California Ballot Initiatives – Prop 60

Let’s talk about California ballot initiatives, and by ballot initiatives let’s talk about the one everyone and their cousin is thinking about: Prop 60: Mandatory condom use in adult films. Prop 69 would’ve been more apt, amirite? This proposition is to protect adult performers from contracting STIs.

Yes, people, this is just a statewide-version of LA County’s Measure B, because if government is good for one thing, it’s telling consenting adults performers how to perform, never mind the fact that condom manufacturers didn’t make condoms with adult films in mind. Sure, it looks like a simple in and out procedure, but shooting lasts for quite a good while. Just because you get a 20-minute scene, doesn’t mean the scene was shot in that amount of time. This also doesn’t account for the still shots for video covers and screenshots. During extended shoots, condoms can breach and can chafe the skin. Not to mention the fact that even with condoms, one can still transmit a number of infections.

Not only that, the measure would also create a porn czar. This porn czar would be the same person that wrote the bill, Michael Weinstein, and he would become a state employee whose sole purpose would be to review any porn produced in California for any violations of the law and file lawsuits. It was written as if someone was thought to themselves, “Huh? I already watch porn at work when the boss is not around, how cool would it be if that was actually in my job description? Except for the boss part—I’ll be my own boss.”

California taxpayers and the state have more important things to do than to waste time and money on telling people what they can do when performing their duties within a legal enterprise.

The prop 60 would threaten the privacy of adult performers and webcam models, as well as scare out $9 billion-a-year business.


10 thoughts on “California Ballot Initiatives – Prop 60

  1. I would classify Prop 60 as health and safety regulation.

    Liked by 2 people

    • A health an safety regulation that only affects people within the adult film industry; a tiny segment of the population. The industry already regularly tests its performers for HIV and other STIs. At best, it is redundant. At worst, there are provisions that can violate the privacy of performers who work in the industry under a pseudonym.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I voted no on 60. Why should the government have any involvement in porn? Lol.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, I don’t really wanna argue on the sense or nonsense of that proposition, because I don’t care either way, lol. I see what you’re saying though. It just strikes me as a insurance thing. Workplace safety regulation. It’s not even about the well-being of people who are possibly affected, it practically boils down to the question of who has to pay the bills for a medical treatment. I don’t know why you’re even voting on that thing to be honest, they could’ve simply implemented it. That’s my German view on those things however. 🙂


  2. Condoms can easily be replaced during a shoot.


  3. Government and porn do not mix.


  4. interesting information and insight


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s