Your Mother Liked It Bareback

Mark S King has written an absolutely brilliant piece on bareback sex.  You can check it out here.  He responds to some of the recent stories about bareback sex and contextualises it in a medical and cultural framework.  I can't recommend it enough.

A conservative night for America?

It's a question I found myself pondering as the markets and world digest the results from last night.  By which I mean, four more years for Obama as President, a Republican House and a Democrat Senate.  Several billion dollars later, and we're seemingly back where we started.  Obama teased supporters with claims of 'the best is still to come', but unlike the Parliamentary system of government, he is limited by a legislature which was seemingly broken before the election, and is likely to remain broken when the new Congress take up their seats in January.

Moreover, America is still staring down the barrel of a gun at a budget crisis which needs resolving before the year is out.

I made clear yesterday my support for Obama, and my expectation that he would indeed win.  Yet, four years on from his first victory, warm words and promises are not enough for this observer.  His promise to LGBT voters (seen on this page of his website) was just one commitment - to not be Mitt Romney.  Beyond that, he made not one pledge on LGBT rights.  Yes, he's better than Romney.  Yes, Romney would have been bad news for LGBT rights, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep poking Obama with a stick.

The Supreme Court

So what's coming up?  Perry and the issue of constitutionality and same-sex marriage is heading to the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Ginsberg, has indicated she's considering standing down (she's 79) and that means a moderate Democrat could replace her in this Presidential term.  The question is whether to risk waiting until the mid-terms and the hope of Democrats re-taking the House.  Of course, they could end up losing the Senate so I'd expect a new Supreme Court Justice appointment sooner rather than later.  This offers an opportunity to renew the status quo.  Scalia will be 80 in four years time and a Democrat Presidential victory in 2016 could offer an opportunity to re-balance the Court, but it's unlikely - it seems to me - to happen before then.  All of which matters, when deciding issues such as same-sex rights, and the continued debates around abortion.  Better preserve the status quo than end up having a clear Republican-controlled Supreme Court (as would have been likely with a Romney victory).

The Result

The American electoral college system means that Obama won convincingly, and also won measured by the popular vote.  However, the votes in individual States were very close and if anything served to illustrate just how divided socially, politically, and economically America is in 2012.  It's going to take more than fine oratory to fix it.

Nonetheless, as this campaign advanced (and with some gentle prodding from the Vice President), Obama seems to have increasingly found a voice on LGBT issues as he recognised the need to energise his base and re-create the coalition of voters that elected him back in 2008.   Hopefully, this will continue in office, combining hard-policy with cultural leadership.

Coupled with the ticking bomb of a demography shift between now and 2016, and no election will ever be the same again.  Some Republicans- notably Jeb Bush - understand this and have spoken eloquently of the need to change, but the dominant Tea Party tendency does not.  Just as with the British Conservative Party, they have established themselves as 'the nasty party' in the minds of many and will need to modernise and re-cast themselves in 2016.  If they want to be in with a shot in 2016, they need to take some quantum leaps on social issues -such as same-sex marriage, and also on race.  If they fail to do so, they will never hold the Presidency again.

A Representative Breakthrough?

We can rejoice in some truly wonderful results.  Tammy Baldwin (who I mentioned in my post yesterday) made history by becoming the first out Senator-elect.  Well done Wisconsin!  She is replaced in her House seat by openly gay man Mark Pocan.  They are among a number of openly gay men and women who were elected at a Federal and State level.   This is important not only for having strong LGBT voices in elected politics, not only for having people in office who 'get it', but also for providing visible role-models to LGBT youth and for creating visible community leaders who happen to identify as LGBT.  They are creating change legally, and also socially.

However, we shouldn't get carried away.  Michele Bachmann, former candidate for the Republican nomination - and someone who seems bat shit crazy to many European eyes - narrowly won in Minnesota.

Ballot Measures:  Marriage

Beyond the national race a series of ballot measures took place which are likely to deliver transformative change to millions.   Maine, Maryland and Washington have all voted in favour of introducing same-sex marriage in state ballots.  Minnesota (the same state that re-elected Bachmann) faced a vote on amending the constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage and the amendment was rejected.  A clean sweep for LGBT campaigners.  Add in two states - Washington and Colorado - legalising the recreational use of marijuana, and you could be forgiven for thinking that America had suddenly swerved towards a liberal future.

Ballot Measures:  Sex Trafficking

However, take a look at what might be called a Democrat state - California - and you  see a different picture.  A measure to finally remove the death penalty was rejected whilst a new measure to toughen the law on sex trafficking (and arguably creating more problems than it solves in relation to sex work) was passed.

The official (and impartial) advice set out the implications of passing the measure on trafficking:

This measure makes several changes to state law related to human trafficking. Specifically, it (1) expands the definition of human trafficking, (2) increases the punishment for human trafficking offenses, (3) imposes new fines to fund services for human trafficking victims, (4) changes how evidence can be used against human trafficking victims, and (5) requires additional law enforcement training on handling human trafficking cases. The measure also places additional requirements on sex offender registrants.

Expanded Definition of Human Trafficking. This measure amends the definition of human trafficking under state law. Specifically, the measure defines more crimes related to the creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors as a form of human trafficking. For example, duplicating or selling these obscene materials could be considered human trafficking even if the offender had no contact with the minor depicted. In addition, with regard to sex trafficking cases involving minors, prosecutors would not have to show that force or coercion occurred. (This would make state law similar to federal law.)

More Severe Criminal Penalties for Human Trafficking. This measure increases the current criminal penalties for human trafficking under state law. For example, the measure increases the prison sentence for labor trafficking crimes to a maximum of 12 years per offense, and for sex trafficking of adults to up to 20 years per offense. Sex trafficking of minors that involved force or fraud would be punishable by up to a life term in prison. In addition, the measure specifies that offenders convicted of human trafficking with previous convictions for human trafficking receive additional five-year prison terms for each of those prior convictions. Under the measure, offenders convicted of human trafficking that resulted in great bodily injury to the victim could be punished with additional terms of up to ten years. The measure also permits criminal courts to impose fines of up to $1.5 million for human trafficking offenses.

Programs for Human Trafficking Victims. The measure requires that the funds collected from the above fines support services for victims of human trafficking. Specifically, 70 percent of funds would be allocated to public agencies and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services to such victims. The measure requires that the remaining 30 percent be provided to law enforcement and prosecution agencies in the jurisdiction where the charges were filed and used for human trafficking prevention, witness protection, and rescue operations.

Changes Affecting Court Proceedings. The measure also affects the trial of criminal cases involving charges of human trafficking. Specifically, the measure prohibits the use of evidence that a person was involved in criminal sexual conduct (such as prostitution) to prosecute that person for that crime if the conduct was a result of being a victim of human trafficking. The measure also makes evidence of sexual conduct by a victim of human trafficking inadmissible for the purposes of attacking the victim’s credibility or character in court. In addition, this measure disallows certain defenses in human trafficking cases involving minors. For example, a defendant could not claim as a defense being unaware of the minor’s age.

Law Enforcement Training. This measure requires all peace officers employed by police and sheriff’s departments and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) who perform field or investigative work to undergo at least two hours of training on how to handle human trafficking complaints. This training would have to be completed by July 1, 2014 or within six months of the officer being assigned to the field or investigative work.

 Expanded Requirements for Sex Offender Registration. This measure requires registered sex offenders to provide the names of their internet providers and identifiers to local police or sheriff’s departments. Such identifiers include e-mail addresses, user names, screen names, or other personal identifiers for internet communication and activity. If a registrant changes his or her internet service account or changes or adds an internet identifier, the individual must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of such changes.

Although undoubtedly well meaning, the measure has the effect of extending the definition of 'trafficking' to extend those acts which people would not ordinarily consider to be part of the same legal problem.  Consensual sex work arguably falls within the ambit of the measure and anyone receiving financial benefit from this activity could be prosecuted and forced to register as a sex offender.  It's badly drafted and could have a series of unintended consequences.

Ballot Measures: Condoms in Porn

In LA County, the much-discussed 'condom measure' was passed.  With 55.85% in favour, Measure B.  Here's what the 'official' advice stated on this measure:

The proposed amendment would require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (the "Department") in order to engage in the production of adult films for commercial purposes, and to pay a permit fee set by the Department to offset the cost of enforcement. The measure would require the use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of both the public health permit and a notice to performers regarding condom use. Producers are required to provide a written exposure control plan describing how the ordinance will be implemented. A "producer" means any person or entity that produces, finances or directs adult films for commercial purposes. 

Violation of the ordinance would be subject to both civil fines and criminal misdemeanor charges. The Department would be authorized to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, including suspending or revoking the public health permit due to violations of the ordinance, or any other law including applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code, blood borne pathogen standard, California Code of Regulations, or the exposure plan of the producer. Suspension or revocation of the public health permit requires notice and an opportunity for an administrative review, unless the Department found or reasonably suspected immediate danger to the public health and safety, in which case the Department could immediately suspend or revoke the public health permit, initiate a criminal complaint, or issue a fine, pending an administrative hearing. 

The measure, if approved by the voters, may only be repealed by a subsequent vote of the electors or by an amendment of the Los Angeles County Charter superseding the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors is authorized to amend the ordinance by a majority vote in order to further the purposes of the measure.

As I've previously speculated, where LA goes, other may follow.  It is not a California-wide ban, and it will be interesting to see how it operates in practice.  Presumably, some stimulation will be provided to the local economy as the County looks to hire condom inspectors who can monitor the new law.  Unfortunately, any such economic stimulus is likely to be off-set by the exodus of studios as they look elsewhere to film there porn.  Consumers continue to have a clear preference for condomless porn, and so this measure will simply relocate the production of porn, rather than change it.

I'm particularly curious to see if anywhere else seeks to replicate the law.

A conservative settlement?

For Brit observers, you might want to reflect on that powerful speech line deployed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron - "So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative" - as a reminder that the marriage issue can be re-defined not as an issue of the left, but as a very conservative institution.  I've explored this previously in a HuffPo piece you can check out here.

As much as the same-sex marriage ballot results are victories for the LGBT community, they should also indicate the need for a debate and recognition of plurality when it comes to the expression of identity.  The embrace of domesticity and a very heteronormative concept of marriage holds less appeal to all those queer sluts out there - their identity apparently cast as increasingly embarrassing and a source of discomfort more generally (take the moves to ban nudity in the Castro as but one illustrative example).

Last night and the results that continued to filter through today were truly great for the LGBT community - rightly a source of celebration.  However, let us not lose sight of the battles ahead and the debates the LGBT 'community' must face up to as legal reforms create new social - and indeed legal - pressures and questions that we must all respond to.   We live in an age of increased acceptance of the homosexual identity, but increased silence about homosexual sex.  A curious division of the homo and the sexual, and one that some are starting to debate, discuss and consider (see here)

America Decides

Excitement is building as we count down the final hours to America deciding the next President of the United States.  Like many liberals, my preference for Obama is perhaps to be expected.  I have however - as I've often noted on this blog - found him to be something of a disappointment.  On national issues, he has been far too slow in taking the lead on key issues.  He used his political capital on healthcare reform but could have implemented better, clearer, more thought-through proposals than those he did.  LGBT campaigners are now rallying to his cause, but I've not forgotten the number of American LGBT lawyers and activists who  have repeatedly grumbled about his inaction over the last four years.  Yes, DADT has gone (and that took long enough), but there the Defense of Marriage still sits, and Obama has done little to stick his neck out on LGBT issues.

Of course, this view is not shared by all.  The Human Rights Campaign describes him as 'the most pro-LGBT President in American history' which is probably true, but he wasn't up against much competition.

Anyway, the late polls suggest he will squeak on in, and I suspect they're right, although it's been a while since I was over there to get a sense of the mood.   I would expect the Senate and House to end up more or less as they are now, with no change in control.  All of which means 'more of the same' for the next four years.

Beyond the Presidency

Whilst it is this national race which attracts most of the attention outside of the US, we should also consider a number of other races and votes that are taking place.  The first openly LGBT member of the Senate could be elected on Tuesday night with Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.  The Democrat candidate has served in the House since 1999 so fingers crossed she has the profile to make the move to the Senate.

Questions of marriage equality will be on the ballot in Maryland, Maine and Washington and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is up for the vote in Minnesota.

These ballot measures (kind of like several referenda at once) are an alien concept to Brits, but they involve significant amounts of money.  Take the State of California where the subject of ending the death penalty is up (Proposition 34).   $7,635,861 (around £4,700,000) has been raised by supporters of the repeal and $416,555 by opponents (we can therefore perhaps guess which way the vote will go).    To put that in some perspective, the Labour Party spent a total of just over £8 million at the last General election (and the Conservatives double that).

Another measure on the ballot in California (at least for those in LA County) is an additional measure (Measure B).  This measure will require that porn performers have to wear condoms in LA County during a shoot (and inevitably lead to the creation of 'condom Police' to inspect sets to make sure the law is being adhered to).  Here's the full wording:

'Shall an ordinance be adopted requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, to require adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, to provide proof of blood borne pathogen training course, to post permit and notices to performers, and making violations of the ordinance subject to civil fines and criminal charges?'

You can read more about the measure here.  The LA Times has been giving a lot of publicity to this measure, and seemingly seems to support the law-reform, at least based on their coverage and commentaries.  However, they've also recommended that people vote 'no' - suggesting that the reform is well meaning but ultimately un-enforcable (read their full explanation here).

The National Record:  Obama

Nonetheless, it's the national record that remains the focus.  As much as I might find Obama's record disappointing, his campaign website details a pretty comprehensive list of achievements during his four years:

STANDING UP FOR ALL FAMILIES

Affirmed his personal support for same-sex marriage
Opposed the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal DOMA

EDUCATION AND YOUTH

Hosted the first-ever White House conference on bullying in schools to provide information from various government agencies on how kids, teens, young adults, parents, educators, and others in the community can prevent or stop bullying
Created the Inter-Agency Task Force on Bullying to tackle bullying in our schools, including bullying of LGBT youth
Recorded an “It Gets Better” video in support of LGBT youth facing bullying at school

HEALTH CARE

Signed the Affordable Care Act into law, expanding access to health care and critical preventive services
Extended hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights to LGBT patients and their partners Awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Janice Langbehn, a lesbian mother and activist whose story paved the way for the extending hospital visitation rights
Affirmed the administration’s commitment to creating an AIDS-free generation Included specific data on health needs of lesbian and bisexual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration’s “Women’s Health USA 2011” report for the first time Promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-sex partner benefits on Healthcare.gov
Included proposals to improve LGBT Americans’ access to health care and provisions to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS in the administration’s 2013 federal budget proposal
Created a National Resource Center for LGBT seniors and awarded a grant to SAGE (Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders), supporting the first community center for LGBT seniors

JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

The administration worked to protect federal LGBT employees from workplace discrimination by adopting an equal-opportunity employment policy that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity
Ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees who need to care for their children.
Set a precedent in hiring LGBT employees by appointing more openly LGBT administration officials than any other president in U.S. history Continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

TRANS EQUALITY

Ended the Social Security Administration’s gender “no-match” letters and ensured that transgender Americans can receive passports that accurately reflect their gender identity
Established guidelines to help protect transgender federal employees from discrimination in the workplace
Established policy regarding the respectful delivery of health care to transgender veterans

HOUSING

Announced HUD’s new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
Released America’s first comprehensive plan to prevent homelessness, including homelessness among LGBT youth Awarded a grant to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community Center to work with LGBT foster youth

NATIONAL SECURITY

Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so gay and lesbian Americans can serve the country they love without hiding who they are Permitted military chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages where legal

INTERNATIONAL AND LGBT CITIZENS ABROAD

Ended the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States Created the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad
Made it clear the United States will use all the tools of American diplomacy to promote LGBT rights abroad
Fought for the rights of LGBT persons worldwide by co-sponsoring the first UN resolution focused solely on LGBT rights
Directed agencies working abroad to combat the criminalization of LGBT status
Directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure LGBT refugees and asylum-seekers have equal access to protection and assistance
Prevented the removal of sexual orientation from a UN resolution condemning extrajudicial killings Implemented a U.S. Agency for International Development policy to encourage contractors to implement and enforce non-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity 

So, that pretty much puts me in my place - but he's not holding anything back from this list -recording a  video message, saying overseas agencies should 'work' against LGBT criminalisation are not 'big' policies (would a British national leader feel the need to record he'd made such a video?), but nor can they be dismissed.

The National Record:  Romney

I also took a look at the Romney campaign website.  He has a grid of all his 'sub-groups'.  In the interests of fairness, here they are:

AMERICANS OF FAITH FOR ROMNEY
ASIAN AMERICANS & PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR ROMNEY
BLACK LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CATHOLICS FOR ROMNEY
EDUCATORS FOR ROMNEY
ENERGY VOTERS FOR ROMNEY
FARMERS & RANCHERS FOR ROMNEY
FORMER OBAMA SUPPORTERS FOR ROMNEY
HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY
JEWISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
JUNTOS CON ROMNEY LAWYERS FOR ROMNEY
POLISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY ROMNEY
VOTERS FOR FREE ENTERPRISE SPORTSMEN FOR ROMNEY
VETERANS & MILITARY FAMILIES FOR ROMNEY
WOMEN FOR MITT
YOUNG AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY

Yep, I'm afraid there's no LGBT group for Romney.  So, I took a look at the sight to make sure there wasn't a section outlining some specific policies targeted at the LGBT population.  Nope, not one.

I'll be live tweeting my way through the election results.  If you're not already following me, you can find me at @lawandsexuality

Bring On the Anal, Take off the Condoms...GMFA Porn Survey

Sexual health campaigners GMFA are really making an impact with the latest issue of their magazine.  As Pink News reports,  a survey of over 1,000 gay men by sexual health charity GMFA suggests just under 7 percent believe they were led to having unprotected sex after watching bareback pornography, but more than half thought it led others to do the same. 98 percent of the respondents said they watched porn.

The magazine makes the following summary of their findings:

You lot are a horny bunch.

You LOVE watching anal and oral sex.

Muscle guys turn you on the most.

A good chunk of you like to watch bareback porn but do not think it affects your sex decisions.

But you think younger guys and people with less intelligence copy what they see in porn. l 7% of you say watching bareback porn has led you to taking risks.

Some of you like to put yourself in front of the camera.

And some of you have put this stuff on the internet (links please?).

9% of you have had videos uploaded to the internet without your consent.

You like lots of different porn stars but a lot of you wouldn’t date one.

You wouldn’t care if someone you were dating did porn in the past.

You don’t care if a mate has done porn - and the majority of you would be happy to watch them.

The summary points are a little biased.  A 'good chunk of you like to watch bareback' suggests what? 20%, 30%?  The figure in the study is 95.8% so saying 'almost all' seems a fairer description.

Interestingly, the magazine also made use of bareback voices in the form of porn filmmaker, Liam Cole, of Treasure Island Media who commented that;  “If you can find true pleasure in condoms themselves, and record that honestly, the viewer will recognise that authenticity...but an artificial ‘sexing up’ is only going to fool the most gullible people.” “I don’t believe they need to be ‘sexed up’,” adds English Lads’ Nick Baker. “We just make them part of the scene from putting them on to removing them.”

So Cole prima facie appears to accept a role for condom porn  - as documenting 'authentic' sex.  However, given this kind of sex is rarely seen as 'authentic', it's pretty hard to imagine 'authentic' condom porn, as it pre-supposes pleasure and desire which - for some - is hard to equate with condoms.   Although  - as you would expect - the piece does maintain a safe sex emphasis, it is perhaps the comments of Cole which are most supported by this survey.

FS magazine can be downloaded for free from the GMFA website here.

LA Condoms in Porn Ballot Measure

Later today, the  pro-condoms in porn bandwagon moves a little bit forward in the legislative battle.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and members of FAIR (‘For Adult Industry Responsibility’), a group that has been shepherding signature gathering and support for a Los Angeles County ballot initiative process, will host a press conference at 10:30 AM Pacific in Los Angeles to announce the collection and filing of over 360,000 signatures of Los Angeles County residents in support of a County of Los Angeles ballot initiative that allows Los Angeles voters to directly weigh in on a measure that would, “…require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“the Department”) and pay a permit fee set by the Department in an amount sufficient for necessary enforcement.”

Members of AHF and FAIR launched the County ballot measure drive in early January of this year on the heels of successfully qualifying a similar City of Los Angeles ballot initiative tying distribution of adult film permits to condom use. The groups have until June 5th to gather the signatures needed for the County measure. 232,153 valid signatures of Los Angeles County residents are required to qualify the measure and make the Nov 2012 ballot (a number based on a percentage of total votes cast in the last County-wide election); 255,368 to qualify by the random sample (30 day check). In a precautionary measure, AHF and FAIR have collected and will submit well over that number as a cushion: approximately 360,000 signatures total.

After validation of the signatures by County officials, the measure will go before Los Angeles County voters on the November 2012 ballot—the presidential election ballot. This ordinance will be known as the ‘County of Los Angeles Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry Act.’ Advocates need to collect over 200,000 signatures of voters by June 5, 2012, and if successful, would place the measure on the November 2012 election—the same ballot as the presidential election.

County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act 

The measure would enact an ordinance to add Chapter 11.39, entitled ‘Adult Films,” to Title 11, Health and Safety, of the Los Angeles County Code. 


The purpose of the measure is intended to minimize the spread of sexually transmitted infections by regulating the adult film industry. 


The measure would require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“the Department”) and pay a permit fee set by the Department in an amount sufficient for necessary enforcement. 


The measure would provide for a permitting process that requires application submission and proof of completion of a blood borne pathogen training course, after which a permit shall be issued. 


The measure also requires submission of an exposure control plan. The measure would require use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of the public health permit and notice to performers regarding condom use. 


The measure would authorize the Department to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, including suspending or revoking the public health permit for violating the ordinance, or any other law, following notice and an opportunity for an administrative review. Prior notice would not be required if any immediate danger to the public and safety is found or reasonably suspected. Violation of the ordinance would be subject to civil fines and/or criminal misdemeanor charges. 

The measure would provide that in the event another ballot measure relating to the permits for the adult film industry appears on the same ballot, that this measure shall prevail if it receives the greater number of affirmative votes, and the competing measure shall be null and void. 


The measure authorizes the Board of Supervisors to amend the chapter by ordinance, passed by a majority vote, in order to further its purposes. The chapter may only be repealed by ordinance adopted by a vote of the electors or by an amendment of the Los Angeles County Charter superseding the ordinance. 


The measure provides that if any part of the ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, then remaining provisions shall be severable and remain in full force and effect.

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!

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.