Legislating Condoms Into Porn
The LA Times is tracking the most recent news about a performer in the porn industry testing positive for HIV. There are conflicting reports but at least one has the performer working for a day after she received a positive result.
In response to the perception that the industry has not done enough to protect its workers, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest non-profit HIV healthcare provider in the U.S. (which is based in Los Angeles) will be holding a protest tonight outside the Hustler Store on Sunset. The organization is calling for legislators to require mandatory condom use in porn films. The argument is that condoms in porn are like hard hats in construction, protection that should be required to minimize workplace safety hazards for workers.
According to the Times there was a similar call following the seroconversion of performers in 2004, which resulted in the halting of most porn productions for a month. But the bill “quietly expired” without a vote (a harrowing term given that we're talking about the safety of sex workers).
I’m confused about why politicians wouldn’t want to regulate condoms in porn. It seems like U.S. politicians love inserting themselves into our bedrooms and our Internet video feeds. The industry claims that forcing them to mandate condom use would ruin their business. Maybe the politicians don’t want to threaten what must still be a cash cow for the state coffers (do cows use coffers?) But who knows if the industry’s claims are true. I don’t know if it’s fair to draw a parallel with the gay industry, but they managed to introduce condoms and stay afloat.
I’m very much for a harm reduction approach to the problem, and if legislating condom use would in the end make it harder for performers to protect themselves than I would be against it. We need to figure out what performers have to have in place to best protect themselves. Why we aren’t having a more explicit and public conversation about this. It seems like it’s the job of the public health departments, industry healthcare services (like AIM) and the performers themselves to get together and talk. Knowing a bit about the industry I understand this is a tall order on all fronts, but surely it’s one worth working toward. Realistically it's hard to find time to organize like this, and that's one place where allies can be of help. Which brings me to the one group we haven't heard at all from, porn consumers.
If millions of people around the world love porn, and by extension love their porn performers, can’t we deal with a little bit of squeamishness to protect them? I don’t buy the stereotype of porn consumers as unfeeling heathens or across the board misogynists in the case of the straight male porn consumer. Porn consumers have arguably the greatest untapped influence of any consumer group there is. Shame and fear keep us silent, and while you might think that you don’t really want to know what people who watch porn think or feel, I guarantee you you’re wrong (I know this because I know that "people who watch porn" includes a much bigger group than you probably imagine). It’s possible to fight for the rights and safety of porn performers and still enjoy whatever porn you enjoy. It might seem oxymoronic with some porn genres, but it isn’t. It’s possible to do almost anything safely, and certainly it’s possible to do anything more safely than it’s currently being done.
I’m going to go online and try to start some discussions in some of my favorite porn forums. It isn’t much but it’s what I can do. If I were in Los Angeles tonight I’d go to the AHF protest even if it were to speak an opposing opinion.
There's no simple answer here but we all need to do something to try and make the situation a little better and help workers keep themselves a little safer.
Read more - LA Times Blog:At least 16 previously unpublicized HIV cases in porn film performers, public health officials say
| | Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum | |
First, it seems likely that if the industry substituted a government imposed condom requirement in place of the current HIV testing program infections would go up and not down. Because their livelihood is at stake, actors are more likely to use condoms when not performing than they would be in the absence of a testing program. Indeed, it seems likely that the testing program has saved many lives that condoms would have lost. Second the assumption that revenues would not be affected is clearly wrong. If condom regulations were imposed, the industry would simply relocate out of California and possibly outside the US. Just as so many other industries have done in response to excessive regulation. Finally, we should not forget that porn evolved form an illegal clandestine industry. Even criminal sanctions could not suppress or control it. It seems likely that in a competitive environment, a large segment of the industry would go back underground to the extent necessary to avoid government control. Taxes would be lost, jobs would be lost, organized crime would return. Perhaps, you may suggest we should have both a condom requirement and government imposed testing. Raising the question, how would the government testing program be more effective than the one currently in place? Would lives be saved or lost? What would be the next regulation imposed to “protect actors” from themselves? How long before the government program would serve as the basis for banning porn altogether? Thanks.
Thanks Don, those are very interesting points and several new angles to consider. If we follow your thinking then mandating condoms would not be wise from a harm reduction perspective.
What I like about your explanation, and what I find missing in most of the discussion of this stuff, is the specificity. I find most of the time the conversation gets stuck on “no one wants to watch porn with condoms”, which is a point I still find debatable. I maintain that hot porn with condoms is a lot better than bad porn without it. The problem is people are used to bad porn, so they find it hard to imagine an alternative. Thanks again!
We don’t let people work on a construction site without a helmet. It’s dangerous. We require people to wear protective clothing where their jobs may be dangerous. This is no different. These workers have sex as a vocation. They are susceptible to STD’s and HIV. At the very least they should be protected. I do not think that is too much. It is the responsible thing. I have no issue with the adult film industry products, let’s make sure that our enjoyment does not come at the cost of these actor’s lives!!!!
If politicians were to regulate condoms in porn,
they would first have to acknowledge porn video production as on the same level as mainstream hollywood film & video production. That Porn stars are performers just like Hollywood performers with the same rights. Are they ready for that?
What’s missing from this debate is the fact that imposing requirements to wear condoms in all porn productions will ultimately prove to the basic porn-consuming population (ie: a vast majority of the general population) that wearing condoms for every single sexual encounter is not only acceptable, but mandatory for each and every individual’s safety.
I don’t buy the “people don’t like to watch porn with condoms” argument. There is plenty of great porn with condoms already on the market. In fact, Vivid – one of the top production companies, has been using condoms in their films for years now. I don’t think they’ve seen their bottom line suffer.
Regulations should include mandatory condom use IN ADDITION to the testing already in place.
Requiring condom use in porn films probably will not increase the safety of the sex workers, but it will be a tremendous help in the cultural revolution that’s been needed for the past 20 years.
I think legislating condoms into porn is a very wise decision. I’ve seen some porn movies where it’s quite obvious that the actors are using condoms and instead of being a turn-off, I find it a turn-on because to me it gives the impression that the characters care enough about their own health and their partners’ health to use condoms. Sometimes they’re very noticeable and yet other times you really have to look to tell that they’re wearing them. Wicked Pictures is a company that uses condoms in their films and quite frankly I think they have some of the best films that I’ve seen. Porn actors are human beings first and foremost and their health and safety should not come second to our entertainment…the better protected they are, the healthier they are and the more productive they are. To me legislating condoms into porn is a win-win situation: the actors are protected from disease and can work longer and we get more films with our favourite porn stars.
My understanding, and it comes from reading AVN news so take it for what it is worth, is that porn actors are not considered regular employees. They’re contract workers, or something of the sort. As contract workers they can be asked to show recent HIV testing status, but this could not be done if they were employees (employment rules forbid it) so we could not do both at once. If we require condoms then, according to my understanding, we would have to make them employees in order to monitor it. That would trigger a whole of stuff – not sure what that stuff would be or whether it would be good, bad or both.
I hear that people prefer condom-free porn as it is part of their fantasy. I wonder what demographics prefer this kind of porn, as my peer group has told me they don’t care either way or expect condoms. For my part, I will be sure to pay only for porn that does use condoms. I will also write notes to companies that I notice using condoms to thank them. I’d rather have consumers inspire this shift, if possible. If the guy/guy porn industry can go to nearly always using condoms, I don’t see why the het industry can’t do that with the support of consumers. Does anyone know which companies do use condoms and other appropriate barriers in their porn?
That said, I have to admit that I’m impressed by the low infection rate. I don’t want to wait to until the rate becomes a problem to act, though. Waiting until there is a problem implies that these lives aren’t valuable.
As far as I know (and Sarah said this above) Wicked is the only major porn production company that requires condoms. It would be interesting to know how their sales are compared to, say, Vivid, which is marketing to a similar audience.
But I appreciate your question about demographics of who watches what kind of porn. I haven’t seen any good research on who watches what. Mostly in porn reserach they distinguish porn by orientation or by the presence of what the researchers consider to be “violent” material. One of the great frustrations for me about all porn discussions is how little we actually know about people’s real and intimate porn watching habits.
It’s wrong to single out this industry like this. If you want to legislate condoms you should need to do it for everyone. Some people are far more promiscuous than adult film stars who do not act in films.
If a private company wants to have this policy that’s totally fine, but it is completely wrong to mandate it when people aren’t obligated to wear them off-camera.
After reading Jack Morin’s excellent book, The Erotic Mind, I wonder if we all would not benefit if porn industry DID put condoms into it’s product. Or have a separate genre of ‘condom porn’! Since porn is fantasy, then obviously porn is not incorporate condoms into fantasy. As a hetero who uses condoms regularly just for contraception, it is obvious why people hate condoms. Our fantasies don’t really include them. If our fantasies DID use condoms, creatively and erotic/romantically, condoms sales would jump, safer sex might happen, people would slowly learn to enjoy something which is basically still deep-down a true bother psychologically. It couldn’t hurt if we just gave it a chance.