I'd prefer not to see condoms be made mandatory for porn, unless the performers request it. But again, until they are polled and represented formally in this conversation it's seems disingenuous to me. I do like the idea of having health plans as a part of performer contracts though.
"AB 640 by Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, would have required porn producers to implement a series of health and safety measures on set to protect performers from sexually transmitted diseases. The measures would include requiring the use of condoms when filming sex scenes, as well as paying for medical testing, training and putting a health protection plan in writing.""paying for medical testing, training and putting a health protection plan in writing."
With the millions made on porn the above mentioned items should already be in place. Unfortunately (and not just in porn) big business thinks of us as disposable.
Having performers wear condoms is merely a "dog and pony show" especially if the performers aren't using them in their personal lives. You know the production company's are afraid of losing business if condom use is enforced, they will fight that tooth and nail.
In my honest opinion it should be totally the choice of the performer is she wants condoms or not. If they are made mandatory a few things will happen.
#1. People will continue to watch and pay for porn..it might be a bumpy road at first but it will pass.
#2. Porn companies will leave LA and shoot in other locations.
#3. It will drive the younger more amateur style companies underground and they will continue to shoot no matter what.
The fact of the matter is that pornography in one form or the other has been around since horny cave men painted naked pictures on stone walls. its not going anywhere...people will always want to watch beautiful women get fucked with or without a condom
I agree, but we shouldn't pretend that individual performers have the ability to make the decisions they would like to and continue to perform unmolested (no pun intended). The production studios and other financial backers etc have more weight within the industry and the only way performers would be able to exert some control would be if they organize and protect their own rights within the industry.
Of course that's not likely to happen, as this country has the lowest rates of union participation in the industrialized world (and highest rates of inequality, poverty, consumer debt, and medical cost induced bankruptcy), with fewer than 6% of private sector workers covered.
Still, I agree, and don't want to hear a bunch of politicians pander about protecting performers with bills like this.
The fact of the matter remains, we don't know what performers want, and leaving it to the discretion of individuals is to pretend or simply not care, that an individual if they wanted to really can't make a decision that goes against, what the industry has deemed as a profitable business practice.
Mr Peppa:
Highest rates of inequality? Inequality of what? That sounds great, means nothing.
Union participation? It has ruined - the US Postal service, the auto manufactures, and the public sector unions have bankrupted the country. Please spare me the "industrialized world" crap. They have never matched the US so far. And unless, "progressives" finish the job of bringing us to their low level, we don't need to compare to less successful countries.
Poverty? Poverty to an American is a family with only one big screen TV. Poverty in Philippines is living in the squatter area because you have nothing.
High rates of consumer debt? It isn't illegal to be stupid.
High medical costs? If is free in the Philippines, because they have none for the squatters
Of course we don't know what the performers want, why should we? They have to decide for themselves. It is not the business of do gooders to try to figure out what is best for other people. Get the dumb government out of everything and let people decide for themselves.
I thought political junk just like Mr Peppa and mine and not allowed here? Delete all this crap
A woman wanting to do Porn is not a right of hers but a privilege. If a lady says "well if I can't wear condoms than nobody is going to hire me". Well she cannot tell a company how to spend their money. Bottom line she needs to either market herself as condom only or get another career.
R
here were other issues involved. I don't read the Huff Post, cause it gets me upset. However if you hang in there for the later parts of the interview. It MIGHT have something to do with her Boyfriend (of 2 years) in her Civie life. Who also happens to be a gay porn actor.... Oddly, his test came back hot shortly after hers.... Coinkiedink? Probably not.
I think there should be measures in place, sure. But tests only tell you where you been..not where you are. I went in for a regular screening the other day. I asked what the results would show....they said:
1. 14-21 days for Chlamydia. Ghonnereha & Syphilis
2. 90 days for The Herp
3. 120 day for The HIV
Yet they mention in the article....they suggest same day testing. I don't know if it shows up in your blood/ urine the next day & what they told me at the clinic is just the "medical machine" in operation. But if it is the Machine, their process is worse having someone think they are clean walking around for 3-4 months thinking "all's good"
They are IC's (Independent Contractors)...they're not employees. There will be no union. And that happened on the mid 1990's when we "officially" shifted away from manufacturing to a "Service Economy". As a result a LOT more people are no longer protected, nor should they be, by unions
Prostitution isn't going to go away any time soon either, no matter what the conservatives and ultra-conservatives say or do.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
