I have thought long and hard about this condom mandate, and I have talked with a lot of girls in porn about it. oddly enough on the record most porn girls oppose it, funny thing is OFF the record most of them support it.
It appears many of the girls working in porn would actually prefer to use condoms but are afraid that even supporting condom use would cost them work in an industry where work is drying up quickly.
As one contract girl put it. “Look at the guys I am expected to fuck, they are shooting up steroids, doing gay porn, doing trannys, doing gay escorting, do you really think I wouldn’t prefer to use a condom if I could?”
Another performer notes: “We are all the time having to be treated for Chlamydia, I would rather not have to worry about it. I mean that can’t be good.”
Even some of the guys are concerned, particularly with girls that are escorting, as one veteran performer put it. “If you can’t get it up while wearing a condom, and without using Viagra, you shouldn’t be in porn anyway.”
And the real truth is that the STD rate among performers really is sky high. Way above that of the general population, regardless of what the industry propagandists will tell you.
Despite industry rhetoric nobody is going to move out of Los Angeles, the truth is most of the companies figure this is just window dressing and it will be rarely, if ever enforced. or they can shoot underground and not really worry about it.
But I have discovered a real gotcha for companies that think this won’t be a big deal. It’s called torts. And it could absolutely bring this industry to it’s knees. I believe that is what AHF is setting up the biz for. You see in the past if a girl (or a guy) caught an STD on a porn set they might have been able to sue in civil court for damages but it probably wasn’t worth trying. The new condom law is going to change that. NOW it becomes a clear case of negligence if an STD is transmitted on a set that isn’t using condoms. What’s going to happen when an enterprising attorney hooks up with an industry full of performers that discover they can get 10 to 20 K every time they get an STD on a set that didn’t mandate condoms?
Maybe AHF supplies these attorneys for free and fattens its bank accounts with one third of the judgements. I can assure you that they have NOT overlooked this possibility.
I have a strong feeling that this condom mandate is going to prove to be a game changer, in an industry that is changing rapidly by the day. Be careful, be very careful, I would consult a attorney before foregoing condoms if I were you.
21 Responses
Great post, Mike. Thank you for sharing the truth about what performers REALLY think about the condom mandate. I know when I worked in Porn Valley, I was told if I mentioned the word “condom”, I would lose work. It’s time for Porn Valley to protect the workers. IT’S THE LAW!!
And you are very correct. I’ve been pushing these same facts for some time. Performers could’ve always sued for negligence and had a good case. The condom law has been there for a long, long time!!
Performers, you have rights. You need to stand united and Porn Valley will have to protect you. You can only be used and abused if you let them. PROTECT YOURSELVES. IT’S YOUR LIFE!!
On the tort issue–there is no doubt that if a producer pressures a performer to shoot a scene without one, or doesn’t have any on the set if the performer wants one, or flat out refuses to let the performer perform with a condom, THEN the performer has a very good civil claim if s/he contracts an illness.
BUT, if the producer has condoms on the set, and makes them available to anyone who wants them and doesn’t put any pressure on anyone to not use them, then the claim is less colorable. The fact that there is an ordinance might help, but the ordinance does not create any private right of action as far as I understand it.
As an analogy: You enter an illegal fight tournament, and decline to use protective pads or headgear that are freely available. It’s going to be hard to sue them for your medical bills if you get your teeth knocked out, even though the whole tournament was illegal to begin with.
I personally don’t think the condom issue is as bad as the industry seems to think. I watch porn where the performers use condoms and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Some enterprising company should invent a condom that blends more perfectly with skin color and make a million dollars.
That would be wrong DB, Its a civil action, the burden of proof is much lower and you don’t have to have a unanimous jury verdict. It would be open and shut, specially with negligence involved.
It be very wise take Mike advices on this issue if porn star. Those in porn indusrty who are advices that nothing well happen if get caught make porn with out condoms in La are not ones risking fine or penalty if they caught with out them. Few years ago some porn insider advices porn stars could use there homes make porn with out proper permits all porn stars did got bust buy La police for not have them sure enough they had no trouble find porn star homes did have proper permits. They went each porn stars home with out proper permits if they did have them at there homes those porn stars where arrest for not have them. For those insider scream out that did happen ask Kylie Ireland and Miko Lee how much fun was stand up in court have face judge be told got caughty again with out proper permits would be more than fine next time. If porn indusrty think come out Arizona under stand this negligence here does mean fine means how much time do you want spend in Joe Arpaio jail. Those in porn indusrty give out advice you can break condom law nothing well happen same people not break law not pay fine or spend time jail if they get caught.
With regard to proving on what set you caught an STD, remember that it takes two to film a porn scene – or three or four. And, there is discovery. Actors and actresses know who they have performed with. If they file a suit, they would have the right to have all of their professional partners tested as part of discovery. Now, unless everyone has an STD, you should be able to narrow down the field of likely candidates. And …. if the argument is that everyone has an STD, that makes the case for condoms even stronger. Just making condoms available isn’t enough to escape a negligence claim. In other words, a producer can’t say: Hey, it’s not my fault. There were condoms on the set, but no one wanted to wear them. What was I going to do? The analogy would be a construction site manager who says: Look, I had hard heats, steel toed boots and safety goggles on the site. No one wanted to wear them. It’s their fault they suffered head and eye injuries. If there’s an ordinance, an employer is supposed to enforce it. The employer can say – you wear your hard hat or you don’t work. Similarly, a director can say that you either put on a condom, or you don’t film the scene. Otherwise, the director is willfully ignoring the ordinance and the director, the producer and anyone else is open to a negligence claim. You can be sure that the next actor who contracts HIV will have a helluva a case, and it won’t be a $20,000 judgment.
I agree with much of what you say, BT, but the contributory negligence factor alone would likely be significant. Everyone knows that condoms help protect against STDs. If a performer insists on working without one, even though s/he was free to use one and was provided with one, then that is significant contributory negligence.
If there is an ordinance against filming porn without a condom, then any production company that makes a condom-less film is negligent. If an actor insists on working without a condom, they don’t work. It is that simple. A porn company has control over whether its employs – or its contractors – work with condoms. They know whether the condom is on or isn’t on when the camera is rolling. And the evidence is on tape.
🙂
I hear what you’re saying, BT, but my understanding is that the comparative fault doctrine is still alive and well in California, and applies in negligence cases even in the employer/employee context. If I’m wrong about that, can you point me to the case or statute that says so? I’d be very grateful. Thanks!
Bottom line testing alone has worked in porn Bob in stop those have stds from give other in porn stds. Bob rate stds in porn higher than ever been in legal brothels that use condoms. As much those porn keep telling story how testing in porn made safer than ever facts remain that stds in porn have been higher than ever been with testing in porn. What funny Bob no one saying there gone stop testing in porn for std becuase replace them with condoms. What there saying Bob your not getting is the fact porn star need be test need wear condoms untill porn companys stop allow those have been test for std that have come back clean bill health instead of allow them work there stds. Other wise all std testing in world is worthless Bob. That why when go Ca Osha about porn safty get laugh out building explain how testing working stop stds when rate stds been higher than ever been in porn. Bob facts are not your side that why Afh win battle with condoms.
Bob dotor comes out ever week check health well being girls work at HBO Bunny Ranch where never had case hiv ever becuase have to wear condoms. Funny part Bob you are right brothels in Nevada do not test there customers but they do not allow any of there girls have stds work untill they have clean bill health that not happen in porn indusrty Bob. Your allow have pop shot at brothels in Nevada had one when vist Bunny Ranch . Reason pop shot are allowed becuase that part some body is in person that go off on. Yes there way know for certain if look how Nevada runs health safty of brothels compare porn indusrty larg gap showing brothels hookers in Nevada being far safer from getting stds than porn stars in Las Angles buy wearing condoms even as screw untest men go Bunny Ranch. All porn testing done in Las Angles prove is if male porn star has any other stds than Hiv you well be allowed work infect with backing of porn indusrty. The result of doing thing like that very well know Bob means you all gone get wear condoms in city Las Angles refuse fix problem all knew was there.
I fail to see how this is all going to play out. Herpes and HPV will transmit even with a condom, as a condom doesn’t cover 100% of the penis or testicles, and doesn’t protect your partner from areas of the groin or legs that may have outbreaks. Condoms also clearly do not protect from STDs that are transmitted orally. You can even catch gonorrhea in your eyes from touching the virus elsewhere and then rubbing your eyes. How can anyone protect themselves against that? If I finger Jane Doe on the set, get gonorrhea on my fingers and rub the sweat out of my eyes directly after the cut and putting gonorrhea in my eyes, who can I sue?
And what if a condom breaks on the set (they break all the time) and a performer is exposed to an STD? Is anyone at fault? Sue the condom company?
This all sounds like a giant mess to me.
Untill porn indusrty stop allow those work in indusrty with Stds other than Hiv cases. Means one thing testing for stds wearing condoms is gone work in stop them from happening. All do is make more Stds happen. Like they say at schools work place if your sick should be there make more people sick. If hooker working in brothels in Nevada they catch you working with any time type Stds your arrest for spreading the dease buy cops there. It seem be working there stds there on down slide well Stds in Las Angels in porn indusrty on rise. If porn think gone do well Nevada need keep this very much in mind if Stds and Hiv start happening there in large numbers state clamp down on porn indusrty there with out mercy with condoms in heart beat. They have done with there strip clubs they have done with illegal prostitution.
DWB it isnt about actually doing anything its about appearances. Its just the way shit here works these days….fuck the facts just LOOK LIKE you care…
If porners had understood this we wouldn’t be having these problems. I tried to get the FSC and AIM to switch to on the spot testing prior to EVERY SCENE years ago (via oraquick) they wanted no part because there wasn’t a good profit margin in it. oraquick tests sell in bulk for 15 bucks each. The whole window period bullshit is now moot with current testing methodologies but they clung to that as the reason. The real reason was, of course, money.
If we were testing everyone before every scene with 2x a month tests for other stds that condom ordinance would never have even been an issue.
And remember the perception is that condoms provide the MOST protection from the most things.
And perception is reality.
As somone who has worked in the media his entire life, I know that TV reporters are not the brightest bulbs in our business, just the best-looking. However, this report on porn moving to Arizona kind of takes the cake. http://www.adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=53432. According to NBC Los Angeles, the city of Phoenix says it will not issue a permit to film porn in Phoenix because it would be a violation of state law. And, the reporter wonders if the same law would apply to Tempe and Scottsdale. Ah …. a state law applies everywhere.
LOL I saw a news report here in atlanta about 7 years ago about a parking deck that collapsed. the on the scene reporter actually said that nobody was hurt because the chunks of the parking deck were so much heavier and therefor they fell faster.
I often wondered if he really thought that or if the guy doing the teleprompter set him up
Mike-
Reading some of the comments on Luke Is Back about some of these companies, I can’t really bring myself to have much sympathy for these companies having to use a condom. I just read that Devil’s Film hired a gay male performer named Derek Anthony who regularly has unprotected sex with HIV+ men and had a long term lover that was also HIV+? Despite this guy’s claims he is HIV negative, do you think ANY porn girl would want to work with him if they knew that information? The company he works for actually got a CAL OSHA fine.
I’m sorry but you can’t put the blame on AHF, PWL, AIM, etc… when shit like this goes on with these companies. The performer in question did a scene with veteran performer Chris Johnston and Kita Zen, both of whom work ALL THE TIME. Could you imagine how big the quarantine would have been on that one. IMO using someone like that with that background, negative or not is indefensible.
The industry brought this on itself.
Doesn’t a ton of bricks fall faster than a ton of feathers?
Apparently, Arizona does think there’s a state-wide law against filming porn inside the borders. http://www.adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=53483. The good news is that Sheriff Joe makes his inmates wear pink, so the gals will look good in their prison suits if incarcerated. Remember: New Hampshire, the live free or die state, is the only other state besides California to recognize the legality of porn. We don’t have the San Fernando Valley, but we do have the White Mountains. There’s no Santa Monica, but there’s 17 miles of coast line, and you can tan there from about July 15 to August 9 – then, of course, winter starts all over again. Can you say AVN-Nashua? Granite State of Porn? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjxraD723Ks
Yeah, let the entire adult industry re-locate to bumfuck NH where there is NO statutory right to produce pornography.
Nobody is going anywhere and the Industry will be fine. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out.