Porn Firms Sue Over Condom Law!

[Guest fountainhall]

I cannot believe this! California voters pasesd a law last November requiring actors in porn movies to wear condoms. Now two major porn producers are taking legal action to overturn it. Their argument? It violates the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech! Two porn actors have joined the legal challenge.

 

Vivid Entertainment’s founder told AFP News Agency, “ Overturning this law is something I feel very passionate about!”

 

Since when, I wonder, did that part of the male anatomy learn to speak? In this day and age of HIV/AIDS, isn’t it madness?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20996411

[Rogie]

I don't really know for sure whether circumcision helps to prevent the transmission of the aids virus, but one advantage, cut or uncut, of wearing a condom is they'll all look the same.

 

Maybe I will get a bit of flak for saying this, but as there was a topic a while back (see link below) on numbers of porn sites, surely one could argue enough's enough: there must be more than enough porn 'movies' already 'shot' to keep even the most ardent porn-watcher occupied for the next 50 years. Cradle to grave porn, that's what the world's come to. We (or at least 'I') couldn't care a rotten fig whether there's another porn studio boss tearing his hair out because his First Amendment 'rights' have been so horribly emasculated.

 

http://www.gaythailand.com/forums/topic/8422-how-many-porn-sites-on-the-internet/?do=findComment&comment=61769

[Bob]

Vivid Entertainment’s founder told AFP News Agency, “ Overturning this law is something I feel very passionate about!”

 

"Passionate?!?!?"  I hope he was wearing a condom when he said that....

[Rogie]

Thinking about my earlier response, I may have been too hasty. I was referring to cheap 'amateurish' porn, the sort that ends up on websites ending in xx, or is it xxx?

 

If any porn studios make really stylish, 'tasteful' films, that are aimed at general release where folks go to real cinemas to watch them, then I'd have a lot more sympathy - I'm not saying they'd be right, but at least they would be entitled to some respect that their views on the industry would be debated rationally.

 

Does anyone know if there are any really good porn films aimed at general release these days?

[Guest abang]

Personally I refuse to watch those condom-less videos as I think the actors are exploited.

The studios executives think only of their selfish bottom line i.e., profit.

 

I dont believe they give a damn whether the actors are dying or not.

To them, an actor is only worth at most 3 films and he is gone forever.

This is the painful truth of the gay porn industry.

 

Side-note:

Really, as cute as those Bel Ami boys are, dont you just pity them?

Their shelf-life is as short as 2 films, perhaps 1 assignment split into two offerings.

[TotallyOz]

I dont believe they give a damn whether the actors are dying or not.

To them, an actor is only worth at most 3 films and he is gone forever.

This is the painful truth of the gay porn industry.

I do not think this is true. I have tons of friends who are porn stars and have made a wonderful living in the business and many of them have long careers with the companies.

 

I think to one friend from Florida who did about 30 films at over 10k per film plus flights back and forth to Vegas and money for live video chat. He was in the business for 3 years and paid cash for a condo in Florida and another one in his home town of NC.

 

While it is nice to think of the companies taking advantage of the stars and while I do know this exists but there is a totally different side and many are very content and happy with their choices.

[Guest]

I never quite understood why watching bareback would be any better than watching safe sex.

[Guest abang]

I do not think this is true. I have tons of friends who are porn stars and have made a wonderful living in the business and many of them have long careers with the companies.

 

I think to one friend from Florida who did about 30 films at over 10k per film plus flights back and forth to Vegas and money for live video chat. He was in the business for 3 years and paid cash for a condo in Florida and another one in his home town of NC.

 

While it is nice to think of the companies taking advantage of the stars and while I do know this exists but there is a totally different side and many are very content and happy with their choices.

 

This is really heartening to know that there are such wonderful cases of SUCCESS.

I have been reading too much and believing too much of the doom and gloom of the industry.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have tons of friends who are porn stars and have made a wonderful living in the business and many of them have long careers with the companies.

 

I'm curious. Are they happy to take part without condoms?

[Guest thaiworthy]

I remember this story from a few years back about Derrick Burts, who sparked a shutdown of the US porn filmmaking industry. and who may be considered the actor that got the ball rolling over condom use and testing. Consider this quote, quite naive for the time:

 

 . . . according to a recent study by the CDC, men who have sex with men are 44 times more likely to contract HIV than men who don’t. But perhaps the larger perceived problem is that HIV testing standards are completely different in gay porn than they are in straight porn. While most of the straight porn industry mandates a monthly HIV testing regimen, a significant portion of the gay porn world uses condoms—yet doesn’t require its performers to get tested.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/10/hiv-positive-porn-star-derrick-burts-gay-for-pay.html

 

 

[TotallyOz]

I'm curious. Are they happy to take part without condoms?

It really just depends on the guy. Some will not do it on film and some do. I have a few friends who work for Titan and they do not do any films without condoms. I have a few that work for Falcon and it is the same. The same is true for Michael Lukas. It really just depends on the guy and what they want. In the USA, there are enough companies to choose from that the guy can decide which one he wants to go with.

[Guest Jovianmoon]

...there must be more than enough porn 'movies' already 'shot' to keep even the most ardent porn-watcher occupied for the next 50 years...

 

That can't be right - surely there are many more interesting plot lines to be explored.   

 

Seriously though, I am absolutely astounded by this. This guy - Vivid Entertainment’s founder  - wants to use the US constitution to perpetuate and promote widespread dangerous behaviour... he wouldn't also happen to be a member of the National Rifle Association, would he?

 

As an HIV positive man who didn't listen to basic reason and have already made my own stupid mistake, I'll shout this kind of lunacy down wherever I find it.

 

And to Vivid Entertainment’s founder I could only say: "You sir, are an idiot".

[TotallyOz]

Seriously though, I am absolutely astounded by this. This guy - Vivid Entertainment’s founder  - wants to use the US constitution to perpetuate and promote widespread dangerous behaviour... he wouldn't also happen to be a member of the National Rifle Association, would he?

Well, why don't we just go ahead and outlaw sex without condoms? And, while we are at it, lets make blowjobs illegal too? When one right is encroached upon, others will then start to fall away. Vivid's founder does not want to see this happening. When two consenting adults decide, they wish to fuck and suck and do it with or without condoms or when they decide they wish to fist or bukkake or anything else they wish to do, I do not think the government has a place in that transaction.

 

I know I am a great deal more liberal than most but IMHO the key is 2 consenting adults. Can't we just let them decide what is best for themselves? Yes, some make stupid mistakes, but we can't outlaw stupidity. You may decide that it is OK to have prohibitions on porn without condoms, but then when a prohibition against 2 men having sex on film is enacted, I bet you would be upset. I know I would.

[Guest thaiworthy]

When one right is encroached upon, others will then start to fall away.

Nope. I don't think so. Michael, what we are discussing here is activity filmed in front of a camera for general distribution. The only right Vivid is really concerned about is their right to make a buck.

 

Jovianmoon is quite correct. Unsafe sex, whether filmed or not, is tantamount to putting a gun to your head and playing Russian Roulette. The fact that money is being made in the filming of it does not lessen responsibilty, but increases it, in my opinion. Viewing porn shows by example how people behave in the bedroom and the actors can be perceived as role models. Otherwise, people recognize that if one person does without, then it is okay for them as well.

 

As it states in Rogie's signature and elsewhere throughout the world. Safe sex always. Always means always.

[TotallyOz]

Nope. I don't think so. Michael, what we are discussing here is activity filmed in front of a camera for general distribution. The only right Vivid is really concerned about is their right to make a buck.

I know the owner of Vivid and it is not only money he is concerned with. It is easy for them to pick up and move to another location as this "ordinance" is so very limited to that area of Cali.

 

However, if you are only discussing what is in front of the camera, do you think that it is possible for those in charge to decide that gay sex is not acceptable and then pass an ordinance against that? I can tell you, that it is possible. If rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are taken from us, it then opens up other rights to be the same.

 

If you are OK with local municipalities making this law, are you OK with other areas stopping the production of all gay porn? It is done time and time again.

 

My concern is the same as I had with NYC when the mayor started to clean up Times Square. IMHO, the things he did was unconstitutional but it made a big difference in the area. And, do you know what happened right after? He started to close down all the gay clubs in NYC as well. I remember this very vividly. When you allow any of these nuts to start dictating their morals to the population, you end up taking it up the ass yourself.

[Guest thaiworthy]

You are changing the subject and broadening your perspective to make a statement, other than to prove a point. We are not talking about taking rights away from gay people. Historically, gay rights have increased and I don't see anything to stop that.

 

No one is going to decide gay sex is not acceptable because of what is done in front of camera. We have the religious right doing that job for us.

 

Also, I do not see how the porn industry is threatened. With the advent of the internet, it has just become bigger and bigger. Frankly I would sooner like to see an AIDS cure than see accelerated growth of the porn industry. It's a matter of ife above lust.

 

There will always be nuts dictating their morals to the population. It is the nature of people to follow their leader, but that leader doesn't lead forever. I don't think this is the norm, but an isolated political agenda that will change in time. It is proposterous to think this relates in any way to any purported reduction of gay rights in America, or globally.

 

When you allow any of these nuts to start dictating their morals to the population, you end up taking it up the ass yourself.

Let's say it the way it really is: if anyone is taking it up the ass, then it is the actor who subjects himself to unsafe sex without a condom and needlessly endangering his own life.

[TotallyOz]

Frankly I would sooner like to see an AIDS cure than see accelerated growth of the porn industry. It's a matter of life above lust.

I had too, but do you really think stopping videos in one local that deals with no condoms will see a cure for AIDS? It will not. And, for Vivid, I know the girls and guys in that company very well. They are HIV negative and test often. If that is your rationale for this, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Now, if your rationale is that portraying this on video causes others to not use condoms when they have sex, all I can say is that I can't do half the things I see on videos and the other half I have no desire to do. But, I also can think for myself and judge what I want to do or not want to do with my partner. I don't need a video for teaching me anything. Anyone who is watching videos to teach them as oppose to entertain them, isn't really very smart.

 

I do hope that gay rights are not taken away and I do agree with that this ordinance is not about the gays. However, it is about taking away someone's right to do what they want with their body on video. I could easily see the next law in this area as one that bans sale of any video with bareback sex in it. I can then easily see them banning any sex with a bear and a twink it is and then with any two gay guys.

 

Give them an inch and they will take a mile! (and I am not referring to the NY inch)

[Bob]

To me, there's a big difference between a law that regulates commercial sex versus a law that regulates private consensual behavior.  This law applies to commercial sex and I see no problem with it at all.  The straight and gay communities ought to shriek in horror if the government did anything other than strongly encourage the use of condoms for sex between two people who are not long-term partners. 

 

Whether the actors Michael is referring to are "tested" is somewhat irrelevant to me when they're engaging in sex with people who for the most part are one-night stands (or, perhaps, one-video stands).  When that occurs - and given testing doesn't guarantee that the other person is HIV free (let alone somewhat monogomous) - the only intelligent and safe thing is to wear a condom.  And the safety issue imposed by the government makes complete sense based on known medical issues.

 

Arguably, this law protects others (the other short-term and long-term partners of the individuals making porn films).  Not too different in my view of the government requiring kids to be immunized against polio so you can protect the rest of society who comes in contact with them.

[TotallyOz]

A very interesting article here to read for those interested in the subject.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/health/unlikely-model-for-hiv-prevention-porn-industry.html?pagewanted=all

 

 

And, the guy on the top photo is James Deen. I spent some time with him last night and today. A very sweet man. Here is a photo I just took a few hours ago in Vegas.

[Guest thaiworthy]

OK, Michael-- fine. Have it your way. You are twisting my words. You can believe all that if you want to. But you are only fooling yourself.

 

As for me, I'm through talking. I've already said everything I wanted to say. I hope when the actors become infected that workers' comp will help them. I also hope you will be prepared with burial costs and condolences to the family.

 

I don't think anyone is giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly. And this is ONE HELL of an irresponsible act on the part of the porn industry. If some companies are filming with condoms, why can't they all? There should be no requirement for legislation in any way, whatsoever. I would have thought by now after 30 years of AIDS that we have all got the message. Apparently not. The porn industry had a chance to some good for the world by sending a clear message, instead it chose greed. Too bad. More will die. How sad.

 

Good luck with your business, Michael.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Not all business folk care enough to support the interests of TAKE CARE or similar groups. Especially those in this thread:

 

http://www.gaythailand.com/forums/topic/8518-porn-firms-sue-over-condom-law/?do=findComment&comment=63364

 

Read it, if you DARE!

[Bob]

Very interesting article, Michael.  Sounds like most of the industry and actors are rather responsible about the testing procedures and frequency.  However, the article notes that there are advocates and opponents of the condom law within the industry itself.

 

It's been a lot of years since I watched any porn but I don't recall that, as a viewer, it made any difference to me whether the actors did or didn't wear condoms.  Do you think that there's a significant percentage of the paying audience out there that only wants to see condom-less sex scenes?  If so, then I can at least understand the monetary objection to using condoms although I still think that the legitimate public safety issue outweighs it.

[Bob]

Not all business folk care enough to support the interests of TAKE CARE or similar groups. Especially those in this thread:

 

Sorry, Khun TW, I don't think that's a fair comment at all.  There's no suggestion in the thread you're referring to that the porn actors don't support or care about the use of condoms in general (and I would think that those very porn actors are actually more enlightened and careful outside the studio than the general public).  Read what Mr. Deen had to say about that very topic. [Regardless, we're still both on the same page as to the intelligence of the regulation requiring use of condoms in the porn industry].

[Guest thaiworthy]

Sorry, Khun TW, I don't think that's a fair comment at all.

 

Good. It wasn't meant to be fair. I fight fire with fire. Nothing on this subject coming from that industry sounds very fair to me. Especially for the sick and dying actors. I call it the way I see it. Maybe if enough of us kick up some dirt, those in the dirt business will take more notice, but I doubt it.

 

Mr. Deen can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk IF and WHEN the legislation is overturned?

[Guest fountainhall]

1. do you really think stopping videos in one local that deals with no condoms will see a cure for AIDS? It will not.

 

2. And, for Vivid, I know the girls and guys in that company very well. They are HIV negative and test often. If that is your rationale for this, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

3. I do hope that gay rights are not taken away and I do agree with that this ordinance is not about the gays. However, it is about taking away someone's right to do what they want with their body on video.

 

In answer to a few points made by Michael - 

 

1. No, of course it will not see a cure for HIV/AIDS. One issue which seems not to have come up in the conversation so far, though, is the impression the absence of condoms in sex vdos gives to those young guys who are starting to experiment with sex for the first time. We know that educators worldwide preach condom use as perhaps the key factor in the prevention of HIV. We know that here in Thailand (as it is in many countries, I assume) sex education is all but a joke. We know that the incidence of bareback sex is far more common now in the many saunas which have opened up in Bangkok and which appeal mostly to young Thai guys. We know that now there is a far large number of porn sites blatantly advertising bareback sex, when more than a decade ago there was some agreement, I believe, amongst producers not to film condomless sex scenes.

 

We seem to forget that it is not the location of a vdo’s production that is important here, it is where and by whom it is seen – and whom it may end up influencing. The more young people, especially very young people, see that it seems ‘acceptable’ not to wear condoms, the greater the damage to the use of condom anti-HIV message. And that to me is dangerous, for it totally contradicts that message.

 

2. As others have said, and has been stated in quite a number of previous threads on this Board, whist the instant smartphone message referred to in the NYT article may provide accurate information about an actor being free of some STD’s, most sane adults are perfectly aware that no such information is accurate about HIV. How many times does it need to be slammed home that, for the present, a 3-month window is required during which a person must either engage solely in monogamous sex or have no sex at all. As Bob says, porn actors are essentially in the “one-night stand” business. Even to hint that because they are tested regularly and always turn up negative, they are therefore safe and free, is highly irresponsible. As in (1) above, it also sends out completely the wrong message to those who might think – “if it’s OK for them, it’s OK for me.”

 

3. Sorry Michael, but again I disagree. It has zilch to do about taking away someone’s right to do what he wishes with his body on vdo! Now if you had added that the vdo was to be seen merely in private by the actor’s friends, I’d have less objection. But these are no private vdos. They are made exclusively to sell as many copies as possible and to make a handsome profit. In doing so, they send out a message that, as stated, all but invites others to follow suit. (Yes, I know these vdos come with disclaimers and I’ll bet these are all essentially useless).

 

The fact is: our world is dealing with what is almost certainly the second most serious medical pandemic in its history (the most serious being the Black Death in medieval Europe).

 

* an estimated 30 million have died since the epidemic began

* 1.8 million died in 2009

* 1.8 million died in 2010

* 1.7 million died in 2011

* 34 million were living with HIV in 2010

* an estimated 2.5 million new infections occurred in 2011

 

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

http://www.amfar.org/about_hiv_and_aids/facts_and_stats/statistics__worldwide/

 

In the face of such statistics, in face of all the medical evidence, and recognizing the fact that the world is still no nearer finding a vaccine, this action in California is about one thing and one thing only – MONEY, AND LOTS OF IT! Sorry, it has nothing to do with violation of rights.

 

The pornographic film production company Vivid saw a 10 to 20% dropin revenues when it was using condoms in all of its productions. Profits have already dropped across the industry due to pirating. When video clips and movies make less money, budgets decrease and fewer productions are made. This means less work and lower rates of pay for the work that is available. If income for performers continues to drop, voluntarily spending more than $4,500 a year on testing becomes less financially sustainable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/16/stoya-measureb-porn-condoms-la

 

That writer, by the way, claims in the Guardian article “We haven't had a case of performer-to-performer HIV transmission in eight years.” Pity she wrote that a month too early. Gay porn star Josh Weston died of “HIV-related complications” in December 2012.

 

But is is also a patently false claim. Vivid Entertainment, Wicked Pictures and other studios closed production down in 2010 partly to prevent the spread of the HIV virus after an unnamed actor or actress was found to be HIV positive. In December that year, the actor was named as Derrick Burts who took part on both gay and straight vdos.

 

The industry then shut down a second time in August 2011 when another performer was found to be positive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry

 

I leave readers to judge for themselves the validity of the statements made about the safety of present day testing techniques insofar as the porn vdo industry is concerned.