freedom of expression

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.”

Free Speech Free Zone

by Eli Lehrer on November 21, 2008

in Culture, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Where the 1960s Never Ended.

Ithaca: Where the 1960s Never Ended.

Ithaca, New York, home to my noble alma mater, has long been considered a place where the 1960s never ended. Now, via William Jacobson in The American Thinker we find that the Ithaca Common Council has voted to make Ithaca a “sanctuary city” for anti-war protesters–who, frankly, don’t need sanctuary anyway. But the Common Council hasn’t seen it fit to apply the same standard to those who might support the Iraq war. When a member of the Council challenged the idea that “minority”–pro-war–opinion might also need protection, it was voted down. The proposed amendment read as follows:

RESOLVED, That this Resolution be a reaffirmation of our commitment to the First Amendment, which ensures the rights of the people to freedom of expression and to peaceably assemble; that we are especially cognizant of the importance of protecting this right for the minority opinion, which may or may not be in agreement with sentiments expressed in this Resolution.

I covered the Ithaca Common Council myself as a reporter and, well, let’s just say that I routinely called it the “People’s Soviet.” Even though I still consider myself a fan of the self-described socialist who served as mayor of Ithaca for much of my time there, I think that this action surely gives the place a Soviet flavor.