If California requires condoms in porn, I'll buy my porn from Europe. If they make condoms mandatory, I'll turn to the black market. Or I'll stop paying for it altogether and stick with my own collection. It would be a shame. I spend a lot of money.
Yeah, but here's the thing. The people doing the banning won't be satisfied with this. Their next logical step will be to ban the distribution and sale of films w/o condoms in the state. And then the purchase of them will be banned. So companies will have to comply if they want the Ca. market. This will all need to be enforced with police. Porn police. Because condoms are not what the public wants, there will develop a black market. Probably labeling even more undeserving of the label sex offender.
[Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User
3381 Posts 12/13
Posted - Nov 7 2015 : 2:59PM
These people standing in line pretending to take the heat. When will they ever be fried?
Nevada will pass its own condom law soon and the proposed Cali regulations will be law by mid next year. What will happen to the porn companies in America? Will they stay? will they move? They have been pretty quiet on this whole thing.
The condom bit is the idea of one man -- Michael Weinstein of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. His goal is to ban the making of porn in the US, supposedly on the grounds that it spreads AIDS (it does not). Weinstein is pissed that he ended up responsible for the care of one or two people that he thinks got AIDS from porn (they did not, the girls got it from their boyfriends/husbands). A blanket porn ban has already been ruled unconstitutional so he can't pursue a direct ban. He knows that porn won't be made if condoms are required so he thinks that is the ticket to a porn-free US. Weinstein has the money to push his agenda, he is wiling to spend it for that purpose so he is doing so. As for banning the distribution of porn made without condoms in CA, the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution strictly prevents that from being a possibility. Only the federal government may regulate commerce between the states (which porn distribution is). Bans on non-obscene speech are also not allowed except in very limited instances (mainly inciting violence/stampede, slander/libel or divulging military secrets). Slander/libel is only enforceable civilly, the other two are enforceable both civilly and criminally.
I don't expect Nevada to pass a condom law, I don't really think they give a fuck about Michael Weinstein and his cockamamie ideas. Weinstein's next move is to attempt to enforce medical office disease containment policies on porn through the state OSHA agencies (he is already using California's OSHA to attempt this there). Fortunately for us Nevada barely has an OSHA, fines are minimal unless violent death is involved so porn producers will simply budget for the $500 fine (if that much) in each movie's budget. Michigan also has its LARA (the OSHA in Michigan) administered similarly so if our legislators get off of their asses and repeal our current fornication and adultery bans we could get a significant number of the porn companies and their jobs in our state. Texas also has a porn convention (with some companies producing scenes there) each year with minimal attention from regulating authorities and their OSHA barely does anything even in serious injury cases so some porn companies will probably move there as well. In the end there may be a few cases make their way to the SCOTUS but porn will be fine but have relocated to friendlier states -- California's loss and Nevada's/Texas' gain. No wonder California flirted with bankruptcy a couple of times in the past 40 years -- business-unfriendly policies running business and tax revenue out of the state (of which the current exodus of porn due to condumb regulations is just a symptom of -- even if its impetus was not a governmental official).
Due to the present proposed adult industry Cal-OSHA regulations instigated by Michael Weinstein and AHF, NO company presently producing adult movies in California is in compliance. This includes all types of scenes including even g/g scenes. When I read a recent AVN report, I was very skeptical of what the Free Speech Coalition was saying and I thought they were bending the truth. Thus, I went to the regulations proposed along with Cal-OSHA's interpretation of suggestions submitted for them by proponents and opponents of the regulations. After reading this 65 page document with Cal-OSHAs responses to the suggestions, I was absolutely stunned by what this means. The Free Speech Coalition is correct: If these regulations take effect, the production of all adult movies will be destroyed in California. If these regulations take effect, the following acts are illegal: BG Scenes 1. Condoms must be used for all penetrative sex and oral sex. 2. Barrier protection for the eyes, mouth, and other mucous membranes. Thus, no facials or cum in mouth unless eye protection (goggles) or mouth protection (dental dams) are placed on face. 3. No creampies. 4. No cum shots on genitals. Vagina must be covered with a dental dam. 5. No mouth to vagina direct contact. Vagina must be covered with a dental dam. GG Scenes 1. No mouth to vagina direct contact. Vagina must be covered with a dental dam. 2. No direct vagina to vagina contact. Vagina must be covered with a dental dam. Responses to Adult Industry Input 1. Declined to consider Responses to AHF and supporters Input 2. All input accepted and incorporated into the regulations Here is the key section that makes all current adult movies against the law. Wicked Pictures should even be worried: Barrier protection for the eyes, skin, mouth, and mucous membranes. The employer shall not permit ejaculation onto the employee’s eyes, non-intact skin, mouth or other mucous membranes. If work activities may expose the employee’s eyes, non-intact skin, or mucous membranes to blood or OPIM—STI, the employer shall provide condoms or other suitable barrier protection.
Additionally, AHF and Cal-OSHA considers the current PASS system to be discriminatory against people infected with HIV. Here are their comments that accompanied the regulations: "Employees must waive their rights to confidentiality of HIV testing in order to obtain employment, permitting themselves to be listed as 'available' for employment due to negative HIV and other STD tests within a set time period," "The Board acknowledges the Commenter’s support and agrees with the assessment these existing industry practices do not offer medical confidentiality and place the burden of cost on the employees." "The 'availability' testing system (called PASS) discriminates unlawfully against persons with HIV. The industry and individual employers cannot justify this discrimination as necessary, when the reasonable accommodation of using condoms or other barrier protection, and prohibiting ejaculation onto mucous membranes, eyes, and skin would protect employees against infection." Thus, AHF and Cal-OSHA seems to believe that their should be no testing because condoms, goggles and dental dams will protect performers from infection, even if they perform with a person with HIV (no way of knowing they have it). If I were a performer, there is no way I would perform in that situation.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 7 2015 : 6:29PM
Remember porn was illegal to shoot in the US until the late 80s and it was still a booming business. This may just return porn back to its 'outlaw' past.
The courts declared the LA condom law constitutional so it is very unlikely a statewide law would be overturned. Nevada officials already made it clear they will be implementing similar regulations. These laws could be automatically adopted nationally be OSHA. If the studios moved to other states they would no doubt be pursued by the AHF. It's not looking good.
[Link]
hashphish Deactivated User
2465 Posts 7/08
Posted - Nov 7 2015 : 8:44PM
These laws only pertain to studio shot porn, right? I mean do the cam couples that do stuff on chaturbate or other sites have to abide by this law as well?
^ Basically the laws would apply to everyone. It will be fun to see what happens when the Condom Nazi goes after a husband and wife for fucking on cam.
Remember! Performer of the year Anikka Albrite in 2012: "I am really disappointed about Measure B passing," she wrote. "It shows how ignorant Los Angeles voters can be. I am very grateful, however, for the No on Measure B efforts by everyone in the industry, and our friends, family and fans in L.A. They did a good job at banding together to raise money and raise support in our cause. I hope it gets knocked down in the appeals court. If it doesn't, I'll just continue to save my money and go wherever the industry goes. I hope for a positive outcome though in the appeals court." I will just continue to save my money and go wherever the industry goes! For Thedailybeast: "It is not the American way. We are grown adults. We shouldn’t be forced to use condoms ”, said Albrite, who has starred in such adult film offerings as Slurpy Throat Sluts and Don’t Tell Daddy I Do Black Men. Albright said that when she started in the porn business, her agent told her she could request the use of condoms, but would probably not get a lot of work if she did. “A lot of the girls get more work if they choose to not use condoms,” she said. “I know I am putting myself at risk for disease, but I know we have strict health regulations,” We are grown adults. We should not be forced to use condoms! 2014! At the State Capitol Anikka Albrite and Mick Blue were supporting porn industry in the opposition of AB1576. Our performers are strong! We are strong! We will win! Condom-free porn always will be alive!
Even though Measure B passed, it's not enforced very often because actual enforcement of it requires money that LA County (and California in general) doesn't have. The budget was supposed to come from an increase in permit costs for adult productions, but the courts said that that part of the law was unenforcable/unconstitutional. That (the budget issues) is what actually killed AB1576 at the state level (as soon as someone came out and said how much that bill was going to cost to implement, it was dead). It's also the reason that Weinstein/AHF put in the part where the anyone can sue performers/producers when it comes to having condoms in scenes, because neither law enforcement nor OSHA has the time, money or people to be finding and raiding porn sets to prove that people aren't wearing condoms. And that last part (letting anyone sue people) is honestly why I think the statewide ballot has a chance at failing, because something like that is just way too easy to abuse.
Excellent article by US News and World Reports regarding the California Condom Initiative and the Cal-OSHA regulations: US News and World Report Article
Theoretically the federal government can implement OSHA regulations but they have to get the states to actually enforce them. States such as Nevada and Texas won't enforce "ban porn through the back door" OSHA regulations any more than they enforce current regulations, Nevada may pass a regulation to get Weinstein off of their backs but the fine will likely be so minimal that producers will just budget for it like they do lube, location rental, editing, talent pay, etc.
^ It is scary. However, let's wait and see how things play out. Back in the 80's/90's, I use to subscribe to AVN magazine. They had a legal section in the back of the magazine. Issues often included warnings of an impending legal threat to the porn industry. But, here I am still watching porn 25+ years later. The adult film industry in California dates back to the 70's. Hopefully, it will survive this attack as well.
Them Schnitzengrubens can wipe you out! 4 Posts 5/18
Posted - May 17 2018 : 3:48PM
So what is the current status of the LA condom law? I see plenty of productions shooting in LA and not using condoms. So what happened? Did the law not go into effect? Did the courts strike it down? Or is there just no enforcement?
^ Hi and welcome to ADT. We have a more thorough thread about the various condom ordinances that have been passed (or not passed) in LA county and California here: Condoms in Porn... Measure B/Bill AB 1576/Prop 60 Check that out for all sorts of info on it. The short version is this: measure B passed in LA, requiring condoms, and yes there has been a lot of production that has moved out of LA, but obviously a great deal of porn is still shot there. But now, most of it is shot without obtaining filming permits (which would also require condoms to be used). But post in that thread if you wish to discuss it more.
What's the latest on this? The previous post in this thread was from a few years ago. Though I left porn in 2004 (but continue live camming), I have been following this topic over the years since then. In 2012, Los Angeles County voters passed Measure B requiring condoms in porn created in that county. This was major considering that much of the porn in the U.S. is produced in the San Fernando Valley which is (you guessed it) in LA County. Is that still the case? It has been about 10 years since this measure passed and people from within the industry have said that it isn't being enforced, which echoes how people were predicting it wouldn't be enforceable before it passed. Are there any cases where the county enforced this?
Nonetheless, building on their success of getting Measure B passed in LA County, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) got a similar measure on the state ballot in 2016, but it didn't pass at the state level.
I haven't noticed the AHF vehemently advocating to the public for mandatory condoms in porn since then. Is this correct?
Also, what about performers who work independently in LA County? Are they still subject to the condom mandate? The creation of sites like Only Fans and the tube sites have given performers more independence to produce their own content and post it without having to work just for production companies, or for production companies at all.
^If you visit the other thread then you will see that the last time this subject was discussed was 5 years ago and unless you haven't seen any porn made after 2017 then you will notice that condoms are not used in modern porn. In fact I would say that since the only studio who required the use of a condom no longer does proves that condoms are no longer something anyone in authority cares about.
Thanks for the updates. I speak more from a perspective of an ex-performer in the biz and activist than a fan. Yet, I don't call myself a star or have hundreds of scenes. I'm not as up on the latest in porn scenes as some people are. Plus, I claim no expertise on the big business aspects and didn't know MindGeek bought Wicked Pictures. I was never a producer, director, or big business owner; so my insight comes from other angles. Not looking to be anybody's boss other than my own.
Reading threads, I noticed negative comments toward condom use in films and some people saying they won't buy videos with condoms. However, there are so many threads and posts on this board that I haven't read all of them. On the flip side of this, does anybody on here prefer porn with condoms or have no preference?
^ Why would any porn consumer prefer to see condom sex? Would also be weird to have no preference cause it's a big deal. The only thing worse than condom sex is no sex at all. :)
It just seems like there's a lot going on affecting the biz and not sure how much of it is attributable to condoms in porn. Pat362 mentioned that there haven't been condoms in (heterosexual) porn produced within the past 5 years or so. This could indicate that condoms are interfering with sales, so porn production companies find it even less lucrative to include them. I realize that like any business, consumer demand drives porn. Yet, I wonder about the extent to which other factors besides condoms play a role if production companies are experiencing declining profits. An obvious factor is the expansion of porn tube sites. Though producers can post videos on such sites, they also have to complete with these and online piracy. These sites along with places such as Only Fans have made it so performers can create and post their own content with basic technology, so performers are now not just working for production companies but also competing with them. Some consumers may be interested in supporting independent performers.
Likewise, I assert the ability to work independently can do more to protect performers than laws mandating condoms, which are very difficult to enforce and may displace performers if companies go elsewhere. The word "choice" keeps coming up in the disputes on condom mandates, and one of the best ways to give performers choice is the opportunity to decide whether to work independently, for production companies, or both. Performer after performer has said that if they were to demand condoms, they would get little to no work from production companies. With the ability to create and post their own content, performers have more autonomy to choose whether to use condoms.
To my knowledge, all or almost all of the female performers who shoot mainstream porn now or in the past, and who currently shoot onlyfans scenes with males, are not using condoms. (I obviously can't speak for all the other not-so-well known onlyfans creators, especially those who have never been involved with production company porn, as there are literally millions of them... but anecdotally, many of those seem to not be using condoms either.)
So the fact that the performers are able to have choice and create their own content hasn't changed the condom use. Maybe it's because they feel no one would subscribe to their onlyfans if they shoot with condoms, which is just a different version of "they would get little to no work from production companies". I can't say what their reasons are for sure of course.
If anything, I think the big change here with regards to choice isn't that they are choosing to wear condoms; but they are choosing who they want to shoot with, and that maybe that choice makes them more comfortable who they're not wearing condoms with.
Yes, I figured that. By choice as it connect with condoms, I mean the choice to use condoms or not to. Choice has other elements too, as you said and as I wrote about on another thread.
The reality is that there is no reason to use condoms, like them or not. As long as everyone is adhering to VADA standards there is actually less risk of any kind of infection than there is with a condom without it. In fact the only outbreaks that have occurred in at least 5 years have happened because performers were not adhering to VADA standards, screwing around outside of the industry, or both.
^There are so many things wrong with that post that I'm not entirely sure if you weren't trying to make a joke or might want to read up on STI's. Sure HIV outbreaks in the industry have been pretty rare but that doesn't mean that all of the other STI's aren't a serious problem now as in the past. There is a very good reasons why the industry does not reveal just how prevalent STI's are in the industry. Herpes aren't going to kill you but you will still have to live with the consequences of having them for the rest of your life and it's believed that a great many performers have had herpes which means that they still have herpes but don't work when they have an outbreak. Condoms would go a long way in preventing performers from contracting the less deadly STI's.
Performers are normal people who likely want to have real sex in their private life so unless they are in a relationship then that means having sex with people that they probably don't know the sexual past and it's no secret that a great many of them choose to do something we aren't allowed to discuss in this forum but can also lead to outside infections getting into the talent pool.
Don't like scenes with condoms and won't subscribe to sites that use condoms. There is no common sense to this. The claim that it reduces STI transmission is baloney. Sites that show condom use only show it during penetration, but oral scenes don't show condom use and money shots don't show condom use. What clown is going to say STIs won't spread during oral or money shots. Makes no sense. Doesn't surprise me Calif. would want this. They, like France, have no common sense. I reference France because Marc Dorcel makes good movies with good themes, but because they are made in France they are required to use condoms, but only on penetration. Kind of like trying to start a fire with damp wood. Common sense truly is an uncommon virtue. I won't subscribe to the Dorcel site solely due to condom use and I wouldn't the Wicked site for the same reason. Albeit, if they have changed I will take another look at them.
1 "If California requires condoms..." no children will legally be concieved and born in California. 2 Isn't US movie industry at large moving abroad to a large extent? Much seems for instance to be filmed in Canada. So porn could find a Carribean island or somewhere in need of a large industry. Or go to a suitable country in Europe: My impression is that both several eastern countries and Spain is quite open to porn. Germany also has been, but I wonder what will happen there.
To say that condoms don't protect from everything doesn't mean they don't reduce risk in some ways. Even if condoms are just used in vaginal and anal but not oral, they've been shown to be very effective in reducing the risk of certain STDs/STIs, such as HIV and Hep. C along with unplanned pregnancies when used correctly. Of course, this doesn't mean they're a perfect end all be all that will protect from everything.
Though I wasn't offered condoms in any porn scene I did and may not have gotten the work if I demanded condoms, they are required in legal Nevada brothels. In addition to requiring condoms for vaginal and anal penetration, they're also required by law for oral sex in Nevada brothels. I still remember, those mint flavored, unlubricated condoms. Actually, oral condoms come in many flavors, but moving on... Though there's much I can criticize about the Nevada brothel system, the condom laws didn't bother me. In fact, I saw them as an occupational health and safety provision. Had there been no condom laws, this could actually give sex workers even less autonomy over our conditions because brothel owners could get rid of or refuse to hire anybody sex workers who demanded condoms for their safety. Though we were required to be tested by law, the customers were not.
However, to directly compare Nevada brothels to porn is a false equivalent. First, Nevada brothels are in specific set locations where the customers come to us. A few counties allowed out-calls, but these were still in the general area. Porn works differently and can be made all over the place and all over the world. Though it may depend on the company, porn videos are usually not filmed in the company's studio and are often filmed in private homes. They can also be filmed in hotels, in the woods, in somebody's car, and more. The only company I did a scene for that was filmed in studio was Score (and they had a great set by the way). Point is it's much easier to relocate porn. Companies based out of the San Fernando County can film in different countries, and some have. Condom mandates can cause companies to relocate elsewhere and displace the performers. This can further endanger performers in a variety of ways and not to mention interfere with other obligations they may have, such as other jobs, college, or raising families. Condoms can protect when used correctly, but condom mandates in porn don't necessarily protect and can endanger. Thus, I'm hesitant to support such mandates.
I'm not noticing a push for porn condom mandates politically in California anymore. Not sure if such a push is still there.
Hardcore Bangers 2 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Nov 6 2015 : 6:02PM
