Condoms required if on film

[tr0psn4j]

@Evil_Captor

I have never understood why it was OK for adult film performers to risk death and/or disease for my entertainment, I’m perfectly OK if those rascals all get wrapped. Of course, you may say, “Isn’t it the same thing as high wire acts performing without a net?” To which I say, “I’m perfectly OK with them having a net.”

That said, letting city councils regulate the content of films is probably a dangerous precedent.

Why not have this high wire a foot of the ground and get rid of that net?

[Little_Nemo]

@Simplicio

Well, various townships have banned smoking from bars and the like to protect workers at those establishments, I don’t see how this is different. Its been pretty well established that towns can pass regulations forcing safety measures to protect workers on the job.

FWIW, if the claims of STD rates amongst porn actors are true, I suspect that these types of regulations will follow the industry if they flee to LA suburbs. We wouldn’t allow any other industry to continue as it had been if their workers were subject to similarly high health risks, especially when a cheap and effective countermeasure is available.

There’s no clear evidence of any need. Several studies indicate that the STD rate among adult film performers is lower than the rate among the general public. Admittedly, these studies have been challenged and some people say the STD rate is higher. But there’s certainly no consensus that there’s a health crisis occurring.

[TBG]

“My body, my choice” sure doesn’t count for anything except one very narrow issue, does it?

[miss_elizabeth]

@TBG

“My body, my choice” sure doesn’t count for anything except one very narrow issue, does it?

It’s a workplace regulation. Do you think “my body, my choice” would be sufficient argument against safety regulations in, say, a slaughterhouse? What if the workers really like the constant threat of danger? Shouldn’t it be their choice?

Or wait… maybe it’s really the industry who wants the right to create a harmful workplace that the employees can do little to stop. Hmm…

[gaffa]

@Little_Nemo

There’s no clear evidence of any need. Several studies indicate that the STD rate among adult film performers is lower than the rate among the general public. Admittedly, these studies have been challenged and some people say the STD rate is higher. But there’s certainly no consensus that there’s a health crisis occurring.

Before AIM was shut down as the result of some asshole hacking their database, they had data on pretty much every performer working in the industry, and they had the credibility to shut down production. Until the average bar pickup involves two people exchanging test results less than two weeks old, porn pros were, as a group, less likely to be HIV+ than any other group. In fairness, pretty much all of them have herpes.

[Evil_Captor]

@tr0psn4j

Why not have this high wire a foot of the ground and get rid of that net?

If you filmed it properly, it would be just as exciting to see, I imagine.

[Sam_A.Robrin]

@Simplicio

I don’t really see it as regulating the content of a film so much as a safety regulation regarding the actors.

It isn’t really either–it’s yet another instance of petty politicians (and, vicariousy, their sycophants) extending their sense of power and control over others to make themselves feel important.
“The tyrant can always find pretext for his tyranny.” --Aesop

[Simplicio]

@Sam_A.Robrin

It isn’t really either–it’s yet another instance of petty politicians (and, vicariousy, their sycophants) extending their sense of power and control over others to make themselves feel important.
“The tyrant can always find pretext for his tyranny.” --Aesop

Eh, chlamydia is a real thing, its not something politicians dreamed up to keep the Plebs in line. There seems to be pretty good evidence that actors are prone to having multiple infections over the course of their careers, and the main person pushing for these regs appears to be a former porn actress, not a “petty politician”.

[bienville]

@Sam_A.Robrin

It isn’t really either–it’s yet another instance of petty politicians (and, vicariousy, their sycophants) extending their sense of power and control over others to make themselves feel important.
“The tyrant can always find pretext for his tyranny.” --Aesop

@Simplicio

. . . the main person pushing for these regs appears to be a former porn actress, not a “petty politician”.

Yeah, what Simplicio said. Putting this at the politicians’ doorstep is only an indication of having not read the links (or the Thread for that matter). This was born as a ballot initiative supported by some within the industry along with, the main backer of the initiative, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

The signatures on the petition hit 71,000- about 75% more than the minimum number required to put it to a vote.

from the OP’s link

City law required the council to approve the initiative as an ordinance or place it before voters in an upcoming election. Council members and supporters said approving the ordinance would avoid the $4 million cost of putting it on the June ballot.

Vox populi, vox condoms