HOW NEW CONDOM MANDATE WOULD AFFECT THE GAY PORN INDUSTRY

Posted April 26, 2013 9:13 AM by with 12 comments

AB 332 — a bill that requires all porn scenes shot in the state of California to use condoms — has cleared a final legislative hurdle and is expected to be approved by a vote of the State Assembly. The straight industry is making plans to move the entire industry out of state, a bunch of silconed Israelites in a caravan to Las Vegas. But how will it change the gay porn industry? After the jump, which studios will be affected — and what we expect them to do …


 
 
 
 
 


1. Treasure Island Media (San Francisco)
Treasure Island showed up in full-force at the protest — and with good reason. The producers of the Dawson’s Twenty Load Weekend are openly defiant about unsafe sex (owner Paul Morris once called HIV-negativity “the new virginity.”) They’ve probably got the most to lose — the studio is heavily identified with San Francisco and might have a hard-time replicating the city’s sex-culture in someplace Las Vegas or Fort Lauderdale. Prediction: Possibly a riot.
 


2. Sean Cody (San Diego)
Unlike companies that rely heavily on crops gay men for their porn, Sean Cody has more flexibility — straight men are everywhere. Corbin Fisher has already moved there, and they haven’t missed a beat. Prediction: Moves to Las Vegas
 


3. Jake Cruise (Los Angeles)
Jake Cruise details his testing regimen for his bareback scenes on Cocksure Men. But while bareback seems to be his personal preference, he still shoots plenty of material with condoms. Prediction: Reverts to condoms. Saves bareback for vacations.

4. Hot Desert Knights (Palm Springs)
Hot Desert Knights was one of the first studios to go bareback, over ten years ago. They originally boasted that all their models were HIV-positive already, but in 2008 started sero-sorting and testing. They’re only two hours from the Arizona border and an even shorter flight to Vegas. Prediction: Stays in Palm Springs. Move shoots out of state.


5. SX Video (San Diego)
One of the original three big bareback studios, known for grabbing mainstream gay porn stars — Josh Weston, Nick Moretti, Carlos Morales — once they went bareback. But San Diego isn’t a huge part of their identity, nor their model pool. Seems like a lifestyle choice more than anything. Prediction: Moves to Florida.


6. Factory Video (San Francisco)
They bill themselves as “the Cum Eating Experts,” but now produce bareback videos as well. But while they’re located in San Francisco, they shoot many of their videos outside the state. Prediction: Company stays in SF. Reverts focus to producing cum-eating videos. Any bareback shoots move out of state.

All in all though — it won’t affect the gay porn industry nearly as much as it would the straight industry. Most gay porn producers still use condoms — and the really big ones who don’t aren’t anywhere near California:


Bel Ami (Czech Republic)
Corbin Fisher (Las Vegas)
Maverick Men (Boston)
Dark Alley Media (New York/New Jersey)
Fraternity X (Arizona)

Related:
The Secret Economics of Gay Porn … Or Why Gay Porn Got So Vanilla
Is This The Most Important Gay Porn Film Ever Made?
R.I.P. Josh Weston (1973 – 2012)

Tags: , ,

12 responses to HOW NEW CONDOM MANDATE WOULD AFFECT THE GAY PORN INDUSTRY

  1. Jay April 26th, 2013 at 1:26 PM

    Why doesn’t the new law make unprotected oral sex illegal as well?. One CAN get HIV from oral sex, that’s a fact. Yes, it is less risky than unprotected anal sex, but it’s not risk-free. If you are being intrusive on other people’s sex lives based on health concerns, why not go all the way?, at least be consistent. Telling consensual adults what sex practices they can engage in is already tyrant enough, but picking and choosing makes it even worse, because it makes the arrogance and hypocrisy even more obvious.

    Reply

    • Luke April 27th, 2013 at 3:36 AM

      In theory you can get HIV through oral sex but the percentage is like 1000 more less probably that you get HIV with oral sex if you let your partner to cum in your mouth and you swallow. If you have anal unprotected sex with an HIV + partner,you have almost one chance out of 2 to get infected.
      I watch bareback sex(especially Sean Cody) but I never ever did it and my partners are properly warned that if they cum in my mouth they will get their dick tattooed with my teeth.

      Reply

      • Jay April 27th, 2013 at 11:27 AM

        The minor risk of infection through oral sex is irrelevant: my point is the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the people behind it; the rationale to ban it is the same. And of course most people don’t engage in unsafe sexual practices just because one watches them in porn; and even if some did, my rights as an individual to watch porn and that of producers to make porn cannot be eliminated to protect one part of the population from their own stupidity. It’s not my duty to protect anyone and others don’t have any right to tell me what kind of consensual adult sex I can have. I’m, however, confident eventually this law will not survive judicial scrutiny.

        Reply

        • alex April 27th, 2013 at 11:42 PM

          The difference in infection rates between oral and anal sex are far from irrelevant. In the United States, government has taken on the role of protecting employees. Are you against government mandating factories have proper safety precautions? The condom law isn’t about stopping private citizens from engaging in bareback sex. The law is about protecting the employees/independent contractors making the movies.

          Now, back to the difference in risk from oral/anal. Government isn’t in the business of safety-proofing the world. If they did, we wouldn’t have action movies because stunts would be banned. Stunt people understand there is a risk associated with their job. However, government expects businesses to reduce those risks to an acceptable level.

          It’s unthinkable that a movie would film a car crash scene without providing the necessary safety equipment to the stuntperson. That equipment isn’t cheap. Why is the argument any different when it comes to adult videos? It’s fairly easy to eliminate virtually all the risk to performers. And, unlike specialty harnesses for stunt performers, the cost involved is less than $1.

          Reply

          • Jay April 28th, 2013 at 6:23 PM

            It is different because these people willingly engage in condom less sex; in fact, for many it is the fact that it is condom less what they find appealing and just because some people find that shocking doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

            Porn performers, gay and straight, have overwhelmingly rejected this law. Are you or the people pushing it more concerned or better informed about their working conditions than the performers themselves?. And the testing protocols in place by many of these companies ARE reasonable standards, if that’s what you’re looking for. No performer is forced not to wear a condom, they have the option to ask for it or work for a different company.

            And your factory workers analogy is flawed, because on one hand it would be unreasonable for a factory worker not to use a helmet or other safety equipment, whereas many performers willing work ONLY in condom less scenes; it’s also flawed because forcing the use of condoms affects not just the production process but also the product, it dictates the kind of movies the producers can put out: in practice, it completely eliminates an entire category of movies which is unfair not just to specialty companies, but also to performers AND consumers.

            Two HIV-positive performers shouldn’t be forced to move out of the state to shoot a scene, this law does nothing for them but to discriminate them. You can’t force condoms on people who don’t want them or need them.

            The law is far too intrusive. It could mandate testing protocols, even regulate them. But forcing condoms is unfair as it violates the rights of companies, performers and fans.

            Reply

  2. stranded April 26th, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    bleeding heart liberals and conservatives thought they saving the poor wretched souls who do porn. The sinister porn producers would force these desperate victims into performing unprotected sex. No one thought of the logistics and money that would be lost to the state by enforcing this law.

    Reply

  3. doug April 27th, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    guess it’s time to push the law in Nevada….once word gets out- some Teabagger/Conservative will see how California got rid of their porn industry- and they’ll do it there, too.

    Reply

  4. Amy Racecar April 28th, 2013 at 3:12 PM

    As far as TIM goes, it seems like between Max Sohl and Liam Cole a lot of their production is in NYC and the UK now? I don’t know that them ditching California would be too difficult.

    Reply

  5. John April 30th, 2013 at 12:06 AM

    What a shame to have to pass a law for porn companies to use condoms. I don’t think it’s going to work as someone here made mention that certain porn companies will move their studios another states. I think this will have to be left up to the consumer. If you don’t want to see barebacking movies, then don’t watch them. If you think safe sex is too vanilla, then watch your barebacking films. If your decision! However,I do feel that there should always be disclaimers on both safe sex and barebacking films about the risks of contracting HIV, and other sexually transmitted infections.

    Reply

  6. zax April 30th, 2013 at 1:01 AM

    I love watching porn and I hope this law to be implemented soon. And all states and countries should adopt similar laws. And I’m far from being a conservative. It’a a matter of public health, besides workers safety conditions.

    Reply

  7. stoicheion May 4th, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    Sin City will gladly take their business! To add onto that, the state senate just passed a gay marriage bill and it’s expected to be up for voters do decide in 2016. So much potential for Nevada here, and who doesn’t want to come to Vegas?

    Reply

  8. conversationchamber.ipbhost.com May 24th, 2013 at 1:15 AM

    I hope this bill goes all the way and that the porn companies that violate it get fined up the wazzo. I also hope that other states adopt similar stances. Quite frankly bareback porn is nefarious, and I don’t find their snowjob declarations of “testing” to be at all convincing or justifiable. They’re putting the health of their young, himbo, money blind models at risk for the almighty dollar — while sending a odious message to the public. Furthermore, the creeps that run TIM have got to be one of the most loathsome, creepiest, and downright vile characters to emerge in porn since the early days of it being ran by the mafia. There needs to be a governmental crackdown on condomless sex in porn, and I support every measure that attempts it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply



ABOUT US | EMAIL US