No, not for him or her, but on Proposition 60 to require condoms in pornographic films made in California. Actually condoms are already required, but Prop 60 would put teeth into this where the rubber meets the …..oh, jeez, what an awful metaphor.
It would allow any individual person to sue a producer for not requiring condoms. And greater licensing and oversight on pornography shoots, and break the curtain of pseudonyms that most actors use. As it is now, much of the adult film industry relies on frequent testing for diseases–not condoms–to keep actors safe.
Pornography has seemingly become normalized. Luscious food photography is “food porn”, an attractive older woman is a MILF. A particularly good image, the one every photographer is after, is called “the money shot”. And bikini waxing….seems to have become the norm because it is how men expect the see a naked women.
Though in general the naked women they see are in porn films, and who wants to be judged by that?!
Most of it just leaves me cold. The sexiest image I ever saw in one, was a man putting a a pillow under the head of an obviously uncomfortable woman. But of course I’m not the market.
So how to decide?
My short cut is to look at who is for and who is agin something. In this case the “for” is supported to the tune of $4.6M by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. On the against side are pornography makers–Vivid, Wicked, etc–and a couple of free speech organizations.
The “anti”s say that pornographers will leave California and stop paying taxes here.
But as it feels like the future of the world is about to be decided…
It’s just hard not to say ICK.