Blog posts

California Please VOTE NO on Proposition 60 on November 8, 2016

California Please VOTE NO on Proposition 60 on November 8, 2016

Porn

You may have recently read articles at other blogs and sites asking Californians to vote no on Proposition 60 on November 8, 2016. I also recommend that you vote no for reasons I am about to outline. The person behind Proposition 60 is Michael Weinstein, the President of Los Angeles based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Michael Weinstein has previously stated that condoms are more effective than Truvada[3], which when you look at a few facts and findings, you will discover that:

  • Condoms are not FDA approved for anal intercourse, due to concerns they could tear more easily than vaginal intercourse.[2]
  • Truvada is a PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) daily pill that has been FDA approved since July 12, 2012 as an HIV preventative.[4]
  • According to a 2006 study of gay men, consistent condom use with anal sex was 76% effective in preventing new HIV infections.[1]
  • For individuals who take the seven Truvada PrEP recommended pills per week as directed, their estimated level of HIV protection is at 99%.[6]

Please note that the above statistics specifically refer to HIV and not other STI’s, as Truvada can only help protect against HIV and nothing else. Michael Weinstein won’t budge from his stance on being pro-condom and anti-Truvada, even when it’s backed up by scientific evidence and numerous healthcare professionals. Michael Weinstein has previously referred to Truvada as a party drug[3], which indicates that he will not consider Truvada as an HIV prevention option.

The oldest known condom in existence made of animal membrane dates back to 1642[5]. The first latex condom was released in 1929[5]. Truvada was first approved as a treatment for HIV on August 2, 2004[7], then approved for use in HIV prevention on July 16, 2012[7]. It seems that Michael Weinstein is unable to, or refuses to consider exploring the effectiveness of this scientific advancement in healthcare, preferring the 87 year old latex model, which is not even approved for anal sex and is considered less effective for HIV prevention than a more advanced option that is backed up by scientific evidence.

Michael Weinstein appears to have formed a firm opinion and he is not interested in considering any other options (even though he says he is[3]), but what is more disturbing is the fact that he is forcing his pro-condom beliefs onto the Californian porn industry by creating a law that requires the use of condoms for anal and vaginal sex in adult films. What is important to note is that this law relates to Cal/OSHA Workplace Health and Safety regulations and not the general population. If this proposition is approved, it’s possible that further legislation could be expanded to other states, which appears to be a consideration based on Michael Weinstein’s crusade against the bareback porn industry.

If the majority of voters in California decide they agree with the mandatory use of condoms for anal and vaginal use in adult films on November 8, 2016, it means from this date that Californian based porn studios (gay and straight) or any porn filmed in California that is shared or made available for public viewing (amateur porn or webcams for example) cannot be bareback. The law is broadly written in a way that could implicate others (such as bareback porn bloggers), as they could be considered a “distributor” and gives a massive amount of power to one person – Michael Weinstein. This means that Brad Bare would need to stop showcasing bareback porn from California from November 8, 2016.

What is disappointing is the fact that Michael Weinstein is using over $4 million dollars to advertise and promote the yes vote campaign, when these funds could be spent more wisely for education and support programs. If Proposition 60 is successfully voted in, then further public funds from the state could be used to pursue legal cases, meaning Californians could have funds needed for essential services such as education, health and transport redirected towards litigation, not to mention the court system being overloaded with cases.

If Proposition 60 is approved, I will be forced to block anyone residing in California from accessing Brad Bare to circumvent frivolous complaints and if I cannot effectively achieve this due to technical limitations, then it may be necessary for me to block the entire United States from accessing Brad Bare or alternatively delete this blog altogether, which I don’t want to do. I hope that Proposition 60 gets rejected and I ask anyone in California or those of you who have friends, family or acquaintances there to vote no for Proposition 60. Thank you for taking the time to read this and if you want to learn more, you can read the article Learn the Facts.

References:

  1. Condom efficacy in anal sex
    http://www.aidsmap.com/Do-condoms-work/page/1746203/
  2. Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases
    http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Illness/HIVAIDS/ucm126372.htm
  3. Divide over HIV prevention drug Truvada persists
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/06/gay-men-divided-over-use-of-hiv-prevention-drug/7390879/
  4. FDA approves first drug for reducing the risk of sexually acquired HIV infection
    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm312210.htm
  5. History of Condoms
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condoms
  6. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) – The basics
    http://men.prepfacts.org/the-basics/
  7. Truvada Approval History
    https://www.drugs.com/history/truvada.html

6 Comments

  1. Joseph
    October 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm
    Reply

    Hello-

    I have to commend you on an intelligently well thought out essay. my thought has always been this- if the members of the California State want to protect the health of their constituents they should ban the quite high degree of saturated fat in many prepared/packaged foods. the high amount of saturated fat in prepared/packaged foods will negatively effect the health of more Californians than HIV ever will.

    • Brad Berrigan
      October 21, 2016 at 3:34 am

      Thank you for your kind words about my article Joseph. I agree with what you’re saying and you have raised an interesting point. The amount of saturated fat in pre-packaged foods is definitely a serious health issue that should be more of a health concern for Californians. I just briefly extracted some data from 2009 relating to the top causes of male deaths, which is the latest I could find from an official source (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/DATA/STATISTICS/Pages/DeathStatisticalDataTables.aspx) showing 714 HIV related deaths in 2009, compared to 30,577 diseases of the heart out of a total number of 117,832 male deaths in California for that year. According to more recent statistics from 2013 (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohir/Pages/CHSP.aspx), diseases of the heart is the number one killer of Californians (59,832), with HIV not even making the top ten reasons, so Michael Weinstein’s agenda against the porn industry is very interesting when you look at the statistics.

  2. Joseph
    October 23, 2016 at 1:01 pm
    Reply

    Hello-

    i thought you would appreciate my thoughts on your blogpost. here’s another of looking at. granted one person infected with HIV is one to many. yet considering all the male and female models in str8 porn and all the male models in gay porn there have been a minute amount of cases reported some of which later proved to be false. in other words the gay and str8 porn industries do a damn good job of regulating/policing/managing themselves, they don’t need govt. interference.

    • Brad Berrigan
      October 24, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      Hello Joseph, I do appreciate your thoughts on this matter and you have raised another interesting point. The number of on-set HIV infections is extremely low, to the point where it’s almost non-existent, which is a major difference when compared to the total number of new HIV infections reported. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html), there were an estimated 44,073 people diagnosed with HIV infection in the United States in 2014 (according to the most recent data available), with more than 1.2 million people in the US living with HIV (1 in 8 of them don’t even know it). This is why it’s so disappointing to see over 4 million dollars being spent on an advertising campaign to force porn performers to use condoms when this money could be going towards education, support and treatment. If Prop 60 gets voted in, it means studios such as Helix Studios and many others featured here will no longer be permitted to film bareback scenes in California.

  3. Joseph
    November 4, 2016 at 3:49 pm
    Reply

    Hello-

    i was browsing the web and came upon a site Str8UpGayPorn which has news items , hot tips etc….. about the gay porn biz. a recent post was a video by several prominent gay porn stars asking their Calf. fans to vote no on the Prop. 60. now there are several gay porn stars and sites/companies that still adhere to condomed fucking only. so would assume said models and sites/companies are for Prop. 60. therefore i am assuming the models in the ad are fine with filming bareback videos under certain conditions. one of the models in the video is none other than Brent Corrigan who having just turned 30 looks damn good.

    • Brad Berrigan
      November 4, 2016 at 4:27 pm

      I have also seen a couple of different videos featuring porn stars recommending a vote against Prop 60, including performers who work for condom-only studios. I have seen some of the implications involving Prop 60, which can turn residents of California into porn police, where they can report cases they believe aren’t complying with the condom regulations to Cal/OSHA and if they don’t investigate them, then the residents can turn this into a legal case. This is where things get messy and it’s why many performers from both condom and bareback studios are worried and suggesting voting against Prop 60. That’s because people can lodge frivolous complaints, which would then reveal the real names and addresses of performers, which is a great way for stalkers or nutcases to get up close and personal with porn stars, because it could expose innocent people to legal action which they would have to pay to defend, plus they also lose their privacy with their personal information becoming public. This means that there would likely be a massive reduction of porn produced in California, which has an impact not only to studios, but also to those who film webcam videos from home and viewers of porn in general. Prop 60 is very dangerous and as a result, I will only be publishing posts here until November 8, 2016 until I know what’s happening and I will then take it from there with caution.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *