Comments on: The Best Chance To Ultimately Defeat A Condom Requirement

By: MikeSouth

MikeSouth — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:33:06 +0000

In reply to Dantes. You seem bitter....

By: Dantes

Dantes — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:07:02 +0000

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.

By: BT

BT — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:39:06 +0000

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.

By: MikeSouth

MikeSouth — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:49:47 +0000

In reply to rawalex.

My bad I had you confused with a different Alex…glad you are safe regardless…

By: MikeSouth

MikeSouth — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:32:01 +0000

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.

By: Toby

Toby — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:15:28 +0000

In reply to BT. 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.

By: BT

BT — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:21:07 +0000

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.

By: rawalex

rawalex — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:39:08 +0000

In reply to MikeSouth. In Hong Kong, I am always safe :)

By: BT

BT — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:57:27 +0000

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.

By: MikeSouth

MikeSouth — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:39:32 +0000

BTW Alex…Glad yer safe n sound bro