Regulating porn

Some more thoughts on recent porn-world news. Two warnings: 1) The Adult Video News links below are all safe for work, but be careful clicking around the AVN site beyond those pages. 2) Extremely graphic language below. There's just no other way to talk about these issues. But you may be really grossed out if you keep reading. I totally warned you.

AVN has the news that "Mark Anthony Placed on First-Gen List For Double Anal Scene." That's because Anthony had direct contact with Darren James, the first performer to test HIV positive, when they both placed their penises in Lara Roxx's anus at the same time.

What caught my eye was something else, though. The article contains this sentence toward the end (emphasis mine):

Kayla Marie, a female performer who worked with James on April 7, told AVN.com today that her scene included an internal anal cumshot.

Can you imagine being Kayla Marie right now? Twelve days ago you had sex in just about the most unsafe manner possible--including accepting semen into your anus. And now you know that semen contained a potentially deadly virus. Imagine the terror. And this particular sex act between these particular two people almost surely wouldn't have happened unless a California business employed Kayla Marie with the specific condition that she perform it.

Taco Bell cannot employ a person without giving that person a safe work environment that can be inspected without notice at any time by the state. The state also tells Taco Bell that there are certain things it cannot even ask an employee to do (to work without breaks, for just one example).

The question of whether the state of California should be allowed to tell a business what it can and can't ask of employees has already been answered. The state already does just that.

A question currently unanswered, however, is this: Should the state of California allow a business to employ a person to have unprotected anal sex with an internal cumshot?

To be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with depraved sex, or depictions of it. People like what people like, and it's all none of my business. Satisfaction of desire is prima facie a good thing, and I'm not in a position to judge what people should desire and what they shouldn't.

But what transpired in Kayla Marie's workplace was a commercial activity. And it was really dangerous. It's like the producer paid Kayla Marie to run across the freeway through traffic. Wouldn't we be up in arms if a video producer had actually done that?

If we're going to allow the commercial trafficking in depictions of this kind of life-threatening stunt behavior, fine (for the sake of argument). But in other areas where employees risk their lives, there are procedures and safeguards mandated by the state. As I've noted previously, pyrotechnicians on Los Angeles film sets have to be licensed and supervised. You have the right to depict the blowing of shit up. But you have to be safe about it.

Moving beyond employment, you also have the right to fly a plane (the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association actually refers to it as the "right to fly"). But you can't just buy yourself a Cessna two-seater plane and start flying--the federal government requires you to get certified training and pass tests even to get a recreational pilot's license.

But if you're a porn producer, you can employ someone to commit known dangerous activities without following any regulations. You obviously don't even need the employee's informed consent. As quotes from porn stars in recent stories indicate (Lara Roxx: " I thought porn people were the cleanest people in the world"; Mark Anthony: "I've heard those comments that Brazil is a high-risk place for HIV and so I went on the Internet and did some research and I found out there's more cases of HIV in the U.S. than in Brazil so if Brazil is high risk, the U.S. is a higher risk"), these people are woefully uninformed. They're just guessing at what the dangers are--while someone dangles money in front of them.

And possibly applies subtle coercion. Here's how Lara Roxx describes the negotiation that led to the double-anal penetration that infected her with HIV:

“When I got there, me and Marc had a little conversation, because [her manager] Thomas Hope told me I was going to do a d.p., and so I get there and Marc Anthony tells me it’s a d.a., which stands for double anal,” Roxx recalled. “And I’m like, ‘What? I’ve never done a double anal.’ And he’s like, ‘Well, that’s what we need. It’s either that or nothing.’ And that’s how they do it.

“But Marc Anthony was playing that, and I think that really sucks, because I’m mad at the friend I thought I had in Marc, because he knew double anal was dangerous. I knew it too, really, probably, but I was just putting it way back in my mind because I was down in California to make the maximum amount of money, to come back home wealthy. I had plans for the money.”

Even an admission ticket at Dodger Stadium contains a brief contract telling you that you are giving your informed consent to possibly get hit in the head with a baseball. Perhaps porn producers should at least need to have performers sign a waiver like this prior to every scene:

I UNDERSTAND THAT I MAY CONTRACT HIV, THE VIRUS THAT CAUSES THE POTENTIALLY FATAL DISEASE AIDS, BY PARTICIPATING IN THIS SEXUAL ACTIVITY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER PERFORMERS IN THE SCENE MAY CARRY HIV EVEN IF THEY HAVE RECENTLY TESTED NEGATIVE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. I AGREE TO RISK CONTRACTING HIV.

__________________________
SIGNATURE

Sounds pretty harsh, I know, but is this really so different than other waivers of responsibility you have seen? When I had a wisdom tooth removed, the dental surgeon made me watch a (scary) 15-minute video that outlined all of the procedure's risks, including nerve damage and paralysis. Then I had to sign a document that listed the same risks. Obviously, this rigmarole was to protect the doctor from a malpractice lawsuit. His insurance probably required it. There was really only a miniscule risk of the mentioned hazards--wisdom teeth get pulled all the time without any tragedy.

So, given the much higher risk involved when a stranger rips up your rectum with his penis and then deposits semen on that torn tissue, why not at least this much of a waiver in porn? The performers are taking medical risks. Why not look to the standards of medicine for guidance here?

Is that really such an imposition on the civil liberties of pornographers?