Measure B is No Choice Either Way

[mikesouth]

From http://www.mikesouth.com

There have been a few performers lately who got some ink because they penned well intentioned bits on why the condom law should fail. They claim that its a first amendment issue, a freedom of choice issue but what Rebecca Bardoux, James Deen, Steven St Croix and Alia Janine are pushing is THEIR wishes. You see they aren't talking at all about the freedom of performers to choose to shoot WITH a condom. And according the the only industry poll done that is 1/3 of the performers.

Its easy to pimp choice when your are pimping YOUR choice, it's a much different thing to pimp a choice that isn't yours.

So what is this about really?

Should performers be able to shoot without a condom if they want to? Yes

Should a performer be able to shoot with a condom if they want to? Yes

So whats the problem really?

The problem is that some of the companies making porn don't want performers to have that choice. They claim that it hurts sales. Should they be able to dictate that you can't use a condom if you shoot for their company?

When a business doesn't regulate itself, when it runs rough shod over the rights of employees, when it places them in danger that business is inviting the government to intervene on behalf of the employees. It isn't a referendum on whether employees want the government to intervene or not because the government rightly knows that the business can coerce the employees, and one need look no further than porn to see that happening now. I get a decent amount of email from performers, mostly female who want the condom law to pass but either keep quiet or give lip service to defeating the measure because they know it will cost them work.

Should a business have the right to say no to condom porn? This one doesn't really matter because this is an area of law that is well documented. The government can absolutely intervene and force regulations on companies in the name of public health and or workers rights.

The law requires people handling food to do all sorts of things, laws require the use of helmets while riding as motorcycle, seat belts while driving a car and hard hats on construction sites, there's tons more but if you can't figure it out from here ten pages of examples won't help.

On its face the condom law, "measure B" is little more than window dressing anyway, there are already laws that could be enforced BUT what the condom law does is adds TEETH to the laws, whereas before there was little or no way to enforce the workplace safety laws Measure B will give the county the ability to enforce, at the expense of the companies.

While I can appreciate a performer standing up for their rights on either side of this issue it really isn't even about the rights of the majority, it is about protecting the right of the minority, or a least it should be. Of course what its really about is does a company have the right to dictate to a performer without regard to that performers rights. If so then Steven, Alia, Rebecca and and James might want to re-think their whole choice argument...they won't have a choice either way.

[CyberHustler]

[NaughtyVisions]

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

IN HONOR OF NATIONAL CONDOM WEEK
OUR LITTLE FRIEND "ROBBIE RUBBER"
REMINDS US TO.....

1. Cover your stump before you hump.
2. Before you attack her, cover your whacker.
3. Don't be silly, protect your willie.
4. Before you blast her, guard your bushmaster.
5. Don't be a loner, cover your boner.
6. When in doubt, shroud your spout.
7. You can't go wrong if you shield your dong.
8. If you ain't gonna sack it, go home and whack it.
9. If you think she's spunky, cover your monkey.
10. Before you bag her, sheath your dagger.
11. It'll be sweeter if you wrap your peter.
12. If you slip between thighs, be sure to condomize.
13. Save embarassment later, cover your gator.
14. She won't get sick if you cap your dick.
15. If you go into heat, package your meat.
16. While you're undressing Venus, dress up your penis.
17. Off with her pants and blouse? Suit up your trouser mouse.
18. Never deck her with an unwrapped pecker.
19. Especially in December, gift wrap your member.
20. She'll do cunnillingus with a shielded dingus,
and be into fellatio if you wrap your Horatio.
21. Before the van start rockin', be sho' yo cock get a stockin'.
22. Don't be a fool, Vulcanize your tool.
23. The right selection? Sack that erection.
24. Wrap it in foil before checking her oil.
25. A crank with armour will never harm her.

[Robbie]

Mike...they do have a choice.

I have a choice as to whether I want to be in the porn industry or if I want to go get a "normal" job.

Nobody twisted anyone's arm and said: "Hey! I'm going to force you to have a job that is a lot of fun, makes you famous, that let's you sleep in late everyday, party every night, and get paid to do what you were going to do anyway in your personal life. And oh yeah..you can still keep your real job at the strip club too."

If a person decides that they want to be a "porn star" then they need to be 100% or not at all.

Anything else is half ass. Why should a company pay somebody to shoot a scene if the scene won't sell as well as a non-condom scene? Or for that matter...why should you or I pay anybody to NOT do the job we want?

If a performer only wants to shoot with a condom on, then they have to accept that they probably aren't really cut out for this business anyway.

And they have the "choice" to go get real work. It's gonna happen to them anyway with that kind of attitude.

[CyberHustler]

Originally Posted by Robbie

If a performer only wants to shoot with a condom on, then they have to accept that they probably aren't really cut out for this business anyway.

What's wrong with wanting to do your job a little safer though? They're not "cool enough" because they want to avoid certain diseases and viruses while having sex for money?

[Redrob]

Mike South:

The problem is that some of the companies making porn don't want performers to have that choice. They claim that it hurts sales. Should they be able to dictate that you can't use a condom if you shoot for their company?

Yes, they have the freedom to dictate the content they want to produce. That being said, a performer should always have the right to choose not to perform in any production where they don't feel comfortable, safe or for no reason at all. Just walk away.

It is a Freedom of Speech thing.....you know.

Just my opinion.

[HushMoney]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Mike...they do have a choice.

I have a choice as to whether I want to be in the porn industry or if I want to go get a "normal" job.

Nobody twisted anyone's arm and said: "Hey! I'm going to force you to have a job that is a lot of fun, makes you famous, that let's you sleep in late everyday, party every night, and get paid to do what you were going to do anyway in your personal life. And oh yeah..you can still keep your real job at the strip club too."

If a person decides that they want to be a "porn star" then they need to be 100% or not at all.

Anything else is half ass. Why should a company pay somebody to shoot a scene if the scene won't sell as well as a non-condom scene? Or for that matter...why should you or I pay anybody to NOT do the job we want?

If a performer only wants to shoot with a condom on, then they have to accept that they probably aren't really cut out for this business anyway.

And they have the "choice" to go get real work. It's gonna happen to them anyway with that kind of attitude.

Shhhhhhh, you're making too much sense.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

What's wrong with wanting to do your job a little safer though? They're not "cool enough" because they want to avoid certain diseases and viruses while having sex for money?

No, I don't mean that at all.

What I'm saying is that being "safer" should be calculated against just how much real "danger" there is in the first place.

By the way...I like your idea about performers marketing their own brand of condoms. If it ever (sadly) gets to the point where the govt. takes over our industry, I'm gonna use that one!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Yes, they have the freedom to dictate the content they want to produce. That being said, a performer should always have the right to choose not to perform in any production where they don't feel comfortable, safe or for no reason at all. Just walk away.

Exactly. No company can "force" anybody to shoot a scene. And if that's a problem for a performer then they should have already communicated that with the company BEFORE they arrived on set.

I'd be fucking furious if I had a shoot set up and my expense and time in it...and then some jackass shows up on the set and announces that they won't shoot without a condom! That shit should have been settled long before "showtime".

[Redrob]

Maybe, the APHSS database could reflect the performer's preference: condom/no condom

That would certainly be useful to producers, studios and other performers.

Just an idea.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Exactly. No company can "force" anybody to shoot a scene. And if that's a problem for a performer then they should have already communicated that with the company BEFORE they arrived on set.

I'd be fucking furious if I had a shoot set up and my expense and time in it...and then some jackass shows up on the set and announces that they won't shoot without a condom! That shit should have been settled long before "showtime".

For someone that has so much time and expense invested I would hope you have the foresight to ask such a question beforehand. Our modeling app has questions on what they will and won't do and if they are agency we ask their agent for their preferences...that's why agents get a cut...for facilitating things.

Plus I could have sworn that just yesterday you were saying this is fucking and not a job. Why the change? You mention time and expense. Last time I checked that is the definition of a job.

Do you hire other contractors without asking what they can and can't or will and won't do? Sounds like a lot of headache when you could just ask qualifying questions.

People that wonder why unions and OSHA ever came to exist just need to look at your comments.

Not everyone chooses to live as recklessly as you. I just had a model stay five days with me who doesn't drink, smoke, do drugs and is asleep by 2 am each night. In your world such models don't exist. In the real world they do and people that treat this as a business know this. BTW straight edge model is one of the coolest and most reliable people I've met.

Raise the bar some and you will meet more people with standards. Something tells me you don't want to do that because you think this is all a game. Its not, which is why you are one of the many who talk about how good it "used" to be.

Porn is growing up. You're not.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by epitome

For someone that has so much time and expense invested I would hope you have the foresight to ask such a question beforehand. Our modeling app has questions on what they will and won't do and if they are agency we ask their agent for their preferences...that's why agents get a cut...for facilitating things.

Plus I could have sworn that just yesterday you were saying this is fucking and not a job. Why the change? You mention time and expense. Last time I checked that is the definition of a job.

Porn is growing up. You're not.

I see that you are continuing to make personal attacks against me instead of actually discussing things.

Number one: I said IF a person were to show up on set and then suddenly announce they wouldn't do something without making it known beforehand I would be furious. That has never happened to me. But I've heard of it happening with bigger companies.

Number two. It is fucking. It's not my "job". I own the company. When I pay for a hotel room and take time from my day to load up a vehicle full of lighting and camera gear and go set it all up and have Claudia Marie schedule her day around it (getting ready, makeup, dialogue, etc.) then it's a real pain in the ass and very unprofessional if someone fucks that up.

"Porn is growing up". That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever read. You are obviously NOT in this business and don't have a clue how it works. But that just makes you a typical GFY'er I suppose.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by epitome

F
Not everyone chooses to live as recklessly as you. I just had a model stay five days with me who doesn't drink, smoke, do drugs and is asleep by 2 am each night. In your world such models don't exist. In the real world they do and people that treat this as a business know this. BTW straight edge model is one of the coolest and most reliable people I've met.

Raise the bar some and you will meet more people with standards. Something tells me you don't want to do that because you think this is all a game. Its not, which is why you are one of the many who talk about how good it "used" to be.
.

Live "recklessly"

You don't know me. As for your model who doesn't drink or party at all....that's a personal choice for them. Doesn't mean that they (or you) are somehow "better" than a hard working person who likes to go out for a beer with friends on the weekend.

Why don't you stop trying to preach to me. You don't know me, you don't understand this business, and your assumptions of my life and standards are completely wrong.

[Qbert]

Originally Posted by Redrob

...It is a Freedom of Speech thing.

Have you consulted a Free Speech attorney about that? I think they'll tell you that you're mistaken.

[Redrob]

Depends on what you are talking about: Workplace safety regulations or producing content.

If you don't like the community standards where you currently are, you are free to move to a local that allows the content you are trying to produce and do it there.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Maybe, the APHSS database could reflect the performer's preference: condom/no condom

That would certainly be useful to producers, studios and other performers.

Just an idea.

In theory that sounds nice, but in reality, producers mostly want to shoot without condoms. The performers who are listed as condom users will not get much work.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Mike...they do have a choice.

true.

Why should a company pay somebody to shoot a scene if the scene won't sell as well as a non-condom scene? Or for that matter...why should you or I pay anybody to NOT do the job we want?

q f t

[u-Bob]

If a performer doesn't want to do anal, he/she is free to not apply for the job.

If a performer doesn't want to do gangbangs, he/she is free to not apply for the job.

If a performer doesn't want to do scenes without a condom, he/she is free to not apply for the job.

It's about property rights. You can't force a company to pay you for a job you would like to get paid for, but they weren't offering to begin with.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Should performers be able to shoot without a condom if they want to? Yes

Should a performer be able to shoot with a condom if they want to? Yes

So whats the problem really?

The problem is that some of the companies making porn don't want performers to have that choice. They claim that it hurts sales. Should they be able to dictate that you can't use a condom if you shoot for their company?.

hummmm..... errr.... Mike if a distributor will not accept 'condom porn' the production company should shoot it any way, pay the performers and not sell the product? is that your mighty thinking on this?

[baddog]

Well written, Mike

Originally Posted by Redrob

Mike South:



Yes, they have the freedom to dictate the content they want to produce. That being said, a performer should always have the right to choose not to perform in any production where they don't feel comfortable, safe or for no reason at all. Just walk away.

It is a Freedom of Speech thing.....you know.

Just my opinion.

How do you figure this has anything to do with Freedom of Speech? I keep seeing some here throwing that around, but no one has even attempted to explain that it is a Freedom of Speech issue.

You want to try?

[Freaky_Akula]

Mike, your hatred for the FSC and Nathan is clouding your judgement. Stick to what you are good at.

[MrCain]

Condom porn doesn't sell.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

hummmm..... errr.... Mike if a distributor will not accept 'condom porn' the production company should shoot it any way, pay the performers and not sell the product? is that your mighty thinking on this?

many of you guys arent really getting it....

it isnt whether or not a company should shoot it...its about they arent going to have a choice. Cloaking it in "performer rights" isnt going to go anywhere....if the election were today the condom law will pass with about 67% of the vote, that isnt likely to change...much anyway...its approval rating is higher than President Obamas.

the point people seem to be missing is that had we simply been condom optional all along this thing would not have befallen us. 2/3s of the talent dont wanna use condoms anyway so would you shoot one condom scene out of every three or four to prevent being required to shoot ALL condom.....thats the point....

In a purely political analysis there are some positives to the law passing....One Manwin will be hurt by it....big time. Two itll decimate APHSS and do serious damage to the FSC (which cant be damaged much more than it is)

little producers in more remote areas will benefit.....porn valley will become home of features and PPV, not gonzo....

and knock of the hatred of the fsc nonsense this has little to do with them other than they are spending a pile of Fabians money to fight this....


Chances are high that this measure will pass....be ready when it does...and mark my words...on the off chance it doesn't.....that will NOT be the end of it.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Mike South:



Yes, they have the freedom to dictate the content they want to produce. That being said, a performer should always have the right to choose not to perform in any production where they don't feel comfortable, safe or for no reason at all. Just walk away.

It is a Freedom of Speech thing.....you know.

Just my opinion.

"Freedom of speech/expression" doesnt trump workplace safety or even just plain old safety...think about that next time you buckle that seat belt or put on a helmet to ride a motorcycle in most states.

[Redrob]

Sure, Baddog...I'll take a stab at explaining how this referendum is a Freedom of Speech issue. It is complicated, so where to start.....? First, I am not an attorney. This is just my personal opinion.

For example, I am a producer in Los Angeles. For years, the since the case of People v. Freeman producing a porno was diferentiated from prostitution, deciding that someone whose role is merely potraying a sexual relationship on-screen as part of their acting performance is protected from prosecution and the producer is not guilty of pandering. Since that time, I have been able to produce movies that fall within LA's liberal community standards as determined by the Miller three-part test. I want to send the message that sex between consenting adults is pleasurable, natural, fun and the ultimate intimate experience two people can share.

Now, many years later, along comes an organization who want to send a message to the world that protected sex is the only safe sex. They feel that the adult movie industry is the best vehicle for disseminating their message. Accordingly, they work with LA City and County officials to get the required legislation requiring protection in all locally produced adult movies on the ballot for a referendum that will result in the legal requirement that all local adult movies will be required to comply with their protected sex standards of mandatory condoms, googles, dental dams, etc. (More on this later.)

I do not agree with the message that they are trying to send to the public. With the passage of the referendum, the requirement for protected sex with goggles, dental dams, rubber gloves and condoms make it impossible for me to produce my movies conveying my message without risk of fines or jail. The result is that my message has been silenced in the community.

Moreover, if I continue to produce movies that conform to the new regulations out of financial necessity, I am compelled to send this organization's message against my will. This is also a violation of my Free Speech rights.

Now, back to the regulations that are instituted as a result of this referendum passing. Because the regulations impact my free speech rights, they are required to pass what is known as "strict scrutiny" which will insure that the regulations have as little impact on my constitutionally protected rights as possible and still achieve their goal of protecting performer health.

According to Wikipedia:

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

I'd argue that the condom referendum fails the strict scrutiny test's third requirement:
1. There is a compelling government interest: protection of performer health. (Pass)
2. The policy is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal in that it only requires protection on adult sets where the performers work.(Pass)
3. The policy must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. (FAIL). The truth is that condoms fail, condoms fall off and performers can be infected by sores on non-protected areas of other actors. I am sure that there are additional ways that the protection required can fail that I have not mentioned. One the whole, I'd imagine that the failure rate of protection is on par with the best testing regime. The mandatory protection part of the condom referendum is the part that restricts my freedom of speech and is not the least restrictive means to achieve the same end, performer protection.

A less restrictive alternative would be mandatory testing with the information recorded in a secure database by medical authorities for use by the adult industry. Testing should cover all STDs including syphilis which, before, was considered so rare an occurance as not to be a significant threat. The testing should be done bi-weekly (some say is best and is currently done by some performers) or as often as determined by the medical authorities in order to maintain a non-infectous state among the performer pool.

There should also be some agreed to restrictions placed on outside sexual activities of adult performers such as prositution, escorting, and the like by the talent agents. I could see outside sexual activities being curtailed during the time period that the performer is actively performing with other performers. Many performers come to LA for a month or so during which they work; then, they return home. When no longer actively performing, the performers could persue their other interests. Hopefully, they would agree to limit their sexual activities to their "significant other" while actively performing.

This less restrictive alternative would allow me as a producer to be sure that my performers were disease free; the heath of the performers would be protected; and I could continue to produce the movies that contain my message that sex between consenting adults is pleasurable, natural, fun and a ultimate intimate experience two people can share. Furthermore, I would not be coerced into sending that other organization's message against my will.

These are just my ramblings and nothing formally considered or proposed.