The question of condoms

In the same anti-porn community I mentioned last time, someone recently posted a link to this article: "Porn makers challenged for not mandating condoms."
"An AIDS advocacy group filed complaints with state officials against 16 production companies that show unprotected sex in porn movies."

The article cites Larry Flynt, who infamously makes the argument that pornography is about fantasy, and since condoms are about reality, they don't belong onscreen. I think that would be a fine argument if we're talking about softcore porn, with no penetration or exchange of fluids. But the state of pornography today is such that people demand to see proof of penetration with close-ups of genitals. (There's a term for this, but I think it's disgusting and refuse to propagate its use). People aren't easily fooled by angles and camera tricks any more, so if you want to sell hardcore porn it's pretty much put up or shut up.

This has lead to a culture in the industry that shuns safer sex. In 2004 there was a HIV outbreak in the industry that scared people into mandating condom use for a short time, but the mandate was quickly lifted. These days if you want to work in porn, you won't make much of a living if you insist on using condoms. People just won't hire you when there are plenty of people willing to do it bareback. If there is no incentive for allowing (or perhaps more accurately, requiring) actors to protect themselves, most directors will not do it. They are not necessarily villains for not requiring safer sex, they are realists. If actors were required to use condoms, people would easily be able to find pre-regulation or amateur condom-free porn on the internet. An underground condom-free market would surely thrive, and amateur porn between fluid-bonded couples is pretty much impossible to quash.

In the article, Steve Hirsch (head of Vivid Productions) concludes that "the adult film industry would likely leave California if the use of condoms became mandatory." Currently somewhere around 80% of the porn industry is based in and around Hollywood, but if HIV activists succeed in getting a policy put in place that requires condoms, that may change.

True as that may be, I'm in favor of providing production companies with incentives for mandating condom use. As with most social policy, I would prefer to see positive incentives for good behavior rather than sanctions of undesirable behavior... better to keep the government out of the adult industry. But I think some changes need to be made, for two reasons:

The first is ideological. As the head of The AIDS Healthcare Foundation Michael Weinstein points out, many people do still get their sex education from pornography. You may laugh at this and insist that people with any intelligence can tell the difference between real life and porn-- and to some extent that's true. But even for the most aware, the ideology of imagery can be insidious. Seeing positive examples of hot people in hot situations using condoms can only help encourage people to practice safer sex.

Second, for people involved in the professional production of pornography, that is their JOB. The government may prefer to pretend that pornography isn't a multi-million dollar industry, much bigger than the mainstream film industry. But it is. And just like any other laborers who put their bodies on the line, porn performers deserve a safe work environment. And that absolutely includes minimizing risk of disease.

This is where the positive reinforcement v. sanctions comes in: It's difficult to argue that these actors are being exploited if they are not advocating for their own safety. I would be reluctant to support a measure that includes punishments for noncompliance, because I think that treats porn actors like children who need to be protected because they don't know any better or don't have good values or some bullshit. But in such a competitive industry that is not that different from other entertainment industries, the culture itself needs to change before people feel secure enough in their livelihood to demand protection.

The bottom line: just because it's difficult to implement and regulate something like this doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

***************

As always, your thoughts/comments/disagreements are most welcome. Even if you don't want to comment, please vote in the poll on the right!