Let’s talk about the Nanny State for a moment, shall we? I know I’ve railed on before about government regulation and how it is, ostensibly, a good thing under certain circumstances, and always within reason – which is to say that it should forward the public good and not impinge needlessly on the liberties of American citizens. And make no mistake, there is plenty of bad regulation out there that should be revisited and either reworked or demolished entirely. Well, you can add one more to that list, as the City of Los Angeles just passed a regulation so short-sighted, fun-destroying and fundamentally shit-brained that it could only be the product of overzealous do-gooders who hate personal responsibility. They fucking mandated that porn actors wear condoms.
”But Andy,” you say, “isn’t that a good thing? Condoms prevent pregnancy and the transmission of HIV, among dozens of other unsavory diseases! Listen to the wisdom of BDP!”
I’m not arguing that, and I am a strong supporter of safe sex. In point of fact, I’m one of those bleeding-heart pinkos who want to destroy the moral foundations of our great nation by making condoms free and easily accessible to teenagers. But guys, this is porn. Porn.
From a purely practical perspective, it’s pretty obvious that the authors of this legislation have absolutely no concept of how the pornography industry works. Let’s see what Nina Hartley, porn professional and registered nurse, has to say about the use of condoms in porn:
…by the time you’ve had 30 to 90 minutes of condom friction on your tender bits, there is abrasion, there is soreness, sometimes there’s a little swelling, it’s tender, it’s not comfortable.
I mean, who among us can argue this logic? Anyone who’s never had sex for 30 to 90 minutes, that’s who. And nobody wants a minute man. In other interviews, Hartley posits that the friction burns and abrasions caused by extended condom use can actually raise the risk of contracting HIV. So this is clearly not legislation intended to protect porn stars. In point of fact, the people behind it have actually done far more harm to the health and well-being of sex workers than just this one boneheaded measure (boneheaded – see what I did there?).
The Los Angeles law was pushed by Michael Weinstein, head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. I won’t presume to guess at his motives – it’s entirely possible that they are well-intentioned but completely fuckwitted. What I know for a fact, though, is that Weinstein has, in the recent past, dealt a mortal blow (blow!) to an agency that was crucial in policing the health of porn workers. Since the early millennium the professional porn industry in Los Angeles (more on the less-than-professional industry a bit later) has worked under the mandate that all performers be tested for STIs (sexually-transmitted infections, for those of you who still think “venereal disease” is a viable term) before they ever shoot a scene, and must repeat those tests every 28 days. The group that administered those tests was the Adult Industry Medical Foundation (AIM for short), which was founded by former performer Dr. Sharon Mitchell. Doctor AND porn star? She’s the Catholic mother’s fondest and also absolute worst dream! Thanks to this testing policy, there have been only six cases of working porn stars being diagnosed with HIV, and only three of those transmissions are proven to have happened on an actual shoot. When you consider the ridiculous volume of sex acts that these people perform, this is an astoundingly low transmission rate. Though there is no data to back this assertion, I’m going to go ahead and say that bang-for-bang, this is way below the transmission rate among those of us who are amateur sexers.
In 2009 two female porn actresses (I have to admit, I always feel a little funny calling them that) sued AIM for what they considered a breach of their privacy, because the foundation made their HIV status available to select people in the porn industry. When you consider that the entire purpose of getting that test was to prove to prospective porn employers that you are free of diseases, it seems completely dickwitted to sue over releasing the records to – gasp – prospective porn employers. And who financially backed this lawsuit? Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The case financially drained AIM and, combined with a scandal in 2010 where porn performers’ personal details were leaked, presumably from the AIM database, led to the foundation closing in May of 2011, leaving the industry without its ridiculously effective self-policing agency. So it’s hard for me to buy the argument that the condom requirement is for the good of the performers themselves, given Weinstein’s machinations.
Knowing all of this, the only logical conclusion is that the authors and backers of this legislation wanted condoms mandated in pornography for the protection of the general porn-consuming public. Because, you know, we’re too stupid to think of engaging in safe sex on our own – we must be taught to do it by entertainment, where every good American turns for their education. I am so emphatic about my next statement that I am going to give it its own paragraph, put it in both bold and italics, and use the highlighter function on LiveWriter to be absolutely positive that you know how serious I am:
If we are relying on pornography for sex education, we as a society are completely fucked.
I know this is a point I go back to a lot, but that’s only because it’s one of the few things in this shaky world of ours that I believe in wholeheartedly and without reservation: if you are a parent, it is your fucking responsibility to adequately prepare your children for life. This means it is your fucking responsibility to discuss the dangers of sex and the use of condoms with them. If you are letting them learn about sex from porn, you are a terrible human being and should have your genitals removed violently to prevent you from ever having another child that you can 
fail to teach properly. Porn is fantasy – in point of fact, it is the very definition of fantasy – and to mandate that they promote safe sex is essentially the same as mandating that every Hollywood killfest come packaged with a gun safety film, or that every Three Stooges episode contain a strongly-worded soliloquy about the dangers of hitting someone in the face with a frying pan.
Furthermore, the statute is enforced through the permits that are given to porn companies in order to film in Los Angeles. So what’s to stop companies from simply not getting the permits? I mean, let’s face it, the porn industry isn’t exactly known for being super concerned about adhering to local laws and statutes. This will just mean more sleazy, unregulated porn companies will spring up, the kind that cruise around in vans and pay young women to fuck on camera with no tests, no condoms and no safeguards for her own safety. It also means that the legit companies will just move their filming to, oh, anywhere other than the City of Los Angeles. Which begs the question: did the LA city council agree to this as part of an agenda to push the porn industry out of their town?
As a strong advocate of sexual freedom (and an avowed fan of pornography), this law throws me into a tizzy. But it strikes me on a much deeper, more serious and less boob-adoring level too. To the people who authored this bill, bullied it through city council and are no doubt having a wild, completely protected orgy to celebrate their victory right now, I pose the following question: is everything else in society in such a good state that we have time to worry about this?
POSTSCRIPT: I got some of the information for this article from this incredibly thoughtful and well-written op-ed by porn star and director Lorelei Lee. It’s definitely worth the read if you’re interested in this issue.
