What is the actual purpose and intent of these proposals, and do they achieve their desired effect? — geospiza

The purpose was, as I understand it, to make the producers of pornography go to a different county than the Los Angeles one. It might also be that the passing of the proposition would increase the perception of 'safe sex' rather than unprotected sex depicted in pornographic films without the use of condoms.

I voted in opposition because it's true intent is to limit free speech, which includes the artistic experession known as pornography.

Free speech? Where do they have to wear them? Sounds more like a health and safety at work issue to me.

What is the actual purpose and intent of these proposals, and do they achieve their desired effect? — geospiza

I didn't track that election, so I can't comment on what the authors of the initiative had in mind. However, the obvious reason for requiring condoms in pornography productions would be two-fold: one, to protect the participants from HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea. Vaccination against the two strains of herpes virus that cause cervical cancer is more effective than condoms. Two, to normalize the use of condoms in casual sexual encounters.

Ironically, from a public health perspective, frequent use of latex condoms can result in skin irritation and increased susceptibility to infection. — geospiza

There are non-latex condoms.

At least in gay pornography, condoms are consistently used in some studio's productions, and consistently not used in other studio's output. Whether condoms are used, or not is based on the market that the studio is pursuing, and perhaps the ethics of the producers. Performers select the studios they want to work with.

Whatever they are willing to do in their own sexual encounters, some men strongly prefer to watch porn where condoms are not used. I have not met any guys who strongly prefer to watch porn where condoms are consistently used--where condom use would just not be an obstacle to their viewing pleasure.

Condoms greatly reduce disease transmission risk. Avoiding unprotected anal or vaginal sex also reduces transmission risk for HIV, but not for syphilis or gonorrhea which can readily be transmitted during oral sex. The only other way of reducing disease transmission risk as much is to have extensive knowledge about the activities of one's partner. This, of course, is difficult to guarantee even in marriage.

It is difficult to say whether condom use in adult films have normalized condom use, because there are other factors leading to normalization. One is the still-not-well-enough publicized risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Two is the devastating impact of AIDS. Three is the wider retail availability of condoms. Four is changes in social patterns which (may or may not) lead to less promiscuous sex.

I don't know whether men who prefer to watch sex where condoms are not used are more likely to refuse to use condoms in their own sexual encounters. I would guess there is a positive correlation --condomless porn being associated with condomless sex--but self-reporting survey information is notoriously unreliable.

I spent several years promoting condom use for HIV prevention, and I am in favor of consistent use for purposes of risk reduction.

BTW, gonorrhea is a greater health risk than it used to be because it is becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. A few strains are not readily curable. Syphilis (a more severe disease than gonorrhea in the long run) is as readily curable as ever because Treponema pallidum is sort of fragile and penicillin wipes it out.

Should pornographic actors be required to use condoms? — geospiza

I've thought about this and discussed the question for years and I still can't decide. The State is not in a good position to enforce such a requirement (because the State is hopefully not on site during porn production). Producers and participants are in a better position to enforce condom use.

Should everyone be legally obligated to use condoms, except in procreative sex? I don't think so.

Free speech? Where do they have to wear them? Sounds more like a health and safety at work issue to me. — unenlightened

If it were a health and safety at work issue, then the lobbyists for it should have been porno actors.

No. Health and safety is generally a pain that folks have to be coerced into; motorcycle helmets, seat-belts, chainsaw protection, keeping fire exits clear, nothing but hassle - until...

If the people if actually affects don't care about it as a health and safety issue, why would people who it doesn't affect care about it as a health and safety issue?

Because when bad shit happens, other people have to clean it up.

Well, then it's a monetary issue, or an "I don't want to do work" issue or whatever it is.

Huh? Yes, in the land of 'I don't care about anyone but me' it would have to be framed as, 'I don't want to pay for your corpse to be swept off the street because you died of some infection, and I'm sure as hell not going to pay for your life to be saved either.'

But in the land of 'every futile death offends me, even that of a sex worker', we put laws in place to protect people from their own folly, and the pressure that ensues when there is someone more foolish or more desperate that is willing or can be coerced into cutting corners, because that's the kind of society we like.

Huh? Yes, in the land of 'I don't care about anyone but me' it would have to be framed as, 'I don't want to pay for your corpse to be swept off the street because you died of some infection, and I'm sure as hell not going to pay for your life to be saved either.'

But in the land of 'every futile death offends me, even that of a sex worker', we put laws in place to protect people from their own folly, and the pressure that ensues when there is someone more foolish or more desperate that is willing or can be coerced into cutting corners, because that's the kind of society we like. — unenlightened

Why would futile deaths offend people who aren't sex workers, but not the sex workers themselves?

All sorts of reasons, probably, some of which I have mentioned. But it is so, is it not?

You haven't given any reason why futile deaths per se (and of course, ignoring the idea that it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that that's really the issue) would offend people who aren't sex workers but not the sex workers themselves.

I don't have to. The facts are that other people are concerned, and sex workers are not. The facts are that builders don't like the safety rules that apply to them either. But rule-makers do like them. It's the same with drivers and speed limits, and all sorts of things.

There are non-latex condoms. — Bitter Crank

My understanding is that non-latex condoms are not an effective barrier to disease. I think the proposed legislation specifically mandated latex condom use.

I voted in opposition because it's true intent is to limit free speech, which includes the artistic experession known as pornography. — Hanover

How does it limit free speech?

My understanding is that non-latex condoms are not an effective barrier to disease. — geospiza

Condoms are effective barriers to sexual transmission of diseases including AIDS, Zika, Ebola, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Trichomoniasis, and hepatitis.

Polyurethane condoms for men and women are an effective barrier. Women? Yes, the Reality™ brand female condom is an inelastic tube that is inserted into the vagina. An exterior ring (built into the condom) holds it in place. Lifestyle, Durex, and Trojan (and other brands) include plastic as an alternative to latex condoms for men. Some people like plastic better than latex because they feel warmer (heat transfer is faster).

What is not as effective are lambskin condoms, which are made out of sheep gut tissue. Their deficiency is that they are just porous enough to allow some virus particles through. Better than nothing, but not the equal of plastic or latex.

No condom brand is 100% effective over time. They are about 82% effective at preventing pregnancy. The failure rate includes failure to use during sex. Whether this is due to improper use, occasionally skipping use, or a normal failure rate isn't known. However, 82% to 90% effectiveness when used properly is a hell of a lot better than no use at all.