Rubber up or hit the road.
That’s essentially the message proponents of a new ballot initiative are sending to the adult film industry in California.
The measure to require condoms in all California porn production was proposed by Michael Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Weinstein has previously come under scrutiny for referring to PrEP med Truvada as a “party drug.”
Related: AIDS Healthcare Foundation Pres. Calls Truvada A “Party Drug”, Refuels Debate Over PrEP Meds
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The move in California would mirror similar guidelines voted on by Los Angeles County in 2012.
LA County was once a mecca for the adult industry, but since the new rules were adopted in 2012, permits for adult films have fallen 90% by some estimates.
If the bareback ban moves statewide, tens of millions of dollars a year may be lost in tax revenue as production leaves California for good.
“It’s another milestone — the qualification of this initiative,” Weinstein said Wednesday. “We’ve taken polls that show, statewide, 71% support. We’re very confident that we will be successful on election day.”
Related: Is It California’s Prerogative Whether Porn Stars Wear Condoms?
The industry will put up a lofty fight to squash the initiative, arguing that they already have adequate testing programs in place — performers are tested every 14 days for HIV, and there hasn’t been an infection in the regulated industry since 2004, the L.A. Times reports.
“If the proposed initiative were to pass, adult performers would immediately be targeted by stalkers and profiteers, who would use the initiatives’ sue-a-performer provision to harass and extort adult performers,” Diane Duke, chief executive of the Free Speech Coalition, a Canoga Park-based trade association for the adult film industry, said. “This is an unconscionable initiative that would take a legal and safe industry and push its performers into the shadows.”
Grant Mealey
Prolly just hurt our economy…..
onthemark
This MIGHT have made sense ten or fifteen years ago, but it makes no sense now. And Weinstein’s ignorant comments about PrEP disqualify him as an “expert” on HIV.
Creamsicle
If Reshida Jones’s documantary, “Hot Girls Wanted,” is any inication, a lot of porn production is already leaving for Florida anyway. This legislation will just push more of it there, and the struggling actors who used to turn to porn in LA County will probably turnn to escorting instead.
Ronnyboy
@onthemark: This is just a PR move. You know because there’s such a huge crisis right now in the porn world and everyone else is doing just a-ok.
Making it illegal will just drive it underground or somewhere that has zero protections.
moldisdelicious
Who cares. You can make your own porn if you love it so much.
BigG
Why watch studio porn? It’s Fake as hell. You can easily watch amateur porn on xtube or Online. Watching real people have sex, who want to be watched and who actually want to hook up without being paid is much hotter. Porn stars are boring. I’m honestly amazed studio porn is still alive. All natural or nothing with me.
Londale Foster
U cant make someone wear a condom if they chose not to.
Tony Chaplinski
it would help the condom business.
libertineman
As I wrote to another publication, the filming/videotaping part of the industry would move out of California, to another state or even out of the country, but product can easily be transmitted back to California via the Internet for post-production and distribution which may stay put. Not all adult film performers live in California anyway, so travel elsewhere would not create a problem. This is really a ploy to get the porn industry completely out of California. If it passes, it will have no impact on HIV or STD infection rates, because those diseases can be transmitted easily before a person exhibits symptoms. Furthermore, those adult performers who have contracted HIV could just have easily gotten infected from their sexual partners in their private lives.
Giancarlo85
Who cares? We have better jobs and better industries. We’d rather have RocketX than some porn studios. They can go to Florida. Not a stable industry to be in. Los Angeles already passed an amendment that required condom usage, and I supported the bill.
This wouldn’t cause any problem at all to our state. We’d be better off without them. We are creating so many other jobs and bringing in new companies, this wouldn’t really matter in the big picture.
Thad
Would states like Georgia (whose logo seems to follow almost everything on TV these days from the Weather Channel to Family Feud) or North Carolina (site of much moviemaking, especially around Wilmington) actually go offering incentives to adult filmmakers? There goes the “moral high ground”!
badtungsten
A lot of porn which was produced in LA County in the past is now produced just over the state line in Nevada. Las Vegas is a mecca for porn producers.
Brian
Isn’t it sexist to insist that only men should wear condoms? It assumes that men are the source of transmission in all cases of STD’s. Women can transmit STD’s too, you know.
Why aren’t women being required to wear condoms, too?
Aromaeus
There are companies that require all models use condoms, they haven’t gone out of business last I checked. A lot of gay porn stars do escorting on the side so I don’t think requiring they use condoms while doing shoots is that big of a deal.
@Brian: What did your mother do to you to make you hate women so much?
Brian
@Aromaeus: Just pointing to double standards, sweet-heart, just pointing to double standards.
Unfortunately, there are many man-made double standards out there which are designed to give privileges to women over men. These affect gay-identifying men as much as they do any man.
sportsguy1983
Truvada is a drug that will encourage irresponsible behavior, but if adults want to be idiots then so be it. Government shouldn’t be involved in regulating morality. Let the dumb@sses who want to bareback on camera and get paid for it do it.
mastik8
I’ve lost the thread. How is it in the governments interest to get involved in this? We don’t have enough laws? Seems like an intrusive example of big government, nanny state over reach.
Giancarlo85
@Brian: So what are these female condoms you talk about?
You’re about as dumb as a rock. You are the one with double standards.
And what the heck is it with this “identifying” crap? Why don’t you start showing respect to gay men on this site and call them GAY MEN. They are NOT “gay identifying”. That infers choice. I’m so sick of that shit.
@mastik8: *Yawn* Typical libertarian argument. Libertarianism is a big fail. I think big corporations would say the same thing about government regulation. “Why can’t I just throw the toxic waste into the ground water? THIS IS BIG GOVERNMENT NANNY STATE OVER REACH!”. Nonsensical argument.
The state has an interest because public health is a major issue. Our community in particular is having a major STI crisis. Truvada/PrEP isn’t going to solve anything when there are other infections out there.
Brian
@Giancarlo85: It absolutely is a choice to identify as gay. You’ve presumably made choices in your life, including the choice to identify. Don’t deny that it’s a choice.
Your behavior is not some random product of Nature. You make choices all the time as to how to behave.
Oh, and the correct word is “implies”, not “infers”. See, I’m really smarter than you.
captainburrito
Personally i don’t mind condoms in porn. Dunno why it would kill the industry. But they can always move to another state that no doubt will pick up the slack.
Nat Jones
Considering that if California was its own country, it would be the ninth richest country in the world… The ‘millions’ that the porn industry contributes is miniscule. Its great theyre making a stand on this, but people will just go and make porn elsewhere. Stick to your guns california.
onthemark
What a surprise – lots of Queerty posters who haven’t even bothered to read the article.
Porn makers “already have adequate testing programs in place — performers are tested every 14 days for HIV, and there hasn’t been an infection in the regulated industry since 2004, the L.A. Times reports.”
In other words, THERE IS NO PROBLEM. This is an attempt to solve a “problem” that does not even exist.
And as Queerty’s headline adds, Would It Really Help Anything? No it would not. If the porn industry decamps to a state where the health regulations are much more lax, that won’t help the performers or anyone else.
onthemark
Btw – Florida is arguably the very WORST state to have (or get) HIV in. Their HIV care and prevention system is absolutely horrendous. (Thanks partly to Jeb! “connotes excitement” Bush and his dimwitted successor Scott.)
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone concerned to keep this industry well-regulated and in CA?
DavidIntl
I am not a big consumer of porn in any form, and never pay for it, so “voting with my dollars” won’t mean anything to the industry, but I will say that whenever I do see porn online and the condoms come out, I move on immediately, since they are a major turn-off – in porn as in real life.
DCFarmboy
I’m voting YES.
Bob LaBlah
The industry tried this back in the 1990’s and saw a 70% drop in sales. They had no other choice but to give the people what they wanted; down right nasty, all up in that shit, raw sex. Its just that simple.
I still say the best shit out there on the net are the personal porn that people put on the net of themselves having sex. There is a series out now called Harlemhookup that is damn good. The guy isn’t even being paid for it but all of his stuff has over 100k hits. Thats just how popular his raw, bareback porn is. And again, this guy is an amateur. People do not watch porn to be preached at.