Article about mandated use of condoms in porn Interesting viewpoint

P'Gell P'Gell
This is an article that I obtained from a Tweet from Nina Hartley. It concerns an interesting viewpoint (which I personally believe in) about mandated condom usage in porn. Here the link.

It's from a Gay viewpoint, but the author's POV is valid; porn models are adults and have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they choose to use a condom during the shooting of porn scenes.

Oddly enough, the law does NOT mandate condoms for oral sex, just for PIV and I assume anal sex. The people who drafted the law said requiring condoms during oral sex (meaning missing the cum shot) would be "beyond the pale."

However, what the author doesn't address is that this law is inherently sexist. The law would protect men, but as we have all seen in porn, the man is using a condom for the PIV or the anal sex, then he whips it off and ejaculates into the female model's mouth. She is then not protected at all from his "diseases" but he is from hers (if either of them have one. The average HIV transmission rate in the porn industry is only 2 cases per year, lower than just about anywhere.) Also the law only applies to scenes shot on location where a permit is necessary, studio scenes are exempt. This would simply limit most porn to be shot indoors on studio lots.

In my opinion, porn models KNOW the risks. They are adults and like the rest of us have the right to make their own decisions. We've all seen porn scenes where one person is using a condom and an other isn't. I assume either that man or his partner requested it. If someone request condom use during a shot, then by all means, that should be honored. But, some people in porn are already fluid bound with the person they are making a scene with, some know the status of their partners, and some simply know the status and prefer not to use a condom.

And, I wish someone would address why the "mandate" (which I don't agree with to start with) doesn't protect women during cum shots! The law is full of holes and I honestly hope it doesn't become law.

How do you feel? Please read the article first so you'll know the specifics of the law and ALL the exclusions.
03/10/2012
  • Add More Pleasure to Your Collection! Buy 1 Vibe, Get 1 FREE
  • Better Price Sale - Save 50%
  • Better Price Sale - Save 70%
  • Better Price Sale - Save 60%
  • Better Price - Save 40%
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Kindred Kindred
I am really torn on this issue. My first instinct was that it oversteps the bounds of what the law should dictate. As you say, porn actors are adults and should be allowed to make their own decision on condom use.

However, I think the law is also intended to protect people, and in that sense the law potentially is right in doing so. There are seat belt laws, helmet laws, and other examples where the law dictates for the safety of others, regardless of whether or not a person is qualified to make an informed decision.

Another issue is that this is technically a workplace issue, and again, the law has the right to dictate for the safety of employees. My concern is that although we can say that porn actors are adults that can decide for themselves, industry pressure may compel them to not use condoms against their own best interests. I'm pretty sure most polls have shown that viewers tend to prefer no condom use in porn. This law would protect those individuals.

Lastly, I think the argument that the transmission rate of HIV in porn is only 2 cases per year is a rather poor argument. That's two cases that potentially could have been prevented with the use of a condom. If I said we could prevent 2 deaths a year at your workplace simply by having everyone wear a hat, would anyone complain? Additionally, because of the nature of their work, a porn actor potentially puts a lot of people at risk before they test positive. Just consider if an actor has scenes with 5 different partners before they learn they are positive. Those five partners could have had sex with a number of additional partners as well, and you can see the potential for a snowball effect. The potential for spread could be enormous.

Like I said, I absolutely see both sides of the argument.
03/10/2012
- Kira - - Kira -
I agree with you. I think they are adults and can make their own decisions. I do not like the government getting involved in such things as a general rule. I think that usually (unless it is a very extreme case) the government should mind it's business. For Kindred's examples, I'm also against seat belt and helmet laws. If you wanna die in a car or motorcycle accident, then being an idiot is also an informed choice I think you should get to make. I generally think people should be left to be morons if they want to be. Natural selection and all.

In this case, I think that if someone requests a condom, this request should be honored. However, it should not be required. Clearly this was just a case of making a public display and won't have much effect one way or another. Since it doesn't protect against oral or cum shots, it only protects one way. That's kinda crappy, in my opinion.

Standard and regular testing should be required (and I believe it is, but don't quote me) in the porn industry. Negative test results should be produced before being able to work on a shoot. These should be done on a more frequent basis than is normal for a regular sexually active individual.
03/10/2012
Ciao. Ciao.
I have mixed feelings. While I agree that porn models are adults and have the right to make decisions for themselves, porn is inherently a business where the models themselves (male or female) are not usually the ones in power and the director's/studios because of their ability to allow/deny employment based on things like condom use have the ability to basically tell an actor/actress "no condoms, or no work" (or alternately, use a condom or no work).

Because porn actors/actresses are coming into contact with so many sexual partners as part of their work, even with regular testing, I think it makes a lot of sense to promote safe sex practices.
03/10/2012
Ansley Ansley
Quote:
Originally posted by Ciao.
I have mixed feelings. While I agree that porn models are adults and have the right to make decisions for themselves, porn is inherently a business where the models themselves (male or female) are not usually the ones in power and the ... More
What a lot of people don't understand is that the porn industry has changed so much since it's inception. Stars have more freedom to perform with other actors/actresses they are familiar with instead of being shoved into a room with a bunch of strangers and voila, you now have a porn movie to watch. These contract girls have a lot more control now than they ever have in the past. And that's why you typically see the same actor with the same set of girls over and over again.

HIV/AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was in the 70's and 80's. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to run out and land themselves a case of it, but it's easier to deal with now than it ever has been in the past.

I would almost bet my life that when an adult performer does come down with the disease it's because of their risky behavior outside of the studio, not inside. And it's not like these people are in the studio or on set every single day. There are often months or weeks separating the productions and all are required to test before they arrive.

All of that being said, I hate to see condoms in porn and I don't really feel that I have the right to weigh in on whether or not this law is for the good of the people in the industry or a witch-hunt to get the studios to move outside of Los Angeles.
03/10/2012
P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by Ansley
What a lot of people don't understand is that the porn industry has changed so much since it's inception. Stars have more freedom to perform with other actors/actresses they are familiar with instead of being shoved into a room with a bunch ... More
You're right on most counts. Only they wouldn't have to move, as the law wouldn't apply to scenes done in studios. Only those done on location, where a permit is required (outside etc.) Also, cum shots, into mouths etc are not required to have condoms used, so women or men who catch semen orally in scenes will still be exposed to whatever the person having the ejaculation has. The law has so many loop holes, it really doesn't "protect" anyone.
03/10/2012
Ansley Ansley
Quote:
Originally posted by P'Gell
You're right on most counts. Only they wouldn't have to move, as the law wouldn't apply to scenes done in studios. Only those done on location, where a permit is required (outside etc.) Also, cum shots, into mouths etc are not required to ... More
I actually didn't read your article once I noticed it was an op-ed piece. *bad Stormy*

I go by what AVN is reporting and it seems like it's a knee-jerk reaction to keep people from filming on location and to "clean up L.A.". Which is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.
03/10/2012
underHim underHim
I think if they are both consenting adults who have been tested- who cares.
03/10/2012
Total posts: 8
Unique posters: 6