For many porn performers the condom law has been their first real education on how a law becomes a law and their first real exposure to the political process. While i think it is demonstrated that the majority of performers could really care less, as some have pointed out porn is now just an advertisement for escorts. but I digress.
As you probably know yesterdays vote in the CA senate started out to look iffy, the condom law needed three votes to pass and it had two to pass and two to veto one of the two to veto was Mark Leno. The bill ended up passing when Mark Leno later changed his vote.
Welcome to the world of politics.
The FSC is woefully out of their league here without a doubt.
A lot of performers seem to be under the impression that this is all something recently cooked up, it is not. Way back in 2005 or 2006 the industry was told to get STD rates under control or the government would do it for us….we didn’t and now they are.
Moving on to Greg Dodson…Interesting what happens when you shake a tree, I got someone trying to sign up as a new commentator who clearly was trying to derail that. You shake a tree and stuff starts coming in from many directions….I’m hearing Greg Dodson didn’t sleep very well last night…..well get used to it Greg….Theres Lots more coming your way over time.
21 Responses
Interesting Stuff http://t.co/FGDk398z3c
Never ever saw a label on a box that warned of condom or of non condom useage in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0
Perhaps this will help those who still dont understand.
Yep ! Mike it was Whiteacre trying to fuck with your website.
Try to get him and Christina out to Georgia and have one of your
girls put a strap on up his ass on film. He wants relevants to the industry.
Rob Black said last night that everybody is talking shit up you not testing your talent, but everybody gives John Stagliano for having HIV and performing with talent knowing that. LA is sooo full of shit.
Betty Leon liked this on Facebook.
Back in the 70s and 80s porn actors could say they were actors. They had scripts and stories and even though they fucked on camera they still had to have a certiain level of acting skill as well.
Then gonzo porn took over and that evolved into what we have today. Most well known porn girls make the lions share of their money from escorting and use porn to become famous and raise their escort fees.
I can’t stop laughing… Not sure what’s going on, but I’m moving along. Read @mikesouth1226 while I work a bit more. http://t.co/gTcxBn2eJW
RT @MikeSouth1226: Interesting Stuff: For many porn performers the condom law has been their first real education on how a law becom… htt…
One of the most interesting aspects in the game of legislation is that the game ball (aka BILL) doesn’t retain the same shape it did when introduced to the game.
Yesterday I explained why it’s a problem to include specific tests in a labor bill text…well the same applies when writing out related policy. Much of AB1576 included specifics detailed in the OSHA draft OPIM, which would have required that AB1576 be revised once that draft is finalized to eliminate any conflicting language.
With this shorter, cleaner Bill text three things are clear
1. the intent is to shift the burden of testing from the contracted performer to the stakeholder
2. the stakeholder is not exempt from OSHA.
3. To deal with additional privacy laws attached to HIV testing the performer releases to OSHA two things…A. That they had an HIV test (w/I 14 days prior to filming) B. That employer (contract provider) paid for that test.
Lastly it removes ambiguity that the attempt is to criminalize adult filming. Section 2 is a standard wording attached to Bills without direct funding requirements.
AB1576 as it reads after 6/18/2014 amendment:
SECTION 1. Section 6401.9 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
6401.9. (a) (1) In addition to the requirements of Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, an adult film employer shall include the following information in an exposure control plan:
(A) That each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require that the personal protective equipment be visible to the consumer in the finished film.
(B) That each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections, according to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the State Department of Public Health current at the time the testing takes place, not more than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, that the employee consented to disclosing to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health that the employee was the subject of a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) test, and that the employer paid for the test.
(C) Any additional information as required by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “adult film” means any commercial film, video, multimedia, or other recorded representation made or distributed for financial gain during the production of which performers actually engage in sexual intercourse, including oral, vaginal, or anal penetration.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or impede any privacy rights or reporting requirements as provided under Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII?B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII?B of the California Constitution.
For anyone interested in seeing the bill text changes http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Lurking, your post leaves me with one question. That is what if a chickie works for more than one company in a 12-14 day period and company K pays for a test on day 1 with the chickie also working for company E on day 8 (or 2 for that matter)? Do both employers have to have her tested or could company E use company K’s recent test which is otherwise within the 14 day paramaters? Requiring each company to pay for a test could cause a situation where performers would be in for as much as daily testing if they work daily.
@mharris
Now you understand why I advocate shared costing with the testing facility billing per certificate requests during the valid test time.
The stakeholder has proof they paid for it with the advantage that their costs may be reduced with subsequent use and performer is saved time, travel and unnecessary repeat medical procedures.
Sounds like a good idea but using the private, for profit medical facilities as the means to help PRODUCERS save a buck just aint right.
Leave the MEDICAL facilities out of the PORN industry. Medical faciltities cater to people regardless of their occupation. Do not put the PORN INDUSTRY’s lack of a workable system at the feet of the MEDICAL faciltities.
@jilted
Lol….medical facilities routinely do shared cost third party billing as well as issue health certificates for employment, education, sports and even travel purposes. Not advocating medical facilities do anything for porn beyond what they do as a normal course of business.
Any parent of a kid in multiple sports knows they’re doc wants 48 hrs notice and charges a document fee for second, third and forth copies of the still valid school/sports physical.
but these are HIV results,,,,which require a specific release, with the a signed release by the patient, for every single time the result is forwarded to someone, The HIV release must have the specific name of the person the result is going to, and exactly how it is to be transitted. This is exactly why the AIM release didnt hold water when they got sued by Darren James, it was never worth the paper it was printed on.
releasing HIV results is a whole different ball of wax,,,,especially when youre releasing them to multiple parties.(another flaw in ab1576)
Exactly my point that AB1576 isn’t flawed because it requires porn medical providers to stop the practice of releasing HIV results as part of testing panel for every tom dick or Harry to access.
The results of HIV are not released on medical certificates nor are other seemingly innocuous diagnostic criteria like blood pressure. Medical certificates protect privacy using WNL (within normal limits) when it comes to employment certificates those normal limits relate to the employers requirement not diagnostic testing.
“For many porn performers the condom law has been their first real education on how a law becomes a law” [NSFW] http://t.co/hNnSbep1wx
@Monica Foster: Hey Monica did you know Michael Whiteacre likes to play with feces? Heard he used to do that over at BateMan Films in downtown LA ,but he liked to play with LA homeless people’s shit too.
He needs some serious mental help. REAL SICKO.
If you could get the companies to agree on a value per certificate that wouldn’t be a bad idea. The rate would have to balance out the performers that only perform once a month to the ones that perform daily. I think $20 per certificate would be fair but since the performers would also have to be given the test results (so he/she knows whether he/she can either work or what the doctor needs to prescribe to cure a VD) how many producers would just ask the performer for a copy of his/hers and forgo the $20 fee — causing the whole arrangement to implode. I agree that a certificate fee would be fairer than the current system but enforcing it would be an issue.
@mharris
Not going to assume what a medical facility should charge for their time but using your $20 and say $200 for the test panel with first certificate included…and kink.com because they are known to already pay for straight talent tests.
1. Kink does as they do now, sends talent for testing and is billed.
2. Talent booked elsewhere….
Second producer asks talent where they tested…arranges for certificate copy…so instead of kink paying 200 and new guy 20, kinks bill is reduced to 110 with other guy paying 110, if a third came on board 240/3 fourth 260/4 fifth 280/5 etc
The state & OSHA don’t want test results, and lab results won’t offer proof of payment to cover producers ass… talent has no incentive to pass on a copy of their actual lab results when they can maintain their right to medical privacy. Second producers expecting talent to provide a copy to help them out are going to be costing fellow producers out of pocket cash and that isn’t going to go down well.
@Danny
As a fellow Hebrew jew, I find Mr.Bass one very sick in the mind
weirdo. He seriously needs some mental help. And he needs to
shave that beard. He can’t wear that beard to prison.