Depending on who you ask, the Prop. 60 ballot measure mandating the use of condoms in adult films either has strong majority backing, or its support “has fallen dramatically”. One interpretation of last week’s USC/Los Angeles Times poll is that November’s California ballot proposal requiring condoms in pornographic film shoots looks comfortably ahead, with 55% supporting the measure and 32% saying they’d vote against it. Another interpretation is that of the Free Speech Coalition, who point out that Prop. 60 had the support of 71% of voters when introduced, and is now “faltering among likely voters”.

The adult-film industry, whose active members are pretty staunchly opposed to the mandate, is pulling out all the stops in hopes that support for Prop. 60 continues to falter. Our old friends Treasure Island Media now post a “No On 60” pop-up ad before you can enjoy their website’s man-on-man action. Anyone who follows adult performers on social media has surely seen the “No On 60” memes that so many have adopted as their avatars, created by adult star Julia Ann and Bay Area designer Isabel Dresler.

“I was feeling so defeated and overwhelmed by how much damage Prop. 60 could do to us as a work force and personally that I had to do something,” Julia Ann told SFist. “So I changed my profile picture to include the #NoProp60 button.”

The buttons have caught on to the effect that most adult-film performers in California now use them as their social media avatars. “To date, I think I’ve made around 800 [avatars] and another performer named Kissa Sins kicked in to help me and has made around 400,” she said. “I think there's around 1,500 out there as of now, which is huge since there is only an estimated 1,800 performers working currently.”

Aside from these social media efforts, Prop 60. has recently received a slew of "No" recommendations from various newspaper editorial boards, including the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Sacramento Bee, and the San Diego Union-Tribune. (To be fair, Prop. 60 did receive the support of the Bakersfield Californian.) A recurring theme in this opposition is that individual adult performers could potentially be sued or publicly doxxed the way the measure is written.

“Prop 60 is being sold under the 1970/1980s model of the industry where there were companies, producers and performers. That 1970/1980s model no longer exists,” Julia Ann said, noting industry changes in the Internet porn era. “Today it is estimated that over 75% of the performers are producing their own content, and so would be considered producers, and therefore liable under Prop. 60.”

Attempts to solicit comment for this article from Yes On Prop. 60 committee and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (the measure’s only major donor) were unsuccessful. But PolitiFact rates the claim as half-true, noting that “Some adult film workers, and perhaps a growing share, could face lawsuits if they have a financial interest in the content they work on. But Prop 60 does not specify what constitutes a financial interest. Ultimately, it may be up to the courts to decide.”

But these court cases could pose a huge threat to performers, who — if it is argued they make any money off the film’s sales — would be at risk of having their real names and home addresses made public in court documents, even if found innocent. “Performers are now facing the prospect of thousands of lawsuits, and the exposure of their names and home addresses, and possible bankruptcy from legal fees,” said Mike Stabile, communication director of industry trade group the Free Speech Coalition.

“The fines start at around one and a half times the cost of production, and the person who brings the suit gets 25% of that and their legal fees paid for by the defendant,” Stabile told SFist. “And you can bring that suit against multiple people involved in the production or distribution — the studio, the performer, the cable operator, and so on. It's a cash cow, and anyone in the state can get in on it. In his pursuit of condoms, he's put a target on the head of everyone in the adult industry.”

(By “he”, Mr. Stabile means AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein, who is known to our readers for his vocal opposition to PReP medication and for suing the city over formula retail limits applied to its AHF Pharmacy and Out Of The Closet retail stores.)

“Weinstein has a long history of filing similar complaints [against porn producers] himself, so some people have argued there's a financial motive for him behind it,” Stabile pointed out.

Prop. 60 advocates have about an 8-to-1 advantage in campaign contributions, thanks to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the measure is additionally supported by the California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses. Prop. 60 is opposed by the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, and the Harvey Milk and Alice B. Toklas Democratic Clubs, respectively. Supervisor Scott Wiener will be outlining his own opposition to Prop. 60 at a Folsom Street Fair booth Sunday.

Related: SF Democrats Urge Party To Oppose Ballot Measure Requiring Condoms In Porn

You don’t often see 100 porn stars at a state safety board meeting, but that’s just what happened yesterday at the Harris State Building Auditorium in Oakland. A huge turnout of adult film actors, directors and producers seems to have swayed the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Standards Board to deny a proposed measure that would have required condoms, dental dams and eye protections in adult film sex scenes.

At the conclusion of a hearing that went for six wearying hours, the board declared the proposal would not pass and the assembled porn industry superstars whooped it up in celebration as seen below.

Technically, the measure received 3-2 majority vote from the Standards Board. But four “yes” votes were required for passage, so the measure is likely to be kicked back to Cal/OSHA staff to be reworked.

"I'm actually more torn over this than I can ever explain," said board member Dave Harrison.

Adult performers felt the measure unfairly targeted their industry as opposed to other fields where workers are potentially exposed to pathogens. “My wife is an emergency room nurse,” said performer Maestro Stefanos, whom you may recognize from Kink.com’s (Very NSFW!) Upper Floor website. “My wife goes to work every day and comes home occasionally with blood all over herself and her scrubs. My wife spends every day working with people that don’t have a known (STI) testing status... Why are my safety protocols more stringent than my wife's, as an ER nurse?,” he argued to the board.

Still, this all might be seen as an early climax. The board's rejection of the proposal does not necessarily mean the end of the condoms in porn legislation. The measure will likely go back to Cal/OSHA management to be revised “with more input from the affected industry”, according to board member Patty Quinlan. Additionally, a measure requiring condoms in porn will be on the California state ballot in November 2016. And oh, are Fox News and Drudge going to have a field day with that one.

Previously: SF Democrats Urge Party To Oppose Ballot Measure Requiring Condoms In Porn

At their last meeting, the San Francisco Democratic Party's oversight body, the Democratic Country Central Committee, unanimously passed a resolution urging the state Democratic party to oppose a November ballot measure that would require condoms and perhaps other forms of protection like goggles to be used while filming porn.

The Bay Area Reporter explains the rationale for the SF Dems opposition of the ballot measure, which they hope they can convince the statewide party to share.

“These issues aren’t intuitive for a lot of people, especially when the measure is referred to as the ‘condoms in porn measure,'" Democratic County Central Committee member Matt Dorsey said. "The first question I would hear from people is, 'What is wrong with condoms?' Well, nothing. It really takes some going through the measure and understanding the context and larger narrative to get how dangerous this measure is. In the end everyone did their homework, and I applaud my colleagues on the DCCC for it.”

The measure, which last November received the requisite number of signatures to land on the ballot, is the brainchild of AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein. He's argued that protection use in porn sets a healthy example for viewers in addition to providing safe working conditions for performers.

But local democrats think the measure is a bridge too far. Frequent testing of performers for sexual transmitted infections is already required by state law, they argue. Weinstein, they also note, has voiced support for goggle use and other restrictive protection measures in porn. If it included such stipulations, or even if not, his ballot measure might easily spook the roughly $6 billion California porn industry altogether, prompting production companies to move to less restrictive areas.

For background, recall AB 1576, which had BDSM pornographers like Kink.com running scared and moving shoots to Las Vegas. That, though, eventually died in committee back in 2014. Incidentally, the porn website may have anticipated further pushes for mandated condom use, and Kink has continued to convert its Mission District studios to office space.

Technically the vote from the DCCC doesn't represent anything official. It can't, as local DCCCs may not endorse or oppose ballot measures unless the state party opts not to take an official position. Nonetheless, “San Francisco is a globally-recognized leader on HIV/AIDS issues,” Dorsey said. “This is a very strong statement from San Francisco’s Democratic Party, and I hope it will send an influential message to the California Democratic Party, and to voters statewide.”

Previously: Measure Mandating Condoms In Porn Approved For November Ballot

A report evaluating 184 routes through San Francisco between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 shared with the Examiner shows more streets free from debris and detritus "which pose the greatest risk to safety and wellbeing." Now, to what could that possibly refer? Did you have to ask? Do you want to know?

The big three are feces, needles, and condoms, and residential streets free from them in San Francisco are up 11 percent. Clean commercial streets are also up by 7 percent in the annual Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Standards report, which isn't yet available online. The document historically maintains that "there is zero tolerance for feces, needles, and condoms — 100 percent of sidewalks need to be free of these to pass the standard," and while the current 69 percent residential street pass rate and 62 percent rate for commercial streets isn't perfect, it's a marked improvement.

But it's not enough to satisfy San Franciscans who are registering more complaints and disgust than ever with the City. Specifically, the Chronicle points to a drastic uptick in such grievances in the recent past, particularly during the past year. While complaints regarding needles numbered 440 in 2012, so far this year there have been at least 2,565.

What gives? Are we finally fed up? Are we clutching our pearls a bit too tightly? The movements of gentrification could be responsible for the disconnect, in part, with both needle users and San Franciscans new to certain locations. Put another way, the theory goes that gentrification has pushed needle users and non-needle users, perhaps some new to the city and city life altogether, into contact in different places, resulting in alarm and complaint.

Another factor the Chronicle cites is the shift in the city's needle policy. We've gone, in title and practice, from "needle exchange" to "syringe access." What was once a one-for-one program that encouraged users to turn in dirty needles has, for health reasons, been eliminated.

Says Public Health Department spokeswoman Rachael Kagan, “you don’t need a needle to get a needle.” That's because, in order to reduce transmission rates, addicts shouldn't be sharing needles. Needle-sharing, the Department claims, is a behavior bolstered by one-for-one supply limitations.

In terms of neighborhoods, the Tenderloin and Chinatown were found to have the greatest quantity of the big three. Broken glass, another hazard, was down across the city by a bit less than syringes, condoms, and feces. There were 3 percent fewer incidents of glass on commercial streets and 8 percent fewer on residential sidewalks.

Related: SF City Departments Bracing For El Niño Floods

A measure that would mandate all pornographic film performers in California wear condoms during shoots will be on the 2016 ballot next November. The Secretary of State yesterday announced that the measure had received over the required number of signatures needed to qualify. The measure has sparked controversy, with at least one prominent figure calling it necessary to combat the spread of HIV while others see it as potentially driving the regulated pornography industry into the shadows.

The measure was crafted and pushed by AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, who told the Associated Press how he believes this measure, if passed, will have a broad impact on sexual health.

"The No. 1 way that young people learn about sex in this day and age is pornography on the Internet," said Weinstein. "In porn, real people are having real sex. They're transmitting actual diseases, and the audience knows it. It's not like a fictional Hollywood film."

The (questionable) logic being that if prophylactic use is modeled in porn, then young people are more likely to use condoms themselves.

This argument shifts the focus of a potential condom mandate away from the people that would be legally required to wear them (the pornographic performers), and onto the effect that porn has on society — even though Weinstein has gone via several routes to police condom use in the industry, also arguing for workplace safety (something the industry rejects because of strict testing requirements), and having failed to get a workplace safety measure passed in the state legislature in 2014.

Weinstein has also lately been pushing for porn performers to have wear goggles or other eye protection in porn shoots for the same reason, something the industry, obviously, thinks is insane, and compares to "asking ballerinas to wear boots."

Weinstein is a somewhat controversial figure in the gay community as well, having previous called the life-saving PrEP drug Truvada "a party drug."

This comment outraged many, and even led to a petition to have Weinstein removed as the president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (the petition ultimately failed).

Proponents of daily PrEP use include Supervisor Scott Wiener, who has publicly detailed his own use of the drug. The drug, as shown again in a recent study conducted at Kaiser San Francisco, has proven to be highly effective in HIV-negative men in preventing the transmission of HIV.

Opponents of the upcoming ballot initiative include an adult-film industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition. The organization warns that the ballot measure is fundamentally flawed on numerous levels, one of which being that it allows for any Californian to sue performers who do not wear condoms in films.

Diane Duke, CEO of Free Speech Coalition, further explained the industry's opposition in a press release.

"Unfortunately, the proponent of the bill, Michael Weinstein, is more concerned with his personal moral crusade than the real-life concerns of adult performers," wrote Duke. "It does not seem to matter to him that this initiative endangers performers' lives, nor does it matter that his previous attempts to force condoms on porn stars have been opposed by legislators, HIV activists, editorial boards and the performers themselves."

Duke further argues that producers of pornography will simply leave the state should this measure pass — something that the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst estimates could cost California "tens of millions of dollars annually in lost state and local tax revenue" as CBS 5 reports. However, Weinstein doesn't see that as likely, telling to the AP that the state's nice weather — allowing for year-round outdoor porn shoots — will inevitably keep them here.

Apparently he hasn't visited Arizona. Or Nevada.

Previously: Condom Bill Targeting California Porn Industry Dies In Committee

Dudes and ladies, straight or gay — If you go out this weekend with three or more condoms in your pocket or purse, there's a chance the San Francisco Police could keep you locked up for up to three days on suspicion of prostitution. This has been the case in the city since the dawn of prophylactics, apparently, but the disappointing update to the ancient policy comes by way of an announcement that the District Attorney and the Public Defender's offices are holding up a policy change while awaiting a review of how it will affect ongoing cases.

Three months ago, SFPD started testing a much more progressive condom stance when Chief Greg Suhr said his department would no longer take photographs of condoms or mention them in police reports, thus allowing the city to use them as evidence that a suspect could be a prostitute. Under the old rules, police could actually accuse anyone of being a sex worker just because they were optimistic enough to be carrying three or more condoms on their person (one for good luck, one in case of accidental breakage and a third, just in case things went well and you feel like sticking around a little longer in the morning). Of course, said person would have to be arrested for something else first, so it's a bit like getting a ticket for not using your seatbelt during a DUI stop.

If District Attorney Gascón and Public Defender Jeff Adachi can get their act together with Suhr's department and wrap up the policy change it could take effect in another three months, at which point we can get back on track with our attempts at being a modern city instead of one that is still stuck on the Barbary Coast. In the meantime, San Francisco's state assembly rep Tom Ammiano has also expressed interest in implementing similar legislation statewide.

[CastroBiscuit]
[BAR]

No, the city hasn't been unrolling them inside out or whatever, that would be embarrassing. Rather, the SFPD has been using condoms—and photos of condoms—to bust the working girls and guys who might be packing protection in their purses and pockets. According to the Bay Area Reporter last month, SFPD officers had been confiscating condoms from prostitution suspects to be used as evidence, despite a longstanding city policy to keep the prophylactics on the streets.

In response to the BAR's report, SFPD Chief Greg Suhr issued a memo to the department laying out the guidelines that have been in place ever since the SFPD agreed to abide by a Board of Supervisors resolution asking them to refrain from confiscating condoms from sex workers and urging the city attorneys not to use them as evidence in court. The idea there being that if a pocket full of condoms is evidence enough to convict someone of loitering for the purposes of prostitution, then sex workers will be afraid to keep condoms on hand.

According to at least one counselor at the St. James Infirmary, which provides health services to sex workers, there have been reports of sex workers who are now refusing to carry condoms for fear of arrest. Likewise clubs and massage parlors can't keep a stock of condoms because they could be used as evidence that sex work is being performed there.

According to the DA's office, however the city would never prosecute someone just for keeping a rack of Trojans in their wallet or purse. As assistant District Attorney Alex Bastian told the Examiner, most prostitution cases end up in noncriminal courts or early intervention programs.

[BAR]
[SFEx]

This was a spec ad/pitch for some sort of safe-sex organization in Sweden that was ultimately rejected. But it's such fun! Yay, condoms! [The Daily What via WOW]

And so we begin yet another fun series, which may or may not stick, wherein we'll make note of eye-grabbing window displays, for better or worse.

One of the many smoke shops along Polk Street is making an effort to stand out from the rest by showing potential customers the wide range of products they carry in addition to the typical head shop paraphernalia. Sleek, metallic calculator? Check. Dice by the dozen? You betcha. A pornographic mug? Of course. Camels at 75¢ off? Natch.

Tampax and Trojans? Bingo! It's a winning combination.

If Oz taught us anything, it's that prisoners will have sex. That said, in an effort to curb sexually transmitted diseases, the San Francisco County Jail's San Bruno clink installed 16 condom machines for about 750 prisoners.

According to Matier & Ross, even though sex between inmates is illegal, "[t]he condom dispensers are the latest evolution in a safe-sex program that began in 1989, when health workers began distributing condoms to inmates as part of their counseling before they were released."

Grants from UCSF and a SoCal nonprofit paid for the condom machines, says KGO.

As part of a promotion for a new condom, Trojan had survey firm StrategyOne conduct a survey of 1,000 adults (100 in each of 10 cities) to determine which U.S. city has the most sex, and which is the most sexually satisfied overall. The answer: Houston, on both counts. Now, whether or not the lies are as big as everything else in Texas, we can't say for sure. But all we know is that the 100 people they managed to get on the phone in San Francisco did not represent us well. This is a slut-rich, whore-friendly town if you ask us, and an average of barely one sex act per person per week simply does not seem accurate, people!