Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  L.A.Tex

Wrap It Up: Los Angeles First City To Mandate Condom Use In Porn

Back in December, Queerty reported that the Los Angeles County Council was mulling over a measure to mandate condom usage in all porn films.

Well, the council voted on Tuesday and the bill passed by a 9-1 margin, so now every Tom, Dick and Harry will have to slap on a jimmy hat before they get pumpin’ on screen.

We don’t really have a problem with that: Actors have always had to wear safety equipment when performing risky stunts (and lets face it, bareback sex is a risky stunt.) But how will this affect the industry? Will studios just shrug and suit up—or will they flee the City of Angels for other destinations with laxer rules? And how exactly will this be enforced? Will OSHA agents have to stand by all porn shoots? (That should be interesting.)

This is the first time a city has passed such an ordinance and, while more than three-quarters of the American porn industry is based in Los Angeles, some producers are threatening to leave town.

Exactly who is this threat directed at? The city council certainly isn’t going to cry if a few adult-movie studios depart.

Initially the AIDS Healthcare Foundation had gotten a similar initiative put on the public ballot but “the city would have had to spend over $4 million to hold the election,” reports Gay Today, “and city officials said a decision to simply adopt the condom requirement allowed them to dodge that costly poll.”

We really don’t see a downside here: Those of you who simply must have your bareback porn can certainly find it elsewhere. And the rest of us? Well, if we can fantasize that Brent Everett is actually banging his math teacher then surely we can pretend there’s no latex on his prodigious member.

Source: Gay Today

By:           Dan Avery
On:           Jan 18, 2012
Tagged: , ,

  • 46 Comments
    • Xtincta
      Xtincta

      And there goes the LA porn industry…….. San Diego here they come!

      Jan 18, 2012 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Xtincta:

      I think you hit the nail on the head. Although, they will probably just go out and rent some crap warehouses in empire city or some other place in the desert! lol

      Jan 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • EdWoody
      EdWoody

      While I throughly support this and loathe any and all bareback porn producers, I fear this is a symbolic gesture at best. Those who want to will simply pack up their office, move to outside the city limits and carry on as they were. All to avoid using a piece of life-saving material that costs pennies.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      The solution is to extend the law further.

      And, BTW, where to I apply for one of those government OSHA jobs?

      Jan 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      Government needs to back off on bareback. Everyone has the right to decide the risk themselves. Safe sex porn sucks!

      Jan 18, 2012 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Bob:

      The thing is Bob, you could make the same argument that govt. should back off on safety regulations for mines and factories saying that everybody has the right to decide risk.

      Actually it is the employers responsibility to provide a safe work environment.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joetx
      Joetx

      @EdWoody: +1

      @Cam: +1

      Jan 18, 2012 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Triple S
      Triple S

      Bareback looks the same to protected, plus, we all know that the actors aren’t going to get STDs or other infections. I don’t see the downside at all; the sex is still the same.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Well
      Well

      One of the dumb things with things like this is that even after HIV is cured. This stupid ordinance will still be on the books. It wont ever go away.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      Yeah! More porn money for us here in SF!

      Seriously, get your freakin laws off my cock.
      I’m a grown-up, and can make my own calls.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 8:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike UK
      Mike UK

      what a ridiculous law, it would be impossible to police unless they had an official watching every porn film being made! whoever came up with this one really hasn’t thought it through!

      Jan 18, 2012 at 8:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jemismyname
      jemismyname

      Fitz: the laws aren’t on YOUR cock, their on the cocks of porn stars, and onl when they’re working. Seriously, in what other job environment does an employee get to decide if they wear safety gear or not?

      @Mike UK: Seeing as porn movies ARE TAPED it’d be very easy to spotcheck if performers were using condoms at a certain studio. The idea isnt that you’d arrest every single perpetrator but that the studios would never know what scene you might check, so they’d have to be compliant. A weird job, sure, but not a hard one.

      @Well: No, one of the dumbest things I’ve beard is someone who thinks we can stop using condoms once we cure AIDS. Ever heard of Hepatitis, Herpes or any other STD? Who knows what the next AIDS will be? Even if they cure AIDS, Im still wearing condoms with casual partners. Sheesh!

      Jan 18, 2012 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kylew
      Kylew

      I have mixed feelings about this one. From a common sense point of view, there is no logical reason why anyone, porn star or not, should take the chance of catching a fatal disease for the sake of a fuck.

      But from a civil liberties point of view, this one really concerns me. I can’t decide if the porn stars are pressured into bareback work, or that’s how they want to work, but if it’s the latter, then I am definitely not happy about them being forced to wear rubber, moronic though it may be that they might not wish to. In this regard, it;s the same as the state telling people that they cannot smoke, do drugs, or drink alcohol until they’re 1/3 of the way through their lives.

      This is one step away from legislating what you do in your own bedroom, and there are already enough people sticking their noses into our private lives.

      These sex workers can fuck bareback to warm up for work, but the second the cameras are rolling they must don the rubber?!

      On one hand, this legislation seems well-meaning, but I think it may be the tip of a moralistic anti-porn iceberg.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 9:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      There are so many more significant work-place related risks to worry about.
      This is not enforceable from a governmental perspective, only from a personal one.
      Waste of time, makes people look foolish.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      @Fitz: Fitz, if you are barebacking, you’re not grown up and you don’t have the maturity or good sense to make your own decisions.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @Kurt: I’m actually one of those magical people who is able to enjoy a fantasy and not need to materialize it. You know… an adult.
      I’ve even watched action films and not needed to jump off cliffs or set bombs.
      It’s amazing!

      Jan 18, 2012 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric Auerbach
      Eric Auerbach

      @Fitz: Somebody needs helps with his analogies.

      In a movie where someone jumps off a cliff, that’s an illusion. A stuntman, a director, and a special effects team are making it seem *as if* someone is putting his life at risk.

      In a bareback porn movie, there is no illusion. That’s really two guys having unprotected sex.

      So enjoy your bareback porn. But don’t pretend it’s a “fantasy.” The people you’re jerking off too are real.

      Jan 18, 2012 at 11:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @Eric Auerbach: COOL!

      Jan 18, 2012 at 11:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Abaca
      Abaca

      If this is really about the safety of performers then why not mandate that no persons who tests positive for any STD be allowed to perform in a sex scene?

      Jan 19, 2012 at 1:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TASTEY GOODIES
      TASTEY GOODIES

      SIGN MY ASS UP 2 SPOT CHECK PORN TO ENSURE THE STUDIOS ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW. GETTIN’ PAID 2 SEE PORN, BOO YA!!!!

      Jan 19, 2012 at 2:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TASTEY GOODIES
      TASTEY GOODIES

      I LOVE PORN.
      I LOVE PORN.
      I LOVE PORN.
      I LOVE PORN.
      I LOVE PORN.
      I LOVE PORN.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 2:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Allen D.
      Allen D.

      @Eric Auerbach: Still, let THEM take the risk so people can jerk off to it. Period. Whether you like the analogy or not.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 3:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike UK
      Mike UK

      @jemismyname: well I hope these people watching the TAPED porn looking for condoms have a strong stomach and a broad mind because there’s some pretty sick stuff out there!

      and before anyone jumps down my throat, I’m very broad minded and each to their own but some of the porn out there is sick stuff!

      Jan 19, 2012 at 7:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kylew
      Kylew

      @Mike UK: Well that was kind of a random comment, but yes, you’re right.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 8:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      @Fitz: “I’ve even watched action films and not needed to jump off cliffs or set bombs”

      I hate to break this to you, but the actors are not actually setting bombs or jumping off cliffs. And thankfully, the Studios don’t say “we let them decide if they want to set off a bomb or not.”

      Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bystander
      bystander

      Equating the risk of unprotected sex with regularly tested performers in porn with working in mine-shafts is just fucking ridiculous. How many performers have actually come down with HIV working in porn in the last year? How many have come down with an equatable disease working in any other environment. I doubt the risks aren’t even within an order of a magnitude. This is just a case of safe-sex practices turning into barebackophobia.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Franco
      Franco

      I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want to wear condoms. It’s for their health!

      Jan 19, 2012 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Queer Supremacist
      Queer Supremacist

      We all know barebacking is a huge risk, but it sickens me to see gays supporting legislating sexual behavior, even for porn. I guess it’s not about principle with you, but whose ox is getting gored.

      Kylew and Well made good points. By giving the city the authority to regulate porn, they will not stop with mandating condoms. And the bareback studios will just move anyway. And what happens when they do find a cure for HIV? The law will still be on the books yet it will be impossible to repeal.

      If someone can find a way this violates the constitution and puts it up to a challenge, this law is toast.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 17 · Eric Auerbach wrote, “In a movie where someone jumps off a cliff, that’s an illusion.” Possibly today, but not always. In one Star Trek film and two James Bond
      films, someone jumping/falling/being-pushed off a cliff used a real person, caught with
      a rope or a cable with a mechanism to reduce the impact. In the Star Trek one, the guy started to slow down when he was below tree-top level to make the fall look realistic, and that was after dropping some 400 feet. At the time these films were made, computer-generated graphics weren’t up to the task.

      Even sex without a condom in a porn film is partly an illusion and there are safety precautions that are not visible in the film:

      1. They are apparently tested regularly – at least once a month when filming is going on.

      2. They pull out before the infamous “cum shot”, possibly well before – in that split second after pulling out as seen in the film, you could have had any number of minutes of masturbation.

      3. If they want, they could use a condom whenever it wouldn’t be visible. They could even use some digital processing to make a condom go away visually (although they may not at present in order to keep costs down).

      4. The sequence of events you see in a film is not necessarily the sequence that occurred in real life.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric Auerbach
      Eric Auerbach

      @B: “Possibly today, but not always.” Sure. Technology and legislation evolve with time. I’ll stipulate that.

      As to other stuff: Sure. There’s lots of stuff going on behind cameras that we don’t get to see. But there’s one inescapable, always-visible fact in bareback porn, and it’s that two people are having unprotected sex. And I think it’s pretty well-established that when a porn performer gets infected on the job, it’s through unprotected sex.

      Your specific points:

      1) Actually, no. They do in the straight industry. In gay porn, it’s not the norm.
      2) Even if the top doesn’t cum inside the bottom, transmission can happen.
      3) Exactly. Porn is cheap. They’re not going to hire Industrial Light & Magic.
      4) OK. But in BB porn, by definition, one sequence is always one dude fucking another without a condom.

      Jan 19, 2012 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      Porn actor Tristan Jaxx asked: Should HIV Testing Be Mandatory In Gay

      Jan 20, 2012 at 12:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike UK
      Mike UK

      @B: wrote: They pull out before the infamous “cum shot”, possibly well before – in that split second after pulling out as seen in the film, you could have had any number of minutes of masturbation.

      that is not always the case in gay porn, studios like “Hot Desert Knights and Treasure Island Media you actually see guys shooting a load inside the other guy!

      Jan 20, 2012 at 5:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @EdWoody: It has nothing to do with the cost of condoms. It has to do with the fact that the market supports bareback companies. People want to watch bareback porn. People want to have bareback sex. Some are lucky enough to do it in a long time, loving, lasting relationship where they know their partners status. Unfortunately, others still do it within the walls of a bathhouse or with the guy they just met online (or at a club, if anyone still meets others at clubs). If the government tried to make a law that said you can not have sex without a condom in the privacy of your own home, or even in a “private” sex club, people would never stand for it.

      Jan 20, 2012 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Cam: You don’t need to make such a statement. If you feel that strongly about that just vote for Ron Paul. Problem solved.

      Jan 20, 2012 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @jemismyname:http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13999099/ns/today-today_health/t/do-condoms-really-protect-against-stds/

      Good, so with your “casual partners” you will only have a 20% chance of catching HIV if they have it. You have no idea how big of a chance you have with other diseases? Since you mentioned Hepatitis, I will inform you that Hepatitis C is one of the easiest diseases to contract. I have heard of one case where a nurse gay a baby that was not breathing mouth to mouth resuscitation and ended up with HepC because the baby’s mother had it and passed it on to the baby. I would have to say that having sex with someone you just met is a lot more hands on.

      The solution is to not have random meaningless casual sex, or at least to realize you are putting your life on the line when you do so. I will put my bareback sex with my partner of over a year up against your casual hookups any day in terms of safety.

      Jan 20, 2012 at 10:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @bystander: Only one I know of, off the top of my head, is Mason Wylder, and guess what everyone…. HE ONLY DOES CONDOM SCENES! Now, isn’t that irony!

      Jan 20, 2012 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Re No 30:

      1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/10/hiv-positive-porn-star-derrick-burts-gay-for-pay.html indicates that the portion of the gay porn industry that does not mandate regular testing has “performers” use condoms. Regardless the “performers” may be getting tested on their own.

      2. While transmission can still happen, the chances are reduced if the top pulls out before cuming and preferably before there is any pre-cum.

      4. The sequence of events does matter regarding safety.

      The question is not whether it is 100% safe, but whether it is significantly safer than you would think from what you see on the videos.

      Jan 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike UK
      Mike UK

      looks like they are starting to crack down!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12918029

      Jan 25, 2012 at 5:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Moore
      Rob Moore

      @Cam: I think your analogy is inaccurate. Mine safety is controlling for things which the miners cannot on their own. Wearing a condom is between performers. All have the right to demand condom use in their scenes. I have seen bareback videos in which a performer either insisted on wearing a condom or where a bottom required that individual performers wear a condom. A compromise would be to require that performers be required to take a rapid HIV test.

      I lived through the AIDS epidemic so I have some first hand knowledge of friends who died too young and of helping friends who were too weak to do a lot of things for themselves. I know what HIV does when untreated. I also know that someone who is under treatment and has an undetectable viral load is essentially no more infectious than my late grandmother. HIV prevention is all about personal responsibility. Every man who is negative is responsible for maintaining that status. Instead, I see a lot of negative men who appear to think it is the sole responsibility of the other person. If you even ask someone if he is “clean” or negative, you are already a fool.

      If you want to be sure of safety, simply hand the man who is about to fuck you a condom or put it on him. If you are waiting breathlessly for him to tell you that he is negative or if you simply take his word for it, you are stupid.

      I bareback exclusively. If he asks, I will tell him truthfully that I am positive. If he does not ask but simply throws his legs in the air, I assume he is consenting. He shouldn’t act all shocked when he realises that I did not wear a condom since I make that known up front. My viral load is undetectable so risk is low, but if he is really worried, he should contact a doctor within 24 hours to get prophylactic doses of anti-retroviral medications. Prophylaxis treatment has been shown to be highly effective at preventing HIV from gaining a foothold before it falls apart.

      Bottom line is that all the regulations and laws in the world will do nothing. The old quarantines did not prevent the spread of polio, chicken pox, or cancer. Education and eventually vaccines did the trick. Stop looking for someone else to protect you in your personal choices.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 12:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie
      Charlie

      @Rob Moore: Rob that is disgraceful. Yes it it of the greatest importance that negative people take their health very seriously but maybe your experience and the loss you have witnessed could help you summon up an ounce of compassion and make you care about the health of the gay community.

      You are being incredibly cavalier about your willingness to infect people without warning them. I agree with you that prevention is about personal responsibility but you saying to yourself “Well he should have asked” does not display any personal responsibility on your part. Please develop compassion.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 11:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kylew
      Kylew

      @Charlie: I agree completely. Rob, you are a selfish pig, and I sincerely hope that you are caught and sent to prison with the other attempted murderers where you clearly belong. More amusing would be if you caught a far more virulent of something yourself.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike
      mike

      People on ARVs today are not contagious. This is why infection rates are down. The people who are contagious are the ones who don’t get tested and don’t know they are poz. So, if we can lower the negative volume here about poz people, more will get tested, get on meds, and live normal non-contagious lives. Today’s meds make it an easily managed chronic disease, easier than diabetes, for example, to live with. But if we continue to let people think it is like is was 10+ years ago, then people won’t get tested and the mess will continue. Wake up to the fact that people on eds are fine and not contagious and the HIV world will change.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bill
      bill

      The guy who tells you he is poz and on meds is safe, even bare back. Beware of the guy who says he is neg but has n.ot b.een tested in years.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Why is it the man who has to wear protection? Within that notion is the assumption that the man is the infective agent. Hasn’t anyone given a thought to the fact that women can be infective too? In my view, this double standard is yet another example of the anti-male, pro-female PC of the liberal left.

      The liberal left will stop at nothing in their quest to demean masculinity and men in general. We gay and bisexual men need to very concerned. Before anything, we’re men. As men, we are in the liberal left’s firing line.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 9:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      While this law may be well meaning, it goes too far, IMHO. Legislating sexual behavior of any kind is the very definition of the government sticking its nose in where it hardly belongs.

      Jan 28, 2012 at 9:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kylew
      Kylew

      @Shannon1981: I’m somewhat on your side on this one Shannon, but on the other hand, this is primarily a working conditions issue, not a sexual behaviour one. It’s not black and white.

      In the UK, the full force of the police, including detectives and forensic analysts has been brought to bear against a man who made a rude gesture at a football game! The man has been arrested and everyting. It’s fucking pathetic. If there was any doubt that we have fully entered pussyville, along with our big brother, that should dispel it.

      Jan 29, 2012 at 4:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.