- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
Monday, Oct. 10, 2016 at 12:43 PM
I was basically ignoring this, but people tell me to vote "no".
It sounded like a good bill, because I've been trained to think "safe sex", having grown up during the AIDS crisis.
There are a lot of people saying "no", though. See the link.
I think most voters, like me, don't really care about this issue. We don't perform in porn. We watch it, in all likelihood. Maybe we know someone who has done porn, because this is L.A. and a lot of it is filmed here.
Obviously, if this law passes, a lot of porn production would leave the state. If it didn't leave the state, it would be done illegally, probably in a motel or hotel, because they could just say it's out-of-state.
If there was any group of people I'd expect to be supporting this, it would be residential groups in the San Fernando Valley, because they are the most impacted. Well, there's no group listed on Ballotpedia that shows support from.
I do see VICA, the Valley business org, opposing it. I'm sure the SFV lost a lot of jobs when the previous condom law sent work away.
So, my inclination is to oppose it, even before considering the health effects.
No on 60.
Regarding the health effects, though - - it seems like many of these condom laws seem to miss the fact that oral sex is risky. They focus on vaginal or anal intercourse, but not oral.
The main ways to make oral sex safer are by using a condom or a dental dam. If you aren't doing that, then, not eating or putting the semen in ones mouth is another way to reduce risk.
Report this post as: