IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 3:54PM
This sentiment was expressed by a surprising amount of posters in this thread (but of course X-RAY was the most efficient one when doing so). And I think it is really unfortunate. It reminds me of the way the Production Code was implemented in Hollywood in the 30s. It seems pretty funny to me that someone needs restrictions to get creative. Looking for a loophole to bypass restrictions is not the kind of creativity that appeals to me. On that note, I would like to add that I strongly believe that the 'creative-generic' dichotomy, which some have expressed here, is a false one. And I have some sizeable historical data and analysis thereof to back me up.
(Walter, this thread is about condoms in porn.)
Oh yeah. Well, condoms have never prevented me from enjoying any kind of porn. I guess that means that some here believe they know what kind of porn viewer I am and what kind of porn I like. I think that is silly. If you want to know what kind of porn I like, you'd be better off reading the weekly babes posts. As a matter of fact, why don't we all do just that right now
ObiBong said: "I always choose to be respectful instead of grabby. I blame my parents for raising me that way."
'I really think I need to stop participating in these threads. Not only do I feel that people like hardware, myk and I are being misinterpretted most of the time because people aren't really listening, but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall.'
Man, your not the only one who feels this way; I question often the whole point of discussing things online as points are really moot and not much listening occurs on either side of the fence. Thus, I often do not post at all. I posted my thoughts a few posts ago in this very here topic and anything I said must of been glossed over so we could discuss more 'America/ass kissing' which leads to a locked discussion and dead end bickering. This isn't hitting a head against a brick wall discussion, its more like our heads are a brick wall that can't absorb a rational discussion of pros and cons. Mine included.
I say, lets get back to the OG discussion of condoms in porn, if they are neccesary, and what the whole rationale behind the gov. sticking there fat heads into the porn industry is all about anyways. I said it be4, the porn industry can self-regulate itself. The minute, the second, that the state steps in, they will see a lot of things they don't like, way beyond just mandatory condom use.
The whole notion that the state will regulate the industry scares me because they have not shown, nor do I believe they would show, any respect for the performers/companies. Any action of the gov. for the porn industry would be a slow grind to completely disembowel it. The government is not trying to protect the public health by creating a safer porn industry, they are trying to protect the public health by eliminating the porn industry. The more hype and fear we give into this crisis, the more it gives them the tools to enforce ridiculous statutes like condom required porn.
We do not shoot couples unless they have a pre-existing, long-term, condomless physical relationship. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which being that I do not want my subjects exposed to physical risks on my set that they do not willingly take in their own personal lives.
Were New York State to impose a condoms only law on sexually explicit productions, I would seek legal advice as to how the law would or would not apply to recording the sexual practices of couples with a pre-existing physcial relationship. Whatever the advice might be, I would be inclined to defy the law. The physical intimacy of the flesh on flesh contact of barrier free sex is a very important part of my work.
I dislike condoms. Perhaps it's all in my mind, but to me there is something very sad about introducing a physical barrier into the profoundly intimate act of intercourse.
The Government sees porn performers, directors, producers and anyone else involved in the industry as scum, and that's putting it mildly. The whole condom thing is just thier way of getting a foot in the door so that they can impose their will and eventually shut it down alltogether. Some may think I'm overreacting, but if the Government gets involved it will kill the industry. They don't give a damn about performers health, this is just a way for them to influence an industry they have contempt for. They will make it nearly impossible for anyone to shoot a movie in California with bureaucratic red tape. Or they'd require every movie be screened prior to release to prove condoms were used, maybe adopt a sticker system (like we have up here in Canada) to show that the movie passed inspection, kind like the record industry was forced to adopt for cd's that have questionable language. Probably force the filmakers to produce a shooting permit (which we all know nobody bothers with, those also cost money) and they would most likely deny adult filmakers those permits as a little fuck you. This would raise the cost of shooting movies, add in the fact that a lot of the girls are flakes and don't show up for shoots a lot of the time and what you have is something that won't be profitable anymore, and quite frankly not worth the trouble to the filmaker. The small guys would go out of business and the Vivids, Wickeds, and VCA's etc of the world would be the only ones that could afford to shoot. Once they get their claws into things, there will be no end to thier demands and they would make it practically impossible to shoot a movie. This all may seem a little far fetched to some, but never underestimate the Governaments ability to fuck things up and make it extremely difficult to do business with hundreds of regulations. They make the rules, and once they've made up their minds that they don't want you in business anymore, you're screwed, it's OVER.
This has been my point from the get go. You can almost see the state officials watering at there venomous mouths thinking about how this HIV outbreak (2 people thus far) will HELP the fight against pornography.
What I respect in all this is that if you look at how the porn industry has reacted; they have shown themselves to be exactly what those who criticize porn don't see. That there is a structured, testing environment that is inteligently routing out all potential performers who might of been exposed to the virus and the furthermore mapping of its potential progress is to be applauded, not lambasted. Lets see any news program show this side.
MLyons, I respect you, so I want to address a few things that you said. You're right, it isn't a perfect world. But the gov doesn't have the ultimate right, in my view, to regulate me or anyone because someone else might be under pressure.
If she has to say no, she can do something else. People all over the world are forced to make hard economic decisions because quick fast money has too many pitfalls.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, there are problems with libertarianism. But, when it comes to something like this it does fucking work. the amount of emotion that you put into that sentence about it not working is no more than the amount that goes into my feeling that gov should stay the fuck out of consensual sexual situations.
What about the girl that goes to a bar, then comes home with a guy, and he pressures her to not make him wear a condom. Well, she is already past her curfew, she needs a place to crash, she can’t go to her friends because they are pissed that she left them at the club, and she doesn’t even have cab fare. The pressure is overwhelming. It’s basically, fuck me bareback or leave. If this girl isn’t strong enough to leave anyway, then maybe the gov should mandate condoms in all sex. No. I got. In keeping with the current admin, all sex must be with a condom, UNLESS, the couple is heterosexual and married.
It won’t even solve the girl’s problem anyway, because there is no one around to enforce the law. She can’t even say no, it’s illegal . That will happen to girls in underground porn, which will be much more prevalent if condoms are mandated.
I fully expect to read about how that analogy has a hole here, or a hole there, but there is any number of analogies that could be made.
Bottom line, and I believe it to the core of my soul(so you shouldn't stop posting here because I say so): when the gov starts sticking its nose into places it doesn't belong, it snowballs, and I promise will end up in a place no one will like. Much worse than my analogy above, and the original problem will still be there and might even be worse.
Don’t stop posting in this thread. This is a good discussion, I think, and we both make good points. And about misinterpreting myk. He quoted me in a reply last page, and then proceeded to say people who don’t agree with him sound like petulant children , and made some remark about us whining over Ferraris. I will not discuss anything with anyone that can’t argue without resorting to ad hominem. And I really wanted to say something about his point. OSHA is one of the most horrid constructs our gov has ever devised.
But you stick to points, so I will argue with you, civilly.
Relax, everybody feels strongly about their point, and it’s easy to get mad. I am okay with this one because I know I’m right, LMAO!
know what would be interesting? if instead of getting rid of condoms, all performers (and new performers coming into the industry) would have to take a course in STD prevention and pass a test...
kinda like getting your learner's permit...
that way it really hits home to the performers - just a thought...
- Pornmaster Mike, if you see my love Nautica and her friend Ms. Taliana send them my way! There's also room for Charmane... oh, Teagan theres a spot on my face you can sit on! www.adultdv-depot.com
I was just flipping chanels and the lead story on the show Celebrity Justice said that Government inspections can start as early as next week to make sure condoms are being used. How they plan on doing this is beyond me. I also have no idea how credible this tv show is when it comes to facts. They talked to Ron Jeremy for a bit and he said it wouldn't be an easy thing for them to enforce. He also said that it's not the peformers that don't want to wear condoms, sales would suffer because the majority of people that buy porn don't want to see condoms and that's why you don't see them in the majority of the movies.
I have a few thoughts on this whole thing... some of which may not be popular...
1. I don't deny that the current government is anti-porn (to say the least... they don't even want to support family planning in Africa... which is leading to disastrous population growth) and would seek any opportunity to curtail the industry... BUT... safety is a good thing and OSHA has valid concerns... I mean... these people are basically performing high-wire without a safety net... and to require them (the talent) to pay for their own testing is just wrong.
2. Condom only, no facials, no internals... to all of the above... I say... honestly... not that big a deal. It's a HUGE change... massive change... but I think I could deal with it... esp. when I remind myself that it's in the best interests of the talent. I don't want to support something that's going to be giving people HIV. But back to the list... Internals are kind of lame anyway since you don't really see anything other than the cum oozing out after the fact... which is not all that appealing. Facials... I feel the same way. I watch a good sex scene for the sex... and that's what I find exciting. The pop shot at the end is not the point (and 9 times out of 10 it's more like a pathetic dribble than a shot anyway) and to be honest... it's always struck me as kind of dumb. As for condoms... for a blow job... I admit, that would ruin the scene... esp. in close-ups... but for everything else I don't think it would be THAT big a deal.
3. As evil as the government may be, let's face it... some of the companies in the industry are not exactly angels. I mean shit... what's the deal with double anal?!?! I'm sorry... but that's just nuts... and anyone who would compel anyone to do something like that is not a nice person... esp. if the person being compelled is new to the industry and has never done anything like that before. I'm sorry... but double anal... what the f*@k. I can't imagine getting off on that at all. That just sounds gross... violent and demeaning and gross. I saw a double vaginal scene once... two dicks... and I was like... WTF?! Not a turn on. First of all... I think the guys are a little too... uhh... intimate in such a scene for my liking... and secondly... it just looks stupid. I always fast forward DP too... I find it looks completely retarded and unappealing... but double anal?!?! To each his own I guess... but I can't imagine there are many women out there who would actually enjoy such a thing.
4. Which brings me to me next point. One of the problems, I think, with most porn today is that almost none of it focuses on female enjoyment. The odd time I see a movie where the woman is honestly into it... and they show her face as she's climaxing... and she's just on another planet... that blows me away more than any mechanical circus act. That's why Chloe blows my mind... although see sometimes seems a little too over the top. But my point is... maybe this will force companies to be more creative and find other ways to make good movies. Personally... I think the crazy fantasy stuff like double anal and what have you is not a turn on... I find the more realistic a scene is (within reason... I don't want to see ugly people with the lights off... LOL)... the more chemistry there is... the more she's into it as much as him... the more grinding SHE does rather than just being there as a prop for him the whole time... an animated sex toy... the more I enjoy it.
Anyway... it will be interesting to see how things pan out.
All this reiterates what I am saying; that there is a deliberate agenda to this far beyond 2 people getting HIV.
California law statesmen, OHSA, and whomever are retarded.
As a former resident of the golden (shower) state of politics, I see no justification towards there extremely radical and militant war against the porn industry. This is a state that has millions of illegal aliens here without any testing made on them to make sure they are clean (which all legal immigration has, AIDS/TB etc,) this is a state that has a huge rate of AIDS in the general public, and all of a sudden, a siren goes off because of 2 people, 2 people have HIV.
Go to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic in San Fran; where my Uncle works and I have visited, and you will hear horror stories every day. No attempts are being made by the government to do anything drastic about the spread of disease in the common population. 2 HIV cases is as common as 2 flu cases; now, I would never say that its not a serious disease. I had a friend pass away earlier this year from AIDS complications after battling the disease for 9 years; it was awful. But give me a freakin break; the government hates porn and thats what this is about. The US government doesn't make as much money from it as say, the tobacco industry, which pads there wallets so much that a more scary number like 150,000-200,000 smoking related deaths yearly doesn't mean as much to them as 2 HIV cases.
Which leads me to believe even more that this front of 'mandatory condom usage' is an attempt to crush the adult industry in Cal. Plain and simple. I don't believe in conspiracies; its obvious that porn is being asassinated by California.
If redlightdistrict decides to move to another state, come on out to Tempe, AZ. I will throw you a parade.
Takeo, I think the problem in today's world is people like you deciding what's okay for other people to like. You may not mind watching sex with condoms, but other people do. You may not like seeing double anal but other people do. No facials, anal, cream pies, would be great to you because you don't like it. But other people do, so why should it go away just because you don't like it? I don't think so. I like to watch dirty nasty porn, not the fuckin' lameass playboy channel.
With all due respect, you'd be surprised at how many of us chicks actually dig DP's and DA's. Maybe my friends and I are wacky, but, there's nothing more pleasurable than having both of your holes filled at the same time. It's the most intense sensation I personally know of.
And having one hole filled up twice, oh man!
This is not to overlook the current health situation whatsoever. I was just offering my opinion on some of these so called "circus acts."
There is no "The Government," people. There are several governments, each with their own areas of responsibility. Furthermore, there are agencies within each government, each with their own areas of responsibility. Often enough one agency has no clue what another is doing or when they're both working the same side of the street. Bear in mind that these agencies are populated by human beings, which means they don't take kindly to outsiders coming in and telling them how to do their jobs. Bottom line - I seriously doubt Ashcroft's crusaders have any leverage inside Cal/OSHA.
As for P-Knuckle's point about what's being done regarding AIDS in the general population, that's not handled by Cal/OSHA, so it really has no bearing.
Finally, I'm bothered by Ms. Mitchell's use of the word 'barge,' as in, "I'm expecting OSHA to barge in here..." This suggests an adversarial attitude which isn't going to help matters in the long run. Cal/OSHA will come down a lot harder if it feels the people in the industry don't want to cooperate with what Cal/OSHA sees as correcting a problem in the workplace.
PS - M.B., et al, all you are proving is what we already know, which is that there is no one-size-fits-all porn, and whenever one viewer demands things his, or her way, another one sees his (or her) ox being gored.
What I wish is that California would just allow the porn industry to monitor HIV and police themselves; they are doing fine. The moment an outside force comes in to set the bar of standards, you can kiss goodbye your porn. Just make sure its a closed mouth kiss. You don't want to offend anyone.
Maybe they should bring back anti-sodomy and fellatio laws too.
It's becoming more obvious to me as the days go by that the adult film industry in California is going to come under attack with unreasonable Government demands with a list of rules and regulations longer than your arm. They couldn't wage this war though a law that shooting porn is illegal, because in Cali it isn't. But what they will do is adopt laws that make it extremely difficult to shoot a good porn film in the state. Just imagine, no facials, cream pies, anal, double anal, double pussy, no blowjobs without condoms. What the fuck is there left? Will they make girls wear oral barriers on their mouths during a lesbian scene? I think that the bigger gonzo companies should maybe look into moving to Nevada or something, find out if there is a decent testing facility there and start to seriously think about relocating, there's tons of whores there. Or, if you have lets say 8 directors at your company, start sending them to other countries to shoot and stay there for a couple months at a time. Send one guy to the Czech Republic, another to Spain, another to Hungary, another to France, one or two to Canada (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). Shoot as much as possible in a month or two then come back for a month, edit, and go back out there. What else can you do?
takeo just posted another I don't care about it, so who cares if it gets banned argument. Well, I don't like gay sex, and I don't want to see it, either. But should gay porn get pummelled by gov hubris?
Watch the behind the scenes in Mason's Sexual Disorder , and you will see exactly what many girls think about rough sex. They enjoy it, and some even said they have to hold back because the directors don't want it rough.
If they didn't want to be there, then they wouldnt be. And from what I can tell the director sure doesn't want them there if they aren't in to it.
Mosy of the time no one is compelling these girls to do something they dont want to do. And when it does happen, the girl can leave.
I feel for porn producers, directors, and talent. They are obviously at the forefront of one of today's big freedom debates. They have the side of right, but that doesn't always win.
Just read how arrogant that OSHA guy from Cali speaks. He thinks it's his agencies mandate to baby sit and make the really hard decisions for people.
God, I feel like a broken record(Yeah, I know, I sound like one too). If it isn't clear already, then I can't help anymore.
I was clearly speaking only for myself. My rule with everything in life is that as long as what you or anyone else is doing is not hurting anyone else... then please... do whatever pleases you!!! That doesn't mean that I have to get off on double anal. As as said in my post "to each his own". Personally... I just don't get it. And back to my rule... the whole point is that what is being done now *is* hurting people... so I'm sorry... but that's just not cool. Coercing people to do stuff then don't want to do (as was the case according to Lara Roxx's account) is also... *VERY* not cool!
I was also thinking in terms of playing devil's advocate to a certain degree. My overall point was... I've seen and I own a TON of nasty ass porn... my 'library' is 99% gonzo. I'm sure I would fall asleep watching the Playboy channel. But it struck me that after seeing so much of that nasty stuff... it's often something as simple as the look on a girl's face or a certain response she has or whatever that really drive me crazy. I can only watch so much of that mechanical... and dare I say sometimes mean spirited... stuff I find before it just gets to be the same old same old. Again... speaking only for myself of course. It's just an observation. I could be wrong. Porn might really suck after all this pans out... but then again... it might not. I like what Seymore had to say... that it will force him to be more creative. That's a good additude... which shouldn't be a surprise really since that's what I always loved so much about his movies was the positive additude... nasty as hell... but at the same time... very fun... very positive... and not at all 'mean spirited'.
Oh I know... I was just using that term as a shorthand... very broad strokes there :) But I wouldn't be so sure about Ashcroft having no leverage over Cal/OSHA.
Although people are saying that this government effort to regulate the porn industry is coming on out of the blue, after only two cases of HIV being discovered, if you look on AIM's website, it looks like this situation has been brewing for some time. On the page where AIM announced that performers would have to start getting monthly tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia, along with HIV (I believe this started in the Summer of 2003, although there is no date on this webpage), there are some telling sentences at the bottom of this statement. They are:
"The new requirements are a result of an investigation launched by the County Board of Supervisors regarding the dangers of STD's in the adult industry.
AIM is endorsed by the Los Angeles County Health Department and is working diligently with them and the Industry. There will be more regulations to come and it's AIM's goal to make sure the Industry will make the transition into meeting state regulations effortlessly."
It is true that the LA County Board of Health issued a report last summer about the high incidence of gonorrhea and chlamydia within the porn community. I suspect they were watching to see how well AIM, performers and producers worked to bring down the incidence of these easy-to-cure infections. From what I can gather, however, both are still a problem in the porn world, mainly due to infected individuals refusing to stop working during the 5 days it takes for medication to clear up the infections, as well as directors allowing performers to work without proper AIM documentation on themselves when they show up at a shoot.
I bet that the Board of Health, looking at this prior STD situation and how lackadaisically the porn industry handled it, felt they had no choice but to call Cal/OSHA in to do inspections, once it was discovered that there were now HIV cases present in the porn community.
For whomever is saying that the government is now trying to regulate consensual sex between adults, what goes on in porn is not the same as what occurs between private individuals. These are businesses (porn studios) paying people (porn performers) for a job (performing sex acts in front of a camera), to produce a product (porn movies) for eventual sale to the public. What is private about this? Besides, Nevada regulates legal prostitution, although this involves sex acts performed privately between consenting adults, far more privately than what takes place on a porn shoot.
On another issue, I agree with a prior post about the speculation that Ashcroft is behind this CAl/Osha inspection thing. Ashcroft and his FBI are still having problems coordinating their efforts with the CIA and the Homeland Security Dept to fight terrorism - so how the hell would they be able to coordinate with state officials in California to regulate the porn industry? You guys are giving way too much credit to the supposed power of the Dept. of Justice. I think this has much more to do with the public health/safety concerns of State and Los Angeles officials, than some conspiratorial maneuverings by the Justice dept.
I just wanted to see if anyone else actually knew what an ad hominem was.
Actually, it was sloppy quoting on my part that made it look like that my comments were all directed at you. My reply was intended to be towards the fact that this is a workplace safety issue. If you want to work on a highrise construction team, but the safety harness chaffes you, you don't get to skip the harness. Government mandates that you be safe.
Interestingly, there was an OSHA study recently that non-english speakers have much higher accidental death rates on the job. They're poor, marginalized, not likely to complain, and get put in dangerous situations. I remember that they reported some deaths due to asphysixiation (there's one for the spell checker) in some giant liquified pig manure silos. There's an alegory for double anal there somewhere, I just can't find it.
The children with their Ferarris comment wasn't directed towards you, just misplaced during late night typing. It was a general reply to the many 'you can take away my double anal when you pry it from my cold dead VCR responses. The libertarian arguement is one people can agree or disagree about. Define the role of government in workplace safety. The point that putting people's lives at risk for a 3-second cumshot is pretty silly isn't.
Myk
mod note: removed inflammatory text that violated Forum Etiquette rules.
I disagree with you(rare, huh). Porn is sex between two or more adults, and they all consent. Just because business is involved is even more reason for the gov(whether it be LA county, CaliOSHA or the feds) to keep their grimey hands off of it.
I never said the word private, but you are the second person to make that mistake. Who cares if it is private or not. It is only in the sense that the people involved should be allowed to make decisions concerning condoms for themselves.
And to preempt the prostitution argument. Prostitution is not porn. However, prostitution should not be illegal, or regulated by our oh so wise protectors. Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't your parents tell you that?
Prostitution has been regulated - and basically legal - in the State of Nevada since the 1800's, since the state first came into existance. Are you saying that all these years of regulation are just so much hogwash?
I understand about the workplace safety argument. I would like to have this disussion with you. I think I'm getting too prevalent in this thread, though.
Your points are good, though, whether I disagree with them or not.
Okay, I promise everyone that I will stop Bogarting this thread. Even if someone replies directly to me or quotes me. I can't make my point any other way. I'm sure I'm getting annoying(edit: unless someone asks me a specific question, or insults me).
Excerpt from a 2001 interview with porn czar Bruce Taylor
Taylor: "The real figures on how much money they make and how they split the thing is a fairly closely guarded secret. Some of the information I have is still grand jury confidential that I can't talk about. But it's pretty well known that there are a few producers who make the movies, and they pay the performers, the girls and the guys, per act. Some of the people were convicted under the prostitution laws of California for hiring the people to make the movies, because they pay them to do sex acts, and that's prostitution."
[Link]
jbeachboy Deactivated User
96 Posts 12/03
Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 8:39PM
i think the porn industry will lose alot financially if they do this condom policy, i hear they are being pressured to not do facials or internal cumshots
Tony C isn't insulting you. He's suggesting that your position is supporting lawlessness, and pointing to Somalia as an example of what happens when no laws regulate humans affairs.
The above passage floored me. That seems to be in stark contradiction to the Hal Freeman decision. True, the Freeman case involved pandering and not prostitution, but still, the two are obviously closely related. Hmmm.
Right... but the problem is that some degree of outside regulation is always needed because the one and only goal of any company... no matter what the product... is to make money. That's all they are designed to do. Period. And that's fine. But workplace safety, environmental protection, consumer safety, etc... those things all cost money. If not for regulation... the world would not be a nice or terribly safe place to live in. And that's what this is about. Protecting the workers from HIV. Leaving everything up to companies... whether it be porn or cars or food or whatever... is like... to use a worn out analogy... asking the fox to guard the hen house.
The KEY questions are... how do we define what is "safe" and how much regulation is necessary. In the case of something like cars or food... there is an incentive for self-regulation because food that makes consumers sick is just not good for business. In the case of workplace safety tho'... there is less incentive because the fact is that people are selfish... and consumers are not going to start demanding that companies use condoms for the safety of the talent. As with any workplace safety issue... the workers have no leverage. So an outside body has to get involved on their behalf. Again tho', the key questions are where do you draw the lines in terms of safety and regulation... etc. To me... working without condoms is not safe. It's as simple as that. When lives are potentially at risk, whether or not I like watching porn with or without condoms is not really relevant.
Good point takeo. Where we disagree are to the answers to that key question.
Of course I don't support lawlessness. I don't think it should be legal to kill someone. I don't think it should be legal to infringe on anyone's right to pursue happiness, as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's.
Hardware, To compare me with Mogadishu is insulting. but I can see how you might not want it to be.
I guess it's difficult to argue the point, so people just comment on the person they are arguing with. It comes from a position of weakness in the argument.
Umm, Mogadishu's a city, not a person. That's like you telling me I'm a Dallas wannabe. However, if you find it an insult then I expect Tony will apologize.
Porn companies that say they're going to now flee regulation by the county and state by going elsewhere are akin to companies like Wal-mart and Nike that send their labor overseas where there aren't decent minimum wage or safety regulations.
And do they really think that -- particularly in an election year -- if they try to flee CAL-OSHA, the federal version won't get involved?
It would be nice if it hadn't come to this. It would be nice if greed and ambition to the point where simple respect for the health of the people you employ and who work next to you among some of us hadn't created the condition.
When there have been situations like this in other industries, the only ones to deplore state intervention have been the capitalists who don't want to see their profit margins narrowed. There was no consumer outcry; only the gratitude of labor.
Here, of course, the free speech issue is also involved -- that's really the only thing that makes it complicated on any level. Me, I've grown up a free-speech absolutist, and always been curious to seek out some of the most extreme and perhaps distasteful examples of artistic expression that I can find -- just to see how far it can go.
But the kind of porn that has brought what will undoubtedly be a supression down upon us here in L.A. is not merely a text espousing or depicting a dangerous act; it IS the act, documented. While non-condom porn filmed after a cut-off date could be sold as a form of expression, it also could be used as evidence against the producers that they committed violations of health laws. People talk about recalcitrant producers going "underground," but pornorgaphers are already required by federal law to publish the name and address of the record's keeper and place of business where required IDs are kept on every piece of porn they distribute -- vhs, dvd, website, etc. So nobody's "going underground."
If it sounds like I'm gloating, I'm not. Part of my original attraction to the pornography industry was that it was a haven for iconoclasts, rebels and outlaws. But it looks as if perhaps too many of us forget the old saw that "To live outside the law, you must be an honest man."
So I was thinking today. Do you think they'll release the scene that the young woman contracted HIV during the filming? Do you think anyone that knows the back story will want to watch it?
Here is a question for everyone involved in this thread and especially for Renee, who seems to have been doing some reading on the recent history of STD's within the adult industry and possible CA/OSHA intervention.
My understanding is that the Gay adult industry has generally greater STD issues than hetro porn, including several instances of HIV contraction. Certainly many more performers within Gay hardcore have been diagnosed HIV+ over the last 15 years or so--some have died--and there also seems to be far less regulation or safety concern in Gay adult on STD issues. Is this a fair assessment?
If so, has there been an equivalent amount of interest by local and state officials to provide a safe working environment for gay performers? If not, why not? Porn is porn, after all. Why the preoccupation with hetro porn which is at least making some attempt to regulate itself? Suppose there was no AIM. Then whose office would OSHA barge into looking for records?
I am being rhetorical of course. But it does add some fuel to the argument of several posters here that CA health officials are being motivated by issues other than workplace safety. Anyone who knows the legal history of pornography in CA know it has been an endless series of judicial battles, first over obscenity, then over pandering, then over something else, etc. And in almost every instance, the state was defeated in court. So, in the light of history, one could interpret this as a new gambit to run pornography aground amidst heath issues and regulations. Frankly, I'm amazed no one thought of it sooner.
Man, if this irresponsibility of the straight porn community ends up causing more condom usage (like for oral sex) in gay porn, heads are going to roll!
[Link]
jewel denyle Platinum X Pictures
769 Posts 4/03
Posted - Apr 22 2004 : 12:58AM
The Government want's their 15min. of fame because when you mention the word porn everyone listens. So here you have your wonderful Democratic elected officials who are suppose to be adult friendly now running this business into the ground for some publicity. There are a lot more health risks out in the real world then in porn but porn draws more attetion then the real world so here they are trying to be big shot heros. The government wont win this battle as it will get fought every step of the way but they don't care as long as they get their much need press out of it. Since when did the government really care about our health anyway if they did cigarettes wouldn't be legal as they kill thousands of people a year but that's a lot less exciting then someone doing an anal cream pie. I will take my business overseas and out of this country if that's what it comes down to and if you really think the government want's to loose a multi billion dollar business think again!
It would probably be #1 in the price search. But then, I'm kinda cynical that way.