How very ... odd.
Cal/OSHA said Thursday it had fined two Los Angeles-area adult film companies $30,560 each for allegedly allowing actors to perform unprotected sex, the first time the state agency has taken regulatory action against the porn industry. The citations against Evasive Angles and TTB Productions, which share the same Van Nuys address, come six months after an HIV outbreak involving four actors prompted a temporary shutdown of adult film production in Southern California. In the wake of the shutdown, Cal/OSHA officials said they would begin investigating the industry to determine whether it complied with state health and worker safety laws. The companies received citations for violating the state's blood borne pathogen standard, a regulation that requires employers to protect workers exposed to blood or bodily fluids on the job.
So, despite the fact that there is currently no law whatsoever on the California books specifically regulating the porn industry, they can apparently be cited for violating other rules. What an interestingly convenient loophole. If that's the case, why didn't Cal/OSHA run around citing people with wild abandon when the HIV outbreak, such as it was, first occurred? Aside from the publicity, nothing whatsoever has changed since then. One California legislator has threatened to introduce regulations, but has not yet done so. In fact, given the staggering pace of lack of change, they could always have done this, once bloodborne pathogen regulations in general were in force.
There is, of course, the issue that the people in the industry who have contact with said pathogens are, for the most part, independent contractors (truer by far of the men than the women, as it turns out). They sign one contract to work on one video, get paid whatever small amount most of them get paid, and then they're off to the next shoot for the next company, and then the next, and so on. The video company's responsibility to an independent contractor is quite a bit lower. To be sure, most video companies also have what they call "exclusive contract players", who are not allowed to film for other companies without the exclusive company's permission (if ever), and those people will be considerably more problematic.
I must admit, two passages in the article just made me snicker. First, there was this:
It is a widely held belief among producers that showing condom use in their films would hurt profits because the customers do not want to see safe sex.
Because, of course, you straight people are such delicate passion flowers that the presence of a condom will make you RUN! Run for the hills screaming! Oh, the horror! (Wicked Pictures and Vivid, meanwhile, the two companies which have required condoms on set since the last great HIV in Porn scare, would seem to be evidence that it's possible to survive condoms.)
And then there was this:
Cal/OSHA has posted a page on the state government website, http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/adultfilmindustry.html , that instructs porn companies that they need to have an exposure control plan as well as worker safety training. Protective equipment, the site suggests, can include condoms, dental dams, gloves and eye protection.
Now. I can go along with the condoms. I can even, more or less, get behind the idea of dental dams. But ... gloves? Eye protection? Some sort of general protection is necessary, certainly, but it's sex, not welding, for heaven's sake. (Although taking this to it's logical extreme could make for some interesting scenarios. "Now, Muffy, make sure to use the condoms ... and the dental dams, yes ... OK, now it's time for the finale, so get into your wetsuit. Don't forget the boots!")
Posted by iain at September 17, 2004 10:31 AM
