« �I have something to tell you� | Main | Beauty myth, schmeauty myth »

And today�s moral dilemma is�

December 29, 2004

Condoms in porn.

As anyone who has been reading along for more than half a second knows, I�m an advocate of safer sex. By safer sex, I don�t just mean slap some latex over some parts and fuck away. In my conceptualization of it, safer sex is more complex. To really rock the safer sex, I believe that people should be as informed as possible about the risks that the activities they like present, and then based on their personal feelings plus up-to-date scientific information they should make decisions about partners, activities and safer sex practices.

This means I am the annoying safer sex educator who when asked a question, says things like, �Well, what do you think?� and won�t take a definitive stance on anything.

I�ve been thinking a good deal about condom use in porn lately. Traditionally, condoms are absent in porn - though not completely, as I have seen condoms (referred to as �fish skins,� a reference to one of the materials �animal bladders- used for condoms) in stag films from the 1920s (it�s true, I have seen a lot of porn). Of course the adult industry has been affected by HIV/AIDS, and within the hetero porn industry (I include girl-girl vids for a straight audience in that category) there have been two publicized HIV outbreaks � one in 1998 and one in the spring of 2004.

As it stands today, some hetero companies require condom use for vaginal and anal penetration on all their sets, some leave it up to the performers, and some discourage condom use. In the gay porn industry (by gay I mean boy-boy action) condom use is essentially required and performers get a lot of shit for barebacking (sex without a condom). In the budding lesbian and queer porn industry, safer sex is often featured, and sometimes includes condoms on toys and the use of dental dams (see the stuff that S.I.R. Productions puts out).

Condom use, however, is only one kind of safer sex � the most visible kind. Spearheaded by the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM), HIV and STI testing and a clear bill of health is now mandatory for performers. The STIs tested for are HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia; the test must be performed no more than 30 days prior to a shoot. People who are active in the industry get tested every thirty days. Granted, testing is not a preventative measure like the use of a barrier, but it is a form of safer sex � and a pretty rigorous one if everyone plays by the rules. Of course there are other tests that can be done that are not required, but suggested (like pap smears for women, anal paps, and throat cultures), so that adds another layer of decision-making. I�m obviously not covering every risk in detail, but if you want more detail and debate about STI risk, check out Jane�s lovely post on this topic.

So all that is a way to lead up to a question I�ve been batting around: assuming that a performer is tested and making their own choices about what risks are acceptable to them, does condom use in porn matter?

My knee jerk reaction to this question is of course it matters. Porn performers should set a good example for their fans.

But then I look at that sentence and I shake my head and laugh at myself for getting up on my high horse and thinking that porn performers are role models, or that porn viewers think about the performers that way.

And now, that sentence falls too harshly on the other side of the fence, but its a thing I’m struggling with. I take porn too seriously, that�s for goddamn sure.

What do you all think?

Posted by Dacia at December 29, 2004 01:00 PM