The Pros and Cons of the Prop 60 Porn Bill

Alongside the news and gossip about the latest episode on ‘Clinton vs. Trump’, there’s a certain bill that many pornstars feel on-edge about, Prop 60. If you’re not aware what Prop 60 is about, it is a bill that makes it mandatory for producers in California to ensure that every adult film star wears condoms in every scene that they perform in.

colorful condom on white background

The bill would also require the producers to pay for health licenses and medical examinations that the pornstars would need, which at first, seems like a bill that everyone should vote yes to. However, if there are organisations that want to vote ‘yes’ to Prop 60, then why are there so many pornstars against the bill?

The Pros

Yes on Prop. 60 from 4siteVideo on Vimeo.

Let’s have a look at the pros of the bill, for those that aren’t familiar with it.

There has always been the assumption that pornstars are coerced into unprotected sex in their scenes. The reality is that there are some companies and studios that do that. As a result, many performers have contracted severe sexually transmitted diseases (STI) and HIV, a virus that has become a stigma within the porn industry.

Initially, I thought that this would be a good reason for people to vote yes. It would put the safety of the performers first, not allow producers to avoid applying contraception in sex scenes. Additionally, the producers would be held liable if anything happens to the performers, and they would have to pay for their health licenses and medical examinations.

Seems like a win-win situation, right? But that still doesn’t explain why so many performers are against the bill.

I’ve been looking at a couple of ‘Vote YES for Prop 60’ campaigns, but all they talk about is how the bill would protect the performers from disease and harassment from their producers. Is that all the YES campaign has to say about the bill? How do organisations like Cal/OSHA know that the producers that develop their materials perform in them as well?

The Cons

Vote no on Prop 60 from Amarna Miller on Vimeo.

When I did further research about the bill, I asked myself,

‘Doesn’t California already have regulations for pornstars to have medical examinations and licenses to perform on camera?’

The answer to that is yes, the state already imposes regulations amongst the adult film stars to be medically checked on a bi-annual basis, and they receive a variety of oral medication that protects them from STIs and HIV, like Truvada. Additionally, my original question still remained to be unanswered, ‘Why are there so many pornstars voting against Prop 60, when the bill is supposed to support their health, well-being, and employment within porn?’

After watching a couple of videos and reading a few other articles, I’ve managed to come up with not one, but four answers.

One, the Prop 60 bill is funded by Michael Weinstein, the man that has been accused of many ‘wrongdoings against the collective effort to reduce HIV transmission and stigma’. From all of the slander that Weinstein made against Truvada, and the intimidation that he committed amongst other organisations, it’s understandable why pornstars wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of his mouth.

Two, most of the pornstars in California are producers themselves. And it’s not just pornstars that would get affected by the bill, it’s also camgirls/boys that make their work in their own homes, and with their own partners.

Even if a couple makes a business out of producing their own pornos, they could get fined and put through court by any citizen that catches them without a condom. Despite what you might believe, porn producers and pornstars don’t make as much as Bill Gates or Richard Branson does.

Three, many producers and filmstars believe that the bill would drive business away from the porn industry. The bill would cost taxpayers millions of dollars by diverting resources from other workplace safety programs and schools.

Four, the personal info of every pornstar and producers would be at risk of public exposure. How could that happen?

The citizens would have the right to sue any performer they think isn’t using condoms in their videos, right? If someone files a claim against a star, then all of his or her personal info would be shown in court, and would be put at great risk of being exposed to mainstream media.

And what does that mean? That means the pornstars would also be at risk of harassment, cyber-bullying, death threats and physical abuse from the people that are against what they do for a living.

It’s not just the haters that could attack them, there are many stalkers that would want to get as close to their idols as they possibly could, which can be an extremely scary experience for any pornstar to go through. You can see why there are so many performers in the industry that are against the bill.

Pornstars and their opinions on Prop 60

Since I follow a copious amount of pornstars on Twitter, I would have thought that some of the most famous ones would voice their matters and opinions about Prop 60. But to my surprise, most of the filmstars that I follow haven’t spoken out about it yet, all except for one, Mercedes Carrera.

She has already made her opinion clear by including the ‘No On 60’ Logo in her profile picture, along with many other performers like Johnny Sill and Jizz Lee. Seth Rogen believes that the bill would ‘jeopardize the pornstars’ privacy in his tweet, so you can see that Prop 60 has an effect on every kind of professional that lives in California, and not just the sex performers.

If you think about it deeply enough, if two conventional actors are required to have unsimulated sex on camera, those actors would be at risk for getting sued by anyone jacking off to their scene and spotting that they weren’t using a condom. What if a stalker files a complaint against a pornstar just so he or she could somehow obtain the performer’s personal info just so he or she could harass them further?

Furthermore, what if the government in the UK, or even countries within the EU would replicate a similar bill that would affect many pornstars from the other side of the globe? This bill goes way beyond the thought of contraception.

What I think about Prop 60

Actually, I feel like it’s another sly way of stigmatising sex work, just like how the Nordic Model makes the industry look volatile and immoral. But that’s my personal opinion, and I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of you guys reading that that would have mixed feelings on the bill too.

Additionally, I am certain that there are performers in the business that experienced the dark side of porn. The side where producers do coerce them to have unprotected sex on camera, and not offer to pay for any medical examinations that they need to have.

I can understand why some performers would vote ‘yes’ to the bill. Even though it is already part of the state law to go through checkups continuously throughout the year, they just want to make sure that they don’t get fucked over, and have the optimal amount of protection that they could get as a working-class citizen.

I don’t know what the results will be after November 8th, 2016, but let me leave you with some food for thought. If there is a problem within an industry, shouldn’t you let the workers tell you what the problem is first?

Zoe Jaspers
Follow me
Latest posts by Zoe Jaspers (see all)

Please log in here to leave a comment.