Consumers want to have their sexual fantasies without worrying about all the risky realities of unprotected sex. This fantasy mindset applies to visual art, erotic fiction, and performance. Reality is often unpleasant, and porn is a magical realm of escapism and gratification. Impregnation risk fetish is usually the only time lack of protection is specifically called out.
In a new move to waste money regulating issues that have already been addressed, California has introduced Proposition 60, known by most as the condoms in porn law. This previously appeared as Measure B in Los Angeles County in 2012. This proposition would make the use of condoms for scenes of vaginal or anal penetration mandatory, as well as require producers to cover the costs of performers health screenings and vaccinations. There are good intentions in this proposition, but they are overshadowed by incomplete considerations for the issues it intends to resolve.
Unfair prosecution will fall upon monogamous amateur couples under this law. If the couple is faithful, they have no risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Therein lies significant lack of consideration in this legislation for a distinction between professionals and hobbyist performer/producers.
Additionally, creampie finishes could not be filmed in California under this law, which is a shame. The creampie money shot appears to have strong appeal for both heterosexual men and women, for reasons that should be instinctively obvious. That “filmed in California” part is important. Since this is California legislation, it can only effect California law. Producers outside of California need only be in compliance with the law relevant to their location. Not to mention current producers in California would simply move.
Noble causes mask shady power plays
California’s labyrinthine bureaucracy doesn’t need more wasteful expenses either. Paying retirement for state employees was already an issue in California years ago. This legislation would create a position for a compliance officer to review material for violations. Essentially, Michael Weinstein, the head organizer of this proposition, gets a cushy job watching porn all day at taxpayer expense. Accessing porn on a company computer leads to termination in any traditional office environment. Naturally, the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Mr. Weinstein’s organization, is the only donor supporting to legislation.
There are some good intentions behind this legislation though. As the employer, the film studios should be providing adequate risk mitigation for health concerns. There is no difference between this and requiring industrial facilities to provide personal protective equipment such as eye and ear protection. However, this proposal does not evenly apply safety measures. While the condom mandate would provide protection for heterosexual and gay male scenes, there would be no safety measure beyond the health screening for actresses performing a lesbian scene.
Lesbians lose in heteronormative legislation
Regarding lesbian sex, it seems the risk of transmission for the big demon of STDs, HIV, is significantly lower. But this could be due to a lack of data rather than a lower risk. Regardless, many performers do scenes with both men and women, so the risk not reduced. Also, since the legislature only mandates condoms for penetrative vaginal or anal sex, facial ejaculation and blowjobs are still a major risk. Ultimately, it seems that any of the attempts to reduce risk will largely be ineffective in the current language. Too much is overlooked. The assumption of bisexual performance does nothing to protect exclusively lesbian actresses.
However, it is important to note that there are adult performers on both sides of this legislation. Not all companies are equal in their care for their employees, and like any industry, porn studios are likely to try to ignore risks in favor or productivity. This is an area where California does deserve some credit. California law does more for worker rights than many other states in the US. There is more to do to properly protect employees, though, given this is the US we’re talking about. I’m not here to propose effective solutions, since I don’t have the industry experience to do so. Respect and honesty from all involved parties, as well as a control factor, are clearly needed.
What does this mean for 3DX?
Absolutely nothing. Art is invincible. Forcing Sayako to wear a condom won’t happen anytime soon. Though futas inflating condoms like jizz-filled water balloons is a thing, so maybe she’ll wear one voluntarily.
The opinions and views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of those of Affect3D as a whole.
Sources:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016)
https://www.womenshealth.gov/hiv-aids/women-are-at-risk-of-hiv/women-who-have-sex-can-get-hiv.html
http://www.aidsmap.com/Female-to-female-sexual-transmission/page/1323529/
Image Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-condom-initiative-prop-60-poll-20160915-snap-story.html
https://www.dorcelvision.com/en/movies/la-banane/anna-25-social-worker
https://www.dorcelvision.com/en/movies/selection-dorcel/the-driving-school
http://www.hentai-foundry.com/pictures/user/nothingmore/435780/Timeout
Pathetic
October 31, 2016The law is fine and and step in the right direction.
The only people that won’t watch porn with condoms are pigs – and I could care less about them anyway. And the less the porn industry tries to appeal to pigs, the better for everyone.
Pigs (and the Internet to some extent) have turned the mainstream porn industry from films with great looking gals having sex within a remote semblance of a storyline…to today where it’s mainly about average looking women (the smaller and younger the better) getting banged by the biggest dicks the porn industry can find.
It’s gone WAY down hill.
Maybe this law can help reverse that to some small extent. At the very least, it will offer protection to the young gals who are too intimidated to ask their onscreen partners to wear condoms.
And the more respect the industry shows the gals, the better looking the gals will get. And good looking actresses is far more important to me then whether the guy is wearing a condom or not.
miro
January 17, 2017I disagree, the most important point is you can create a safe sex situation without condoms with regular testing and other means, so there’s not need for condoms
of course condom use is important for casual sex, but porn is entertainment and shouldn’t be forced sex ed
UndercityIV
December 31, 2016Respect for the women? First of all, once you get on camera and start banging for money you really deserve no respect. These people can’t even love or fall in love at all. Sex is probably not even all that enjoyable. ALl these damn laws is just proof that white males in power are looking for every way possible to regulate more shit.
miro
January 17, 2017replying to your comment is more respect than you deserve
Marie Fasolt
January 2, 2017ಠ_ಠ