AB 1576 Clears California Assembly: Time To Hit The Panic Button Now??

Well....what previously was thought to be impossible just happened this week.

Isadore Hall's bill (AB 1576) mandating condoms on all porn shoots, along with 14-day testing and requirements for performers and producers to document their testing and usage and make such documents available on request to government officials, cleared both the California Assembly Appropriations Committee last week, and then was passed by the full Assembly last Wednesday.

In both cases, the vote count was the minimum required for passage (4-1 in the Appropriations Committee; 41-15 in the full Assembly).

The key this time around was that Izzy Hall did a full court press in backing his bill in the Assembly, with the full assistance of AIDS Healthcare Foundation grease money and the pathos of testimony from their paid victims Cameron Bay and Rod Daily, which managed to swiing around even prior opponents of Hall's condom mandate bills. Even Mike Gallo, the Appropriations Committee chairman who basically killed Hall's efforts last year by claiming Constitutional issues and the costs of enforcement, flipped over to AHF's side, along with nearly every Democrat in the Assembly. Other Democrats who may have opposed the bill on principle simply decided to abstain, probably fearing the backlash of AHF money or the apparent fear of being perceived as being against condoms or young "victims" of the "porn industry".

So, now, it's onward to the Senate, where new battles will have to be fought..but the bill that everyone feared is now much closer to Governor Jerry Brown's desk than anyone would have anticipated.

Although the ultimate fate of the bill is still unclear, since even if it passes and Gov Moonbeam affixes his signature, it could face years of legal challenges, the fact that this bill passed the Cali Assembly in spite of the aggressive campaigning of groups like the Free Speech Coalition and the organization of hundreds of performers united to defend their right of determination for STI testing, raises some pretty deep questions about the strategy put forth by opponents of AB 1576. 

Essentially, the main focus of the lead groups of the opposition, namely, the FSC and the website Kink.com, was that the current system of testing and screening for HIV and other STI's was more than adequate, that mandating condoms would threaten porn production's profits since viewers prefered bareback sex and would not buy condomized porn, and that the laws would drive porn production -- described as a key profit making industry -- out of California and into less protected venues. In effect, the emphasis was towards a classic conservative/libertarian argument against excessive government intervention in business and personal life.

The extent to which that strategy worked was that almost all of the votes in the Assembly against the bill were from that small group of Republicans (Democrats have a supermajority in that body), including even such antiporn conservatives as Tom Donnelly. Problem was, that argument simply didn't fly with the majority of Democrats, and especially not with Black and Latino Democrats, who view libertarian conservative arguments in general as mere defenses of corporate greed and privilege, and who were moved by Bay's eloquent tearful pantomine of being a "victim" of the "porn industry" that simply "abandoned" her at her greatest moment of need. Never mind Bay's own history of deception and even bullying, combined with questions about exactly how she and her boyfriend Daily really did get infected with HIV, and the nature of how she might have been compensated by AHF in exchange for grafting her story to fit their campaign (as earlier "victim" Derrick Burts was compensated as well). All of that was washed away by the flood of the "Condoms would have saved everyone from certain death; and if you oppose this, you are risking people's lives...and besides, it's only a freakin' condom!!!" meme.

 I've been one who has gently and respectfully questioned the conservative approach previously during the Measure B campaign; but a slightly less gentle critique comes from BPPA contributor Ernest Greene, whom has been on the front lines of the condom mandate campaign as both a producer and a board member of the Adult Industry Medical Foundation, one of the main casulties of the condom mandate campaign. On Wednesday, in a comment over at The Real Porn Wikileaks, Ernest restated his concerns about the strategy; his comment deserves reprinting in its entirity.

I will say this again. The wrong arguments were made from the beginning and they’re still being made.

When you talk about lost jobs and the so-called “anti-business” climate in the same breath as expressing your concern for performer health an[d] confidence in the existing system of safeguards you sound about as credible as the Koch brother[s] talking about “clean coal.”

The good arguments were always about performer safety, which this measure compromises, performer choice, which this measure destroys, and performer confidentiality, which this measure endangers.

The emphasis should always have been on the high quality of the existing safeguards and the unmatched record of success they’ve produced over a period of years, the right of performers as consenting adults to make their own decisions in this most intimate of matters and the First Amendment implications of compelled speech, which are far broader than anything having to do with porn. If the government can compel you to deliver one kind of message with the artistic product you create there is nothing to stop them from preventing you from delivering a different message through your work.

These were winning issues and we should have stuck with them. Every dollar-based objection to this measure was just ammunition for those who consider all porn producers no better than pimps and all performers to be trafficked, intimidated victims who stick up for their bosses out of fear.

The other track we should have taken was a more vigorous examination of the sponsors of this legislation and there vested interests in the outcome. AHF is in the condom trade. Isadore Hall, whose own district has staggering levels of HIV infection and not a single AHF clinic, is clearly in it for the money and some good investigative journalism could have exposed the corrupt connection between this hack and Weinstein’s organization, which in its arrogant stupidity actually demanded an invoice from Tim Tritch, AIM’s former lab messenger, for the money it paid him to act as an infiltrator and informer for AHF’s successful campaign to destroy AIM. These guys are dirtier than the bottom of a city bus and for a business that people think of as pretty tough we let them tap-dance all over us with no consequences.

The reality of politics is that you have to have a strong position you know how to defend that will play for the electorate you need to reach and the will to throw a good scare into those who make a profession out of fucking with you.

Did we have any of that? I saw some signs of it here and there, but our side campaigned mainly as a bunch of greedy whiners and that is not a good look.

In the end, I doubt this legislation will pass because it’s too woolly for most elected officials to handle. And even if it does it will eventually be litigated out of existence because it’s patently unconstitutional. But how much money, time and energy will be wasted, and how many people endangered, before all that comes to pass?

If this industry, which has fought off the federal government for decades, can’t shut down a loud-mouthed charity pimp and a sleazy crooked politician from a district with traditionally low voter turnouts, it’s lost its mojo very seriously and needs to get it back and soon.

 This should NOT be read in any way as disapproval of the commitment and/or intellegence of those who invested their time, money, and hearts into opposition to the condom mandate campaign; only of the political strategy of using conservative appeals to a predominately liberal/progressive body of government.

My own personal additional critique is about the lack of recruiting perfomers of color who would have counterbalanced the explicit attempt by AHF and Assemblyman Hall to win Black and Latina/Latino voters over through naked appeals against "privileged Whites" whom allegedly put their own privileges and pleasures above protecting less able performers. While no one doubts the integrity or the progressive instincts of those performers who did and still do speak their truths in opposition to AB 1576, the fact still remains that they remain mostly White; there was little, if any, representation or outreach to performers of color. No doubt, the backlash to the Mr. Marcus syphilis scare played a role in alienating Black performers to the anti-1576 campaign, but the main factor might have been that most performers are only tangently connected to the LA porn scene, mostly either shooting scenes in other venues such as Las Vegas or Miami, or relying more on camshows and paid website memberships for their main source of income.

The combination of the Mr. Marcus scare and the dual moratoriums of September-October 2013 has shaken the cores of performers' confidence such that many have questioned the viability and ability of the PASS testing system. One performer based in Florida (unamed to protect her privacy) had her potential plans for flying to LA to shoot content shattered by the double moratoriums; she responded by going strictly condom only. There was also the attempted coup by Immoral Productions head Dan Leal to break the second moratorium, which went down in flames after a virulent response from the porn diaspora.

The fracuses of last year has also strengthened the hand of long time critics of the FSC and the PASS system, such as gadfly producer Mike South and former producer/convicted felon Rob Black, whom both have given tacit support to efforts to break the FSC/PASS system in favor of the condom mandate. Though, South has been exposed as of late to be a gross hypocrite and a charlatan in terms of HIV testing for his own productions; and Black has subsequentially turned against his former ally (though still attacking FSC as irrelevant and counterproductive, Black has turned against the condom mandate and AB 1576). There is also a rump group of performers who do favor pushing mandatory condoms as a way of eliminating competition from bareback performers and forcing the major production companies to hire more condom-only performers, as well as those who want to bridge the breach for "crossover" performers whom also perform in the gay side of the industry, where HIV is far more prevalent and condom usage and seromatching is the preferred method rather than screening out through testing.

Nevertheless, even with all that, the opposition to this latest attempt to mandate condoms has been elevated to new heights due to the new approach of the proponents of adding mandatory14-day testing using Center For Disease Control guidelines for full-range STI tests (HIV-Hepatitis A/B/C-Gonnorhea-Syphilis-Chlamydia-HPV), the substitution of "personal protection devices" (meaning gloves, aprons, goggles and even face shields) in addition to condoms; and the requirement under threat of criminal felony charges that production companies make detailed information about testing and "protective barrier" use for all performers available to health officials (and the broader public) upon request.

While the new testing requirements may seem like a major concession of AHF to the current PASS testing regime; in reality, due to the CDC/AHF standards for HIV testing being less rigid and using more outdated testing unsuitable for porn production (that is, using 30-60 day latency antigen or antibody tests rather than the 6-10 day latency DNA-based Aptima test assay), the new testing rules, even if combined with mandated condom usage, would potentially weaken, perhaps even significantly, the level of protection from HIV for performers.  The imposition of both paperwork and costs on producers for performer testing could also be a major negative impact, forcing producers to cut corners to save their profits or simply risk arrest by going underground.

Add that to the fact that distinctly antiporn groups who would rather see the industry and its talent jailed, neutered, or even killed, have decided to give tacit support to this bill, under the goal of, as antiporn "feminist" Gail Dines spurted at a recent antiporn summit, "[tying] them down, piece by piece, with legislation".   Even self-acclaimed ex-porn performer turned Christian fundamentalist minister Shelley Lubben and her dearly fraudulent Pink Cross Foundation has gotten into the act, in spite of her being essentially pushed to the side initially by AHF due to her right-wing Christian act not meshing with AHF's dominant meme of "protecting gays".

Such is the climate that this bill promotes as it now goes through the California State Senate. If there ever was a time for the industry to rally up and protect their rights, and for those of us who support them to add our loud voices, now would be the time.

Click here to go to the Stop AB1576 website for more info.

"Adult Performers Are Adults. Lets Try Treating Them That Way." Just Another Ernest Greene Essay

[Note by Anthony: BPPA Contributor Ernest Greene asked me to post this new essay here as a followup to his original post critiquing Tristan Taormino's change in condom policy; and also addressing the recent announcements of produer Nica Noelle (who annouced that she will require condoms for her future films, in effect adopting Taormino's new policy), and producer Axel Braun (who announced this week that he would raise minimum age of eligibility for performer in his films/videos to 21 from 18). As always, the views expressed are his alone, but you are totally free to support or oppose them on their merits as you wish. I have added embedded links for background reference and research support, but the words are as Ernest typed them.]

Adult Performers Are Adults. Let’s Try Treating Them That Way.

As expected, since I raised my objections to Tristan Taormino’s declaration via CNN that she would henceforward require performers to use condoms in all scenes she directed, I’ve been getting the usual barrage of incoming bullshit that follows any attempt to take a reason-based stand on this issue. I’ve been called all sorts of things by all sorts of people who seem united only in their rancor toward me. The ranting of Rob Black and the newly retired (how could they tell?) Gene Ross, who even AHF won’t touch with a barbecue fork, is no surprise. I’m a bit more amused by Gail Dines chiming in on CounterPunch to offer her concurrence with my view that Tristan’s new stance is politically motivated (after making sure her readers knew me as a “maker of violent pornography”). Thanks for the recognition, Gail, and since you’re so fond of primitive Anglo-Saxonisms to demonstrate that you’re not a pearl-clutching prude, I’m sure you’ll know what I mean when I suggest you take your sarcastic glee in setting one pornographer against another and stick it right up your bum. I’m not going to be drawn into rebutting your lies and nonsense any more than I would be the verbal pollution of Ross and Black, with whom you share a common contempt for the truth and an adolescent need to shock.

Now, as to those who actually think that any position I’ve taken ever in my 30 years in this industry opposes the use of condoms, get real. I was among the very first directors to speak up for condom use back in 1993, when most of this business thought of latex as an ingredient in house paint. At that time I declared that I would never work for any company or on any production that would not allow performers who wanted the right to use condoms to do so. I have never wavered a millimeter from that position and I never will. One reason I endured a decade of bureaucratic bullshit from Adam&Eve is their condom-friendly policy. I am absolutely not against performers using condoms whenever, wherever and with whomever THEY choose. I’ve got miles of footage to prove it. And BTW, I’ve recently been confronted with earlier statements in which I rejected the contention that condom porn is unsellable when, in fact, I’ve sold literally millions of dollars worth of it and still believe, as I did when I said as much to the odious Luke Ford, that condoms are nothing more than a creative challenge for good directors and not a menace to the bottom line outside of certain particularly hardcore genres.  But they are a menace to some performers, particularly female performers, as Nina has explained in her own widely quoted explanation of why she, like me, favors a condom-optional policy depending on who does what to whom and how they feel most safe doing it.

Let’s be serious here. In order for that position to be ethical, it’s necessary for performers to have such a choice unconditionally. In the same way I’m opposed to AHF, Cal-OSHA and any members of the porn community attempting to make condom use mandatory under threat of either legal sanction or economic hardship, I’m unalterably opposed to any producer or director refusing to allow performers to use condoms or doing so only after a lot of whining and then scratching the condom performer from the list of potential future hires. The choice to use condoms must be meaningful for all performers. If there is to be an industry-wide position on condom use, and eventually I suspect one will emerge, it must be one of complete acceptance of performer choice regardless of all other considerations. The choice to use or not use them must not subject the performer to economic discrimination on future productions. Nothing less can be justified if we care to preserve the credibility of our oft-repeated insistence that performers do what they do with full consent. Full consent means consent to every act they’re asked to perform and to the use of barrier protections in addition to continued universal STD testing if they so desire. 

In 1993, I favored mandatory condom use for all because we did not have effective, quick-response testing of the type we have now and understood that those performers who wanted to use condoms would be kicked out of the business unless condom use were made a universal standard. It’s not 1993 now. We do have amazingly accurate testing available to all and have proven over a dozen years, during which the het side of this industry has still seen exactly two documented instances of on-set HIV transmission in the shooting of tens of thousands of bareback sex scenes, that screening and partner tracing have reduced the danger of the most serious STD transmissions in the workplace to a vanishingly rare phenomenon. At this point I’m perfectly comfortable shooting tested performers with or without condoms, but I’m not the one in front of the camera and I’m not the one who should be making that call for those whose bodies are on the line. No one else should either. I don’t care who seeks to do this or toward what end. It’s an invasive, infantilizing affront to the intelligence and judgment of consenting adults, and consenting adults are who work in front of the cameras in porn, full stop. I do not presume to know better than they do what they need, but I can tell you with absolute certainty what they don’t need, which is anyone else telling them how to do their jobs safely under threat of whatever consequences said somebody can impose.

This industry needs to accept condom use and get over it. Those both inside and outside the industry must accept that condom use is the performer’s business only and get over it also.

I hope this dispels any misunderstanding of where I stand on this question and though I know it won’t silence all the lies and distortions surrounding that stand, I am nonetheless clearly on the record as having taken it, acted on it and pledged to continue to do so regardless of what anyone else says or thinks about it. Clear enough for the various low-information individuals who have attempted to misrepresent it in every way possible? I hope so but I’m not optimistic. Neither am I optimistic that the majority of production companies, who have sought to defend themselves against the threat of intrusive governmental regulation by insisting that they support performer choice as an alternative, will actually follow through on making their claim credible by their actions on the set. Nevertheless, they should and if they don’t they’ll eventually end up regretting it.

It is a medical fact that STDs exist in the population as a whole. It is a medical fact that porn performers, however thoroughly tested and closely monitored, possess no special immunity to these diseases. There have been instances of STD contagion, usually of the more minor sort, in porn production and there will be more in the future no matter what measures are taken. No protection is foolproof. Testing is not foolproof. Condoms are not foolproof. Even combining the two is not foolproof, as not all STDs are transmitted in the same way. Unless this industry cares to be subjected to the kinds of irresponsible, politically driven attacks that occur every time someone catches a cold on a set that have become commonplace, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink approach to the condom option must be replaced by meaningful performer choice, or the idea of performer choice is, in fact, just exactly the meaningless dodge porn’s critics allege. The FSC’s insistence on performer choice is only defensible where performer choice exists.

Now, that’s my position and I’m sticking to it, so those who insist that it’s something else are hereby cordially invited to sit down and STFU.  I do not believe that condoms are necessary for safe porn production thanks to the testing system and I don’t believe the majority of performers want to use them for all the reasons they’ve stated. However, those who do want to use them should be able to without losing work or taking crap over it from anyone. Likewise those who choose not to should suffer no repercussions from members of any opposing camps.

And while I’m defending real performer choice, I want to make it clear that I am not backing away from my objections to directors appointing themselves in loco parentis to make decisions of the most personal nature for consenting adult sex workers. I note that director Nica Noelle has fallen in line behind Tristan Taormino in insisting that her performers use condoms whether they want to or not, also in the full knowledge that these same performers will be working bareback on some other set the next day so they are really made no safer overall by such unilateral decrees in such limited circumstances. I find these heartfelt declarations no less self-serving and hypocritical regardless of the source and still find them mendacious and cynical given that such limited policies are unlikely to protect anyone to any significant extent.

Likewise I find Axel Braun’s declaration that he will use no performers under the age of 21 in his productions to be risible. Again, seemingly operating under the assumption that performers can’t be trusted with their own futures, he declares that 18-year-olds are not in a position to weigh the long-term consequences of performing in porn, an ability they will magically acquire in the following three years. This is utter nonsense. At eighteen, anyone is free to enlist in the any branch of the U.S. military, the long-term consequences of which can include maiming and death. At eighteen anyone can work in any of the ten most dangerous trades listed by The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which remain the following:

 1. Fishing

2. Logging

3. Aircraft piloting

4. Refuse and recyclable material collection

5. Roofing

6. Structural iron and steel work

7. Construction

8. Farming

9. Truck driving

10. Mining

Workers under twenty-one have been injured or killed in every one of these occupations but no one seriously suggests that they be barred from entering them until they (presumably) have their wits about them at age 21. In porn, like it or not, economic advantages accrue to early adopters. For many performers their best earning years will 18-24. Why should they be deprived of the opportunity to make the most they can out of their time here by artificially handicapping them from pursuing their ambitions starting at the same age as someone enlisting for military service or shipping out on a fishing boat? This kind of thing may make it easier for directors to don the laurels of nobility, but it accomplishes nothing of value for performers whatsoever.

 Young performers would be better served by full disclosure of the possible repercussions of their decisions going in. I doubt that Marine recruiters take 18-year-old prospects on tours of V.A. hospitals, but perhaps they should. I doubt most agents, producers and directors take new talent to a sit-down with Gauge, who retired from porn early, educated herself for three different trades and found herself excluded from those trades when her past porn activities became known.  Perhaps they should. But realistically, the most serious long-term hazard porn performers face is the lasting stigma attached to them by people who regard porn as vile and that hazard can only be mitigated by broad social change.  I see that change as no more likely than a reduction of the far greater dangers of military service by a universal rejection of war as an instrument of policy.

Young people facing hard choices in a time of declining economic mobility will not be able to avoid those choices no matter who presumes to “protect” them by interfering with their ability to make a living. That is a reality with which performers, producers, directors and politically-motivated outsiders must learn to cope. I wish the world were a gentler place that provided safe, well-compensated employment to all, but it never has been and will never be.

This does not acquit anyone of the decent responsibility to insist on reasonable standards of protection and realistic minimum ages for participation in fields having the potential to make life difficult later. But in the end, if there is to be this thing we call individual freedom, individuals must be free to make decisions they may later regret. The best thing we can do is provide them with the most complete knowledge at our disposal of what future costs they may incur as a result of making their own decisions and then getting the fuck out of the way and letting them make those decisions. They’re the ones who will have to live with them and the hard choices rightfully belong only to them.

"Scoundrel Time" Redux: Ernest Greene's Response To Tristan Taormino's Condom About Face

[Note by Anthony: The following is Ernest Greene's detailed response to the announcement on Friday by acclaimed porn producer/director/sex educator Tristan Taormino that she would require future performers of her films to undergo detailed STI testing AND also use condoms in all their sex scenes. Needless to say, Ernest spares nothing in his opinion critiquing Taormino's decision and the repercussions of her announcement on the current battles brewing over Measure B, the recently failed bills in the California Assembly to mandate condom usage in porn via state law, and the broader issues of perfomer choice and workplace safety. I will present it as he wrote it, without annotation or comment, since Ernest's words can stand on their own as his own.]

Scoundrel Time: Tristan Taormino’s About-Face on Requiring Condoms 

"I still want performers to have choices, and they can choose not to work with me if they don’t want to use condoms.”

The message is different, but the tone is remarkably familiar. Producers who refuse to allow performers to wear condoms in their scenes use very much the same language in defending their actions. Performers always have a choice. They can do what the director wants them to with regard to their personal safety or they can work for somebody else, if somebody else conveniently chooses to hire them when they’re urgently in need of work, an ever more common condition as the industry contracts under a hail of bad numbers. Nina and I have both made clear our revulsion at this kind of disingenuous proposition and our unconditional support for real performer choice, free of economic intimidation. We have always offered performers the use of condoms on every production and made a variety of different brands available to those who chose to use them. Likewise, we still oppose any attempt to pressure them, one way or the other, when it comes to decisions regarding their own protection.

By now most BPPA readers are aware that Tirstan Taormino, pioneering director, sex-positive activist and winner of multiple Feminist Porn Awards, went on CNN last Friday and proclaimed to the world that she would henceforth insist all performers in her future productions to use condoms in all scenes whether they like it or not.

“From now on, I will require all performers I work with to test for STIs according to industry standards[1] and to use condoms in their scenes. Until now, I have adhered to industry standard STI testing and my sets have been condom optional, which, for me means that performers truly can choose to use condoms or not and I always have condoms available. I’ve shot several scenes with condoms (and other safer sex barriers), but the majority of the scenes have been condom-free. Because I want to empower performers to make decisions about all aspects of the work they do, I have respected their decisions in the past not to use condoms,” she says on her blog (http://puckerup.com/2013/09/20/porn-feminist-labor-practices-and-the-condom-debate/), concluding with the sentence quoted at the beginning of this post.

In both her written statement and her interview with CNN reporter Elizabeth Cohen, she attributes her change of policy to the recent announcement that performer Cameron Bay had tested positive for HIV. Taormino had Bay “on the short list” for the casting of her next production until the announcement and claims to have been shaken by the possibility that Bay might have infected other performers on Taormino’s watch.

“"It just struck me we need to take a step back and look at how we can give people the safest work experience possible," she says. "I can no longer roll the dice on my set," the director told Cohen. Of course, factually, no such eventuality could have taken place, as the existing testing system, working as it's meant to, revealed Ms. Bay’s status and she would never have been on Taormino’s set, but we’ll move on from that for the moment.

Writing about this is personally painful in more ways than I can describe. I helped secure Tristan’s entry into the world of X-rated production by hooking her up with John Stagliano for the award-winning and hugely popular video “Tristan Taormino’s Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women” in 1999. I co-directed that picture and its sequel with her and since then have done everything possible to support her career, as has my wife Nina Hartley. Nina and I have participated in a number of her non-commercial projects in recent years. Taormino has been a monthly columnist for Taboo, the magazine I edit, almost from the beginning of my tenure there. Until very recently Nina and I considered her a close friend. The loss of that friendship is a bitter price to pay for them, but she has her principles and we have ours. For what it's worth, we find the viciousness of the attacks launched at her on Twitter and elsewhere appalling and uncalled for and wish her no misfortunes regardless of our differences.

But Nina and I agree that Ms. Taormino's actions cannot pass unchecked, given the current situation. Her decision may be her own, but her method of proclaiming it et urbi et orbi has dire implications for all of us and demands a reply.

Taormino’s blog links to Nina’s most recent post here by way of allowing for reasoned disagreement, but she does so without comment, conceding nothing to Nina’s arguments and essentially painting Nina as her adversary when it comes to concern for performer safety. In doing so, she plays into the hands of those who consistently and wrongly charge Nina with being no more than a front for the producers. Gee, thanks oodles and bunches for that. Some in Taormino's close circle have already sought to marginalize Nina as ‘’too mainstream” and “out of touch with the new thinking in porn.” It’s been suggested that Ms. Taormino would make a better public face for the industry. Judging by her recent irresponsible actions, that claim seems little short of preposterous.

There is no denying that by taking her new-found conversion to condom-only director before the public by way of CNN Taormino knowingly tossed a match into the political powder-keg the debate over condoms in porn has become. Though she still claims, rather diffidently, to oppose Measure B and other schemes to legally mandate condom usage in porn, she’s far too smart and media-savvy to have been unaware of the impact her remarks would have at the time she made them.

While other members, ex-members and purported members of the industry have taken similar positions none brings to bear the gravitas of Ms. Taormino, who is routinely lionized as the most important Third-Wave Feminist influence in the business. She is not Shelley Lubben or Derek Burts or Rob Black. When she speaks, attention must be paid.

And that’s already happening. In a matter of hours Taormino’s remarks were all over the porn blogosphere and the object of furious tweeting back and forth between factions. There’s a lot more to come when the rest of the gang that has a beef of some kind with porn lines up to join the fracas. She knows, and says as much, that she’ll make enemies with what she’s doing. The real question that troubles me is what new friends into whose embrace she may retreat. If AHF is prepared to kick down substantial amounts of cash to the likes of Derek Burts and Darren James, we can only speculate what a photo op of Taormino shaking hands with Michael Weinstein might be worth. For the record, Taormino furiously denies any affiliation with the pro-condom-mandate forces, but how long those denials will remain plausible is very much open to question. The superficial guile evident in her proclamation would appear to position her ideally, should she be able to continue directing on her own terms, as the crusader who made the slimy pornographers knuckle under. Should she fail and find herself unemployable and shunned, she can cloak herself in martyrdom and make the loss of a sputtering career look like an heroic sacrifice compelled by ethical necessity. Some will undoubtedly celebrate her behavior in the event of either outcome, but those who know her best are likely to remain highly skeptical.

Having watched Taormino’s career trajectory at close range from the start, it seems to me that she tacks with the political wind however she perceives it to blow. When porn was enjoying it’s moment of mainstream quasi-respectability, she was everywhere defending it and her participation in it, albeit with an eye to her image as a feminist at all times. Now that her own prospects as a director no longer promise substantial revenues or favorable recognition, the politic thing to do is re-charge her alt-feminist cred by parting ways with the majority opinion in an industry that served her well for a number of years but no longer appears apt to do so. It’s pretty easy to declare a new all-condoms-all-the-time shooting regimen when it’s unlikely to be put to the test on very many sets in the foreseeable future.

Of course, this recently declared epiphany doesn’t magically make Taormino’s previous ten years of building a reputation for herself as a director primarily by shooting bareback anal scenes disappear, but now that she’s seen the light I have no doubt all that will be forgiven and forgotten by those to whom she might prove useful, if not by those who were useful to her during her ascent.

If she really had a stake in making porn safer for performers, had experienced a genuine change of heart on how best to accomplish that goal and truly did not want to ally herself to those on a mission from god to destroy the whole enterprise, she had many other alternatives that would have been far less damaging to those who still rely on porn for their livings.

Taormino could have made her blog post, informed whatever companies she still works with and contacted her favored players directly to clue them in. She could have submitted a commentary on her newfound affinity for barrier protections to XBiz, which would most certainly have put it on the front page. Likewise, she could have given AVN a press release with little fear of being quoted out of context, as she insists she was in HLN’s summary of her interview with Cohen (and what do we generally think when politicians cop the out-of-context-alibi after coming under fire for something they said?).

In short, if her real intended audience was the porn community, she might have started by alerting them to her change of position prior to going national with this bombshell where it could only do that community harm. Who watches CNN who has the best interest of porn performers at heart? I’m sure there are viewers who do, but they make up a vanishingly small percentage of CNN’s core demographic.

There is no doubt in my mind, despite Taormino’s denials, that her timing and choice of medium were the result of political and economic calculation. She may very well be correct in the assumption that the anti-condom-mandate side is losing support in quarters where she wishes to be taken seriously, but doing a sudden, highly public about-face after vociferously opposing Measure B on HuffPo has all the appearance of cynically attempting to alter her own record after the fact. As Nina emailed Tristan directly: “I think what you did was cynical and self-serving and can be read as throwing a grappling hook off the sinking ship S.S. Porn and onto the rigging of the S.S. Industrial-Porn-Really-Is-Icky-After-All, as it steams by.”

I’m shocked but not surprised that she’d attempt to distance herself from her previous actions now that they appear a liability to her good name as a feminist pornographer. I doubt the attempt will prove successful, as neither Gail Dines nor Amanda Marcotte is likely to find this abrupt conversion credible, but when you think your prospects are dim no matter what you do, all kinds of dismal alternatives suddenly become attractive. In fact, with the mandatory condom bill now dead in the state legislature and Measure B likely D.O.A. on appeal in the wake of Hollingsworth v. Perry, she may actually be abandoning one shipwreck for another.

Frankly, appalling as I find it, Taormino’s new position is no more corrupt and mendacious than those taken by many on both sides of the condom question. Like numerous part-time Hollywood leftists who found it expedient to cooperate with the blacklist so as not to end up on it, Taorimino can hardly be blamed for trying to make a scramble for the lifeboat look like a courageous attempt to rescue others, claiming to have finally realized that she’d been endangering all hands for a number of years. She can, however, be held accountable for endangering them now by lending credence to a campaign that threatens to destroy the existing system of safeguards that has worked so well for so long. If memory serves, she was pretty quiet when AHF was dismantling AIM, but she's certainly made herself heard now.

What I resent most about this whole sorry business is the way she denigrates the intelligence and good judgment of performers just like everyone else. There’s a word for the behavior she demonstrates in the opening paragraph of this post: paternalism. After arguing for performer choice and making that argument central to her posture as a feminist pornographer, she seems to have decided that performers really can’t make rational decisions concerning their own safety and need someone wiser to do their thinking for them. Reconciling that with everything Taormino has said previously with respect to the agency and autonomy of performers would require a platoon of Jesuits. In the event she does get another directing gig, I would like to hope that performers would be too insulted by her condescension to participate in it, but in desperate times people do desperate things. Taormino clearly counts on that in much the same way that other producers who are busily beating down scene rates and cutting back shooting days do.

And like those producers and AHF, it’s not the welfare of performers that appears the central concern. Taormino’s image would seem to be the foremost motivation for this turnabout. It’s widely understood that the attempt to force condom use in porn by law has already made shooting less safe and if it succeeds, those Taormino claims to want to protect will be put at far greater risk. She’s quite aware of the inherent danger of such a mandate and has said as much in print. She’s simply too smart not to know that going on national TV to proclaim her new-found faith in barrier protections is a huge propaganda windfall for the advocates of a position she claims to oppose even now. How does her star-turn on network TV, despite whatever weak disclaimers are attached, not lend unwarranted legitimacy to their efforts?

Tristan, I don’t believe a word of it. You can forget about being seen as heroic by those who make their livings under the lights. They’re smarter than you give them credit for and your actions in this matter will be just as transparent to them as they are to me. I hope they do just what you suggest: exercise their freedom of choice by refusing to work for you.

Lillian Hellman titled her memoir of the Hollywood blacklist era Scoundrel Time. It would appear that time has come around again.

The "Argument" That May Have Sealed The Deal For Measure B: Amanda Marcotte Representing The Paternalistic Feminist "Left"

There may be a lot of people still flummoxed about how Measure B was able to slide through Los Angeles County so easily, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the proposal and the strong opposition from active porn performers.

As I posted last night, the overwhelming weight of AHF's money chest and their ability to buy useful boosters like Darren James and Derrick Burts were probably the chief factor...but one element that hasn't been covered is the appeal they made to be the universal "saviors" and "protectors" of the wayward porn girls against the evil, bad "capitalist" money grabbing "pornographers" who care more about their dicks and their money than girls catching sexually transmitted infections.

Also, there was the notion that the proponents for mandating condoms in porn were simply standing up for the functional liberal right of government to intervene with adequate regulation to tame a unruly and wild industry that eats women for lunch and spits them out "diseased" and rejected...just like the "sex traffickers" whom were similarly targetted by the statewide Proposition 35, which also passed last night. Those who oppose them are simply evil right-wing "libertarians" who want to privatize everything just to cover their "male privilege" of drowning women in tainted spooge. (Of course, the few women who defend noncondomized porn are simply dismissed as paid shills of the Capitalist Porn Conspiracy, or simply selfish, stupid elitist sluts who put their own pleasure above the "suffering" of real victims.

Now, if you think that this sounds exactly like the rhetoric of extreme antiporn/anti-sexwork "feminist" activists like Gail Dines, Shelley Lubben, and Shelia Jefferys, then you would be correct...but only to a point. There is a segment of slightly less virulent liberal/"progressive" feminism that doesn't go nearly as far as Dines in demonizing sexuality as inherently the will of The MAN, yet nevertheless goes pretty damn far in the paternalistic and restrictive view that it is perfectly fine and liberal to deny sex workers and porn performers their right to a choice of protecting themselves in the name of "safety" and "just regulation".

One such paternalist feminist is Amanda Marcotte, the renowned feminist liberal writer long associated with the blog Pandagon, and most recently a regular columnist for the pro-reproductive rights group RH Reality Check. Marcotte fashions herself to be a progressive "pro-sex" feminist who just loves to bash men -- particularly, the conservative kind -- for their convenient conspiracies to hold women down and repress their sexuality. And yet, she is also just as capable of occasionally going Andrea Dworkin on how men use pornography and sex work as an additional means of depraving women. And, she can be absolutely vicious in demonizing women who don't meet her exacting "sex-positive" standards, as her dissing of large and artificially enhanced breasted women shows. (Marcotte has also been zinged by plenty of feminists of color for her ceaseless appropriation -- some would call it outright theft -- of their struggles in order to maintain her "progressive" credentials...the 2002 "burqa" controversy with compatriot Jessica Valenti being another example.)

Anyways....Amanda decided to intervene herself into the Condoms In Porn debate with an essay for Pandagon (now integrated into the Raw Story site network) published in January of this year.  Titled "Wah!", it pretends to debunk all of the arguments against mandating condoms in porn, and it utilizes pretty much all of the same talking points that Measure B proponents have appropriated during their campaign. I will present the essay in its entirity, for the purpose of breaking it down point by point. If this was the argument that sealed the passage of Measure B in LA County, then I'd say that we who oppose it should comprehend it better, so that we can debunk such nonsense when the next Measure B comes forth....as it inevitably will.

So, L.A. is once again looking at the question of whether or not to require condom use in porn filmed in the city. This was a question I was initially agnostic on, figuring that it was probably a complex argument and I should give both sides a listen before deciding. In taking that approach, I have discovered that the anti-condom arguments are some of the most piss-poor, illogical arguments I’ve ever seen. I was forced by the badness of these arguments to agree that mandating condom use is clearly the path, since it’s the only side that actually bothered to make an argument that wasn’t smoke and mirrors. Let’s take a look at each argument from the anti-condom side and see why they’re just so terrible:

Riiight,  Amanda....like every other ideologue, you approach the condom debate from the "open-minded", "both sides deserve a listen" approach...then proceed to demonize one side for the expressed purpose of boosting the condom mandate as the only solution. How progressive of you, though, to be so "open minded" and "liberal"...because just like you dismiss well endowed women and those who choose to artificially enhance their bosoms as mere tools of dirty men and their sexual deviancies, it's so easy for you to dismiss porn performers who have the gall to think that they are capable of protecting themselves without your trusted assistance.

But, I get ahead of myself...let's actually go over Marcotte's points, shall we??

1) It’ll cut into porn profits. This is really the only argument that the porn industry—like any industry fighting against labor protections—cares about. Everything else is hand-waving (though I will address it, because the hand-waving has sucked in many liberals, mostly men, for reasons that should be as obvious as they are embarrassing). This is a value judgment argument. The question is whether you value the health and safety of the porn actors more than the ability to move units of the producers. I tend to side with people over profits, and have yet to hear a conservative make a compelling argument for why they value profits over people. 

This, of course, is straight out of Gail Dines' "Capitalist Male Porn Conspiracy" Red Book...because porn to Amanda is simply the XXX extension of evil chattel/corporate slavery which reduces women to sub-minimum wage automatons and sperm deposits and "cumdumpsters". The only difference is that Marcotte wouldn't completely censor and blow away porn the way Shelley Lubben would love to; she would only "reform" it through the condom mandate to "liberate" women from such corporate "slavery". Of course, anyone who differs with her is simply a dangerous neocon anarchocapitalist who puts "porn profits" (and the alleged effects of "degradation of women") before the genuine progressive principle of protecting the "people" from the dire threat of STI's and HIV. After all, we wouldn't want to take away the "nice" highbrow condomized erotica that gets Amanda off, now would we??

Also...the implied depiction of porn consumers as mostly down-low right-wing men who simply hate on "independently sexual women" (or lefty porn-addicted men who just pretend to be feminist just to get them some free superior feminist pussy) kind of ignores the essential fact that plenty of porn consumers happen to be WOMEN, that not a few producers of porn are WOMEN, and that the overwhelming majority of women in porn just so happen to pursue their craft and protect themselves adequately enough to the point that they simply don't need condoms forced down their throat. Or, they already use condoms as one option in many to protect theselves. Surely, a professed liberal like Marcotte would actually be willing to listen to and respect actual professional porn performers who know their bodies and their jobs and are more than capable of controlling their own bodies for themselves, right??

I mean, if Sandra Fluke shouldn't be castigated by Rush Limbaugh as a "slut" for fighting for her right to have her insurance pay for her birth control, then why should Amber Lynn be castigated for defending her right to decide what goes in her vagina?? Besides, Amber Lynn is closer to Amanda Marcotte politically than Sandra Fluke, anyway.

Finally, since porn in California is a legal industry, they have as much of a right to pursue profits off their creative talent as Hollywood movies, TV, and sports teams do. I don't see Amanda hating on MMA athletes for the lack of headgear or movie stuntmen for the lack of "protection" when they risk life and limb performing stunts...or calling on them to be forced to sacrifice their livelihoods for the sake of "protecting" them from career- and even life-threatening injuries. There is already a movement for doing away with the profit motive...I believe it's known as "socialism". Since you are not a socialist, Amanda, you probably aren't qualified to run any smack about the evil of profits. Oh, and don't you make royalties from your many books??

2) The customers want this. This is the male entitlement argument. (Yes, I know women watch porn, but the porn industry that we’re talking about has a male customer in mind.) I know this will get me lambasted as some sort of man-hater, but I do think that men really aren’t entitled to any form of gratification they want, regardless of who they hurt. No one is. The law already recognizes this when it comes to porn. There’s a lot of customer demand for stuff that’s illegal or at least should be: high school girls, little kids, actual rapes instead of fake ones, serious injuries or even death inflicted on women, pictures where the subject explicitly did not give consent. There probably are some customers who will be sorely disappointed to see visible evidence of safety precautions on screen, but I’m honestly skeptical that they’re going to be so angry they just decide to boycott jerking off to porn. I remain strongly unconvinced that seeing a little latex in a porn is a greater tragedy than contracting HIV on a porn set. 

Here again, Marcotte plays chicken with the Dines/Dworkin argument of men as perpetual sexual predator and mainstream unwrapped porn as their rape/pedophilia/necrophilia template, without having the integrity to actually cross the line and openly back antiporn ideology because HER most favored "erotica" (the beautiful, "feminist" condomized type) would be taken in the crossfire. She ignores the fact that the "customer demand" for the really bad stuff is sorta tempered by the fact that child porn, necrophilia, "snuff" porn, and actual filming of real rape are actually ILLEGAL, while consensual adult porn depicting adults performing consensual acts of unwrapped sex is still, for now, legal and protected.

As for Amanda's notion that porn consumers will get used to condomized porn ultimately....well, the evidence of what happened to porn production companies who tried going condom only after the initial HIV scare in 2004 proves otherwise. And, considering the abundance of bareback hetero porn that is now stored in millions of porn consumers' 3 terabyte hard drives, and the resulting underground trade that would immediately prosper and flourish through Bit Torrents and message boards once bareback porn production ceases, I figure that there will be no shortage of unwrapped dick available for those who still insist on it.

What will change, though, is that performers themselves will be forced to make the decision to: (1) either accept wrapping up and face the risk of either friction damage to their vaginas and anuses or allergic reactions to latex, or the real risk of condom breakage and inadvertant STI's because the testing and screening regime that had done so well to pAnrotect them will be totally eliminated and replaced with "Just shut up and take the condom, bitch, and trust us that your partner is clean";  (2) take their chances underground with fewer protections and greater chance of getting into really abusive and exploitative situations; or (3) simply leave porn and find some "rescuer" sugar daddy or mama to replace the income they have lost from not being able to shoot porn vids.

Now, I guess that Amanda figures that there will still be a market for wrapped porn as well, and there are some companies who still are condom only that do make a decent profit (Wicked, VIVID, Kink.com).But, those are still niche markets of specific subgroups of porn consumers that specifically ask for such content; simply inventing a forced market of condomized porn by criminalizing bareback will work just as well as tearing down freeways in order to force automobile drivers to switch to mass transit. Which is to say, it won't.

Amanda might also want to be reminded that the guy she references in the last link of that graph who represents the supposed threat of rampant HIV infection (namely, Derrick Burts) was not only not so responsible in his personal life (see Rentboy.com), but actually admitted that he was originally infected in a gay male porn shoot in Florida. A condom only gay male porn shoot in Florida, that is.

3) They’re just going to take porn shoots elsewhere. Really, liberals? This is the best you can do? This is actually a standard argument business always makes against labor protections. This threat has various degrees of seriousness to it, but even in serious cases, it’s an empty argument. It basically deprives the government of the right to protect people within their jurisdiction because they don’t have the right to do so in other jurisdictions. Governments should have a right to say, “This behavior is so wrong that while we can’t ban it everywhere, we can ban it here.” Often, once one jurisdiction does it, others soon folllow, especially with regards to safety regulations. Plus, I’m a little skeptical of the notion that the entire porn industry in L.A. will decamp to another location. They aren’t in L.A. just by accident, you know. The one thing the porn industry needs—more than latex-free dicks, even—is a steady supply of young people who don’t have a lot of money but put a lot of effort into their looks. The steady stream of people who come to L.A. to make it and then don’t is a gold mine for the porn industry. You’re not going to find that in Minneapolis. It helps if they can be convinced that doing porn could be the entryway into a career they want. The porn industry grasps this, which is why they take any porn actress who has a bit part in any Hollywood movie and trumpets the hell out of it, to keep the crossover dream alive. You’re just not going to have that in any other city. Look, the porn industry isn’t fighting this tooth and nail because they have a lot of options. They know that L.A. has them over a barrel on this, which is why they’re fighting so hard.

And here is where Amanda shows her ignorance about how prospective porn girls actually get contacts and connections to get in the industry. I really hate to break it to you, Ms. Marcotte, but porn is no longer centered on Hollywood rejects.  Actually, it wasn't even centered in Hollywood/San Fernando Valley during its "golden" days....New York and San Francisco were the hot spots for producing porn during the 1980's and 1990s, before the HIV crisis and the "Clean Up Downtown" crusades bit into their profits, and the development of the VHS tape drove producers down to Hollywood to take advantage of the excess of technical editing knowhow. Of course, Hollywood has its share of casting couches where young ingenues are broken in on the tried and honored principle of "It's not who you know; it's who you blow"; porn simply made them the center of attraction rather than the means to an end.

Alas, even that has now become diversified as the Internet, mobile phone, personal computer equipped with built-in webcam, and super duper fast wireless Internet has enable average folk to bust through the Porn Valley monopoly and create new avenues and venues for porn production. It's no longer San Fernando and Glendale that monopolizes porn production; it's also Phoenix, South Florida; Las Vegas, London, Budapest,Berlin, Moscow, Beijing.  Hell, even Frisco is beginning to make somewhat of a comeback as a center of porn production.

Moreover, thanks to that same technology, any guy with a working 4G phone and access to his friendly paid website/tube site can download within seconds nice videotape of himself and his girl (or his girl only) banging other hot guys and girls. (Did I say "guy"?? Wait, I mean "guy and gal"!!) And, since that can be done within the privacy of home, where US Constitutional protections like the First Amendment  do apply, the ability of government to intervene and control such matters is somewhat limited. Only a fascist or Maoist government would go through the trouble of jailing THOUSANDS of people for the "crime" of sexing without a condom...which is probably why the defenders of Measure B would prefer first using porn performers in LA as a test run for a national tour.

In addition, thanks to social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, prospective porn performers do not even need to hop planes to Hollywood (either CA or FL) in order to audition to do porn shoots. Sending their PornTube vids to prospective agents will suffice quite well...and it's cheaper than the plane ride.

Remember, Clones, private businesses can be regulated only if they are incorporated. If they are not, it gets a tad harder for any serious liberal to say that government meddling in intimate personal affairs is justified merely by a "threat" of harm. It is up to the person favoring the meddling to prove that the harm actually exists, and that it is bad enough to justify the meddling.

And besides, the real reason why the LA porn industry is fearing Measure B and fighting it tooth and nail isn't because they don't have options elsewhere (though those options do carry expenses and other risks that can cut into their bottom line). They are fighting this law for the same reason decent liberals like Amanda Marcotte fight against the "three strikes" law or pro-mass transit agencies fight against highway funding that gives preference to freeways and automobiles: to protect themselves and their livelihoods against being scapegoated against crimes that they are not necessarily responsible for. It's not only the principal of the matter, it's also the principle of protecting legal free speech.

I need not add the fact that the LA porn industry are made up of flesh and blood PEOPLE, right??

That would be the SECOND most batty justification for the condom mandate, in Amanda's mind. Here comes the winner:

4) Freedom of speech. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t really think that freedom of speech covers the right to avoid safety precautions for workers. Regular Hollywood has to follow labor laws with regards to their actors, and they have to deal with unions, to boot. The porn industry is exploiting the fact that the world doesn’t care very much about the people that work for them, and I’m glad that L.A. is stepping in and saying porn actors deserve the same kind of labor protections that we extend to other professions.

First off, no one who opposes Measure B has ever said that they oppose voluntary condom usage as one of many means for protection...so that blows up the "they just wanna ban condoms!!!" excuse right out of the water.

Secondly....if Marcotte was really serious about extending "the same kind of labor protections" to porn that are taken for granted by less stigmatized unionized workers, she would be supporting an explicit porn workers' union pushing for increased rates, better and more hospitable venues for shoots, royalties and residuals for performers who see their videos reused again and again without a cent of profit sharing, and especially health insurance to cover the off periods should a performer do get sick from an STI or anything else.

Third...it takes real ovaries for a woman who readily dismisses and disses the actual experiences and concerns of real live porn performers whom have lined up against Measure B and the condom mandate to even think of running smack about how "the porn industry is exploiting the fact that the world doesn't care about the people who work or them". It's really quite obvious that YOU really do care about them, right, Amanda??

5) It’s supposed to be a fantasy! Amanda Hess got a pretty standard version of this in her recent piece on the controversy:

“We’re selling a fantasy,” says Lisa Ann, 39, who enjoyed her own mainstream moment when she was cast as a Sarah Palin-type in Hustler’s spoof of the 2008 elections. “It would be great to teach young people to put a condom on during sex,” she says, but she’s not sure how much the porn industry should be responsible for educating teenagers.

This is a bad argument for two reasons. The most important is that it’s a strawman. The regulations aren’t being written in order to “teach” condom  use to teenagers. They’re protection for the actors on-set, to keep them from contracting STDs and especially HIV. But it’s also bullshit by its own measure. Porn producers are trying to have it both ways. Their main marketing strategy is that they aren’t fantasy, but are real. The sex is real, and they have frequent close-ups and particular emphasis on ejaculation being caught onscreen in order to make it clear that this is real and not a fantasy. Comparing this to explosions and car chases in real Hollywood movies is missing the point; everyone knows that the car chases and explosions are special effects. The whole point of porn is to say, “This is not a special effect, but actual people having actual sex.” The reason people choose porn videos over drawings or fictional sex scenes is the realness of it.

Ahhh...nu-huh. No. No, no, no. Fucking HELL TO THE NO.

First...let us dispatch this "Porn sex is intended to be REAL sex!!!" meme before it metasizes into something really gross. Porn sex is real to the extent that it depicts real people engaging in sex. But, that doesn't necessarily make it completely "real" in that it depicts sexual acts people would normally do. Rather, porn, like most art forms, is an extension of, an exaggeration of, real sex as experienced by its viewers. 

That is....the performer who engages in professional sex scenes is an exaggerated vision, a fantasy extension, of the ideal of what an ordinary person wishes he had: the viewer who doesn't have the sexual chops of the performer or the ability to perform the positions or the stamina to endure 2 or 3 30-minute to an hour long scenes a day, where the guy has to maintain an erection in the midst of hot lights, a screaming director cutting in and changing positions, and a loud film crew overseeing every stroke and poke and suck and lick. (And, he has to look authentic even if he's not up do it, pun not intended.) It's no picnic for the girl, either, because she may have to block out other issues on her mind and focus on looking like the guy or gal boinking her is giving her the time of her life, and that the resulting orgasms are absolutely THE BEST EVER. ..And let's not also forget all this has to be done within a certain time period for editing and printing and distribution, or no one gets paid.

True, there is related advertising that takes advantage of the divergence between the ideal and the reality (see the erectile dysfunction, penile enlargement, and sexual enhancement drug spam, as well as the old tried and true "ADD 5 INCHES TO YOUR DICK, ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!!!!1111ONE111!!!  ads accompanying the tube site free porn.  But even that does more to exemplify the dissonance between the reality of the viewer's actual sex life and the perception and assumption of instaneous and everlasting horniness of the performers and the scene he or she's watching (and hopefully, if the scene's successful, masturbating to). The actual sex is secondary to the scenarios and plots of these fantasies, that are obviously so way out and far fetched to occur for real. No teacher I know of will ever look like Lisa Ann or dress "slutty" like she does for My First Sex Teacher or Big Tit MILF Boss, and I guaran-DAMN-tee you that the real Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska probably did not pall around the Alaskan State Capital building showing off her cleavage and fucking the entire staff. That's why it's called "satire", folks.

And as for the "money shot"...that's more about actual proof of the man's orgasm and his arousal, as well as pregnancy protection, than any attempt at reality. And even that is mostly an exaggeration.....not many men watching porn will blow out like Peter North, you know.

Aaaaaaand....how ironic that Marcotte goes to that card, because if Measure B passes, and porn shoots are forced to follow the standard for "barrier protection" that the California branch of OSHA is currently preparing to impose on porn, then the only form of intercourse that would be protected would be....internal penile-vaginal sex. Talk about attempting to make porn more "real"!!

About that crack about the goal of the condom mandate having nothing to do with teaching "teenagers" how to use condoms, though??  Well, let's hear from one of the principal boosters of the condom mandate, Dr. Peter Kerndt, representing the LA County DPH (via Ernest Greene's seminal 2009 BPPA essay):

“The portrayal of unsafe sex in adult films may also influence viewer behavior. In the same way that images of smoking in films romanticize tobacco use, viewers of these adult films may idealize unprotected sex. The increasingly high-risk sexual behavior viewed by large audiences on television and the Internet could decrease condom use. Requiring condoms may influence viewers to see them as normative or even sexually appealing, and devalue unsafe sex. With the growing accessibility of adult film to mainstream America, portrayals of condom use onscreen could increase condom use among viewers, thereby promoting public health.”

But, it's only all about protecting the brainless and stupid slut performers....right, Amanda??

The sense that porn is real means that it does have an impact on the viewers. Anal sex, Brazilian waxing, and facials have all become more common in real sex because of porn. I’m not judging that—to the extent that porn encourages people to experiment and have more fun in bed, I’m all for it, though some of the practices that have taken off have questionable value as pleasurable—but it is inarguable that porn has a normative effect in a way that stuff that doesn’t present itself as real doesn’t. Whether that should be used for good is up for grabs, but again, while this is all an interesting conversation, it’s also completely moot. The regulations aren’t about directing the message, but about protecting the workers.

 I will simply defer to my friend Jordan Owen on debunking the idiocy of Marcotte miming Gail Dines' stupid claim that Brazilian waxing and anal sex are the byproducts of mainstream porn, and that no woman was getting spooged in the face before she saw Marilyn Chambers get blasted in The Devil And Mrs. Jones back in the 1970's. 

It is hilarious, though, how Marcotte always goes back to the "It's all about protecting the WORKERS!!!" card as her lifeline....because we all know that only men in porn get STI's and then spread them to female performers through such nasty, misogynistic acts like anal sex and deep throating and facials and....ewwwwwwww....creampies!!!!

And we now come to the final point of Amanda Marcotte's fiat for mandatory condoms:

6) Condoms are uncomfortable. The argument is that since the actors are having a lot of sex, condoms “chafe” in a way that they miraculously don’t for us ordinary people. I think this is grasping at straws, personally, because a lot of ordinary people do in fact have bouts of condom-use sex that are intense and long-lasting and don’t seem to have this problem, at least if they use lube. But I also have to point out that the porn industry standardly asks women to cram multiple cocks into them, to have anal sex whether they’re up for it or not (and to make sure they’re up for it with fasting and heavy duty enemas—the kind of stuff that you don’t have to do when having ordinary people anal sex), or to have sex with machines. If keeping the actresses physically comfortable was important to them, porn would look completely different and probably be far less profitable. Which is why #1 is really the only argument in play here, and one that liberals who think you’re killing a puppy if you venture even the slightest criticism of the stuff they jerk off to should stop being so defensive and really think this through. No one is telling you that you’re a bad person for looking at porn. We’re just saying that  the industry should be forced to take more precautions when it comes to the health of its workers. The utter indifference to the health of porn workers suggests that a lot of people think of them as second class citizens who can be used for sexual gratification and then disposed of. And if you do believe that, then yeah, I think you’re a bad person. 

 After slowly digesting this crock of bullshit, allow me to quote from someone whom has long been a supporter of condom usage, and who has done a porn shoot or two or...a thousand, and who knows about how condoms can really fuck with actual porn shoots. Kick it, Goddess Nina:

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see...
...I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period... 

 Or, to put it differently: Porn sex may be an exaggeration of real sex, but it is still sex between two (or more) human beings who have to connect with each other for the scene to work. Putting a condom between them not only screws up the chemistry (literally as well as figuratively, but it adds more time to the taping of the scene...and when time equals money, that can be a major buzz and erection killer for viewer and performer both.

It's really lovely, too, how Marcotte, who has spent nearly 1000+ words denying performers of their personhood and voice -- all in the name of "protecting" them, no less!!! -- now finds the time to be concerned about their being "physically comfortable"...and responds to that by drowning them with lube. As if there's absolutely no issue between mixing the wrong kind of lube with the wrong kind of condom.  As if lube by itself will save a disasterous scene. Of course, the real message that Marcotte has for women performers who don't share her view of "rescuing" them with condoms is for them to just "Shut the hell up and wrap up for womanhood; you're selfish pleasure is killing other women and spreading deadly infections!!!" How in the hell is that any different than a stone cold radical antiporn feminist dissing a straight woman for sleeping with "the enemy" or a fundamentalist Christian ripping on a monogamous gay man for his "sin against God"??

Actually, it is NO different...except that at least the fundamentalist and the principled antiporn feminist is sincere in their principles. Amanda Marcotte, on the other hand, wants to be portrayed as an enlightened progressive hip sex-positive feminist; but her core attitudes towards real sex workers and actual pornographers as well as towards men whose only crime is to defend their sexual arousal towards these women, convicts her as exactly the opposite: a pretender. In short: Amanda Marcotte is Gail Dines, Jr....except without the principles.

But...I guess that to far too many liberal folk in Los Angeles County, that's good enough for them to buy the snake oil that is Measure B. Maybe authentic pro-sex/pro-porn progressives will learn to spot the BS and respond a tad quicker and more forceful next time around...and rest assured, there will be plenty of next time arounds.