We received this question...
Do you think that the law and theorists of sexual harassment should define sexual harassment in a more precise way than "unwanted sexual attention" that produces "discomfort" that "reasonably interferes" with work?

Mary Dorman: As a practicing civil rights litigator, with expertise in gender discrimination, I am unaware of any legal standard that defines sexual harassment as "unwanted sexual attention" that produces "discomfort" that "reasonably interferes" with work.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) which is often tracked by the US Supreme Court and other legislatures and courts for its standards, states that "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" constitute sexual harassment when the conduct meets one or both of two standards:

1. Quid Pro Quo: - Submission to sexual advances is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment by an employee's supervisor; or - Submission to or rejection of sexual advances is used as the basis for employment decisions - such as promotions, raises or transfers - by the supervisor.

2. Hostile Environment: - The unwelcome sexual conduct, by supervisors or coworkers, is so pervasive and severe that it creates a hostile work environment which interferes with an individual's work performance. In that regard, the courts generally hold that the determination of whether a hostile environment exists is subject to "the constellation of facts that make up the workplace", is a fact intensive inquiry, best left to a jury.

We received this question...
I hear there's a renewed campaign to make condom use in porn mandatory. This sounds reasonable, but I've heard from some in the industry who seem to be well-intentioned, like Nina Hartley, that it would only push it underground and undermine voluntary safety efforts already under way. What do you think?

Jamye Waxman: While my opinion isn't popular in the porn industry, and it has already been ruled that CAL/OSHA can't make condoms mandatory (the opinion came down last week), I do believe condoms should be mandatory with an opt-out feature. I also believe mandatory testing needs to stay in place regardless. I'm not really active in the porn industry here, but I know most performers want CAL OSHA to stay away from their bodies.

Candida Royalle: I agree with your opinion, Jamye. I think performers are acting out in denial. That said, just as people don't want to be forced to stop smoking or forced to eat healthier foods, it's the same with performers. If we're not going to force people to stop other bad habits than why should we force performers to cease self-destructive behavior on the job? Is this focus on the adult industry just another way to target it and make it more difficult to conduct business as usual? You know I believe in condom use along with testing, and was the first filmmaker to institute the use of condoms as early as 1987, but I do see both sides. I also hate seeing the industry continue to be cavalier with the health and lives of the performers who are the necessary backbone of how they make their living.

If you would like to Ask the Women of FFE a question, please send us an email!

FFE retains the right to select at their discretion which questions to publish and address. The sender will remain anonymous. FFE retains ownership of posted questions and answers. Reprinting of the posted Q&As is not allowed without prior written consent by the Board of FFE.