PornBox.com

This November 8 in California, proposition 60,

ADULT FILMS. CONDOMS. HEALTH REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY

Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.

Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections.

Requires producers of adult films to obtain state health license, and to post condom requirement at film sites.
Furthermore, producers would be required to contact Cal/OSHA whenever they make an adult film.
While condoms would not need to be visible in films distributed to consumers, producers would need to prove that condoms were used.

Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the film involved, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers.

Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations.[3]

In essence, prop 60 criminalizes condom-less porn production in the state.

"cheers"

He is in Europe dude... relax

Seriously bad news for the Cali porn industry unless it gets voted down.

Amazing how one narcissistic asshat trying to create a dictatorship for himself can gain so much traction.

Actually, shouldn't be surprised after watching their country's disgraceful freak show of a presidential election unravel...

I agree with almost all of this proposition.

Giorgio Grandi wrote:I agree with almost all of this proposition.

Hello GG.

I respect your views, since you know much more than me about this biz.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what I think today, until I hear better arguments.

I agree with any reasonable measures to protect performers' health and safety.

For example, prosecuting/suing producers who can't prove they took all reasonable steps to verify
performers' ages and STD certifications, or who don't provide a clean and safe working environment.

But the same rogue producers who already lie and cheat about testing will lie and cheat about condoms.

I think Prop 60 is not motivated by concern for performers, but the political and career ambitions of Weinstein.

If this becomes law, I think the policing and lawsuits will be impractical, haphazard, unfair, and politically motivated.

And the Cali industry will simply move out of state to Nevada, Florida, Canada, or even (whisper it) Mexico.

So performers will end up with less protection, not more.

Giorgio Grandi wrote:I agree with almost all of this proposition.

It makes no sense. You lose a lot of money.

Well,
I have read all the law and I can tell you that it has been written by the bigger incompetent idiot concerning pornography.
On the other hand, condom should be mandatory at the helmet is mandatory for the driver of a bike.
Its a beginning, but instead then negotiate a better law, everyone is against. This is very sad, on one way or another the authority should monitor and give rules to the production or everything will be handle by lies and stupidity.

Its better a terrible law, then anarchy.

Giorgio Grandi wrote:I agree with almost all of this proposition.

Even the condom requirement? Do you not think that will destroy the industry? I respect your take on it as you know more than all of us. I vehemently agree with the increased STD testing and the transfer of accountability to be equally as on the studio side but I think the condom idea will be the death knell.

People just don't want to see condoms in porn it's simple as that.

I would hope that performers in the industry keep their sexual adventures outside to the bare minimum for professional reasons and to reduce STDs. Perhaps this and regular and stringent testing is not enough?

Not too sure if this goes against Cali liberalism or is a proponent of it.

I actually assumed this bill had been passed a while ago hence the move out to Florida? Perhaps they were just preempting it.

Hi, GG.

I respect your concern for the performers.

But I don't think condoms in porn will ever be accepted.

Consumers don't want it. Period.

Some/most consumers don't give a flying fuck about the performers. Sadly, many posts on this board testify to that.

Somebody in an unregulated jurisdiction will always produce condom-free porn, in fact "health & safety-free" porn, and take the sales.

IMO it's like the "war on drugs", which wastes billions on failed policies and enriches only criminals.

I don't think a bad law is better than anarchy. For example, I don't want Hitler's laws.

I want sane laws which work to protect people. And at some point we must have enough sense to regulate ourselves.

In my country, you must wear a helmet to ride your motorbike on a public road. But on your own land? You make your own choice.

So surely the objective should be to support performers and especially wannabe newbies to make informed choices and to punish the
unscrupulous bastards who prey on them at the fringes of the industry, whilst allowing the legit studios to flourish.

I hope you will be able to talk with the American girls who are coming soon to Prague and exchange ideas and opinions.

laura. wrote:People just don't want to see condoms in porn it's simple as that.

That's the core of this whole discussion. I joined Dorcel some months ago because they got some of my favourite performers over there. But the scenes are almost completey unwatchable - and yes, that's mostly because of the condoms. I cancelled my subscribtion about five days later.

If condoms become mandatory in porn, it will be the death of the industry.

I think it's admirable that he (or you GG) is taking a moral stance in this although I am sure at the same time it will mitigate the potential for scandal, and/or lawsuits, but much of the onus relies on the performers to be sensible and not to fuck around. Theyre working in porn and as far as I am concerned there is no need to be wild or promiscuous outside it. I imagine that much of the risk of infection stems from casual non porn sex and if you prevent this you keep a healthy and std free inner circle of performers.

Is the insistence on condom use a sign that the current level of std testing is insufficient or not regular enough? I now wonder.

I for one will never buy porn where condoms are involved, I am sorry but this my stance on it, enabling bad ethics or not. It's down to aesthetics and supporting the fantasy of real and natural sex. X

Dudemeister wrote:

laura. wrote:People just don't want to see condoms in porn it's simple as that.

That's the core of this whole discussion. I joined Dorcel some months ago because they got some of my favourite performers over there. But the scenes are almost completey unwatchable - and yes, that's mostly because of the condoms. I cancelled my subscribtion about five days later.

If condoms become mandatory in porn, it will be the death of the industry.

Nobody can regulate the global industry. But they can sure drive it downmarket.

Prop 60 would close down the California production. End of.

But IMO they're just playing whack-a-mole.

Dudemeister wrote:

laura. wrote:People just don't want to see condoms in porn it's simple as that.

That's the core of this whole discussion. I joined Dorcel some months ago because they got some of my favourite performers over there. But the scenes are almost completey unwatchable - and yes, that's mostly because of the condoms. I cancelled my subscribtion about five days later.

If condoms become mandatory in porn, it will be the death of the industry.

Hence why the industry in LA is on its knees!

laura. wrote:I think it's admirable that he (or you GG) is taking a moral stance in this although I am sure at the same time it will mitigate the potential for scandal, and/or lawsuits, but much of the onus relies on the performers to be sensible and not to fuck around. Theyre working in porn and as far as I am concerned there is no need to be wild or promiscuous outside it. I imagine that much of the risk of infection stems from casual non porn sex and if you prevent this you keep a healthy and std free inner circle of performers.

Is the insistence on condom use a sign that the current level of std testing is insufficient or not regular enough? I now wonder.

I for one will never buy porn where condoms are involved, I am sorry but this my stance on it, enabling bad ethics or not. It's down to aesthetics and supporting the fantasy of real and natural sex. X

^Exactly.

Picking up a girl in a nightclub = riding your motorbike on a public road. If you have any concern for yourself or others you wear a helmet. Otherwise you play russian roulette.

But in private, with someone you know &/or comes with credible certifications. Can't you make an informed choice? I think you can.

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Its better a terrible law, then anarchy.

I agree with your point, but this passive position fro an insider is surprising me.

New last basically takes producers as hostages and make them responsible for something they won't be able to fully control.
The same situation as stated above with not being responsible for proving tests legit. How the fuck can a producer prove to the authorities
that the test wasn't fake? It's a medical record after all.

laura. wrote:
Hence why the industry in LA is on its knees!

Is it? I didn't know that.

avanfurwet wrote:

laura. wrote:
Hence why the industry in LA is on its knees!

Is it? I didn't know that.

Well looking at the number of studios operating in Florida, I can only assume it is?

kidloco2 wrote:

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Its better a terrible law, then anarchy.

I agree with your point, but this passive position fro an insider is surprising me.

New last basically takes producers as hostages and make them responsible for something they won't be able to fully control.
The same situation as stated above with not being responsible for proving tests legit. How the fuck can a producer prove to the authorities
that the test wasn't fake? It's a medical record after all.

Mandate trusted labs only? Phone them to check sometimes?

Agree the draft law is shit and takes producers and also performers as hostages to vindictive politically motivated actions.

Historically porno was meant to be shot without condoms, there were a (bio )logic and price of the product behind that.

Giorgio, is your opinion based on business or personal insight? Do u really believe that it can help to maintain better health across the board or it will just (temporarily) solve a problem with insufficiency of girls in the biz which won't make sense since soft/solo makes much more money?

kidloco2 wrote:

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Its better a terrible law, then anarchy.

I agree with your point, but this passive position fro an insider is surprising me.

New last basically takes producers as hostages and make them responsible for something they won't be able to fully control.
The same situation as stated above with not being responsible for proving tests legit. How the fuck can a producer prove to the authorities
that the test wasn't fake? It's a medical record after all.

This is the more easy part, we are already doing this (very simple: do you want to work for me? you go to make a medical test to the laboratory "AA" or "BB" or "CC" and I get the results by email. if you go at another laboratory I do not shoot you)

For me, if it is comdom porn or no porn, then I go with no porn.
It may well be safer but if safer destroys something fundamental to the product then you may as well stop.
I am sure some people would still buy porn, of course, but it would lose its attraction for me.

There is nothing politic, just in USA as soon as someone want to change smt, everyone say "no, it limitate our freedom". BS, I would vote YES to this law if applied in Eu.

This rule clean the path, and make a starting point. The true is that 60% of producers will die because of this, almost all amateur porn producers, and not because of the condom.
Of course the law needs to be fixed, it would have been better to negotiate instead than say NO

Said that, I support the condom not as prevention for STD, but simply I think that ethically, sex between people that are not having a monogamous relationship should be performed with condom.
Porno is already become entertainment, not anymore something to watch for jerk off (if someone wants to simply jerk off, then there are tons of free porn video/sites), and a porn producer should take his responsibility

If everyone will shoot with condom, the user will buy content with condom. Nothing will change for the most.

Giorgio Grandi wrote:There is nothing politic, just in USA as soon as someone want to change smt, everyone say "no, it limitate our freedom". BS, I would vote YES to this law if applied in Eu.

This rule clean the path, and make a starting point. The true is that 60% of producers will die because of this, almost all amateur porn producers, and not because of the condom.
Of course the law needs to be fixed, it would have been better to negotiate instead than say NO

Said that, I support the condom not as prevention for STD, but simply I think that ethically, sex between people that are not having a monogamous relationship should be performed with condom.
Porno is already become entertainment, not anymore something to watch for jerk off (if someone wants to simply jerk off, then there are tons of free porn video/sites), and a porn producer should take his responsibility

If everyone will shoot with condom, the user will buy content with condom. Nothing will change for the most.

that's your personal point of view, but I assure you that the majority of your customers/fans disagree.

If you start shooting condoms only, you will lose a lot of customers, imo.

laura. wrote:
Well looking at the number of studios operating in Florida, I can only assume it is?

I must be naive. I thought it was a healthy sign of a growing industry,

Giorgio Grandi wrote:

kidloco2 wrote:

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Its better a terrible law, then anarchy.

I agree with your point, but this passive position fro an insider is surprising me.

New last basically takes producers as hostages and make them responsible for something they won't be able to fully control.
The same situation as stated above with not being responsible for proving tests legit. How the fuck can a producer prove to the authorities
that the test wasn't fake? It's a medical record after all.

This is the more easy part, we are already doing this (very simple: do you want to work for me? you go to make a medical test to the laboratory "AA" or "BB" or "CC" and I get the results by email. if you go at another laboratory I do not shoot you)

Good. Complimenti Giorgio.

Giorgio Grandi wrote:There is nothing politic, just in USA as soon as someone want to change smt, everyone say "no, it limitate our freedom". BS, I would vote YES to this law if applied in Eu.

This rule clean the path, and make a starting point. The true is that 60% of producers will die because of this, almost all amateur porn producers, and not because of the condom.
Of course the law needs to be fixed, it would have been better to negotiate instead than say NO

Said that, I support the condom not as prevention for STD, but simply I think that ethically, sex between people that are not having a monogamous relationship should be performed with condom.
Porno is already become entertainment, not anymore something to watch for jerk off (if someone wants to simply jerk off, then there are tons of free porn video/sites), and a porn producer should take his responsibility

If everyone will shoot with condom, the user will buy content with condom. Nothing will change for the most.

Giorgio, I applaud your ideals.

But if, for example, a future EU law requires everyone shoots with condom - IMO few customers will buy content with condom. Then more production will take place outside EU, without condom. And the performers will be less protected and less safe. And the studios in the EU will die.

I hope a better way forward can be found. IMO prop 60 is fatally flawed because the people who initiated it don't really care about the performers, or the industry. They just want publicity and control for themselves.

Yes, I know. the bottom line is that Promp 60 is a bullshit, if it win, a producer can simply move on another state. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, there are bigger problem to solve in the society nowadays then porn, so the administrations are more busy with something else then porn.
Also, even if there are a lot of money involved in porn, internet has no country and no borders and specially NO RULES.

I think "internet" should have a worldwide authority that take decision in the interest of ethic and care of people....

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Yes, I know. the bottom line is that Promp 60 is a bullshit, if it win, a producer can simply move on another state. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, there are bigger problem to solve in the society nowadays then porn, so the administrations are more busy with something else then porn.
Also, even if there are a lot of money involved in porn, internet has no country and no borders and specially NO RULES.

I think "internet" should have a worldwide authority that take decision in the interest of ethic and care of people....

Maybe the whole world should have a worldwide authority that take decisions in the interest of ethics and care of people, but that only happens on Star Trek.

I wonder if XXX can enlight us and tell us how receptive we were to the condom scenes that were released some time ago.

Because if legalporno is sales driven and those scenes are pretty much gone, I'm thinking the sales performance was "not good at all".

I have always reasoned that the biggest factor for a sale, is the woman in the scene, but a condom is a deal breaker. It wouldn't matter if Blanche Bradburry is in that scene, my favorite actress, I just wouldn't buy it.

But I'm biased because I don't watch that kind of porn, so what do I know, right?

Can you really call it hardcore porn, if condoms are included?

avanfurwet wrote:

laura. wrote:
Well looking at the number of studios operating in Florida, I can only assume it is?

I must be naive. I thought it was a healthy sign of a growing industry,

Are we in a different train of thought here? Not sure lol, I wasn't being sarky btw. I was referring solely to Los Angeles x

laura. wrote:
Are we in a different train of thought here? Not sure lol, I wasn't being sarky btw. I was referring solely to Los Angeles x

Prob me in my parallel universe as usual.

I thought the growth of studios outside LA was a sign of a healthy growing industry.

And the arrival of top quality sites like Tushy/Blacked/Vixen and earlier HardX in LA likewise.

But what do I know?

I concur, it seems to be thriving outside of Cali with Brazzers leading the way. Just seems strange when you think that LA was once the ground zero of porn. To be fair my knowledge of American porn is pretty poor, I am a Euro porn girl and thats how I like it

Weren't they thinking if using those sheaths that just covered the guys glans? Not sure if that would at least go some way to creating the illusion of the cock being uncovered? Not that I think it would change my opinion on the matter x

laura. wrote:I concur, it seems to be thriving outside of Cali with Brazzers leading the way. Just seems strange when you think that LA was once the ground zero of porn. To be fair my knowledge of American porn is pretty poor, I am a Euro porn girl and thats how I like it

Weren't they thinking if using those sheaths that just covered the guys glans? Not sure if that would at least go some way to creating the illusion of the cock being uncovered? Not that I think it would change my opinion on the matter x

Except Brazzers stuff seems to me to be shot in Cali where most of their talent are based. I only just looked them up and realised the corporate hq is in Montreal.

The sheaths thing sounds like a nightmare. Must split more often than proper condoms. What if they come off? Must take ages to fish them out of wherever. Talk about losing the moment. Not much fun for the poor girl.

Plus I think relying on condoms would lull people into a false sense of security and undermine the current testing regimes which seem to be working AFAIK.

My bad! They left Florida 6 years ago! I best stay out of US porn convos, I know nurthing.

http://www ibtimes com au/la-designer-offers-new-condom-design-covers-only-glans-male-sex-organ-1342349

i totally respect and appreciate Giorgio's line on this one.

if you work on a building site it is your employer's responsibility to ensure you are adequately protected while at work. should you fall from a height, or should something fall from a height onto you. because stupid and unfortunate things happen (no matter how careful we try to be).
for an employer to refuse to due this is to neglect their responsibility to their empolyee. Giorgio cares about his employees and he knows stupid and unfortunate things happen (no matter how careful we try to be). he knows his business.

for a passer by to say 'but the builders look better without safety hats' is missing the point. the safety of those employees comes first.

if you, as a consumer of porn, actually care about the health of the performers who bring you so much pleasure (and you should), you should not be putting what you think 'looks better' before their right to protect themselves from life-threatening and life-limiting diseases while going about their work. selfish and thoughtless much?

i would agree that, aesthetically speaking, condom porn doesn't look as good as no-condom porn. but if all reputable quality companies adopt the practice, i strongly suspect we will all accept it eventually (rather than do without, or go cheap-and-nasty downmarket and black market).

if X (insert name of your favourite LP model) announced tomorrow that she has had to give up her porn career because she contracted hiv having unprotected sex during a shoot you took pleasure from watching, how would you feel about that?
for yourself, but most importantly for that performer? your kicks but her whole life. applies to the male performers too.

make some space in your conscience to carry that heavy burden because until condom porn becomes standard porn practice that is an ever-present possiblity.

put your favourite performers' health first and respect your favourite director's judgement on this subject.

You make some valid points Xmal and I always enjoy reading your posts. Of course I and I think most of us would be totally mortified if we found out that one of the women we love contracted something nasty and even life threatening. No one wants that and everything she done to mitigate such a situation ever developing. But, how many instances of this have we seen over the years, especially in recent years? OK, there has been an (unconfirmed) syphilis scare from memory but what else? I admit that I do not have statistical empirical evidence to hand and it's only anecdotal but is the industry in that bad a state, particularly in Europe?

I honestly thought that std testing in porn was paramount, reliable and transparent and that all performers had an ethical and medical duty to regularly test. If any performer was discovered to have missed a test then he or she is not allowed to work.

I would hope that all of the above would negate condom use, wouldn't it?

Yes, some people msy eventually get used to the idea but how many? and the loss of those that don't could seriously damage the industry. I think it's counter productive and nanny state.

Just my thoughts on itx

Some say we "should" encourage performers to wear condoms. But we won't.

I think there is a parallel with racing cars and motorbikes. Those sports could be made safer, if only by slowing down.
But the racing drivers want to race. They get an exciting career, fame, kudos and big bucks. Good for them.
There is a real risk, but statistically I guess they are more likely to suffer an accident driving on a public road.

I think in the more enlightened countries, our beautiful pornstars are like those racing drivers.
As fans we can admire their daring performances. And we can demand and expect their work conditions are made as safe as possible.

But we can't babysit them completely. And we can't make them scapegoats for our own behaviour in real life.

The arguments that seeing condoms in porn will make people wear them in life are IMO facile.
Nobody tries to tell us a movie actor can't perform his own stunts.
Nobody tells us we have to be shown his safety harness on film.

Only education and public opinion will change real life behaviour.
But the people behind prop 60 don't care about that. They don't care about the performers either.
They just want publicity and dictatorship for themselves.

And anybody who wants to moralise should quit trying to control the tiny number of independent pornstars who mostly choose their careers,
and instead should worry about the tens of thousands or more of poor uneducated often under-aged girls and boys forced into prostitution in
backward countries where nobody seems to care - often for the gratification of creepy sex-tourists from our "enlightened" societies.

And anyone who thinks that creepy "street meat" site being promoted on the Sineplex board is exciting, should watch the new Vikki Chase scene at LP
to understand how sexy a beautiful asian-american woman can be when she's at the top of her game and not being sold by some sleazy pimp.

Rant over.

^
Superb post and was nodding in agreement all the way.

If we look at the parallels with say the smoking ban brought into legislation in many European countries a few yards back, something which as a smoker at the time I was frustrated with, however, it was for the greater good and there was overwhelming medical evidence to prove that passive smoking was a killer. It was brought in to protect the wider populace and those who were innocently affected by second smoke. A minor annoyance but the right thing imho.

This however is not being done for the greater good, firstly we are not talking about millions of people being medically affected by the actions of a miniscule proportion of the population, I.e pornstars. The only people who will get ever be affected by this are the very performers that are so vehemently against this proposal. These are adults who are making their own choices in life the majority of whom taken utmost care in their health and ethics. Aren't they allowed their say?

The idea that somehow the use of condoms influence civvies into safe sex practices is beyond absurd. It's like that idea of introducting brand free cigarette packaging when anyone with half a brain can see that will create a taboo which makes them much more desirable!

Interesting thread this one and seemingly polarising x

laura. wrote:^
...The only people who will get ever be affected by this are the very performers that are so vehemently against this proposal. These are adults who are making their own choices in life the majority of whom taken utmost care in their health and ethics. Aren't they allowed their say? ...

^ I agree with what Laura said.

Xmal, your builder example is poor. Builders are judged on the quality if the building, not their looks.
Imagine if builders had to wear safety gloves so thick that people did not want to buy what they had built. That would be a better comparison.
Porn is a visual product. Requiring performers to wear condoms affects the final product negatively. Builders wearing helmets does not.