L.A. Times Op-Ed Targets New CalOSHA Rules—And Goggles

LOS ANGELES—An opinion piece on the Los Angeles Times website today takes the California Division of Occupational Safety & Health (CalOSHA) to task for considering an update to the state Health Code which would require, among other things, that adult performers wear condoms and, in some cases, goggles during sex scenes—though in reality, the revamped section of the Health Code, designated Sec. 5193.1, would require much more. The piece, which can be found here, was authored by Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer at The Atlantic, a magazine which has examined and commented on literature and culture since 1857. In the Times' op-ed, Friedersdorf recounts several of the industry's arguments against required barrier protections (which according to the proposed revamp means "a condom or other physical block that prevents the passage of blood and OPIM-STI ["other potentially infectious material-sexually transmitted infections] to another person"), omitting the fact that the proposed revision would include far more than his referenced condoms and goggles. Even so, Friedersdorf makes the excellent points, which adult industry spokespersons like Free Speech Coalition have likewise made at every opportunity, that "the typical porn consumer doesn't want his fantasy dulled by any sort of prophylactic and that frequent STD testing—which the industry has mandated since 2004—offers all the protection that actors need. They also argue that if California keeps imposing new rules, the industry will move to other jurisdictions where there's less regulation. Indeed, requiring condoms in Los Angeles coincided with a steep decline in the number of permits sought for X-rated productions in the county." But what makes Friedersdorf's essay particularly significant is that he links the current situation with California government's long-held antipathy to adult entertainment, tracing it back to the election of Ronald Reagan as governor in 1967, when he railed against "harmful effects of exposure to smut and pornography." "He [Reagan] would soon target what he characterized as 'the flood of pornographic material now available on our newsstands'," Friedersdorf added. "Later, as president, he presided over an FBI crackdown on porn and asked his attorney general to document its ills." That "documentation" was the Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, better known as the Meese Commission Report, which several commentators have noted was created to find fault with adult content and stacked with commissioners who supported that view. But things have changed mightily since 1986, most notably as to entertainment in general, and even Hollywood's attitude towards explicit sex. "In today's Hollywood, sex tapes are often career boosters," Friedersdorf wrote. He's likely referring, among many other examples, to Kim Kardashian's long-running "reality show" which began shortly after her celebrity sex tape was released by Vivid, and Nadya "Octomom" Suleman's multiple appearances on talks shows and the like following the release of Octomom Home Alone by Wicked Pictures. Finally, Friedersdorf attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein's apparently rhetorical question, "What's the acceptable number of infections that people should have to be subjected to when they go to work?" "Putting aside the fact that, in California, there were zero proven on-set HIV transmissions between 2005 and 2014," Friedersdorf responds, perhaps equally rhetorically, "one might as well ask, 'What's the acceptable number of car wrecks to which taxi drivers should be subjected?' or 'What's the acceptable number of convenience store clerks killed by thieves while working overnight shifts?' or 'What's the acceptable number of lightning strikes to which golfers should be subjected?'" Friedersdorf further notes that every occupation has its risks—and the vast majority of them are far more likely to cause injury than porn. "The workers most likely to be killed as a result of their jobs are loggers, fishermen, pilots, roofers, garbage collectors, miners, truck drivers, salespeople, farmers, power-line technicians, construction workers and taxi drivers," he writes. "That list, gleaned from a Bureau of Labor Statistics report, goes on at some length. Pornographic acting is safe enough not to make an appearance." Friedersdorf appears to attack the problem from a basic libertarian point of view, noting that, "There is, finally, a strangeness to new pornography regulations in an era when a right to personal autonomy is thought to protect everything from abortion to BDSM to polyamorous orgies. Writer and musician James Poulos has explained what's behind this seeming contradiction, observing that 'where social or interpersonal freedom is valued much more than political freedom, government becomes assertive in restricting 'unhealthy' and "risky" activity,' even as it broadens outlets for individuals to pursue pleasure in ways regarded as safe." "As today's regulators strive to make porn clean, safe and sterile," Friedersdorf concludes, "they destroy the essence of a product many seek out as an escape precisely because it seems dirty and dangerous." In a sense, Friedersdorf's concluding paragraph is sad, in that it may detract from his earlier arguments that being an adult performer is one of the safest occupations that involves person-to-person contact in which someone can engage—and that the revised Section 5193.1, rather than requiring simply condoms and goggles, actually might require far more to prevent "reasonably anticipated contact of the skin, eye, mouth, genitals or other mucous membranes with genitals of another person, or with blood or OPIM—STI that may result from the performance of an employee's duties," as the new reg defines "occupational exposure." In fact, the reg's definition of "personal protective equipment" includes "any garment, device (such as a condom), or equipment used to prevent contact of an employee’s eyes, skin, mucous membranes, or genitals with the blood or OPIM-STI of another." [Emphasis added] Hazmat suit, anyone? The full text of the proposed revision to the California Health Code Section 5193.1 can be found here.