Porn industry moves from LA to Vegas due to condom requirement...

[Ben]

Chanel Preston on the exodus from Tinseltown to Sin City due to regulation...

[pantybulge69]

i would think it should be costly, quite awhile and quite a pain to move major studios all
the way to vegas.
also i would think back and forth flight may be tolling for performers, ...and frankly i don't see a legal prost. city coming down with hard regulations like LA,..now or in any near future.
i do wonder if performers will get major accommodation assistance from studios with the flight & stay.

[Ben in LA]

I knew this would happen. But I'm pretty sure all of the companies won't move. That's a MAJOR investment...especially with the roots in LA and the fact Las Vegas is a MAJOR party town. Sure hope the talent gets to set on time!

[JordanNite]

LOL @ STUDIOS.

Let's be honest ... someones living room, or a bedroom ... or perhaps extending to a small warehouse type place doesn't really equate to a STUDIO.

Makes no difference where they are filmed.

[Eric_Cartman]

Lack of permit applications does not equal lack of shoots. They're just not registering the LA-area shoots so they "stay off the grid" and don't basically invite inspection.

On the other hand, my understanding is that shooting porn is not actually legal in Vegas, only in California. Granted that doesn't stop people shooting in other states (FL, NV, wherever), but I bet they're not moving to LV to shoot bareback vs. staying in LA and shooting off the grid.

This is exactly the kind of topic where ChristianXXX could shed some truthiness.....

[Northof60]

Lack of permit applications does not equal lack of shoots. They're just not registering the LA-area shoots so they "stay off the grid" and don't basically invite inspection.

On the other hand, my understanding is that shooting porn is not actually legal in Vegas, only in California. Granted that doesn't stop people shooting in other states (FL, NV, wherever), but I bet they're not moving to LV to shoot bareback vs. staying in LA and shooting off the grid.

This is exactly the kind of topic where ChristianXXX could shed some truthiness.....

I'm thinking that people like ChristianXXX and others like him will likely keep quiet about this and rightly so. It is their livelihood and I seriously doubt they will bite the hand that feeds them.

[BellaBellucci]

I'm with Jordan and Eric. This only affects major studios, not independents who together constitute a swiftly-growing emerging market. Even if the police actively enforced such requirements with the same fervor as they do prostitution, there'd still be tons of porn shot in L.A.

Ideally, however, condoms should be used whenever possible anyway, IMO. I definitely always use one.

~BB~

[fivekatz]

Still a game of cat and mouse. The industry has a lot of talent on the ground that they don't want to lose a % of, and the LA ordinance? The govt there was against it. The industry is an important part of the county and the whole ordinance is the weakest attempt ever by the right to make some noise in a place so clearly liberal about human rights issues (unless you are stupid enough to tell a cop to like your balls while running and still in mid-arrrest).

[christianxxx]

there are a few of the big internet companies that are moving to Vegas. its a way to spread out and get away from CAL-OSHA, which is hellbent on fucking with non-condom porno.

The cost of moving is high, but the taxes are much lower in NV, and if a company shoots 30-50 scenes a month the additional costs are not very much.

But you have to factor a few things in, flying models in from Burbank to Vegas, housing models overnight, making sure you have the male performers you need, makeup, locations, transportation, etc.

Your Head of Production has to be really, really efficient.

In Vegas, it's doubtful the local police will ever stop companies from shooting, the industry is too small there. The chances of getting busted are very very small.

[Bopper007]

I watched the video.

Prostitution is NOT legal in Las Vegas. The reporter claimed it was and Chanel Preston did not challenge the statement.

Chanel stated that when the industry was shut down when performers were tested positive with HIV, the HIV was not contracted on the set, but in their private life. While that statement may be true, does that preclude it from ever happening? Could not a performer contract HIV in their private life and bring it to the set? I know there is testing, but I don't believe the testing is fool proof.

That being said, I believe that it is up to the individual performer to decide the level of risk they are willing to take in order to work.