(News Link) Porn producers hit for not using condoms

[fuckyouraw777]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8231302/porn-producers-hit-for-not-using-condoms

Thought it may be of interest.

[RawBtmFtl]

So tired of this bullshit. If a company wants to make raw porn, then they should be able to make it. Otherwise, there are thousands of other jobs out there that should be regulated even more. How about we require every single politician and person that works for OSHA to complete an aptitude test prior to letting them fill their position ?

[Deaner]

Just curious, the article says failure to 'provide' condoms and protective equipment. I wonder if the fines would apply if there were condoms available, but not used.

Would OSHA fine a company if a construction worker was given a helmet, but he chose not to wear it on the job site? If a chemist was given goggles, but only chose to sell the chemicals that were mixed by workers who refused to wear goggles?

[Guest]

I think the whole thing is so fucking lame. The actors in the films are adults. They know what risks are involved by not using condoms.

If a porn company finds actors who are willing to take the assumption of risk then they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. It's not like anyone is holding a gun to their head and telling them to take the risk. Even with Osha regulations for a hard hat on a construction site. Any reasonable person can foresee the risks involved when they have a word of mouth warning as well as signs all over a construction zone, stating the dangers and the need to wear a hard hat is all a company can do. If the person who enters the property decides to not put on the hard hat, let's hypothetically say it is because he doesn't want to fuck up his hair, then that's his own decision to assume the risk of injury.

There's only so much a company can do to protect people. The warning signs are obvious. "HARD HAT REQUIRED" within construction "Danger Zone, FALLING OBJECTS!"

If an actor chooses to participate in a risky act like skiing, surfing, there is an assumption of risk they are assuming. IF you fuck someone you don't know without a rubber, then you chose not to exercise your right to use the condom. So when the porn actor goes on set, does the deed, accepts payment without speaking up to exercise their right to use protection, then it's an obvious decision on their part to partake and accept payment for that bareback sex scene. The action of not exercising the right to ask for a rubber or use one, is the actors implied consent to go about doing the scene raw.

On that Note, I am a person who exercises my assumption of risk and I FUCK RAW! So baby wassup?

[Hotload84]

Here's an extract from the website from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Don't understand why the Foundation has not reached further than merely these production houses. It would be interesting to listen to a discussion by the attorneys for the production houses where they discussed the defenses available to BB video producers.

Since 2004, Cal/OSHA has issued dozens of workplace safety citations and fines to numerous adult film

producers and distributers including Next Phase Distribution, Inc. (2006); Evasive Angles and TTB Produc-

tions (2006); La Touraine, Inc. [Naughty America] (Jan. 15 2009); Anthony Gladdney d/b/a MVP Entertain-

ment Co. (Mar. 26, 2010); Hot Desert Knights, Inc. (Mar. 24, 2009); Discount Video [sin City] (Feb. 18,

2009); Hot House Entertainment (June 27, 2008); HDK Distribution (Oct. 3, 2008); and Media Products, Inc.

[Devil’s Films] June 9, 2010. To date, Cal/OSHA has opened investigations into three of the companies AHF

has targeted with its complaints (since 2009) which are still pending and OSHA is still evaluating and consi-

dering additional investigations.

http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/larry-flynts-hustler-video.html

[seaguy]

Very well stated Shadowgames!

I think the whole thing is so fucking lame. The actors in the films are adults. They know what risks are involved by not using condoms.

If a porn company finds actors who are willing to take the assumption of risk then they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. It's not like anyone is holding a gun to their head and telling them to take the risk. Even with Osha regulations for a hard hat on a construction site. Any reasonable person can foresee the risks involved when they have a word of mouth warning as well as signs all over a construction zone, stating the dangers and the need to wear a hard hat is all a company can do. If the person who enters the property decides to not put on the hard hat, let's hypothetically say it is because he doesn't want to fuck up his hair, then that's his own decision to assume the risk of injury.

There's only so much a company can do to protect people. The warning signs are obvious. "HARD HAT REQUIRED" within construction "Danger Zone, FALLING OBJECTS!"

If an actor chooses to participate in a risky act like skiing, surfing, there is an assumption of risk they are assuming. IF you fuck someone you don't know without a rubber, then you chose not to exercise your right to use the condom. So when the porn actor goes on set, does the deed, accepts payment without speaking up to exercise their right to use protection, then it's an obvious decision on their part to partake and accept payment for that bareback sex scene. The action of not exercising the right to ask for a rubber or use one, is the actors implied consent to go about doing the scene raw.

On that Note, I am a person who exercises my assumption of risk and I FUCK RAW! So baby wassup?

[HungLatinDom]

It's weird that Hot House is there, since they do condom porn. Odd.