Porn And Condoms

[elfin_odalisque]

I'm no expert and bow to other posters knowledge of the industry but have a few difficulties.

'STDs' are a wide range of diseases that have been with us since man was on earth. Can we subdivide 'STDs' into different cats? Gay men have more risk of hepatitis but there are vaccinations that prevent this. Condoms useless.

The other well known diseases like herpes, syphilis and gonorrhoea are treatable and not, these days, life-threatening although irritating.

I take tam lin's aggression to be really concentrated on HIV although it is never admitted. Though now, with advanced treatments, it is unlikely to be fatal.

Apart from the fact that performers undergo regular medical checks, they are not promiscuous usually and the circle of sexual partners is limited -as it is for most of us.

 

[StrangeLife]

I take tam lin's aggression to be really concentrated on HIV although it is never admitted. Though now, with advanced treatments, it is unlikely to be fatal.

Regardless of the advanced treatments available, HIV is still the current big baddie of STD's and the associated hysteria is probably the sole reason why condoms still exists. As a means of birth control they have long since been superseded by much safer and more convenient methods. Like Elfin states - the classic STD's are more an annoyance than a risk today.

The reality is, that the risk of contracting HIV is very small in our part of the world if you aren't part of - or interacting sexually with - one of the risk groups. For HIV this is mainly drug addicts and promiscuous gay men. Porn actors are not part of the risk group for HIV. They have a lot of sex, but within a fairly limited group of very health-conscious people (their bodies are their business).


Unfortunately HIV has provided the religious right with an almost perfect weapon in their fight against sexual freedom. And they are milking the associated paranoia for all it's worth while silently praying that nobody will come up with a vaccine and ruin their little game prematurely....

 

[AZMotherLover]

(when was the last time you had unprotected sex with four people you just met that day?),

So far I've only had unprotected sex with one complete stranger in any given day. I have, however, done that many times in my life.

But then again, I don't buy the AIDS myth, so I never wear condoms.

 

[TamLin01]

Adult films is a business. If Safe Sex Videos doesn't sell and Bareback Back Videos sells, they go bareback.
Some years back Traci Lords came from Ohio and she had a 21 year old ID, unfortunately, nit her ID. She sued a oprioduce3r, who lost over a $million and they had to pill her videos form the shelves.

Actually, an excellent example: You argue that since bareback porn sells better we must automatically bow to it. But porn shot with 16 year olds would probably sell pretty good too. And yet, we have laws against that, and for good reason. This is no different. "It makes money," is not a good enough reason for everything.

Yes, there are risks. However, they're trying to cut down on the risks. If it gets too risky, they won't be able to attract the hot bodies that they need.

Condoms cut down on risks.

You might say that the condom crusaders are fighting very hard to fix a non-existing problem. Which in turn brings us back to the question of whether there could be a second agenda. It has been my experience that when people are saying and doing stuff that doesn't make sense, chances are that you are missing part of the picture...

You're speculating. Meanwhile, common sense tells us that condoms make sex safer. Common sense trumps speculation in my book.

This notion that condoms are a conspiracy to drive porn out of the state doesn't really add up for me, since my opinion is mostly informed by people whose livelihoods depend on that industry.

I think you misunderstand something Tam. Apart from the contract girls at Vivid, porn performers are not "workers" - they are self-employed. They run their own little businesses renting out their bodies on a case to case basis. The people you are referring as porn producers are actually their customers, and if they go away the porn performers small businesses go belly-up.

An argument that could be made about any business arrangement, anywhere, anytime. If the factory goes out of business that's bad for the factory worker, but that's no reason to skimp on the safety inspections.

There is no way that a law like this would ever fly on an international scale.

If another country will not pass a similar law then we shouldn't pass it either? Again, we don't use this standard for any other thing. Why are we using it here?

Even if you don't personally agree, you need to accept the fact that for a large part of the male population condom-porn is inferior. These people will seek other venues for obtaining their preferred porn if California can't deliver and since we are talking about a substantial market share being lost this will kill the industry locally. Can't you see that?

This is just the standard deregulation argument, a false dilemma between unsafe jobs and no jobs. I don't buy that.

No. You make sex safer by being meticulous with your health and sexual conduct.

Right, like by wearing a condom. You can't talk your way into some alternate dimension where condoms don't make sex safer. This is common sense again.

 

[StrangeLife]

Actually, an excellent example: You argue that since bareback porn sells better we must automatically bow to it. But porn shot with 16 year olds would probably sell pretty good too. And yet, we have laws against that, and for good reason. This is no different. "It makes money," is not a good enough reason for everything.

That is a really poor strawman argument Tam.

It is a proven fact that children and young adults lack the emotional stability and intellectual maturity to deal with issues of a potentially life-changing nature like a career in porn. Though the law can be lax in some countries in the lesser developed part of the world, there is an international consensus that child pornography should be eradicated.

But what you are advocating is abusing the law to dictate what consenting adults can and cannot do with each other. That is not a popular position in most countries...

Condoms cut down on risks.

And quality and enjoyment.

You're speculating. Meanwhile, common sense tells us that condoms make sex safer. Common sense trumps speculation in my book.

"Speculating" is another word for "thinking". On the other hand "common sense" is eerily similar to "preconceived notions". Yeah I admit it - regurgitating gospel isn't really my style. I like to check the facts for myself and filter out the bullshit.

This notion that condoms are a conspiracy to drive porn out of the state doesn't really add up for me, since my opinion is mostly informed by people whose livelihoods depend on that industry.

So you are claiming that the industry is backing the condom crusaders? That's news to me...

An argument that could be made about any business arrangement, anywhere, anytime. If the factory goes out of business that's bad for the factory worker, but that's no reason to skimp on the safety inspections.

Of course not, but this is not mere about safety. This is about banning all production of the most popular type of porn. It's like making Boeing "safer" by legally prohibiting them from making planes with more than 50 seats. The effect on the domestic aircraft industry would be quite predictable, just as for the porn business.

If another country will not pass a similar law then we shouldn't pass it either? Again, we don't use this standard for any other thing. Why are we using it here?

This is just the standard deregulation argument, a false dilemma between unsafe jobs and no jobs. I don't buy that.

Because laws of this type will only fly in places where the religious lobby is strong. As opposed to laws dealing with actual problems, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be an international consensus for this one.

Right, like by wearing a condom. You can't talk your way into some alternate dimension where condoms don't make sex safer. This is common sense again.

Not having intercourse makes sex even safer, which is the ultimate goal of the people whose "common sense" you are advocating. And it will work. Banning condom-free porn will force the industry out of business - that is "common sense" too.

 

[SikFuk]

Has anyone done research on AIDS in the Japanese porn community? They seem to have a thing for the creampie.

Ideally we want to promote condom use. Ideally, we don't want to legislate art, which could be interpreted as a Free Speech issue, I suppose.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't write my stories to promote any cause, SikFuk. They are meant to be arousal fiction. Certainly, if you're an anally retentive clinical reality type, you won't want to read my stories (which are about 50/50 on the use of condoms, depending on how this fits in the story without becoming a commercial for some fantasy-busting cause).

 

[R. Richard]

Actually, an excellent example: You argue that since bareback porn sells better we must automatically bow to it. But porn shot with 16 year olds would probably sell pretty good too. And yet, we have laws against that, and for good reason. This is no different. "It makes money," is not a good enough reason for everything.

Actually, they did a porn shoot with a 16-year-old. The 16-year-old was Traci Lords. Her videos did sell well. However, the end result was a loss of over $1 million and the producer went to jail.

Like any business, the adult film business has to make a living. Large parts of the adult film business are the visible ejaculation of a male partner, done in the open. Not with a condom.

 

[TamLin01]

That is a really poor strawman argument Tam.

Technically I think it would be a false equivalency. Except of course I think it isn't.

It is a proven fact that children and young adults lack the emotional stability and intellectual maturity to deal with issues of a potentially life-changing nature like a career in porn. Though the law can be lax in some countries in the lesser developed part of the world, there is an international consensus that child pornography should be eradicated.

Indeed, and so that's a really good reason why we've regulated that potentially very lucrative industry almost out of existence. Though we have, in the process, pushed it into a criminal black market instead, just as you predicted would happen. And yet, it's still a good idea, isn't it?

But we can't have it two ways: Either it's acceptable to regulate even profitable avenues or we should simply bow to the will of the market. If it's the former, then we have to be able to offer some reason not to regulate a dangerous situation rather than just, "It makes money for us." Lots of things would turn a profit. We don't necessarily want all of them going on.

But what you are advocating is abusing the law to dictate what consenting adults can and cannot do with each other. That is not a popular position in most countries...

Actually, THIS is a strawman. The issue, again, is not what consenting adults are doing but what they may be coerced into doing with financial means.

"Speculating" is another word for "thinking".

But it's also another word for conjecture. You only suppose these shadowy motivations and far-flung consequences. On the other hand, the health benefits of condom use are quite concrete.

So you are claiming that the industry is backing the condom crusaders? That's news to me...

Depends, who is "the industry"? It's not a monolithic group who all think and feel the same way.

Of course not, but this is not mere about safety. This is about banning all production of the most popular type of porn.

For safety reasons. Not bogus ones either: Ones that any person can recognize as legitimate concerns.

It's like making Boeing "safer" by legally prohibiting them from making planes with more than 50 seats. The effect on the domestic aircraft industry would be quite predictable, just as for the porn business.

More like making Boeing safer by regulating how many consecutive hours a pilot can fly. It would be quite profitable for the company to keep pilots in the air longer, doing more flights with less payroll. And the pilots could probably be coerced into doing it because, after all, they need this job, and if they don't do it then someone else will. And it would probably be okay most of the time, wouldn't it? Except for every now and then...

Fortunately, we have a law about such things.

Because laws of this type will only fly in places where the religious lobby is strong. As opposed to laws dealing with actual problems, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be an international consensus for this one.

Oh yeah, the religious lobby has got a famous stranglehold on LA.

Not having intercourse makes sex even safer, which is the ultimate goal of the people whose "common sense" you are advocating.

Not having sex would make it not intercourse.

Now do I sound like someone who hates porn? Or porn workers? Far from it. So again, this argument is a nonstarter.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Public schools lose their asses pushing Mooochelle's Healthy Meals.