A Biography Of Sean Tanner Byron Mayes

Since the California Court of Appeals last week overturned Los Angeles v. Tanner Mayes v. Faber, the adult entertainment industry in California has once again become lax in its requirements for working with prospective new talent. In the case, Tanner Mayes sued Faber, the largest producer and distributor of „semi-nude“ adult films in the state, after he was fired as a talent scout. At the time, according to his lawsuit, he was working as a male model and was invited to a casting call by Faber to check out models for „special interest“ which were to be used in pornographic films. According to his lawsuit, he was subjected to offensive comments, requests for sexual favors, as well as other conduct at the casting call which he considered sexual harassment.

Faber, however, disputes these claims, telling LA Weekly that tanner mayes „was not an employee of Faber, but rather, a hired actor.“ Also pointing out that no legal action had been brought against Faber before the recent ruling, Faber said that the ruling would have a „chilling effect on adult films production in the state of California.“ Additionally, he claimed that the state’s „bullying law“ did not apply to his client because, as the Model Education Program requires, models are not employed as employees. „The fact that he was being paid to go to these modeling shows was improper but not illegal,“ he said.

According to lawyer Michael Weiss of Los Angeles, however, tanner mayes „certainly“ have a case. „California has long recognized a pornography double standard,“ he noted. „Just as there is a legitimate difference between ’nudity‘ and sex, there is a line in the definition of ‚pornographic material.‘ And in this case, the line was crossed.“ He went on to add, „If someone is being discriminated against based on their sexual preferences – and many people do feel that they are in this situation – a court will usually allow their argument.“

In response to the criticism, Tanner may have done well to stick to his guns and not resort to threats and attempts to browbeat his detractors. His comments about morality and his desire to uphold moral values came directly from what he felt was his duty as an artist, and as a statesman, a representative of California. It was a tough choice, but one that may have cost him his film license.

Nevertheless, Tanner may have bitten off more than he could chew with his latest movie. There are those among us who believe that people should be free to express whatever they want, regardless of societal taboos. Some even say that it is their right as a consumer to watch anything they choose, including films about sex, health, puberty, beauty, violence, and other topics not usually discussed in a family-friendly entertainment like Top Ten movies or Top Television shows. And while Tanner may have fallen foul of censors, he had better stand firm with what he believes in. After all, most of us agree that wholesome entertainment is good for our brains, hearts, and souls.

The question of whether Tanner Mayes has achieved his goal of making Costa Rica’s most talked about actor will probably continue until the day he dies. Will his ad campaigns in Hollywood continue? Will people continue to call for his ouster from the Best New Starlet prize? Who will fill the vacancy, now that Tanner Mayes has officially become a persona non grata in the Golden State?