Matters of Public Insertion

Aside from their protective utility, latex condoms aren’t anyone’s first choice for a sexual accoutrement. Claims to the efficacy of certain “ribbed for her pleasure” varieties notwithstanding, folks use them to prevent pregnancies and transmittable diseases, not because rubbers enhance sex.

Sure, the old putting-it-on-with-your-mouth trick, redolent of European brothels and Asian massage parlors, has its charms, and, yes, condoms come in all sorts of interesting colors (and flavors). Still, those in a relationship that doesn’t require protection (e.g., sterile married couples) would almost never choose to include condoms in their sex life. Compared to “bareback,” condoms are a drag.

The Los Angeles City Council, whose serial acts of legerdemain and thinly concealed larceny could fill many books, has recently given its approval and support to a local ordinance mandating that those who would make adult movies in our city – an impulse which requires a city permit – require the use of condoms on set. No rubbers, no porno.

Permit seekers will pay a fee to have the law enforced (on themselves).

Never mind that sex workers undergo more frequent testing and are far more conscious of health risks than their civilian counterparts. Never mind that California state law already requires naked thespians to wear protection during filming. Under pressure from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which says the State law isn’t properly enforced, the LA City Council, which could have put the matter to a public vote, reasoned that “workplace safety” was under their purview, the workplace in this case largely being pool patios and sparsely furnished mansions in the hills, the ones with extra-wide sofas and a surfeit of King-sized mattresses. As with many of our laws that infringe on civil liberties, the Council’s ordinance is meant to protect people mainly from themselves.

Our old pal Nina Hartley, an expert on the subject of intercourse, testified at the hearing. She tried to explain that condoms are uncomfortable and that people who view pornography aren’t really seeking safe-sex education. But the Council thought better, partially because when they get sued for infringing on the freedoms of people who fuck on camera – and there will certainly be a lawsuit – the civic-minded crusaders from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation have pledged up to $50,000 in legal defense support. So this is how my charitable donations are being used to eradicate AIDS!

Just as the Porno Nannies at the Council were inserting themselves into the cumshot business, the nicely dressed and grandiloquent crooks down the street at the Los Angeles County Hall of Supervisors called for study of a measure that would limit the public from inserting themselves into weekly Council meetings.

Citizens, you see, can be quite tedious. And boring. And they tend to ramble and accuse County Supervisors of cronyism and callousness. Who wants to listen to that?

The resolution would give the Council Chair discretion to limit a speaker’s public remarks to a single agenda item, and to limit those remarks to a single three-minute period. Open government advocates and engaged citizens who attend meetings regularly – can you imagine? — have made their free-speech concerns known. But let’s be blunt: After an appropriate-seeming amount of hand-wringing, the Supervisors will limit public comment.

They don’t want to hear what the people think is best for the people. Like their colleagues at the Los Angeles City Council, the Supervisors will tell the people what’s best for them.

Whether it involves what goes in or what comes out of a Los Angeleno’s mouth.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. cherie says:

    That’s kind of funny and kind of sad. Sticking it to the people.

  2. Cory says:

    Well written article. Well said. I loved it!