In 2014, a study carried out by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health revealed that one in four adult film performers had contracted gonorrhea or chlamydia at some point during their career. More than two-thirds of the 366 performers interviewed reported that they had never used condoms on the job, and 13.6% said that they had been compelled to perform a sex act that they did not want to do. In a statement released by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), Michael Weinstein, the organization’s president, asserted that: “This study confirms the extremely high STD risk facing adult film workers each day as they go about their work on adult film sets throughout California and elsewhere. Unscrupulous producers place these actors in jeopardy every time they require—or intimidate—these performers to work without condoms or other workplace safeguards. These adult film workers deserve better.” Weinstein and the AHF quickly made combatting this problem a top priority.

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians voted on a law that wouldn’t affect the majority of residents in any notable way—but could have had a far more consequential impact on the lives of thousands of men and women working in the state’s adult entertainment industry. In addition to mandating that pornographic production companies pay for vaccinations and medical exams related to the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, Proposition 60, the Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, would have required pornographic actors to wear condoms in all sexually explicit adult films. Although technically, condom usage in adult films is already required under California law, the current regulations are only enforced on a complaint-basis by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (better known as Cal/OSHA). While some do abide by the law, the majority of the industry (heavily based in the San Fernando valley) does not, relying instead on frequent STI testing of performers. Under the new law, any private citizen who viewed an instance of violation would be able to sue the violating film’s production company, and would be entitled to 25% of the hefty fines imposed on porn producers who could not prove that condoms were used during filming. Proposition 60 failed to receive the majority vote needed to become California law.

For Adult Industry Responsibility (F.A.I.R.), the campaign which proposed the legislation, received major funding from the Los Angeles-based AHF. F.A.I.R. claimed the proposition was needed to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted disease exposure, which disproportionately affects adult entertainment performers. The group argued that current laws requiring condom usage are not strong enough because regulatory agencies only act on complaints, a procedure that has led the organization to issue four citations in the last two years. Weinstein stressed the importance of the workplace safety that the initiative would ensure for entertainers—the same entertainers who vehemently opposed the proposition.

Opposition to Proposition 30 was extensive, and included the Free Speech Coalition (a trade-association representing the pornography industry), several HIV/AIDS organizations, LGBT rights advocacy groups, the International Entertainment Adult Union, and political organizations including the California Democratic and Republican parties. Their reasons were numerous and conclusive.

The implementation of Proposition 60 would probably not have led to safer pornography. As more than 60% of viewers prefer watching condomless sex, porn production companies would continue to meet this demand by taking one of two measures: either leave California (as they left Los Angeles in response to a similar local regulation), or be driven underground. While companies leaving the state would result in millions of dollars in lost tax revenue and no real improvement in safety, those driven to secrecy would lead to far more serious consequences. These portions of the industry would have no incentive to abide by any regulations, leading to an environment even more conducive to the dangers of sexually transmitted disease.

Another serious worry about the initiative concerned possible effects resulting from granting private citizens the ability and incentive to sue producers, enabling harassment, extortion, and stalking. Because many performers produce their own content, lawsuits could have led to the disclosure of personal information, including names, addresses, and medical records, thereby providing stalkers with an accessible means of seeking out entertainers. In a statement, Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition said, “If the proposed initiative were to pass, adult performers would immediately be targeted by stalkers and profiteers, who would use the initiatives’ sue-a-performer provision to harass and extort adult performers. This is an unconscionable initiative that would take a legal and safe industry and push its performers into the shadows.” Proposition 60’s failure thus marked a victory for performer privacy.

Deep scrutiny of Proposition 60 suggests that the legislation would have driven the pornographic film industry out of California, and compounded many of the real workplace concerns facing adult film performers. These performers need to be protected, but Proposition 60 does not seem like the right solution.

Among Californian Yale voters, opinion was split. In an interview with The Politic, Ava Daniel ’20 cited concerns similar to those of most of the propositions proponents, stating that condom usage “is a much safer option and sets a better example for people who watch those films.” Tommy Atlee ’20 told The Politic that he disagreed. “I voted no. Adult film workers are already required to go through rigorous STI testing in California. This proposition was opposed by both the Republican and Democratic parties, and I think it would have killed this sector of business in the state.”

Despite the prevalence of some STI’s among adult film performers, there has been no HIV transmission among those working on a regulated set in the last eight years. Due to the very nature of pornographic work, more effective regulation is a complicated matter, requiring careful examination by citizens, legislators, and industry leaders. Hopefully, the buzz generated by Proposition 60 has drawn enough attention to important issues surrounding the adult entertainment industry to ensure that voters stay informed about the underlying complexities associated with attempts at future regulation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *