AVN Launches Performers for Choice.com

NL- Great Idea!

 

CHATSWORTH, Calif.—With Los Angeles County residents headed to the ballot box to vote on Measure B in just a matter of weeks, AVN has launched a website for Performers for Choice, a platform for adult industry performers to speak up and voice their message that they should have the choice to use condoms in their sex scenes.

The website, PerformersForChoice.com, features video clips of some of the industry’s top performers voicing their opposition to Measure B, the so called safer-sex initiative. The prevailing message they had for L.A. County voters was one of choice—to keep the government out of their bedrooms and off adult film sets.

Adult film stars supporting Performers for Choice include Tori Black, Teagan Presley, Kayden Kross, Alexis Texas, Veronica Ricci, Puma Swede, Melina Mason, Ash Hollywood, Tanya Tate, Manuel Ferrara, Justine Joli, and more.

Performers For Choice is a group dedicated to allowing adult entertainers to express themselves and their viewpoints on Measure B. This law will effect performers more than anyone else in the industry. Those that will be required to wear condoms and dental dams should have the loudest voice in the matter.

Performers wishing to add their voice in opposition to Measure B are encouraged to submit a video to web@avn.com (no more than 25 MB). Videos will be posted to the site within 24-48 hours.

In the video please tell the voters of Los Angeles how you feel about Measure B and whether you agree to mandatory condom use in porn. It’s your body and should be your choice.

Measure B, funded and placed on the ballot by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, would require the L.A. County Department of Public Health to license and permit adult movie productions in the county and require performers to wear condoms and other "barrier protections," as well as create an unworkable system of on-set inspections and enforcement by county personnel. The county estimates initial start-up costs for the program will be in excess of $300,000, but acknowledges that regardless of the level of compliance by the adult film industry, there would be significant cost to the Department of Public Health.

18 thoughts on “AVN Launches Performers for Choice.com

  1. If a performer makes the choice to support measure b will this site allow them to post a video, or is this only for those who choose to oppose measure b? But we all know if anyone were to voice suport for measure b it would be the same as making the choice to not work in the industry ever again.

    The article says, Performers For Choice is a group dedicated to allowing adult entertainers to express themselves and their viewpoints on Measure B. Then the very next paragraph says, “Performers wishing to add their vice in opposition to Measre B are encouraged to submit a video.” Yes, they are all for choice, as long as the choice is to oppose the measure. Hypocrisy, taken to a whole new level. A perversion of freedom of speech. “SPEAK UP” as long as you agree with us.

  2. Why would they want to support and have a talent speak out for mandatory condoms when they know that is going to hurt business and their objective? The vast majority of porn buying fans do not want to see mandatory condoms in their porn. The producers know that as do most people behind (and in front of) the camera. Let the talent put a pro measure B video on a YES on measure B site.

    Your logic is flawed. Why would the democrats put a pro Romney video on THEIR web site or why put a pro abortion speaker on a website against abortion rights for women?

  3. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling this “Performers for Choice” when choice is seldom offered toperformers. Either you choose to not use condoms, or you choose not to work. Doesnt really sound like much of a choice. They should have called it “Performers Against Measure B.”

    The flawed logic is calling using the word CHOICE in the title, this is about voicing one side of the debate, it is their right to do so, but don’t call it choice and then exclude one of the choices.

    There are a few performers who choose to be condom only, they dont get much work, but thats their choice. So I was just wondering if their are performers who choose to want condoms, and their choice is just as valid as those who choose not to use them, then why isnt their opinion welcomed on a site that is supposed to be about performer choice? Do performers who want condoms have a less valid opinion than those who don’t?

    And speaking of choice, why would the porn industry choose a right wing republican, Bush advisor, to head their campaign?

  4. The porn industry has always made the worst choice possible for a short term gain. Everyone is out to get the most $$$ they can from a short term investment. No one (production companies) took ownership of protecting the talent. The guys making a buck figure there is a never ending supply of young girls getting off the bus in LA that they can use and exploit while they make a buck (and get their knob polished at the same time on the casting couch). They ignored dealing with the safety and disease issues of the business and now the state is involved in trying to make the talent safe while making money off the fees, fines, and licenses.

    Now Manwin is slowly taking over whats left of the porn industry in America. First they flooded tube sites with free pirated porn devaluing the product and then ran around buying up all the porn companies. Now they are involved in testing and rumored to be into talent agencies as well. Soon the talent will be working for Manwin or they won’t be working at all.

  5. Karfman swings his hammer and hits the nail right on the head. Have a nice weekend.

  6. Jill, you are misunderstanding what “Performs for Choice” means.

    They do not want anyone to dictate in either direction. With or without condoms! They want to chose on their own! That is the choice they want. With this law, they will be forced one way. Without it, they can chose on set to use one or not, as it is now, at least it is this way at any of the sets for our brands.

  7. Nathan,
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the industry really works. to say performers actualy have a real choice is somewhat disingenuous.Often, right when they are booked they are told this is a non-condom shoot. Not much choie there. Or they are told when they get on set, this is a non condom shoot, again, not much choice. And the performers know, and are told by their agents, if you require condoms you wont get much work. And when a performer shows up and demands condoms they might get to use them, they might be sent packing, but they surely wont get hired by that company again.

    The condom choice, for the most part, is made by the producer. When you see the FSC threatening that companies will leave California, and condom porn doesn’t sell, and we will go underground if condoms are mandated, kind of looks like there isnt much choice, its no condoms or we’re gone.

    If the performers truely did have a choice I would agree with you, but as we all know, very seldom does the performer have the option to make that choice, very seldom.

    And now the No on B campaign officially pays Mr Marcus as a campaign consultant.

    And if this little site is about Performer Choice, how come they only ask those opposed to the measure to submit videos. Just lke this little site, only if you choose to oppose measure b, send us a video. Not much choice there.

    How can the industry have it both ways, you say condoms are allowed when performers ask for them, but then the industry says codom porn doesnt sell. I guess if a performer chooses condoms then that means that scene they shoot that day isnt going to sell, right?

  8. I guess the only way around that is to be a top tier girl and call your own shots or produce your own content. Maybe even switch to cam shows and you can call your own shots.

  9. jeremysteele11 says:

    I think you’re making much a do-doo about nothing, Jill. Talent, in particular females, have always had the right and priviledge of insisting on cock rubbers, and there are companies which are condom only. The issue with measure B is regarding who decides- performers or the corrupt and poltically/financially controlled gov’t aka the enemy of democracy. I don’t see why civilians would want to vote for this measure and eradicate bareback porn and the right to sovereign sexual expression. And once they trample on sex worker/players’ human rights, then EVERYONE ELSE IS NEXT!!!!

  10. jeremysteele11 says:

    And if B passes, they should try to outlaw all stunt work, violent sports like football, hockey and UFC… they should also outlaw driving, cigarette smoking, alcohol, junk food, fast food, microwaves and cell phones… also flouride, chemtrails, poverty, deadly pharmaceutical drugs, chemotherapy and war.

  11. We are slowly moving in that direction now Jeremy. Insurance companies routinely decline patients that have pre-existing illnesses, and in NY they passed a law banning the sale of extra large sodas. Pretty soon they will get involved in football and the head injuries issue as well. Where will it end?

  12. Jill,

    1) Any girl going to any set for any of my brands can rest assured that she will be hired again if she performs well regardless if with or without a condom.

    Considering the amount of content we shoot each month, girls that want to use condom only will have plenty of work just through us alone.

    2) Mr Marcus was paid through the campaign and that was a mistake in my opinion, but he is not a consultant or a spokesperson. He does no work for the No on Government Waste campaign. He was paid to not take money from AHF.

    3) Condom porn sells if marketed right, many people do not like it, but many people also do not care.

  13. jeremysteele11 says:

    What r u repeating youself about, Jill? I’ve worked w/females who were condom only and they worked numerous times, and some companies are condom only. In those cases, I had no choice but to work with condoms, in spite of the fact that they causes rashes, tears, contain over 100 synthetic toxins, and have holes 100s of times larger than viruses, which AIDS, Inc. claims protect u fron HIV, despite the fact that bareback transmission rates are paltry compared to condom failure rates, assuming condoms protect from HIV when viruses are much smaller than voids in condoms.. which would explain Magic Johnson’s wife never “catching” “HIV”.

  14. I won’t buy any porn DVDs that have condom scenes but I am sure there are some folks out there that don’t care.

  15. jeremysteele11 says:

    Many viewers share your sentiment, Karma. But you think Whinestein gives a fuck? And speaking of giving a fuck, does anyone expect civilians to come together holding hands, encouraging others to vote in favor of condom only porn? Yeah, right, as sure as people are gonna demand boxers and UFC fighters wear head gear, and stunt men be replaced by CGI. And the message needs to be repeated that if these assholes can police our sexual behavior, that everyone else is next.

  16. Jeremy, it’s scare tactics. “Oooh those porn people are going to give everybody AIDS.” Someone should add up the number of people hurt or killed on movie and tv shoots in the last ten years.

  17. jeremysteele11 says:

    True. Creating more fear, interwoven with myth and lies gives those pieces of shit more money and power, which is their purpose.

  18. Who cares? I don’t give a flyin fuck if the Bi-sexual performer wear’s a Romney party hat on his dick. I don’t watch hims. I watch the girl. What’s wrongs with the people’s who watch the guys dick? and if the Prop. B does go through, you think the Pornos company are going to leave LA and go somewhere elses? Fuck no they ain’t. San Francisco is broke ass motha fuckas too! They can’t even pay any incentives for anybody to stay there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

TrafficHolder.com - Buy & Sell Adult Traffic