Is There A Choice for Condoms in Porn?
Image via trec_lit on flickr.
Recent news has sent the adult industry in a tizzy after an unidentified female porn actor, tested positive for HIV. As a result, The AIDS Healthcare Foundation released a press statement calling for mandatory condom use in porn. While it’s unclear if the actor received the virus from her personal or professional life, her involvement with the porn industry and her diagnosis brings up many questions about the ethics of creating porn that respects the health and safety of the actors while still allowing them to make decisions about their own bodies and sex practices. Porn actors and activists have taken both sides on this debate.
Nina Hartley, for example, is against the mandated use of condoms in porn because it removes the decision from the performer. Similarly, porn actor, director and activist Madison Young in an interview with Salon Magazine said, “Making condoms mandatory for all adult films is just as confining and dis-empowering as eliminating condoms as an option for performers. There needs to be an element of choice, and the choice shouldn’t be that if you want work you don’t use condoms and if you want to use condoms then you don’t work.” Young does in fact usually opt for safe-sex practices in her films, but this ability of decision making is essential for her. She instead points to the fact that safe sex practices shouldn’t be a deterrent in employment for actors.
Many voices in the sex industry have taken the stance that safe sex can be sexy, which is an important point to consider. Many of the anti-condom arguments surrounding this debate rely on the aspect of fantasy and idealized sex that porn creates. While the fantasy of unprotected sex might be indulged through porn, this brings up questions of why safe sex can’t be part of fantasy. Porn actor Vid Tuesday expressed that ruining this fantasy could be a positive thing for people who think ” you can run about having sex all willy-nilly without regular STI tests and/or barriers.” Similarly, porn actor Buck Angel said “I think that if we as film makers made condom only porn then it would become part of reality and thus fantasy as well.” These actors are not only supporting representations of safe sex in porn for the sake of the actors, but also for the viewers who are influenced by these films.
I appreciate the messages sent to the viewer from films that make efforts to show safe sex as an integrated, and even appealing part of having sex, but at the same time, this cannot be mandated in that it would remove decision making and agency from the actor, who should be responsible for her or his own body, health and decisions. Efforts are made in the industry to provide safe working conditions for the actors. AIM Healthcare (The Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation) provides free testing and condoms to sex workers, promoting healthier work conditions and giving actors the choice and ability to participate in safer sex practices. So, hopefully efforts such as these become influential on the actors, without forcing them to make decisions about sex and their bodies that they are uncomfortable with.
Part of consent is being able to dictate, not only if but how you want to have sex. If law mandates safe-sex practices for sex workers, aren’t we removing their ability to consent to the types of sex they want to be having? Porn companies demanding unprotected sex is compromising the actor’s ability to make decisions, but wouldn’t the legal demand for safe sex be removing this exact same choice? The ability for personal agency should be present and any forced act (either protected or unprotected) would be a breech of the actor’s ability to consent to the types of sex they want to be having. I feel it’s important to respect the actor’s own boundaries and give them the ability to make decisions about their bodies and health without the encroachment of the law.
Porn is a commodity produced for sale, not an expression of sexuality. Regulate the production process like any other product…
“The ability for personal agency should be present and any forced act (either protected or unprotected) would be a breech of the actor’s ability to consent to the types of sex they want to be having.”
Again – it’s a JOB, subject to workplace safety standards – using a condom is not a “forced (sex) act” – it would be a requirement of the job – part of the uniform, as it were. Would we say that wearing hard hats on a construction site impinges on the workers’ *right* to consent to the type of work they choose to do?
Comparing a workplace requirement that condoms be worn to “forcing” sexual acts on an individual (rape) is incredibly inappropriate and unacceptable, especially for those of us who work with actual victims of forced sex acts (sexual assault).
In discussing consent and boundaries other stories besides the narrative of the perfect rape victim should be considered.
Of course mandated condom use in porn isn’t the same as rape, but it does fall into the category of forcing individuals to make certain sexual decisions. While rape is an obvious breech of sexual consent, it is not the only one. Creating a more nuanced discussion of what defines consent, is working towards supporting an individual’s personal boundaries and choices about their bodies regardless of their occupation.