Total Pageviews

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Bullshit Behind Measure B & Mandated Condoms in Porn

The more I read about Measure B, the more pissed off I get! 
A bit about the "Yes on Measure B" campaign: 
Measure B calls for a mandate of condoms and barriers in pornographic films in California. The Aids Healthcare Foundation (AFH) is behind this wasteful campaign. (Um...can you say "product placement?") I know what you may be thinking- "Condoms are a great idea! AHF is only trying to reduce the spread of HIV!" Let's explore. Let's also keep in mind that there has not been a single case of HIV in the heterosexual porn industry in over 8 years. Yes, that's right. Now, are you wondering about the gay porn industry? Well, Measure B would barely apply to that industry, even though that's where the real problem (in terms of HIV) lies. Um...what? By the way, Michael Weinstein of AHF is gay, just sayin. Allow me to be a bit more clear: although B WOULD apply to gay porn shot in LA county, the majority of gay porn is shot in San Francisco. Let's continue to investigate.
Vote Yes on B? You mean vote yes for a waste of tax payer money? Vote Yes to support AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), who has spent 4 million dollars on this ridiculous, wasteful campaign in order to put condoms on a few hundred porn performers? Yes, brilliant. This measure is bullshit, and what this whole scare-tactic campaign doesn't tell you is that your tax dollars will be paying for this. That LA county will lose thousands of jobs, that the porn industry will continue to move out of California to Nevada and Arizona. Just what California lose more money! Think about what you're voting for before you vote, get all of the facts. Research the rates of HIV in the general population, it was WAAAAAAAY higher than in the heterosexual porn industry (Measure B does not target the gay porn industry, ironically); hasn't been a case of HIV in the straight industry in over 8 years. It seems to me that AIDS Healthcare Foundation has better things to be spending their money on, rather than going on a witch hunt against porn performers. Last thing anyone needs is MORE government regulation on our genitals. 
This measure also has serious implications for webcam performers; even husbands and wives (or partners) working in THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME. The cops would have the right to knock on their door and arrest them for not using condoms while on webcam. More government regulation...more and more...who the fuck is actually supporting this? I hope to live in California once I'm done with my degree. The day that a cop knocks on my door and asks to inspect my genitals is the day that I COMPLETELY lose my mind. Might as well just put a chastity belt on me. While we're at it, let's take away my right to terminate a pregnancy! I'd like to just hand my pussy over to the government. They obviously know better than I do. 
Now let's talk about the claims by Mike South; that 100 percent of performers will be treated for chlamydia every year. Where did he pull this number from? Out of his ass, thin air? No empirical support or real numbers to back this up. Frightening.
Let's explore just a bit more! AIDS Healthcare Foundation has  poured millions of dollars into advertisement for this wasteful campaign. They paid for billboards in LA county, and these billboards state "PORNOGRAPHERS SAY NO ON B." Um....yea? Way to go AHF, state the obvious. Yes, you read correctly: AHF PAID FOR BILLBOARDS THAT STATE PORNOGRAPHERS SAY NO ON B. Well, of course they do. Pornographers and performers don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be forced to work with condoms, gloves, and dental dams. They don't want to have to move out of their state. AHF had to release a statement explaining their billboard (since it makes no fucking sense, and appears to campaign for the opposing side). What was behind this billboard campaign? SHAMING. AHF wants you to know that only "yucki" evil pornographers would vote No on Measure B. So, AHF is taking an already stigmatized group of people (sex workers) and setting up billboards to further shame them. It's like we are back in the 1950s; I'm waiting for AHF to start busting out racial slurs. Fortunately, you can't shame those who are proud of their work! Their ridiculous billboard bullshit backfired, see here:  
Vote No On Measure B Porn Star Photo Campaign 
Yup, pornographers and performers DO say No to B, and won't be shamed. 
For more information on how Measure B will ruin the industry and crash California's economy, see the following:
If you would like your pornography without a side of condoms & dental dams, Vote NO on Measure B on November 6.


  1. Its unconstitutional to create a law that only requires a certain group of people to do something, so unless they are demanding all adults wear condoms and figure out how to enforce it then its unconstitutional. Yet many of our laws are unconstitutional as nobody challenges them in court. Now if they are so concerned about condom use why is it law enforcement is still confiscating condoms from street workers and using them as evidence even with indoor prostitution. The moral witch hunt will get much worse before it gets better. Its time all consenting adults in America stand up for their rights, and file a class action case in federal court.

    1. Not actually unconstitutional. Laws can target a specific group of people, requiring them to do things, as long as the laws are "rationally related" to a legitimate government interest. And given the way that courts decide that, Measure B would definitely be found constitutional.

      Not supporting Measure B, but I do think it is important to be real about the constitutionality of the law. To say that B isn't makes it seem like we are talking out of our asses and not a legitimate source of information on the measure.

  2. Your post reads as an emotional rant, not a thoughtful argument (although there are a few facts thrown in). This is only going to convince people who already agree with you and turn off those who already disagree.

    1. I have a certain style of writing, I'm brash and tend to be emotional. That doesn't take away from the facts and figures that I did provide. The point is that LA county has much more important things to spend their money on. They're spending millions of dollars on the Yes on B campaign, in order to force aprox 300 performers to wear condoms. Do those numbers make sense to you? In the process, AHF has been using fear tactics and stigma to get their point across. Stigmatizing and judging adult performers is NOT the way to do it. Not to mention the fact that performers have a good way of policing themselves and running their own industry, in terms of STI tests etc. Simple enough for ya?

  3. In Canada and USA I am said that health dept. studies show sex workers + the porn industry have less std's than the general public. Possibly valid for all sex workers in and from rich countries (migrant sex workers may have different issues).

    That was new to learn even for me as sex worker about the porn valley sex industry. Especially after the AIM closure scandal and some international press articles on STI cases like this one from 2008 = .

    >> We do need to cite, defend and circulate important sex work health research findings more and better! <<

    You could provide a scientific citation, footnote and link in your researcher's blogg related to your core statement? ("there has not been a single case of HIV in the heterosexual porn industry in over 8 years.")

    The safer sex with condom porn film standard in gay film was established to keep the industry going I guess, against police or legal closure. Possibly similar to the gay men detention threat during the AIDS crisis in the 80ies? But second, porn-with condom is a great role model community education or enlightenment project for safer sex and HIV/STI prevention in general. That is why I still would like to recommend that practice for heterosexual porn as well, although the HIV risk is much lower in heterosexual sex in general and there are obviously differences between these communities...and I know that heterosexual men have much greater condom issues. Life is so complex ;-) Besides, the infection rates in heterosexual sex are different for women and men.

    In Germany the national AIDS prevention campaign board and institute has taken up the gay experience and implemented similar messages successfully for the mainstream general public (later very good medical health results could be evaluated in Germany to prove that strategy).

    Possibly there is a great misunderstanding between different porn communities or AIDS/STI prevention aid groups, where the gay groups certainly have a historic domination in the HIV field. Very hard to tell the difference between helper industry efforts/propaganda and just misunderstanding of different sex workers, communities, different social workers or support/advocacy projects...

    Would love to get more citations on the good health of sex workers (not only in porn) and about more details about the functioning of the existing prevention measures and systems as this in all countries is a field of dispute (In Vienna, Austria registered sex workers have forced weekly invasive genital inspections still today, similar to what Russia has before the revolution 1875