As an example, why would an employer be responsible for a Hep B vaccinations? Shouldn’t the employee be responsible for it? Should that not be required to show it in order to work? Remember, that same employee may work for dozens of different people. Which one has to pay for the medical work (and then accept the legal responsibility to prove that it was done to everyone else)? As for safety training, is that going to have to be done before every shoot? Will there be an hour long class and perhaps a quiz before people are allowed to fuck? Will this be done once, or done over and over? The way the law reads, it makes it sound like each of these things will have to be done by each employer on each shoot to protect themselves from liability. After all, you know that someone will be turning out fake “did the course” documents with some agencies name on it.

Section I is also self-defeating, as it gives the agency no way to look a the final product to show that the safety protocol was followed, which means ONLY an on set inspection could determine if this is going to be applied or not.

I doubt that the (nearly broke) state of California is going to suddenly unleash dozens of inspectors to go out and check every location shoot, every time. It becomes a statute that creates the need not for compliance, but for a series of blinds, dead end shelf companies, and certificate mills to get around. It accomplishes little, except perhaps to create another way for dishonest people to skim a little more off the top.

Public Disgrace lets people just come in there and participate in those humiliation scenes. Do i enjoy that hardcore shit? Sure do. But at the same time, how easy is it for one of the extras to cut his/her finger. They have HIV, and they finger the girl rapidly. Look at the videos. It happens pretty often in those videos.

I think Kink.com is finished. I doubt they will be able to continue to shoot B/G without condoms, or they may change up their whole scene and maybe tone it down a bit? Who knows.

All I know is porn is starting to really really really sink into the bottom of the barrel. What happened to the the good old days of “Where the Boys Aren’t”???

@Alex: sweat is NOT an STD conduit at ALL- as for bleeding gums, etc., well, I would sure as hell hope no one would be shooting with bleeding gums (that’s attractive)- as for possible bleeding gums/oral lesions, maybe they SHOULD be doing a little mouth-check on adult performers before shooting. Might at least keep oral herpes from becoming genital herpes. As for HIV and bleeding gums or mouth sores, HIV is actually not easy to transmit. Dirty needles and rough, unprotected receptive anal sex are the two most common proven vectors, with receptive vaginal sex well behind the first two. And the penetrative partners have about 10% of the risk that the receptive partners do. Which brings back the issue of WTF was Jennifer White thinking when she agreed to do the internal cumshot anal gangbang with men who were in the vast majority chosen through a cattle-call audition……supposedly she had medical bills, but REALLY?! Work out a damn payment plan or just let it go on your credit history!

@sachertorte Of course you’re right, the only thing is that it’s actually quite common for people to have a sore on the inside of their mouth that might release other substances besides saliva, or even bleeding gums, etc. I dare say that no one on any mainstream movie set ever inspects the insides of the mouths of the actors before shooting a kissing scene to ensure that no one has any small or unseen lesions or gum issues, etc.

I’m not saying that the law *should* include those substances–but generally speaking all sorts of diseases *can* be transmitted via them, and if we’re seriously concerned about the safety of performers in all genres of entertainment, and not just targeting porn specifically, then there *might* be something of an inconsistency there.

But mostly I’m just interested in the contours of the law, what it sweeps up, what it ignores.

If the guys can’t wear a condom. Send em’ packin and if the girls
got excuses from rashes to other STUPID Producer ass kissing
excuses…..you got to fucking go. You’re dangerous!

@Alex: doubt sweat and saliva would be targeted, since there has never been a documented case of HIV, Hep C, or Syphilis being transmitted through sweat or saliva. Nothing transmitted via sweat, and as for saliva, Herpes, HPV, Chlamydia, and Gonorrhea risk (via oral sex), but not the Big Three.

The language in AB332 that I harped on a few months ago–defining “adult film” as necessarily a film made “for the sexual stimulation of the viewer”–has been smartly removed from this bill. That eliminates a HUGE constitutional defect that was present in the earlier bill.

It also means that now, ANY moving picture where actual intercourse is recorded–no matter whether it’s a porn movie, or a sex education video, or a documentary, or an art film–falls under the definition of “adult movie” and must comply with the statute.

This now means that artists, documentary filmmakers that deal with sexually explicit topics, and sex-ed companies might well join any constitutional battles against the legislation–which I think can only help those opposing this legislation.

And there is no way the legislature could get away with just carving out an exemption for those kinds of works, either–that, too, would require a blatantly content-based targeting of a specific message or viewpoint, which no court would uphold.

It also means that softcore movies, fetish videos with no penetration, or any movie (whether mainstream or not) with lots of sweat or saliva passing back and forth, are left completely untouched by this law, no matter how dangerous those horrible contaminating human substances are.

I think the lawmakers are realizing that the only way to properly narrow the scope of the law so as not to piss off huge swaths of California’s business community is to focus on one thing and one thing only: penetration.