Leonardo DeCaprio stands at the front of the ill-fated Titanic, his arms wrapped around Kate Winslet’s waist. Her face is glowing warmly from her newfound liberty – she was “flying” for the first time in her life.Leonardo DeCaprio stands at the front of the ill-fated Titanic, his arms wrapped around Kate Winslet’s waist. Her face is glowing warmly from her newfound liberty – she was “flying” for the first time in her life. The scene is drenched in all shades of orange as the distant sunset marks the end of a picture-perfect day for the cross-Atlantic travelers. Kate turns her head slightly to her right so that she can catch a glimpse of her spiritual liberator. He is young, passionate and free-spirited, and his eyes are already on her. Her head turns more, moving her lips closer to his, signaling her growing desires. The audience holds its breath for one small moment. Then, in one of the most memorable on-screen kisses in the history of American cinema, the mouths of the two young lovers meet in a moment of pure, unbridled passion.

Meanwhile, on a biological level, bodily fluids swap owners. Saliva is defined by Dictionary.com as: “The watery mixture of secretions from the salivary and oral mucous glands that lubricates chewed food, moistens the oral walls, and contains ptyalin.” What’s shocking about this fact is that the careless filmmakers who created the movie “Titanic” failed to provide any kind of barrier to protect the health of their employees and shield them from unnecessary biological risks. The free exchange of bodily fluids happened, and by all indications the incident with DeCaprio and Winslet is not an isolated one. All over Hollywood, producers and directors are putting their employees at risk for nothing more than greedy profits, and the risk is unnecessary. Clearly it’s time for the state of California to step in and put an end to this mess.

If we know one thing about state governments it’s that they’re fair. You’ll never catch a state politician or regulatory agency unfairly singling out one industry for persecution. Because of this history of fairness, Hollywood ought to be concerned. The days of barrier-less on-screen kissing are coming to an end. Break out the saran wrap!

A few days ago, the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety fined two adult industry film companies for failing to provide barriers where bodily fluids were concerned. Knowing that money makes everything okay, the cash-strapped state of California fined the reckless adult filmmakers a total of $60,000 for allowing actors to perform without condoms. Agency spokesperson Susan Gard – and what an appropriate last name she has – had this to say about the offending acts:

“Any bodily fluid is considered infectious,” she said. “That means barrier equipment must be used.”

With the adult film industry fairly warned and disciplined, it appears it’s time to crack down on Hollywood now. Since any bodily fluid is considered infectious, and since saliva is undeniably a bodily fluid, it’s about time the government showed up to protect those poor Hollywood actors from the abuse they have been suffering for years at the hands of mainstream movie studios. The health risks might be small, but certainly Hollywood can’t be allowed to place California workers at risk, no matter how insignificant that risk might be. And while we’re at it, maybe it’s time to get rid of stuntmen too – there’s nothing they can do that computer-generated special effects can’t do better, so there’s no justification for the risks there either. But that’s another story!

Most of you reading this clever piece of satire probably know by now that I’m pulling a few legs here – but for the purpose of making a point. The quote attributed to Susan Gard is, in fact, a real quote. And while nobody really thinks a Hollywood screen kiss means it’s time to stuff the actors’ mouths with saran wrap, what we are seeing here nonetheless is the state of California bending and stretching an inapplicable law and trying to use it to affect the adult entertainment industry.

Don’t be fooled – it’s unlikely that the crowd behind these fines have any association to the “family values” Christian morality crowds that have defined their purpose in this world through harassing the sexually liberal. No, it’s more likely that this latest group of government officials from California fit nicely in with the “mandatory helmet law” crowd, and the “no smoking in buildings no matter the circumstances” crowd. The problem is that this time these people don’t have a real law aimed squarely at their purpose of requiring condom usage in adult films. With no specific law, and apparently no new law on the books, they’re now left with no choice but to bend a previously-existing law, designed for other purposes, into the means to achieve their ends. After all, if you want to jack $60,000 from legitimate American businesses you need to concoct some excuse as to why you are legally entitled to do so.

A few weeks ago, TAW columnist Jennifer Leigh wrote what I thought to be a well-articulated and quite convincing commentary that condemned the adult industry’s slothful response to the now-past HIV outbreak that affected four adult film actors. She raised all kinds of important ethical questions that, I believe, the adult industry should seriously consider.

Yet there are nonetheless certain activities in this world that carry with them certain risks. Traveling to certain parts of the world, for example, increases one’s risk of contracting a deadly disease, yet many businesspeople do it nonetheless for potential profits. Working as a contractor in Iraq is definitely a risky job taken by contractors for the financial benefits that such risk provides. Playing professional sports places an athlete at risk of injury. Why don’t professional pitchers wear helmets? The point is that when there is money to be made, many people of many different professions accept certain risks. Those people who don’t accept the risks are certainly free to pursue other activities. Nobody is forcing anybody to be an adult film star.

So the question comes down to, in my opinion, whether the risks are acceptable or just unnecessarily absurd. California’s do-gooders and government funds-creation experts apparently feel that barebacking is not an acceptable risk. (Is it odd then that so many government officials fight to keep impressionable teenagers from learning about the health benefits of condoms?) Yet the adult industry’s current voluntary method of health testing has been extremely effective over the past five years. There has been one instance where an HIV-infected individual slipped through the cracks and infected three other actors, yet dishonesty and inappropriate behavior on that part of that individual seems to have played the biggest role in the health screening failure. In all other instances the health-screening process has succeeded. So now the entire adult industry pays the price for that one actor’s failure to behave appropriately?

To be frank, I don’t know if California is just looking to round up some additional funds, is trying to grab a few headlines for a few select politicians, or just honestly believes that it knows best. Yet it needs to ask itself if it is over-reacting. It needs to ask itself if it is behaving fairly or singling out an industry that is quite easy to single out. It needs to ask itself what can of worms it might be opening. And it needs to ask itself if the law is truly on its side.

Connor Young is Editor-in-Chief of YNOT News. He has been involved with the online adult entertainment business since 1997, and is currently a member of the Board of Directors for the Internet Freedom Association (i-freedom.org); He also serves as Editor-in-Chief of The ADULTWEBMASTER Magazine.