as most of the US pornstars I take an interest in are against a60 it that would suggest that this is poor legislation. but that isn’t necessarily to say that, if presented with better designed legislation, they might find positives in the general principle.
but that’s speculation and getting into rumsfeld’s murky parallel universe of ‘unknown unknowns’.
laura. wrote:You make some valid points Xmal and I always enjoy reading your posts.
feeling always mutual. and the same with many here. to disagree is not to disrespect. I generally don’t comment on posts I see as having little merit (save troll-bashing, when the mood takes me).
laura. wrote: 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 may 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.
many diseases take months to show in results. the last time I had a test I think they told me it would show anything I had picked up more than a month ago (infections take time to root and establish themselves) but not anything that I had picked up in the last month (possibly longer). therefore hardly a failsafe.
if a performer has unprotected sex with an infected party (infected parties often unaware they are affected) a few days before filming a scene, that will not show up in any test result. as I understand the process.
anal tissue ruptures easily if treated roughly, and semen to blood is an effective way to transmit such diseases. as a consequence, any reputable hard anal site (LP included) probably runs a higher risk or an accident occurring than reputable non-anal studios. condoms would dramatically reduce that risk.
re ‘people getting used to the idea’. am guessing by people you mean viewers?
performers’ safety shouldn’t be subject to (subordinate to) the selfish ‘wants’ of the viewers, who neither have to take personal responsibility or suffer personal consequences when things go wrong.
performer safety should remain the responsibility of the performers and employers, as they bear all the risk. whoever has most to lose from things going wrong should be the prioritised voice.
on that account, one of the problems I do have with a60 (legislation v principle) is that it appears to have been written by those with no personal interest in or stake in the porn community. the community, all involved, should come together and write its own version. rather like a union unites and supports its workers against abusive and exploitative employers.
avanfurwet wrote: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.
before the 1980s and dramatically improved safety standards and legislation (changes coming from the united drivers themselves, to protect themselves from the ‘faster! faster!’ demands of selfish public, media and sponsors) there were a couple of deaths every single year in F1. since the 1980s that has plummeted (seven deaths in the last 30 years).
jackie stewart, one of F1s all-time legends, was probably the greatest advocate for those changes, but had to risk his own highly successful career and sponsorship contracts, and organise driver boycotts of major F1 races, to get even basic things in place (qualified doctors in attendance, seat belts and full-face helmets, no fuel drums stacked in pit lanes, track modernisation, etc).
“Some drivers and press members believed the safety improvements for which Stewart "advocated detracted from the sport, while track owners and race organizers balked at the extra costs. "I would have been a much more popular World Champion if I had always said what people wanted to hear. I might have been dead, but definitely more popular." Stewart later said”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Stewart#Racing_safety_advocate
romanticising the whole issue is a bit of a cop out, in my opinion. it can be beautiful and safe.
avanfurwet wrote:The arguments that seeing condoms in porn will make people wear them in life are IMO facile.
I agree. my concern is the performers’ safety while at work.
avanfurwet wrote:Nobody tries to tell us a movie actor can't perform his own stunts.
they really do. big time. the production company and the actor’s insurers, to name but two. if a company has invested 100m in a production and the lead is injured or killed halfway through shooting, they lose everything. that can’t happen.
they want a secure return on their investment. that factor, not an actors’ bravery (or lack of) is the real reason for the existence of the stunt-double business. major stars can't even go skiing etc (high risk sports) during filming unless they clear it with the production company. big money doesn't let its golden geese play on the motorway.
avanfurwet wrote: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.
I agree. a60 appears to be bad legislation attempting to address a good principle. the industry should be directly involved in creating a better version.
USA is quite a small-minded and unimaginative country, the UK a mini-me version of that. and don’t even mention brexit.
avanfurwet wrote: 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.
that’s getting into relativism and confusing separate issues.
the point you mention (exploitation and trafficking) is totally valid, but not part of this particular issue.
and saying that ‘x is worse than y’ is not addressing x on its own merits/failings. X is the issue.
avanfurwet wrote:Rant over.
I enjoyed it.
laura. wrote: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?
re ‘miniscule proportion of the population’, the argument should be based on reason, not numerical factors. otherwise it’s divide and conquer. everyone has the right to be safe at work.
they are against this piece of legislation. USA generally does writes shit anti-freedom-of-choice legislation. too many bible nuts, cowboys, republicans. but difficult to judge how many performers might be for/against a better code based around increased condom use. that is why I agree with you that they should have their say. all workers in the industry should be writing their own code of safety.
perhaps that is the real value of a60, in that it might provoke the industry to come together and formulate an (overdue) workable alternative.
