A famous thought-experiement states that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it'll try and get out. Whereas if you raise the temperature slowly, giving the frog time to acclimate to the increasing temperature, it'll stay put and eventually boil to death. In instances where this experiemtn is used as an example, it's in how when done all at once things rarely work, whereas if you do thema little bit at a time they do work. This then is what we see in California with the proposed adjustment to Bill AB 640 which required all porn films made in the state to have male actors wear a condom. But the adjustment is trying to get goggles added to protect from bodily fluids like semen from getting in (presumedly through the mouth, eyes, or other entry point to the body as with cuts or abrasions.)

Porn goggles? Reading up on HIV/sti infections rates in the California porn industry there are in fact occurences of HIV, syphallis, gonorhea, chlamidia, and other things, but statistically the numbers are lower than the general population because of mandated testing long in effect. So I think this is less about worker safety than it is trying to require porn to make films the ones pushing such laws know is economically unpopular. I personally don't care for porn if it features condoms. Part of the enjoyment of porn is fantasy and I don't think many fantasize about having sex if part of it requires a condom. Ths the ones who'd love to see porn vanish completely are forcing laws that will make consumer demand less, and that in turn will reduce the amount of porn made and sold. At least in California. While California might produce a lot of porn, globally it isn't the epicenter so these kinds of laws aren't going to be much more than reduce tax revenues from the California porn industry as consumers get their porn from other states and countries.

When Usenet binary newsgroups were stripped of all porn years back it resulted in about 20 seconds inconvenience for me as I simply got it elsewhere online. Since porn's a business, instead of attacking it like a regular moral issue, all the attackers succeed in doing is hurting themselves when they loose revenue as they disable local incarnations of it. If this proposed adjustment passes, it'll get talked about, made fun of, but ultimately not change much of anything as totally unprotected porn will still get made, and some industry insiders say many wont even abide by it. Look out folks, here comes Orwell's "1984" Anti-Sex League and Police state.