Thanks Mike South, For Posting the Truth About What Performers REALLY Think About Condom Mandate

Condoms Can Be Sexy!!
By MikeSouth
March 5th, 2012

I have thought long and hard about this condom mandate, and I have talked with a lot of girls in porn about it.  oddly enough on the record most porn girls oppose it, funny thing is OFF the record most of them support it.

It appears many of the girls working in porn would actually prefer to use condoms but are afraid that even supporting condom use would cost them work in an industry where work is drying up quickly.

As one contract girl put it. “Look at the guys I am expected to fuck, they are shooting up steroids, doing gay porn, doing trannys, doing gay escorting, do you really think I wouldn’t prefer to use a condom if I could?”

Another performer notes:  “We are all the time having to be treated for Chlamydia, I would rather not have to worry about it. I mean that can’t be good.”

Even some of the guys are concerned, particularly with girls that are escorting, as one veteran performer put it. “If you can’t get it up while wearing a condom, and without using Viagra, you shouldn’t be in porn anyway.”

And the real truth is that the STD rate among performers really is sky high. Way above that of the general population, regardless of what the industry propagandists will tell you.

Despite industry rhetoric nobody is going to move out of Los Angeles,  the truth is most of the companies figure this is just window dressing and it will be rarely, if ever enforced.  or they can shoot underground and not really worry about it.

But I have discovered a real gotcha for companies that think this won’t be a big deal.  It’s called torts. And it could absolutely bring this industry to it’s knees.  I believe that is what AHF is setting up the biz for.  You see in the past if a girl (or a guy) caught an STD on a porn set they might have been able to sue in civil court for damages but it probably wasn’t worth trying.  The new condom law is going to change that.  NOW it becomes a clear case of negligence if an STD is transmitted on a set that isn’t using condoms.  What’s going to happen when an enterprising attorney hooks up with an industry full of  performers that discover they can get 10 to 20 K every time they get an STD on a set that didn’t mandate condoms?

Maybe AHF supplies these attorneys for free and fattens its bank accounts with one third of the judgements. I can assure you that they have NOT overlooked this possibility.

I have a strong feeling that this condom mandate is going to prove to be a game changer, in an industry that is changing rapidly by the day.  Be careful, be very careful, I would consult a attorney before foregoing condoms if I were you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s