It’s so simple even a child could understand it. Only bitter, axe-griding, hillbilly trash seem to have trouble digesting the logic.

How about, oh say, the construction industry. I’m not even going to cite data because only a fool would disregard the THOUSANDS of instances of crushed/severed limbs; incapacitation and/or slow death from chemicals and other substances present in building materials; injury and death from malfunctioning equipment; stuff falling on your fucking head from high places.

Or you have the agriculture and myriad food industries. Much of the same risks cited above apply here as well, but add in staph infection and other potentially dangerous and lethal risks, like being gored/stomped/crushed by large animals.

Then you have the military. Sign on the dotted line, then you die. Even with LOTS of safety equipment at your disposal. But the military loves to advertise itself as some kind of high-tech computer gaming convention where young people can gain valuable work skills. The many thousands of crippled vets would disagree, I think.

And yes, the motion picture industry. Many injuries occur there every year, but thankfully few deaths. Although actor Vic Morrow didn’t fare so well, nor did the two children, My-Ca Dinh Le (age 7), and Renee Shin-Yi Chen (age 6), who died along with him in an accident while filming on a California location back in 1989. Or Brandon Lee, also killed on location, in North Carolina in 1993. Between those two incidents, you already have more fatalities than in all of porn production history.

The adult industry is undoubtedly being held to a different standard of risk management, and only because it involves people working in a field that is perceived by our society as being morally wrong.

That is discrimination, plain and simple.

Health and safety regulations for workplaces are tailored to protect workers from harms incurred on the job — harms that are EXTERNAL to the job, not the job itself. For instance, laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars are designed to protect food servers and bar staff from smoking-related illness. That’s because a bartender is hired to pour drinks, not to inhale smoke. Inhaling smoke, or being “exposed to” smoke, is not what he or she is being paid to do.

In the case of porn, for condom-less scenes, the performers are being paid to perform sex for the cameras without condoms. They were not paid only to act but yet are being “exposed to” condom-less sex by evil producers. They are being paid to perform without a condom, just as a stunt person is paid to fall down a flight of steps without a helmet. That stunt person can and should use every single piece of safety equipment possible SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHOT. In no-condom porn, sex without a condom is that shot.

South also asserts, idiotically, that when a stunt person “takes that fall he is in complete control of the situation…” Really? So, you;re saying there are never accidents or injuries on movie sets, Mike? You can find the numbers of on-set injuries online. There are likely more injuries on mainstream sets in California in a single fiscal quarter than there has ever been in the history of adult movies in California. Stunt people (and others) have DIED making mainstream movies. NO OTHER industry has ever been held to the “zero-risk” standard that these fanatics are seeking to apply to porn production.

A) A certain JOB exists, meaning someone is willing to pay valuable consideration
to have a certain job performed. This person is willing to enter a bargain to have it performed, and offers a quid pro quo.

B) That job has basic, elemental requirements. These requirements are defined by the person offering the position.

c) There exist persons who want to be paid the consideration that the offeror is offering, and apply for the job.

D) Some of these applicants are willing to perform the job to the letter, and others wish to only perform part of the job. In other words, they seek to negotiate.

E) It is then up to the person offering to trade valuable consideration in exchange for the job being performed to decide:

1) whether he wishes to negotiate AT ALL (he may have a reason, such as his inability to sell the finished product it it diverges from his plan, to demand that the job be performed exactly as he demands); or

2) which, IF ANY, of those who have applied are offering something else of value which might mitigate the fact that they refuse to perform the job as originally conceived (i.e., the person has sufficient “star” value” as to compensate for their unwillingness to perform certain elements of the job).

Our hillbilly writes, “If this is the best you can do you might want to consider keeping moot.”

Umm, I think you mean “mute” not “moot” you moron. LMFAO

Mike, your assertions and insults prove constantly that “people in porn” weren’t “fucking stupid” when they kicked your ass to the curb many moons ago. Hell, you couldn’t even manage a strip club in fucking Ohio without getting yourself crippled on the job.

Kiss my ass, you ignorant hick sack of shit.

Porn performers are professionals, too…and they generally are capable of assessing the risks of certain scenes before they agree to do them.

Also, there isn’t planning involved in doing porn scenes?? Really?? You mean, anyone off the street can be recruited and paid to perform porn scenes??

Oh..and there is a sizable difference between Manwin or Adam & Eve or Digital Playground producing a scene, and someone with their digital camera simply taping themselves fooling around. Would you want the authorities to invade personal, private homes to stop the latter from performing bareback sex??

And, finally….most performers who don’t rely on condoms insist on one- to two-day clean test results before they even sign on the dotted line. Or, they restrict themselves only to performers they know and trust. I guess that they’re too stupid to protect themselves, too, and need the healing powers of AHF and Cal-OSHA to ruin them??

Try If you apply for a job in a restaurant’s kitchen, but they told you, “You can’t wear a hair net” Thats a bit closer

or

If a stunt man applies to double an actor who, in the scene in question, must fall down a flight of stairs without a helmet, but says, “I only wear helmets when I do falls” is he going to get that job?

Only a complete fucking moron would use this analogy, stuntmen are trained professionals and if one can’t do that fall he wouldn’t take the job, but the point is when he takes that fall he is in complete control of the situation, not so with a porn shoot. On that movie set there are dozens of people around ensuring his safety.

If this is the best you can do you might want to consider keeping moot. It does more harm than good.

I am and have been condom optional since 1992 it doesn’t have any effect on my sales, never has.

But the point for Cali is it aint gonna matter, it’s gonna be the law and it’s gonna be tied to not only the filming permit but the companies operating permit and it’s all because people in porn are too fucking stupid to head off what Stevie Wonder coulda seen coming.

If you apply for a job in a restaurant’s kitchen, but told them, “I kind of have a thing about knives. Oh, and heat — yeah, I don’t like being around that, either” are you going to get that job?

If a stunt man applies to double an actor who, in the scene in question, must fall down a flight of stairs without a helmet, but says, “I only wear helmets when I do falls” is he going to get that job?

Those job applicants are NOT “blackballed” — they are simply not hired because the job requires things they are not able or willing to do. They’re not being discriminated against — they can’t / won’t do the fucking job.

If a performer insists on only using condoms for b/g and can’t find gigs, there’s nothing to stop them from shooting other types of content instead. Brittany can shoot g/g or pegging videos. Neither she nor anyone else has a right to be hired to shoot b/g.

All I did was to quote from Ernest’s original essay, and add my own commentary.

For starters, I am NOT opposed to expanding performer testing to include the full gamut of STI screening, including Hepatitis B and C, HPV, and others. But, ultimately, the question remains: Who would pay for all these expanded tests, and how many performers already screen themselves for all these tests already out of their own pockets?

Secondly, Origen, you make the assumption that porn performers are more likely than the general population to contract STI’s due to the nature of their occupation. How do we know that, considering that most of the general population isn’t tested even close to the degree that porn perfomers are? Most data I’ve seen state that STI infections are probably more common outside of porn than inside; it’s just that most “civilians” don’t catch their infections until they seek medical attention.

Secondly….a “financial disadvantage”?? Seriously?? When there are numerous performers who are able to insist on condom only shoots for their websites and scenes?? When performers have the option to require 2-day clean tests for their performing partners??

And, how in the hell is that solved by creating a new financial disadvantage that privileges those performers who insist on mandating condom usage?? Why is allowing Brittany Andrews to seek a free reign of work by mandating condoms so important that performers like Nina Hartley or Kayden Kross should be forced to endure condoms against their will??

Neither me or Ernest Greene has ever said that performers like Brittany Andrews should be denied her right to insist on her partners using condoms. She has earned that right through her work. She should NOT, however, be allowed to undermine and undercut other performers who have an equal right to reject condoms for whatever reason….and most importantly, back a proposal that takes away the majority of performers’ rights just so she can get automatic gigs.

I adore Brittany as a performer and a woman, but I have to beg to differ with her on this issue.

Anthony