California Prop 60

[Syne]

California Proposition 60, Condoms in Pornographic Films (2016)

Many working in the industry say this will hurt their livelihood and infringe on their right to chose what they do with their own bodies.

What I wonder is if pro-choice people are against Prop 60.

[stryder]

I don't really bother watching porn, so condoms or not it wouldn't directly matter to me.

You could perhaps query if the proposition is sponsored by a condom producing company which knows that both it's sales and shares would go up if the proposition goes ahead. An astute marketeer could use it to an advantage to identify that contraception can be "cooler" by pushing the novelty value further, but balancing novelty against a creep factor would be something to consider. (After all if it ends up too bondage related, it will push a large portion of the softer cliental away.)

Speaking of Softer, They just need to invent a condom with a Viagra spermicide gel applied and the results could be clearly marketed by the end of porno's identifying the absence of production babies.

[Syne]

Yeah, I don't know about the livelihood claim, but it seems that legislating what people do with their bodies, especially sexually, definitely runs counter to the pro-choice crowd.

[C C]

I remember news coverage a few years ago in which some strict, traditionalist producers still refused to give actors working for them the option of using latex armor ("Condoms would visually compromise the sex fantasies we make / sell."). So there's the potential comparison to industries of the past having their workers work with and around asbestos, and other dangerous situations. As well as their just getting updated with the existence of safety standards of the workplace in general (like OSHA requiring hardhats, breathing masks in chemical-filled environments of company plants, etc).

"California is a leading producer of pornographic films, with most production occurring in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley."

The old school will simply move and set-up shop in other states. Given that there already are mitigated filmmakers that do cater to condoms (I have no idea whether they're the majority or the minority), it shouldn't totally cripple California's status as a [once major] provenance of video porn.

[Syne]

I remember news coverage a few years ago in which some strict, traditionalist producers still refused to give actors working for them the option of using latex armor ("Condoms would visually compromise the sex fantasies we make / sell."). So there's the potential comparison to industries of the past having their workers work with and around asbestos, and other dangerous situations. As well as their just getting updated with the existence of safety standards of the workplace in general (like OSHA requiring hardhats, breathing masks in chemical-filled environments of company plants, etc).

They could always refuse to work with said producers. Much like king crab fishing is unavoidably dangerous, making some forms of "art" could be as well? If the restriction effectively "bans" what some may consider a form of "art", would it be safety regulation or censorship of free speech?

[C C]

They could always refuse to work with said producers. Much like king crab fishing is unavoidably dangerous, making some forms of "art" could be as well?

Permitting a dangerous activity does not entail it being allowed to proceed with zero safeguards, though. Apparently the decades of helmets, padding, finicky penalty rules and player fines for illegal hits in American football hasn't lessened its injury stigma.

There's no widespread exemption from safety standards in mainstream movie "art", either. Even in Harold Loyd's reckless Safety Last!, where the actor performed his own dangerous stunts, protective measures were taken. The city would have "refused the production a film permit" if preparation and safety equipment requirements had not been met.

I have no idea what the average porn flick / video's budget would be, but it's probably well below "Plan 9 From Outer Space" pecuniary standards. So difficult to imagine any potentially harmful exploits and FX taking place other than unprotected sex; or why there would ever need to be such. Nevertheless, wherein porn does feature a threat, that has somehow flown under the legislative radar since the days when AIDS, mega-STD contagions and antibiotic resistant microbes dawned firmly in public awareness. Perhaps it's hangover from olden times when explicit sex photos and films were as illegal as prostitution, and just as "couldn't care less" about what was happening to the perpetrators health and abuse wise, type of attitude from authorities.

If the restriction effectively "bans" what some may consider a form of "art", would it be safety regulation or censorship of free speech?

If it can't produce a convincing reason for being privileged or "special" from the rest of the entertainment industry and workplaces in general out there, then "safety / nanny-state" agenda should outrun any hypothetical "creative liberties" of the Old School porn producers and the risk-taking actors who might desire to accommodate their "latex-less" style of sex fantasies.

A [creative] license (in the non-trivial sense) should not be an entitled immunity which art in general is universally allowed. Rather than such a grand right, "license" should mean a particular permission of official status for deviating from normally applicable rules or practices (which themselves are at least "universal" over the community, domain, or country they apply to). Which is earned / paid or passes some qualification for (set by the appropriate authority).

There's also the "sending the wrong message of unprotected sex" from California to around the globe (via its porn-making) in an otherwise golden celebration (since the '60s) of promiscuous sex activity. Which has perhaps finally developed enough political-preachy "incorrectness" muscle around it on the Left Coast to serve as further drive to avoid that kind of international mis-perception (i.e, "Unprotected sex is good!").

[Syne]

Sure, there are exemptions to safety regulations...like a religious exemption to hardhats. But filming permits only require production insurance, so the permitted acceptable risk is between two private entities, not the production company and the municipality. Many jobs have inherent risk, and there are waivers, legal protection, and insurance to help mitigate the potential damage of such risks.

Regardless of any assumed responsibility of the state over individual body autonomy, unprotected sex does happen to be good. No one can erase that fact. Isn't it better to cater to that desire through fantasy (in an industry that already has STD testing regulation) than for people to become reckless themselves (without such protective regulation)? Few people need any sort of "message" about what is inherently enjoyable.

And considering that porn may be a sublimation for promiscuous behavior (which has inherent risks even with protection...as statistical chance of protection failure rises as use increases), unprotected sex is not generally a health risk in monogamous relations.