Should the rest of us follow Los Angeles by making condoms in porn compulsory? Well, flip me, it's a sticky debate.
Take Steve Hirsh, for instance. As Founder and Co-chairman of
Vivid Entertainment -- one of America's leading porn producers -- Hirsh reveals Vivid might take their thousands of jobs away from LA. "If we leave the state, those dollars and the tax dollars will go along with us," says Hirsh,
in a discussion with Susannah Breslin at Forbes. And though Massachusetts may not be a huge producer of porn, many might welcome their jobs, especially given their policy of individual choice: "We believe in letting the performers make the choice," explains Hirsh, adding that proof of a negative HIV test every 30 days is mandatory for Vivid performers. He also reminds us that professional porn is suffering. With free porn (which is often unregulated) and piracy on the rise, do we really want to punish the guys who treat their performers with dignity?
But there are more serious criticisms of the ruling. Journalist Damon Brown, author of
Porn & Pong: How Grand Theft Auto, Tomb Raider and Other Sexy Games Changed Our Culture says that porn functions on societal taboos. In other words, making condoms compulsory can cause the popularity of condom-free porn to rocket. Plus porn star
Stoya tells Susannah Breslin that LA regulations could distract from the importance of STI testing. "Condoms break," she says, simply.
And she's right.
So what happens when a porn star gets an STI because the condom tore and STI tests are not longer a focus? Whose fault is that, exactly?
See? Sticky.
That said, there are some powerful reasons for encouraging condoms on-screen. For example, porn stars can be role-models for passion, and if our role-models don't ever use condoms, how will we learn that barrier contraception can
still make for hot sex? After all, modeling condom use does the world a service. So might there be a happy medium in terms of legislation? What if we looked into ways of enforcing the performer's
right to choose? This wouldn't punish the companies that are offering fair choice, but it
would help to shield individuals from pressure.
In any case, given that enforcing the legislation will surely cost big bucks, wouldn't we do well to save that money, and use it to provide sex education and more free condoms for all who need them? Boston College student
Erin Dromgoole, for instance, criticizes her college explaining that they provide STI testing (at "a steep cost of upwards to $170 in some instances,") yet refuse to stock contraception that would "prevent a sexually active student from becoming infected in the first place." Yes, Erin, I agree. Supporting access to
safe contraception should be a primary concern, especially considering how broke many students are.
While I applaud Los Angeles for thinking of their porn stars, I find their ruling to be too simplistic. As a resident of Massachusetts, I for one would welcome reputable porn companies who support contraceptive choice. And wouldn't it be better to punish those who force their performers into unsafe sex?
Those are the bad guys. Let's slam 'em.
