|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » AB 1576 passes committee |
| 1-45 of 45 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 05-21-14 03:21pm - 3868 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
AB 1576 passes committee SACRAMENTO — AB 1576, a bill that would mandate condom use on all adult productions shot in California, has passed the state Appropriations Committee, which heard the bill this morning. Today’s debate, running more than an hour, echoed previous hearings, with particular emphasis on the proposal’s economic viability. The committee, which is tasked to allocate annual funds to state government agencies, was given a report this morning that estimated a special fund costs of up to $150,000 to the OSHA Standards Board for additional rulemaking for AB 1576. However, adult industry attorney Karen Tynan, who spoke for the opposition, began her argument by declaring that “the cost of this bill is drastically undercalculated,” pointing to the high price tag of drafting new protocols and regulations, as well as the proposal to keep logs of performer’s tests, unforeseen legal costs and more. IV-positive former performer Cameron Bay delivered a pathos-suffused tesimony on behalf of the bill, and offered her own succinct fiscal assessment. “You and the citizens of California are paying for my HIV medication, while producers laugh their way to the bank,” she said. “Condoms cost 4 cents. HIV medications cost half a million dollars.” A new buzz phrase tossed around at the hearing was the notion of “forced consent,” that was apparently included in the bill’s most recent reincarnation. Although the definition and interpretation of the phrase was hotly contested between both sides, the adult industry interpreted it as meaning that they would be essentially be forced to release their medical records to state officials, an encroachment on their right to privacy. “I don’t know what that means and how that can exist, but in what other industry would we accept forced consent as a concept?” an attorney from Mind Geek asked. Assemblymember Tim Donnelly expressed doubt about the legality of “forced consent,” adding that he had “concerns about the idea of the government being this deeply involved in people’s private business.” "Forced consent is not consent," Tynan concluded. "And the forced consent language is in violation of other health and safety codes and flies in the face of our California constitutional protections for privacy." Performer/director/producer Lorelei Lee also spoke at length in poignant opposition to the bill. Aside from providing a comprehensive performer's perspective, Lee touched on the sluggishness endemic to government bodies. "Beacause our testing protocols are developed by performers and are run by performer groups [with medical input], we can react very quickly to changes in technology and constantly be using the most advanced testing," Lee said. "I don’t think a government agency is able to react as quickly as we are." Assemblymember Steven Bradford tapped into a similar concern later in the hearing when he referenced a recent Cal/OSHA report that stated it has only two safety inspectors for all California airports. “How are they then going to inspect thousands of sets?” he asked. Supporters and opponents showed up in such strong numbers that many of those who wished to give testimony were cut off mid-speech. “Your voice can be heard as long as your voice is brief,” Assembly chair Mike Gatto told a performer who insisted on being allowed to speak. Many other industry members attended the hearing to voice their dissent, including Diane Duke, Mo Reese, Amber Chase, Ariel X, Shine Louise Houston, Jiz Lee and Emma Claire. Former adult industry performers Bay and Rod Daily, who tested positive for HIV last year, spoke on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, along with AHF lobbyist Rand Martin. The bill will now head to the full California Assembly for consideration. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 05-21-14 06:16pm - 3867 days | #2 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^It's no secret that I don't mind condoms and I think that in todays porn industry it's a necessity so hopefully we will finally start to see studios only shooting condom porn. Most people who spoke against the law used a variety of reasons as to why it was a really bad idea but not one of them said the real reason which is that it producers must now pay for the performers test as well as making condoms available on sets so another big expense. Basically money is the reason why some in the industry are against condom in porn and no other reason. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-21-14 09:10pm - 3867 days | #3 | |
|
thirstyfish (0)
Active User  Posts: 30 Registered: May 20, '13 |
^ For California studios that operate on tiny margins (would that be all of them?), in addition to the costs of testing and proper condom protocol/OPIM disposal, there's another concern: loss of subscription revenue. In other words, for each person who doesn't mind paying for condom-porn there is likely to be a person who does. And those who do mind condom-porn may indeed choose to spend their money elsewhere (at least for the near future). Studio revenues have already taken a big hit due to so many users being trained to expect free porn (via tubes, torrents, etc.). Studios may soon have to contend with the additional costs of compliance with ever-increasing government regulation and scrutiny. Of course studios are concerned about the additional costs associated with AB 1576. But are they going to stand up in legislative hearings and say: "Golly! These new regulations mean doggoned additional costs that are going to drive us right out of business."? That's about as likely as bunch of legislators and 'concerned activists' openly stating their fervent desire to shut down the porn industry. Politicians and Porn Studios have this much in common: neither side is going to honestly discuss their true intentions and agendas.  Porn happens because a large number of things amazingly fail to go wrong. | |
|
||
| 05-22-14 07:54am - 3867 days | #4 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Very well said and I am sure thats dead on. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 05-22-14 06:07pm - 3866 days | #5 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^&^^I may be way off but I truly believe that the health of the performers is the primary reason for why this law was passed and in this case the politicians were honest while the industry wasn't. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-23-14 06:33pm - 3865 days | #6 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User  Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
The bill as drafted calls not only for condoms for oral but for protective eye wear to be worn according to XBiz.com. There has never in history been a case of HIV transmitted by contact of semen with the mucus membranes of the eyes. Not one. As far as transmission of HIV through mucus membranes aside from the genitals go, there is one controversial case of transmission by kissing that has been reported, and that is it. Yes it is theoretically possible if the mucus membranes are damaged, but it is a remote, outside possibility. The requirement for protective eye wear is clearly not based on science and it is not imposed in good faith. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 01:51am - 3865 days | #7 | |
|
MrLewdy (0)
Disabled User Posts: 32 Registered: Mar 15, '13 |
Honestly, I'd prefer to not care at all about condoms use on set but it's not the case... Condoms in both videos and photos turn me off completely. Why am I so sensitive about it? Well for the reasons below: - unnatural look - less raw, nasty, dirty... - I prefer direct contact in real life and since I'm always projecting myself as the male performers well my fantasies are no more if they're wearing condoms Condoms in sex are like: - taking a shower with a rain coat - french-kissing someone with a sheet of Saran Wrap between both mouths - trying to taste good food or wine without odor sense I'm all about performers good health but making condoms mandatory is too much not to mention that it will hurt the industry more than ever at least for a couple of years because I'm pretty sure a lot of consumers will turn to old and recent material (condoms free) via piracy (torrents and tube sites). Loss of profits due to piracy is nothing compared to what's coming... Yes, there's been some unfortunate HIV cases in the past and even last year but are the new rules necessary? I don't think so. Only concerned studios and producers should get punished, not the entire industry. These politicians sure have another agenda in mind when they attack the porn industry with these regulations and laws. Do they really care about performers? I highly doubt it because otherwise they would care about everyone's safety at work no matter what you do for a living. Whether you flip burgers at McDonald's or climb and build skyscrapers every morning. So what's next? Protective glasses? Gloves? Radiation suits? Fuck that... the moment I see a studio/website wear rubber all over the place I cross them out and never come back so no more subscriptions/profits for them. It's that simple. I'd rather stop watching porn completely than dealing with turn-off condoms imposed by hypocrite governments and politicians. | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 08:12am - 3865 days | #8 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
No, it does not. The only thing the bill calls for is condom during vaginal and anal penetration, mandatory 7 day testing and that producers pay for the test. All the other stuff is what some in the industry tried to put forth to scare people. Xbix and AVN are owned by Manwin and you have to take what these sites write about with a large box of salt. The simple truth is that the industry was asked countless times over the last 10-20 years to implement some industry wide policies regarding the health and well-being of it's performers (specially in regards to STI's) but the industry pretty much said F..f Y.. to the government so what exactly was the government suppose to do? The fact is that the vast majority of the porn performers have had one or more STI's in the career and although the number of actual HIV performers is tiny. I certainly would be very afraid to hear how many past and present performers have herpes and/or warts and are now infected for life with an incurable disease. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 08:22am - 3865 days | #9 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
Here's the article that I'm citing on XBiz.com, it's an interview with Peter Acworth, owner of Kink.com. http://www.xbiz.com/news/179601 Here's the part that I'm citing: "XBIZ: If the bill does pass, do you think the AIDS Healthcare Foundation will take a continuing vigilant role and become chief complainant over shoots? ACWORTH: Yes. One aspect of AB 1576 is the record-keeping. A complaint from AHF to Cal/OSHA would give access to these records to Cal/OSHA for their agenda. As you know, proposed Cal/OSHA draft regulations include protection of eyes and condoms for oral. These new regs would be very easily and quickly enforceable with this new record-keeping in place and that is where I see this going." I guess you are technically right. The bill itself is not calling for protective eyewear, but the Cal/OSHA regulations being drafted in parallel to the bill apparently are. The bill will require compliance with the Cal/OSHA regulations, so the effect will be the same. Granted, these are just drafts according to Acworth, but still. Protective eyewear? Come on. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 11:59am - 3865 days | #10 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I don't know if you are aware but Acworth is one of the people who is so far up shit creek with OSHA because of serious violations that he's now spent the last year or so spewing BS to try and discredit anyone pro-condom bill. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 12:35pm - 3865 days | #11 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
Yeah, I know he's a vocal opponent. He did say the rules were "proposed," so for all we know they could have been immediately shot down too. Anyway, maybe it's a good thing that we have some differing opinions here, it makes for interesting discussion. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 07:03pm - 3864 days | #12 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Kink.com has been thinking of moving out of San Francisco for a while now, even proposing that they turn the historic San Francisco Armory into office space (I assume after thoroughly gassing it with chlorine dioxide--I've seen what goes on in their videos!  ).You know California is getting too regulatory for porn when even San Francisco is too restrictive! (P.S. Kink.com does use a lot of condoms...but only on the toys, which I don't think will count for much. But frankly, some of their videos play out like elaborate "What Not to Do" scenarios regarding safe sex.) "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 05-24-14 08:27pm - 3864 days | #13 | |
|
thirstyfish (0)
Active User Posts: 30 Registered: May 20, '13 |
This is a good topic and a great discussion. For the record, I don't like condoms in porn scenes. If AB 1576 becomes law in California: we're going to see a lot more studios making condom scenes. Will condoms help to protect porn girls and guys? Yes: during the making of the scenes. What goes on away from the cameras and outside of the studio is a whole different story. As for the question: "Is 1576 about condoms only for vaginal and anal intercourse?", as amended (on 2014-05-14) the answer seems to be yes: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/...ad099ecb341bff76f58a (A) Each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This paragraph shall not be construed to require that the personal protective equipment be visible to the consumer in the finished film. There are other options are open to studios - but they'll likely involve additional costs and it seems the goal for most studios is to churn out the product as fast and cheap as possible. The obvious solution: make sure you really have got the best politicians money can buy. There's an interesting 'out' in 1576 given the protection isn't required to be visible in the final product. Falcon Studios got some press early this year (2014) regarding their intention to digitally remove condoms in a post-production process. Not sure what became of that but it certainly adds cost to the final product. Studios could move to other states. That'd be expensive and porn is legal in California and New Hampshire only. I don't see those sunny California folk enjoying two feet of New Hampshire snow. If there's a production spike in Arizona or Florida someone might notice and kick up a fuss and maybe look at adopting 1576-like regulations for themselves. Studios could try to go 'underground' but in today's interconnected world trying to run an underground operation would be difficult (and dangerous!). Imagine trying to run a porn studio/site without using a credit card processor. Yeah, just leave your cash in a brown paper bag behind that dumpster at the end of the alley. Floating studios in international waters - pricey and dangerous. Look out for real pirates. Orbital studios - even more pricey and dangerous. Though zero-G scenes would probably be interesting to watch. Porn happens because a large number of things amazingly fail to go wrong. | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 06:11pm - 3863 days | #14 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I don't know if they will move but I don't think condoms has anything to do with it since office space is at a very high premium in San Francisco and converting the armory in office space would make Peter Acworth countless millions of dollars. Of course if he choses to sell/convert the armory and move to Las Vegas to open a new studio than he is a major idiot because whatever money he will make from the armory will quickly get eaten up opening a new studio in Las Vegas. Not to mention that he will never be able to offer the same type of porn he currently does because the armory gives him multiple studios to shoot from, kitchens and dinning rooms office space for the staff and finally it also has sleeping quarters for staff and performers. None of these things will be possible anywhere else. Now if Acworth wants to leave porn than selling/converting the armory is a great way to make a huge pile of money but that's it. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 06:18pm - 3863 days | #15 | |
|
MrLewdy (0)
Disabled User Posts: 32 Registered: Mar 15, '13 |
I like what you bring to the discussion thirstyfish! I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one around here who doesn't like seeing condoms when watching a video. The solutions for porn studios California based studios are pretty much limited. Either they move or start to use condoms which, like you said, is probably what's gonna happen. I've heard of condoms removal through digital methods during the finishing process too but it seems way too expensive and in today's economy and piracy hitting hard the industry, studios are never gonna spend a penny brushing the latex away! And by the way... what about eastern studios? I'm pretty sure it's good news for them as they will gain a lot of new costumers won't they? It's sad but like I wrote before, I will stop joining big us popular sites such as Brazzers, Bangbros, Reality Kings and much more as soon as I see a piece of latex in their updates. I will then turn to Europe studios where everything is still permitted except for France where I think they have to use condoms. The thing about a condom on camera is the ring at the base of the penis that anyone can instantly see. That damn piece of the latex is too much visible while the rest isn't that bad after all. But the ring... I don't know but seeing it turns me off completely. When they use condoms, I notice it so I know there's a rubber because it's too shiny and "wet" compared to a nude penis making its way through. I think I could still manage and get used to it if it wasn't for that damn ring which is too thick and non transparent at all. I know it's there for a purpose as it retains the condom from slipping away but damn... By the way, of course a condom is better than nothing but since porn can be pretty rough and hard I bet a lot of rubbers will tear and snap! There will still be transmission of STDs every now and then. There are no perfect solutions for both parties I guess. Can't they invent some sort of transparent as fuck condoms that doesn't reflect light? Some shit that wraps around the penis so fucking tight you know like Saran Wrap air less shit? It would perfectly cover every microscopic holes and bumps of the penis skin making the condom less visible to not at all. Edited on May 26, 2014, 04:18pm (MrLewdy: Error in my BBCode) | |
|
||
| 05-26-14 08:49am - 3863 days | #16 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Kalifornia is to regulative for just about everything. Common sense in the state went out the window 30 years ago when they put ppl in office like Fienstien. She has messed up that state more than all the Governors past and present there. She lives in a privileged disillusion world of lollypops and rainbows. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 05-26-14 05:23pm - 3862 days | #17 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I won't comment on the level of regulation for anything else but I have no problem whatsoever with the government getting involved in the porn industry. Performers are getting infected as we speak because some of the people in charge are to cheap and uncaring to want their performers to wear a condom during penetration. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-28-14 04:50pm - 3860 days | #18 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I disagree, the government does not own our penises.  I also think prostitution should not be illegal either. Oddly the same people who are for the right of a women to have an abortion are against prostitution and are for this law. So I guess a woman can do with her body what the government approve off. I guess when they tell us who we can have sex with then maybe people will say enough.  Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 05-28-14 06:10pm - 3860 days | #19 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^You'll have to show me where this law prevents anyone other than porn performers from doing what they want with their genitals because all it does is make sure that all performers wear a condom during vaginal or anal penetration. The biggest California porn studio has been using condoms for penetrations scenes for decades and no one prior to the last 2-3 years had any issue with them. In fact Manwin bought Wicked knowing that they only shot porn with condoms and Manwin is part of the group who's against condoms. Is there any logic in that? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-28-14 09:55pm - 3860 days | #20 | |||
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
You're right; they only own vaginas. 
I don't think this is totally true. Not everybody in favor of abortion rights are against legalized prostitution, though that would likely still involve some sort of state control, probably akin to what they're trying to do to porn. The problem is porn and prostitution have different histories, at least within the U.S. I would argue that in the last few decades porn has become considerably safer in comparison to prostitution, largely through non-governmental control. Of course in places where brothels are legal it has become safer as well, though most jurisdictions aren't moving to become like Nevada.
The thing is it isn't always legislators, judges, or executives who "tell" us who we can and cannot have sex with. California outlawed gay marriage with the voter-approved Prop 8 back in 2008. "The will of the people," we're told to believe, though I would be inclined to call it "mob rule," since it was a decrease in civil rights. And oddly enough all those political howler monkeys who are so in love with words like "freedom" or "liberty" seem to not want to apply either of them to marriage, especially when it comes to teh gayez.  I appreciate the intent of those trying to protect performers' health, especially with so many young people who have the rest of their lives to live with the consequences, but this bill could just push businesses out of the state. California, mostly southern California, is one of the few places in the U.S. grown up enough to allow porn to be legally produced, and I don't think it's doing itself any favors passing feel-good legislation (metaphorically speaking, if it's going to involve condoms). "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |||
|
||||
| 05-29-14 08:42am - 3860 days | #21 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
Then all I can say is that the industry had better come up with a "sure-fire" acceptable alternative for bare-backing lest this porn-lover treks elsewhere for his viewing pleasures.  | |
|
||
| 05-30-14 11:25am - 3859 days | #22 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Graymane, I'm sure plenty of studios and sites will be producing rubber-free material for as long there people to make it and watch it. Regulations be damned; they will leave the state/jurisdiction--and California will notice it--or others outside will get more business. There is a third option, though I'm personally against it, where they will simply ignore the law, but I sincerely hope they do not do this. I'll be the first on PU to bitch and moan about our numerous unjust laws but porn is not the place to be breaking them. Regulations concerning health/safety and legal age are absolutely not worth going to court or jail over. It will do far more harm than good, and do nothing towards fixing the problems of proposed condom laws. "Community standards" tests of obscenity are different, as few if any statutes exist as to when a porn movie clearly crosses the line into "obscene" territory, albeit I'm sure at least half my collection would both horrify and harden many a legislator to start enacting strict new laws. It's not as if there's some law that states three girls and one guy is allowed, but if it's four girls and one guy then it's, like, totally prosecutable.    "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 05-30-14 01:37pm - 3859 days | #23 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
California, Is one of these states, that simply can't make up their own minds. What a person does in business is none of the governments business. Prostitution is only and issues legally, but morally depending who you ask its about the same. What through me off, and why I am not fan of Liberals per-say. It was a majority Democratic legal system that passed this. Do not get me wrong, I think safe sex is a smart idea. If a porn star does not want to have sex with a guy that won't wear one so be it. But to force it upon anyone is the issues. Liberals keep claiming smaller government too. All I see in California is more and more regulation,now its on penis use. This is not like seat belts and helmets where the lack of use affects everyone. Its in at the privacy of a studio and art is being done does the government need or should have that right ? I say no. There will come a time and I will laugh my ass off when you will be sued for not wearing a condom during sex. Forced birth control exists in our country now because of this law. I swear it was Conservatives that would pass such a law, but nope was Liberals, it won't be long before places like California requires gloves when FB, and condoms during blowjobs for all people. We all forget the 1990's California laws required to avoid rape charges you needed a contract to show it was consensual. Maybe California will drop off in the ocean and the USA can go about its business, both Cal and NY are crazy ass people with no sense of reality in a real world. Sorry if it offends anyone but I am from that state so I can say what a total piece of shit is is now.  I won't step foot there and have not in over 10 years, I drive around it. Won't spend a dime in the hole. Rant Over. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 05-31-14 01:33am - 3858 days | #24 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
Have you forgotten something, CT? ..... Striking while the iron is hot, new ideas effecting porn are surfacing in La-La Land like bloated fish after an oil-spill. Particularly what'll interest all here on PU turf, and naturally also with all males who're into this nature-ingrained practice, has all to do with a new idea for a law, hatched among Democrats, and enthusiastically lauded by Republicans .......one that is basically an idea that might not only put more teeth into this issue (generated by this thread) .... but one that could do wonders in bringing in sorely needed revenue to help the State ......and, indeed, perhaps the entire Nation. By golly gee...... think about the possibilities? The idea in question ..... should it become law, would make it a violation -- subject to fine -- to jerk-off without some positive effective sheathing encompassing his (penis) that it blocks ejaculate that might become earthbound and take root.....or lest a live sperm survives and somehow finds it's way into the region of a woman's vagina. wherein the mighty little fellow works its way to the woman's ripen egg farm. And more importantly what all this is about .....that God forbid it might harbor some nasty, fertile disease that might create a threat to her life. In lieu of all this, it is advised that we males hereafter practice abstinence ..... one suggestion is that we wear boxing-gloves during those times we're apt to succumb to that sinister temptation. (emission via penile stimulation) I suggest a book written by a woman author called: "If you're going to spill your seed, go somewhere else to do it other than in my pussy." Edited on May 31, 2014, 01:52am | |
|
||
| 05-31-14 08:10am - 3858 days | #25 | ||
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
It's the exact same thing. I don't know if you are aware but motorcycle owners bitched and fought tooth and nail for decades trying to prevent the government from passing any kind of helmet law. The most common statement was usually that it's their right to go without a helmet because it's their life and they can do what they wanted with it. That is only true if you live alone on a desert island but you can't say that if you don't. One person's actions affect more than themselves. It affects their family and friends as well as complete strangers who's life is affected when that free person crashes his bike and requires the services of paramedics, doctors, nurses, polices officers who will have to deal with someone who didn't care enough about the others to wear a helmet while riding a high speed vehicle. It's no different for the condom debate because the people in the porn industry don't live on a desert island where their actions affect only themselves. In fact it's much worse because unlike a bike helmet. One infected person will automatically infect at least one more person by not wearing a condom. Since so many porn performers now escort on a regular basis than their actions can also infect non-performers.
You must already be laughing your ass off because I'm sure that people are getting sued, as I write this, because they did not wear a condom during sex and infected their sexual partner. If not that then guys are getting a nice lawyers letter stating that they are now the father of a beautiful baby and must start paying child support. Long live the Brown Coats. | ||
|
|||
| 05-31-14 09:46am - 3858 days | #26 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
It's a good argument but unfortunately one that is used to restrict freedom. Are they doing it to protect porn performers or doing it so there's one more law to restrict freedom, show who's boss, and impose their own morality? Does government have a good record of caring about, protecting, and looking after the needs of people who aren't in the rich minority? I still often do not wear a seat belt even though it's against the law. I don't respect the law because it's created and upheld by lying cheating corrupt scum. Most of it is there to protect them from us. From my perspective they are the enemy. The law shouldn't be respected, and neither should those who make it or uphold it. Sex and sexual behaviour is one thing they have a hard time controlling. This is one effort to get a finger in that. It's all a question of belief. It boils down to how far you want to go in restricting freedom in order to protect us inferior socially lacking unimportant slobs from ourselves. One way would be to ban cars (except for business purposes), smoking, sex (unless licensed for the need of procreation), knives, airplanes (except for business purposes), fatty foods, high buildings, large expanses of water, and enforce a 6pm curfew. This could be all be paid for using 80 per cent taxation as these policies cost money, and so does building prisons to lock up those who refuse to be protected for their own good. The world would be a much safer place, and a few smug self satisfied fucks could live in luxury, while the rest of us work and live in safety. Edited on May 31, 2014, 09:56am | |
|
||
| 05-31-14 06:44pm - 3857 days | #27 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I'm going to take you at your word and assume that what you wrote is the truth so first let me ask you who's rights are being violated with the condom law? I mean it doesn't prevent anyone from shooting with anyone else. All it does is force studios to use condoms during the penetration part of their scenes. I know some have made the argument that the rights of performers to shoot their scenes bareback is being violated but since so many performers now escort and I assume most use a condom than where is the problem with them also using one while doing porn? Especially since it's been proven that you can no longer trust the STI test performers have. Some have used the excuse that condoms cause friction and this can add to the possibility of them getting an infection but Wicked has been using condoms for decades and no one has ever complained so that excuse is hard to accept. Now as to your choosing to not wear a seatbelt. Why would you do that? A seatbelt is meant to save your life in the event of an accident so you are telling me that you don't care whether you live or die simply because someone in the past made a law based on scientific studies that seatbelts saved more lives than they cost. You do know that makes absolutely no sense. I'd also like to point out that enforcing seatbelt laws probably cost government more money than not doing that because people who used to die in car accidents, prior to seatbelt laws, now survive and cost more money for their medical treatments and rehabilitation. Long live the Brown Coats. Edited on May 31, 2014, 06:50pm | |
|
||
| 05-31-14 07:30pm - 3857 days | #28 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
The reasons why I prefer not to wear a seat belt are unimportant to the argument, but persons of a certain age in this country will know them. The main point is how far should a government should go in restricting personal freedoms, for the supposed benefit of all? Everyone has their own opinion where the line should be drawn. No right, no wrong, just opinion, and everybody has one. Like a lot of Americans, I prefer government interfering as little as possible. I always think for any given country, the more the censorship, the fewer the personal freedoms, and the more restrictive the laws, the more uncivilised, fearful, ignorant, dangerous, and inferior a people are. Just my view of things. The good rulers in Sudan have sentenced a woman to death for choosing to be a Christian rather then Muslim. It's all for the collective good of course. This is what happens in extreme cases, when fearful ignorant smug self righteous bigots think they know what is best for everyone. FTR I come from a time when we didn't wear seat belts. I have always hated them. I hate feeling trapped, have heard of people being killed when their necks were broken due to wearing a seat belt, and also being trapped in a burning car when their seat belts would not undo. The figures may say wearing them is more likely to save your life but I consider I should have a choice, besides they crease up good shirts and jackets. Come to think of it, I do have a choice - I choose to break the law. | |
|
||
| 05-31-14 07:54pm - 3857 days | #29 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
 A hearty welcome-back drop-in, squirrel, -- (even if it's for just a little while) -- to a top player in our PU community. From this member's perspective: ..... your charismatic grasp of the language and thought-provoking rants have been sorely missed. And I'd like to think I speak for us all upon passing out these deserving accolades. Let us see more of you, partner! PS .....I share implicitly (to the letter) your rant on the mandatory law regarding seat-belts. Among other things, it's my body .....and I want the choice to put it into whatever realm of chance that I choose. | |
|
||
| 06-01-14 08:38am - 3857 days | #30 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
No surprises that I'm of the same mind on this thread's general but controversial subject-matter, expressed with conviction and verve by one of PU's masters....(the Squirrel). This is tight-fasted stuff he and I share opinions on which I'm always gonna ride shotgun throughout the ride .... happily a confrere following his unyielding stance having to do with this barn-burner.. But I'm compelled always to hasten, as well as duly add, despite whatever opposition to these existing differences, as well as any other burning issue confronting anything newsworthy and/or direly in the need of factual confirmation or comprehensive assessment in any form rendered to This site's betterment .......is none other than one of the inter-net's proud prodigy, and one who is this site's brightest and most well-informed gentleman, one whom I revere and feel honored to be associated with ..... Tis but one In the grand personage of PU's most popular and valued member Pat362 | |
|
||
| 06-01-14 05:56pm - 3856 days | #31 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks graymane. I still visit here regularly but am generally happy nowadays to be an observer rather than contributor. Occasionally I see something worth commenting on. This is a thread that touches on porn users arguing over government intervention in porn. I would like to point out something that should be obvious - porn users in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Porn fans are no different to anyone else in thinking their tastes (whatever they may be) are okay, and morally righteous, whereas those of others aren't. Enforcing condom use may make porn more safe, but so would banning porn altogether. Given the amount of severely damaged people who enter porn, and the amount of damage done to people in porn, it would be far better to ban it altogether. That would make it really safe. There are many people in the world who have struggled over the years to stop the spread of porn. They consider themselves to be morally righteous. They consider porn to be evil and damaging to both those in the business and to those who consume it. Once you start thinking that it's right to impose your own morality and standards on others, you can end up being disappointed because everyone has their own standards and morality. Getting government involved means you are trusting a corrupt bunch of liars, cheats, and hypocrites to pass laws concerning morality, sexual behaviour, and porn production. Once government starts laying down those laws (for the good of the people of course), who knows where it will lead. If you are into porn and want to see government have a say in these things, don't be surprised if it doesn't end where you want it to end. | |
|
||
| 06-01-14 11:46pm - 3856 days | #32 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Actually there is a more obscene law in WA State, if you live with a women who has children for more the 1 year and leave she can sue you for child support even though you are not the father. On the condom thing, It comes down to common sense and responsibility. If a person sleeps around gets VD, aids and what ever, yep I say sue their ass. I guess if people didn't fuck everything that moved we would not have to worry. The reality is a person should use a condoms in films, or in private because they give a crap, not because the government had to tell you " hey dumb ass you'll catch something " Think some of you are missing the point, I never said go spread aids and VD, I said do we need someone telling us not to stick a dick in it without a condom? VD and Aids have been around along time. You would think people are smart enough to know what to do. I can tell you if the situation required me to need one id wear one without question. Why people are so dumb they need to be told is beyond me. And not just told ordered . wow. When they say we are dumbing down are a people we must be if we need to be told to wrap it up or get in trouble. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 06-02-14 07:38pm - 3855 days | #33 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Actually, that could make it really unsafe. Remember, if something is totally against the law then only the lawbreakers can decide what rules they want to follow, if any, health and safety be damned. I'm sure there are some performers who would love to not have to have regular AIDS/HIV tests, and if porn was totally illegal they could do just that and make movies underground or "off the clock." Because this is just a California bill (for now, I hope), producers can just go one state over. And it's not a ban on porn, not even technically a ban on bareback porn--since it doesn't matter if condoms appear in the final video, education isn't the point--only a work requirement. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-06-14 08:17am - 3852 days | #34 | |
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster  Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
We take model health extremely seriously, and have rigorous testing procedures in place. We're based in Amsterdam, so this law isn't applicable to our operation. Moreover, the vast majority of our content is solo girl, and girl-girl. That said, we do regularly shoot and release girl-boy shoots too (1 per month). In almost 40 girl-boy shoots so far, none have used a condom. That. Said. Our girl-boy scenes feature only real-life couples, we turn the cameras on and encourage them to relax and show us how they normally do it. Imposing condoms would be like imposing sex positions or money shots; fake. Of course, couples are free to use condoms if that's how they do it. | |
|
||
| 06-06-14 02:09pm - 3852 days | #35 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
This hints at a valid point. AB1576 should at least have an exception for real couples. I understand how workplace protections have a firm basis in law, but what about amateur couples, maybe even married couples, who want to shoot content for their own small scale operations? I'm sure those scenarios must have been considered, and yet there is no sort of exception in the bill? I know workplace protections are important, but so is freedom of artistic expression. HIV tests are accurate when used properly. The law should require adequate testing for HIV and other STDs like gonorrhea and chlamydia, but it shouldn't bar performers who test negative from performing bareback together. Yeah, it could be argued that producers may cut corners on the testing, but they are equally free to cut corners on using condoms. If only AB1576 could mandate adequate testing, without treading all over freedom of artistic expression by requiring condoms, then both sides might have a nice compromise. The bottom line is that testing alone is adequate. Companies who cut corners on testing can just as easily cut corners on condom use, with the same risk of repercussions. Many are going to edit the condoms out - think green screen chroma key condoms - so it won't be so easy to check compliance just by looking at the videos. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. Edited on Jun 06, 2014, 02:19pm | |
|
||
| 06-06-14 06:27pm - 3851 days | #36 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^&^^Here are the problems with allowing "real couples" to go bareback in their penetration scene. 1-How could you prove that the two performers are in a real relationship? I'm not taking the word of a producer who has a vested interest a scene bareback and I don't think an OSHA inspector will. 2-Even if you could prove it then how could you prove that they are in an exclusive relationship? There are currently plenty of performer in relationships and they do shoot the odd scene together but they also shoot with plenty of other performers so. 3-Allowing real coupes to shoot bareback scenes won't change the fact that producers still have to pay for the STD test and that is by far the main reason why studios are fighting this law. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-10-14 05:53pm - 3847 days | #37 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Here's why AB1576 had to exist and more importantly has to be implemented. http://www.mikesouth.com/ Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-10-14 10:19pm - 3847 days | #38 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
pat362, I hate to admit it, but I don't find those charts particularly shocking, though that could explain why I try to avoid reading about how the adult industry really works (and I why I feel like I need to take a cold shower whenever I visit South's site). I've previously read of those two STDs mentioned on the right side of the first poster being cause for missing a few weeks of work as "flu-related" reasons. Not sure what the CDC will make of it, though they could certainly influence stricter laws beyond California, or at least the handful of places in America where shooting porn is actually legal. Still, labor laws, even concerning worker safety has never been a huge priority in this country--freedom for the "job creators" and all that. May make for a decent masquerade to further outlaw shooting porn, but there's nothing new there. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-11-14 12:00am - 3847 days | #39 | |
|
Parsnip (0)
Active User Posts: 39 Registered: Oct 29, '13 Location: Atlanta, Georgia |
I wonder whether some people are finally getting it about how porn is made, and what those extreme acts they so love watching are like to perform. You can see above the number of girls who are hurt, and are bullied and forced into doing painful and dangerous things for your pleasure. On YouTube I found a Brit documentary called something like "Date my Pornstar". It was from a government free to air network called Channel 4, which shows how wild their tv must be! Anyway, they took 3 porn fans over to LA for a couple of weeks to watch porn being made, talk to various performers and producers, and go on a date with their favourite star. They started out really excited, talking about all the stuff they wanted to see. One in particular was obsessed with extreme stuff and insisted that it was all fine and the girls agreed to everything so it was OK. They became rapidly disillusioned and shocked as they saw the reality, and found out about the real bullying and suffering that goes on. A few weeks after, the producers visited each guy. Two has stopped watching porn completely and the other has cut right back. If you are reduced to demanding the right to carry on committing the kind of abuse most modern porn entails, you aren't going to get a lot of people supporting you. If the producers of porn won't control themselves, and the consumers refuse to think about what they are watching, in the end the authorities will step in and find some way to act. If this upsets those of you who have sunk so far that you are only now aroused by watching girls being beaten senseless, in clear extreme distress and pain, and suffering serious injuries then, frankly, tough. It's a good thing. | |
|
||
| 06-11-14 07:20am - 3847 days | #40 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Porn, ALL Porn, can be hazardous to both mental and physical health. That applies to some jobs too. It all depends on how far you want to go in legislating a dirty business. I don't buy the banning it altogether will make it go underground argument. Banning murder, sexual abuse, blackmail, and terrorism, makes it go underground too. Good. It doesn't stop it altogether, but it does help. Banning porn would mean there is less of it, much less, so there are fewer people at risk. The porn industry has exploded in volume with legalisation, satellite, and the internet. I'm not saying I want to ban porn, but I accept it is a hazardous industry, filled with some truly awful people. Same as the music industry. It doesn't lessen my entertainment. I would prefer current laws apply to porn, so if a girls is forced to do something she doesn't want to do, there are laws which punish those who do the forcing. That is good too. Lock em up and don't let them out. A porn actress should be signing something stating exactly what the job entails. Anything outside that is against the law. A few years ago they tried to prosecute some men who were into pretty severe masochism and made videos of it for their own entertainment. I am not into that, but I do not want to impose my narrow mindedness on them. If they wish to do that, that is okay by me. My worry is the morally righteous will eventually have their way and laws will be imposed to try and stop the porn industry, because it is such a damaging industry. Or maybe they should? I do not wish to impose my standards on others, but do see a need to protect workers in industry, however they are just my standards from my perspective. Some wish to impose their own morality. Where does genuine concern, and smug self righteous morality cross over? Are they the same thing? I don't know. With that I shall say it's been good here, but things change. I am not doing the really silly account suspended thing. There are only really graymane and admiral left who I like, and agree with. Most of the older regulars I like appear infrequently. I'm not saying this is my last post because there may be something really important that I may have to say at some point in the future, but I think I have now said all I have to say, and don't want to endlessly repeat myself. I wish Rick, Khan and co much success. Run good! Edited on Jun 11, 2014, 08:15am | |
|
||
| 06-11-14 05:28pm - 3846 days | #41 | |
|
thirstyfish (0)
Active User Posts: 30 Registered: May 20, '13 |
Pat, I'm not sure a link to Mr. South's blog (in and of itself) is a compelling argument for AB 1576. While it is a sometimes entertaining site, it's rather like a modern day version of a gossip rag: one part innuendo, a pinch of rumor, a dash of speculation, and over-seasoned with schadenfreude. Unless you're suggesting (and this is tongue-firmly-in-cheek) that one of the benefits if 1576 is passed into law is that Mr. South will have nothing left to write about so he'll fold up his website. Mr. South didn't even bother to provide a citation for the actual study results - though one of his three or four regular posters came to his rescue and did. Adult Film Performers Transmission Behaviors and STI Prevalence study: http://www.aidshealth.org/wp-content/upl...-Prevention-2014.pdf One thing that is compelling: the study counters the often-heard assertion that porn performers - because of testing, treatment and tracking - are at less risk from STIs than the general population. The CDC reports in 2012 the infection rate for chlamydia in the general US population as being 0.45% (456.7 cases per 100,000) and the study found for performers the rate is 14.9%. The CDC reports in 2012 an infection rate for gonorrhea in the general US population as being 0.11% (107.5 cases per 100,000) and the study found for performers the rate is 11.3%. CDC numbers are here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats12/chlamydia.htm http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats12/gonorrhea.htm Based on the numbers, a porn performer is about 32 times more likely to suffer from a chlamydia infection and about 96 times more likely to suffer from a gonorrhea infection than someone in the general population. Setting aside the questions of biased methodologies, skewed sampling and errors in number crunching, those rates are not good news for porn performers. Another interesting study finding is that 9.1% of gonorrhea infections and 3.3% of chlamydia infections were pharyngeal - i.e., infections at the back of the throat. That suggests upcoming legislation requiring porn performers to use dental dams. While AB 1576 on the surface seems to be an effort to protect California porn performers (which it may indeed do), beneath the waterline there is a larger agenda. Whether that agenda is accidental or or by design is unclear. Since the Federal and state governments don't exactly have a sterling record regarding health and safety (not to mention privacy), one might conclude the larger agenda is not accidental. US Federal and state governments (and 'concerned' citizens) did indeed learn something from the debacle that was the Volstead Act/18th Amendment. If you want to get rid of something, you don't do it with sweeping, draconian legislation and enforcement. You do it a little bit at a time addressing both the supply and the demand, over the course of years and decades. AB 1576 and the Adult Film Performers Transmission Behaviors and STI Prevalence study are examples of 'the death of a thousand cuts'. Speculation: in twenty years porn will have gone the way of the bicycle riding, circus midway shows and Halloween. It will still exist in some tamed, institutional, 'nice and safe' form - but it will be almost unrecognizable from what it is today. Porn happens because a large number of things amazingly fail to go wrong. Edited on Jun 11, 2014, 05:49pm | |
|
||
| 06-11-14 06:27pm - 3846 days | #42 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^Although a dental dam law may get pass sometime in the future. The current AB1576 does not consider oral sex when it mentions protection and that is the one being talked about. There is no doubt that performers are developing an STI through oral sex but since most of them will also have vaginal and possibly anal sex with the infected partner than the fact that they may have contracted the STI through the oral part of the scene is mostly academic. As much as the industry keeps saying that AB 1576 is going to be bad for business. The truth is that Wicked is in the top 3 most profitable porn studios right now and all their movies have condoms in them so condoms isn't the real issue. Having to pay for the test isn't even much of a problem. The simple truth is that the industry would rather talk about anything other than the fact that Manwin who owns most porn publication has well as almost every tube site has been screwing with the industry for nearly a decade to the point where no one makes huge amounts of money. You have the odd studio who still makes a profit but most can barely stay afloat and that includes some big players. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-12-14 03:52pm - 3846 days | #43 | ||
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, though I am a perpetual and stubborn cynic, and I see AB 1576 as more along the rather predictable lines of whittling away at the state's porn industry than some grand puritanical plot (especially in a state like California). And in a bureaucracy as grand as the Golden State's, haranguing by way of increased regulation is nothing new. "Worker safety" may not really be the only goal when there is a considerable amount of shaming and scrutiny of the very existence of the industry itself. And it's laughable to think that everyone who's in favor of greater porn regulation has its performers' health and safety in mind. At the extreme end, there are those who if they got their way would outlaw the entire porn industry and physically brand its performers, if not have them summarily arrested and imprisoned without trial. On the more rational end are those who see the genuine risks in adult entertainment work and are fed up with how the industry mishandles them. Somewhere in the middle is where I think most fans end up; certainly not in favor of bans, but at least in favor of something to protect the real people who have to suffer the consequences. But I honestly don't think the public would react much differently than they did a century ago when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, a socialist exposé on the vile treatment of laborers, particularly immigrants, in the meat industry. But the result wasn't that something needed to be done about workers being killed trying to make sausages, but that consumers' sausages shouldn't have dead workers in them (and immigrants at that!). Would fans react that differently to what goes on behind the scenes in porn? Just look at the response to condom requirements; we don't like the way they look--arguably a judgement call on male talent's genitals--not that they may one day save our favorite actresses from having to worry about their T cell counts. It's not that we don't care, however difficult empathy may be, but that we're conditioned not to through the fantasy in which most porn is presented. Ridiculous stage names, hilariously bad plots, and over the top sexual acts that could make many fans' sex lives feel unaccomplished in comparison. So it's easy to forget there could be deadly consequences to the craziness.
I'm not sure, twenty years is an eon in Internet years, but I hope this is not the direction it goes in. Porn still seems to be getting progressively more extreme, if not universally accepted as it goes this way. It's why someone like HotKinkyJo is either a considerable talent among her fans/rubberneckers, and has a fan base; or is a bizarre, visceral (literally, in her case) freak show that is still considered unfit for much of porn. Still, it's entirely possible that Showtime and HBO start showing more than just the bare butts and breasts like they are doing now. While porn handles the more graphic stuff, and in fewer jurisdictions. Either way their will always be a market, even if most people won't admit to it.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Jun 12, 2014, 03:58pm | ||
|
|||
| 08-14-14 03:23pm - 3783 days | #44 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The state Senate Appropriations Committee did not act on AB 1576 today and the bill will not move forward. Porn-condom bill AB 1576 sponsored by Assemblyman Isadore Hall of Compton, Calif., was tabled — placed in the "suspense file" — by California's Senate Appropriations Committee last week. Today, the committee shelved the bill, which would have required the use of condoms in adult film productions, as well as STI and HIV testing for performers.   Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 08-14-14 03:33pm - 3783 days | #45 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^Actually read what Mike South wrote. first Measure B is still in effect as is a statewide OSHA law that makes the use of condoms mandatory. It isn’t going to stop AHF from filing complaints against the industry. What it does do is that it gives us a chance to come up with some meaningful; self regulation Osha has been pretty active in the last year and they were not using AB1576 for their actions. Like it or not condoms are going to become a reality sooner or later. There are just too many performers catching multiple STI's for the government to overlook it. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-45 of 45 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
