There is a LOT of social media chatter about the pros and cons of proposed Proposition 60 in California which is on the ballot for a statewide vote on the day everyone casts their vote for President of the United States.  Voters in California can in theory vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and on the same day make a decision effecting every porn production not only in California but a lot of companies and adult performers around the world.  The long form can be found HERE on Pages 68 & 152.

I don’t live in California but a lot of girls I know a lot shoot in the State. These are my 2 cents and I hope anyone who is a fan of mine or concerned citizen who has a vote in November… votes ‘NO’.

When a law starts out it is ”to protect performers in the adult film industry” and universally ALL the performers in adult are vehemently AGAINST a measure, that should tell you something. A quick scan of #NoProp60 on twitter shows almost a united opposition by all the girls in the industry. The new law will cost the State of California by its own estimates over $1 million a year to enforce (if not more)… supposedly to help workers who are united against the measure.

The Yes vote people say in the ballot that the ”greedy pornographers” are the ones behind the No voters.. this is simply not true. It is mostly WOMEN and GIRLS in the industry who are rallying against the measure.  Find them all on twitter…











Why are the girls in adult so up in arms? Proposition 60 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing… ready to pounce on little red riding hood. Purporting to protect adult performers by requiring all performers to wear condoms (plus other unspecified ‘barriers’), it is a backhanded attempt to destroy adult production in the State by, among other things allowing ANY consumer in the general public to sue anyone with a financial interest in the production. (See section 6720.6 which allows any ‘concerned citizen’ to file a civil case whenever the government fails to act on a reported violation).

Yes… any jilted boyfriend, angry neighbor or crazy stalker (there are quite a few in adult) can in theory sue not only the production company, but also the girls (a lot of whom now produce their own content).  Are we legislating a camgirl or girl who runs her own site forcing her to require a condom with her husband/boyfriend AND to license/register and pay for that for fear of getting sued?  There are countless girls who upload their own clips to popular ”Clips4Sale” type websites for extra income to make a living. Most of those videos are shot with husbands and boyfriends to keep costs down. Does the State of California have an interest in those shoots and policing a couple in a relationship trying to pay their rent?

The proposed legislation requires performers and production companies to register and get licensed – essentially creating an orwellian ”list” for government agencies – kind of akin to a list of sex offenders. (See section 6720.2. requiring Adult Film Producers to license every production and state under penalty of perjury the name and address where shooting took palace, dates of shooting and the name and address of the producer).  This is a back handed way of keeping ”tabs” on every adult production/shoot to create a handy master ”naughty list” of anyone involved in any way in an adult production. If a girl shoots with her husband.. presumably she has to run to the State of California to get a license and identify when she had sex with him.

Taxpayers of California would all be footing this exercise in regulation.  State employees would be tasked with watching porn and double checking that a condom is in place and presumably interviewing starlets about things like ”Was there insertion in California without a rubber!?”. I know a lot of people who might love that job.. but aren’t there other things in California that need subsidizing?

Whether you are for… or against condoms… doesn’t matter. A bad law.. is a bad law. I happen to think girls should not be told what they should do with their own bodies and that sufficient testing is in place. You know the risks going into adult… just like a stunt car driver knows he is taking a risk when he shoots in a car going up in flames on a Mission Impossible set. That being said, the proposed law goes much much further…

There is no provision allowing for some of the law to be adopted. It is yes or no. This is not about condoms any more. It’s about rights of privacy and the systematic regulation of the adult industry whether the girls like it or not.  Vote NO… and PLEASE check the twitter accounts of all the girls who are against the law – here is a helpful link to the #NoProp60 tweets.

Here is more helpful information below… if you disagree (or agree) with my blog, feel free to write your comments below…

unspecified prop602 prop60aprop60bprop60



  1. That was as beautiful as you are, Vicky. And, oh, so true. #NOProp60

Leave a Reply

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