Is L.A. getting crazier, or what?
Wonder if that applies to non-porn actors?
Condom check! Drop trou’!
I doubt it’ll happen. No one wants to see pornos with the actors wearing rubbers and the industry will fight it. Or they’ll just start shooting them outside LA then.
I’ve seen quite a few scenes with them, and I wasn’t searching for “condom fetish”.
Same here. Thinking of it, a good bit of the porn I’ve watched the last few months have the actors using condoms, and I watch all kinds of stuff.
Several production companies require them. Vivid for one (I think.)
It’ll never fly. They film mostly in the Valley anyway.
The Valley is still LA city, most of it anyway.
The studios will outsource before going to a system that requires rubbers. I remember a lot of use of dental dams and condoms in the early Eighties when AIDS was still a major headline. The policy lasted a year or two, then it was back to normal.
It’s on the ballot so it depends who shows up to vote.
Porn has always made strange bedfellows of people on the Left and people on the Right (there’s a fetish genre for you). On the Right, Values voters will be happy to put any available restraints on the porn industry because the industry is offensive to Family Values. On the Left, there will be Nanny-State types who consider it a Public Health issue. Women’s Issues interests probably have a more diverse opinion of pornography today than they did 40 years ago- a lot of Politically Left women enjoy a happy healthy interest in porn- but there is still a strong “Porn is Demeaing to Women” block.
So, the measure could get support from both sides of the political spectrum.
It’ll get opposition from both sides of the political spectrum too- Los Angeles Republicans aren’t necessarily the Family Values types.
This will most likely be a very low turnout election.
The Headlining Act is the Presidential Primary. Democrats already know who their nominee will be. Republicans will probably already know who their nominee will be by June. State Measures include a Term Limits Prop and a Tobacco Tax Prop. The only City Measure is this one under discussion in this Thread.
Very few people will be going to the polls. This measure is probably the most interesting thing on the entire ballot. I think people who oppose it will be more likely to actually go to the polls to oppose it. If the bareback constituency don’t vote, they can’t affect the outcome.
It may come down to whether or not the measure is supported by smokers. A $1.00 per pack cigarette tax is on the ballot. For a completely uninteresting and nearly inconsequential election day, smokers and porn producers may be the only people with a significant interest in this one.
One estimate says that 90% of all legally distributed porn filmed in the United States is filmed or produced in the San Fernando Valley. Even if that number is inflated (which I’m prepared to believe it is), we’re still dealing with a hell of a lot of production companies suddenly looking for studio space in Burbank and Calabasas.
I haven’t seen much going on porn industry wise in Burbank, and I doubt that much is going on in Calabassas either - too upscale.
Chatsworth, where I live, in the far corner of the city of LA, has many different porn related businesses - mainly warehousing and distribution of dvds, but also in studio and location shoots.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml
Unless you are in the industry, it’s not likely that you would notice something that discretely tries to hide from the public. You have to know what to look for.
In the Valley, if there is a brick building with no windows, on a side street, identified only by a number, there’s a good chance it is either a recording studio or a porn-related production business.
And I’m sure the Chatsworth area is a hotbed of activity (heh).
An unintended consequence that probably wouldn’t break the hearts of the city fathers of LA.
And Chatsworth, being City of Los Angeles, would be sheathed if the ballot measure passes. As you know, most of the Valley is City of Los Angeles and most porn is produced in the Valley. I think EvilTOJ’s confidence that the industry will just go elsewhere doesn’t take into account how unmanageable that move would be.
And hasn’t the E! Network been running a porn series set in Calabasas for years now?
zing! :d
A few porn actresses live in my apt complex. Not big names, but they make enough money between porn and stripping to support sawed-off, parasite boyfriends.
I’ve seen shoots in residential areas in the hills around Chatsworth - the trucks and equipment look like much smaller versions of the legit film and TV industry gear. Just haven’t seen anything like that in Burbank or Calabassas. Still, that doesn’t mean it never happens.
There was a woman on NPR’s marketplace (I think she was a former pornstar) a few months ago advocating for the law. She made a decent case, while frequent testing has made HIV infection rates for porn actors fairly low, apparently other STDs are fairly rampant, and a performer can expect to get several infections of Chlamydia and the like during their career, and something like two thirds have herpes.
Assuming her numbers were accurate, I doubt the public would tolerate other industries that subjected their workers to conditions that subjected them to such high infection rates, especially given the existence of a cheap and effective preventative measure.
How unmanageable would it really be? It’s not like porn movies are filmed on high-tech sound stages. They wouldn’t have to move their production offices.