there making such extreme films?? (Or did you always think this but refused to say that to their faces while you taped them???) I don't know about you, DAC, but 18 year old girls can actually be quite a bit more mature and capable of self-worth and agency than you apparantly give them credit for. Most young women of today are more than educated about the varieties of sex than those of even the last generation, and they probably know good and well what they are getting into when they sign the dotted line and step into a porn scene. I mean, it's not that they have the experiences of other women like Ginger Lynn or Nina Hartley or Jenna Jameson to precede them...or that they can actually learn from the experiences of hundreds (if not thousands) of women who have stepped through the revolving door of XXX entertainment. I'm not saying by any means that some of the most intimidating and brutal stuff doesn't happen; but for the most part, the girls in this business have far more sense and self agency than most people give them credit for..and since they are the ones who have to perform such acts rather than you, I believe that THEY are the best judge as to what acts they can and cannot (or should or shouldn't) do or perform.

Now, those companies who don't allow their talent the respect of free choice and total protection in both the choice of partners and the degree of protection for all sex acts they perform should be called out loudly and openly by any decent person who supports this industry as well as its talent. But there is a fundamental difference between giving the talent the resources and the tools and the support to make informed and vital decisions about such an intimate act as performing sex on screen or on the Internet, and allowing government bureaucrats and know-at-all "scientists" -- who have been exposed again and again to be fundamentally oppoosed to the very existense of this industry -- to impose such draconian, authoritarian, and unneeded regulations that will not even come close to achieving its even short-term goals. Perhaps I'm a bit more naive than you are, DAC, but I'd rather that the girls be able to exercise that choice with their own bodies rather than have a repressive government -- even one acting with a good heart and with legitimate concern -- imposing such a bad, overreaching policy.

(BTW...does your judgement of girls who perform such "extreme" acts extend to veteran performers as well?? I do recall that veteran performers like Chloe, Keisha, Porsche Lynn and a few others have performed similar "extreme acts" either for videos or for their websites; and Kylie Irleand recently taped a video called "The Whore Next Door" which includes her getting gangbanged, DP'ed, and performs lots of anal sex (including, if I remember, a double anal as well). I guess that Kylie should now be added to the list of directors AND to the list of performers who abuse themselves for profit, ehhh??)

As I said earlier, I was the one who first alerted Ernest to Dr. Gloria Brame's comments on the Cal-OSHA regs, and I have my own opinions about them. I do respect Dr. Brame very much as a femdom, an expert on BDSM, a certified sex therapist, and a progressive sex-radical; my opinion of her isn't quite as low as Ernest's is. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with her opinion (and sent a long two part post to her blog in response to her original comment) that if only safe-sex acts were allowed, then people would adapt and even start including safe sex activities in their personal lives. IMV, this is not only shortsighted and out of touch with reality, it is truely elitist (in a liberal sort of way) and insulting to the free choices of people who view porn for their own entertainment and pleasure. First off, there is already a large resource of "safer-sex" material and resources out there through the Internet and in the media; as well as accurate information about the use of condoms and other means of protection against STDs (including HIV/AIDS). Even with the larger political and cultural biases out there against the dissemination of such material (the "abstinence only" and anti-abortion struggles being a well known example), such information is out there for anyone to access it. If most porn fans out there do not support such "safe sex" materials through their sales figures, it is not because they are ignorant of safety concerns or because they are exploiters; it is because they prefer to see sexual acts which play to their deepest fantasies, and to their innate vacarious feelings. Maybe it might discomfort you, DAC, but most people out there don't use condoms when having sex because they like the feel and the friction of skin against skin; a condom tends to get in the way of such an effect. There is also the visual impact of seeing a man's ejaculate spurt out that serves as the symbol of male sexual desire and sexual essense. In most cases, a condom would be seen as only a distraction from the direct vicarious sexual appeal of the scene (unless the viewer was so politically correct to desire such activity).

You can say that people would adjust and get used to the changes all you want, if you want; but the history shows that there will always be a market for unprotected sex, and there will always be women and men who will address that need. And that need will be met even if the industry is ultimately kicked out of California; there are states like Oregon or Washington state or communities like Portland or Seattle that could provide a new home and protection for the industry..and there's always the foreign markets, too.

Finally, this on the unionization for sex workers debate: As a political Leftist as well as a sexual libertarian, I would by more than thrilled by the formation of a union or some other organization of sex workers (including hardcore actresses, models, strippers, and other sex workers) developed to represent their financial, social, and human interests. I understand more than anyone else does, however, that the flighty and transient nature of the sex industry mitigates against such a happy and much needed event happening. In the meantime, until conditions improve and the stigma against doing explicit sexual entertainment is lifted and sex entertainers respected for their craft and their skills as much as their mainstream "legitimate" sisters are for their talents, all we can do is to provide them with all the tools, the resources, and the support they need to allow them to survive in what can be a real rough and tumble business. We can demand that producers and distributors start treating their talent with much more respect and dignity. and that they provide the best working conditions as humanly possible, and pay them what they are worth. And we can even provide the neccessary support to those who feel that they need to get out of the industry for whatever reason; and especially to give the full medical and psychological support to all of the talent whenever they ask for or need it. And we can do all this without any government bureaucratic agency or politician stepping in and electing him/herself as judge, jury, and executioner, and imposing what amounts to the equivalent of the death penalty for a crime which more warrants probation and supervision.

Fighting HIV/AIDS is more than enough of a battle. The adult entertainment industry has survived a lot of crises, and it will survive this current one as well; and I believe that there are enough good people who actually give a damn about the talent and will raise their voices loud enough that it will actually thrive, whatever Aschroft or Dworkin; the US Justice Department Obscenity Division or Cal-OSHA or whomever decides to become the latest sex censor throws at it. Let's not get so caught up in petty squabbling and piddling chest-thumping that we miss this main point; no matter how much money is there to be made,it is still all about SEX.

Whatever my disagreements with DAC, I still respect him as an advocate for change within the sex industry, and I hope that he sees my comments in the spirit of constructive debate and disagreement that it was intended.

That's all for now...I promise a more lighthearted and much less serious introduction of myself in the near future.

:-)

Anthony Kennerson (aka Anthony_K of Nina Hartley's Forum)
(Progressive, Fan of Porn and Erotica, and Sex-Radical)
My Nina Hartley Fan Group "Aphrodite Nation"
My Red Garter Club Website for Sex-Positive Radicals

Anthony Kennerson

Edited by - Anthony_K on 9/26/2004 2:20:16 AM

[Link]

Almost two years ago, in January of 2003, I wrote on my site, simplyjimmyd.com: "I think I smell a conspiracy here. The government can't beat us with their bullshit obscenity beefs, so they're going to come at us with OSHA inspectors and Health Department officials."

And then in March of 2003, while writing on the subject of extreme content and irresponsible on-camera practices, I wrote: "What happened to good old fashioned sex? Are people in such a fucking hurry to not only invite the Health Department into our midst, but other regulatory agencies? Are we becoming a bunch of self-destructive, irresponsible morons? Or have we already become that?"

A little over a year later, during the recent HIV crisis, I simplyjimmyd-posted the following on April 18, 2004:

From the L.A. Daily News: Dr. Peter Kerndt, director of the sexually transmitted disease program for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, said regulations won't drive "the big boys" underground.

jimmyd sez: This was in answer to Sharon Mitchell's statement that government mandated condom use would drive production underground.

The L.A. Daily News story continues: "You don't live in fear of what could be driven underground."

Kerndt said officials take the outbreak seriously and see unsafe practices in the adult film industry as posing health dangers to the general population.

"We're concerned about this, because it has the potential, unchecked, to spread rapidly to their partners apart from their industry partners," he said.

Kerndt said a state-county task force has drafted a plan that would make condom use mandatory by forcing production companies to comply with a California Occupational Safety and Health Administration injury and illness prevention plan or face closure.

"We want to bring this industry into the mainstream by putting it under the regulations that currently exist for Cal-OSHA. This would be a model for the rest of the country."

jimmyd sez: Porn's equivalent to a thermo-nuclear strike up its ass!

And then on May 3, 2004, I wrote this bit of prophecy:

The Third Age of Middle Porn-Earth is coming to a close. Like it or not, some very big changes are about to take place in this once care-free land. The Eye of Sauron, in the guise of the Justice Department, will not defeat us. It is the Health Department, Cal-Osha and other agencies, like Hobbits from some bureaucratic Shire, who will usher in this new age of porn. Those who will not or cannot endure the changes may as well pack their belongings and make for the Grey Havens now. No sword that was once broken will be remade. There will be no return of the King.

Here's are some predictions I've seen in my crystal porn-ball:

1. Condoms will be mandated by some government regulating agency.

2. New testing procedures and other health protocols will be regulated by some government agency.

3. Extreme content will be outlawed; not through obscenity prosecutions, but by government intervention through health agencies.

4. Talent meetings called by legitimate members of the talent pool, or by others who have questionable agendas, will suggest many solutions to current problems but none of these solutions will be endorsed or accepted by porn's power elite.

4. A Porn Talent Union or Guild will not succeed. It will flourish in theory and fail when dues are required. If you think Sharon Mitchell has come under pressure and become a target for many people's complaints, wait till someone rises to the position of President of some porn talent union. That person might as well take a job at a carnival dunk tank.

5. The production of adult features and soft-core content will increase while ultra-hard-core, low-end content will be on the decline.

6. Some companies will fold: Either voluntarily or by their inability to compete in the new age of porn.

7. The era of porn directors who couldn't direct traffic if their lives depended on it will come to a close. If any of them wish to remain, it's time to actually take the time to learn how to do something other than convince some moron at some company to fund your next production.

My point here is not to pat myself on the back, only to wonder aloud why it hasn't been obvious to many others what was coming?

And speaking of "obvious," it certainly wasn't Mitchie or Ernest or AIM who invited Cal-Osha and/or the L.A. County Health Department into the fray. If any one person had some hand in it, it's fairly plain to see who that might be. Go back into the archives of the porn news-and-gossip sites and re-read who said what, who shouted loudly and threateningly, who rarely missed a photo-op or a chance to be the source of a quote or a sound-bite, and who was seen on-camera and in print images with one of the unfortunate victims of this latest HIV outbreak. i.e., the performer who--it's been speculated--made the official CAL-OSHA complaint. I'll bet with a little bit of simple, cyber-detective work you'll come up with your own specific, individual suspect just as I have.

Edited by - jimmyd on 9/26/2004 5:37:54 AM

[Link]

There is an issue of class discrimination built into a mandatrory-condom approach. The high-end performers who work for the cable-oriented, high-end companies will be protected. The newer, more vulnerable performers will be under even greater pressure to engage in high-risk behavior. Such a two-track system will work to the dangerous disadvantage of the most susceptible players in the industry.

I'm sorry that I am the one who has to tell you that exactly this 'two-class' system is something already established in the American porn industry. A mandatory-condom approach could help to break it down, imho. Sheltering newcomers in the biz who don't have a voice to be able to demand the same protection as big name stars, "You insist on a codom? Go home we find someone else"

No attempt at making possession or sale of non-condom porn illegal is contemplated by any of the agencies involved, nor will it be.
you'll see that all parties acknowledge the impossibility, given the prospect of digital post-production alterations to the product, of verifying compliance with safer sex regulations by viewing the finished tapes.

That doesn't hinder me to play with these ideas in my mind.
Not the possession of non-condom porn but the production of new condom-free porn could be made illegal. I already pointed out that you don't need a hughe task force to control things but a disclaimer in front of every porn flick produced in California that whatever 'yet to do reasonable bill' was attended.
Should a producer fake these things and a talent has a bad day, go figure.

And then there is the matter of imported products and pre-existing products. Any ban on such materials would fly in the face of established Constitutional precedent and would undermine the fundamental logic behind the legalization of sexually explicit artistic expression in the first place.

For me the freedom of artistic expression ends when people die.

Oh, BTW, there is no law against the portrayal of forced sex in porn per se.
There are limits to what can be done by passing a law.

We have them in some European countries, acted forced sex you can do in Italy you can't in France and Germany. The imagination is the limit when it comes to laws.

Ren Galskap wrote:
I don't expect to see a more intelligent response to porn performers' problems in Europe than we're presently getting from the US.

Well, the European market is much different from the American. First there is no concentration in one town where 200 shots are made one day. Then we don't have these extreme gonzo lines featuring gagging and slapping in the likes of Gag Factor, Slap Happy etc. which now seem to become the new standard in American Gonzo.
To try to produce such things in Europe could lead to the shut down of your label within a short time. I have a feeling because there is no hate shit like that goes along way towards the better image porn has here. It is an accepted part of entertainment. No politicans are trying to shut it down, nor could they ever secure a majority for such attempts.
Further you better forget about the idea to move what you call the 'extreme parts of the industry' towards Europe. Right now there is already some political discussion going on in the Czech Republic how to deal with foreign producers.
Many of you may know the German scum label GGG producing what I think is the lowest in production values currently available in Europe. Did you know that from each and every payment made towards talents there is a tax percentage that goes directly to the german government?
The health care situation is much different in Europe compared to America, much more people have health insurances and the welfare system in many countries is, though not perfect, lightyears ahead of what we find in America.
As I pointed out earlier some European countries have bans, even on import and sale which actually are enforced. Just try to buy watersports DVDs in Switzerland. Or try to sell rape scenario porn in Germany. The youth protection in Europe is better too, try to host a site like meath0les.com with unprotected access to preview trailers in even one of the most liberal countries like the Netherlands, and see what happens.
Major Studios like Marc Dorcel Video already switched to condom porn, some big pay-tv satellite licenses are aligned to conform with safer sex-requirements forced by political pressure.
The problem the Californian sex industry faces now is the result of people who exaggerated the risks towards talents and denied any responsibilities. People who think they live somewhere out of grasp of society.

Ernest, you realized yourself that talents who willing decide to insist on condoms lose money.
In fact, I don't think I need to tell you that it may not even be possible for some to survive without the condom-free high risk stuff. No education about risks will help if you have no choice. That's why responsibility should be shifted towards the producers, following the simple logic that if you put someone at risk you actually are responsible. I think your idea of 'harm protection' shows that you indeed have good intentions, but this is the idea of someone who already gave up.

Ren Galskap idea of 'harm protection' however is based on the false conclusion that because a 100% prevention of STD's is impossible any prevention that goes beyond the status quo is doomed to fail and humans have to subject to the rules of unregulated capitalism.

Edited by - x-ray on 9/27/2004 3:45:16 AM

[Link]

Extreme producers are the one's taping acts most likely to result in HIV transmission. Since Cal/OSHA depends on complaints to initiate prosecution, the extreme producers are the ones most likely to get the complaints and feel the heat. Consequently, they'll probably move first. Extreme porn can be made in any country with the necessary technology, willing performers, and either a lack of laws against it or a government that doesn't enforce existing laws. I've been told that some of what US producers are doing in Brazil is illegal, but the Brazilian government obviously isn't enforcing the law. If extreme producers can't go to Europe, they can go to Brazil. If Brazil drives them away, there will be someplace else to go. If the existing producers are driven out of business, new ones will pop up in countries that are more permissive.

I'm not opposed to using condoms. I'm opposed to solving problems in the US by exporting them to other countries and making them worse. I'm not a supporter of the status quo, but I'm opposed to proposals that will create a situation worse than the status quo.

Any producer or director who posts in this thread is opening himself to having his morals and character worked over by someone who disagrees with him. Since no one is going to sell more videos or acquire some other benefit by posting here, it's safe to assume that anyone who risks character assassination in order to have the chance to express his opinion is probably sincere. Whatever DAC has done or said in the past, he says that he wants to promote performer protection, and there's no reason to doubt him. We need new ideas, and they're more likely to come from a group of people who agree on a common goal but disagree on how to accomplish it than from a group of people who all have the same ideas and blind spots. We all suffer from erratic aim occasionally, and it's better to have someone inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

[Link]

Extreme producers are the one's taping acts most likely to result in HIV transmission.
The American porn companies produce the most extreme and therefore dangerous (towards talents health) porn

extreme porn is despised by large parts of society and delivers enough fodder to open up the whole porn industry to attacks from various 'antiporn-lobbies' (think TT-Boy, Max)

unlike Europe many American porntalents have NO health insurance

the fluctuations in the talent pool are nowhere faster than in LA; every day a new girl shows up the 'big names star system' retreats.

successes of European companies producing 'condom-porn' show that the consumer can be re-reared and gets used to condoms in porn without missing anything.

speaking numbers there was no multiple HIV outbreak in the European porn industry in the last years

in Europe features dominate the market in contrast to America where gonzo seems to hold the strongest 'free' market position, though I don't know about cable deals in America.

It is not known to me that any country in Europe has rules as silly as gloves and the prohibition of cumshots on skin. Which should tell you something?

up to date there are no signs the Californian porn industry has managed to make their own over-worked 'bill' or contacted OSHA in anyway

these are just some facts to point out why the European performers suffer less problems,
besides in Europe I'm used to people that can discuss without using cheap shots like personal attacks on religious believes, talking looks and fecal speech due to lack of arguments.

Interestingly, not one single point of the positive ideas in the OSHA regs was discussed here like Hepatitis immunization or ban of creampies, it seems the majority of people sees it as their right to demand certain acts for personal pleasure (fans) or benefit (producers) while not wasting one single thought on improving talents health care.

[Link]

But even condom porn can be made extreme, even from a pornographer's POV. Here's a simple example: Some guy is fucking some chic in the ass. He's wearing a condom. Shooter calls for ATM. The guy pulls his condom-sheathed dick out of the girl's asshole and pops it into her waiting-and-willing mouth. Hmmmm... condom porn AND extreme porn AND a health risk.

This is gonna encompass more than simply wearing condoms because the extreme content guys in this biz might agree to have their meatpuppets wear condoms if the law says they have to, but then they'll strive to make the condom-content as extreme as possible (cuz that's the ONLY way they can compete in the marketplace) and we'll be right back where we are right now.

And trust me on this one: everybody in porn valley ain't pickin' up their shit and moving to Prague, or Canada, or anywhere else. Many of them will become pimps, hookers, drug dealers or used car slaesman before doing that.

Edited by - jimmyd on 9/26/2004 6:33:13 PM

[Link]

Both the EU countries and the US ship discarded computers to other countries to be recycled. The workers who do the recycling are poisoned by the toxic materials they deal with. This is probably the single most common form of market failure; the inability to pass all the costs of production on to the consumer. When I drive my car, the pollution and greenhouse gasses are part of the cost of producing personal transportation for me, but I don't pay the cost. It is passed on to the entire world. The fact that porn consumers don't pay the full cost of producing porn doesn't make them different from other consumers, either in the US, the EU, or any other part of the world.

It's true that health policies are more advanced in EU countries than in the US. But that's not a problem the porn industry could solve, even if everybody in the industry were perfectly altruistic.

[Link]

"Employers in this industry must provide the hepatitis B vaccine series to employees who may be exposed to blood, semen, vaginal fluid or OPIM."

for infos about Hepatitis C research click here

The fact that porn consumers don't pay the full cost of producing porn doesn't make them different from other consumers

sometimes you first have to raise consciousness before people discover something is wrong and change their acting.

[Link]

Edited by - dac on 9/24/2004 8:28:53 PM

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

And just because most of the major companies that have contract performers use condoms, it doesn't mean that they don't have to report workplace exposures to osha. ANY CONTACT OF POTENTIALLY HARMFUL BODILY FLUIDS MUST BE REPORTED. Even if that fluid is on the outside of a condom.
And of course the obligatory facial is definately a reportable occurence.
Also, the blood borne pathogen regulations are not the only violations that osha is going to go after. OSHA also regulates workplace injuries(like a construction worker getting hit on the head with a falling piece of equipment).

I've watched my fair share of porn and you cant tell me that some of these girls dont get injured while doing these things. If an anal scene causes a girl to bleed, that must be reported as a workplace injury, and the company must pay for all medical explenses related to that injury. I wish now that i had gone to law school.The number of lawsuits that are surely coming may finally do what the right-wing conservatives have been trying to do for two decades.

Edited by - WHOOYA on 10/1/2004 8:34:42 PM

Edited by - WHOOYA on 10/1/2004 8:45:14 PM

[Link]

I do think that contracting companies, which are at least condom-friendly, may be counting on their existing procedures to ward off intervention, but I also agree that a mere good-faith attempt to meet some, but not all, of the proposed governmental standards, would be unlikely to immunize them from the consequences of even minor infractions. Indeed, the powers-that-want-to-be might even single those companies out as examples to demonstrate how rigidly they intend to impose their regs.

Still, I hardly think any of this will put an end to contract players. They are too central to the marketing strategies of some of the biggest players in the industry.

Ira

[Link]

I think the biggest problem we face with a condom approach is that it has to be mandatory for all companies, otherwise the 'safer-sex producers' will not survive in the long run.

Recently I thought about what Ernest said. That a mandatory approach goes hand in hand with no more proper testing at all due to ALCU regulations. I still don't get this part.
Every jury in court would recogize that a producer who demands testing and condoms for high risk penetration acts takes extra care of talents. Sex-Workers are an high risk group that can't be subsumed under standard ALCU personality protection ideas for conventional employer/employees relationships.

Though every talent is free to choose condoms for every sex-act, I think it should be mandatory for vaginal/anal penetration only and not for fellatio or cunnilingus, not to speak of gloves etc.
But even this approach which is at least in my eyes totally acceptable for porn producers is no more than wishful thinking.
It seems it's more likely some companies will drown soon than to do anything by themselves that might conciliate some lobbies and push back those who try to shut down everything.

[Link]

There is some history here of which you may not be aware. In the early days of the epidemic, right after testing first became available, employers in many different industries attempted to compel HIV testing of employees as a way of elminating them in order to avoid raising health-insurance costs (yet another ugly by-product of our "privatized" healthcare system over here). This resulted in blatant employment discrimination against those who tested positive, even if their work didn't impact the health of those around them in any way.

As a result, the ACLU went to court in a number of states to oppose employer-imposed HIV testing as a source of job discrimination. High-risk-group arguments made by employers were mostly rejected by the courts, even concerning healthcare workers, on the grounds that HIV transmission was preventable by the kinds of protective measures mandated in workplace safety standards (hence the goggles, gloves, etc). Courts generally found that employee protection was an employer responsibility and that attempting to exclude identified risk groups from employment was, in fact, discriminatory.

Subsequently, many states, including California, enacted laws prohibiting employers to require HIV tests as a condition of employment, and healthcare providers to disclose HIV test results to employers.

You might think any sensible jury would reject such standards in a situation of obvious risk like porn, but if they don't reject them for dental hygienists, who work with sharp intruments in the bleeding mouths of patients, I doubt they'll overturn established legal precedent on behalf of porn performers.

Therefore, the mandatory testing component of any new governmental regulations on porn will face an immediate court challenge, as the ACLU has made extremely clear, and will almost certainly be struck down in accordance with existing legal precedent. That's the way we do things here in America, sensible or no.

As a follow-up, I did mean to respond earlier on the subject of Nevada's testing policy in legal brothels. Nevada is obviously an atypical state in many respects, not least of which is its policy of allowing some forms of legal prostitution. In doing so, it imposes many restrictions on the behavior of prostitutes working in legal bordellos that would be considered discriminatory in almost any other setting.

I'm a bit surprised that none of these regulations, including such obvious lulus as forbidding prostitutes' families from residing in the towns where they work, have been challenged in court. I suspect this is because the girls who work in these establishments are unwilling to put their employment at risk, and to pay the legal expenses that such a challenge would require. However, should anyone ever choose to contest these rules in court, including the rule requiring HIV testing, I suspect the rules would be held unconstitutional. It would certainly be interesting to see what happened then.

Edited by - ernestgreene2000 on 10/9/2004 4:24:13 PM

[Link]

One way in which companies with contract players could conceivably outmaneuver the rules would be to set up individual corporations for each contract player and then contract the corp instead of the performer. Governmental employee safety standards don't apply in B-to-B transactions. If the performer was the owner of a corp and was injured while doing business on its behalf, liability would probably be assigned to the performer's Inc.

I'm not suggesting this, but somebody's lawyer probably has already.

[Link]

I don't know the legal or accounting technicalities of setting up such a partnership so often. But I would think that there would be some kind of "boilerplate" partnership agreement that could be a stardard way of making all of the performers a limited partner of the producer for the lenght of the production of a movie.

[Link]

I know in my area, a lot of the dry cleaning businesses are run by husband-and-wife teams, and they also employ their kids to run the shop. They still have to follow OSHA standards for handling the dry cleaning solvents, as well as the EPA standards for disposing of it. I don't belive OSHA or the EPA hands out exemptions for businesses employing only relatives.

[Link]