Comments on: It isn’t Condoms that will drive the porn industry to Nevada

By: Crazy Little (@CrazyLittle)

Crazy Little (@CrazyLittle) — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:17:42 +0000

I think it’s important to point out that the tax increase under Prop 30 is not a 30% increase. It’s only a 0.25% increase on top the top tax bracket. If they can’t afford that kind of a tax increase then it seems equally disingenuous for these business owners to complain about a lack of educated workers… since that’s kinda what they’re refusing to pay for.

By: marcorandazza

marcorandazza — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:31:10 +0000

Amen, Mark.

By: markkernes

markkernes — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:44:00 +0000

Guess you’ve never watched much porn from studios like Vivid, Wicked, New Sensations, Hard Candy and several others, nor heard folks like Nina Hartley, Bobbi Starr, Julie Meadows/Lydia Lee, Alia Janine, Kimberly Kane, Amber Rayne and dozens of other INTELLIGENT, INFORMED porn stars speak or you’d never be able to make such ignorant statements. I’ve long found it interesting that people who have NOT A CLUE what happens in the porn industry have no problem spouting off on what that community is like and what products it produces.

By: Jo

Jo — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:05:49 +0000

On Justia yesterday Antonio Haynes of Cornell argues that the measure violates the 1st amendment without being able to meet the strict scrutiny standard: Condoms and Content-Based Discrimination: The First Amendment Implications of “The Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act”. He also argues that it violates the dignitary rights of porn actors because non-porn-actors wouldn't accept parallel restrictions on themselves:

As even Justice Scalia has said, “our salvation is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you and me.” Plainly, “sex workers” are not now, nor will they ever be, a protected class requiring heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause. But, would 56% of Los Angeles County residents accept for themselves the requirements that they have imposed on adult film stars? I sincerely doubt it.

By: Matthew Chiglinsky

Matthew Chiglinsky — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:38:18 +0000

Condoms don’t solve the real problem with porn. Besides the fact that condoms only address the physical health issue of having sex with multiple partners, and besides the fact that they aren’t 100% effective even in that capacity, they COMPLETELY ignore the emotional and psychological devastation porn has on the performers and society as a whole. Porn teaches people that women are mindless, empty bodies to be used, degraded, and humiliated for the sake of the male ego. Yes, I know that can be fun for some people, but like so many other vices (drugs, alcohol, fattening food, …) it is also very destructive.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:47:35 +0000

Also, note that the Measure only covers certain areas of LA County. There are a couple of cities not covered by LA Co. Public Health that are exempt.
As are Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardo Counties, which are really fairly close.

By: Why have i had so much harassment by dudes off of a rideshare post on CL In Las Vegas??? | bluepearlgirl's world

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:19:14 +0000

[...] It isn’t Condoms that will drive the porn industry to Nevada (randazza.wordpress.com) [...]

By: marcorandazza

marcorandazza — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:51:17 +0000

It doesnt rain on my parade… but I can tell you that no client called me and said “hey, we want to move to Fresno instead of staying in LA.” The questions I get are “how will I like Vegas?”

By: Cephas Q. Atheos

Cephas Q. Atheos — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:12:25 +0000

MarkKernes, are you *sure* there isn’t a market segment ready and waiting for “Full Rubbermaid” Porn? Say, those inexplicably turned on by watching anyone wearing full SCUBA kit?

I can see it now – everything out of frame except the jiggly bits!

SCENE: Interior. Kitchen. Two naked young ladies are standing near the sink, where water is spilling over from a broken faucet.

[Knock at the door] One of the ladies (whose face is cropped) sashays to the door and opens it. Outside is a semi-naked young guy with a toolbox and a bandolier of condoms strapped to his firm, muscled chest.

[Young Lady #1] Whhg? MMhhMrrg urh mhrm pummmr?
[Plumber] Yhhm mhham. Yhhr hrrrld frrr hrrr pummr?
…etc

OK, it might need subtitles, but imagine it – even less-than-beautiful starlets and stars can now be part of the oldest human industry! What’s not to like?
*grin*

By: markkernes

markkernes — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:06:29 +0000

Not to rain on your parade, but porn with condoms doesn’t sell, so the industry will have to figure out some way around that problem… or die—as an industry, that is. Obviously, porn will continue to be made, either in places (like Nevada) where there is no mandatory condom law, or pretty much anyplace else, including Europe—or it will begin shooting “underground,” in locations where the health inspectors can’t find them. Frankly, no one wants to do that—we had enough of it in the ’70s and ’80s, and the Freeman case has made it unquestionably legal to shoot in California, so if we can find somewhere to relocate within the state, we’ll probably do that. But the simple fact remains: With an enforced mandatory condom (and dental dam, face shield, rubber gloves and goggles) law on the books, the LA-based porn industry is dead.

By: Zack

Zack — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:44:05 +0000

Yeesh. RETROACTIVE taxes? Another one of ten thousand reasons I will never live in California. I’d always thought that all retroactive laws were banned under the constitution. I looked it up and apparently that ‘only applies to criminal law’… which I disagree with. No law should be retroactive- that should not be a power anyone has over anyone else. Law is prospective, not retrospective.