The nanny/morality state strikes again

[A2K78]

I'm no friend of the adult/sex industry, but this requirement that porn actors now use condoms on set is stupid and for the reason that it technically can't be enforced and secondly violate privacy. The scarry thing is this law is borderline government intrusion in the bedroom

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...r-US-city-became-first-to-change-the-law.html


am all for the prevention of STD's and things of that nature, but this clearly not the way to do this.

 

[Danoff]

Yea, saw that yesterday.

Even assuming it works (ie: the performers in LA use condoms), it won't really do anything because they'll just cross the street to be outside of LA City. Los Angeles City is an oddly shaped thing that has various areas that are included and areas that are not. So the ban is going to extremely easy to work around.

I've long been of the opinion that if Los Angeles keeps trying to do this nonsense, the porn industry will simply move down the road to Las Vegas, and that will hurt Los Angeles a bit.

 

[A2K78]

Yea, saw that yesterday.

Even assuming it works (ie: the performers in LA use condoms), it won't really do anything because they'll just cross the street to be outside of LA City. Los Angeles City is an oddly shaped thing that has various areas that are included and areas that are not. So the ban is going to extremely easy to work around.

I've long been of the opinion that if Los Angeles keeps trying to do this nonsense, the porn industry will simply move down the road to Las Vegas, and that will hurt Los Angeles a bit.

There is a reason why this law won't work...it would be impossible to enforcement. The overall problem with the law though is the fact its one step away from government regulating what individuals do behind closed door.

 

[wfooshee]

These people aren't private citizens behind closed doors. They're "actors" working in an industry, and running a severe health risk during unprotected sex. The fact that it screws up your porn is just too eff-ing bad.

Not to say that the law is actually useful. Those people have regular tests, every 30 days apparently. Even so, what do you tell the folks you worked with during the last month (or two) after you test positive?

Now had the law been passed based on actual disease statistics from that industry, rather than a public petition stating not much more than "these folks have to protect each other from the crap they must be carrying around," then it would have a bit more legitimacy than it does.

As for forcing the industry "underground," I didn't realize that the entire world outside of LA was "underground." I've never been to Los Angeles. I wonder what it's like above ground?

Still, the law requires certain working safety standards, but says nothing about what people do with themselves privately at home, so I'm wondering what the OP is getting his panties wadded up about.

 

[alexleighton]

Seems pretty stupid to me, it should be up to the performers. Give them the ability to take action against the studios if they deny them roles because they want to use protection, but don't force it on everyone.

 

[Danoff]

Still, the law requires certain working safety standards, but says nothing about what people do with themselves privately at home, so I'm wondering what the OP is getting his panties wadded up about.

Some jobs are more dangerous than others (logging comes to mind). It's up to the individual to determine whether the pay is worth the risk.

 

[Keef]

Thankfully the best porn often comes from the bedroom of some kinky couple who are unaffected by this law.

ANYWAYS.

I think Danoff hit the nail on the head. If you keep banning stuff in one place, people will simply go somewhere else.

 

[Villain]

Most of the shoots happen outside of LA City limits anyways. No more Hollywood Hills settings. Less money for the city to gain in taxes from these companies. Antonio Villaraigosa is and always has been a moron. He just supports popular opinions.

 

[Northstar]

He just supports popular opinions.

Isn't that the point of a politician?

 

[Villain]

Isn't that the point of a politician?

A politician, sure. But not a great leader. He has no convictions and won't stand up for anything unless everyone else is already standing up for it. He just smiles for the cameras and tries to be as non-controversial as possible. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[A2K78]

These people aren't private citizens behind closed doors. They're "actors" working in an industry, and running a severe health risk during unprotected sex. The fact that it screws up your porn is just too eff-ing bad.

Not to say that the law is actually useful. Those people have regular tests, every 30 days apparently. Even so, what do you tell the folks you worked with during the last month (or two) after you test positive?

Now had the law been passed based on actual disease statistics from that industry, rather than a public petition stating not much more than "these folks have to protect each other from the crap they must be carrying around," then it would have a bit more legitimacy than it does.

As for forcing the industry "underground," I didn't realize that the entire world outside of LA was "underground." I've never been to Los Angeles. I wonder what it's like above ground?

Still, the law requires certain working safety standards, but says nothing about what people do with themselves privately at home, so I'm wondering what the OP is getting his panties wadded up about.

We can sit here all we want and debat the matter of work safety(because even that argument is weak), but this isn't the real issue. The point is these individuals are consenting adults and being so the government have NO RIGHT whatsoever in forcing them use to condoms. As I have said, this is very close to regulating what does behind closed doors. In fact what they do is no different than what millions of people do in the privacy of thier homes.

 

[wfooshee]

Yeah, but no. They're not consenting adults having private sex. They're paid employees performing for a production, and as such they are in a workplace.

I'm not saying the law is fundamentally sound, because it's pretty much a "panic" reaction. "These people are doing what??!?!?! We have to make them protect themselves!" And with no statistics of actual disease propogation to back that up. So yes, the workplace safety argument is weak. Not weak because it's not a workplace, but weak because the people making the law didn't really have the numbers to back up their claim of risk.

But you can't say that there's no difference between this and private activities in people's own homes. There is a difference. What they do is different from what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Personally, I've never had sex under bright lights with 15 people watching and the caterer waiting for me to "finish up" so he can serve lunch. What these people portray may not be too different from what people do in their own homes (although I've never had "camera angle" as a high priority in my own thinking during sex) but what they're actually doing as so far removed from actual private sex that it simply cannot be compared to what people do in their own lives.

 

[Danoff]

...but it is what people do in their own lives... working.

Why does it being a "workplace" somehow make it "public". It's still private. "Work" is a private contract between you and someone else. The value of the risks you take at work are for you to determine - whether you're jackie chan risking death flying through the air trying to land on a hot air baloon, a helicopter logger in canada risking crashing*, or a gay porn star risking AIDS* (which is a manageable disease these days).

* When you tug on that next tree trunk.

 

[A2K78]

...but it is what people do in their own lives... working.

Why does it being a "workplace" somehow make it "public". It's still private. "Work" is a private contract between you and someone else. The value of the risks you take at work are for you to determine - whether you're jackie chan risking death flying through the air trying to land on a hot air baloon, a helicopter logger in canada risking crashing*, or a gay porn star risking a AIDS* (which is a manageable disease these days).

* When you tug on that next tree trunk.

When speaking of the production of porn being a private thing, I wasn't just speaking in the context as it being private contract, but also the fact that sexual activities between consenting individuals is also private and being so the government have no right in dictating it. Its for this reason why I favor the decriminalization of prostitution because though I personally disagree with it, government have no right to say what consenting individuals can do.

Overall this passing of this law not demonstrate more state nannying, but also an attempt at codifying morality.

Yeah, but no. They're not consenting adults having private sex. They're paid employees performing for a production, and as such they are in a workplace.

I'm not saying the law is fundamentally sound, because it's pretty much a "panic" reaction. "These people are doing what??!?!?! We have to make them protect themselves!" And with no statistics of actual disease propogation to back that up. So yes, the workplace safety argument is weak. Not weak because it's not a workplace, but weak because the people making the law didn't really have the numbers to back up their claim of risk.

But you can't say that there's no difference between this and private activities in people's own homes. There is a difference. What they do is different from what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Personally, I've never had sex under bright lights with 15 people watching and the caterer waiting for me to "finish up" so he can serve lunch. What these people portray may not be too different from what people do in their own homes (although I've never had "camera angle" as a high priority in my own thinking during sex) but what they're actually doing as so far removed from actual private sex that it simply cannot be compared to what people do in their own lives.

Even so, these are consenting acts and governments no right in telling individuals they need to use condoms. Again, it should be up to the porn actors in deciding whether they want to be exposed to things like STD/AIDS/HIV, not the government.