...If the measure passes, the porn industry may move to another state, costing California jobs and lost income.

Does anyone here care?

I am kind of curious to know what people here think.

If so many people here flip out over the mention of BBFS, am I right to assume that people here support condom use in porn?

Why should porn actors have to be any less safe than we are?

I voted to require the condoms.

but I voted NO.  

I am all for condoms in porn and in personal life but this measure has several flaws in it.  

If it passes, you can still film unprotected sex in LA county.  This bill only covers the unincorporated areas of LA county.  So, you will have to use condoms in East LA but 10 miles north in Pasadena you don't.  All the other incorporated cities in the county will have to vote on it.

The bigger companies would follow the rules and get the needed health permits but smaller companies would skirt the law.  The county does not have the resources nor the ability  nor the interest of finding these underground operations.  

If it passes and they leave the valley, who cares right?  But all those behind the scenes people, camerman, lighting, make up artist and so on are out of work.  

Lastly, Weinstein, who is behind this, runs a non profit foundation. He says he is doing this to protect the lives of adult performers and the public.  Years ago, Adult Industry Medicine was the primary place where performers went for testing.  Weinstein was one of the biggest proponents of AIM and was a frequent protester in front of AIM to get them to closed down, which they later did.  So, why does a person so interested in protecting these performers work so hard to get something that did protect them shut down and then goes out and campaigns for this measure?

Most editorials agreed the intention is noble but this measure is not the right way to go about it.  

-- Modified on 11/6/2012 3:46:49 PM

-- Modified on 11/6/2012 3:48:29 PM

Why would you believe a porn industry rep on that?
Does it make sense to you?

It does not sound logical to me, but I havent studied it.
This article says that is BS.
It says,

"The ballot measure was initially spearheaded by AIDS Healthcare Foundation and members of FAIR (‘For Adult Industry Responsibility’) after as many as 22 HIV infections believed to be tied to the adult film industry were reported in two outbreaks in Los Angeles since 2004.

"It also came amid a report that said thousands of sexually transmitted infections occur annually among adult performers, a rate higher than prostitutes in Nevada."

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Condoms-Porn-Measure-B-177506791.html

Personally I used condoms for full service sex.  But I voted against Prop B.  Condoms just are not used in porn.  Porn actors are adults.  They make a choice to be in the business knowing the risks.  As soon as I heard about this proposition my first thought was there may be an underlying issue.  Lots of people don't like porn and can't stand the thought of having the porn business in their community.  They think this restriction will cause the porn business to move out of Los Angeles county.  It's their way of getting rid of something they don't like.

You make a good argument.

I dont have the knowledge to know the reply.

Some improvements for safety in the industry are better than none.

But I agree that a better initiative that really protects the actors is best of all.

Better safe than sorry.  I really don't believe the porn
industry is going to find other cities,counties, states will
welcome them in with open arms to film BB.

I found it amusing that on ballot page the first thing you see are the large letters B & J. The prop says condoms for" all sex acts" so I suppose that would cover oral sex as well. If that idea caught on in the hobby world it could be a deal breaker for a lot of us.

Porn viewers overwhelmingly oppose condoms. I am not stating this as a "right" or "wrong"...just as a fact.

Here's a link to a very good blog about the issue...that, ironically enough, was written almost a year and a half ago when this issue was just first being brought up.

http://trvewestcoastfiction.blogspot.com/2011/05/condom-debate-as-i-see-it.html?zx=93da001016380c85

Porn actors/actresses get tested every two weeks.

I think it's a bit different than doing BBFS with a client or provider...

Not only is Measure B not comprehensive (doesn't cover all of LA evenly or equally), but it takes away a performer's right to choose what they deem appropriate and comfortable in terms of safe sex, instead relegating that decision to the county. There are already VERY stringent measures in place for testing in the porn industry, and sex workers know their boundaries and bodies better than LA County health officials. Furthermore, the HIV incidence rate in the porn industry is quite low!! As for some of my feminist friends who mistakenly (but with good intentions) thought this was about keeping women safe and not subjecting performers to unreasonable STI risks; I told them to take a look at queer porn companies in SF (who are first and foremost feminist); they do NOT require the use of condoms or dental dams because they believe it is up to performers to decide what is best for them. Moreover, there will always be a market for BBFS in porn, and companies will continue to try to meet that demand, which means moving production either away from LA (loss of jobs) or underground, which would greatly increase safety risks to performers.

This measure is not about safety.  It's about harassing the porn business.  The last thing I want when I'm shooting a porn movie is to have some pervy inspectors coming on the set to see if my scene partner is wearing condoms.  

I have voluntarily been a condom only performer since 1993 when that decision was not a popular one and I lost a lot of work because of it.  But it was my choice.

This measure is not about their concern for performer safety.

I wish all companies were condom only.  But that just isn't going to happen.  Now they will take their productions outside of Los Angeles county.

When I first started in the business, we used to always shoot in San Francisco because law enforcement was trying to enforce the pandering law against the industry.  It was the only law on the books that could possibly make shooting porn illegal.  So basically the only thing that was illegal about making porn was paying us.   They used to always pay us in cash and many of the sets used to get raided and they'd handcuff and arrest everyone.  I was fortunate enough to have never been on a set that was raided, but I knew a lot of people who were.

Then in 1989, the case of People vs. Hal Freeman went down and the judge basically said that  they couldn't enforce the pandering law against the porn industry because if they did, they'd have to indict all of hollywood because they had sex scenes in their movies too.  So then it finally be came legal to pay us.

After that they started shooting in Los Angeles again and the raids stopped.  The were now able to pay us as legitimate employees and we would  have taxes taken out of our paycheck.

But there are the forces that be that just want to make things hard for the porn industry, and now they want to make it a criminal act just for not wearing a condom in the movies.  

This measure is not about safety, it's about harassment.

just my two cents.

Keisha

As Keisha said below, this issue is more about porn than anything.

It will be fascinating to see what the porn industry is going to do about this.  A lovely gentleman sent me an article this morning about how the industry is threatening to sue.  I look forward to seeing to how it all plays out.

I failed to mention on my earlier post about Big brother being on the set checking to see if performers are wearing condoms.   The county can not manage some of its bigger obligations like its prison systems and health care system but it now has to send county employees to porn sets to watch performers have sex.  Only in LA County where you have to wear condoms if you have sex on camera but can not get bags for your groceries.  


This is a sad day with the passage of this measure.  We are going back to the early days in porn when they government was trying to suppress it.  

Maybe the industry will sue or start a protest at the foundations clothing stores.  

-- Modified on 11/8/2012 10:25:43 AM

More government is never a good thing!
I'm sure the actors and actresses are testing themselves and others before performing.
And what about the money shots!?

A giant over stepping of personal freedom.

If you're not involved in it, why would you vote to regulate someone else's life?!

And yes, the valley will lose a lot of money and people will need to move.

Can't believe how casually people vote on anything.

Keisha, I totally concur.  A lawsuit will bring out the real motives of the forces behind this sham.  This is not an appropriate role of government particularly since the industry is vested in having performers tested
on a regular basis.

I personally prefer BBFS in my porn and in my personal life, but use condoms in my life as a hobbiest.  Why don't porn actors use HAART compounds, which have side effects but have been shown to prevent HIV infection?!?  Then again, why don't athletes use steroids for my fucking pleasure?