Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act

[Rochard]

Anyone in California seeing commercials for Prop 60? Prop 60 requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.I was surprised to see them up where I live in Sacramento.... It starts off with "pornographers make big promises" and just goes downhill from there.



Think this won't be an issue for you because you aren't in California? Think again:

YNOT » Ramifications of Prop 60 Reach Far Beyond Calif.

[MiamiBoyz]

Fuck the government.

They are trying to put porn out of business in America like they have with every other industry/business by regulating it to the point of being unprofitable.

So are they going to BAN porn produced from other countries that don't use condoms?

Nope...just "FUCK" the American Adult Entertainment Industry!

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

Fuck the government.

They are trying to put porn out of business in America like they have with every other industry/business by regulating it to the point of being unprofitable.

So are they going to BAN porn produced from other countries that don't use condoms?

Nope...just "FUCK" the American Adult Entertainment Industry!

We agree with each other for once? Oh my lord.

[pornlaw]

Its not only a porn issue.... blood-borne pathogens can be everyone's issue if this continues...

We filed this in May...

James Deen takes jab at MMA to make point about scrutiny of porn industry

[Paul Markham]

Should an industry be allowed to put workers at extra risk when there's an easy safety procedure?

For instance Hardhats on construction sites.

Two sides to an argument.

[MiamiBoyz]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Should an industry be allowed to put workers at extra risk when there's an easy safety procedure?

For instance Hardhats on construction sites.

Two sides to an argument.

You are comparing condoms vs Hardhats...seriously?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

You are comparing condoms vs Hardhats...seriously?

Comparing the principle of taking obvious precautions to protect workers. Make a reasoned argument if you have one.

[Barry-xlovecam]

We have no content operations that we own in the USA. This is one reason why ...

[woj]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Comparing the principle of taking obvious precautions to protect workers. Make a reasoned argument if you have one.

wearing a hard hat doesn't impede the performance of the job in any significant way... that is, final house built is of equal quality whether hard hats were worn or not... so there is perhaps some validity to requiring them...

on the other hand, wearing a condom does impede the performance... many would argue that a scene featuring performers wearing condoms is of inferior quality... so it's far less clear why producers should be forced to produce an inferior product to "protect workers"...

[Adnium_Ivana]

This has been the norm in Brazilian porn for a while no? As far as i know their porin industry is thriving despite this law but I could be wrong - don't know the actual stats behind it

[mikesouth]

After a LONG cobversation with both Cal OSHA and Federal OSHA the fact is that in the USA

Condoms are the law for porn...period

Prop 60 isnt a referendum on condom use, pass or not condom use is the law

Now OSHA told me that if you have fewer than 10 employees one of them will have to complain to OSHA before they will even consider an inspection/fine. So hubby and wife/bf/gf doing porn, clips4sale stores..whatever isnt going to cause issues really.

Per OSHA the law is aimed at forcing people in porn to pay for the treatment when someone gets an STI on set (ANY STI) In the past people were simply dumped on charities/taxpayers.

Almost everything you have read about this law is misrepresented usually in a HUGE way. It doesnt allow for suing performers, it doesnt impede on privacy any more than 2257 does For most performers Prop 60 will help them massively if they contract an STD.

All of that said vote however ya like.....but at least educate yourself and understand what it really is that you are voting for/against

[Barry-xlovecam]

Wearing a hardhat is a burden -- anyone that has worked construction would know that.

I worked with one logger that would have been dead if not wearing his hardhat -- the tree swung back, deflected off his hardhat, and broke his collarbone.

Being dead is a bigger burden

What is the infection rate of HIV and STDs on porn sets? Risk factors anyone?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

After a LONG cobversation with both Cal OSHA and Federal OSHA the fact is that in the USA

Condoms are the law for porn...period

Prop 60 isnt a referendum on condom use, pass or not condom use is the law

Now OSHA told me that if you have fewer than 10 employees one of them will have to complain to OSHA before they will even consider an inspection/fine. So hubby and wife/bf/gf doing porn, clips4sale stores..whatever isnt going to cause issues really.

Per OSHA the law is aimed at forcing people in porn to pay for the treatment when someone gets an STI on set (ANY STI) In the past people were simply dumped on charities/taxpayers.

Almost everything you have read about this law is misrepresented usually in a HUGE way. It doesnt allow for suing performers, it doesnt impede on privacy any more than 2257 does For most performers Prop 60 will help them massively if they contract an STD.

All of that said vote however ya like.....but at least educate yourself and understand what it really is that you are voting for/against

So if my wife and I make a sex tape with the intention of selling it for profit and we do not use a condom.... It's against the law?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So if my wife and I make a sex tape with the intention of selling it for profit and we do not use a condom.... It's against the law?

Which law ? We have CalOSHA's CCR 5193, Measure B in LA County and now possibly AHF's Prop 60 - all dealing with condoms in porn. So its not just one law, its 3 that you might have to comply with and it also depends on where you are shooting in California.

5193 is state-wide but only applies to employer-employee relationships, Measure B is only in LA County with the exception of Pasadena and Long Beach who have their health departments have have not adopted Measure B which applies to all commercial filming and Prop 60 will also be state wide which is not very clear on the issue...

Its a cluster-fuck.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Which law ? We have CalOSHA's CCR 5193, Measure B in LA County and now possibly AHF's Prop 60 - all dealing with condoms in porn. So its not just one law, its 3 that you might have to comply with and it also depends on where you are shooting in California.

5193 is state-wide but only applies to employer-employee relationships, Measure B is only in LA County with the exception of Pasadena and Long Beach who have their health departments have have not adopted Measure B which applies to all commercial filming and Prop 60 will also be state wide which is not very clear on the issue...

Its a cluster-fuck.

So contracters not using condoms is ok. Employees not using condoms is a problem.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Which law ? We have CalOSHA's CCR 5193, Measure B in LA County and now possibly AHF's Prop 60 - all dealing with condoms in porn. So its not just one law, its 3 that you might have to comply with and it also depends on where you are shooting in California.

5193 is state-wide but only applies to employer-employee relationships, Measure B is only in LA County with the exception of Pasadena and Long Beach who have their health departments have have not adopted Measure B which applies to all commercial filming and Prop 60 will also be state wide which is not very clear on the issue...

Its a cluster-fuck.

It seems a bit silly, does't it?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

So contracters not using condoms is ok. Employees not using condoms is a problem.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5193.html

independent contractors are not mentioned. However,
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owa...S&p_id =28610

I am not sure how a State court might rule ...

Direct daily supervision and not taxable status would be the determining factor is what I am thinking.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

So contracters not using condoms is ok. Employees not using condoms is a problem.

In California, performers hired by a producer for a shoot are considered employees. There really arent any independent contractors in Cali, except for a small group of people that are required to be licensed by the state/county, ie., plumbers, electricians, CPAs, lawyers, massage therapists, ect. They would be considered ICs, but could be considered EEs as well. It depends on the employment situation. But that only applies to 5193. Measure B doesnt take employment status into account in its language and could be used against a husband & wife cam team but probably not - read on...

Originally Posted by Rochard

It seems a bit silly, does't it?

Yes it does. But thats what happens when you have private entities such as AHF trying to create law. They really dont know what they are doing and dont understand how these regulations will apply in a practical setting.

For example, Measure B. AHF got that pass the voters but its a dead law. The federal courts struck down the search/inspections aspects of it thanks to Vivid's challenge while leaving the condom part of the law alive. So the LA County Public Health Department cant do condom inspections. They wont even do them if a producer called up and said "hey come to my set I have condoms!" So in essence its not going to be enforced. It cant be enforced. No one wants to enforce it.

So AHF, in their infinite wisdom, now thinks that Prop 60 will close the "loopholes" they have created.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Its not only a porn issue.... blood-borne pathogens can be everyone's issue if this continues...

We filed this in May...

James Deen takes jab at MMA to make point about scrutiny of porn industry

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

wearing a hard hat doesn't impede the performance of the job in any significant way... that is, final house built is of equal quality whether hard hats were worn or not... so there is perhaps some validity to requiring them...

on the other hand, wearing a condom does impede the performance... many would argue that a scene featuring performers wearing condoms is of inferior quality... so it's far less clear why producers should be forced to produce an inferior product to "protect workers"...

Forget about one example of an employer having to take precautions to ensure the safety of employees. It's a no-win position.

There are lots of business laws where employers are legally mandated to employ certain safety measures for employees.

People here are only bitching because it might hurt their income. Which is where you come in with "a scene featuring performers wearing condoms is of inferior quality... so it's far less clear why producers should be forced to produce an inferior product to "protect workers"...".

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So if my wife and I make a sex tape with the intention of selling it for profit and we do not use a condom.... It's against the law?

Do you really think they would make a loophole for married couples?

What about civil partners?

Those dating?

It becomes a joke to enforce.

To everyone.

The establishment doesn't like us. Live with it or get out of porn. I've been doing this for decades and accepted that I'm on the fringe. How many here tell people they're in porn?

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So if my wife and I make a sex tape with the intention of selling it for profit and we do not use a condom.... It's against the law?

technically yes...if you or your wife file an OSHA complaint AND OSHA investigates the other could be in trouble

If neither of you files a complaint its a moot point

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Which law ? We have CalOSHA's CCR 5193, Measure B in LA County and now possibly AHF's Prop 60 - all dealing with condoms in porn. So its not just one law, its 3 that you might have to comply with and it also depends on where you are shooting in California.

5193 is state-wide but only applies to employer-employee relationships, Measure B is only in LA County with the exception of Pasadena and Long Beach who have their health departments have have not adopted Measure B which applies to all commercial filming and Prop 60 will also be state wide which is not very clear on the issue...

Its a cluster-fuck.

This is only true from a state standpoint if Federal OSHA gets involved like they told me they are going to if we dont get STDs under control, then the state laws are moot federal workplace laws prevail

state laws may NOT be less effective than the federal law thats why The FSC has failed so many times, the most recent requiring performers to get a Doxycycline shot every two weeks....ya The FSC didnt crow much about that one but its true.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

So contracters not using condoms is ok. Employees not using condoms is a problem.

wrong federal OSHA requires condom use BUT theres a caveat...IF you have fewer than 10 employees OSHA will not investigate UNLESS one of those emplyees files a formal complaint against you with OSHA

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Rochard

It seems a bit silly, does't it?

It does when people intentionally muddy up the water, its really pretty straight forward. And if the guy I talked to at Federal OSHA is to be believed if Prop 60 fails OSHA will land HARD on Porn Valley making Prop 60 seem like a gift.

In reality Prop 60 simply makes it mandatory for porn companies to pay for medical treatment IF they dont use condoms and someone gets an STI (any STI) OSHA originally ignored us, not wanting to deal with it but we started dropping our mistakes in the laps of the taxpayers and charities and AHF decided they were tired of paying foir our fuckups and sued to force California and OSHA to enforce the laws on the books (since the early 90s)

If you were AHF and were picking up the tab for multimillion dollar fuckups made by an industry that supposedly is a multi billion dollar a year biz youd prolly get upset about it as well...I am not a spokesman for AHF or for FSC just pointing out the reality...
Most people here dont know it but AHF used to work closely with the biz, they were very supportive of AIM and Weinstein worked personally with Sharon Mitchell. He said many many times that if p[orn valley didnt get a grip on stds in the biz that he would initiate an effort to make the government do it for us, I wrote about it all they way back in the early 2000s....this is just the chickens coming home to roost.

BUT if yer a mom and pop type operation with a vanity site or clips store this really wont effect you.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Forget about one example of an employer having to take precautions to ensure the safety of employees. It's a no-win position.

There are lots of business laws where employers are legally mandated to employ certain safety measures for employees.

People here are only bitching because it might hurt their income. Which is where you come in with "a scene featuring performers wearing condoms is of inferior quality... so it's far less clear why producers should be forced to produce an inferior product to "protect workers"...".

it's not just about hurting someone's income, with no condom laws, everyone involved is better off:
- consumers get the content they prefer - win for them
- shooters get more business shooting no condom scenes - win for them
- models get more work shooting no condom scenes - win for them

by requiring condoms, all 3 parties would be worse off... I'm not sure how you can push for policy that would make everyone involved worse off...

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not just about hurting someone's income, with no condom laws, everyone involved is better off:
- consumers get the content they prefer - win for them
- shooters get more business shooting no condom scenes - win for them
- models get more work shooting no condom scenes - win for them

by requiring condoms, all 3 parties would be worse off... I'm not sure how you can push for policy that would make everyone involved worse off...

this is all mostly true but the win from prop 60 kicks in when a performer gets an sti

In the past if it were HIV the industry would waste no time making sure that they tell everyone you didnt get iot in porn, whether you probably did or not, all your connections to the biz are severed, you have no income, no way to get a job and the drugs that save your life cost 1500 bucks a month, and you really dont want to die.

so your doctor or pharmacist says call AHF they will not turn you down, you do so and AHF sends you to good doctors, makes sure you get the meds you need to stay alive and work to find you employment.

so most likely it isnt HIV but the way too common chlamydia or gonorrhea, currently its on you to get treated no matter where you got it, its also on you to pay for your testing....and lets not forget porn doesnt test for it to be in your throat or anus....so a lot of people have it and dont know it because their so called test was clean...ooops

if prop 60 passes the producer has to pay for your testing and your treatment if a condom wasnt used and its likely thats where you were infected....thats a win and a BIG one

and the truth is that condoms do not hurt sales, even though Im no fan I have gone condom only for the time being and it hasnt hurt sales one dime. Wicked is currently the most successful studio in porn valley...they are condom only, so is immoral who make more money than most of you combined.

I think that the industry would be way better served by spending the money we are spending fighting a losing battle on a methodology that would make condoms optional AND provide harm reduction. The whole idea of trying to outspend AHF by the FSC is an example of gross financial mismangement AHF brings in billions of dollars in donations, The FSC doesnt even bring in anywhere near 1 million and what it does bring in OVER half goes to pay the executive directors salary....ya gotta ask yourself is this REALLY the right way to spend your very limited resources.....Weinstein told Sharon Mitchell ages ago that AHF could completely bankrupt the FSC with exactly the tactics that they are using.

Ya gotta wonder.....

[pornlaw]

I wonder when did Weinstein change his mind when it comes to porn and condoms. And why did he decide that spending millions on lawyers, lobbyists, TV ads, pollsters, ballot signers was better than treating a few more people infected with HIV. That is exactly what AHF does...

12 years ago he was perfectly fine with not getting involved in the issue... He actually deferred to Mitchell and AIM to handle the issue. See below.

He's now spent tens of millions of dollars trying to impose condoms into porn... two California legislative bills (defeated), a LA County Ballot Measure (approved but dead), a CalOSHA regulation to amend 5193 to include porn (defeated) and now Prop 60...

12 years ago Michael Weinstein could careless about the HIV and porn or condoms for that matter. He attended a California Assembly Subcommittee meeting titled “Worker Health and Safety in the Adult Film Industry.” This is the actual summary of his testimony from the meeting;

“Mr. Weinstein made the point that there are thousands of HIV infections occurring all over the country and the world and yet the media and Legislature are now focused on the handful of infections that have recently occurred in the porn industry. He also stated that AIM may be best suited to deliver HIV testing and prevention services to the porn community rather than other HIV related organizations like AIDS Healthcare Foundation.”

You can read the full report here - > https://adultbizlaw.files.wordpress....ngreport-1.pdf

Could it be because he saw how much the media would focus on AHF and HIV if they themselves made "condoms in porn" their issue ?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not just about hurting someone's income, with no condom laws, everyone involved is better off:
- consumers get the content they prefer - win for them
- shooters get more business shooting no condom scenes - win for them
- models get more work shooting no condom scenes - win for them

by requiring condoms, all 3 parties would be worse off... I'm not sure how you can push for policy that would make everyone involved worse off...

So if a performer gets HIV, that's not a problem.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Could it be because he saw how much the media would focus on AHF and HIV if they themselves made "condoms in porn" their issue ?

So politicians shouldn't take any notice of what people are saying.

This is like 2257. Everyone is butt hurt because a law is making their job a little harder. So what if 15-year-olds end up in porn or models get HIV.

Fuck em all so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So politicians shouldn't take any notice of what people are saying.

This is like 2257. Everyone is butt hurt because a law is making their job a little harder. So what if 15-year-olds end up in porn or models get HIV.

Fuck em all so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.

Porn has (or is) moving to less hostile regulatory jurisdictions. §§ 2256 - 2257A were duplicitous with the intent of intimidating a constitutionally protected adult industry out of business.

These legal maneuvers, as predicted, globalized porn and may have had a lot to do with the rise of pirate tubes and the organized copyright theft. No major tubes are in USA jurisdiction -- this may be circumstantial however this does not change the reality of where they are located.

Porn valley will either relocate or will adhere to these new regulations if they remain in their jurisdiction.

Make no mistake: The US government is not porn friendly by any measure.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I wonder when did Weinstein change his mind when it comes to porn and condoms. And why did he decide that spending millions on lawyers, lobbyists, TV ads, pollsters, ballot signers was better than treating a few more people infected with HIV. That is exactly what AHF does...

12 years ago he was perfectly fine with not getting involved in the issue... He actually deferred to Mitchell and AIM to handle the issue. See below.

He's now spent tens of millions of dollars trying to impose condoms into porn... two California legislative bills (defeated), a LA County Ballot Measure (approved but dead), a CalOSHA regulation to amend 5193 to include porn (defeated) and now Prop 60...

12 years ago Michael Weinstein could careless about the HIV and porn or condoms for that matter. He attended a California Assembly Subcommittee meeting titled ?Worker Health and Safety in the Adult Film Industry.? This is the actual summary of his testimony from the meeting;

?Mr. Weinstein made the point that there are thousands of HIV infections occurring all over the country and the world and yet the media and Legislature are now focused on the handful of infections that have recently occurred in the porn industry. He also stated that AIM may be best suited to deliver HIV testing and prevention services to the porn community rather than other HIV related organizations like AIDS Healthcare Foundation.?

You can read the full report here - > https://adultbizlaw.files.wordpress....ngreport-1.pdf

Could it be because he saw how much the media would focus on AHF and HIV if they themselves made "condoms in porn" their issue ?

According to Weinstein and several others I have spoken to it started to be an issue when the porn industry started costing him a lot of money (ie follow the money and you find the motive)

he got tired of having to pay for medical treatment and lifesaving drugs and working to find former porn performers meaningful employment. He got tired of having "our mistakes dropped in his lap" He said we made plenty of money as an industry to take care of these people and that we needed to be more selective about whom we accepted into the biz and figured if we were held responsible for our mistakes we would be....he certainly over estimated the porn industry on that front.

Bu8t lets be honest...can you blame him, if it was your money going to pay for the mistakes of someone else wouldnt that motivate you to hold them more accountable?

He told Mitch a LONG time ago that this was going to have to be stopped, he was actually more than patient...and now we have the chickens coming home to roost.

Let me add that The FSC idea of continuing to fight these losing battles over and over are playing right into his game plan, at some point The FSC and the industry has to look at what it has spent and say ya know, we could just use condoms and end up with a lot more money in our pockets. AHF can and will bankrupt The FSC fighting these battles over and over and the end result is still gonna be that condoms are the law.

Seriously someone in Porn Valley Cali needs to wake the fuck up and say wait a minute....

[The Porn Nerd]

With today's technology can't they simply CGI out the condoms? When it comes to the money shot performers will have to be quick to whip the condom off or they can clean that up in editing.

This is all fantasy for the viewer anyway so what's the problem? Lots of coders and computer geeks out of work who would love to CGI-out condoms all day long. Fuck, outsource it to India for $1 an hour.

Come on people! Instead of spending gazillions on 3D and VR (which most consumers won't use to view porn anyway) spend it on an army of little Haji's blurring out condoms. Problem solved.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

With today's technology can't they simply CGI out the condoms? When it comes to the money shot performers will have to be quick to whip the condom off or they can clean that up in editing.

This is all fantasy for the viewer anyway so what's the problem? Lots of coders and computer geeks out of work who would love to CGI-out condoms all day long. Fuck, outsource it to India for $1 an hour.

Come on people! Instead of spending gazillions on 3D and VR (which most consumers won't use to view porn anyway) spend it on an army of little Haji's blurring out condoms. Problem solved.

We have a winner in the common sense contest......sadly you are all but alone in porn valley....

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Make no mistake: The US government is not porn friendly by any measure.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

With today's technology can't they simply CGI out the condoms? When it comes to the money shot performers will have to be quick to whip the condom off or they can clean that up in editing.

This is all fantasy for the viewer anyway so what's the problem? Lots of coders and computer geeks out of work who would love to CGI-out condoms all day long. Fuck, outsource it to India for $1 an hour.

Come on people! Instead of spending gazillions on 3D and VR (which most consumers won't use to view porn anyway) spend it on an army of little Haji's blurring out condoms. Problem solved.

Open a business offering the service.

[baddog]

That commercial is played a lot down here now

[marcop]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

According to Weinstein and several others I have spoken to it started to be an issue when the porn industry started costing him a lot of money (ie follow the money and you find the motive)

he got tired of having to pay for medical treatment and lifesaving drugs and working to find former porn performers meaningful employment. He got tired of having "our mistakes dropped in his lap" He said we made plenty of money as an industry to take care of these people and that we needed to be more selective about whom we accepted into the biz and figured if we were held responsible for our mistakes we would be....he certainly over estimated the porn industry on that front.

STI's in porn were costing the AHF a lot of money? As I remember, pretty much every porn performer would go to AIM to get treated for the inevitable STI they picked up while working. So were the AHF somehow funding AIM?

Also, there was the 2004 HIV outbreak, and before it the "Marc Wallace" outbreak, and probably some infections between those two--but not that many total HIV infections--so why would that cost the AHF a lot of money? Were they paying for the treatment of the infected former performers?

[Joshua G]

What a hoot to read liberal rochard, whining about liberal safety regs.

What a fucking hypocrite!

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

it's not just about hurting someone's income, with no condom laws, everyone involved is better off:
- consumers get the content they prefer - win for them
- shooters get more business shooting no condom scenes - win for them
- models get more work shooting no condom scenes - win for them

by requiring condoms, all 3 parties would be worse off... I'm not sure how you can push for policy that would make everyone involved worse off...

So a performer getting AIDS is fine so long as the profit margin is better. Argue that in a court of law.

And the argument about business moving out of California is stupid. Think about it for a minute. Also California legislates for California, so that's all they care about.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Porn has (or is) moving to less hostile regulatory jurisdictions. §§ 2256 - 2257A were duplicitous with the intent of intimidating a constitutionally protected adult industry out of business.

These legal maneuvers, as predicted, globalized porn and may have had a lot to do with the rise of pirate tubes and the organized copyright theft. No major tubes are in USA jurisdiction -- this may be circumstantial however this does not change the reality of where they are located.

Porn valley will either relocate or will adhere to these new regulations if they remain in their jurisdiction.

Make no mistake: The US government is not porn friendly by any measure.

Did you ever expect a US government to be porn-friendly

[celandina]

New California porn star.. ( soon the rest of the USA)



Oh yea, the condom ( male or female) not included ;)

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So if my wife and I make a sex tape with the intention of selling it for profit and we do not use a condom.... It's against the law?

yes, that is true, it is against the law

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So if a performer gets HIV, that's not a problem.

HIV transmission happened in 2004 via black male talent. ban black male talent?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

With today's technology can't they simply CGI out the condoms? When it comes to the money shot performers will have to be quick to whip the condom off or they can clean that up in editing.

This is all fantasy for the viewer anyway so what's the problem? Lots of coders and computer geeks out of work who would love to CGI-out condoms all day long. Fuck, outsource it to India for $1 an hour.

Come on people! Instead of spending gazillions on 3D and VR (which most consumers won't use to view porn anyway) spend it on an army of little Haji's blurring out condoms. Problem solved.

that's a great idea and we can subsidize that by pulling 70% of yours and mike souths income... we will all be so happy !!!

[ilnjscb]

get involved against 60

[faxxaff]

Never heard of any reasonably educated argument against the use of condoms in porn. The thing is: it will be more demanding to produce good content. As a result movies will become much better quality wise.

Just look at censored Japanese porn. They produce great movies despite the fact that other countries are able to produce uncensored content. Censorship didn't dent their profits at all.

[ZENRA]

Originally Posted by faxxaff

Never heard of any reasonably educated argument against the use of condoms in porn. The thing is: it will be more demanding to produce good content. As a result movies will become much better quality wise.

Just look at censored Japanese porn. They produce great movies despite the fact that other countries are able to produce uncensored content. Censorship didn't dent their profits at all.

Agreed with most of what you said.

Though I think the issue with censored content is that it's been a ground rule in Japan since day one. I can't imagine the uproar if they were forced to completely switch to censored after decades of uncensored. Then again, there is a big market now for uncensored Japanese and surprise-surprise: pretty much zero condom usage there. What I wonder is since the biggest player for uncensored Japanese AV is a California-incorporated company, would they be covered if this proposition passes even if their content is shot all in Japan?

On the subject of condoms in JAV, there are censored studios that make a deal not to use them and I've no issue with this. Sometimes the mosaic is low enough so you can tell there's no condom used. One studio we work with goes even further by sometimes having the actor's pull out for the first squirt before going right back in (with zero camera cuts) to show that it's real.

My objection of requiring condoms in adult video stems from freedom of expression. If you've consenting adults wanting to have sex, then let them any way they want. Nobody's being forced (and if they are, that's a whole other issue that goes well beyond what this thread and the proposed California law is about I think).

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

HIV transmission happened in 2004 via black male talent. ban black male talent?

Just make people wear condoms. But that might affect your income, so who cares if someone gets an STD?