Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Extra benefits for condoms in porn

MCT
MCT

Last October, a porn actor tested positive for HIV and the whole industry shut down for days, according to Fox News. This is not the first time an erotic actor has tested positive and caused a halt in the industry and it probably won’t be the last. Despite fairly strict regulation around regular testing, disease slips through the cracks. In a business where one person can have many partners in one photo shoot and have many shoots in a month, even getting tested every two weeks doesn’t create a safe environment. In response to this latest breakout, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) has begun to discuss a proposal making condom use mandatory in all photo or video based pornography, according to aidshealth.org. This is not a new idea, but the most recent outbreak seems to be a catalyst for change. There is some resistance from industry heads, citing loss of profits and difficulty with enforcement, but I suspect despite their groaning, this may be the moment in time when condom regulation comes into reality.

While the health and safety of sex workers is critical, it is not the only benefit to mandating condom use in pornography. In a world with abstinence education and wide internet access, young children are learning the facts of life from alternative sources. A 2002 Kaiser Foundation study found that 34 percent of public secondary schools taught abstinence-only sex education programs and that 58 percent used “abstinence-plus,” advocating abstinence first with supplementary teaching on how to use birth control. I’m not sure exactly what the “plus” is or how effective it might be, but the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose three percent between 2005 and 2006, according to The Washington Post.

While a good chunk of the information about sex teenagers receive comes from their friends, I imagine a lot comes from internet pornography. I’ll admit there aren’t many statistics to back me up on this claim (and my Google search for “How many teenagers look at porn” didn’t turn up much), but with the way the news media goes on about underage “sexting,” I can assume teens are getting information about sex from somewhere.

I got the internet in my house around age 10, and I had seen pretty much everything there was to see by the time I entered middle school. There is lots of debate to be had about depictions of women, violence, degradation and false presentation of sex, and my early exposure to all sort of pornographic material certainly shaped some of my ideas about sex. But you can’t deny that I’m not the only person our age that had this experience. There’s a reason guys have a preconceived notion of what a naked woman should look like, and it’s porn.

But the debates about pornography could fill a book. My point is about condoms.

There seems to be a pervasive belief among people our age that condoms are just not as sexy as ‘going bareback.’ The “lessens the sensation” excuse has seemingly become a legitimate reason to not wear them. If condoms were present in every porn film, we might see a change in attitude about condoms in the general public. This could include shots of the condom being applied or talked about in a positive light.

Conservative and anti-porn groups can talk about shutting the whole system down, but if there is one lesson history has taught us about sex work, it’s that it will just go underground. Like many controversial and illegal things in this country, legalization and regulation is far more helpful than a complete ban. It’s true that these issues cause us to talk about pornography on the evening news and begin to discuss just how many Americans indulge in pornographic material. But at some point America is going to have to drop the prude act and accept these elements in our society so that we can fully dissect how they effect our every day lives.

We can’t ignore the influence that pornography has on our culture. As it becomes increasingly available for free online, tech savvy teenagers will jump their parental controls and see whatever they like online, long before they ever have a real life sexual encounter. If I was the president of all the porn in the world there are a lot of changes I would make to the content and attitude of pornography, but I’m not in that position. Condom use protects actors (and the population they may be sexually active with) from disease, but it also sets a precedent that condoms are sexy and necessary for many different sexual acts. Until comprehensive sex education is mandatory and funded in every school in this country, kids will always take their curiosity elsewhere. We can’t change sex education overnight, but we can change what the porn industry teaches our teens.

Victoria Knobloch is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Comments (2)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

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

  • A

    Anon111Apr 27, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    “Condom use protects actors (and the population they may be sexually active with) from disease, but it also sets a precedent that condoms are sexy and necessary for many different sexual acts. ”

    Condoms are arguably just as sexy as the dental dam posters that litter the hallways of every dormitory.

    Long live Rawdog!

    Reply
  • T

    Todd BrennenApr 27, 2011 at 5:34 am

    Hi Victoria,

    I was reading your artical, and wanted to send you a copy of the response I sent to the Cal/OSHA board during the inital start of the committee hearing on this matter.

    I am hoping this will give you a picture from the “other side” of this debate. And, it is a debate that has garnered alot of intrest in otherwise ordinary Cal/OSHA committee meeting.

    There is a MUCH larger story here, and I think you will be interested. It involes alot more that just the use of condoms in the Adult Film Industry. Will you contact Stacey Swimme (St James Inffirmary Communications Director) at [email protected] for some additional information on this issue.

    Todd Brennen
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Bloodborne Pathogens in the Adult Film Industry
    Cal/OSHA Advisory Meeting
    Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Cal/Trans Building, 100 S. Main Street, Room 1.040 A, Los Angeles

    Re: Petition File No.: 513 (General Industry Safety Orders Chapter 4, subchapter 7, section 5193, bloodborne pathogens)

    To: Deborah Gold, OSHA Standards Board
    [email protected]

    Madam, Sir’s

    My name is Todd Brennen. I am a resident of California in the City & County of San Francisco. I am a California State certified HIV testing counselor (State ID# 5231) who has been practicing at the Magnet Men’s Health Center & the St. James Infirmary in San Francisco after receiving my certification in December of 2008. I would like it noted that I speak as a concerned clinical worker and HIV test counselor & not on behalf of Magnet or the St. James Infirmary.

    I wish I could address the advisory board directly, but I am unable to travel to Los Angeles at this time and so I would like to make the following comments regarding the petition # 513 by Mr. Michael Weinstein and the Los Angels AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    I would like to address what I feel is the most obvious deficiency in this proposal. The use, or in this case the non-use of barrier methods for performers in the AFI is a result of what the public wishes for its viewing consumption. The hope that by putting a regulation in place requiring that all AFI productions use condoms or other barrier methods is just not a reasonable goal or is it even a reasonable expectation. The result of this part of the petition being implemented will just drive the production and the performers to other locations outside California where the practice will continue without Cal/OSHA oversight and all the problems that Mr. Michael Weinstein and the Los Angels AIDS Healthcare Foundation contend will still happen, they will just happen there. Then the performers will return home to California where we will have to deal with a problem we now have no input in mitigating infection rates or in improving education for both performers and producers. The AFI is a $4 Billion a year industry the state cannot afford to lose as a revenue source, and that will happen, and we will be left without the needed tax revenue for these programs or the local input to help make improvements to the working conditions and lives of the performers.

    The next deficiency I noticed in the petition that the source dates are from 2004-2008 and the specific data on the “outbreak” of HIV infection was in 2004. So very much has changed in the world of HIV treatment. Our knowledge of the factors that make Harm
    Reduction training and counseling a major source of infection reduction has been validated as being as effective in preventing new HIV infections.
    The use of Anti-retroviral medications has shown in now 2 major studies to be effective in reducing infection between partners of different Sero-status, and the use of Sero-sorting is effective since the original fear of “super-infection” or the infection on someone by more than 1 unique genome type has been shown to be statistically improbable with only 44 confirmed cases world-wide. There are harm reductions measure that the “other stakeholders”, not reflected in Mr. Weinstein’s and the Los Angels AIDS Healthcare Foundation petition information.

    Their proposed new subsection (i)(1) which “would require engineering and work practice controls be maintained to prevent exposure to blood or OPIM, which would include but not be limited to those listed in subsection (i)(1)(A) through (i)(1)(E). These controls include: A) simulation of sex acts, B) ejaculation outside worker’s bodies, C) provision and use of condoms for vaginal and anal sex, D) provision of condom-safe lubricants, and E) plastic and other disposable materials to clean up sets” is not practical, not effective and will only make the productions go elsewhere or underground where OSHA will never be able to enforce.

    I whole-heartedly support the proposed subsection (i)(4) which “would require the provision of information and training in compliance with existing subsection (g)(2) but would permit training provided by another employer or third party within the previous twelve months. It would also exempt employers from the requirements in existing subsection (g)(2)(13) regarding signs and labels”. The possibility that we could get counselors and organizations like the St James Infirmary onto sets or into direct face-to-face meeting with new performers and maybe even their producers to talk about the proposed scene and what steps might be taken to reduce any risk to all involved. Giving the producers a legal opportunity to protect themselves from lawsuits by making a meaningful, consistent and reviewable policy guide for their performers we could educate a large number of the AFI in proven harm reduction & safer sex practices.

    I also applaud the proposed subsection (i)(5) which “would require that workers exposed to blood or OPIM be provided with 1) prophylactic treatment for HIV, 2) testing for other STDs, and 3) treatment for subsequently diagnosed STDs”. We need to assist any & all persons with their preventive and proactively assist post-exposure individuals with all the information and treatment we can. It helps keep the AFI performers safer and gives individuals a greater say in their own heath care.

    I think there needs to be much more input from other stakeholders such as people from Magnet and the St James Infirmary as well as those producers involved in making these productions where non-barrier acts are performed. So much of the production is now outside the USA and amateurs with digital cameras are making even more productions outside the AFI and their guidance. Cal/OSHA is about safety and helping educate the workers about the risks they may be exposed to or involved in. OSHA needs to help educate, coordinate and hopefully influence the evolution of better industry practices. This petition in its current form will not help, it will harm by driving non-barrier productions out of state or further underground where we, the “other stakeholders” will be left to pick up the pieces with reduced funding, staff and industry support since … well, there won’t be a viable AFI in California anymore.

    I would like to volunteer to be part of any further discussion on these issues and will make all efforts to be able to attend any meeting wherever they are. I have worked in, lived with, counseled people in the AFI. This issue is important to me and I believe that the petition in its current form should be denied.

    Thank you for your time, and for your considerations of my words.

    Todd Brennen
    [email protected]

    OSHA 513

    Reply