Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » NewsLetter Measure B
1-37 of 37 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

11-09-12  03:25pm - 658 days Original Post - #1
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,025
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
NewsLetter Measure B

From what I read the measure says:
Known officially as the “County of Los Angeles Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry Act,” Measure B was designed to require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the L.A. County Department of Public Health and pay a permit fee sufficient for necessary enforcement.

Furthermore, The fee will finance periodic inspections of porn filming, and violations will be subject to civil fines and criminal misdemeanor charges.

The adult film industry is planning to challenge Measure B in court, arguing it is a violation of free speech and will chase jobs and economic activity out of Los Angeles.
The Measure B, which requires actors in pornographic movies filmed locally to wear condoms when they shoot sex scenes is having some confusing with voter over the exact city or county area to be affected.

I do not live anywhere near S-Cal and am not in California wondered if any of you live there could explain what this was all about. I am also curious what people think if this was to go industry wide in some federal law. There was hint in Articles that California was looking at it as state law but wanted to see how this fared in court.


I was really surprised with the extreme liberalism of that state that this was even on any ballot. ( I was born and raised there don't live now so can say that ) .
I digress a state that legalizes pot and gay marriages infringes and says who must wear condoms ?

On a lighter note I put in my application today to be a member of the inspection team, to go and watch these scenes to make sure they comply, I know it is a dirty job but I am an American and willing to give one for team. I will spend days weeks or months if needed to get to the bottom ( pun intended ), of any Measure B violations.

11-09-12  04:34pm - 658 days #2
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,681
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
The industry opposition is probably based on concerns that this could be some kind of "slippery slope ..."

IF you'll pardon the expression. If you ask me, God gave us sex, and the Devil gave us STD's--not the other way around.

There's a Fuck My Ass 2 ? A sequel? I wonder how it compares to the original ...

11-09-12  04:44pm - 658 days #3
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,025
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by Drooler:


The industry opposition is probably based on concerns that this could be some kind of "slippery slope ..."

IF you'll pardon the expression.


hehehe

11-09-12  06:20pm - 658 days #4
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,543
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
The topic of requiring male porn actors to wear condoms has been addressed in the past on different threads. How much the passage of this requirement will have on filming in Southern California is anybody's guess. Some people have suggested that some filming might move out of area.

11-09-12  07:54pm - 658 days #5
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,917
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Nothing makes people gor rabid like talk of condom in porn.
I've been watching European made porn for decades and they have condoms in many of the movies I watch and somehow the scenes are still just as hot as if they were bareback.

A lot of people are making bold claims about porn going underground or moving out of LA to shoot but I wonder how many of them are doing that out of ignorance. Do these people know that porn is illegal in all but two States. california being one of them and New Hampshire being the other. I don't know but can you name one studio located in New Hampshire? I can't. The vast majority of studios are located in Los Angeles and the vast majority of the people who work and appear in porn live in LA.

I'm sure many studios will try to find a loophole in the law that works in their favor but I kind of feel sorry for them because they will waste huge amounts of money in doing so and will probably lose anyway.

The one that has me really scratching my head is Wicked studio because they came in favor of "No" on measure B and this is a studio that has been using condoms for over a decade. I've heard the expression Do as I say and Not as I do but this is the first time where I see it used in the reverse form. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-09-12  08:00pm - 658 days #6
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 876
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
It will be interesting to see if this law gets stopped. I'm in Cali - but northern - this was an LA-area measure and it sounded reasonable to people so people voted for it. You can see that even sites like Met-Art oppose it because it requires dental dams and other types of "protection" as well as condoms. Wicked put a lot of energy into fighting it for that reason, even though they are an all-condom company.

The other horrible prop passed in California - Prop 35 - an "anti-Human Trafficking" measure - also passed and has already been blocked by the courts. That horrible measure extended the definition of pimping and sex offender status so that, for instance if there is prostitution taking place on a landlord's property, then the landlord can be prosecuted as a pimp, since he/she would be an adult getting the financial benefit of the prostitution. Their property could be seized, they could be classified as a sex offender, put in that registry for life, forced to provide all internet log-in/password information to law enforcement, and required to inform law enforcement if they comment on any internet forums or join any internet groups within 24 hours. I'm not kidding.

11-09-12  08:47pm - 658 days #7
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by pat362:


Nothing makes people gor rabid like talk of condom in porn.
I've been watching European made porn for decades and they have condoms in many of the movies I watch and somehow the scenes are still just as hot as if they were bareback.

A lot of people are making bold claims about porn going underground or moving out of LA to shoot but I wonder how many of them are doing that out of ignorance. Do these people know that porn is illegal in all but two States. california being one of them and New Hampshire being the other. I don't know but can you name one studio located in New Hampshire? I can't. The vast majority of studios are located in Los Angeles and the vast majority of the people who work and appear in porn live in LA.

I'm sure many studios will try to find a loophole in the law that works in their favor but I kind of feel sorry for them because they will waste huge amounts of money in doing so and will probably lose anyway.

The one that has me really scratching my head is Wicked studio because they came in favor of "No" on measure B and this is a studio that has been using condoms for over a decade. I've heard the expression Do as I say and Not as I do but this is the first time where I see it used in the reverse form.


Getting around it won't be that difficult, they just have to start shooting outside of LA County now. So an extra 20-30 minute drive to set.

And the reason that even a company like Wicked was against it is because in addition to having to wear condoms, now each company that films in LA County will be required to pay for a license given by the Health Department stating that they are following all of the required regulations, which is going to cost thousands of dollars (they haven't decided the final cost of the permit, but the low end of the estimates are about $2,000) and require that you allow a Health Department to be able to come to set at any time for any reason for an inspection.

11-10-12  03:23am - 658 days #8
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 491
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
Porn illegal to shoot? Permits? Licenses?

We keep being told that the US is the "Land of the free" etc., but you don't seem to have much freedom at all when it comes to your adult industry.

I don't, but if I wanted to I could shoot porn (to sell commercially) in my house, friend's houses, hotel rooms, rented houses/apartments, caravans, private gardens etc. etc.. Obviously we have laws about obscene behaviour in public, making sure the models are 18+ and not causing injury or death, but I can shoot in any county, any town in the whole country (without permits etc.)

Oh, and prostitution is also legal here (although street soliciting isn't). It sounds to me (and I am on the other side of the Atlantic so my view of the situation may be somewhat skewed) that you all need to get together and get some freedom back. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity.

11-10-12  05:37am - 658 days #9
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,543
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
In parts of the UK, is it required to get the prostitute to sign a form saying the sex is consensual, and without the use of force?


>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<


From Wikipedia:

In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland it is an offence to pay for sex with a prostitute who has been “subjected to force” and this is a strict liability offence (clients can be prosecuted even if they didn’t know the prostitute was forced).

11-10-12  06:39am - 658 days #10
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,917
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


Getting around it won't be that difficult, they just have to start shooting outside of LA County now. So an extra 20-30 minute drive to set.



I may be wrong but I believe that if you're located in the affected region then it doesn't matter where you shoot because the law will still apply to you. Now you can always move your office out of the affected sector.

I'm also pretty sure that condoms are only to be used for vaginal or anal penetration so oral sex and handjobs are not an issue.

I know many people are against this but I've yet to hear one person say that the health of the performer is the reason why they are against it. The only people that seem to mention this do so by adding that testing will stop once condoms are used and that is completely false. Testing will continue and I'm pretty sure that they'll add more diseases to the standard test.

Here's a link to a small interview Mike South did with the author of the most recent STD study on porn performers and it clearly demonstrates that it's a myth that people who do porn have lower instances of std's than average people.

http://www.mikesouth.com/page/2/ Long live the Brown Coats.

11-10-12  08:02am - 658 days #11
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,025
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by pat362:




Here's a link to a small interview Mike South did with the author of the most recent STD study on porn performers and it clearly demonstrates that it's a myth that people who do porn have lower instances of std's than average people.

http://www.mikesouth.com/page/2/


They also have one of the highest reports of Hepatitis but is seldom associated with the industry as a whole ) no pun intended) And even testing does not show up often and a person can still pass it along even when a test does not show it. I wish I knew more and thought about writing my own investigation. Where I used to work I counseled and tested people for HIV and HEP but was not in the industry but the same exposure existed with my clients like it does with adult performers sadly they often do not find out for months sometimes a year or so depending on how sick they get.

11-10-12  09:04am - 657 days #12
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by pat362:


I may be wrong but I believe that if you're located in the affected region then it doesn't matter where you shoot because the law will still apply to you. Now you can always move your office out of the affected sector.

I'm also pretty sure that condoms are only to be used for vaginal or anal penetration so oral sex and handjobs are not an issue.

I know many people are against this but I've yet to hear one person say that the health of the performer is the reason why they are against it. The only people that seem to mention this do so by adding that testing will stop once condoms are used and that is completely false. Testing will continue and I'm pretty sure that they'll add more diseases to the standard test.

Here's a link to a small interview Mike South did with the author of the most recent STD study on porn performers and it clearly demonstrates that it's a myth that people who do porn have lower instances of std's than average people.

http://www.mikesouth.com/page/2/


You are wrong, it's about where the scene is shot, not necessarily where your headquarters actually are. Basically, if you shoot commercial footage in LA County, you're supposed to get a permit from the county to do so (from a place called FilmLA). And if you're an adult company that wants to get that permit, you have to follow the guidelines outlined by Measure B. So as long as you don't film in LA County, you don't need that permit, so you don't need to follow those guidelines, no matter where your company is headquartered.

And if we want to get technical, I know the study you're talking about, and what it says is that they have a higher incidence of chlamydia and gonorrhea. Both treatable with antibiotics, but that isn't the point. What pornographers generally say is that they have a lower instances of HIV transmission than the general population, which is undoubtedly true and he (nor anyone else) has proven other otherwise. And, interestingly enough, that study also says that the reason that the incidence is so high is because the testing is only done near the pubic region, and their positive tests come from the mouth and anus. Neither of which has to be covered according to this law.

11-10-12  10:01am - 657 days #13
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,025
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


interestingly enough, that study also says that the reason that the incidence is so high is because the testing is only done near the pubic region, and their positive tests come from the mouth and anus. Neither of which has to be covered according to this law.



Could you explain when you say results ?
I was not sure if you were referring to contraction of STD's or
?

Thanks

CT

11-10-12  10:26am - 657 days #14
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


Could you explain when you say results ?
I was not sure if you were referring to contraction of STD's or
?

Thanks

CT


I never actually used the word results, but I'll clarify the part that you quoted.

First, the industry tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea are both blood tests, as far as I know. So it doesn't matter where you actually contract the disease, it should show up on a positive test around the same time no matter the area of infection. But, basically, what the study Pat was trying to point out says is that most of the time, when they found that performers had these diseases, they didn't present on the pubic region, which is where most people check when looking for signs of the disease. They presented around the mouth or around the anus.

More than likely these people didn't test positive according to the industry database because since those two diseases are completely treatable with antibiotics (at least for now), when they found out they had it, they stopped performing, took the antibiotics, and waited until they got clean before they tested again. So, to extend that logic, if you go by the industry database, then they possibly can say that they have a lower instance of STDs than the general population, but that may be because performers that do have STDs are removing themselves from the amount of people tested for the time that they have them.

And this whole thing brings up a point I've made about how this isn't really about performer safety. If it was, then this is exactly the type of information that they could have given to the industry at large to try to help them improve their testing regiment (okay, let's teach everyone what those two diseases look like when they present orally and anally, and make sure that we check both of those orifices in addition to the pubic area before every scene). Instead, it's used as a blunt instrument to try to force them to wear condoms (proven by the fact that they waited until the week before the election to publish the results).

11-10-12  12:29pm - 657 days #15
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 973
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Originally Posted by pat362:


"...and New Hampshire being the other. I don't know but can you name one studio located in New Hampshire? I can't.


Just look for the ones with snow in the scenes Pat. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

11-10-12  05:51pm - 657 days #16
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,342
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Said it before, an' I'll say it again:
If we can apply makeup in films so skillfully that it would fool one's own mother, as well as so many other means developing in the minds of present-day film-makers and inovator's, then we should certainly overcome the problem of condoms being visible shooting sex scenes.

11-10-12  06:28pm - 657 days #17
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Just curious: Pat was mentioning that Porn is only legal in two States, California and New Hampshire.

A) I assume that should read production of Porn, or am I wrong?

B) I have many scenes from Bang Bros and Reality Kings that were filmed in Florida. Were they illegal shoots, and if they were why would the producers (either BB or RK or both) add their Florida address to the opening of their videos?

11-10-12  06:46pm - 657 days #18
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,917
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^
1-Yes, that should have read production of porn.

2-There are a couple of companies that shoot in Florida as well as other places in the US but I think they're playing with fire. Producing porn anywhere but California and New Hampshire is a legal grey area because the courts in only those 2 States recognized that shooting porn is not the same thing as prostitution. The courts recognizeed that paying two ore more people to have sex in a porn movie was different then paying two people to appear onscreen with you in a porn movie that you never planned to sell. Since there were only a few companies shooting outside of Los Angeles then that may not have been a big deal for those States but they may take a different outlook if more porn companies think of moving their operations to their State.

Of course the companies that shoot outside of California may still have their main offices in that State so the condom law would apply to them even though they aren't shooting in Los Angeles. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-10-12  06:50pm - 657 days #19
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
^ Thanks for your answers, Pat. Especially paragraph 2!

11-10-12  08:33pm - 657 days #20
skunk (0)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 56
Registered: Jun 21, '12
Location: UK/london
Hi all the condoms thing is not about the performers sadly it is for the people that see it. The Public Health people think that if you see unsafe sex that you will do the same so they would like to get all porn with condoms in. then your all will use condoms that is how they think. mmmmmmmmmm

In the USA the performers have to have blood tests and the rest to do porn films, safe or unsafe which is better then just a condoms.
Department of Public Health know people do not go for STD test as much as they like.

with people who do porn have lower instances of std's than average people.
Think this came about as porn stars have more sex then most do and not just with there work.
The porn stars i know have sex latest 1 a day.
Average people is about 1 or 2 a week. http://www.sexxximps.com

11-10-12  09:05pm - 657 days #21
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by pat362:


Of course the companies that shoot outside of California may still have their main offices in that State so the condom law would apply to them even though they aren't shooting in Los Angeles.


That's the second time you've said that and it isn't true. This measure has no jurisdiction outside of LA County, because the people administering it are the LA County Health inspectors, and they have no power outside of LA County. So if you aren't shooting there, you don't have to follow it.

11-10-12  10:47pm - 657 days #22
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,940
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


Porn illegal to shoot? Permits? Licenses?

We keep being told that the US is the "Land of the free" etc., but you don't seem to have much freedom at all when it comes to your adult industry.


"Land of the free" is one of our many bullshit campaign slogans, not an actual philosophy. Yes, our culture is "saturated"--to choose an appropriate descriptor--with sex but we're still a country of moral Puritans.

Still, some sites operate happily and in the black outside of the San Fernando Valley. Kink.com is in San Francisco, though that's hardly the Bible Best of America. ALSScan is in Maryland, literally on the other side of the continent, so porn won't exactly suffocate in a sea of latex and regulation.

But the whole "Land of the Free" thing always gives me a laugh. Try smoking a joint in public like you would a cigarette (which are also highly regulated) and see how "free" you feel when the next cop strolls by. Try saying "fuck" or showing a bare breast on broadcast TV without an accompanying fine. Or compare our prison population to any other country on earth and explain to me how any of it exactly equates to being "free."

Sorry, just my . What was the question again? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

11-11-12  01:29am - 657 days #23
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,940
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by PinkPanther:


It will be interesting to see if this law gets stopped. I'm in Cali - but northern - this was an LA-area measure and it sounded reasonable to people so people voted for it. You can see that even sites like Met-Art oppose it because it requires dental dams and other types of "protection" as well as condoms. Wicked put a lot of energy into fighting it for that reason, even though they are an all-condom company.

The other horrible prop passed in California - Prop 35 - an "anti-Human Trafficking" measure - also passed and has already been blocked by the courts. That horrible measure extended the definition of pimping and sex offender status so that, for instance if there is prostitution taking place on a landlord's property, then the landlord can be prosecuted as a pimp, since he/she would be an adult getting the financial benefit of the prostitution. Their property could be seized, they could be classified as a sex offender, put in that registry for life, forced to provide all internet log-in/password information to law enforcement, and required to inform law enforcement if they comment on any internet forums or join any internet groups within 24 hours. I'm not kidding.


I live in LA and I voted against both (the condom measure was technically called "Measure B - Safer Sex in Adult Films") and both passed...

The condom initiative just seemed silly and pedantic, particularly as a government-mandated regulation, like New York City's recent 16 ounces or less soda rule. I don't think of myself as a cold-hearted libertarian but I also don't think districts as populous as New York City or Los Angeles County have the time or the resources to be concerned with soda sizes or condom wearing.

No, it's not big government tyranny stamping its jackboot on my Big Gulp or my boy-girl porn (we have health and religious demagogues to do that), it's just politicians dreaming up make-believe ends so that they can justify rather useless legal means. In NYC you can still go to any store and cart away as many 2 liter (way over 16 oz.) bottles as you can afford. And in LA, as others have already mentioned, the porn can be shot outside of LA county so we can see all the rubber-free dicks our hearts desire. What good will come of either law, besides a lot of jokes?

As far as Prop 35 is concerned I think it had to do a lot with representation and simple naming rights. Like the PATRIOT Act back in 2001 I don't think voters felt comfortable going against an act that had the words "Human Trafficking" as its title, despite not understanding that we already have laws pertaining to it (I wonder how many actually thought we might not have any laws to deal with this). "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Nov 11, 2012, 02:01am (turboshaft: Spelling)

11-11-12  01:48am - 657 days #24
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,940
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


Getting around it won't be that difficult, they just have to start shooting outside of LA County now. So an extra 20-30 minute drive to set.


That's easier said than done. LA County is not just huge in population but it's gigantic geographically as well. And simply driving outside of it can have problems if those jurisdictions don't want porn seeping into their area (or any seeping for that matter). Neighboring Simi Valley said they didn't want porn coming from San Fernando Valley if condom rules drove the industry outside LA. Maybe they just didn't want people shooting porn within site of the Ronald Reagan Library, located in Simi Valley?

Either way there are economic consequences to so many studios located in LA and all of a sudden having to deal with a rule that their customer base has no desire to see enforced. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

11-11-12  01:53am - 657 days #25
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 876
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
Originally Posted by turboshaft:

(I wonder how many actually thought we might not have any laws to deal with this).


I think you have it exactly right - it's hard to Stand Up Against Laws Opposing Human Trafficking - and most people didn't read it beyond the title and didn't know that 2 anti-human trafficking laws - ones that been through hearings with experts who had a chance to make sure they were actually semi-decent legislation - had been signed into law 2 weeks ago in CA, along with all the previously existing anti-human trafficking laws.

This law was all about the main funder, who had previously run for Attorney General, having something he could hang his hat on when he runs for office again - "I'm the guy that helped Californians stand tall against human trafficking"

11-11-12  07:30am - 657 days #26
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,025
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by PinkPanther:


I think you have it exactly right - it's hard to Stand Up Against Laws Opposing Human Trafficking - and most people didn't read it beyond the title and didn't know that 2 anti-human trafficking laws - ones that been through hearings with experts who had a chance to make sure they were actually semi-decent legislation - had been signed into law 2 weeks ago in CA, along with all the previously existing anti-human trafficking laws.


Sadly these issues are common very common across the US, we had a law pass by here requested by our Democratic Gov, here that already was sin today law but then gave the Governor special rights in an emergency, that already existed however the new law gave them rights to limit resources and redirect them where the governor himself feels it is needed. That mean if we have power, water or food emergencies the governor can stop deliveries and support and redirect them, it could come down to selecting whom lives and who dies if the emergency was like Sandy or Katrina.
Bottom line is people do not read and blindly walk down the path they are told.

11-12-12  10:13am - 655 days #27
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,543
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Condom conundrum: Porn industry ponders latex law
By JOHN ROGERS | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago



LOS ANGELES (AP) — The show must go on, is the entertainer's credo, and it did just that in the nation's Porn Capital even after Los Angeles County voted to require performers to use condoms when filming sex scenes.

One of the industry's biggest stars, James Deen, reported for work, condom-free as usual, just hours after voters adopted the new law.

During a break in the action Thursday, however, Deen raised the same questions on the mind of everyone in LA's billion-dollar-plus porn industry: Can a planned court challenge get the new law tossed out before it is even implemented? Or, perhaps this time next year, will he be making films like "Atomic Vixens" and "Asian Fever Sex Objects" in some place like Las Vegas or Florida?

The law, listed on the ballot as Measure B, was passed by 56 percent of voters Tuesday. It won't take effect until election results are certified, which likely will be several more days. It could take months longer before county health officials decide how to enforce it and whether they must begin dispatching prophylactic police officers to keep a close eye on actors.

The Department of Public Health issued a terse statement with no timetable for developing an enforcement plan. There was no hint of whether there would be surprise inspections or if public employees would be paid to watch porn flicks to see if actors were complying.

The nation's adult entertainment industry, which is believed to generate as much as $7 billion a year in revenue, according to the trade publication Adult Video News, vigorously opposed the new law. It argued it is unneeded because of safeguards that include monthly venereal disease checks for all working actors.

They also maintained it would be costly and difficult to enforce and could drive the business out of Los Angeles' sprawling San Fernando Valley, taking with it as many as 10,000 jobs, including actors, directors, film editors and crafts and makeup people.

The main problem, they say, is that fans don't want to see actors using condoms.

"The last time we attempted to go all condom, our industry lost sales by over 30 percent," said Deen. "That's a huge hit to our economy."

Deen, who has appeared in more than 1,000 hardcore films over the past nine years and estimates he's been in about 4,000 sex scenes, said he's never been infected with any disease and he gets tested every two weeks.

"I love condoms, I think they're great and the safest thing you can do in engaging in sexual intercourse with a stranger," he said, adding he uses them in his personal life but not onscreen.

Industry officials, meanwhile, say the last reported case of HIV linked directly to work was in 2004. Since then, they add, about 300,000 films have been made.

Michael Weinstein, the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation's founder and president, disputes those figures, saying there have been other, more recent HIV infections, not to mention numerous cases of gonorrhea, chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Weinstein, whose group led a petition campaign to place the measure on the ballot, says he plans to take his campaign statewide.

In the meantime, he says implementing and enforcing the new law should be easy.

"This is no different than supervising restaurants or nail salons or barbershops," Weinstein said. "You fill out forms, you are granted a permit and, periodically, somebody goes out and does spot inspections."

Easy to implement or not, porn producers say the cost of paying for permits will likely be steep and the drop-off in sales could bankrupt them.

"Certainly this is the biggest threat that I've seen to the industry in a very, very long time," said Steven Hirsch, chief executive of Vivid Entertainment Group, one of the largest purveyors of porn films, including celebrity sex tapes and popular X-rated parodies of "Batman" and "Superman" films. "There have been obscenity prosecutions, but this is something on a whole different level."

Hirsch, who co-founded Vivid 28 years ago, said he is confident the industry will get the law overturned on the grounds it violates filmmakers' First Amendment rights of free expression.

If it isn't overturned, he said his company will simply move production out of Los Angeles County to survive.

Several people who attended an emergency meeting of the industry's advocacy group, the Free Speech Coalition, last week, said porn producers have already been in touch with officials in Las Vegas and parts of Florida. In some instances, they said, tax incentives have been offered to lure them.

Through a quirk in county law, the industry might even be able to pack up and move just a few miles down the freeway to Pasadena or Long Beach.

Those municipalities, although located in Los Angeles County, have their own health departments, and Pasadena said earlier this week it won't enforce the new law.

That would be just fine for many actors and directors, who say they don't really want to leave their home base.

"People forget that porn people are people too," said Kylie Ireland, a veteran actress and director who has appeared in such films as "Being Porn Again" and "Calipornication."

"They forget that we have families and we are married and we have kids and we have lives and jobs and hobbies just like everybody else."

11-12-12  11:36am - 655 days #28
rearadmiral (320)
Active User

Posts: 934
Registered: Jul 16, '07
Location: NB/Canada
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


"Land of the free" is one of our many bullshit campaign slogans, not an actual philosophy. Yes, our culture is "saturated"--to choose an appropriate descriptor--with sex but we're still a country of moral Puritans.

Still, some sites operate happily and in the black outside of the San Fernando Valley. Kink.com is in San Francisco, though that's hardly the Bible Best of America. ALSScan is in Maryland, literally on the other side of the continent, so porn won't exactly suffocate in a sea of latex and regulation.

But the whole "Land of the Free" thing always gives me a laugh. Try smoking a joint in public like you would a cigarette (which are also highly regulated) and see how "free" you feel when the next cop strolls by. Try saying "fuck" or showing a bare breast on broadcast TV without an accompanying fine. Or compare our prison population to any other country on earth and explain to me how any of it exactly equates to being "free."

Sorry, just my . What was the question again?


Turboshaft for President in 2016!

11-12-12  01:13pm - 655 days #29
anyonebutme (14)
Active User



Posts: 285
Registered: Aug 23, '09
While I don't have any stats to back this up, I am be willing to wager anyone that porn companies have been, let's say, less than willing to cover the full range of health expenses incurred as part of the business.

If you create a business that relies on government tax revenues to cover your business expenses, then you absolutely are responsible to those tax paying voters, who were 100% free to vote for or against Measure B.

There absolutely are many ways for the Porn Industry to gain more favor with the public and reverse this vote. But standing and screaming "You Stole My FREEDOM!" isn't one of them.

11-12-12  09:12pm - 655 days #30
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,940
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by rearadmiral:


Turboshaft for President in 2016!




Thanks, but I have the same problem comedian Bill Maher has said about even thinking of running for office: I love drugs and I hate religion! It's not exactly a winning formula in American politics. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

11-13-12  12:52am - 655 days #31
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by anyonebutme:


There absolutely are many ways for the Porn Industry to gain more favor with the public and reverse this vote. But standing and screaming "You Stole My FREEDOM!" isn't one of them.


Here's that argument in a way that actually makes sense:

It's probably the law in California that you have to wear a seat belt while driving a car. But when filming a movie, you can have a stunt man driving a car without a seat belt as long as he's taking the right precautions. So why can't porn performers not wear condoms as long as they're talking the right precautions? Why is it any different? It's not technically a free speech argument, but you're allowed to do certain things that are actually illegal in a movie for the sake of creative expression, and pornographers feel that not having to wear condoms should fall under that line, especially since it isn't something that's illegal in the first place.

11-13-12  08:38am - 654 days #32
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,025
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


hy is it any different? It's not technically a free speech argument, but you're allowed to do certain things that are actually illegal in a movie for the sake of creative expression, and pornographers feel that not having to wear condoms should fall under that line, especially since it isn't something that's illegal in the first place.


Not to get all political but this is why Americans need to looks at all rights when they are challenged. Often people who oppose guns, also are wanting gay rights. Rights are rights, and when ever we look to the government to tell us our rights we have put yet one more nail in the socialism coffin.
I am iffy in some ways on certain rights, but I like my guns. I may not agree that with others in their rights but I will vote for their freedoms as well.

Whether a person wants to be married to a gay person, have abortion, own guns, or smoke marijuana is not my business. But I vote the rights for them to choose not the government. If a person hates guns or opposes gay rights, then fine do not own a gun or umm be marry a gay person. But do not take away others rights to choose. It is such a dangerous slope when we say we want rights but take that same ability away from others just because we do not agree.

As it is with this condom BS, how in the hell does a government get to the point that they can tell me what I need to wear on my penis? Sounds like we are going backwards not forward. There is a law being considered by the new Administration that has been in the works since 2008, it is a gun treaty that will all but limit gun selling by USA companies outside the USA and n turn not allow dangerous weapons like AK's here. Sounds fine until you realize we do not sell dangerous guns to other countries we just buy them, now it will begin to put even more American companies out of business.

I remember when the gay rights was looked at I was shocked it was even and issues. Who a person has sex with is non of the governments business. They made it sound like every gay person was out raping heterosexuals. The same is with guns, they make it seems like everyone who owns a gun is shooting up the town looting and wild west shoots outs. Both are false and so far off reality it is pathetic. Gay people are not responsible for Aids any more then a gun owner is responsible when a nut take a gun and shoots a person.

I went on this rants because, if you feel you have rights, then do not take others rights way allow them to choose themselves. I will close in saying when ever we take another person or groups rights away just because we do not agree, we allow the government to know it is ok to tell us, how to dress, what to eat, and what to wear during sex.

CT Edited on Nov 13, 2012, 08:42am

11-13-12  12:06pm - 654 days #33
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,597
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
Cybertoad, I just want to say I really enjoyed your post here. Good stuff!
Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

"Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world."-R. D. Lang

11-13-12  01:34pm - 654 days #34
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 973
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Well, what group takes credit for trying to legislate morality? If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

03-22-13  06:01am - 526 days #35
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 973
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
"If you live here in LA your may remember voting on Measure B in November. This was the law that requires actors in porn films shot in LA to wear condoms on the job. There's been a lot of opposition to Measure B. Opponents of it say it sends jobs out of the city and filmmakers are reluctant to shoot here because they say it makes the sex seem less real.

It's funny how there's this sudden insistence on authenticity that doesn't extend to breasts. Those can be fake. Those can be huge bulbous & basketball shape. Condoms unacceptable.

I don't know why we have to shoot more porn. Don't we have enough porn to last another 800,000 years? They are stock piled.

Anyway the first violation of Measure B was reported over the weekend. An adult film company called Immoral Productions allegedly let their actors perform condom free. I mean, if you can't trust the guys at Immoral Productions, who can you trust?

Someone actually wrote an anonymous letter detailing the violations. I would love to meet the dweeb who did that. 'I was appalled by what I saw when I was trying to watch porn.'
So the city will report it and decide whether to file charges."

Jimmy Kimmel from Jimmy Kimmel Live monologue, March 21, 2013

(the delivery was better than this quote)

http://abc.go.com/watch/jimmy-kimmel-live/SH559060/VD55290191/jimmy-kimmel-live-321?cid=abccomsearch_results If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

03-22-13  10:56am - 525 days #36
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Hey, CT, ole pal. I am usually with you, I am definitely with you when it comes to guarding our rights. I am against any legislation that would dictate morality (one of our Prime Ministers said: the Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation), so I am all for gay rights, equal rights, the right to determine what I can see and read, freedom of speech, expression, assembly even the freedom to wear a condom or not .. everything but this accursed gun thing.

If you want to buy a hand gun because you feel insecure, or because you like target practice, or a hunting rifle because you like the *sport* .. fine .. but there is no justification for weapons, and the accompanying super-size magazines, that can kill twenty kids in three seconds.

There MUST be a complete ban on all weapons that allow mass killing. Period. Especially in the light that some mental cases now make lists of previous mass murderers hoping to "top their score!" (According to your news sources)

We live in a sick age and a background check does not always reveal a sick would-be killer. Taking away your right to a rapid fire assault rifle does not infringe upon your right to bear arms. It's only meant to limit the harm you can do with a weapon.

Same as you have no right to shout fire in a crowded theater, so you have no right to own a weapon that'll kill a bunch of strangers whose only crime is that they came to watch a movie.

And the excuse that the majority of gun owners are NOT mass murderers will not cut it as long as weapons of mass destruction are available to the *unknown* unhinged!!! You've seen their work three times (or even more) during the past six months and you know they are there and that it is awfully hard to tell beforehand if someone is a potential mass murderer or not.

The whole thing is sick and twisted and I cannot understand you, the NRA or Harry Reid for the stance you are taking. Sorry! Still friends, but puzzled as well as disturbed,

m.

05-27-13  08:52pm - 459 days #37
thirstyfish (0)
Active User



Posts: 23
Registered: May 20, '13
Looks like the Measure B violation against Immoral Productions was overturned according to an article in AVN.

Here's the link:

http://business.avn.com/articles/video/I...y-Health-518190.html



A measure to make Measure B statewide in California (Assembly Bill 332) was killed in an appropriations committee.

More info here:

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/F...ommittee-518556.html Porn happens because a large number of things amazingly fail to go wrong.

1-37 of 37 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.05 seconds.