Its nice to see a performer who has the intestinal fortitude (read guts) to stand up for herself and believe me Aurora, you are not alone. I get emails from lots of performers who agree with you.
The thing that strikes me though is how the companies have so easily manipulated the performers to do their bidding. You see they made people who didn’t have enough sense to see it for what it is do their bidding for them. Misguided people like Alia Janine who think that choice has anything to do with it, misguided people who thought it was an insane law because it would only affect 280 people.
As my readers and I have both pointed out, it is about the added expense it brings on the companies in porn valley, it is about the county of L.A. being able to permit, and exercise the control I have been saying is coming for a very long time.
That is why a company like Wicked who is all condom would come out against Measure B and I can understand that, if I were Wicked I’d be against it too, at least on that front.
Incidentally one of my readers suggested that when people read the ballot initiative they would vote against it because most people watch porn and most people dont want condoms in the porn they watch. We will know if he is right in a few weeks.
I do want to re-iterate that I don’t think Measure B is a good law at all, and maybe it should fail just for being poorly written. I DO believe that some form of legislation is needed to rein in the people like the ones who abused Aurora Snow and countless others, but I also think that the remedies should be civil and not criminal, I actually agreed with the permitting by the health department and the mandated training.
But I cannot agree with anything that doesn’t give performers a clear choice with no retaliation.
Kudos to you Aurora, finally a performer comes forward who has a little common sense.
14 Responses
I understand why the porn community is opposed to the condom mandate. I understand why fans oppose it. For the life of me, I do not understand how a newspaper like the LA Times is against it. If a group of mainstream producers wanted to get rid of requirements for safety equipment on their sets, or if hospitals wanted to get rid of the requirement for medical personnel to wear latex gloves, they would be up in arms. I suspect if Nevada wanted to get rid of the requirement that prostitutes use condoms newspapers would be against this. But, they’re all for the freedom of porn actors to pass on sexually-transmitted diseases? To some degree, it tells you in how little regard porn performers are held. The media and apparently many politicians don’t really care if you contract preventable diseases.
They need more female performers like her to stand up to these fools. Bravo Aurora.
I don’t think the talent that actually thinks coherently is really against prop B. I would say it wouldn’t be incorrect if you said most are quietly for a yes on prop B but the rent is already a month behind and the car payment is two. If you think the majority of girls are actually cashing in the big bucks.. Mr. you are way off. Most are living in financial embarrassment and scraping the bottom of the jar to get by. The desperation level for cash and that 32 seconds of fame is high. The whole “yes master” and watch me suck the dingleberries off “The Man’s” ass for more work is in full play on this crap. I love listening to the self proclaimed educated on the prop B issue. The thing they scream and try to sell is choice. Either they are to dumb to know there is no choice or they have some kind of agenda. Try showing up to a shoot and say “I choose to wear a condom” and see what happens. You won’t shoot, you won’t get paid, and you probably won’t work again. I ask anyone in the industry to show me, the talent, where my choice is? What say do I have in the matter besides keep my mouth shut or don’t work. Not that I work much anymore or to honest even really care. I shoot all of my own stuff now and have been using condoms since 2004 except when I went to LA or FL..where I didn’t have a choice and if left up to them never would. Give me a choice of my own free will without recourse and I would vote no, leave everything the same and I would vote yes. Just saying. Also I would love for the papers to actually ask me a few questions and get the straight answers , not the bullshit they are currently getting fed as I agree with BT’s last statement.
Brooke
Brooke; Thanks for sharing that. You girls have a very dangerous career ? these days and as veiwers we don’t want to see you ladies get sick and become ill for live over masterbation material. Again thanks.
BT the newspapers are against it because they can see that driving the porn industry out of the LA area is bad for business in these economic times ( many industries live off of porn in addition to the permit money that cities get).
Plus they can see that 1+1=2 and Weinstein and his flunkys are using smoke and mirrors to make a minor problem into a mountain of drama where none really exists.
Different points of view..said respectfully.
I have the most intelligent and the best commenters of any of the
blogs I have always maintained that and I am proud of that.
I agree with many that any performer who chooses to use a condom should be allowed to do so under Industry practice. However Measure B will change the nature of pornography (and possibly obscenity prosecutions) drastically overnight. The porn industry is fill of misogynistic assholes but Measure B is truly an invasion on free speech.
For instance, amateur content producers who prefer not to use condoms would find it more difficult to distribute their product on video. And sure, you may say they’re always the internet but we don’t know how obscenity prosecutions would be going forward. With the passage of Measure B, the scope of sexual activity depicted in content will be further limited and content that is now considered standard and “safe” might find themselves under renewed scrutiny by obscenity prosecutors.
So, I feel deeply for you Brooke but Measure B is not the way to go.
Don’t forget looming in the horizon is the UN’s plan to regulate and monitor the internet as well as tax it. All these cash starved countries are jumping on the bandwagon as a source of revenue. This article was recently in the news:
Is the U.N. Trying to Tax the Internet
So are they or aren’t they? Earlier today, eyebrows were raised sharply when it was reported that the UN (United Nations) was considering a new internet tax on web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple and Netflix. The proposal, which was leaked today, has been allegedly introduced by ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators Association), a Brussels-based group representing such companies as Belgacom, SwissCom, Cyta, Eircom and Deutsche Telecom, and will be officially discussed at the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in December.
The proposal would allegedly amend an existing telecommunications treaty, the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR), by imposing heavy costs on popular web sites and their network providers. The idea is that huge content providers like Apple and Google should be forced to pay fees linked to usage – data heavy sites like those tend to use lots of bandwidth. It’s akin to the system used for international phone calls, where the recipient’s network sets the pricing for calls; before the availability of voice over internet protocol (VOIP) like Skype, U.S. phone companies used to pay billions of dollars in fees for the privilege of facilitating calls abroad. In the world of the internet, the fear is that this kind of “pay as you go” system would restrict the availability of the internet to users in developing countries.
However, despite the reports, ETNO says that it is not asking the UN to tax the internet. While the ETNO does not deny that it believes that the way that content providers use the internet should be changed, it stopped short of calling for an actual tax, saying instead that it wants telecommunications network operators to consider making deals with content providers. Additionally, the ETNO has hinted that significant changes to the ITR are sure to come; the treaty has not been altered much in the nearly 25 years it has been in existence while the internet has actually changed dramatically.
ETNO claims that changes would lead to a “new sustainable model for the internet”, with its Executive Board Chair, Luigi Gambardella, saying:
“The revised ITRs should acknowledge the challenges of the new Internet economy and the principles that fair compensation is received for carried traffic and operators’ revenues should not be disconnected from the investment needs caused by rapid Internet traffic growth. The ITRs should be flexible enough so as to further encourage future growth and sustainable development of telecoms markets, while respecting the guiding principles that led to the successful development of the Internet: private sector leadership, independent multi-stakeholder governance and commercial agreements.
But not everyone is on board with the proposed changes. Google’s Vinton Cerf has been vocal about the need to counter efforts to regulate the internet through the U.N., as countries gear up for the ITU. He worries that such regulations could restrict the freedom of the internet through such features as per-click taxes. Specifically, Cerf voiced concern that:
The open Internet has never been at higher risk than it is now… A new international battle is brewing — a battle that will determine the future of the Internet. It’s clear that the explosive growth of the internet has both created challenges and opportunities for the private sector. How the intersection of government and the private sector might affect our use of the internet is worth watching. ETNO’s proposal won’t be officially discussed until December – but expect lots of chatter about it until then.
Who cares? The internet is always going to be a risk. I think what is more important is seeing the condom mandate getting approved by the voters and the female talent getting more protection from std and potential exposure to HIV.
Heck with the tax on the internet! That’s a least of a worry these days.
I care becuase if like see your favirta porn star on internet. You may not be able to see her if UN get there way. Most porn indusrty sales are done on the internet today like or not if internet get regulate buy UN counrtys that are not friendly porn indusrty like China are gone pick chose what you see what you on see internet than charge price for how long how your there where you go what you do on internet. Freedom spech on internet well be in control buy UN counrtys back measure mean there well be no such thing freedom of speech. If porn star can not sell her web site porn indusrty can not sell products on the internet than UN take over internet much bigger threat than condoms in porn indusrty. After all porn indusrty can not make money on Internet it no longer be indusrty.
The UN is not a governing body. In other words, it cannot pass laws that are binding on other countries. It can pass resolutions and make recommendations, but countries are free to ignore. Look at China with regard to wages.
The larger important issues are related to the health of the community. On other sites, porn producers and performers routinely say things like the clap, chlymidia, herpes and syphillis are the cost of doing business and HIV is rare. What’s the big deal? There is simply no other industry where government says: Hey, if you’re going to enter that business, you deserve what’s coming to you. Even boxers have to wear certain ounce gloves and pass physicals to fight and referees have to wear latex gloves due to the risk of permanent injury and the potential to pass on a disease. Do you really think a boxing referee is at more risk of contracting a disease from exposure to bodily fluids than a porn actor?
The porn industry has threatened to leave California if the condom measure passes. Per a post today on Adult FYI, that’s easier said than done since the production of porn is illegal in all states except California and New Hampshire. Does it happen anyway? Sure, on a small scale because state attorney generals have other things to worry about than chasing after a few guys making porn. But, if the industry tries to move into a new state and scale their businesses up to the extent the industry exists in California, that’s another thing. Now they are a target. Remember: Cincinatti shut down Larry Flynnt.
The threat that it will go off-shore – that’s potentially real. But is talent going to pack up and move en masse to some new locale? Probably not. That means production companies would have to transport talent to these new locations. Put aside the Mann Act. Can porn companies that are already operating on thin margins afford to add transportation costs for nearly every shoot to their production budgets?
The other threat is that porn will just go underground. That may be true for smaller, gonzo guys. But the major production companies want to be recognized as legitimate, main stream businesses that sell a legitimate product to a public that wants to buy it. That’s the only way they create a business with value rather than simply make a quick buck. Going underground destroys that whole concept. You’re back to the 1960’s and ’70s when porn was an outlaw industry with ties to the mafia. Irresponsibility invites more scrutiny and government action.
Since the days of Max Hardcore, donkey punches and Rob Black taunting the Feds to come after him, Mike has been saying that porn is inviting trouble. He was absolutely correct. If the industry had operated in a responsible manner, government would mostly just leave the industry alone. Act like irresponsible cowboys and you deal with the blow back.
Disagree with there Bt UN has try pass resolution take your right as american owen guns way from you. The current whitehouse has agree with ever resilution that UN has want pass sighn off buy secretary Hillary Clinton support buy Obama him self. Sent UN resolution buy pass US congress can take way are right guns it such strech see come up resolution that bill internet like phone company does add rules from counrty that are not freindly porn indusrty taxs that not friendly porn indusrty. Ingor what UN gone do internet is bad idea becuase put counrtys that hate porn indusrty in charge of the market place which they sell most of there goods. If cash hungery counrty want quike money there gone tax right out porn indusrty if UN has way. Want proof that watch are owen US goverment sueing all major private owen banks for billions dallors pay for give out fan-may freddy mack housing loans which the force private bank do so.
uh, it’s not just the girls… Okay? Why make the male performers the bad guys? I agree with Condoms in porn. Do I like condoms? No. Do I have to like condoms? No. Should I have to wear one if I’m having sex for money? Yes. Should I have a choice? No. Do I accept that fact? Yes. Why? Because who’s to say I haven’t contracted something I don’t know I have but would be spreading it to the female talent irresponsibly.