1. An uptick in Lesbian sales 2. Repackaging back catalog as "Vintage" as a counterweight to Condom Porn 3. The scramble for the existing Hard XXX companies to license product coming out of UK, Europe and South America that doesn't require the sales kryptonite of condoms 4. The first company/producer arrested and charged for violating the condom mandated policy will be a black company like West Coast or performer like Brian Pumper, Sean Michaels or Alexander DeVoe 5. If there isn't a way out of this condom box, you're going to see several midline companies go out of business in the next two years
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Jan 27 2012 : 1:43PM
You can pass all the rules, regulations and legislate to no end. If you can't enforce it, it means nothing. If the condom police start knocking on the door and you do not let them in, what will they do? Go to a judge and get a search warrant? I ask you, how can they possibly enforce such a law? The condom police have nothing they can prove in a court of law. I suppose the one thing the condom police can do, is confiscate any porn that does not show condom usage. I frankly do not see the authorities prosecuting this. They would be laughed at. Edited by - peoples temple on 1/27/2012 1:48:42 PM
^ Pretty much this. I don't see how any of those predictions will prove accurate. As Mike Quasar noted it's far more likely that companies will simply stop obtaining film licenses.
Actually might be easy , they just need to identify the location and if they can prove it was in LA they just need the movie to prove their accusations
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Jan 27 2012 : 4:40PM
The States can pass any ludicrous law they want. If it conflicts with Federal/Constitutional rights it goes nowhere. How can you legislate what people must use when they have sex? If they can require men to wear condoms, they can require women to take birth control. What next requirement is to come? Maybe they can ban all anal sex. Do you see where this is going? I say it goes nowhere no matter what they pass. It would be challenged in the higher courts and the State mandates would be tossed out. These are just more state legislators with nothing better to do with their time so they have to justify their jobs by sticking their nose where it does not belong.
They aren't. This is a "workplace" enforcement. Employees can be forced to wear safety glasses, fall protection, gloves, specific footwear. And now condoms. In the workplace only. This ordinance does not tell men they must wear condoms at home or at anytime in their private lives. But I agree it is unenforceable so I hope it doesn't slow down production. I need the work.
It won't affect my viewing choices because I don't mind condoms. I've been seeing those in European movies for a long time and they don't affect the pleasure I get out of the scene. I hope for the industry's sake that I'm not alone because the LA porn industry really doesn't need this at the moment. It is too bad that they couldn't wake up sooner and fix their own shit.
[Link]
Jedi Master Bates Deactivated User
383 Posts 9/11
Posted - Jan 28 2012 : 12:15PM
Or most porn directors will move everything to oakland, seattle, san francisco, las vegas, etc. Also, why do you assume that a black company would be the first to be charged with the a violation?
Why are we talking about the "post condom era"? The law in it's current form only includes the city of LA, and possibly at most the county of LA. As I've mentioned in a couple of other threads what is to stop these companies from shooting in San Fran, San Diego, Las Vegas, Miami, The Czech Republic, NYC and so on? Just because LA says that you need condoms there, so what?
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Jan 28 2012 : 2:16PM
They sure can, OSHA is the federal agency behind it. The main purpose of OSHA is to ensure that employers provide employees a place free from recognized hazards. Since when is sex a hazard? Is it a toxic chemical? Is it a danger to employees? Requiring condoms in the workplace has no merit and is baseless.
I agree. They way this thing got passed is because the AHF managed to get the LACC to believe having unprotected sex is a workplace hazard. I didn't suggest I agree with it - I do not. "sex" is not in and of itself a hazard. Unprotected sex can be. This was the reasoning behind this stupid, unenforceable city ordinance. They believe unprotected sex can be a recognized hazard in the workplace so they can pass this ordinance. I believe that the reason it passed so easily is because the employers did not fight it. I hope they will now. Maybe if it is dealt with on a case by case, shoot by shoot, basis this can be challenged.
Call it a hunch. I have a "hunch" that AHF (or someone like them) will just magically find full government support for persecuting the porn industry no matter where they try to go. But the top dogs will always have plausible deniability, of course. They're just doing their jobs, donchya know. You can't vote AHF out of office, after all. This is here to stay and it's as bad as it seems. This is the tip of the iceberg (as usual with this kind of thing). Edited by - randomprecision on 1/28/2012 4:15:20 PM
Seriously, we're not going anywhere. They will never enforce this except for a very few spot inspections here and there. No one I know is remotely concerned about this. L.A can't even pick up the trash on time.
If they handle condom use as OSHA monitors other workplace safety requirements, it will be a more of a thorn in the foot type of situation. OSHA can show up for an inspection, we can require a warrant for entry. This gives us a couple hours to do some housekeeping. They will conduct their inspection, make some findings and give us "X" amount of time to be compliant. I'm not familiar with all the wording of the ordinance requiring condom use, but it would seem that the only thing that an enforcement agency could look for is the use of condoms. However, once they are in the door, OSHA would look for other standard workplace safety issues. The kicker is, random inspection of a "legitimate" company is rare. An inspection is usually the result of employee complaints, or the number of workplace accidents reported in emergency rooms against an employer. Also, inspection is more common in high risk life/death industries like construction. I realize that OSHA or Workers Comp isn't the enforcement agency, I'm just describing my experience with OSHA in in the past. Who is the enforcement agency for this? It's also worth mentioning that safety requirements in a "legitimate" industry are actually intended to protect employees. I think the ordinance is most likely an attempt to harass what the law makers consider an "illegitimate" industry. So, it will be interesting to see how the local government handles this. I think the biggest threat is that this will open the door to lawsuits by "disgruntled" employees. If an employee gets an injury or disease (or several occurrences of injury or disease) because the employer fails to follow established requirements it usually results in major sums of cash being awarded to the "damaged" employee. Imagine the amount of cash that could be awarded to a pissed off porno babe if she contracted herpes on a set that didn't require the use of condoms. Edited by - Zaxxx on 1/29/2012 9:10:43 AM Edited by - Zaxxx on 1/29/2012 9:32:12 AM
I'm assuming they couldn't buy up a bunch of porn released in 2012 and later and starts tossing out $10,000 fines to the producers for each scene without a condom? I doubt there is a penalty of that size in place anyhow.
I think the use of condoms might have a positive effect on porn too. More women and better-looking women might be willing to have sex on screen. And more women might be willing to have anal sex too. The fear of getting infected is probably holding many women back from doing porn. And their fear will disappear, when their sex will have the protection of condoms. And condoms used imaginatively might even make the sex more interesting and more exciting to watch. Some types of condoms and lube are more slippery than natural skin and natural lubrication is. And this can result in faster and more spectacular penetrations and harder and faster sex. This would be different kind of sex. But it can be made interesting and spectacular too in its own way. Edited by - Dan on 1/29/2012 10:20:30 AM
I personally have no problem with condom use in adult films. That said, I do have a problem with the government butting its nose into a business in such a way that freedom of expression may be meaningfully harmed. (The presentation of the sex--in a visual manner--is at the heart of an adult production's expression. Meaningfully changing the visuals--which is evidenced by a good deal of the adverse reactions that people have to condoms in their movies--harms and/or alters the expression.) Also...I think that this is an issue of religious freedom. Some religions are staunchly against the use of birth control. To require it broadly in a legitimate industry could eliminate some performers' ability to perform in such films and work in that industry. Just because one has sex on film doesn't necessarily mean that one has thrown all religious tenants out. (That last one's a joke, btw...)
This didn't pan out when this happened post 1998 when the "champagne" labels like Vivid, Wicked etc went full condom and lost about half of their sales to the likes of anti condom companies like Red Light. Since I watch porn voyeuristically, condoms have no role in my fantasy. I didn't buy it then and I won't start buying it now.
Except that they might as well be fucking themselves with a rubber dildo if all they're allowed to do is fuck a condom.And that's fine. The fear of falling is holding a lot of people back from skydiving. I'm not interested in the women who aren't up to the minimal risk that comes along with doing condomless porn with testing. And I won't be any more interested in them just because a bunch of political bullies changed the law.Why would their fear disappear? With the sheer number of scenes, I would still expect a certain number of failures. The fact of the matter is that testing worked well over 90% for HIV.Not a chance.This just shows that you don't understand the psychology of sex at all. It's more than just friction. Watching people fuck with condoms is literally like watching them put on hazmat suits and bump up against one another. Unless you have a hazmat suit fetish, it's the stupidest thing in the world.I don't think we need harder and faster sex. We need real sex. That's what porn is about. That's always been the holy grail of porn. And it always will be. This will push those who want to be successful underground. And more than that, it'll push most commercial operations out of business and porn will go mostly amateur. Real amateurs. And if you think that sounds good, I have two things to say... 1. 2257 2. Obscenity prosecutions. Where is the money going to come from to defend people against obscenity prosecutions without a profitable porn industry?You're out of your mind. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/30/2012 12:17:16 AM
I'm pretty sure you missed his point. His point was that a black company would be the first to get busted because police go after blacks a lot more than they go after whites.
I think we can expect to see quite a bit more foreign shot porn as well... "I do not as a rule seek advice about food from thin people..." - Jeffrey Steingarten
[Link]
the traveler Deactivated User
309 Posts 8/11
Posted - Jan 30 2012 : 10:48AM
someone please tell me when they start using condoms so I can quit porn for good.
I agree that keeping porn-sex the same and only adding condoms to it will probably turn off many fans. But it doesn't have to be done this way. There is a better way of doing it, and no one has tried it yet. As I've said in my earlier post, newest condom materials and lubricants enable harder, faster, and more spectacular sex than what people are naturally capable of doing. And the trick is to take advantage of these increased capabilities that newest condoms offer and show more visually spectacular sex. This way many fans will want to see sex with condoms. And such porn movies might become even more more popular than porn movies without condoms.
I don't get why people are buggin out about this. I don't like porn with condoms either, but if the industry goes that way many people will still buy it.
Maybe I can help you understand why people are buggin out about this. Some of us believe this is a government overreaching its responsibility to its citizens. Some of us believe the choice of adults to choose is important and the government should not attempt to make that choice by force of law. You're right; people will still buy condom porn. But some people just don't like it so they express their dislike on a message board like this one. I'm buggin out about this because I am angry that the government is getting in to this issue at all.
Not if they can get condomless porn somewhere else. And you can rest assured condomless porn will be available no matter what the morons on the LA city council think or want. Edited by - TheMilkman on 1/31/2012 2:00:42 PM
Don't count on it. Especially in this precarious market of diminished sales due to tube theft. Condom only definitely sold less when this was tried back during the Wallice years around 1998 into the early 2000's. I remember asking my local smut shack manager and he said that sales for the labels like Vapid, Whacked, VCA were noticeably off. That was the hey day of Anti Condom gonzo purveyors like Red Light as a counterweight
this whole thing is bizarre to me so let me get this right you ( the US) have federal laws which are obviously, governed throughout the whole united states BUT individual states can have their own laws that conflict federal laws BUT counties/cities can have laws that conflict with both state & federal laws? have i got that right? so, someone could be a law abiding citizen, step across city/county lines and be breaking the law...step across state lines and be a FBI problem? wow and this seems to work? why the hell does some councilman who works on some shitty city council board get the right to pass laws? wow... this is like something from a sci fi novel
A quick history lesson it was part of the compromise between the original 13 colonies who did not want to be linked to a federal system of a northern industrial/anti slave system and a southern agrarian/slave system. The grand compromise retained state power within a federal structure. Part of America's duality of separation of the branches of gov't. Those rights not specifically listed in the (Federal) United STates Constitution are reserved for the States. That is why pornography laws afferent from state to state since there is no anti-pornography statute expressly stated in the US Constitution. To ban porn at the Federal level it would require a Constituional Amendment which is something like 3/4 of States ratifying it. That's why there have only been 27 Amendments since the founding of the USA. The bar is set high. FYI - the last serious attempt to amend the constitution was the Equal Rights Amendment, whose defeat was largely funded by the Mormon Church. Keep that in mind when you're thinking of Romney over Obysmal. heh heh
Well, they're nowhere near finished with the meddling laws. It's basically a staircase type thing. They knew they could get away with fucking with porn because it's basically one of the bottom stairs.
People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity. 674 Posts 5/11
Posted - Jan 31 2012 : 10:23PM
You would not want to live in a society where Big Brother controls and dictates everything. They have their role but for the most part do more harm than good when they stick their nose into state affairs. The States should have the say on what the law is, and if you don't like the state laws then leave. Did you know the State of Arizona has a huge problem with violent crime being committed by illegal aliens crossing their border and the Feds are battling with them right now, trying to interfere with the State of Arizona's efforts to deal with the problem. I really can't stand the Feds.
I foresee the industry relocating to a more business friendly environment like Vegas or Miami. It would serve California right to loose such a vibrant pillar of industry by enacting their own heavy-handedness into law.
Introducing Brandi Swan
Posted - Jan 27 2012 : 12:59PM
I agree. Cartoons instead of porn are very good entertainment! 
But I prefer auto racing much more! Real risk, real fun! 