LOS ANGELES—Slate.com today posted an article on Measure B with the headline "Porn Stars May Soon Have to Wear Condoms. Will You Still Watch?" Written by Amanda Hess, the article reviews the major arguments for and against the measure—which adds enforcement teeth to state provisions that already mandate the use of condoms by adult performers—but as the headline indicates focuses mostly on the question of whether consumers really care about condoms. If they do, and will no longer buy porn that has condoms, it will gird the argument by adult producers that Measure B, if passed, enacted and enforced, will all but kill the industry.
Hess conducted a very unscientific survey of people she knows to gauge the pro/con condom zeitgeist. "Most people expressed ambivalence ('not a deal-breaker') or mounted defenses of the sexiness of safe sex ('condoms make the porn look more like the kinds of sex I actually have—and that makes for hotter fantasies')," she wrote, "but those who rejected condoms in porn seemed … particularly energized by the issue. These viewers—all of them men—announced that condoms are just 'less sexy,' 'understandable, but ugly' and 'UNWATCHABLE, FOR SURE.' 'Who cares about condoms in porn,' one 27-year-old guy told me over email. 'You watch it just to get off … caring about that would be like caring about the nutritious value of fast food when all you want to do is stuff your face.'"
She then explored whether there really is any real choice for performers when it comes to condoms, citing comments by former performer Satine Phoenix and an editorial by Aurora Snow claiming that choice is an illusion. That is countered by testimony from another performer who said Snow “knew what the situation was with the condoms before she came in," the idea being that with the sole exception of Wicked Pictures, opting to use condoms is not really an option. She also cites performers Nina Hartley, Stoya, and Dana DeArmond, who want no part of condoms because "the intense and extended sex scenes of the porn industry, latex can be irritating and painful, and they’re fighting for their choice to go condomless."
But then Hess concludes her article with the observation that "the battle over Measure B feels in some way passé. The potential legislation has the porn industry concerned that condoms could undermine its business model, but the internet is swiftly taking care of that. People who still buy porn tend to be pretty old-school viewers who demand the porn they’ve always seen, or new consumers who are looking for something specific—maybe even sex with condoms. The rest of them will just take what they can get, for free. One friend who responded to my survey put it this way: Condoms or no condoms? 'I let Google decide.'"
It would appear that Hess has not read the actual law behind Measure B, because her comments utterly ignore its breadth or the criminal sanctions levied for violating it. She, too, seems to have a passé sense of what the industry is all about, and cannot fully realize the extent to which Measure B in its full glory would impede upon the rights of adult producers and performers, even those who do not work under the so-called "studio system."
Is she aware, for instance, that Measure B would make the permitting process the only one in the county that makes it a crime not to get the permit, with jail time added as an extra bonus? That, by the way, would hold true for a married couple performing a live cam session in the privacy of their own home.
Does she know that according to the letter of the law, "The county health inspector may enter and inspect any location suspected of conducted any activity regulated by this chapter, and, for purposes of enforcing this chapter, the county health officer may issue notices or take possession of any sample, photograph, record or other evidence, including any documents bearing upon adult film producer's compliance with the provision of the chapter. Such inspections may be conducted as often as necessary to ensure compliance with the provision of this chapter."
Is she even remotely aware that the inspection regime outlined above far exceeds that of the 2257 inspections allowable by law? There, agents may only enter during certain hours, whereas with Measure B they have carte blanche to storm troop their way onto sets and into homes at any hour of any day for as long as they like, as many times as they like, to make sure that every penis has a condom on it.
Is she aware that the law would come equipped with provisions that allow for private lawsuits against producers if they fail to comply with every element in it?
Is she aware of any fact related to this measure? Does she care at all whether a viable adult entertainment industry exists in the future?
I would submit she does not, and that her concluding remarks indicate as much. Sanguine that the internet is "taking care of" porn's outdated business model, replacing it with free porn that apparently comes from nowhere, shot by people for amusement rather than as a profession, with no thought of production expense or payment for services, she sees the battle over condoms as something akin to waging warfare with horses and bayonets. Its day, in other words, is over. Google will take care of the rest.
This of course is myopia defined. Hess obviously hasn't a clue about the evolving business models in adult. The fact is, some traditional ways of doing business may be obsolete, and some have been replaced with blithely produced porn delivered to the masses supposedly for free, but very little of it actually bypasses commerce completely, and as such it triggers the Measure B law, assuming it's made in Los Angeles County.
The other aspect of this she fails to consider is the probability that if Measure B becomes law, it is likely that other identical laws will be replicated throughout the nation. We have seen exactly that with identical zoning laws adopted by municipalities to isolate and eventually kill off adult entertainment venues, and we will see the same thing with this.
There are valid arguments to be made in support of condoms on set, and certainly good ones to be made for choice on the set, but no one yet has proffered a solid argument that supports the astonishing overreach of this proposed law, which literally puts the government in your bedroom.
Take another, closer look, Slate. You may not like what you see.
