Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Sex Workers Ask Cali Lawmakers to 'Keep Adult Performers Safe' by Rejecting Mandatory Condom Bill

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.20.2014 4:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Calvin Fleming/Flickr
(Calvin Fleming/Flickr)
Kink.com/Twitter

The California Assembly is moving on rules to establish compulsory condom use for adult film peformers. Tomorrow the Assembly's Appropriations Committee will vote on AB 1576, a bill that would require condoms in porn sex scenes, along with other industry "safety" measures, including "the provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms."  

The bill also mandates that porn production companies keep confidential employee health records indefinitely, use "plastic and other disposable materials" to clean sets, and provide all employees with a safety training program. It does not "require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of an adult film." 

In other words, there's little way for California officials to monitor or enforce adherence to the condom rule aside from sporadic checks on porn production studios. The bill also seems packed with enough random regulatory requirements to allow health officials to selectively make life miserable for any adult film company they feel like harassing.

Pitched as a measure to protect porn performers, AB 1576 has almost exclusively drawn harsh criticism from this constituency. Hundreds have signed a petition asking Assembly members to "keep adult performers safe" and vote no on AB 1576. On Twitter and other social media, sex workers have been speaking out usiing the hashtag #StopAB1576.

Tim Valenti, CEO of the gay porn site NakedSword, called the bill "nothing less than a full-frontal assault on the rights" of adult film performers. "It requires they turn over sensitive medical information about their HIV status to anyone they work for, including—in a last-minute addition added to the bill last night—a forced waiver of their right to medical privacy," Valenti wrote in a May 15 blog post (NSFW): 

The bill also puts an incredible burden on performers who choose to produce their own films. Under the law, even a monogamous gay couple using webcam from their own home could be prosecuted for not wearing a condom, regardless of whether they do it in their private life or not. They'd also be required to test every fourteen days, to maintain filing cabinets of medical records, and a log detailing every penetration in which they engaged. It's sexually Orwellian.

This isn't a healthcare bill, it's a moral crusade that uses HIV to scare legislators.

In the last 10 years, there have been at least 350,000 condom-less sex scenes shot by the professional porn industry and not a single on-set HIV transmission.

At the blog Tits and Sass, the porn performer, AIDS activist, and HIV test counselor Cyd Nova explains the porn industry's strict protocols when it comes to testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Performers who don't use condoms undergo routine testing every 14 days, with any positive results triggering a temporary industry-wide shutdown while others are tested.

Apart from the testing requirements of the job, porn performers are educated and self-aware about disease transmission. We know that becoming infected with an STI will affect our job as well as our sex partners' jobs, and most people act accordingly….

As a longtime sex worker, seeing one more 'save-a-ho' measure that will do more harm than good is extremely disheartening. Anyone in the porn industry understands that this bill passing will have the following effect: The larger porn companies will move, most likely to Las Vegas, while the law-abiding smaller porn companies that can't move or cover the expenses that this new bill will bring in will fold. I am concerned that what will emerge is an underground porn industry that will provide less access to safer sex tools to workers, along with all the other issues that pop up once increased criminalization occurs in a sector of the sex industry.

After clearing the California Assembly's Arts & Entertainment Committee 4-1 last week, AB 1576 heads to the Appropriation Committee for a hearing Wednesday. This isn't the first time California lawmakers have tried to force porn stars to wear condoms. Last year, a previous porn-condom bill, AB 640, died in the Appropriations Committee.

In 2012, Los Angeles County voters passed a ballot measure requiring condoms in any porn shot within county limits. Reason TV explored the L.A. measure in the video below:

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Get Gay-Married in Pennsylvania, If You Must

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

PolicyPornographyNanny StateCivil LibertiesMoviesCaliforniaSafetyPublic HealthRegulation
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (33)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Game of Thrones fan   11 years ago

    In other words, there's little way for California officials to monitor or enforce adherence to the condom rule aside from sporadic checks on porn production studios.

    FINALLY a government job I can apply for: Porn Set Condom Checker.

    1. Agammamon   11 years ago

      Careful, its a 'hands-on' type of job.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    Under the law, even a monogamous gay couple using webcam from their own home could be prosecuted for not wearing a condom, regardless of whether they do it in their private life or not.

    You fool! Those cheaply made home videos (I assume) are your competition. You can afford to accommodate or work around these regulations but the small performers (no judgment) probably cannot. REGULATE YOUR COMPETITION OUT OF BUSINESS!

  3. Corning   11 years ago

    Probably should not use a hashtag to protest government encroachment.

    All the government loving gen Ys will attack you.

  4. Slammer   11 years ago

    It does not "require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of an adult film."

    Imagine the lousy but high-paying job of CGI-ing all the condoms off of the dicks.

    1. Jordan   11 years ago

      Maybe they'll just pixelate the dude's junk like Japan does.

      1. Slammer   11 years ago

        Those Japanese movies kill me. They have the most degrading shit in porn, then pixilate genitals. I don't get it.

        1. poloniusium   11 years ago

          Gotta leave the money making shit to the yaks.

        2. Mainer2   11 years ago

          When you say "shit in porn" that's just a turn of phrase, right ?

          1. PapayaSF   11 years ago

            That's German porn.

            1. Agammamon   11 years ago

              Ohohohohoho - you've obviously never seen Japanese porn then.

              For the Japanese, scatology and bondage go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

  5. Jordan   11 years ago

    Why not require condoms for anyone engaging in sex? Money changing hands does not make the act uniquely dangerous. I'm hoping that even a California legislator could see the idiocy here when it's put in those terms.

    1. Episiarch   11 years ago

      Don't. Give. Them. Ideas.

    2. Drake   11 years ago

      I like this idea. In a century California will be depopulated and new settlers can take over.

      1. Dweebston   11 years ago

        The NCR certainly would be an improvement over the People's Republic of California.

    3. Grand Moff Serious Man   11 years ago

      Don't give them ideas.

    4. Slammer   11 years ago

      Why not require condoms for anyone politicians engaging in sex?

    5. Agammamon   11 years ago

      Why not require condoms for anyone engaging in sex? Money changing hands does not make the act uniquely dangerous.

      For the same reason your home doesn't have to abide by the same regulations as a hotel - money doesn't make it uniquely dangerous but it does give legislatures an acceptable cover for meddling.

  6. Edwin   11 years ago

    admit it, Reason, this article is an excuse to plaster some T&A on your magazine

    1. poloniusium   11 years ago

      AND?

  7. Warty   11 years ago

    I recognized all those talented women. What prize do I win?

    1. Episiarch   11 years ago

      Some time alone with your hand.

      1. Warty   11 years ago

        YESSSSS

        *masturbates furiously*

    2. Mainer2   11 years ago

      I recognized them too.
      Me and that one blonde..we're real close.

    3. Warren's Strapon   11 years ago

      What's with the fucking tattoos? Ugh. I'll be glad when that fad ends so I can enjoy strip clubs again.

      1. PapayaSF   11 years ago

        As a cartoon once said, the message of all tattoos is "Ask me about my parent's divorce."

      2. Paul.   11 years ago

        Tattoos are so overdone. Can we please go back to the good old days when tattoos were only found on sailors and ex-cons?

        And remember laides, even I think a tattoo can be sexy on a lithe, 22yr old with an impeccable figure-- but you won't always be 22. Once day, you're just another tatted up 50 yr old.

        1. Agammamon   11 years ago

          But by then, who's going to be looking?

  8. DJF   11 years ago

    How about we make a deal, they can wear or not wear whatever they want, while I as a taxpayer does not have to pay my part of the 29 billion and rising US federal budget for AIDS/HIV

    Throw in other sexual transmitted disease spending at the FED/State/Local level and its a deal

    http://kff.org/global-health-p.....t-request/

  9. Paul.   11 years ago

    My body my choice!

    Who's with me progressives?!

  10. R C Dean   11 years ago

    It does not "require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of an adult film."

    That term is generally applied to hardhats, respirators, heavy vinyl gloves, hazmat suits, etc.

    Their use of it gives you a clue what round 2 of the regulations will require.

    1. PapayaSF   11 years ago

      The Naked Gun was prescient.

  11. Agammamon   11 years ago

    Well you know, Yuma AZ could use a new industry to pick up the economy.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Palantir Is Expanding the Surveillance State

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.2.2025 12:00 PM

The Gutting of the National Park Service

Liz Wolfe | 6.2.2025 9:30 AM

In Dangerous Times, Train for Self-Defense

J.D. Tuccille | 6.2.2025 7:00 AM

Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Armed, Elderly, and Dangerous

Charles Oliver | 6.2.2025 4:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!