3 ms·

This is part of the churn due to the passage of Measure B in LA County, which mandates use of condoms on shoots. A lot of production has moved out of LA County

by mturmon 11y ago

This is part of the churn due to the passage of Measure B in LA County, which mandates use of condoms on shoots. A lot of production has moved out of LA County in consequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_B), away from the established sets in the San Fernando Valley. All of this was predicted in advance. I was somewhat surprised the measure passed. It was pitched publicly as a good-for-performers health measure by its sponsor, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/medical-privacy-sex-work-aids-healthcare-foundation-michael-weinstein-safer-sex-in-the-adult-film-industry-act-porn-gay-porn-condoms-a/Content?oid=4007341 http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/medical-privacy-sex-wor...). This foundation, weirdly, is now spearheading an anti-development ballot initiative in Hollywood (http://www.advocate.com/hiv-aids/2016/1/13/ahfs-michael-weinstein-has-new-fight-and-its-not-about-hiv http://www.advocate.com/hiv-aids/2016/1/13/ahfs-michael-wein...). Coincidentally, this is again relevant to AirBnB because AirBnB (like dense housing development) has been viewed as a force for gentrification.

c3534l 11y ago
The measure probably passed in order to discourage porn from being shot there.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > The measure probably passed in order to discourage porn from being shot there. That's a reasonable guess, but once you look at the pattern in Michael Weinstein's behavior, it's clear what his real motives are. Weinstein is the president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which championed the initiative. The AHF has done good things in the past, but as of 2016, it's doing far more harm than good. Weinstein has a really puritanical view towards sex, and has a history of actively opposing harm-reduction approaches to HIV treatment and prevention. Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of pre-exposure prophylaxis in preventing HIV transmission, he has actively campaigned against it, intentionally spreading inordinate amounts of misinformation to discourage its use. His logic is basically, "we need to encourage condom use, and we should indoctrinate people into using condoms by ensuring that the porn they watch uses condoms". There are a lot of things wrong with this logic, not the least of which is that it's had no effect on the number of condoms used in porn shoots, as everyone now just shoots in Las Vegas or other nearby cities instead.
  - c3534l 11y ago
    That's one person and you need an entire electorate to enact a proposition. Many (but not all) probably would have voted for an outright ban.
    - pessimizer 11y ago
      > you need an entire electorate to enact a proposition. No, you just need an active interested group and for everyone else to be indifferent or unaware.

by mturmon 11y ago

c3534l 11y ago

The measure probably passed in order to discourage porn from being shot there.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> The measure probably passed in order to discourage porn from being shot there. That's a reasonable guess, but once you look at the pattern in Michael Weinstein's behavior, it's clear what his real motives are. Weinstein is the president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which championed the initiative. The AHF has done good things in the past, but as of 2016, it's doing far more harm than good. Weinstein has a really puritanical view towards sex, and has a history of actively opposing harm-reduction approaches to HIV treatment and prevention. Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of pre-exposure prophylaxis in preventing HIV transmission, he has actively campaigned against it, intentionally spreading inordinate amounts of misinformation to discourage its use. His logic is basically, "we need to encourage condom use, and we should indoctrinate people into using condoms by ensuring that the porn they watch uses condoms". There are a lot of things wrong with this logic, not the least of which is that it's had no effect on the number of condoms used in porn shoots, as everyone now just shoots in Las Vegas or other nearby cities instead.
- c3534l 11y ago
  That's one person and you need an entire electorate to enact a proposition. Many (but not all) probably would have voted for an outright ban.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    > you need an entire electorate to enact a proposition. No, you just need an active interested group and for everyone else to be indifferent or unaware.