Sex in the Library

Exam season is upon us.  Students busy themselves revising all hours of the day in the libraries, often looking for distraction in the form of Facebook, Twitter, vending machines, idle gossip and - according to some San Francisco news columns - sex.

As if librarians didn't have enough to worry about already with the risk of drink spillages.  They now face the added threat from...well, you can imagine the rest.

SF Weekly picks up the story, including a link to the piece which kicked the online rumble off; a piece in the UC Berkley student newspaper in which a student wrote in favour of sex in the library.  This sparked some interesting reaction  - notably from one of the Berkley librarians.

Sex in University libraries is nothing new.  I've often observed in research talks on my own public sex research that websites in most international cities suggest college campuses - notably libraries - are where it's at.  Laud Humphreys - the Godfather of public sex research - devoted an entire article to the subject.

Unexplained Discrepancies: The Implementation of the LA Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Ordinance

"we're gonna need a bigger packet..."

I've previously blogged on the hard-line approach of the City of LA to condomless pornography.  They took the extraordinary step of passing the Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (Ordinance) which you can read here.   It requires any anal or vaginal sex to include the use of condoms.  The Ordinance does not (helpfully) define 'vaginal or anal sex' and thus one could reasonably conclude that it is not merely restricted to a penis.  What of a dildo?  A finger? A fist? Should an esteemed lady of the adult porn film scene be filmed bobbing up and down on a LA City Police cone, is she likely to find herself in bother with some newly appointed 'condom cop'?  Confusingly (someone needs sending to drafting school), a definition is offered of an 'adult film' adn that makes it quite clear that anything can be included:

(1) An "adult film" is defined as any film, video, multimedia or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration, including but not limited to penetration by a penis, finger, or inanimate object; oral contact with the anus or genitals of another performer; and/or any other activity that may result in the transmission of blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193(b).

Our hypothetical cone is indeed included.

Having passed this ordinance, city officials - as the San Francisco Chronicle reported this week - were then tasked with making the whole thing work.  They've now published a report which you can read in full here.  The report is merely a set of recommendations so it's now for the city mayor to decide whether to follow them (and whether the city can find the dollars to fund the whole thing).

If you search for the full report, you'll probably come to this link - which you'll note defines on page two anal or vaginal sex as penetrative with a penis, and notes that this is the language of the ordinance.  It isn't as I note above.

A clanger has been dropped you might conclude; some calamitous mistake occurred?  Well, move over to the LA office and search the official records and you are presented with a similar report but with some significant differences.  The incorrect assertion about the law has vanished, possibly suggesting that city officials thought the law was more narrowly drafted than it is.  Something rather interesting has occurred here - and I've not seen a single report that notes or explains this discrepancy between the two versions.  An explanation from city officials would surely draw the enthusiastic attentiveness of many who will be affected by this law.

The report makes a number of recommendations, and here are those listed in the LA County website version (which I'm taking as the 'final' 'official' version):

1. Revise the Film Permit Application Section (5) of the Ordinance requires the City to add the following language to all adult film permits: "If this production is an adult film, Permittee must abide by all applicable workplace health and safety regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193, which mandates barrier protection, including condoms, to shield performers from contact with blood or other potentially infectious material during the production of films."

2. Require Licensed Medical Inspections Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking to contract with a licensed medical professional to conduct the periodic inspections of adult film productions involving "Activities Carrying Risk  of Transmission of Blood or Infectious Materials." If this recommendation is adopted, more information would need to be gathered to determine City enforcement parameters and the CAO should be directed to report back to the Mayor and Council within 90 days with a draft RFP for further action.


3. Contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health If voters in Los Angeles County approve in the Statewide General Election scheduled for November 6,2012, the measure (County Measure) to require adult film producers to obtain a health permit as a condition of producing a film that involves non-simulated sexual intercourse, then the City should adopt the County Measure and put a measure on the Citywide primary election in March of 2013 to reconcile the Ordinance in LAMC Section 12.22.1 with the County Measure to rely exclusively on the County health permit requirements and inspections to ensure the safety of performers in the AFI from the risk of transmission of bloodbome pathogens. If this recommendation is adopted, the City Attorney should be requested to report back with an amending Ordinance to reconcile LAMC Section 12.22.1 with the County Measure. 

4. Develop a Fee Structure Direct the CAO to develop a fee structure to contract for the services identified in Recommendations 2 and/or 3 above, and direct the CAO to report back to the Mayor and Council within 90 days with a draft fee proposal for adult film inspections.

Media sites are repeating an assertion in the SF Chronicle that quotes a reference in the report to a study by the Los Angeles Fire Department indicates that more than 100 condom cops might be needed to adequately enforce the law, at a cost of $1.7 million or more a year.

My reading of the report is less clear.  Any figure is dependant upon what options the city chooses, and also varies dependant upon the rate at which licenses are set (and the number then issued).  There is also a degree of guess work about those films which currently fall through the licensing regime and thus would contribute towards the need for policing to stop such films.  The report makes clear this extends to 'student films' in the largest category - Miscellaneous.  

The films don't need to be for profit and so it's quite conceivable that the new 'condom police' could be sweeping into the homes of couples performing on live chat/broadcast sites or a couple of college guys who uploaded a video of some penetrative hazing.   Don't forget, penetration with a police cone could count - it doesn't need to be a penis but it does make reference to 'sexual intercourse', so perhaps our College jocks are safe for now.  If the English CPS were involved, I'd be less certain.

So, we have a crazy law, an intense policing regime and a State that is already financially broke.  This shambles still has some way to go.

Perry Presses on to Supreme Court

The Perry/Proposition 8 same-sex marriage constitutionality case looks on course to finally make it to the US Supreme Court this Autumn with a decision next June.   The LA Times reports that:  'In a brief order Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said a majority of the court's active judges voted against reconsidering a three-judge panel's decision to overturn the voter-approved 2008 state constitutional amendment. Three dissenting 9th Circuit judges who favored review called the panel's ruling a "gross misapplication" of the law that "roundly trumped California's democratic process." The two judges who voted to overturn the ban last February reiterated Tuesday that their decision was limited to the situation in California.'

I've long been unconvinced that a decision from the US Supreme Court is necessarily a good outcome for those opposed to Proposition 8 (and in favour of same-sex marriage).   Although the outcome is far from certain, the court remains weighted in favour of a conservative outcome and that would then 'lock-in' a potentially unfortunate outcome.

Read the full LA Times story here.

DOMA Unconstitutional (Again)

Thursday saw another fascinating case which declared DOMA unconstitutional.  The ruling by Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for Northern California is the third by district level judges that have declared the 1996 law known as the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, to be unconstitutional.

Wilken ruled that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex unions is unconstitutional because it denies long-term health insurance benefits to legal spouses of state employees and retirees. She also concluded Thursday that a section of the federal tax code that made the domestic partners of state workers ineligible for long-term care insurance similarly violates the civil rights of people in gay and lesbian relationships. Both laws were based on what she called “moral condemnation” of same-sex couples.

It's another nail in the coffin of a law which Obama has said his White House will not defend (although nor is he seeking to be the one to repeal it).  A showdown in the Supreme Court looks increasingly likely, but this 1996 law has been on quite a journey.

Read the full story here.

You can access the judgment here.

Simi Valley Next in Condom Battle?

A shocked Mrs Aspenstein.  Bob didn't want to be photographed.

The LA Times (which encouraged along the LA condom law) reports that Simi Valley - which neighbours LA - is now contemplating a similar law to prevent an exodus of deprived condom free porn makers setting up in town (the laundry and hotel industry will no-doubt be mourning the potential loss of trade).  Simi Valley seems keen to a dress the enforcement gap which is evident in the LA law.

According to the LA Times, under its proposed law, the city would require producers to hire on-set medical professionals, who would attest to appropriate condom use. At the end of a shoot, the producers would have to send their unedited video to the police department, where employees would scrutinize it — for compliance with Simi Valley Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 32, as amended. Civilian employees, not officers, would do the heavy lifting, scanning films for possible violations.

So, whilst porn might becoming a rather unpleasant occupation, the role of being one of these new civilians who watches unedited porn all day must surely be an attractive prospect?  Presumably it must be done in pairs to avoid *ahem* distraction so even a continued modest amount of porn activity will require new posts.  Or perhaps staff will be re-deployed?  Mrs Aspenstein works on reception normally but we dragged her in to watch Spunk on My Titties Part 15.  She's such a trooper!  Bob the Janitor was on hand as normal.

Not to mention the medical professionals who may have to shunt operations and surgeries to pop down to the porn shoot (unless they do it full time - will that pay enough?).  "Sorry Mrs Snodgrass, we've bumped your hernia to tomorrow as I've got Cum Explosion 19 at 2pm".

Brave New World? LA Condom Law In Force

Did you notice it?  Yesterday, a new Los Angeles city ordinance (law) come into force requiring porn performers to wear condoms when filming.  The full title of the Act is the: CITY OF LOS ANGELES SAFER SEX IN THE ADULT FILM INDUSTRY ACT.  A PDF of the full act is available from the Office of the LA City Clerk and can be viewed directly here.  I was slightly amused to discover via this ordinance that nudity or sexual activity shouldn't be visible or audible to other members of the public when being filmed, which seems vaguely farcical given the amount of bonking that can be heard in many a hotel room at the best of times. 

The key sections of the Ordinance can be viewed below:

(1) An "adult film" is defined as any film, video, multimedia or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration, including but not limited to penetration by a penis, finger, or inanimate object; oral contact with the anus or genitals of another performer; and/or any other activity that may result in the transmission of blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193(b).

This seems deliberately designed to encompass all sexual activity but how does that equate to risk?

(2) "Producer of adult film" is defined as any person or entity directly engaged in the creation of adult films.

So stand down horny boyfriend with an iPhone, you should be safe under this provision.  You need to be 'directly' engaged, not indirectly (much dancing on that pin head to come).

(3) "Filmed" and "filming" refer to the recording of any adult film, regardless of media.

So, should you be a horny boyfriend filming with an iPhone deliberately to make an adult film, the phone counts - it doesn't need to be super duper filming technology.  Presumably, it also relates to audio only recording which is intriguing (and another potential exploratory case).

(4) All producers of adult films issued permits under the authority of the City of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of this Code or any other law authorizing the issuance of permits for commercial filming are required to maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials controls consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193. Engineering and work practice controls include, but are not limited to: (a) Simulation of sex acts using acting, production and post- production techniques; (b) Ejaculation outside workers' bodies; (c) Provision of and required use of condoms whenever acts of vaginal or anal sex are performed during the production of an adult film; and (d) The provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms.

So if the State controlled sex, that's what you'd get  Bye bye Boy Butter.   Interestingly, you don't even have to be having sex, just pretending to have sex evokes the requirements to have a permit.  Yes, the mind does boggle.  It also doesn't require condoms for oral sex - which is interesting.

(5) Any film permit issued under the authority of the City of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of this Code or any other law authorizing the issuance of permits for commercial filming for the production of an adult film must expressly condition said permit on compliance with subsection (4) of this section. Any such permit shall contain the following language: "Permittee must abide by all applicable workplace health and safety regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193, which mandates barrier protection, including condoms, to shield performers from contact with blood or other potentially infectious material during the production of films."

(6) The City shall charge, or shall direct any other person or entity contracting with the City to administer the film permitting process, to charge, entertainment industry customers seeking permits for the production of adult films a fee sufficient to allow periodic inspections to ensure compliance with the conditions setforth in Section 12.22.1 (B)(4).

Now, I should say that I am not trained in US law (big big caveat!) but given the wording of the provision, I read California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193.  According to the ordinance, this requires barrier protection (condoms) and is being ignored.  I would welcome some input from US academics/activists on this point as I've had a quick read of the regulations and can't see it.  Where is this requirement?  Moreover, the regulations were quite clearly not intended (I would suggest) to extend so widely as to encompass such activity.  I must be missing something!

The Dogg Goes Walkies

Damon Dogg - formerly of Treasure Island Media (NSFW) - revealed on Twitter at the start of the year that he had left TIM and was branching out into new projects.  He indicated in responses to followers that he had done so 'very willingly' but also that he couldn't talk about why he left and there was never (as far as I can see) an "I'm off" style tweet.  In January, his Flickr stream featured a name page photograph of 'Damon Dogg, Factory Videos' from XBIZLA so we kinda knew where he had moved to.

In fact, I hadn't noticed anything else reporting his departure.  TIM's blog continued to make reference to Dogg as part of promotion for Manfuck Manifesto, the TIM tattoo challenge and the SD/STW promo in New Orleans in February.  None of these posts indicated that he was still part of the company, but nor did they suggest otherwise.  He was clearly part of the TIM narrative.  He has been a high profile figure in front of and behind the camera and his tattoo (see right) will continue to see him as a TIM figure.  It will be interesting to see if it remains, and what the tatt will continue to mean for this particularly notoriously dirty Dogg.

Yesterday, AVN reported on the move and formally indicated he had joined Factory Video Productions (NSFW) following  GP Times reporting the story on Thursday. 

Factory is where Dogg worked previously and even once Damon had made his name with TIM via his 'Damon Blows America' series, Factory included him as part of a compilation of scenes from those past performers who had moved on to be porn 'stars' (not a term TIM would ever use).  Consequently, you can see a young (and much more innocent looking) Dogg in 'First Cum' (NSFW) released by Factory.  So arguably, he's now back where it all began.

The news story (which reads very much like a verbatim press release) states that  Factory Videos is happy to welcome the return of two infamously creative directors. The first, Leif Gobo is apparently a veteran of nearly 20 years of adult video production with companies that span the range of gay porn. Gobo has directed for many big studios, including Falcon and Raging Stallion among many more.

'The notorious Damon Dogg, formerly of Treasure Island Media, began his career in porn with Factory Videos back in 2001. Damon Dogg has since been influential in the direction of reality based gonzo style bareback porn. Plowing down boundaries and previously “untouchable” topics in documenting sleazy man sex, today, Dogg is working with Factory Video producing his new studio Damon Dogg’s Cum Factory. Dogg is also joining the company's travelling production team to assist in finding the sleaziest men in the US.'

Interestingly his notoriety - or rather that associated with TIM - is what helps to add value to his appointment for the company.  Finally, we are told that Factory Videos based in San Francisco, currently has 10 full time employees on staff. Factory has been continuing to grow steadily since starting in 1998. It has a collection of over 350 DVDs, eight commerce web sites and an affiliate program, Dickbank.com.

What could they possibly mean by these 'untouchable' topics?  Dogg's BarebackRT profile (a sort of bareback Gaydar for those not familiar with the site) - which is linked from his current blog - clearly states that he is HIV positive and given he is (as also indicated on his blog) a versatile bottom.  Scenes from his new films, already posted on his blog, indicate that there will be fucking aplenty.  These scenes will clearly position Factory alongside TIM as a company openly producing 'positive' porn.  This is interesting in itself but given the recent LA condom measure law and attempts to extend it across California, it adds to the seeding of bareback and high-profile poz porn bareback studios in the State at a very time when some in the porn industry must be hoping they'll be quiet.

Gay men barebacking on camera is enough to get law-makers in a tizz it seems.  Men barebacking on camera who are HIV positive may just finish some of those law-makers off.   Defibrillators on stand-by!

A number of recently high profile TIM characters have been silent in recent times - Gehno, Ryan Sullivan and of course, Dawson all spring to mind.  Whilst TIM appears to increasingly 'introduce' characters it doesn't quite say goodbye to the same figures (and the above trio may still be working for TIM - certainly RS was the last time I asked but I think Gehno is gone and Dawson 'retired').  On the one hand, you might ask, well why?  Why bother continuing to tell their story, or explain their departure when they re no longer on the pay-roll?

Well, given the way these figures are defined as individuals, there is an understandable desire among fans for knowledge about 'what happened next', and in the case of someone like Dogg, he will always be TIM wherever he is.  I don't know, it's one aspect of the whole porn industry that I sort of understand why it's done, but at same time, I don't quite understand.  Take football (soccer to my American friends), players are celebrated when they join a club, but well-loved players and managers are still respected and celebrated long after moving to other clubs.  Dogg is one of those iconic players at TIM, and as such he'll long be remembered in the same breath as TIM whether he continues to work for them or not.  The fans seem to get that, but I'm not sure TIM - along with the rest of the industry - get that.

Dogg also blogs (NSFW) about his new projects (and various other bits and bobs) here (curiously, Dogg's previous blog has been deleted)

Condom Battles and Orwellian Truth

John Manuel-Andriote is the latest to weigh in on the LA condom law battle.  He uses his article on the Huffington post website to address the issue of depictions of bareback sex in m/m films. he notes: In a 2005 meeting in San Francisco, sponsored by the city's Gay Men's Community Initiative, a group of 70 men discussed sex, including porn videos. They spoke frankly. "Twink barebacking is reprehensible, using kids, paying them to risk their lives," said Titan Media vice president Keith Webb of the growing number of porn movies depicting unprotected anal intercourse. Such films "fetishize internal ejaculation," he said.

'Several of the men pointed to Treasure Island Media's 2004 title Dawson's 20-Load Weekend as an example of irresponsible gay filmmaking for its celebration of what most rational people would deem suicidal behavior. The company's website boasts of a worldwide demand for the movie, tantalizing buyers to pony up $49 with promises of forbidden scenes of a "fresh young man" who "goes from being a barebacking newcomer to a true Power Cumdump as he takes on man after man after man."

'Treasure Island cameraman Nick Stevens defended the movie in the forum. "Our movies are for models to have sex the way they want," he said. "Why should we not film that?"'

OK, so a forum including market competitors to TIM objected to their films.  Err, well they would wouldn't they?  It's also interesting to see that TIM did engage in this debate back in 2005 and the market has meant ever more companies have re-focused to bareback production since.  This all seems to support Stevens and his assertion that it's the way folks - not just models actually - want to have sex, and the kind of sex they wish to bear witness to.

Manual-Andriote uses his piece to assert that 'safe sex is hot sex' (if you need telling something is hot, and you tried it not realising it was hot, it wasn't) and argues that 'endangering other men's lives for the sake of a fantasy has no place in the life of a truly proud gay man or in his erotic entertainment.'

The final statement is crucial in explaining the gulf between the barebackers/reckless risk takers and 'condom Nazis'/community safety activists for it pre-supposes that the films represent 'fantasy' which clearly they do in many respects but perhaps the most authentic element of the film is the bareback sex, the visible ceremonial display of semen strewn bodies and buttocks.  Yes, a film like Dawson's 20-Load Weekend seeks to place on barebacker on a  pedestal - a champion among deviants, but bareback - and TIM - more generally offer up bareback as a depiction of true desire.  If condoms represented true desire, they would arguably be embraced.

If the pro-condom lobby want to succeed in shifting attitudes they must recognise that the safety/fun equation has to shift.  Men used condoms when the risk/harm element outweighed the fun aspect.  In the modern world of HIV/AIDS treatment, that equation was re-calibrated and so too were the condom habits of men.  Draconian laws can not, and will not therefore succeed in truly removing bareback sex.  It will merely serve as an Orwellian attempt to define contemporary condom truth.

Read his full article here.

Prop 8 Trial Videos to Remain Sealed

Very interesting developments (or lack of developments) over in the States in the last few days concerning the Proposition 8 trial (or Perry trial).  The battle over releasing video footage from the trial continued with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling ensuring that videos made remain sealed - despite a judge who made the promise not to show the videos showing them as part of speaking engagements.   Read the full story here.

LA Condom Measures

By now, many of you will be aware of the news last week from LA regarding new rules on the use of condoms in the production of porn films.  I'm knocking together a piece for elsewhere so forgive me for not commenting further than my previous posts (see this and this, and also this).  However, you can read more about the latest developments here on LA Weekly and also this piece from the wonderful Katherine Sansom.

LA Bareback Ban Campaign Launches

The battle over mandatory condom usage in LA (see my previous post here) has taken another step, as the Joe.My.God blog explains. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has launched a petition drive for a ballot measure that would require condom usage in all porn produced in Los Angeles County. The AHF must collect 200,000 signatures by June 5th in order for the item to appear on the November ballot in Los Angeles County.  This is an additional ballot measure to that which city officials have already gone to court over in a bid to block.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation called on Los Angeles County officials to mandate that adult films follow the same health department permit process required of bathhouses, sex clubs, and tattoo and message parlours. Under the county initiative, adult film producers would file health permits and pay a fee set by the health department that would pay for inspections and enforcement. If passed, the measure would allow the county to collect a $1,000 fine from adult film producers who do not have a valid health permit. In addition, the county could use nurses to provide spot checks on film sets.

Read more on this latest proposed measure here and in the LA Times here. This is shaping up to be a key socio-legal battle of 2012.

Inclusive Education: SB 48

The start of 2012 saw a historic education change come into force in the US state of California. The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act – also known as Senate Bill 48 – requires that LGBTs' historical contributions be taught in schools.

According to the Bay Area Reporter, the new law was authored by gay state Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in July. It's set to take effect next week, but Tina Jung, spokeswoman for the California Department of Education, said the state Board of Education couldn't review new curriculum until 2015.

Essentially the argument is that because the state is bust financially, that's the earliest they can look at this with new textbooks rolling out between 2017 and 2019.   This - you might think- falls outside of the statute but assuming that the Board of Education does not adopt new textbooks/instructional materials they are not in breach of the statute (although they re skating on thin ice).  There's no such wiggle room in the phraseology of other sections and it's clear that Californian schools and their teachers cannot discriminate their activities on the basis of sexuality (and other characteristics such as race).

One of the tensions which the California Department of Education seems to be hoping people won't notice is that:   'Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.'

That seems pretty clear to me, and I'm a bit confused how that can be done without new instructional material (and arguably textbooks).  I'm no US attorney but surely a state lacking finance does not negate legal responsibilities?  I'd be curious for input from US readers.

Of course, the measure was argued against (ironically) on the grounds of cost by Republicans and they also opposed the 'indoctrination' of their children with radical notions such as not discriminating against someone because of their race, sexuality or gender (see the campaign ad on the right).  In truth, despite the pitching of this measure (by both sides) it's actually quite  gentle and sensible legal measure, but the real challenge comes in how it is now implemented.  A legal challenge on implementation from the left would be a gift to Republicans in an election year, enabling them to point to tax dollars being diverted from something uncontroversial (e.g. roads) to something that is (i.e evil homo indoctrination).  Other than Democrats, whatever happens, the real losers are potentially the kids who risk being failed by their political leaders and who might not get the education they deserve - and should now legally expect.

A potential solution would be for charities, campaign organisations and worthy individuals to stump up for new textbooks now.  Tell the people the bill Ms Jung, and let's get raising the money.  There's a lot of wealthy homosexuals in California - this would surely be a good use of some of their money.

The full story can be read on the Bay Area Reporter here.