Pornography

California Lawmakers Want Porn Stars to Wear Safety Goggles

|

California's workplace safety guardians have proposed an amendment to a bill that would require porn stars to wear protective goggles while filming.

Drhaggis/Flickr

The bill, which has so far stalled in the state senate, establishes numerous mandates for the porn industry to follow with the goal of curbing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Among these mandates is the requirement that "personal protective equipment" be used to "prevent contact of an employee's eye, skin, mucous membranes, or genitals with the blood or OPIM-STI of another." (OPIM-STI includes pre-ejaculate, semen, vaginal secretions, and fecal matter.)

According to the bill, which was originally posted on a NSFW adult entertainment blog:

The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, condoms, gloves for cleaning, and, if contact of the eyes with OPIM-STI is reasonably anticipated, eye protection.

So basically, cum shots sans eyegear would be illegal.

The bill would also require employees to wear condoms during vaginal and anal sex, gloves when touching "contaminated laundry," and create a specific exemption for condom wearing during oral sex to be reviewed in January 2018.  

Porn actors are actually already required to follow these rules, says Deborah Gold, the deputy chief for health of California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health. They just rarely do. In an interview with Salon, Gold said that "these draft guidelines are an attempt to tailor existing workplace-safety rules relating to blood-borne pathogens specifically to the adult industry."

The bill follows in the footsteps of last year's  Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (or Measure B), the much-discussed, voter-approved measure that requires porn actors in Los Angeles County to wear condoms on set.

James Deen, an award-winning porn star and a staunch opponent of condom mandates, spoke with the Huffington Post after the measure passed:

"It will be interesting to see what happens next. People will most likely move production out of Los Angeles and take out tax money with us. Hopefully this measure passing will help us [adult entertainers] get more organized in the future and that, along with Los Angeles losing our business, will allow people in politics to start seeing us as an asset."

There's evidence that Deen's prediction came true: After the measure passed, the number of requests for porn production permits in Los Angeles dropped from an annual norm of 500 to two. Now it appears that California politicians are looking to implement even more expansive protective barrier mandates. 

In a satirical video protesting Measure B, James Deen and co-star Jessica Drake show what a scene with mandatory safety goggles and latex barriers everywhere could look like. NSFW! You've been warned. Watch it after the jump.

NEXT: Thailand's Senate Votes Down Amnesty Bill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …that would require porn stars to wear protective goggles while filming.

    Sure, that may help with the odd stinging or black eye, but how does that do anything to stop swollen lips or, at the other end of the workplace injury spectrum, anal fissures?

  2. Can we please stop calling Democrats “socially liberal” now? The only difference I can see between a SOCON who wants to make porn illegal and a liberal who wants to make the actors wear googles during the money shot is that the former is a prude and the latter is insane. But neither is in any way “socially liberal”.

    1. the former is a prude and the latter is insane. completely incapable of tolerating risk

      Considering that sex is a great way to transmit pathogens, trying to make sex 100% risk-free leads you to the same functional result as good old fashioned Jesusy fear of sex.

      1. “Jesusy fear of sex”

        Yes, I bet that the Jesustards had no idea whatever that certain kinds of sex were suboptimal in terms of social and personal health. They just threw darts at a board and decided arbitrarily that they would have taboos against certain sexual practices.

        1. Yes, I bet that the Jesustards had no idea whatever that certain kinds of sex were suboptimal in terms of social and personal health

          What is the argument for using Bronze Age Jewish sexual ethics to evaluate the morality of sexual practices?

        2. You have a point Eduard. SoCons are quite good at offering pseudo-harm reasons against many things they oppose, and they often sound amazingly like ‘progs’ when they do. But the difference is that once you concede or address those harms you will get a general ‘ick’ or moral objection to the behavior in question from SoCons (note though that ‘progs’ have a sort of ‘ick’ objection behind many of their stances, such as minimum wage laws).

          1. I was speaking of what you would call taboos, like no adultery or fornication, etc. Whether the law should back these taboos up, or whether such laws should be rigorously enforced, are separate questions.

            And your discussion is supposedly with me, not with generic “SoCons.” So find something I actually said to disagree with.

            1. Just look at these SoCon freaks!

              Dr. Garcia said, “We’ve been sold this bill of goods that we’re in an era where people can be sexually free and participate equally in the hookup culture. The fact is that not everyone’s having a good time.”

              Oh wait:

              http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/…..h?src=dayp

              1. I think there might be a difference between saying ‘casual sex may not be fulfilling for a lot of people’ and ‘casual sex is categorically wrong.’

                1. Except, Bo, the original source of the “disagreement”, if you can call it that, was that Eduard said that the religious chose these sexual practices as taboo because of their harm regarding “social and personal health”.

                  Then you called those “pseudo-harms”. Then I pointed out real, active social harms, to wit, sexual frustration and dissatisfaction.

                  1. By pseudo-harms I meant to say they do not rise to the level of Mills harm doctrine in warranting violations of the NAP, and my more general point was that while SoCons buttress their moral stances with pseudo-harm claims progs seem to start and finish with such claims, and I think that is a distinction worth noting.

                    1. By pseudo-harms I meant to say they do not rise to the level of Mills harm doctrine in warranting violations of the NAP

                      Well, it is tough to argue with your private definition of “harm”, I admit.

                      and my more general point was that while SoCons buttress their moral stances with pseudo-harm claims progs seem to start and finish with such claims, and I think that is a distinction worth noting.

                      It doesn’t “start and finish” there because there’s always more harm to be had. Once you’ve addressed the hazmat situation, now you have to make sure that the male/female is not being socially pressured or being taken advantage of economically…

                    2. Have you ever read Mills On Liberty? In it he discusses how rather direct harms can warrant restrictions, but not rather indirect ones. That is what I am referring to.

              2. Just to be clear, Dr. Garcia is an evolutionary biologist, not an infectious disease specialist.

            2. The general discussion is about John’s claim that ‘progs’ are as socially unliberal as SoCons, no?

              1. Sure, and I threw in some remarks about exempting a whole industry from generally-applicable laws.

                1. Well, if proggies can cite “generally applicable laws” to force religious employers pay for contraceptives, then it only makes sense that they have to require those who deal in potentially dangerous bodily fluids to wear the same kind of hazmat equipment that others working with such fluids have to do.

                  1. That’s true, but it doesn’t apply in reverse. That is, just because anti-communicable disease laws should apply generally, regardless of religion or profession, it doesn’t follow that the contraceptive mandate must be applied evenly (though it shouldn’t exist at all).

          2. As a SoCon, I would argue that I and many others (not all) are for using words to convince people of their unwise and unhealthy ways. Progs first resort is to have government ban things.

        3. Eddie, it sounds like you’re asserting that those taboos, which are thousands of years old, were based on rational criteria including a knowledge of germ theory. Do explain further…

          1. If they came from God, as some freaks and Jesustards allege, then God would presumably have known about germ theory when setting these standards.

            And the bans on adultery and fornication was based on observable dangers to family life.

            1. But again, would not the difference be that if you were to point to an example of adultery or fornication that could not implicate these harms the SoCon would still condemn them?

              1. What’s your point? What if they said that’s because they’re Rule Utilitarians?

              2. Ah, now we can get into a discussion of Harry and Sally alone on a desert island where their fornication/adultery can’t cause any scandal. I’d have to think about that situation, but I don’t think it’s exactly typical enough to warrant special treatment.

                1. I think you are being coy. Conservative SoCons would say Harry and Sally would be doing wrong by committing adultery or fornication on the island.

                  That strikes me as different than harm arguments. In theory at least, proposals to restrict liberty based on solely on harm arguments can be rebutted by showing the harm is exaggerated, while the more categorical position of the SoCon is not amenable to that.

                  1. BC, EvH is pulling a John – arguing from a SoCon POV while claiming to be a non-socon. Basically, it’s a sticky trap. Your time to waste if you so choose.

                    1. “claiming to be a non-socon”

                      You got a cite, friend?

                      I’m rejecting the whole idea that “harm arguments” are separate from “morality arguments.” They are very closely connected. Your disagreement with the arguments doesn’t change that; you can’t just make up the other side’s position the better to refute it.

                    2. -I’m rejecting the whole idea that “harm arguments” are separate from “morality arguments.”

                      Your coyness about the island question seems to belie that.

                    3. I said I’d have to think about the island thing. I can’t be like *some* people on the internet and offer an instant answer to every question, regardless of whether I’ve thought it over or not.

            2. The same being who doesn’t like us to eat shrimp, or pork. OK, then.

              See, Eddie, that works both ways.

              1. Well, you see, He understood that pork goes right to your thighs!

                1. Well, you see, He understood that pork goes right to your thighs!

                  Nah, He just understood that pigs are filthy animals, and – to paraphrase Jules from Pulp Fiction – you shouldn’t eat anything that doesn’t have sense enough to disregard its own pheces.

                  1. *feces.

                    I could have sworn that was spelled with a ph.

              2. As to that, you’d have to ask those who still observe these rules. Most Christians don’t.

                1. -Most Christians don’t.

                  But this is because they think God later declared that rule dead.

                  Let me ask you this: was it wrong for an Israelite before Christ to eat pork and shrimp? I do not see how you can say it was not, and if so then was it wrong because some harm followed the eating?

                  1. Sure it was wrong if God banned it and these rules were part of a covenant with God. And to Christians, some of these rules were types of the Christian dispensation, though of course Jews won’t say that.

            3. Oh, and just because those stone age ancestors claimed the taboos were dictated by a god doesn’t mean that they actually were. Primitive people had a very limited understanding of, well, everything, and their gods were catch-all for the cause of anything they didn’t understand or justification for anything that needed justifying.

          2. I think we should really look to St. Jerome for our standards of sexual behavior:

            Nothing is filthier than to have sex with your wife as you might with another woman.

            Clearly, this man knows what is up.

            1. The Church didn’t swallow St. Jerome’s ideas whole. He’s one guy, however saintly, and he comes from a place of exalting the celibate monastic life. There’s also a quote from him encouraging women to go the monastic route, otherwise they’d get married and spend their time catering to their husband. It’s something Betty Friedan could have written!

              1. The Church didn’t swallow St. Jerome’s ideas whole.

                You’re implying the Church spits?

            2. This is why everyone should have something on the side. You make love at home and do all of the fun and filthy stuff with someone you are not married to.

              1. There’s a classical sexual ethic I can get behind (possibly literally).

                1. And to think Jessee people on here accuse me of being a SOCON.

        4. “Yes, I bet that the Jesustards had no idea whatever that certain kinds of sex were suboptimal in terms of social and personal health”

          Hmm, oral sex by far poses the least risk of sexual disease transmission yet it is considered an abomination.

          Yep, they apparently were not thinking about disease transmission when they made up their sexual mores

    2. Some are, some aren’t. I don’t think that this law is universally supported in CA.

      1. Most are. If it is not this it is something else like how you manage your trash or how big of a soda you can buy.

        1. I’m waiting for Gun-Control logic to be applied to sex.

          – Cosmo’s Sex Issue is an assault on decency and public health! Nobody needs more than 10 ways to please their man, yet possession of this issue would allow a reader to learn over 200 ways to please her man before she’d need to change magazines.

        2. It’s doesn’t have anything to do with SoCon tendencies among CA liberals – quite the opposite.

          As the article mentioned, these laws are already on the books, and the porn industry simply doesn’t comply with them. Everyone looks the other way (figuratively speaking) when it comes to porn because of the obvious pragmatic problems in the industry.

          Problem becomes, how do you justify exempting an industry from OSHA regulations just on account of them being inconvenient while not undermining the authority of OSHA?

          This isn’t about ‘progs’ trying to outlaw porn – if it were they would be outlawing porn, when all they are really doing is modifying the selective manner in which OSHA standards that everyone else has to follow are also applied to porn.

          1. That is a good point. Of course that really points to the illiberal nature of all of these laws doesn’t it?

            1. It’s the classic CA liberal paradox – how do you I save you from your lifestyle without implying that there’s anything wrong with your lifestyle?

              It requires VERY convoluted laws . . .

  3. Where the hell is Fallout Boy?

  4. They just want their porn stars to practice safe sex.

  5. Does anyone with medical/public-health expertise want to chime in? Do these regulations help stop the spread of disease?

    1. I am pretty sure Chlamydia is the same bacteria that gives you pink eye. And I suppose you could get HIV through your eyes. It only takes giving the virus a way into your body.

      But that assumes that the fluid actually gets in your eye and you don’t, I don’t know close your eyes or wash it out before the bacteria gets in.

      1. I think preventing the spread of communicable disease* is one of the govt’s legitimate functions.

        If this measure doesn’t actually live up to its billing of protecting the public from communicable disease, the article should say so – it’s the key issue.

        *Not communicable by way of bad habits, like obesity, but actually transmitted from one person to another, or one dead animal to a human, etc.

        1. Sure it is a legitimate function. But a legitimate function does not justify illegitimate means. Making porn is rightly or wrongly protected under the first amendment. And you can’t make porn without some risk of spreading disease. It is a risk inherent in being a porn actor.

          This law would effectively ban the production of porn in the state. Hard to see how that is not an unConstitutional restraint on speech.

          1. Also, there are extensive industry protocols regarding disease screening among professionals in the industry, which have effectively eliminated them as a vector of disease transmission because those who get infected are barred from performing by the industry. (for diseases that can’t be cured, that’s for life)

            1. Now there’s a good point which should have been in the original article. Thank you!

              1. If they can require you to exempt porn on health rules, it would also require that no religious exemptions be made for vaccinations.

                1. What’s the law about vaccination exemptions?

                  1. They are absolutely protected by religious freedom, currently. This has led to a resurgence in measles, mumps, and pertussis (whooping cough).

                    Actually, and fairly, I should point out that it wasn’t until the anti-vax movement was joined by the people afraid of autism induced by vaccination that the herd immunity effect started to collapse. But it is a real public health problem killing as many as two dozen children a year in the US and sickening many thousand more.

            2. With HIV it can take up to six months between the infection and testing positive. That creates certain practical problems.

              1. This is a strange urban myth that still makes the rounds. A standard HIV antibody test is accurate is 99.9% accurate at 12 weeks (3 months). Antigen tests are accurate within 2-4 weeks. There are rapid HIV tests which can indicate the presence of HIV within 30 minutes of exposure. These tend to have a lot of false POSITIVES, though.

                Moreover, it’s necessary to get extensive testing prior to starting shooting in the first place. Most porn stars only work with people who were initially tested, tested clean for a period of months prior to shooting, and continue to test clean.

                Note that the porn industry has ABSURDLY low rates of HIV infection. And when an infection does occur, they quarantine like no other.

          2. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to extend freedom of speech to include risking the spread of disease via bodily fluids. Of course, if it could be established that public health was merely a *pretext* for banning certain practices of those engaged in, ah, First Amendment enterprises, then I’d be with you, just as I’d be with you if the censors arranged pretextual “building inspections” of avant-guard playhouses.

            But as to bona fide public health measures which impact unhealthy behavior by actors (porn or otherwise) – I’m not sure that Jefferson and Franklin would have gone to the mat for the right to squirt bodily fluids into someone’s eye.

            And the article suggests that the general public-health regulations already limited this sort of activity by porn actors, it just hadn’t been enforced against them.

            1. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to extend freedom of speech to include risking the spread of disease via bodily fluids.

              Not if you consider making porn to be protected. You can’t make porn without such risk. I can’t give a speech to a crowded theater without creating some risk disease will spread. But the government couldn’t ban speeches to public crowds in the name of stopping disease.

              Beyond that, what is special about porn? People do money shots in their own homes all of the time. And there is a risk of spreading disease there. By your logic, shouldn’t the government be able to require goggles whenever anyone has sex?

              1. I’m not expert, but I would think that doing it with one’s spouse would be safer than doing it with random strangers one after another. But I’m no medical expert.

                Anyway, the sanctity of the family relationship is, IMHO, prior to the sanctity of the sex industry.

                As to going into public places to hear a speech, that’s not inherently more dangerous than going into a public place to shop or work, so singling out speeches would clearly have a censoring purpose.

                But in a city struck with plague, for instance, I can see a n emergency law against public gatherings, including speeches.

                1. I’m not expert, but I would think that doing it with one’s spouse would be safer than doing it with random strangers one after another.

                  So should it be illegal to have unprotected casual sex with strangers?

                  1. I wouldn’t single out such activities for special laws.

                    In this article, it says that even in the absence of this bill the porn actors were violating generally-applicable public health laws: “Porn actors are actually already required to follow these rules, says Deborah Gold[etc]…They just rarely do.”

                    Given this, I would think that the existing laws should be enforced, without passing special laws for porn actors.

                    But as for giving porn performers a special exemption from public-health regulations that normals have to obey – either relax the laws for the normals or, if the laws in general are good,* apply them to porn actors.

                    I mean, if some *religious* group asked for a special exemption from public-health laws, y’all would be saying “either the laws are good in which case the religious should obey it, or else the laws are bad in which case they should be repealed altogether,” plus some reference to Sky Daddies.

                    Does porn have greater sanctity than religion?

                    *Again, I don’t know if these laws are justified by the public health or not. The article doesn’t give much info on this.

                    1. Does porn have greater sanctity than religion?

                      Everything involved in allowing people to get their rocks off has greater sanctity, in the minds of the progs, than religion. Remember the saying, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”? Well, fact is, abortion now *is* a sacrament to the Left.

                2. You just proved my point Eduard. Absolutely it would be safer to do it with one’s spouse. And that is where these sorts of laws lead us to, debating about how to control people having sex with people other than their spouses in their own homes. And that of course is exactly the debate following the SOCONs will lead us too. And thus my point that the Progs are every bit or even more socially un liberal as the worst SOCON.

                  1. John, are you not condemning ‘progs’ by positioning them at the end of what you see as the slippery slope of their logic, a place they have not gone yet, and a place where the SoCon begins?

                    1. a place they have not gone yet, and a place where the SoCon begins?

                      Of course the SOCONS haven’t gone to the logical end of their thinking either. But so what? That doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

                      Beyond that, we have in some cases gone to the end of the slippery slope and every time I can think of when we have, it has involved Prog policies. When they first came out with something like nutrition standards for school lunches, had someone stood up and said “taken to its rational conclusion this will mean schools seizing kid’s home made lunches because they don’t meet the standard” would have been called a nut and accused on engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. Of course today that happens. If someone had said fifty years ago that government issuing proclamations on what healthy eating is would lead to the government banning things it considered to be unhealthy, they would have been dismissed and today we have that.

                      Food and smoking are probably the best examples of Prog social illibralism. But I am sure others on here can give more examples.

                    2. What I am saying is that when it comes to something like sex the SoCon starts with: casual extramarital sex is wrong and then they buttress their stand with ‘harm’ arguments, while the ‘prog’ on the other hand starts with, and seems to remain at, the harm arguments (mind you I do not find their harm arguments very convincing, or at least as warranting violations of the NAP).

                    3. Sure Bo,

                      And when it came to guns the Progs started with “lets ban machine guns”. If anyone had said in the 1930s that the original FFA would end up starting a process that would end in it being effectively impossible to legally own a gun of any kind in many major American cities, no one would have believed them.

                      Yet, that is exactly where we are now. That is because when it comes to government control of things, the general rule is the worst case scenario will happen eventually no matter how much the proponents swear it won’t.

                      This is why Progs are so much more unsocially liberal than even SOCONS. SOCONS only care about a few things. Progs care about everything. If you turned the country into a SOCON theocracy tommorow, I would be less free in a few ways but probably more free in others thanks to the partial Prog theocracy ending. But if you let the Progs create their theocracy, I can think of few ways I would be free much less more free. And the irony is that I would end up just as unfree in regards to sex and porn as I would be under the SOCON theocracy as the Progs tried to control my behavior in the name of stopping disease and preventing sexism or whatever other social “good” they dreamed up.

                    4. John, I think you still missing my distinction (that the prog starts with, and stays with, claims of harm while the SoCon starts with a moral condemnation and then cites harms), or perhaps you arguing it does not matter since restrictions on liberty come from both viewpoints aplenty?

                      -But if you let the Progs create their theocracy, I can think of few ways I would be free much less more free.

                      I do not know about this. I imagine you would be more free to, say, end your life on your own terms, take your girlfriend to get an abortion, get pot (though it will be taxed heavily) and such.

                      Remember, we do not have to imagine SoCon heaven, they are fairly explicit that it was America before the 1950s. Blue laws, strange restrictions on alcohol, mandated and teacher led prayer in schools, obscenity, contraception, abortion, adultery and sodomy laws. It kind of reached into many areas too.

                    5. John, I think you still missing my distinction (that the prog starts with, and stays with, claims of harm while the SoCon starts with a moral condemnation and then cites harms)

                      And that is a completely meaningless distinction. Social harm is just the prog word for what SOCONs mean when they say “moral harm” The effect of both is exactly the same. The two sides just use different terms. In both cases, the alleged “harm” is a justification for restricting people’s freedom in the name of helping society or the individual himself.

                      SOCONS believe Porn is degrading and harmful to t he people who make it and watch it and thus want to ban it. Progs believe making Porn, without following proper Prog rules, is harmful to those who make it by risking disease. The logic in both cases leads to the same sorts of action.

                      Forget Bo, troll all you like. But Progs are nothing but SOCONS who replaced God with government.

                    6. -Social harm is just the prog word for what SOCONs mean when they say “moral harm”

                      This is not correct, the social harm relates to thing they think harm people. That is the criteria. And it is important because they do not object to the behavior absent the harm (though their harms can be become incredibly tenuous and indirect of course).

                      -The effect of both is exactly the same.

                      I concede this is often the case.

                    7. Some of your Progs are likely anti-porn feminists who think similarly to Socons (pron is harmful to women and so on) which is why in some situations they have joined forces with Christian Rights groups in the fight against porn.

                    8. prohibition is just as much a prog plank as it is a socon plank. Maybe even more so for a prog

                    9. The harm arguments go beyond infectious diseases (though that’s one of the harms), but also goes to damage to the family, child poverty and crime, etc. etc. It’s not as if Moses (or whoever) threw darts at a board and said “OK, the dart landed on casual sex, so I’ll ban it and start thinking up arguments later.”

                      And the large number of societies, with diverse religious traditions, which hold this behavior to be harmful shows that maybe the observed harm had something to do with the taboo.

                  2. There are some institutions which should be presumed inherently healthy, or at least immune from attacks premised on “public health” arguments.

                    I think the family is such an institution. Some would say the porn industry is another such institution. The importance of the institution is such that it counterbalances any arguments (even if otherwise legitimate) for attacking the institution.

                    Thus the family needs to be protected from the “public health” types with their eugenics and other (supposedly disinterested) regulations.

                    As to porn, let’s grant that censoring porn for its content is wrong. But saying they should meet generally-applicable public-health standards is different – unless the porn industry is entitled to institutional protection, it should no more be exempt from public health laws than from statutory rape laws.

                    1. I think it is less about exemptions for porn but about resisting the ever growing reach of ‘public health’ laws into consensual behavior.

                    2. All right, but the article says the porn actors were *already* subject to public-health limitations, they just were ignoring them. The special porn bill, by that reasoning, seems to me superflous, unless there’s something I’m missing. But it’s not as if defeating the bill would legalize the behavior at issue (body fluids in contact with eyes, etc.)

                    3. Sure, but as a libertarian if you ask me whether I should oppose the sudden decision to enforce or augment a NAP violating regulation or law on the books of course my answer is going to be ‘yes.’ That is not wanting an exemption so much as hating the law in general and wanting to see it applied as rarely as possible (ideally, never).

                    4. As to porn, let’s grant that censoring porn for its content is wrong. But saying they should meet generally-applicable public-health standards is different –

                      Not when the method chosen amounts to censorship. Saying the actresses in the money shots in my porn film have to wear goggles is telling me I can’t have money shots that anyone would want to see. That is censorship.

                    5. Yeah, but banning animal cruelty could also be censorship under this rationale, since we can think of movies where the plot requires (say) a dog to be tortured.

                    6. As UnCivilServant mentioned above, the porn industry has done a very good job of self regulating. The last outbreak scare was related to non-workplace sex. If as an “institution” porn is better off than the general public why should it be subjected to the burden of onerous regulation? It could be a legitimate public health concern were they not self-regulating.

                      UnCivilServant|11.12.13 @ 10:46AM
                      Also, there are extensive industry protocols regarding disease screening among professionals in the industry, which have effectively eliminated them as a vector of disease transmission because those who get infected are barred from performing by the industry. (for diseases that can’t be cured, that’s for life)

                    7. Again, that’s a good argument that the original article should have made. The article just went on about driving the porn industry out of LA, oh no what shall we do?!!

                    8. There are some institutions which should be presumed inherently healthy, or at least immune from attacks premised on “public health” arguments.

                      I think the family is such an institution. Some would say the porn industry is another such institution.

                      Hey, why don’t we vote on it?*

                      *not a serious suggestion

                    9. There are some institutions which should be presumed inherently healthy, or at least immune from attacks premised on “public health” arguments.

                      Yep, all you need to know, right there. “Attacks” is particularly noteworthy.

                    10. “Yep, all you need to know, right there. “Attacks” is particularly noteworthy.”

                      Yup, the eugenics movement was just a myth made up by fundies.

                3. I’m not expert, but I would think that doing it with one’s spouse would be safer than doing it with random strangers one after another. But I’m no medical expert.

                  Depends on where your spouse has been. However, yes it would be more safe.

                  Anyway, the sanctity of the family relationship is, IMHO, prior to the sanctity of the sex industry.

                  I don’t get the point here, but I especially don’t trust gov’t to regulate the “sanctity of the family.”

                  But in a city struck with plague, for instance, I can see a n emergency law against public gatherings, including speeches.

                  “Oh damn, there just so happens to be an influenza outbreak right before the giant press conference that would damage my political career. We need an emergency law to stop the spread of disease!”

                  1. Anyway, the sanctity of the family relationship is, IMHO, prior to the sanctity of the sex industry.

                    EvH, why must you make Shamhat and Tamar sad? Being a harlot was often the only way for women to make it into ancient epics. There’s a reason it’s THE OLDEST profession.

                    Then [the harlot] Shamhat saw him–a primitive,
                    a savage fellow from the depths of the wilderness!
                    “That is he, Shamhat! Release your clenched arms,
                    expose your sex so he can take in your voluptuousness.
                    Do not be restrained–take his energy!
                    When he sees you he will draw near to you.
                    Spread out your robe so he can lie upon you,
                    and perform for this primitive the task of womankind!
                    His animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will become alien to him,
                    and his lust will groan over you.”

                    1. Ah, the Epic of Gilgamesh. Haven’t had the pleasure of reading it – maybe I should.

                    2. Ah, the Epic of Gilgamesh. Haven’t had the pleasure of reading it – maybe I should.

                      Absolutely. It’s a fun story. Enkidu’s mockery of Ishtar after Gilgamesh rejects her advances in favor of his *ahem* companionship with Enkidu is outright hilarious, even if it ends badly for Enkidu.

              2. But the government couldn’t ban speeches to public crowds in the name of stopping disease.

                Under the right conditions (e.g., something like the 1918 flu epidemic), I think such a ban might well pass muster as a content-neutral regulation of time, mannner, and place.

                1. Sure Seamus,

                  But it would have to be for a limited time and purpose and as you note, content neutral. Here it is not content neutral. There is no greater health risk when two strangers who met at a bard do this or when two porn actors do this. So why single out porn?

            2. I’m not sure that Jefferson and Franklin would have gone to the mat for the right to squirt bodily fluids into someone’s eye.

              Lots of perfectly legal brothels in their day. And Franklin even wrote a serious letter to his nephew on “how to choose a mistress”, including nonchalant discussion of whores.

              1. He said take a mistress and *not* a harlot, IIRC.

                1. Wait, here’s some key parts of the letter:

                  “I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. *Marriage is the proper Remedy*. [emphasis added] It is *the most natural State of Man,* [emphasis added] and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. *It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being.* [emphasis added] Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.

                  “But *if* [emphasis added] you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones.”

                  http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocS…..1-fra.html

                  1. And Franklin *did* discuss whores: he didn’t want the young man to “ruin[] his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.”

                    And note the advice to take an older rather than a younger mistress “Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.”

                    Seriously, by H&R standards this is eminently mockable. “debauching a Virgin” – *seriously* lol?

          3. If the government really wanted to stop the spread of communicable diseases, they wouldn’t be pushing for universal pre-k.

            1. Certainly. The govt should consider the health implications of its mandates.

        2. Just because the law is framed as “preventing the spread of communicable disease” doesn’t make it good. It wouldn’t even necessarily be good if it did prevent the spread of communicable disease.

          1. I agree with the first sentence, not the second.

            1. A law preventing two people from kissing until they’ve undergone testing for mono would probably lower transmission of mono.

              1. There should be an area of “de minimus non curat lex” – most life activities have an element of danger, like driving, eating in restaurants, or kissing.

                But with some communicable diseases, the risk gets high enough to warrant intervention. Again, I don’t know if porn is one of these situations. But if some Typhoid Mary is really infectious with a deadly virus, for example, then the risk is so high there would be a justification for quarantining her (with full due process, that is).

                1. I think the government can protect us from communicable diseases that are transmitted via non-consensual activity. It should clean up my neighbors malaria swamp because I do not want to be bit by the mosiquitos coming out of it, but it should not interfere in two people doing something that theoretically could transmit something.

                  ‘Public health’ jumped the shark at exactly this point.

                  1. With STDs, the public health comes in (for example) when Sam has sex with Sally, gets infected, and then has sex with Alice, who may not know about the infection. If Alice doesn’t know about the risks, then her act isn’t consensual.

                    1. But no one gets sick who is not engaging in the behavior that gets one sick. It is not analogous to the malarial pool combating measures that were the original type of ‘public health’ laws.

                    2. With STDs, the public health comes in (for example) when Sam has sex with Sally, gets infected, and then has sex with Alice, who may not know about the infection.

                      There are very few situations where Alice wouldn’t be aware that there is a risk of infection. Most of those situations could be handled by her bringing a suit against Sam for fraud.

                      If Alice doesn’t know about the risks, then her act isn’t consensual.

                      Ridiculous. I don’t know the exact risks associated with driving to work each day. There may be people on the road who are a risk to me that I’m completely unaware of. Does that mean that my driving on the road is not consensual?

                    3. If Alice doesn’t know about the risks, then her act isn’t consensual.

                      No, wrong.

                      Virtually every human behavior involves mitigable but impossible-to-entirely-eliminate risk. Anybody who voluntarily engages in the behavior voluntarily assumes the risk along with it.

                      If you have sex, you run the risk of STD infection, period. The mere fact that Alice lacks knowledge about Sam’s health status doesn’t vitiate her consent. Only if Sam lies to her or rapes her is her act non-consensual.

                2. It’s spelled “de minimis”. You’re welcome.

                  1. Thank you for the corekshun.

                3. And you just laid the groundwork for undermining 2A. Congrats.

                  1. Uh, what?

                    1. Yes, you did. If some things are just too dangerous and require suspension of rights then that principal will be expanded to other areas. You might not use this as the basis for denying 2A rights, but other people would.

                    2. “principle” dammit

                    3. I talked about dealing with serious communicable disease. Are guns a communicable disease?

                      And as for using disease as a metaphor, if they use cars as a metaphor, what will stop them from using guns. Dumb arguments are what they have. Don’t be mean and take those arguments away from them!

        3. If the government must force pornstars to use protection to prevent the spread of disease, then there’s no reason they shouldn’t force everyone to do so. There is no distinction between porn and private sex that would justify the differential treatment.

          1. Well, other than the fact that it’s taking place in the workplace. That’s considered a meaningful distinction when it comes to regulating a lot of activities, including, for example, smoking.

        4. No. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

          These people are voluntarily taking the risk AND no risk is being extended to anyone involuntarily.

          You believe this is a good idea because porn and Jeebus.

          1. I never said it was a good idea, I genuinely wanted some information on the risks of communicable disease, and I specifically said that if this were a pretext to censor porn I’d be against it.

            I think perhaps one of us is allowing thoughts of Jesus to overcome their rational faculties, but it ain’t me.

              1. Ah, the ironclad teenage rebuttal – “whatever.”

                1. No, you brought the projection and speculation, Eddie.

                  1. Sure, Tonio.

                  2. No, you brought the projection and speculation, Eddie.

                    But how dare anyone do the same to you, right Tonyo?

        5. The thing is, most disease is spread by non-porn stars. Two consenting adults in any other circumstances can have all of the dirty, unprotected, shit spattered sex they want. So I think that the public health argument is bullshit. Porn stars are not a particular threat to the health of the general public.
          I agree that controlling communicable disease is probably a legitimate government function. But such a function has the potential to trample on a lot of rights, so any measures taken under that power should be effective and minimally coercive. And this is neither of those.

          1. All right, that argument is more on point than the original articles OMG we’re driving out the sex industry arguments.

        6. I think preventing the spread of communicable disease* is one of the govt’s legitimate functions.

          If you’re willing to support this, then what about something that is much more communicable like colds and flu?

          At the very least, the spread of STDs require close intimate contact that is the result of voluntary action. It doesn’t spread involuntarily.

          And because of that, no, the government does NOT have a role to play. Only that all participants are aware of what is involved in the exchange. In other words it should be treated as an economic activity. So the most they would have is protecting against tortuous or fraudulent activity about risks.

    2. Well, we always wear goggles or masks when we’re exposed to the possibility of body fluid splash to eyes or mouth. So yes, it covers a few long shots. But I can’t see how this applies to porn movies with straightforward coinking when your head isn’t at the business end. I suppose when they’re filming someone eating at the “Y” it’s a different story but, jesus, that introduces a few cumbersome logistical issues, doesn’t it?

      1. But I can’t see how this applies to porn movies with straightforward coinking when your head isn’t at the business end.

        You seem to be a bit behind the times. Nowadays basically all professional, mainstream heterosexual* porn involves ejaculation on some part of a woman’s body, most often the face. The three main exceptions to this are “creampie” porn, porn that caters to people who want to see the woman swallow, and some “female-friendly” porn.

        At least that’s what my friend told me…

        *Obviously lesbian porn does not. I don’t know whether male-on-male gay porn does.

  6. Among these mandates is the requirement that “personal protective equipment” be used to “prevent contact of an employee’s eye, skin, mucous membranes, or genitals with the blood or OPIM-STI of another.

    Correct me, but doesn’t this literally mean that you can’t get jizz ANYWHERE on the naked body? Wouldn’t you have to wear a HAZMAT suit to comply with the law?

    1. I think you are right. I suppose there is someone out there who gets off on people screwing in HAZMAT suits. There is a market for any fetish. But I would think that market would be pretty small.

      1. What’s that internet Rule – #37?

          1. Sorry, I must have meant 34. Or 35…

        1. The biggest thing the internet has done to society, for better or worse, is for people to realize, no matter how odd their tastes are, they are not alone.

    2. Worse than that, HC. Human papillomavirus (HPV) can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact. Fortunately, there is a vaccine.

  7. They should be wearing biohazard suits, just to be safe. And conducting their sexual deviances via sign language and interpretive dance.

    I’ll be in my bunk.

    1. I see you’ve taken your “welding helmet” porn to the next level.

      Careful though….it starts to get weird after that!

      1. Ideally, porn should be filmed with one performer on Earth and the other on another celestial body. They should communicate entirely through Houston’s Orifice Control Center, which will monitor transmissions for all politically, racially, and sexually offensive material.

        1. Houston….we have a problem…..!

  8. I would like to volunteer my state as the new porn capital of the US.

    1. I would like to merge my idea with your idea. Only hire porn actors that already have HIV so that you don’t have to pay for testing. In Montana.

  9. Satire is dead. It is impossible to get any more absurd than reality.

    1. ^^this.

      I tell the wife all the time “the Three Stooges arent funny anymore” for this same reason. If I throw a fancy dinner party, I fully expect someone’s pants to fall down or to throw a banana at the Opera singer. It was funny when it was a contrast to reality, now its just more of the same.

  10. Why try to make a business illegal when you can simply regulate it out of existence?

    1. Don’t go there, kinnath. It leads to uncomfortable truths.

  11. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw one time that showed a pair of four-legged safes, each with the numbered knob on front, and one had mounted the other. The caption read “Safe Sex.”

    1. Did they give birth to a bouncing baby lockbox?

      1. No – they both died of AIDS (Activity-Induced Death of Safe) because they weren’t wearing condoms.

        THE END

        /State of Californication No More

  12. So porn will look like this in the future?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFC0O393DQ

  13. Is there really any reason for the porn industry to have their operations in California anyway? It’s not like they couldn’t do the same stuff anywhere else.

    1. They locate close to the supply of failed actresses who are tired of waiting tables to pay the rent.

      You could relocate to say Houston or Atlanta where there is a good supply of hot young women without a lot of options. But most of them are okay with working in strip clubs but probably wouldn’t want to do porn.

      1. Miami. For some reason Miami attracts them in ways ATL and HOU can’t compete with.

      2. Vegas – Many end up there anyhow.

        1. True. Porn actresses are just hookers who are okay with being famous for being a hooker. So Vegas would probably be a good place to make porn.

          1. Except that it’s technically not legal for hookers to ply their trade in Clark County (which includes Las Vegas).

        2. Vegas is where I’ve always suggested. Some production companies are already there, or so a friend tells me.

    2. A surplus of young and good looking people who flock there from all over the world to make it and are willing to do anything for their 15 min of fame.

    3. I thought the porn industry was basically dying, anyway, due to the amount of video of “enthusiastic amateurs” and competition from Eastern Europe. All you need are willing participants and a semi-skilled camera operator.

      1. Yes. People love to screw in public and are happy to upload their videos to the internet for free. At this point I don’t see how you could ever make a buck producing traditional porn movies.

        There will always be a market for naked shots of beautiful models. That is a bit more difficult to produce at home. But beyond that, I don’t see how porn is a viable business model anymore.

        1. Not to mention that paying for porn has become a novel concept. Kind of difficult to make money on a product that is widely available for free on the Internet.

    4. Practically every state outlaws the production of porn. It is considered prostitution. I’d wager all counties or cities aside from a handful in Cali would raid even a small set if word got out.

      1. That seems a bit stupid and pointless when you consider thousands of couples all over the country are making homemade tapes and uploading them to sites like youporn and such.

        1. Those thousands of couples are not doing it for commercial purposes. If they are it is likely they run afoul of state laws if they are, indeed, profiting from their sexuality. Modern law relating to adult sexuality are inept at best.

      2. I’m guessing that Nevada would welcome the porn industry if California doesn’t want it.

        1. The only option on the table aside from international.

  14. I once had sex without a condom in California. But I did wear goggles.

    1. That’s risky, condom free sex is known by the state of California to cause cancer.

      /Prop 65

      Actually, thanks to HPV that’s true!

  15. Aside from outright federal prohibition I can’t imagine a more efficient way for anti-porn feminists and social conservatives to literally stick it to U.S. producers of porn.

  16. Hands up everybody who believes in constantly repeated coincidences!

  17. Pretty soon, the only industries left in California will be bureaucracy and welfare distribution.

  18. Last time I saw the stats, American produced porn outperformed Hollywood box office numbers by a comfortable margin.

    That’s a $13 billion industry California wants to chase out of the state.

    I bet Las Vegas would love to have that business.

  19. Comeon man, roll that beautiful bean footage.

    http://www.Privacy-Road.tk

  20. I hope California lawmakers are also going to forbid filmmakers from requiring actors to smoke cigarettes. Even if the actors themselves don’t mind the nasty carcinogenic smoke, won’t someone please think of the cameramen, gaffers, and all the others on the set who are involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke? (And of course, by “involuntarily,” I mean those who voluntarily took jobs that would bring them to those sets.)

  21. Hey, at least there will still be HBO… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUBiOOx0Pxw

  22. Christ, if I see one more video featuring James Deen or another story mentioning him, I am going to go apeshit.

  23. “My eyes! The goggles do nothing!”

  24. Man, if Jessica Drake has any more plastic surgery, she will make that hideous woman from “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” look normal by comparison.

  25. Wouldn’t sex with goggles on make porn look…unrealistic?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.