OK Measure B is almost certainly going to pass, at that point I expect it will come down to it being challenged in court. I don’t expect anything to really change on November 7th, or even on December 7th. now it is time for us to start doing what we should have been doing all along.
First and foremost we as an industry have to be 100% condom neutral, the days of a performer not getting a job or being blacklisted because they want to protect themselves from an STD HAVE to be gone. All companies should have condoms on every set and it should be an option, ideally to protect yourselves when performers choose not to use a condom they should sign a waiver.
Second like it or not performers are employees, get workers compensation insurance, this way we are doing what every legit business in this country has to do and we can point out that when someone does get injured or infected on a set they are not becoming a burden on the healthcare system because they dont have health insurance.
Third, all of you performers harping about your rights….you do NOT have a right to infect someone else because you have been careless, you need to start considering the impact of your decisions, both inside and outside the industry. Let mne tell you straight up, it impacts you, it is because of that irresponsible behavior by some of the loudest of you that you are facing this condom law. It is because of that irresponsible behavior that you will have to use condoms if you cant start acting responsibly. The fact that STD rates in the industry are at best about ten times higher than the normal population is appalling This HAS GOT to be brought down and performers are the front line.
If a performer forges a test he or she is out, period, end of story, that includes Mister Marcus, let him go work a fryer someplace we don’t want the likes of him and Marc Wallace
Fourth as an industry we have to address the rate of STD’s in this industry, that is the axe that is poised to fall across the neck of this industry. For far too long we had it easy, we thought we were untouchable only a few people saw the Sword of Damocles hanging over the industry. Testing has got to be overhauled preferably by health care professionals who are neutral and unattached to any company in the industry. We have to have better and more comprehensive testing.
If we can do these things we might have a chance of a condom optional workplace, if we can’t do these things condoms are going to be in our future. Take that to the bank.
15 Responses
standing ovation…well said
RT @MikeSouth1226: The Best Chance To Ultimately Defeat A Condom Requirement: OK Measure B is almost certainly going to pass, at tha… …
Sounds good, but there is something you need to add here:
If a performer chooses not to use a condom, the waiver would need to be signed by everyone involved in the scene. Without it, a condom would be required. So unless both (or all three) of the performers say “no condoms”, then a condom would be the default mode.
Further, you have to look at the issues of threeways. It’s harder to figure, but even with condoms, in theory they should change between every partner. So if it’s a GGB threeway, even in a condom shoot he should be swapping out condoms when he swaps out girls. This is to stop the spread of things on a condom from girl to girl. That makes it just that much harder to get everyone done.
As a rule, I don’t get into spitting contests online. I posted a note on Luke Is Back the other day about public health implications of disease in porn. Also, in response to someone else’s post about athlete, noted that athletes must wear protection. In a well-written response to my note, one poster said my analysis was off. He went on to say that people likened porn stars to actors when in fact they aren’t. They are folks who choose to engage in a high risk activity, much like stunt people who know that they may be hurt in a production.
First, just because stunt work is high risk doesn’t mean a producer doesn’t have to take safety precautions. Otherwise, no one would ever get insurance for a movie set. More importantly, the industry needs to remember that porns greatest protection is the First Amendment. The industry has argued in court forever that pornography is an art form; porn stars are not prostitutes being paid to have sex – they are in fact artists expressing themselves. If the industry argues that porn stars are just getting paid to do a thing – no different than stunt people – than porn is just a product, no different than corn flakes. The manufacturing of corn flakes is pretty regulated. You can’t have it both ways. We’re artists when we want not to be paid for sex; we’re not a risk to the public because we only have sex with each other (except when we don’t); certain diseases don’t matter because you can treat them with antibiotics (except when you don’t and infect others with syphllis); our people understand that what they’re doing is risky (you think the 18 year old just off the bus understands this in the same way a high school footballer knows he can blow out a knee? I doubt it); we want the right to film anything we want to film, no matter how degrading or physically assaultive to the performer as long as the public wants to watch it. But, hey, we’re a legitimate business and want to be seen as such with the rewards that come to legitimate business owners.
Now BT YOU of all people shoulda known better than to expect information there….If you want information you come here, if you want affirmation…hell theres lotsa places to go for that
Truth is I had no idea how badly the info is stacked against us
read here
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/std/afi.htm
particularly the related journal articles
Im surprised it took this long for this to come out
BTW Alex…Glad yer safe n sound bro
Hey, Mike. True, true, true. I just did a quick scan of about half a dozen of the journal articles in the link you sent – the executive summaries plus a fast read of the articles. You are correct on the deck. If this ever goes to court, there is no question but that it will be a public health issue and a workplace safety issue, not a First Amendment issue. Both apply to mainstream television and film shoots. Trust me on this: I have written TV movie of the week scripts and been on set. I’ve never seen a director say: safety be damned. I have a first amendment right to film anything I want and if you’re not willing to put your health on the line, I’ll get someone who will. This stuff gets hashed out endlessly with the network before it ever gets to be filmed and there are daily reports back to the network exec overseeing production on what happened that day. Remember that the Broadway production of Spiderman was almost cancelled when one of the actors’ harness broke and he was injured. This notion that porn stars are just stunt people who understand the risk when they get in the business; that any sexually transmitted disease short of HIV is no big deal and that condoms don’t work is just non-sense that is refuted by real world evidence.
In Hong Kong, I am always safe 🙂
Sorry for all of these posts. One other concept the industry does not seem to get – and perhaps it’s different in California – is the concept of an indpendent contractor. From the posts I read, talent and some of the posters on the other sites seem to believe that if talent is an independent contractor, then the company in charge of the production has no responsibility to provide a safe working environment. Again, California may be different, but along with being a business owner, I’m the treasurer of a non-profit organization that owns several properties that require maintenance. I am required to have liability and workers comp insurance that not only covers my employees, but covers independent contractors who might be injured while working at my properties. In the alternative, most businesses require independent contractors, such as real contractors (plumbers, electricians, landscapers) to show proof of insurance before they will let the contractor or their employees work on business property because otherwise, they can be responsible for any injuries. All independent contractor status means is that you don’t have to withhold social security, medicare, medicaid taxes and income taxes when you cut their check. You still are responsible for providing a safe work place.
Using that logic, if I were an independent contractor working in a construction zone, I could tell the General Contractor to shove it if he asked me to wear a hard hat. But everyone knows you gotta wear a hard hat.
Unless I’m mistaken the independent contractor status is moot. Prior legal precedent in California has already established that porn performers are employees not independent contractors.
BT I appreciate all of your posts man, you have a very clear and unbiased understanding of how things like this work, as well as real world experience.
Toby, you are correct even Michael Fattarosi has pointed out on numerous occasions that porn performers are in fact employees not contractors.
My bad I had you confused with a different Alex…glad you are safe regardless…
Thanks, Mike. By the way, as you know, I am a true independent contractor. In addition to the business I own with my wife, I have worked in content creation for 30 years as an independent contractor. I have lived this stuff since it’s how I earn my personal income and how I file my taxes. While I have not appeared on camera as an actor, I have been paid to appear on camera as a commentator. I have always had to abide by workplace safety issues. What’s odd is that I feel like I’m arguing against my own interests, since, truth be told, I prefer condom-less porn. At the same time, you can’t help but feel that the industry has brought this on itself.
Yeah, great idea South. Not only should you abandon the principle of individual rights, but when you do it you should tout your “condom neutral” consession to fascism as the “freedom approach” so that when – inevitably – someone contracts an STD regardless of it being mandatory that condoms are available, and that companies have to let them be worn (because the performer and the production company both wanted to accept that risk for a competitive edge), the government demagouges can say “see, we told you that anything less than a full-blown requirement was necessary. This ‘freedom approach’ just doesn’t work. We have no choice but to all-out mandate it.” That’s f’ing brilliant. Lose your liberty in a few years anyway, but also destroy all of the credibility that the principle of liberty has so that it’s that much harder to reclaim it once it’s gone. Bravo!
But what should I expect from a guy who makes his living manipulating other people’s minds? If you can be morally okay with convincing someone that his self-interest lies in consuming something which, ironically, only takes him further away from being able to satisfy his desires in real life, then of course you will try to bargain with the evil people who hate human freedom. Any mind can be manipulated, right? Of course you will think that winning a short-term abatement, at the expense of the long-term value which the relative “freedom” depends upon (ie: the principle of freedom), is a good idea. There’s always a way to get something good out of context-dropping, right? I mean, hell, just look at your business. It’s built on context-dropping. The short-term is all that you know – just like that pragmatists-turned-fascists (which is inevitable) know only it too.
You seem bitter….