The Coming Condom Law

This one looks to be inevitable, if for no other reason than the Free Speech Cabal went to Sacramento to try and stop it. Given the track record of the FSC that just about assures passage.

But lets step back a moment and look at this realistically.  California is known for having some of the strictest personal safety laws in the country, you can’t even ride a bicycle legally unless you are wearing a helmet. And Cal-OSHA is very much within it’s scope to force condom use.

The FSC can screech about freedom all they like but there is lots of precedence for this, like the aforementioned helmet laws,  workplace safety laws in other areas, say hardhat requirements for instance. Like it or not they CAN do it and they CAN do it legally.

The question is will they?

That’s going to be a close call.  The adult industry provides a lot of income to California, income that they cant afford to lose right now, there could even be unintended consequences, like companies being even more clandestine about shooting than they are now, that means fewer filming permits sold.  While it’s unlikely companies like Vivid or Digital Playground would leave the state, it is equally unlikely that they would comply with a condom mandate.The states option would be to legislate that a video could be prima facia evidence that the company was not compliant.  That would be VERY shakey legal ground as there is no way to prove that the sex scenes were shot in California.

But this has the potential to make both the left and the right happy, the left because they like the idea of government keeping employees safe, the right because amy restrictions on the adult industry is a good thing to them.  Only the Libertarians would scoff at the idea, and as Mark Kernes says, “They don’t matter”

In all honesty I am surprised that it has taken this long to come to this.  Despite AIM claiming that the number of STD cases among porn performers is lower than the average population, anyone with a brain can see that simply isn’t true.  The reason has to do with AIMs sampling methodology to derive the data.  While AIM can claim to do a large number of tests with a lower percentage of positives, the truth is that they do those tests on a much smaller group of people.

You average testing clinic  is testing far more different people whereas AIM is testing the same people over and over and over so any claim that STDs are less prevalent in porn is simply nonsense. As a percentage of the population who test positive for STDS as well as HIV porn performers are WAY higher than the average population sample. You don’t need a Phd to see the facts here.

Sam points out:

http://www.avert.org/usa-states-cities.htm

AIM reports 16 positives out of who knows how many total performers. The link above shows that most states have anywhere from two to 25 HIV infections per 100,000. Considering AIM has 16 out of, and I will make a very high estimate of 10,000 individual performers, it is plain to see that the HIV rate in porn is astronomically higher than the general public.

And this is just HIV, more prevalent and less deadly STDs are far more common, precious few performers escape getting them over the course of a single year, and the 30 day testing regimen is a joke, by the time they catch something like chlamydia in an individual and treat it,  that person has infected dozens of people who will in turn pass it back around full circle before the next test.

The sad truth is that AIM could have been something great and all of this could have been avoided, instead of being a rag tag bunch of posers AIM could have had a mission and a real board of directors made up of certified health care experts and it could have been one of the worlds leading STD studies, the study group is perfect, then nobody would dare try to fuck with it.

But then that’s the problem with our biz in general, nobody actually wants to REALLY do anything well, only enough to get by.

And that is becoming our undoing.

14 Replies to “The Coming Condom Law”

  1. markh59

    Maybe I’m an idiot but I really don’t get the condom issue. If a condom use is much safer, then why would someone not want to use them? It should be simple, who wants to die or get diseased from work? I just want to make money.

    Condoms don’t bother me when I watch porn. Is the rest of the porn buying public so against condom use that companies/performers are afraid of the backlash if they do use them?

  2. BT

    Mike: A couple of years ago, I wrote you a note that despite idiots like Rob Black, the real threat to porn was from the health department. And, you’re right: Porn producers can scream all they want about freedom of expression, but the difference between porn and other plastic arts – like mainstream filmmaking – is that it’s real. Those are real penises going into every conceivable orifice; that is real semen in a facial or open mouth cum shot or in vaginal and anal cream pie videos. Those are real actors and actresses putting their health at risk. My dentist, on the other hand, has to wear latex gloves and goggles just to check my teeth. And, I think it’s not just mandatory condoms – what good are condoms if you still have swallowing. There is the very real possibility that the facial cum shot is at risk. Truth be told, if this were any other industry, they’d be shut down by OSHA or the health department in a heart beat. Porn can argue that they’ll just go to another state, but ask yourself this: Can you think of another state that is going to say to the porn industry, “We don’t care about the health of your workers, we welcome your risky sexual practices as long as they make us money.” Once California does it, it will provide a model for other states. So, the next porn argument is that, well, it’ll just drive it underground – if that’s the case, the day of the high-priced porn chick is over. When stuff goes underground, it’s harder to distribute and sell in mass quantities and that’s what pays these gal’s salaries. It’ll also be harder than it already is to control content being cannabalized by the free states: Are underground pornographers going to go into court and complain that their illegally-produced content has been appropriated by free porn sites? Where are they going to apply for copyright? That’s really death to porn companies. What’s more likely is that professional companies like Vivid, Wicked, etc., have creative talent that will figure out how to play the game within the rules. You may even see the off-shoring of the industry, just like other industries. They’ll seek out nearby countries where the laws might be more permissive. The argument that videos with performers using condoms don’t sell is only valid if condom use is voluntary and some companies mandate them and some don’t. If everyone has to use a condom, then the only way that argument would hold up is if you assume that people will simply stop watching pornography cold turkey. Remember, for years, Playboy thrived never showing pink.

  3. Lindsey Lovehands

    BT well said and 100% spot-on…Mike and I have been talking about this issue ad-nauseum for months…in fact I even wrote an article several months back about it…AIM is obviously a joke, which incidently is the reason I have scoffed at the dozens of offers I get each and every month to go to shoot in LA. I could probably make between $15,000-25,000 at a pop going there to shoot for a couple weeks at a time but I don’t want to…btw, I’m moved in and working on a new article for this blog…should be posted soon..thanks for all the kind words from everyone!

  4. BT

    Thanks, Lindsey. BTW – I’m not advocating for or against condoms in porn. As a consumer, I don’t really mind seeing condoms during sex, but I do enjoy facials. All I’m saying is that I can completely understand how Cal-OSHA or the state Dept. of Health could easily pass a regulation or law that would withstand a court review. Freedom of expression does not include the right to pass on a sexually-transmitted disease. Aren’t brothels in Nevada regulated, and aren’t condoms mandatory?

  5. juliemeadows

    I definitely think condoms should be taken seriously. Football players wear helmets, and performers are like athletes. The least we can do for these people who risk their health to entertain us is find a way to enjoy them even if they are wearing a condom.

    All I can say for facials is that at least saliva has a lot of bacteria-killing properties. It doesn’t protect the facial skin from herpes, and therefore, herpes outbreaks, but very few diseases are contracted through the mouth. And now, of course, as I type that I remember that a performer friend got gonorrhea in her throat after a scene and nearly suffocated on the way to the hospital. Never mind. 🙁

    I love this post. I feel bad, Mike, for posting mine, just now, on top of this one.

  6. MikeSouth

    never feel bad for that Julie, my readers are bright enough to scroll down and read all the new posts.

    Out of all the things I have done in my 17 years in this biz I think asking you to blog was the best

    Thanks BT, you turned me on to a good one.

  7. backspace

    i’m clearly not a health expert so can someone explain what’s the point of using condoms during penetration scenes when the performers still practice oral and facials unprotected? that’s gotta be one of the biggest contradictions i see in porn.

  8. MikeSouth

    I can offer you some insight, how’s that.

    Truth is despite what the mass media would have you believe HIV transmission, is almost non existant in gay couples who only practice unprotected oral, even when one partner is HIV positive. The HIV Virus is rather weak and saliva has been show to kill it. It also needs a direct path to the bloodstream, which oral generally doesn’t provide.

    Assuming you have no open sores in your mouth/on your face oral/facials are not a risky behavior for HIV transmission.

    As Julie pointed out you can contract other STDs that way but it is actually a more difficult transmission method. (Thats why most prostitutes will do bare back oral but not bareback sex)

    All that said if Cal-OSHA gets their fingers in this direct contact with semen is going to become unlikely, again something that would appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.

    The “appearance” of condom use on the part of the industry could be argued to hold the would be legislation at bay, but we will never know if that would have worked or not.

Leave a Reply