8 ms·
Not-so-safe Sex
- falsestprophet 17y agoOr the law could require both condom use and std tests
- KirinDave 17y agoThe point of the article is that it seems like the law is pointless and only introduces complications and special cases to existing laws. And the simple truth is you cannot stop pornography from being produced, you'll just turn it into a black-market affair. That may be an acceptable problem for certain types of exploitative porn, but for the general body of pornography it's generally a bad idea.
- dkarl 17y agoThe point of the article is to miss the point. It frames the condom requirement as a protective measure for performers, a possibly flawed solution that threatens to cost lives by pushing some performers outside the very effective safety regime that is already in place. However, that is not the intent at all. The intent is to require the porn industry to portray safe(r) sex. The movies do not portray professionals in a highly regulated industry having sex with each other in a professional setting. They portray people routinely having unprotected sex at the drop of a hat with whatever babysitter, repairman, job applicant, or high school student who happens to be nearby. Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen.
- omgsean 17y agoBut people don't want to watch that. The barrier to entry for creating and distributing porn is so low these days that it's almost guaranteed to just push more of the industry into the "amateur" realm.
- dkarl 17y agoYeah, that's a good argument. It should be discussed and balanced against the true intent of the legislation, not against the phony and disingenuous idea that it's meant to protect performers.
- KirinDave 17y ago> Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen. So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover up our profound failures in sexual education? The last 15 years have seen schools engaging in the most ridiculous forms of sexual education imaginable, and then we wonder why people don't make informed decisions. It must be the porn. It's this kind of authoritarian control-their-thoughts logic that gives rise to all sorts of absurd laws. It's not even clear that it'll do anything. It's legislation for the sake of itself. So we can have that discussion, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere for that argument.
- dkarl 17y agoSo is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover up our profound failures in sexual education? I'm pretty sure all the supporters of this legislation are strongly in favor of comprehensive, explicit sex education in public schools. The idea that they're working to undermine sex education by using porn as a distraction is ludicrous. If anything, condoms in porn will increase the credibility of sex education in kids' eyes. We know kids are skeptical what they're taught in the public schools is artificial, idealistic BS that will never fly in the real situations they're faced with. (And who can blame them?) We know they're not just influenced by porn but often consciously turn to it as a source of information about sex. Seeing condoms in porn, even if they're only used in 10% of the porn they see, encourages them to think, "Huh, I guess real people actually do this. It's a normal practice that I can reasonably demand of my partners without being a total priss/dweeb." The legislation won't do anything to either promote or discourage better sex ed, but it will make it easier for students to trust the sex ed that is actually offered to them. In what way could it possibly detract from sexual education?
- barry-cotter 17y agoSex education has no credibility. Abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, but guess what? Neither does any other kind. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp Lack of contraceptive education effectiveness http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/ http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_se...
- pfedor 17y agoThis may be their true intent, but they chose not to pursue this goal directly (I'm guessing because a direct attack on free speech would have less chance of succeeding). Instead, they're filing a complaint with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. "we see it as our duty to pursue action on the issue of safety in the workplace": http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-calosha.html http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-ca...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- zngtk4 17y agoWhat about this point? >Second, condom-only regulation would also encourage a black market in adult film production. So movies featuring no-condom sex would not only still exist, but those actors and actresses would no longer be required to participate in the industry's HIV testing program, increasing the risk of an HIV outbreak in the industry and the population at large. One need only look at prostitution to see what happens when an industry operates underground.
- jrockway 17y agoIt should also make an exemption for allowing employers to refuse to hire HIV-positive actors. In most cases, this would be horribly discriminatory... but when your job involves putting your sex organs inside other people's bodies... I don't think that restricting the job to the HIV-negative is going to be too damaging to society :)
- Confusion 17y agoIf HIV infected surgeons are allowed to operate, why shouldn't HIV infected persons be allowed to act in a porn movie?
- presidentender 17y agoThey should be. But producers should be able to choose not to hire them.
- nudded 17y agothat entirely depends on the precautions taken.
- jrockway 17y agoBecause the surgeons aren't spraying their bodily fluids into you.
- pyre 17y agoI think this may be a place where anti-discrimination and OSHA bump up against each other. If producers can't turn down HIV-infected actors, then aren't they endangering their HIV-negative actors? To answer your question, the risk of a condom breaking is much higher than a surgeon getting bodily fluids into a patient. Sexual intercourse necessarily involves production of bodily fluids with nothing but the condom to contain them. A surgeon is not required to produce highly infectious fluids as part of performing an operation. If a latex glove breaks during an operation what are the chances that some HIV-infected fluids will leak out and into the patient? What are the chances that an actor/actress will be infected when a condom full of HIV-positive semen breaks inside of them?
- rauljara 17y ago"For one, the adult film industry would have to make every performer an employee to satisfy the California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, laws." This sounds like the root cause of all the problems he lays out with the new law. Not condoms. I don't understand why he frames the article in terms of condoms. I also don't understand why you wouldn't be able to mandate condom use without making performers full employees.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- BRadmin 17y agoEspecially if they're currently able to mandate monthly testing without making performers full employees.
- billswift 17y agoThat monthly testing will become illegal if they become employees. See the Marginal Revolution post linked to above.
- dunmalg 17y agoHe frames his argument in terms of condoms because the legislation is framed that way.
- msluyter 17y agoMarginal Revolution (my favorite economics blog) has an entry on this: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/12/condoms-law-nsfw.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/12...
- maudineormsby 17y agoThis is a great post. Points out two things: 1. That this really isn't about the safety of the performers, but more about the fact that people watching the films are exposed to people having unprotected sex, which influences their own action. The anti-AIDS lobby is trying to increase condom use by the public, not decrease AIDS infection in adult performers. 2. The law is worded such as to include the performers under Cal/OSHA. It could probably be reworked and let them have their cake and eat it too.
- billswift 17y agoA commenter there also pointed out that if the performers do become employees under Cal/OSHA, the mandatory HIV testing they undergo will become illegal.
- AndrewO 17y agoOut of curiousity, how does the industry not have to fulfill Cal/OSHA now? Is it that performers are not currently employees and the proposed law would change that?
- tibbon 17y agoThey aren't employees I'm pretty sure currently. Unsure if they are technically contractors, or if 'actors' fall under a different category overall. This does seem like stupid legislation.
- tibbon 17y agoAside from the public watching people having unprotected sex (which isn't really unprotected - they are extensively tested and the chain of sexual partners is well documented in case there is an outbreak. Plus every female actor is on some form of birth control), what is the problem that they are trying to solve here? Like he said, there was only one outbreak in that community, which is far better than your average college campus. Plus aren't these films intended for people 18+ who are supposed to be able to separate out fantasy from reality?
- teilo 17y agoYou are living in a fantasy land. If you actually had the time to talk to real porn stars who aren't being managed by a handler, they would tell you a completely different story. What you say may be true of the really big, "high brow" porn companies, but it is certainly not true for the bulk of the porn that is produced in the US. Ask one of the doctors whose job it is to do this testing, not just for HIV, but for the whole range of STDs. I was told by one former porn star who has interviewed said doctors that somewhere around 65% of the porn stars he tests have Herpes. I have also heard Audrey Hollander admit, in an interview, that if you have been in that industry for any amount of time, then you have herpes, period. There is so much evil crap going on in this industry, but there is also a whole lot of denial among porn consumers who justify their habits by statements much like yours. http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-stars-speak-out-stds-drugs-and-abuse http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-stars-speak-out-stds-drugs... http://www.jupaman.com/2008/04/23/genital-herpes-and-pornographythe-hidden-side-of-porn/ http://www.jupaman.com/2008/04/23/genital-herpes-and-pornogr...
- weeksie 17y agoCheck the CDC site for info on herpes. Something like one in 5 people have it, that means if you're even moderately sexually active you probably do as well. The vast majority of the population is asymptomatic which is why there's such a stigma over the virus. In reality it's not a big deal at all. Freaking out over herpes is as silly as freaking out over HPV which is so common it might as well be a genetic marker for losing your virginity.
- joubert 17y agoThe argument for condom use in porn in not so much about protecting the actors, but rather communicating to the audience that condom use is "cool", "the thing to do", etc. etc. The gay porn industry is mostly there (there are a few production companies that specialize in barebacking, but they're generally frowned upon). Whether the govt. should be involved or not is a different question altogether.
- MikeCapone 17y ago> Whether the govt. should be involved or not is a different question altogether. I think it's the main question, actually.
- netcan 17y agoI think I've given up on the questions "is this very bad?" & "should this be illegal" not getting mixed into one.
- MikeCapone 17y agoI'm saying that I think it's the main question because if the government doesn't get involved, then people aren't coerced into applying someone's opinion about what is good/bad/desirable/etc, so the impact is much smaller. Not saying that the two things are one and the same.
- kingkilr 17y agoThis reminds me of the book More Sex is Safer Sex by Steven Landsburg.
- tlb 17y agoOverall I think he's right, but it also reminds me of arguments in the 1960s and 70s against seat belts and air bags: that by adding a new safeguard, people would come to depend on it and neglect other more effective precautions like driving carefully. There is indeed a "risk homeostasis" effect, but history suggests that extra precautions do reduce overall risk.
- pyre 17y agoThe most important take-aways from that article are that the actors will have to become employees which: (1) makes mandatory HIV testing illegal and (2) makes discriminating against HIV-infected actors illegal. How could either of these things be considered a good for the industry or the employees?
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoIs it really impossible to create a law that makes it illegal to show unprotected sex in a film? I can't see any way in which such a law would require any particular employment regime. Sounds like posturing/obstruction to me.
- pyre 17y agoBy whom? Apparently the law is worded so that they have to be employees. This seems like it's part of the "this is for the protection of the actors" train of thought because then they call under OSHA. This might just be a way of convincing people that this is all about the actors'/actresses' safety and not about trying to curb public perception of sex with/without condoms.
- johnl 17y agoThat's the same argument for marijuana legalization.
- yters 17y agoPeople like sex way too much. If you look at it objectively, sex is hilarious, and if it weren't for people's rationality being overridden by their desire for pleasure, everyone would be way too embarrassed to have sex, especially in public.
- enneff 17y agoHow can you look at something objectively and find humour in it? Humour is a subjective experience. Similarly, if people were strictly rational, the concept of embarrassment would not exist.
- yters 17y agoHere we have humans: the most ingenous and powerful species on the planet, yet they like nothing better than rubbing their bodies together and making funny noises.