Hey the government! Get out of my porn! A question on gov regulations

[Phelia]

LA passed a law in January requiring adult film starts to wear condoms. The porn industry was like "Yo Uncle Sam! Back up off my dick! People like it better raw!" and now it's up for a vote in November.

While I can certainly see the appeal in doing more to protect against terrible and infectious diseases, I'm with the porn stars on this one. First, I think it's more of a reactionary measure than a genuinely good and effective idea. Second, it could significantly impair the industry. Third, it's unrealistic to enforce. Fourth, seriously, Uncle Sam, back up off our dicks.

BUT I am curious to know where you think we should draw the line on regulatory mandates. I don't agree with the law, but I also don't see it as a serious and egregious attack on liberty, either, and I fully support reasonable measures that protect public health, like health regulations on tattoo parlors.

If you are against regulation in any and all forms, why? Do you believe the responsibility falls to industry instead? Is that enough?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sorry, I have to side with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius on this:

Unprotected sex raises the cost of health care premiums.

Think of the condom mandate as a tax...



For, the children, 25 years old, home, on the couch, masturbating...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There is no line any more:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=816388

What does it matter what I think? I lost that argument in the Supreme Court and polling booth.

 

[Wok]

LA passed a law in January requiring adult film starts to wear condoms. The porn industry was like "Yo Uncle Sam! Back up off my dick! People like it better raw!" and now it's up for a vote in November.

While I can certainly see the appeal in doing more to protect against terrible and infectious diseases, I'm with the porn stars on this one. First, I think it's more of a reactionary measure than a genuinely good and effective idea. Second, it could significantly impair the industry. Third, it's unrealistic to enforce. Fourth, seriously, Uncle Sam, back up off our dicks.

BUT I am curious to know where you think we should draw the line on regulatory mandates. I don't agree with the law, but I also don't see it as a serious and egregious attack on liberty, either, and I fully support reasonable measures that protect public health, like health regulations on tattoo parlors.

If you are against regulation in any and all forms, why? Do you believe the responsibility falls to industry instead? Is that enough?

Mmm, STD's are tasty.

 

[Phelia]

Sorry, I have to side with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius on this:

Unprotected sex raises the cost of health care premiums.

Think of the condom mandate as a tax...



For, the children, 25 years old, home, on the couch, masturbating...

Yeah, yeah, I get it. We hate John Roberts. And here I thought we could all have a civil, grown-up discussion about boobs and butts and sexy-times.

It's a serious question, though! I understand the desire for a smaller government. But how small is smaller? Riddle me this, and then you can go on telling jokes. I'll even tap dance behind you while you do. Tappa tappa tappa!

 

[phrodeau]

LA passed a law in January requiring adult film stars to wear condoms.

Even the lesbians?

 

[Wok]

Even the lesbians?

Scissoring and lapping the flap can be dangerous, you know.

 

[Phelia]

Mmm, STD's are tasty.

And healthy for you! Wait, maybe it's the opposite. I always get those mixed up...

 

[Phelia]

Even the lesbians?

Safety first!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TmjGRRpyPXo/TKyIOhLWEQI/AAAAAAAAAEk/iOPDsZ7JVHk/s1600/NakedGunfullbodycondom.png

 

[Typo Fu Master]

LA passed a law in January requiring adult film starts to wear condoms. The porn industry was like "Yo Uncle Sam! Back up off my dick! People like it better raw!" and now it's up for a vote in November.

While I can certainly see the appeal in doing more to protect against terrible and infectious diseases, I'm with the porn stars on this one. First, I think it's more of a reactionary measure than a genuinely good and effective idea. Second, it could significantly impair the industry. Third, it's unrealistic to enforce. Fourth, seriously, Uncle Sam, back up off our dicks.

BUT I am curious to know where you think we should draw the line on regulatory mandates. I don't agree with the law, but I also don't see it as a serious and egregious attack on liberty, either, and I fully support reasonable measures that protect public health, like health regulations on tattoo parlors.

If you are against regulation in any and all forms, why? Do you believe the responsibility falls to industry instead? Is that enough?

What do you define as "reasonable"?

If I ask someone else will they give me the same answer?

It's a very shady grey line and everyone wants to draw it in a different place.

I prefer the "less is more" way of thinking. But I can't tell you where my line would be drawn.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, yeah, I get it. We hate John Roberts. And here I thought we could all have a civil, grown-up discussion about boobs and butts and sexy-times.

It's a serious question, though! I understand the desire for a smaller government. But how small is smaller? Riddle me this, and then you can go on telling jokes. I'll even tap dance behind you while you do. Tappa tappa tappa!

I'm a Rothbardian Libertarian.

If they want to go without a condom, all power to them.

Alas, that is not the viewpoint of the vast majority who are more concerned with the morality of the day.

Furthermore, your ascription is beyond the bounds of decent conversation for I am firmly on record here, well before the decision, of telling the other conservatives here that Roberts was going to find the mandate Constitutional. In California, and in the United States, we have the government and the controls we voted for and lashing out at me does not change that one wit.

If the morality of the day is to protect people from their own actions, and that that is of no consequence to Liberty, then the liberty you enjoy is the liberty to pick which censored movie you will see, in the regulated venue of your choice, with the allowed governmental choice of snack and beverage size, followed by the picking of an eatery whose menu is closely monitored by those who have nothing but your best interests at heart.

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What do you define as "reasonable"?

If I ask someone else will they give me the same answer?

It's a very shady grey line and everyone wants to draw it in a different place.

I prefer the "less is more" way of thinking. But I can't tell you where my line would be drawn.

There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀ and while you may be able to advocate for ∃ you won't be allowed to define it and in this manner its limit will be ∀ for ∑f(∪∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will never tend to ∅ by definition so it is easy to see that it is, indeed, an ∀ or ∅ when it comes to government. (Now, the ∑f(∩∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will tend to ∅ but that is politically unattainable for the obvious reason that the more ∃ is defined, the smaller the ∩∃ becomes.)
A_J, the Stupid

It's the same as defining "fair..."

 

[killallhippies]

Even the lesbians?

dental dams would make me cry.

 

[Phelia]

What do you define as "reasonable"?

If I ask someone else will they give me the same answer?

It's a very shady grey line and everyone wants to draw it in a different place.

I prefer the "less is more" way of thinking. But I can't tell you where my line would be drawn.

Reasonable for me would be doing more good than harm, realistic to enforce (meaning not completely disruptive, invasive or cost-prohibitive), and preferably measurable (i.e. a system in place to ensure it's accomplishing its intention). Of course everyone has their own interpretation, but I don't think anyone would point to mine and call it patently unreasonable - there is a degree of universality.

I don't care what colour grey it is. At some point, it needs to be drawn, and side-tracking the conversation with meaningless ideological space fillers is very frustrating and probably quite expensive, legislatively speaking.

I gave a very specific example of something that I think would be reasonable. Health standards for tattoo parlors. Here's how it fits my definition:

1. Placing more restrictions on proprietors may increase costs and adversely affect their business, but reducing the infection rate of something like Hepatitis C would outweigh that in terms of the greater good.

2. Licensing and inspections.

3. Track the spread of infections.

Easy-peasy. "Less is more" is a worthless platitude. I would really appreciate and am interested to hear your actual insight. Do you agree with my assessment of regulations on tattoo parlors? What are your thoughts on mandatory condoms for porn stars? Any other examples of regulation that you think are sufficient/go too far?

 

[phrodeau]

How will it be enforced? Will they add credits like, "Condom monitor - Commissioner Pat McTuckus"?

 

[Phelia]

I'm a Rothbardian Libertarian.

Cool. Not familiar with Rothbard. Any recommended reading to get me started?

If they want to go without a condom, all power to them.

Alas, that is not the viewpoint of the vast majority who are more concerned with the morality of the day.

Actually, I doubt it will pass the vote. I wouldn't call it a vast majority. The original law was inelegantly pushed through, and there has been a fair amount of backlash.

I also imagine it has very little to do with morality and more with public health and safety. I suppose anti-porn folks could have some intricate plan to chip away at porn revenues and ultimately collapse the industry by making the actors wear condoms when audiences are clamoring for bare-back, but it seems a little convoluted, non?

Furthermore, your ascription is beyond the bounds of decent conversation for I am firmly on record here, well before the decision, of telling the other conservatives here that Roberts was going to find the mandate Constitutional. In California, and in the United States, we have the government and the controls we voted for and lashing out at me does not change that one wit.

Oh, I was kidding, amigo. I'm also not actually going to tap dance for you (your loss!). Besides, I think the conversation was sufficiently indecent when I opened with "back up off my dick."

If the morality of the day is to protect people from their own actions, and that that is of no consequence to Liberty, then the liberty you enjoy is the liberty to pick which censored movie you will see, in the regulated venue of your choice, with the allowed governmental choice of snack and beverage size, followed by the picking of an eatery whose menu is closely monitored by those who have nothing but your best interests at heart.

Arrrghhh you guys! I am not trying to trick you here, eh?? We are not talking about the morality of the day, or Big Brother, or the gal-durned individual mandate.

We are talking about MY morality, and I am curious to hear YOUR response to it. I chose this example as I believe it pertains to public health. That is, not how to protect people from their own actions, but how to protect people from the actions of others. If rates of STDs spiral up and out of control and increase my chances of exposure because of a particular industry, I do not think it is unreasonable to consider restrictions on that industry. Do you? I have already laid out why I disagree with these restrictions in particular.

No more C.S. Lewis quotes unless they are about boners.

 

[bronzeage]

Reasonable for me would be doing more good than harm, realistic to enforce (meaning not completely disruptive, invasive or cost-prohibitive), and preferably measurable (i.e. a system in place to ensure it's accomplishing its intention). Of course everyone has their own interpretation, but I don't think anyone would point to mine and call it patently unreasonable - there is a degree of universality.

I don't care what colour grey it is. At some point, it needs to be drawn, and side-tracking the conversation with meaningless idealogical space fillers is very frustrating and probably quite expensive, legislatively speaking.

I gave a very specific example of something that I think would be reasonable. Health standards for tattoo parlors. Here's how it fits my definition:

1. Placing more restrictions on proprietors may increase costs and adversely affect their business, but reducing the infection rate of something like Hepatitis C would outweigh that in terms of the greater good.

2. Licensing and inspections.

3. Track the spread of infections.

Easy-peasy. "Less is more" is a worthless platitude. I would really appreciate and am interested to hear your actual insight. Do you agree with my assessment of regulations on tattoo parlors? What are your thoughts on mandatory condoms for porn stars? Any other examples of regulation that you think are sufficient/go too far?

"Reasonable" is treating porn actors and actresses like any other occupational group and enforcing workplace safety laws. People who work in hazardous atmospheres must be supplied with respirators and other safety equipment. If STD's are an occupational hazard, a condom is no different than any other piece of safety equipment.

Management will always resist improvements in work conditions because it always means greater expense. It's not till the expense of on the job injuries and illnesses return to eat away at profits, they respond to work place safety.

 

[killallhippies]

How will it be enforced? Will they add credits like, "Condom monitor - Commissioner Pat McTuckus"?

it won't. they'll just move the shoots and what not out of the city.

 

[bronzeage]

it won't. they'll just move the shoots and what not out of the city.

I like Russian porn where they tie the girl up and make her say "Moose and Squirrel."

 

[killallhippies]

I like Russian porn where they tie the girl up and make her say "Moose and Squirrel."

racist.

 

[Phelia]

"Reasonable" is treating porn actors and actresses like any other occupational group and enforcing workplace safety laws. People who work in hazardous atmospheres must be supplied with respirators and other safety equipment. If STD's are an occupational hazard, a condom is no different than any other piece of safety equipment.

Management will always resist improvements in work conditions because it always means greater expense. It's not till the expense of on the job injuries and illnesses return to eat away at profits, they respond to work place safety.

Yep, I certainly see the validity in that, but like I said, I think the issue would be enforcing the law, and this is something that's difficult to nail down (lol, I said "nail"). Like phrodeau said, what about lesbians? Will condoms be required for blowjobs, or just anal/vaginal sex? Haha, it's funny to imagine legislators hammering out the details on this one (lol, I said "hammering").

My question, then, for the "less is more" crowd would be whether or not the respirators and other safety measures against occupational hazards are infringing on our liberties.

 

[Phelia]

The more I think about it, I don't see this as an attack on capitalism at all. Nay, it is an opportunity. The market is now wide open for completely invisible condoms.

Someone is gonna make a fortune.

 

[bronzeage]

Yep, I certainly see the validity in that, but like I said, I think the issue would be enforcing the law, and this is something that's difficult to nail down (lol, I said "nail"). Like phrodeau said, what about lesbians? Will condoms be required for blowjobs, or just anal/vaginal sex? Haha, it's funny to imagine legislators hammering out the details on this one (lol, I said "hammering").

My question, then, for the "less is more" crowd would be whether or not the respirators and other safety measures against occupational hazards are infringing on our liberties.

The real issue is the hazard, not the method of dealing with it.

Worker's Compensation Insurance is a very successful program because it's not really insurance at all. It's a collection agency. If an employee's medical expenses cost WCI $20K, the employer can expect a $20K increase in premiums. It is up to the business owner to either continue to pay the costs, or improve work conditions.

The old libertarian model of "You work for me and I'll make profits, when you get sick, you go away and die," slowly melted away in the 20th century and I don't see any reason to go back.

The people who think Pro football players know and accept the risks of head trauma and long term degenerative brain damage are the same who bitch and moan when the player's union demands long term healthcare for retired players.

 

[phrodeau]

The more I think about it, I don't see this as an attack on capitalism at all. Nay, it is an opportunity. The market is now wide open for completely invisible condoms.

Someone is gonna make a fortune.

They can use CGI and edit the condom out of the picture. Or create computerized body doubles, and use them for the fucking.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Reasonable for me would be doing more good than harm, realistic to enforce (meaning not completely disruptive, invasive or cost-prohibitive), and preferably measurable (i.e. a system in place to ensure it's accomplishing its intention). Of course everyone has their own interpretation, but I don't think anyone would point to mine and call it patently unreasonable - there is a degree of universality.

I don't care what colour grey it is. At some point, it needs to be drawn, and side-tracking the conversation with meaningless idealogical space fillers is very frustrating and probably quite expensive, legislatively speaking.

I gave a very specific example of something that I think would be reasonable. Health standards for tattoo parlors. Here's how it fits my definition:

1. Placing more restrictions on proprietors may increase costs and adversely affect their business, but reducing the infection rate of something like Hepatitis C would outweigh that in terms of the greater good.

2. Licensing and inspections.

3. Track the spread of infections.

Easy-peasy. "Less is more" is a worthless platitude. I would really appreciate and am interested to hear your actual insight. Do you agree with my assessment of regulations on tattoo parlors? What are your thoughts on mandatory condoms for porn stars? Any other examples of regulation that you think are sufficient/go too far?

Our definitions of what is reasonable seem to match. I agree with you regarding tattoo parlor regulations.

Using condoms in porn would detract from my viewing experience but it makes good sense to use them. I don't think that it should be mandatory, however. Simply requiring a clean bill of health from a doctor for all participants is enough for me. Condoms should only be required if one of the participants requests it.