2 ms·
As a response to the linked article. Firstly, it the openner is rather more focused on prostitution which is commonly illegal, rather than pornography which is
by dismantlethesun 10y ago
As a response to the linked article.
Firstly, it the openner is rather more focused on prostitution which is commonly illegal, rather than pornography which is legal.
To summarize, it maintains that due to the fact that you are handling bodily fluids during sex work, to get up to OSHA minimums you would need:
1. No oral sex
2. Gloves to be worn at all times
3. Masks and face shields must be worn at all times
4. Full-length aprons, and protective bodywear to be worn at all times
In the whole... the entire article is silly and real laws concerning sex-work would have to take into account to actually accomplish the act someone is going to have to take their clothes off.
Additionally, due to harassment laws concerning workplaces:
1. All clients of sex workers must no longer solicit because solicitation of sex is sexual harassment in the workplace
2. As an interesting converse to this, all sex workers must now accept all kinds of clients in order to not be seen as refusing service to a protected class
So the article proposes that solicitation should be illegal (it already is for prostitutes) and that even asking a pornographic actor or actress to perform a specific act should be illegal. Rather all pornography should happen naturally, without any direction at all.
Certainly an ... interesting ... article, but not a very useful one.
- nostrebored 10y agoHow you came to those conclusions is frankly beyond me -- the article argues that pornography is an exploitative industry that is inherently contrary to OSHA standards. The absurdities you're pointing out are the crux of the argument.
- dismantlethesun 10y agoWhich conclusions are you disagreeing with? > the article argues that pornography is an exploitative industry that is inherently contrary to OSHA standards I agreed and summarized why.