Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Only in ...... California?

You would think that a ballot measure requiring porn actors to wear condoms during vaginal and anal intercourse in films would have sprung from somewhere deep in the Bible belt of the South.

But no.

It came from Los Angeles. The city where I saw my very first porn film.The city where I gave my first XXX theater blow job. The city where I was first filmed having sex with a guy while I was drunk at some frat party (yes, there are Kat sex films out there; good luck finding them. I think they were shot on Super 8).

L.A.? Seriously????


Measure B, the "Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act," passed yesterday, 56% to 44%.  The act mandates the use condoms in porn films and requires that porn producers apply for a permit from the public health department to shoot sex scenes. Of course, there will be inspections on the sets to validate compliance with the new law.

Proponents of the measure argued that they just wanted to keep people safe, and porn actors were setting a bad and unhealthy example by not wearing condoms.

Stop laughing!  This is serious.

I can imagine some of these people watching a porn film and thinking (maybe even saying), "Oh my God! Look away! Look away!  They are not wearing condoms!"

I take that back.  I can't imagine them watching a porn film. When I try, I throw up in my mouth a little.

The questions are flying through my head right now.  Did they expect to find good examples of public health in a porn film?

And where are all of the "leave my body the fuck alone" feminists and others out there who will fight government intrusion on their bodies to the death?  Governmental regulation of the female body is bad, but it's ok for the male body?

Are we seriously planning to start regulating the actual sex act now?

Do you truly believe that this will cause young men everywhere (well, at least the ones in L.A.) to start thinking, "Pass the condoms!  If they are good enough for John Horsehung, they're good enough for me! I don't care if I hate them. Safety first!"

What about porn actors who are allergic to latex and their religion prevents the use of lambskin condoms? Will they be discriminated against for employment because of their disability and religion?

Is public safety what this was really all about?

I don't think so.  I'm pretty sure that it was 1) an attempt by some nerdy bureaucrats to get to inspect porn sets regularly (how cool would that job be?), and 2) an attempt to make some money for the city through permit fees. Imagine it. A separate permit for every sex scene. That's a lot of permits. Thank God it wasn't a permit for every faked orgasm or every instance of bad acting.  That would have been tragic.

But wait..... none of this is going to happen.  Why? Because all the porn production companies have to do is move out of Los Angeles. Measure B only affects porn films shot within the county limits. That means they can take the massive amount of tax money they currently give to LA County and give it to another county in southern California.

Of course, they would rather not have to move (they already have their favorite Starbucks scoped out), so they are challenging the law in court. Implementation will likely be put on hold until the legal challenge is complete.

So rest easy, Prowlers, your favorite porn stars are still going bareback for now.


Read more about Measure B here.


Advizor54 said...

Exactly. Besides all the wonderful points you made, there have been many interesting articles written by the porn stars themselves about how they thing this new law makes porn less safe.

Here is what I wrote to a friend who asked, "Why do people care if porn stars wear condoms?"

why I care

1- it's not sexy
2- it breaks the fantasy
3- it looks stupid

Why others care:
1- they think they have to"save" porn stars
2- they don't understand how porn polices itself
3- they think my three reasons will cut demand for porn
4- they want to drive porn production out of LA County.

Stoya and Kaden Kross did some nice writing on the issues. To me it is a non-issue started by people who just don't like naked women.

Great post!

And right, where are all the liberals now? They aren't about health & safety, they are about control, and this is a great example.

WestsideTori said...

Advizor, we sensible liberals simply went to the polls and voted against it.

Great post, Kat. Frat boys, yeech. Glad we don't have daughters for that reason alone.

the naked lady said...

What I really want to know is how closely they're going to inspect the scenes. Do they need to see the condoms in action, or just that you're donning your protective gear correctly?

Ryan Beaumont said...

I thought all the porn movies were made out in the Valley or is that still LA county?

I'm still thinking about a post about ya'll Genetically Inhanced Food Bill. It's ripe for satire!

Anonymous said...

" Thank God it wasn't a permit for every faked orgasm or every instance of bad acting. That would have been tragic."

Such permit, and their corresponding fees, would be more than tragic. They would bankrupt the entire porn industry in a few short takes.

Anonymous said...

So, are you all going to boycott porn now *smile*?

The porn "industry" has fought tooth and nail to be seen as such. Many other industries are regulated so as to benefit the worker and ensure the optimal level of safety for said employee. I'm kind of happy to see these initiatives being taken in the industry. I don't see it so much as controlling men's bodies, but more so as adding a "layer" of protection to ensure the safety of others.

I'm curious to know if the majority of performers in the industry supported the measure or not, considering the best regulatory measures come from those directly being affected. I guess one could also argue that the restriction to vaginal/anal sex sends a mixed message about safety being the main concern.

It could most certainly be a money grab by a bunch of bureaucrats and I fear that it will create an upsurge of "black maket" porn, where testing and safety are not a priority.