With the latest news of 2 performers testing HIV+ maybe It’s a good idea to enforce the mandatory wearing of condoms. It would definately prevent the transmission of the disease but would the film industry’s overall sales suffer too greatly.
Some say enforcement would drive the industry underground since the consumer would no longer ‘feel the fantasy’ so to speak. Any thoughts out there in the ethersphere?
Given the amount of fucking going on in the adult industry I’d say they’ve been doing a pretty good job of regulating themselves. They perform extensive testing but I guess despite that there is always going to be the risk of infection. Occupational hazard I guess. I don’t think the government needs to step in but perhaps the industry needs to examine their policy and see if changes need to be made.
Marc
It would be bad for the gov’t to step in, while Ashcroft is Attorney General. I doubt he’d stop with a condom law.
I agree that it looks like they’ve done a relatively good of self-regulating. There’s only a been like 3 or 4 HIV incidences in like 20 years, IIRC.
Since this happened in California, I wonder what regulations Cal-OSHA will be drafting up and enforce in this industry (if they haven’t already). Will they have field workers supervising each shoot to ensure safety of the employees? Who (in Cal-OSHA) will end up getting those assignments? Can a Cal-OSHA employee claim sexual harrassment if he/she doesn’t approve of his/her assignment? I say this with a partial tongue-in-cheek, but hey, this is California, and stranger things have happened. Porn industry workers (or Cal-OSHA employees), has there been any intercession between the porn industry and Cal-OSHA in the present or in the past?
I hpe you’re kidding.
Porno is so risky so many ways that a condom is about at “healthy” as a bandaid.
Rubbish. Condoms are better than no condoms.
What’s the deal with hetero porn? Gay porn has been using condoms for the past 20 years.
If my state legislature and the US Congress can’t require motorcycle riders to wear helmets, how in the name of interstate commerce and the general welfare is anybody going to require that participants (actors doesn’t seem quite accurate) in a porno flick wear a rubber? Is it a good idea? Sure, it’s a good idea. How do you enforce it? Make it criminal – thespian fornication without prophylaxis? Impose a tax? Point with derision? How about a non-binding joint resolution or maybe a commemorative day on the order of Cheese Week in honor of the theatrical condom? The Pope is going to just love that one.
There is absolutely no public need for legislation therefore it would be a grandstanding and asinine move. That certainly doesn’t discount it from happening.
This probably has to do with the reality of infection rates rather than a “deal” with hetero porn. If homo porn hadn’t made the (probably short-term uneconomical) move to condom use then there probably would have been a lot more bodies than we’ve seen in the hetero industry.
That issue is being discussed in a more-or-less serious hijack ofthis Pit thread, by Otto, yosemitebabe, myself and a few others. Including a “call” on how there IS a market for bareback gayporn, though mostly based on repackaging old pre-1984 stuff. But the deal is there ARE “safe” het-porn houses (e.g. Vivid) but the supply vs. demand dynamic means there is always fast money to be made in bareback porn – let’s face it, the fantasy being sold since there has been porn is one of total free access of our Tab A to any likely Slot B with no thought of consequences – meaning a world where there is no consideration of marriage, disease, pregnancy, clean-up, risk of back injury, or illegality of the acts portrayed.