Last person please turn off the lights 85 Posts 7/07
Posted - May 27 2010 : 3:35PM
http://pornstarbabylon.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/porn-industry-running-scared/ I found this very interesting and I think you will too. So you think the porn companies care about the girls health and welfare?
Posted from PornStarBabylon.com Porn Industry Running Scared Posted on May 27, 2010 by Darrah Ford Someone sent this in. Thank you! It’s no secret to anyone in the jizz biz that the industry, as it now exists, is on its final legs. The current economic situation, which has affected every industry, along with the growing piracy, has all but killed the industry. Now enter the Aids Healthcare Foundation, and OSHA, and the final nails are being driven as we speak. While many in the porn industry blogosphere, and industry “news” sites like AVN are claiming to be winning the battle, they couldn’t be further from the truth. The success of the most recent obscenity prosecutions isn’t helping the industry either. And by the looks of everything so far, it is almost assured that John Stagliano, who has lost every motion (as ridiculous as they have been) will certainly lose, if not take a plea. But now to the heart of the matter. RUMOR has it that several adult companies have offered to make substantial donations to the non-profit Aids Healthcare Foundation in return for them “backing off’. There is only ONE reason they would do this, and we all know what that is. They know they are going to lose, and lose big time. RUMOR also has it that LATATA (also a target ot AHF) is forbidding any of their talent from attending the upcoming hearings. It is well known in the industry that any current performer who comes out publicly in support of better working conditions can kiss their ‘career’ good-bye. The “Plan” as it is known to those participating in it is to buy the silence of the AHF and keep the performers quiet. You will notice that nobody, not AIM, AVN, XBIZ, or anybody has even published the dates of the upcoming hearings. Like always, they want to keep the performers as uninformed as possible. Their goal is to make sure that no “stake-holders’ in the industry show up at these hearings. The “donations” to AHF are to ensure that they too do not show up at the meetings. (Is that what AHF was after thew whole time?) With no ‘stake-holders’ present, they hope that OSHA will vote to NOT amend the 5193 statute. The “invite” only meeting last week was one for the ages. It was more like a bunch of petulant children whining about not getting their way, than a meeting of some of the most prominent players in a multi billion dollar industry. If this is the best they can come up with, then the end is certainly near. Only time will tell, and that time is coming very soon. The interesting thing was that not all the members of LATATA were invited, Why do you think they did that? Another funny thing, RUMOR has it that the amount offered to AHF is more than they have ever given to AIM in almost ten years….I wonder how Sharon Mitchell fells about that? I wonder why AVN hasn’t reported this.
I assume this is over condom use in porn, or rather, the lack thereof. Porn companies may very well care about the girls' health, but not to the point it materially affects their ability to make a profit. Condoms in a porn scene don't automatically disqualify it for me, as they do for some people, but I can understand studios being afraid that the vociferous anti-condom crowd will simply stop buying their product and go elsewhere - like the web and to porn made overseas. This, when profits are already falling through the floor. It seems to me, however, that if the talent is hot enough, and your technical skills are good enough then condoms may not be such a deciding factor.
^ We're very much on the same page. What I think we need to remember is that porn, like any other media form, caters to audience demand (at least a lot of the time), so if it appears that porn doesn't care about performers (and let's include the men too - or are women the only ones worth worrying about?) then it necessarily says something about society as a whole. Narrowing our focus to one media form is counterproductive to progress.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - May 28 2010 : 2:39AM
Vivid and Wicked have stayed profitable and have such a policy so it's doubtful that it will have a substantially deleterious impact on the industry's profits. And their resistance to such a policy is proof that they put profit ahead of safety and all the more reason why such a policy should be mandated.
This is quite shameful...for it to be publicly known that any performer lobbying for better health conditions will be blackballed. Greedy fucking pornographers! I seriously hope the industry tanks even more because the people at the top of this "industry" are swine.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - May 28 2010 : 9:01AM
So you're of the opinion that protecting the public health represents a lack of freedom? Interesting.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - May 28 2010 : 9:44AM
As someone who has to deal with her on a regular basis on XPT, let me say that Baghdad Bob has more credibility than Darrah. I would say that she has about as much of a chance of ever winning a Pulitzer Prize as a box of rocks but I couldn't rule out the possibility that the rocks have developed more reliable contacts and sources.
Last person please turn off the lights 85 Posts 7/07
Posted - May 28 2010 : 11:07AM
Here is the actual date and time for the advisory board meeting. It has been added to the article... Tuesday, June 29, 2010, at the Cal/Trans Building at 100 S. Main Street, Room 1.040 A, Los Angeles, from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. After reading this article... I urge any performer concerned about their health and future to step up and let your voice be heard. Ask any of the HIV+ performers what the adult biz did for them after they were infected on the job? The porn companies are getting rich off of you and only want to line their pockets... It is quite obvious that they don't care about you... The bus door opened and a loud voice was heard saying "NEXT!".
AIDS, what's that? Didn't AIDs go away. Wasn't the human race meant to have been wiped out by HIV now? Whatever happened to Bird flu and Swine flu. It's a risky business, why do people go on and on and whinge about it so much, people have choices. If you want to fuck for dollars then you run the risk of getting an STD, if you would like to not get an STD then don't fuck for dollars. Simplez There will always be porn as men will always need to wank. Nothing says romance like anal sex.
True but there were favorite girls who might attract us to scenes on those company's releases. But when they insisted and tried to bully the other companies to go along, I flat out boycotted them. Wouldn't even pick up a box cover for Wicked, Vivid, Adam and Eve etc. Gonzo filled the niche quite readily and that Marc Wallice "Dick of Death" era of condom insistence also was about the same start of the Gonzo counter-revolution: a2m, cumfarting, cream/asskimo pies and asslicking. The only wall that didn't crumble was fisting
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - May 28 2010 : 1:20PM
Vivid has been condom optional for over 5 years. Most of the stuff we produce, like 98% is condom less. This has been a something that has been published, Steven Hirsch has made statements, but people still believe we are condom only. It is completely erroneous. Not using condoms does not equate to not caring about the talent,IMO. Not checking peoples papers, running an unclean set, those are some things that equal not caring. The letter the person posted in the beginning of this thread, is nonsense. First the industry is anything but on it's last legs. Second, there are no secret meetings, or pay offs. This is some scare tactic bullshit. Rumors are just that, rumors. Actually, we just had our best month in years. last month we were up 22% from the month before, this month we are up close to 40% from last month. If you put out high quality movies, they will sell. This business, is doing better every month, it is a natural process of weeding out the bad from the good. @0 years ago there were maybe 15 companies producing, now there are hundreds, some, most will have to go at some time or another. The cream, so to speak, will rise to the top. Porn is not going anywhere.
I'm not prepared to accept that a market currently served by Vivid and Wicked can absorb all the other non-condom companies in Porn Valley, particularly since, as I already noted, there are alternatives for the anti-condom crowd to turn to. Do I expect Porn Valley to die if condom use is made mandatory? No, but I expect a reduction in demand with the obvious result. BTW, if somebody were to successfully argue for the protection of performers from the transmission of the more common STD's then that truly would be the end of Porn Valley. That is, unless the rubber fetish market is bigger than it appears to be.
I cant comment on the story on Darrah's site. However, I have been told that the one of the officer's of the AIDs Healthcare Foundation owns a company that manufactures condoms. I use to work in politics and even ran for office back in NJ -- the one lesson I learned was "follow the money." With everything in politics it is always based upon a profit margin and a bottom line. No one does anything for the good of the people unless it comes with a paycheck attached to it.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - May 28 2010 : 7:19PM
you said; I'm not prepared to accept that a market currently served by Vivid and Wicked can absorb all the other non-condom companies in Porn Valley, particularly since, as I already noted, there are alternatives for the anti-condom crowd to turn to. maybe I misunderstood. When I read Vivid and Wicked in the same sentenced followed by what you wrote, I assumed you were saying we were condom only. My bad.
Howard, don't forget our secret meeting next week! Oops, I shouldn't have said that, the guys in the black helicopters are here now... Seriously, anybody who thinks that the porn industry is in any way organised enough to do anything like this, go talk to the other conspiracy nuts. Oh, and we are not dead yet. Jacco
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - May 28 2010 : 9:38PM
Probably because the word Rumor was mentioned a bunch of times and they don't deal in rumors. I'll back up Woody's assertion about Vivid not being a condom company. I've reviewed probably 30+ of their features in the last year and I can only remember seeing a condom once or twice. As far as the condom issue in porn, it's almost a joke. Why is a dick in a girl's mouth or a tongue halfway up the girl's pussy or ass clean, but the minute the dick goes into the pussy its dangerous? It's almost humorous that a girl will blow 15 guys into a bukkake or gokkum situation, but then insist they wear a rubber. Rubbers in porn = a big pass from me. Edited by - rosco fuji on 5/28/2010 9:51:38 PM
1. That's a straw man 2. In this case, it's not an opinion. If a person can't choose whether or not to use a rubber when they fuck because of government interference, that's a clear attack on their freedom. Edited by - randomprecision on 5/29/2010 7:45:01 AM
No it didn't because you misrepresented the government interfering with an individual's sex life as protecting an unwitting public from something it couldn't have protected itself from by making simple choices. Serious STDs generally do not travel through the air and something like HIV therefore is not the same thing as a cold or the flu. You're not going to get HIV from being in the same room with someone who has it. You have to choose to have sex with someone who has HIV in order to be at risk of getting it. So in this case, no one is at risk from anything other than their own ignorance. A person who is genuinely concerned about contracting an STD has an obligation to protect his/her self and either use protection of their own volition or get themselves and all their partners tested. So in the end, what you are really talking about (as usual with you people) is demanding that the government protect people from themselves in the most intrusive way possible. Your argument is that people shouldn't be able to choose whether they wish to use a condom and that is where you part ways with people who believe a reasonable level of "public safety" can be achieved (And already is achieved) without sacrificing freedom and self ownership by people using their own judgment and common sense. One could argue that this line was already crossed with AIM testing but I don't know if that's something the industry does voluntarily or if it's the law. At any rate, a person can still choose to do porn or not to do porn. A person isn't going to be at risk of getting HIV unless they have sex with someone who is infected. That requires an action that a person takes with foreknowledge of the potential consequences. Even if the person doesn't know their perspective partner is infected, the person knows HIV is out there and that it is always a risk with sexual contact. IOW, everyone who chooses to have sex with another person knows (Or should know) they are taking a calculated risk.By that logic, the government can mandate that no one can have sex without a condom (Or a government permit or something). Everyone who has sex could potentially spread disease. Nevertheless, people have a right to have sex and when you start goose stepping through people's bedrooms, you're going too far. And finally, my comparison was not false. Even though I admit I was exaggerating just a little, this argument that you have made is very consistent with "Big Brother" type thinking. It's always the same. If you don't want to be compared to unsavory characters, don't act like them. Edited by - randomprecision on 5/30/2010 5:42:01 AM
The idea that you don't need to protect people from themselves is quite ridiculous. Most people, including myself, aren't very smart and on top of that, humans make mistakes. So you're basically asserting that people deserve whatever is coming to them and there is no responsibility on behalf of others to protect and help them so as to ensure public health and a functioning society. Also having unprotected sex when you knowingly have an STD isn't a right at all, it's a crime.
It isn't ridiculous at all. The dumbest people know how to protect themselves from HIV. If they fail to do so, that is a choice they have made for themselves and you have no right to take that choice away from them in the name of "the common good" or "public safety". Making mistakes is how we learn. When others make mistakes, we learn from their example or we make the same mistakes and become examples ourselves. We don't learn anything from laws that require us to wear a heavy coat, gloves and boots in subzero weather. If you pass enough bodies frozen in the cold, you'll figure it out. What you are suggesting is what is ridiculous. If people are not very smart, they owe it to themselves to acquire a rudimentary level of intelligence so they don't wander out into traffic or step off of a cliff or something. There is no justification for bringing the rest of society down to protect a person who doesn't know they might get HIV if they have unprotected sex. And what's more than that, you can't even say for sure that person would even want that protection. You can't be sure they wouldn't see it for what it is. A violation of their rights. It's really amazing that I have to argue about something like this with an adult. It demonstrates better than just about anything else that the idea that the government should protect us from every conceivable danger is indeed a demonstrable mental illness. Regardless, the choice not to use a condom usually isn't the result of ignorance or a mistake but rather, an acceptance of the risks involved. Most of those who contract an STD are not really that surprised when it happens because they knew they were taking a risk. Edited by - randomprecision on 5/30/2010 7:25:43 AM
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - May 30 2010 : 9:27AM
This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Do you understand what kind of totalarianistic Pandora's Box you open up by making this statement? This kind of mindset would lead to government's making up whatever rules they want "for your own good."
[Link]
AsianAnalPantyhoserGuy Deactivated User
Ass fucking/ foot fetish/ pantyhose= insanity! 465 Posts 3/10
Posted - May 30 2010 : 9:32AM
^This reminds me of that quote from that guy that said "Those who trade freedom for protection deserve neither."
Last person please turn off the lights 85 Posts 7/07
Posted - May 30 2010 : 9:34AM
^^^^ To Random Precision: I'm sorry but your argument is ridiculous and misguided... We are discussing WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY... not someones right to be stupid in a free society... The government has a vested interest in the workplace, and all Americans have the right to a safe work environment. People don't work on the Golden gate bridge without proper safety equipment, and neither do medical professionals who come in contact with blood born pathogens every day, just like the porn performers do every day... You rabid porn fans are all so willing to put someone else's health and life at risk for the sake of your porn "fix". This is what really enrages me about the guys and the porn companies who think like you... Out of the many performers that I've personally had conversations with... They all knew that they are playing Russian Roulette. Everyone has herpes and most have had other STD's multiple times... STD's are rampant and preventable... One of them is deadly and incurable.... get that through your head. This debate is tired and has become a pathetic reflection of our desensitized culture... Edited by - You Wish on 5/30/2010 9:35:44 AM Edited by - You Wish on 5/30/2010 9:36:22 AM
The difference between your anology is that a performer's performance has been determined to be "speech" under the First Amendment. Working on the Golden Gate Bridge or a medical office is not speech. You are comparing apples to Cadillacs under the law.The issue for me is that condoms strike at the heart of the context of the expression. The question will be does the blood borne pathogen law, as applied to pornography, target the content of expression and that the law’s purpose is not to restrict expression but to avoid the problems associated with performing without condoms. The SCOTUS has decided multiple cases wherein the Justices were NOT willing to even protect minors from exposure to porn through a restrictive scheme on First Amendment rights. Are they going to protect a small group of performers that choose to perform in pornography to the detriment of First Amendment rights. My money is on probably not.
I agree. I greatly decreased the amount of porn I brought over the past ten years--not because I wanted less, and not because I use any "free" (stolen porn) sites. But because there was so much poor quality porn on the market it just became too time consuming separating the good from the bad. The problem, after weeding out the financially weak companies who mostly produce poor quality porn, is to ensure that the surviving companies produce a wide variety of porn. The survivors can't just produce a single genre (gonzo, g/g, features)because that will shut-out customers. And, the survivors have to understand what every industry does--that to succeed they must continuously expand the customer base, not just cater to the hardcore, single-minded fan(atics?). Bottom line: the industry will survive, but must produce quality product for a larger group of fans.
Actually, the logic is pretty good. You are simply taking this opportunity to take a poke at the porn business because you obviously disapprove of certain forms of porn. You have said so yourself. Obviously, some people do believe that the government has a responsibility to pad every sharp corner and hard surface in life because that defective form of thinking has been hammered into our heads over several generations. This is more about the "right to be stupid" than you think it is and this is only the beginning. This is about more than just porn and it will go much farther than any workplace. If you can't see that, you either just don't understand or you won't allow yourself to see it.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - May 30 2010 : 1:05PM
If they did, HIV wouldn't be spreading worldwide.People don't have the "right" to do harm to others through their own actions, that's why we have traffic rules, workplace safety rules, OSHA, etc..
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - May 30 2010 : 1:46PM
The issue for me is that condoms strike at the heart of the context of the expression. The question will be does the blood borne pathogen law, as applied to pornography, target the content of expression and that the law’s purpose is not to restrict expression but to avoid the problems associated with performing without condoms.
Click to expand
Pornlaw, the last time I brought this up you didn't respond. But the reality is that potentially spreading diseases during scenes isn't "artistic expression," or a "freedom", it's a public health matter. In fact it's doubtful you could even smoke on a set, depending on its location, given the laws in California, so it is highly improbable that potentially spreading blood borne pathogens in a workplace would be found to be covered by the 1st Amendment. Edited by - Zaer on 5/30/2010 1:50:21 PM
Zaer -- Well you and I feel differently. And there will be a judge - or several of them -- that will ultimately decide this issue. We can debate it and I can quote you case law but until its actually decided and it might have to be decided by SCOTUS, we wont actually know. I would like to know your background BTW ? What expertise do you have in this matter ? So you know, I have 15 yrs as an attorney - 7 specializing in adult and have handled numerous work place issues including Cal-OSHA issues, workers compensation as well as employment law for my entire career. And within adult I represent everyone from performers to studios to websites. I would like to know where you are coming from....
RandomPrecision wrote:I agree! People should also be able to chose to work in unventilated mines or sweatshops with inadequate fire exits. And don't even get me started on health and cleanliness inspections for restaurants.Mainstream movies also fall under the First Amendment. Somehow, I don't think a Hollywood producer claiming he therefore didn't need to follow relevant safety standards on set would win in court. For the record, I hope they don't end up instituting any "condoms only" law. But if they do, I'm pretty sure the courts will hold that the government has the legal power to do so. IANAL, though. Of course, none of this changes the fact that if the industry was better at self-regulating, and hadn't spent years promoting that bullshit "We have lower disease rates than the general population! No, really!" lie, none of this would even be an issue. Edited by - chaotic_23 on 5/31/2010 12:35:15 AM
At one time I use to represent Fox, Warner Bros and Universal. Those studios used stuntmen & stuntwomen. And they got hurt - a lot and when they did they suffered major injuries. Numerous stuntpeople have even died on set. A death, has never happened on a porn set, yet Cal-OSHA has never banned stunts and special effects in mainstream movies. And there arent special safety regulations passed by the state of California in regards to stuntpersons. Mainstream studios have private workers compensation insurance or are self-insured so the state doesnt really care what happens to stuntpeople. If all porn producers were insured, Cal-OSHA probably wouldnt care about this issue. The bigger issue is the cost to the tax payers of California if porn performers start using public assistance for medical care. Treatment for HIV/AIDS over the course of a lifetime will cost the state millions per patient.
Once again, the main reason why people in the United States contract HIV is that they choose to accept the risks of living (And having sex) the way they want to. It isn't that they don't know how to prevent HIV. You can buy condoms anywhere for almost nothing and everyone knows condoms prevent STDs. So your suggestion that the reason HIV spreads is because people don't know how to protect themselves is obviously wrong. It spreads because some people choose not to. And those who choose not to are making a conscious choice to accept the risks.
1. And yet who would choose to if they could work somewhere else? 2. Porn is not an unventilated mine or a sweatshop with inadequate fire exits. Porn is porn.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - May 31 2010 : 4:12AM
Let's be realistic here though. There is no way you could make a political career in California by trying to push through legislation whose end result could be making mainstream Hollywood pack up their bags. It would be the economical equivalent of California falling into the Pacific Ocean. There is way too much tourist money alone coming in to the state for any legislator who is not into self-mutilation to ever support that kind of kick in the nuts. Not so with the porn industry.
Correct. It's just a workplace where blood borne pathogens are routinely spread, so in some ways it's worse than an unventilated mine or sweatshop.Actually in surveys done in this country and around the world there is a lack of knowledge about how the virus spreads and how likely prophylactics are to stop it, so some do actually believe that they're not necessary. So in a number of cases the virus continues to spread because of a lack of knowledge concerning how to stop it. Edited by - Zaer on 5/31/2010 8:57:16 PM
They already did. Most of the movie production moved outside California years ago. What we have left here is television. And what you suggest did happen about 20 yrs ago. The Franchise Tax Board came after the mainstream Hollywood for not paying their fair share of income payroll taxes. At that time almost everyone on a mainstream production were treated as independent contractors. The state went after Hollywood to make them pay payroll taxes on everyone so they could get the revenue. A deal was made where all production employees were reclassified as employees, payroll taxes would be paid and the studios cut a deal on past payroll taxes. I first started talking about the work comp/Cal-OSHA issue five years ago... [ invalid url ]Yes. Not only is it feasible, the state must provide work comp insurance to production companies through their state owned insurance company - State Compensation Insurance Fund.
There will always be porn as men will always need to wank.