adult film industry

California’s Condom Mandate: Some Things Shouldn’t Be Up for a Vote

by Michelle Minton on January 23, 2012 · 1 comment

in Features, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony

Post image for California’s Condom Mandate: Some Things Shouldn’t Be Up for a Vote

Some things should not be up for a vote. Among those things is whether consenting adults should be required to use condoms when they have sex. For many years, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has called for a mandate on condoms in adult films and recently collected enough signatures to add their legislation to the next city ballot. And last week the LA city council voted in favor of denying permits to adult films that do not abide by the condom requirement. While these efforts may be well-intentioned, a condom mandate violates actors’ rights to free speech, association, and choice—and likely will be counterproductive.

Current national workplace safety standards, as stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), require employers to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers in hazardous situations—for example, hard hats for construction workers. Notably, OSHA laws provide exemptions for workers who refuse to use the PPE on religious grounds. Unlike many other OSHA protection rules, this condom mandate does not allow for any flexibility in the type of protection workers may use: it requires some form of barrier protection and would not allow actors to voluntarily not use the protection (though I doubt any actor would seek a religious exemption). While sexually transmitted infection is certainly a risk on adult film sets, a condom mandate is a one-size-fits-all solution that certainly doesn’t “fit all”.

As many in and out of adult film industry have noted, the mandate prevents actors and filmmakers from expressing themselves as they wish—a clear violation of the First Amendment. While “obscene” speech is not guaranteed the same constitutional protection as other types of expression, the adult industry as a whole cannot be lumped into the obscenity category. The “Miller Test,” which is used to determine obscenity based on the 1973 Supreme Court case, Miller v California, would have to be applied to every film before the state of California would have the right to restrict their expression.

[click to continue…]

Feminist Porn Director Supports Freedom of Individual Choice

by Michelle Minton on November 4, 2010

in Health and Illness, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Porn actress, director, and self-described “kinky feminist,” Madison Young, spoke out in an interview with Salon.com about her feelings in the condom debate that has reemerged in the California adult film industry in the wake of recent news that an actor tested positive for HIV.

…I think [the push to mandate condom use in the industry] could be a mistake. Making condoms mandatory for all adult films is just as confining and dis-empowering as eliminating condoms as an option for performers.

While groups like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and arm-chair advocates want to refuse the choice of actors and directors about what is best for their own health and careers, Young is one of many industry insiders advocating for the rights of individual actors to choose whether or not to use condoms, another method of protection, or none at all.

As a director, I feel that creating a condom-optional policy for my talent works best. I shoot a lot of real-life couples that don’t use condoms in their personal life so they choose not to use them. Also sometimes women who have latex allergies or experience discomfort from using condoms opt not to use them in their scene. But they always have that choice.

Young joins the ranks of other directors and stars speaking out for freedom of choice in spite of the very real threat of sexually transmitted infection (STI). While disease is a frightening and dangerous possibility for those in the adult entertainment business (as well as anyone else engaging in sexual activities), Young and others seem to recognize that an even scary and harmful prospect is the infringement on the freedoms of speech, expression, and the elimination of personal choice.

My Role Model, Jenna Jameson

by Michelle Minton on October 27, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

As a self-made business mogul, a mother and wife, and a cancer survivor, there are many aspects of Jenna Jameson to admire and emulate. That said, I’m not looking to Jameson’s movies for advice on safe sex; just as I wouldn’t turn to Martin Scorcese for lessons on how to be a successful cab driver in New York City. Movies are works of art, fiction, and fantasy. The argument that condoms should be made mandatory in pornographic films due to viewers potentially imitating what they see on screen is logically indefensible and somewhat shocking, considering that it is written on a site that regularly publishes articles defending freedom of speech, free expression, and keeping government out of the bedroom.

Kellee Terrell’s article, posted on Huffington Post yesterday, gives us a glimpse into the type of thinking that leads many intellectuals to advocate at one time for social liberty while at the same time demanding that government intervene in the personal choices of others. It stems from a condescending disbelief in the ability and the right of the average individual to make choices about their own life.

Why the Porn Industry’s HIV Problem Is Our Problem, Too:

While it is obvious that not using condoms on porn sets is a safety hazard, I have often wondered: How much of a safety hazard is it for viewers to consume condomless porn? How much does watching bareback sex influence or reinforce our desire to mimic that same behavior in our own lives?

…I am not so naïve as to believe that if the porn industry were to make condom use mandatory, that act alone would completely revolutionize how Americans view safer sex or condoms. But it cannot be denied just how powerful media is …

Perhaps now is the time for the porn industry to make some changes in terms of safer sex practices — not just for the sake of their own employees, but for the sake of all of us.

It is not the porn industry’s responsibility to teach anything to anyone. They make films and money. We can call them artists, or business people, and though some may release instructional videos, it isn’t fair to label them as custodians of anyone’s sexual decisions.  It may be interesting to examine possible correlations between behavior and viewing habits, but even a evident connection would not make actors, directors, or producers culpable for that behavior.

Based on Terrell’s logic couldn’t the argument be made that we ought to ban films and TV shows that feature rebellious youth (i.e. My So Called Life), dangerous driving (Rebel Without a Cause) or victimization of women (everything on the Lifetime TV Network) lest someone takes them as guidance for their life choices?

Obviously, this isn’t the case. It may seem incomprehensible that the same people arguing for a condom mandate are the same people who would normally scream at the top of their lungs if the government tried to regulate bedroom activities. However, because pornography is an issue of capitalism, of “big business,” they look upon the actors as victims in need of protection-whether they want it or not.

It is not the government’s right to regulate how adults engage in sexual activity; we each can and should take responsibility for our own sexual safety. And, as Jenna Jameson has proven throughout her career, adult film actors also should be left free from government interference to make the decisions that affect their lives and career.

Note: Jenna Jameson appears to favor either a condom mandate or at least some stronger regulations on set.  That doesn’t affect her status as a sharp business lady, but, like I said, I’m not looking to her for safe sex advice–nor am I looking to her for regulatory analysis.

Porn Stars Get Behind Personal Choice by Opposing Condom Mandates

by Michelle Minton on October 25, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk

The most recent case of porn actor testing positive for HIV has renewed calls (or at least media attention to the calls) for a condom mandate in all adult films produced in Los Angeles County.

Last year, activists at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation petitioned California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health and unsuccessfully sued the county Department of Public Health to put a condom mandate in place claiming that it was an issue of worker safety.

However, the decision should be left up to the production companies and the actors themselves to determine the best way to protect themselves, their companies, and their reputations.

While this latest case has certainly caused some concern among adult performers in California, most of the calls for a condom mandate are coming from outside observers. Furthermore, many actors, such as the renowned adult actress Nina Hartley, have come out against taking away the choice from performers:

“As someone who is still working on the camera myself, I don’t feel any safer with condoms,” she said at a hearing in downtown Los Angeles in June.

Many of the actors in the business oppose the proposed mandate for condom usage. Some even claim that condoms make exposure to HIV and AIDS more likely due to “rubber rash” and friction burns, especially for female performers.

Ernest Greene, a longtime director and Hartley’s partner, explains on his blog:

[A single scene amounts to] over two hours of intercourse in various positions with constant stops and starts during which male performer’s erections rise and fall, condoms frequently tear or unravel and the degree of latex abrasion on the internal membranes of female performers’ vaginas lead to micro-abrasions that make them more vulnerable to all kinds of STIs. Most condom-only female performers eventually abandon condom use, not under pressure from producers, but rather because of the constant rawness and end-on-end bacterial infections produced by countless hours of latex drag.

In addition to problems with enforcement, there’s also the problem of personal choice and freedom of expression. In the end it is the individual actor’s choice to get into the adult entertainment industry and their choice whether or not they wear a condom.

At the same June hearing with Nina Hartley, an adult film actor who goes by the name Jeremy Steele, put it best when he said:

“There is no way to make the industry risk-free. Making things safer does not make it safe. If you’re worried or paranoid, you should not be in this industry.”

Regulation of the Day 81: Porn

by Ryan Young on December 9, 2009

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Marginal Revolution’s Alex Tabarrok points to a proposed rule in California that would reclassify adult film actors as being subject to certain employment regulations. The unintended consequences are potentially fatal:

California’s anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment; therefore the adult film industry’s current testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV monthly, would be illegal. Nor would adult film producers be allowed to “discriminate” by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks–particularly since condom breakage or slippage can occur.

Sounds like regulators and activists need to think that one through a little more carefully.