Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 17, 2012
Sex / Film Jacket Required
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM
The Los Angeles City Council just voted to require that condoms be used in all porn filmed in L.A.:
The measure, adopted 9-1, next goes to the mayor for his signature. Before it can take effect, however, the City Council has ordered police officials, the city attorney and others to hold meetings to figure out how it might be enforced.
Oponents of the ordinance say that even if it is enforceable, the porn industry will just move elsewhere. Is this what Republicans mean when they rail against evil government regulations getting in the way of business? I'll give five dollars to the first person who takes this issue to Rick Santorum and forces him to address it in public.
3
"I'll give five dollars to the first person who takes this issue to Rick Santorum and forces him to address it in public."
tl;dr - porn is toxic and causes crime; sex is sacred; states and cities should have the right to legislate against the eeeeeevil porn industry if they want to; change of subject
tl;dr - porn is toxic and causes crime; sex is sacred; states and cities should have the right to legislate against the eeeeeevil porn industry if they want to; change of subject
5
@4 You could say the same about financial services (Wall St.), tech (Silicon Valley), etc. When deciding where to locate your business, it's usually the best choice to locate where the industry is, even if there's no real reason the industry is there.
In this example, there's likely a high volume of porn stars in LA. Getting a critical mass of them to move would be difficult. Same with a critical mass of porn camera crew. Etc.
That's not to say it's impossible to scare away an entire industry, and I have no idea if the condom issue is a big enough issue to do it. But there it would have to be a very strong incentive to move an industry.
In this example, there's likely a high volume of porn stars in LA. Getting a critical mass of them to move would be difficult. Same with a critical mass of porn camera crew. Etc.
That's not to say it's impossible to scare away an entire industry, and I have no idea if the condom issue is a big enough issue to do it. But there it would have to be a very strong incentive to move an industry.
6
My understanding is hardly any of the porn is actually shot in LA itself. It's shot in the Valley. Some of the Valley is in LA, but a lot of it isn't. It's not really going to stop someone from filming this stuff if all they have to do is go over to Burbank.
7
What a ridiculous law. This is unenforceable for a variety of reasons, as mentioned before, simple logistics... They're already all over Orange County, they don't need LA...
Um, oh yeah, something about the 1st amendment....
Um, oh yeah, something about the 1st amendment....
9
@8 Agreed: hard hats and steel-toed boots are required as protective gear where there is demonstrated risk. It would be hard to argue there is no preventable risk from unprotected sex.
10
@8
The first amendment protects all forms of art, and pornography, business or fun, is a form of art. It's protected free speech, and this is why they've never been able to successfully regulate it, even though people have been trying for decades.
I believe the high court will overturn this, if anyone cares to make a case of it...
Then again, why make a big deal out of this when you can just do business one county over.
The first amendment protects all forms of art, and pornography, business or fun, is a form of art. It's protected free speech, and this is why they've never been able to successfully regulate it, even though people have been trying for decades.
I believe the high court will overturn this, if anyone cares to make a case of it...
Then again, why make a big deal out of this when you can just do business one county over.
11
@5: The industry doesn't care one way or another... it's the consumers who will decide whether the industry moves via their buying habits.
12
Too bad for #1, and the "I'm Too Stupid to Understand the First Amendment" freaks, who apparently can't get a hard-on unless someone else is endangering their health and life.
Wah! Wah! Whiny self-centered, death-lusting babies!
For a thorough takedown of all the stupid/self-serving/misogynistic arguments against condom use in porn, please go here:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme…
Wah! Wah! Whiny self-centered, death-lusting babies!
For a thorough takedown of all the stupid/self-serving/misogynistic arguments against condom use in porn, please go here:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme…
13
Really? Someone's death has to be on the table or you can't get it up?
There's therapy for that, I'm sure.
There's therapy for that, I'm sure.
14
@12: Wow, I've never cared much about the presence or absence of condoms in porn, but from here on out I'll seek out no-condom porn. I don't think I could see a condom on screen without hearing what I imagine is your shrill and screechy voice. Yikes. You are a disservice to your cause.
Tell me again, if people who prefer bareback porn are "death lusting", how many porn performers have died from lack of condoms? It must be in the thousands! Tens of thousands? Millions?
Wouldn't you have better luck going after motorsports, where lots of people do tune in just to see the crashes, and there are a pretty substantial number of deaths?
Tell me again, if people who prefer bareback porn are "death lusting", how many porn performers have died from lack of condoms? It must be in the thousands! Tens of thousands? Millions?
Wouldn't you have better luck going after motorsports, where lots of people do tune in just to see the crashes, and there are a pretty substantial number of deaths?
16
Guess I type "screechy."
At least I don't need the possibility of someone dying to get off.
But hey, apparently necrophilia is your thing, so I guess you'll be stuck with the porn for which actors have already died.
I'll bet you watch vintage John Holmes for your creepy thrills.
Wouldn't know about motor racing myself, but apparently someday I'll be reading about you getting arresting arrested for indecent exposure in the stands.
At least I don't need the possibility of someone dying to get off.
But hey, apparently necrophilia is your thing, so I guess you'll be stuck with the porn for which actors have already died.
I'll bet you watch vintage John Holmes for your creepy thrills.
Wouldn't know about motor racing myself, but apparently someday I'll be reading about you getting arresting arrested for indecent exposure in the stands.
17
And yes, 14, porn actors have died of HIV they contracted on set, but apparently not enough for you yet.
Your the one who made it a numbers game: so tell us, how many actors must die or be infected before you'll be satisfied?
Your the one who made it a numbers game: so tell us, how many actors must die or be infected before you'll be satisfied?
18
And of course, I meant to type "You're" and must have done so screechy, because I don't want others to die for my pleasure.
19
But will it be OK to smoke a cigarette after complying with condom usage? Talk about a pro-choice issue. What stirs up the Teutonic urge to be everyone's Big Brother?
20
Judy, just calm the fuck down. You do type screechy. And strident. And angry. And the cheap insults just make you look even worse.
So let's see -- 14 porn actors from on-set HIV. Which is unfortunate, no doubt about that. How do you think that compares to HIV deaths in the general population in the same period? Heck, how do you think it compares to porn actors dying in car crashes? And if you want to talk occupational hazard, how do you think it compares to deaths among coal miners, longshoremen, or any other physical profession?
You've taken a legitimate and reasonable cause and decided that anyone who disagrees with you is a death-loving homicidal sociopath exhibitionist. Get some meds, ok? This level of outrage over 14 deaths in, what, 40 years across tens or hundreds of thousands of people?
So let's see -- 14 porn actors from on-set HIV. Which is unfortunate, no doubt about that. How do you think that compares to HIV deaths in the general population in the same period? Heck, how do you think it compares to porn actors dying in car crashes? And if you want to talk occupational hazard, how do you think it compares to deaths among coal miners, longshoremen, or any other physical profession?
You've taken a legitimate and reasonable cause and decided that anyone who disagrees with you is a death-loving homicidal sociopath exhibitionist. Get some meds, ok? This level of outrage over 14 deaths in, what, 40 years across tens or hundreds of thousands of people?
21
So sorry they're making your dick soft, #19, by protecting the health of your wank fantasies.
But really, I'm sure there must be therapy for that.
But really, I'm sure there must be therapy for that.
22
And because you don't like my tone you say you're going to specialize now only in the porn in which someone's health is endangered.
Your arguments are also ridiculous ("Why seatbelt laws, when many so people die at home?")
So 14 deaths isn't enough for you, okay, then how many would be?
You're the one with the nastiest argument: not enough people have died for your pleasure, yet.
Your arguments are also ridiculous ("Why seatbelt laws, when many so people die at home?")
So 14 deaths isn't enough for you, okay, then how many would be?
You're the one with the nastiest argument: not enough people have died for your pleasure, yet.
23
Does this mean that san fernando will secede from LA? I mean, what else do they have going on, other than porn? (This question applies not only to LA/SF, but the entire USA).
24
@12, you sound like a fuckin' harpy. You're not going to convince anyone with shrill hyperbole and personal attacks. Settle down.
25
I'm getting tired of the argumentative claims that pornography is somehow misogynistic...
Women in porno are no more objectified than their male counterparts, but they make TONS more money. Porno is about objectification, and there really isn't anything wrong with that, unless you choose to attach a negative connotation to the word "objectify". Obviously, sometimes being objectified or objectifying another isn't good, but it's not always bad, and some people love the attention of being a sex object.
I know this girl, actually, she's my mostly GF, and she constantly objectifies me, and I'm pretty sure she's using me for my body, not my mind... So would any of you out there come to my rescue and stop this horribly wonderful woman from objectifying me? I feel so dirty that I'm about to cry:(
A contracted (pun intended) female makes approximately $100,000 - $250,000 per year, while males make approximately $40,000 per year. However, I think it's quite different in gay porn, but you'd have to ask somebody else about that, I haven't seen the data.
I think that the most effective way to achieve condom usage in pornography is for the workers to form a union. It is very sad that people contract STDs/ STIs from their work, and I certainly don't want people to be unhealthy, but I do think that they should be able to work without protection, if they so desire.
For me, the big issue is that there absolutely no reliable studies on the health for pornography workers. And, please save me the "NO YOU'RE WRONG, LOOK AT THIS STUDY", yes, I understand that studies exist, I've read them, and they are notoriously unreliable. There are two main studies that people cite, one by the anti-porn crowd and one by the industry, and neither of these, nor any other study I've read, makes use of quality data: They're all fudged. So go fudge yourself (pun intended) before you try to rip me a new asshole (pun intended).
I honestly believe that this is about art vs. industry. It's going to be a really tough sell to regulate an artistic industry, and personally, I. along with other people I cannot remember, feel that pornography is the highest form of art, for its ability to achieve a desired outcome in the consumer. No other art form so precisely achieves this goal.
I don't watch porno, never have. Jesus told me not to when I was in Awana, and I really wanted that "Octogenarian that has NEVER watched pornography" badge, and now I've only got 50 years to go!!! Oh lord, help me!
More...
Women in porno are no more objectified than their male counterparts, but they make TONS more money. Porno is about objectification, and there really isn't anything wrong with that, unless you choose to attach a negative connotation to the word "objectify". Obviously, sometimes being objectified or objectifying another isn't good, but it's not always bad, and some people love the attention of being a sex object.
I know this girl, actually, she's my mostly GF, and she constantly objectifies me, and I'm pretty sure she's using me for my body, not my mind... So would any of you out there come to my rescue and stop this horribly wonderful woman from objectifying me? I feel so dirty that I'm about to cry:(
A contracted (pun intended) female makes approximately $100,000 - $250,000 per year, while males make approximately $40,000 per year. However, I think it's quite different in gay porn, but you'd have to ask somebody else about that, I haven't seen the data.
I think that the most effective way to achieve condom usage in pornography is for the workers to form a union. It is very sad that people contract STDs/ STIs from their work, and I certainly don't want people to be unhealthy, but I do think that they should be able to work without protection, if they so desire.
For me, the big issue is that there absolutely no reliable studies on the health for pornography workers. And, please save me the "NO YOU'RE WRONG, LOOK AT THIS STUDY", yes, I understand that studies exist, I've read them, and they are notoriously unreliable. There are two main studies that people cite, one by the anti-porn crowd and one by the industry, and neither of these, nor any other study I've read, makes use of quality data: They're all fudged. So go fudge yourself (pun intended) before you try to rip me a new asshole (pun intended).
I honestly believe that this is about art vs. industry. It's going to be a really tough sell to regulate an artistic industry, and personally, I. along with other people I cannot remember, feel that pornography is the highest form of art, for its ability to achieve a desired outcome in the consumer. No other art form so precisely achieves this goal.
I don't watch porno, never have. Jesus told me not to when I was in Awana, and I really wanted that "Octogenarian that has NEVER watched pornography" badge, and now I've only got 50 years to go!!! Oh lord, help me!
26
@10,
You can't do whatever you want when making art. The regular film industry can't employ child actors without following very strict labor laws for how long those children are allowed to work in a given day. The regular film industry isn't allowed to force its actors to work in unsafe conditions. The First Amendment doesn't supersede worker protections in the regular movie industry; the porn industry doesn't get a free pass.
Former attempts at "regulating" porn tried to ban certain kinds of content, not to impose worker safety regulations. Your *opinion* is irrelevant to the courts.
You can't do whatever you want when making art. The regular film industry can't employ child actors without following very strict labor laws for how long those children are allowed to work in a given day. The regular film industry isn't allowed to force its actors to work in unsafe conditions. The First Amendment doesn't supersede worker protections in the regular movie industry; the porn industry doesn't get a free pass.
Former attempts at "regulating" porn tried to ban certain kinds of content, not to impose worker safety regulations. Your *opinion* is irrelevant to the courts.
27
I think insisting on the death of more porn actors for your pleasure -- 14 aren't enough for you! -- is much, much more sick and twisted than anything I've written.
Being called a harpy by a necrophiliac, is a compliment.
No one on this thread accused porn of being misogynistic (although some porn is) -- but freaks who insist it's a turnoff unless there's a possibility an actress could be infected, um yeah, that's misogynistic.
Of course the same freaks don't give a spit about the health of the actors, either, but that's another story.
Being called a harpy by a necrophiliac, is a compliment.
No one on this thread accused porn of being misogynistic (although some porn is) -- but freaks who insist it's a turnoff unless there's a possibility an actress could be infected, um yeah, that's misogynistic.
Of course the same freaks don't give a spit about the health of the actors, either, but that's another story.
29
Run out of arguments -- no less the sane ones -- 28?
Well, the L.A. City Council and I can sleep at night: we don't insist that actors be infected with HIV, for our orgasms.
Well, the L.A. City Council and I can sleep at night: we don't insist that actors be infected with HIV, for our orgasms.
30
@26
I'm a Paralegal. I don't provide "opinions" of legal issues, I provide analysis, and my job is writing legal memorandum to convince the court of my, "opinion". I've made my bosses look very good over the years, so I guess you could say that the court takes my "opinion" into serious consideration... I've worked in a lot of different courts, including:
Seattle Municipal Court;
King County Superior Court;
Washington State Court of Appeals - Division 1, II, & III;
Washington State Supreme Court
U.S. District Court - Western District of Washington;
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit.
But mostly, I've worked courts with unlimited jurisdiction on cases ranging from homicide & international drug trafficking, to divorce and child custody disputes.
I apologize for my arrogance, but it is my job to convince judges of my "opinion".
LOL. I need a catch phrase, perhaps, "Woogedy Boogedy!!!", well, maybe I'm not a good writer for sitcoms, oh well, I guess I won't quit my day job of analyzing the law...
I'm a Paralegal. I don't provide "opinions" of legal issues, I provide analysis, and my job is writing legal memorandum to convince the court of my, "opinion". I've made my bosses look very good over the years, so I guess you could say that the court takes my "opinion" into serious consideration... I've worked in a lot of different courts, including:
Seattle Municipal Court;
King County Superior Court;
Washington State Court of Appeals - Division 1, II, & III;
Washington State Supreme Court
U.S. District Court - Western District of Washington;
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit.
But mostly, I've worked courts with unlimited jurisdiction on cases ranging from homicide & international drug trafficking, to divorce and child custody disputes.
I apologize for my arrogance, but it is my job to convince judges of my "opinion".
LOL. I need a catch phrase, perhaps, "Woogedy Boogedy!!!", well, maybe I'm not a good writer for sitcoms, oh well, I guess I won't quit my day job of analyzing the law...
31
Plenty of porn stars use condoms. I know this because those are the porn videos that I SKIP. I hate to say it because for all of my safe-sex is king upbringing, I can't get off to porn with condoms.
33
So, @30, you've defended yourself against any kind of challenge to your legal knowledge (yay, paralegal!) but let's hear your rebuttal to what @26 actually said. He didn't mean to piss you off with the whole "court won't care about your opinion" business.
36
Scratchmaster, take it easy. Unless you start every slog post with "I know what the fuck I'm saying because I'm a paralegal" you can't reasonably expect anyone to give you any more credence than they give anyone else around here. And in case you haven't noticed, facts and logic mean very little when people have already taken their stance. Unfortunate, but sadly the way it works.
On the gloved requirements in LA porn: I watch a lot of French porn. Condoms are in use in just about every scene. If a dick is in an ass or a pussy, it has a condom on it. The condoms that they use are thin and virtually transparent-other than a bit of a sheen on the cock, not noticable. The condom comes off prior to the cum shot, always on some body part or 'artfully' slobbered down the woman's face (seriously, I saw one last night where the woman ended up with a load shot up her nose, I wanted someone to yell "CUT" and give her a tissue.) So, what exactly is the issue? And I'm not 100% certain that the 1st ammendment can be stretched into encompassing a bae cock.
On the gloved requirements in LA porn: I watch a lot of French porn. Condoms are in use in just about every scene. If a dick is in an ass or a pussy, it has a condom on it. The condoms that they use are thin and virtually transparent-other than a bit of a sheen on the cock, not noticable. The condom comes off prior to the cum shot, always on some body part or 'artfully' slobbered down the woman's face (seriously, I saw one last night where the woman ended up with a load shot up her nose, I wanted someone to yell "CUT" and give her a tissue.) So, what exactly is the issue? And I'm not 100% certain that the 1st ammendment can be stretched into encompassing a bae cock.
37
I think an important point was made by Nina Hartley - the industry has other safety measures in place that are more effective given the volume of activity than those used by the public at large, and, in the conditions of an adult shoot, condoms INCREASE likelihood of injusry and transmission - given the duration of the session, the light and temperature conditions, the number of pauses between setups - condoms do not function as intended under those conditions, making their appearance in the film a *nod* to what safe home use requires, and not an actual benefit to adult film actors in any way shape or form. Something akin to 20-50 condoms would need to be used in a single 3-hour shoot to achieve anything resembling intended efficacy.
This is a law meant to harm the adult industry - an industry that touches every adult life at some point or another.
Adult performers do not need to be targeted by such sex-phobic pandering to a shame-laden voter base.
This is a law meant to harm the adult industry - an industry that touches every adult life at some point or another.
Adult performers do not need to be targeted by such sex-phobic pandering to a shame-laden voter base.
38
Yes, testing is so "successful" that here's a list of 12 porn actors currently with HIV and AIDS:
http://stdcarriers.com/famouspeople/porn…
However, that list doesn't include all the porn workers with STDs:
"I have Herpes" adult film star Chloe Nicole told a British reporter in 2001, explaining that "After you've been in this business for a while, you have herpes. Everyone has herpes" before going on to discuss her experiences with dishonest male performers. Seeing suspicious genital attributes, asking him what it is, and getting responses like "What? That? It's a fuck sore." had led her to require the use of condoms in all her scenes. A move that contradicts the dangerous trend towards unprotected sex in the porn industry.
http://stdcarriers.com/famouspeople/porn…
However, that list doesn't include all the porn workers with STDs:
"I have Herpes" adult film star Chloe Nicole told a British reporter in 2001, explaining that "After you've been in this business for a while, you have herpes. Everyone has herpes" before going on to discuss her experiences with dishonest male performers. Seeing suspicious genital attributes, asking him what it is, and getting responses like "What? That? It's a fuck sore." had led her to require the use of condoms in all her scenes. A move that contradicts the dangerous trend towards unprotected sex in the porn industry.
39
Somehow the French manage toh ave a porn industry with condom use -- if you want to call the French sexphobic, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
All the arguments from porn consumers boil down to nothing more than a smokescreen for those who apparently can't get turned on, unless there's the possibility of an actor becoming infected.
Some don't even bother with the smokescreen.
All the arguments from porn consumers boil down to nothing more than a smokescreen for those who apparently can't get turned on, unless there's the possibility of an actor becoming infected.
Some don't even bother with the smokescreen.
41
The intent of my statement was that, it is likely not simple condom use that creates the "safety" of the referenced adult film industries, and the actors in the cited films are using condoms in ways not provided for in their intended use and safety parameters. The condoms you see are a lovely nod to what safe sex looks like, but they are not doing their job as intended.
42
Condoms certainly aren't "doing the job for which they're intended" if they aren't being used.
One of the condom "jobs" is preventing infection, which they do fairly effectively (and certainly more effective than no use at all.)
"the consistent use of latex condoms reduces the likelihood of HIV infection by 80 to 90 percent...
Scientific studies do provide evidence that latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of gonorrhea and chlamydia infection...(and) can help reduce the risk of herpes and syphilis infection."
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_hea…
One of the condom "jobs" is preventing infection, which they do fairly effectively (and certainly more effective than no use at all.)
"the consistent use of latex condoms reduces the likelihood of HIV infection by 80 to 90 percent...
Scientific studies do provide evidence that latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of gonorrhea and chlamydia infection...(and) can help reduce the risk of herpes and syphilis infection."
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_hea…
43
@ judybrowni, how many porn actors have made porn in LA during that time period when 14 of the contracted HIV? And of those 14, how many have actually gone on to die of AIDS-related complications? Further, how many of them might have contracted it carelessly?
Those numbers matter, because every job carries risk, and it's not our place to insist that the take steps that eliminate risk. If we're talking about a fraction of one percent, I'd say that the porn industry has done a fantastic job of mitigating that risk, and a measure like this will cause problems while adding almost no benefit, especially if there are remedies in place for the unfortunate few who contract HIV.
So, numbers, please? And don't forget to show your work.
Those numbers matter, because every job carries risk, and it's not our place to insist that the take steps that eliminate risk. If we're talking about a fraction of one percent, I'd say that the porn industry has done a fantastic job of mitigating that risk, and a measure like this will cause problems while adding almost no benefit, especially if there are remedies in place for the unfortunate few who contract HIV.
So, numbers, please? And don't forget to show your work.
44
You have again missed the "in the adult industry" portion of my statement - condoms, used properly in the bedrooms of sexual individuals, have all of the properties you cite, and I am an avid supporter of condom use.
A melting condom, under hot lights, used over the course of several hours, on a penis that becomes erect and flacid multiple times during that period, requiring intensive and repeated application of lubricants of a different grade than those used by home consumers, does not share those properties.
In our current system, we do not have a sexual education program that is allowed to reference safe sex and sexual health with explicit and resonable language. That difference alone makes any analogies to what happens in the "instructive" videos of another culture less than helpful in the current discussion of the reasoning and personalities behind the negative image held of America's sexual entertainmkent industry.
A melting condom, under hot lights, used over the course of several hours, on a penis that becomes erect and flacid multiple times during that period, requiring intensive and repeated application of lubricants of a different grade than those used by home consumers, does not share those properties.
In our current system, we do not have a sexual education program that is allowed to reference safe sex and sexual health with explicit and resonable language. That difference alone makes any analogies to what happens in the "instructive" videos of another culture less than helpful in the current discussion of the reasoning and personalities behind the negative image held of America's sexual entertainmkent industry.
45
And yet, somehow the French manage to have a porn industry, without condoms "melting."
I call bullshit.
I call bullshit.
47
The real question is: how many more dead or infected actors, before you'd be satisfied?
The L.A. City council (and I) don't require even one more death or infection to get off, but apparently you do.
So, how many would satisfy you?
The L.A. City council (and I) don't require even one more death or infection to get off, but apparently you do.
So, how many would satisfy you?
48
And please show your work, Matt: X dead and Y infected, and how that would affect the angle of your erect penis.
49
It doesn't take a "sex educator" to know that condom use would more effective on even a "microscoptic" level, if a condom is actually used, then if it is not.
50
@judybrowni And I am saying that this measure, given the medical facts regarding condom use, does nothing to prevent that additional loss of life, and puts performers at risk in other ways that are *not generally present* in the home sector.
Condoms are not magical totems, the mere presence of which "wards off" disease. They require a very specific set of circumstances in order to work properly - ones which are difficult if not impossible to replicate in the studio environment. Hence the reason *why* the adult industry have developed other methods of control.
What is being proposed is a *mechanically infeasable* and *medically unsound* set of requirements that have far more to do with an attempt to interfere with adult content creation than with an attempt to protect our courageous and valuable adult performance community.
Condoms are not magical totems, the mere presence of which "wards off" disease. They require a very specific set of circumstances in order to work properly - ones which are difficult if not impossible to replicate in the studio environment. Hence the reason *why* the adult industry have developed other methods of control.
What is being proposed is a *mechanically infeasable* and *medically unsound* set of requirements that have far more to do with an attempt to interfere with adult content creation than with an attempt to protect our courageous and valuable adult performance community.
51
Again, I call bullshit: from "melting" condoms to the misspelled "infeasable."
If you had "medical facts" you'd have supplied links to those facts.
Another smokescreen for a limp dick, most likely. You're so much more bloody concerned with "content" than you are with the health of the actors, and infections which haven't been "controlled."
If you had "medical facts" you'd have supplied links to those facts.
Another smokescreen for a limp dick, most likely. You're so much more bloody concerned with "content" than you are with the health of the actors, and infections which haven't been "controlled."
52
Yup, I'm definitely gonna have to watch some (more) unprotected porn now.
(Personally, I think you can make an excellent first amendment/freedom of expression argument in favor of the proposition that seeing the unprotected/natural sex act is intrinsic to the creation of erotic art and that this isn't a reasonable time/place/manner restriction. I also think that the ability to go to the next jurisdiction over makes the law largely moot, anyway. But shriek away anyway, troll)
(Personally, I think you can make an excellent first amendment/freedom of expression argument in favor of the proposition that seeing the unprotected/natural sex act is intrinsic to the creation of erotic art and that this isn't a reasonable time/place/manner restriction. I also think that the ability to go to the next jurisdiction over makes the law largely moot, anyway. But shriek away anyway, troll)
53
Another limp dick heard from!
So sorry you might not get the deaths and infections you need to get off.
What you should be afraid of, is that OHSA will next take this up on a federal level, and so much for your necrophilia. As a matter of fact, your lust for infection porn may inspire me to work for just that!
Ah well, take comfort: there still may be vintage porn of dead porn stars left for the desperate freaks.
So sorry you might not get the deaths and infections you need to get off.
What you should be afraid of, is that OHSA will next take this up on a federal level, and so much for your necrophilia. As a matter of fact, your lust for infection porn may inspire me to work for just that!
Ah well, take comfort: there still may be vintage porn of dead porn stars left for the desperate freaks.
55
@ 47, I don't know. How many more dead construction workers before we require that they wear full bubble wrap and safety nets? How many more dead hospital workers who contract diseases at work? How many more dead cooks who eat too much of what they serve? How many more dead sailors before we insist that ships be made unsinkable?
You have failed to show that you know what you're talking about, judybrowni. Will you do the honorable thing and admit this? Or at least the graceful thing and stop talking about it right now?
You have failed to show that you know what you're talking about, judybrowni. Will you do the honorable thing and admit this? Or at least the graceful thing and stop talking about it right now?
56
BTW, if you're really concerned about their health and welfare, why don't you propose they do something about their apparently high depression rate? Make sure they have access to counseling? Make it mandatory, maybe? Many, many more porn stars die of overdoses and suicide than of AIDS or other STD's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0q_VGacf…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0q_VGacf…
57
I guess construction workers are lucky that those idlers who watch their work through the peepholes around construction sites don't insist it wouldn't be fun unless construction workers worked without their helmets on.
Or that necrophiliacs aren't allowed to insist that it just isn't fun for them if healthcare workers wear latex gloves when they might come in contact with bodily fluids.
I imagine porn actors would be a lot less depressed if their job didn't put them at for risk for infection on a daily basis because some strange pervert somewhere wouldn't consider it a good time, unless there's that possibility they could be infected.
You share the same problem with a lot of other cranks: the inability to come up with a decent analogy.
Or that necrophiliacs aren't allowed to insist that it just isn't fun for them if healthcare workers wear latex gloves when they might come in contact with bodily fluids.
I imagine porn actors would be a lot less depressed if their job didn't put them at for risk for infection on a daily basis because some strange pervert somewhere wouldn't consider it a good time, unless there's that possibility they could be infected.
You share the same problem with a lot of other cranks: the inability to come up with a decent analogy.
58
Oh, and there are also workplace safety regulations in restaurants and on ships.
Despite the possibility of freaks who might get a thrill, if there weren't.
Despite the possibility of freaks who might get a thrill, if there weren't.
60
@ 57, projection is another sign that you have no logic behind your opinion, and subconciously you're aware of that.
There are workplace safety procedures in place in porn, too. Remember how the whole industry shut down when someone contracted HIV on the set a few years ago? Remember when they started HIV and STD testing when the government was happy to see they all be infected and die? Probably not. Too bad, you should read up on it. Maybe it would help inform your opinions.
I'm surprised you mention workplace regulation at all. You seem to want porn workers to be complete protected, but you're aware that restaurant workers deal with sharp knives and high temperatures, right? Doesn't that sound too risky for you? Someone might get a burn or a cut! What should we do about that?
That's the degree to which you've blown it out of proportion. You have no idea what the HIV infection rate is among porn actors, but have declared that even one is too many. Well, what do you think will result from this, if it become reality? I think they'll keep making porn without condoms, only because it's become illegal, the whole production will be, too, like liquor during prohibition. That killed WAY more people than legitimate alcohol did over a comparable period, and underground porn will infect many more actors with HIV. You should want to avoid making it worse, not stumping for it.
There are workplace safety procedures in place in porn, too. Remember how the whole industry shut down when someone contracted HIV on the set a few years ago? Remember when they started HIV and STD testing when the government was happy to see they all be infected and die? Probably not. Too bad, you should read up on it. Maybe it would help inform your opinions.
I'm surprised you mention workplace regulation at all. You seem to want porn workers to be complete protected, but you're aware that restaurant workers deal with sharp knives and high temperatures, right? Doesn't that sound too risky for you? Someone might get a burn or a cut! What should we do about that?
That's the degree to which you've blown it out of proportion. You have no idea what the HIV infection rate is among porn actors, but have declared that even one is too many. Well, what do you think will result from this, if it become reality? I think they'll keep making porn without condoms, only because it's become illegal, the whole production will be, too, like liquor during prohibition. That killed WAY more people than legitimate alcohol did over a comparable period, and underground porn will infect many more actors with HIV. You should want to avoid making it worse, not stumping for it.
61
Keep in mind, HIV is not an automatic death sentence, and hasn't been for over a decade. It would help correct your perspective if you kept that in mind.
62
Hey, you're turned on by infection porn, I get that.
Since you seem to lack basic empathy, perhaps you might consider how you'd feel if others insisted you risk HIV (and other infections) at your workplace on a daily, when there were means to stave off those infections.
That HIV isn't necessarily a fast-track death sentence now, might be small comfort.
But all your silly smokescreen arguments have been so thoroughly discredited here, I don't need to bother:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme…
Since you seem to lack basic empathy, perhaps you might consider how you'd feel if others insisted you risk HIV (and other infections) at your workplace on a daily, when there were means to stave off those infections.
That HIV isn't necessarily a fast-track death sentence now, might be small comfort.
But all your silly smokescreen arguments have been so thoroughly discredited here, I don't need to bother:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme…
63
So it's ... "we want to government to tell people how to live if we agree with it" on both sides. Can't say I'm surprised at all.
64
Judybrowni,
You've outed so many people as necro-fetish types who only watch porn in order to see someone get infected and die! I had no idea this niche market existed and now I see an opportunity to exploit it.
Picture this: 3-D, high speed time lapse, slow pan up the actress' body from the point where she is ejaculated in, to her eyes closing due to death from HIV related complications.
You could actually see her body waisting away over the years and then actually watch her die!
Is this what is going on in your head Judybrowni? This is what you think people want? Are you really assigning this to people?
Judybrowni, you may have a point about condoms but it is completely lost in your accusations that the people you are trying to convince are this fucked up.
You've outed so many people as necro-fetish types who only watch porn in order to see someone get infected and die! I had no idea this niche market existed and now I see an opportunity to exploit it.
Picture this: 3-D, high speed time lapse, slow pan up the actress' body from the point where she is ejaculated in, to her eyes closing due to death from HIV related complications.
You could actually see her body waisting away over the years and then actually watch her die!
Is this what is going on in your head Judybrowni? This is what you think people want? Are you really assigning this to people?
Judybrowni, you may have a point about condoms but it is completely lost in your accusations that the people you are trying to convince are this fucked up.
65
@ 62 - LOL. No, those arguments were thoroughly demolished here. But, think what you will. You're just another person whose wrong beliefs are reinforced when confronted by contrary evidence.
KK, your curiously uninformed but dismissive attitude was not missed. Why are you back?
KK, your curiously uninformed but dismissive attitude was not missed. Why are you back?
67
To sleep, which I can, because my orgasms don't depend on the possibility of actors become infected.
I get it, you're into infection porn -- which doesn't mean your freak should endanger the health of those who supply your wank fantasies.
I remember reading a comment from a lesbian porn producer in another thread that she is able to easily erase the condom, digitally, through some sort of inexpensive computer program (computer tech illiterate here, so I don’t remember which, but hey, it wouldn’t be a terrically difficult special effect, would it?)
Which means that if your dick goes limp at the idea that actors might not be risking venereal infection, you are one sick puppy.
Hope you're using condoms, wouldn't want you to procreate, for one.
I get it, you're into infection porn -- which doesn't mean your freak should endanger the health of those who supply your wank fantasies.
I remember reading a comment from a lesbian porn producer in another thread that she is able to easily erase the condom, digitally, through some sort of inexpensive computer program (computer tech illiterate here, so I don’t remember which, but hey, it wouldn’t be a terrically difficult special effect, would it?)
Which means that if your dick goes limp at the idea that actors might not be risking venereal infection, you are one sick puppy.
Hope you're using condoms, wouldn't want you to procreate, for one.
68
@ 67, how much credibility do you think you have with... well, anybody? Anyone at all. Not just here at SLOG, but ANYONE, ANYWHERE.
69
"Waah! Somebody is telling me not to do something I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant to do, just 'cause it would hurt other people. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
In general, it's not a good thing to encourage two-year-olds in their tantrums.
In general, it's not a good thing to encourage two-year-olds in their tantrums.
70
@ 69, you're speaking about yourself again.
I was going to bag on you for that, but your writing here betrays a deep pain, and I don't see how adding to that helps.
Have a good rest of your day.
I was going to bag on you for that, but your writing here betrays a deep pain, and I don't see how adding to that helps.
Have a good rest of your day.
71
@33
@36
I wasn't upset by anyone's comment, so I'm sorry if my comment carried a tone beyond my intention (when I typed it, I was typing in my head as though I was saying something in a mellow way, not an agitated way), that's why I apologized in advance for being arrogant. I'm sorry if I inflamed or upset anyone, I definitely wasn't upset. I figured I would get into trouble for being arrogant. It was right before bed, can y'all forgive me? (Please don't read that with a negative tone, I'm being sincere).
But you're right 36, nobody here needs to give me any more legitimacy than anyone else, nor do I necessarily deserve anymore than others. Just wanted to put across that I wasn't expressing a lay opinion, per se... I certainly don't want to preface every comment with my credentials, and of course, my credentials don't guarantee that I'm right. A lay person could very well best my legal knowledge, but they'd need to do a lot of very boring reading to catch up, which I don't recommend unless you enjoy dense reading material that makes your eyes hurt.
To give a proper analysis would take a day. To give an analysis that would convince a court would take weeks. Not having that kind of time on my hands, I'll just repeat something I said earlier: If it's a form of art, then you can basically do what you want, so long as you're not violating someone else's civil rights. The difference between porn and art is titillation. In order for pornography to cross the line into art, the producers must present it as something NOT designed to titillate. If they can cross that threshold, then they can avoid any condom regulation thrown at them. Then there is the issue of the mom and pop porn producers: Those that are a couple, married or otherwise, that film themselves having sex and sell the video stream. There is simply no way to regulate those types, and the rest of the industry, having tons of cash and therefore access to quality lawyers, will navigate this legislation quite efficiently, I predict.
A similar issue, (albeit, very different), involving a mother photographing her children nude and putting it to book form, went before the highest court, and they eventually decided that it didn't qualify as child pornography because it wasn't intended to titillate. Of course, we're talking criminal vs. civil, but I think the that case law may apply here as well.
Although these issues are different, the same legal issue will apply: Can you do something you're not normally allowed to do if it is for art's sake? The answer in most cases is yes, so long as it is not violating another individual's civil rights. And no, it doesn't necessarily violate a persons civil rights to employ them as a condom-less porn actor. They may want to be there, or as mentioned earlier, might even be married to their co-star...
More...
@36
I wasn't upset by anyone's comment, so I'm sorry if my comment carried a tone beyond my intention (when I typed it, I was typing in my head as though I was saying something in a mellow way, not an agitated way), that's why I apologized in advance for being arrogant. I'm sorry if I inflamed or upset anyone, I definitely wasn't upset. I figured I would get into trouble for being arrogant. It was right before bed, can y'all forgive me? (Please don't read that with a negative tone, I'm being sincere).
But you're right 36, nobody here needs to give me any more legitimacy than anyone else, nor do I necessarily deserve anymore than others. Just wanted to put across that I wasn't expressing a lay opinion, per se... I certainly don't want to preface every comment with my credentials, and of course, my credentials don't guarantee that I'm right. A lay person could very well best my legal knowledge, but they'd need to do a lot of very boring reading to catch up, which I don't recommend unless you enjoy dense reading material that makes your eyes hurt.
To give a proper analysis would take a day. To give an analysis that would convince a court would take weeks. Not having that kind of time on my hands, I'll just repeat something I said earlier: If it's a form of art, then you can basically do what you want, so long as you're not violating someone else's civil rights. The difference between porn and art is titillation. In order for pornography to cross the line into art, the producers must present it as something NOT designed to titillate. If they can cross that threshold, then they can avoid any condom regulation thrown at them. Then there is the issue of the mom and pop porn producers: Those that are a couple, married or otherwise, that film themselves having sex and sell the video stream. There is simply no way to regulate those types, and the rest of the industry, having tons of cash and therefore access to quality lawyers, will navigate this legislation quite efficiently, I predict.
A similar issue, (albeit, very different), involving a mother photographing her children nude and putting it to book form, went before the highest court, and they eventually decided that it didn't qualify as child pornography because it wasn't intended to titillate. Of course, we're talking criminal vs. civil, but I think the that case law may apply here as well.
Although these issues are different, the same legal issue will apply: Can you do something you're not normally allowed to do if it is for art's sake? The answer in most cases is yes, so long as it is not violating another individual's civil rights. And no, it doesn't necessarily violate a persons civil rights to employ them as a condom-less porn actor. They may want to be there, or as mentioned earlier, might even be married to their co-star...
72
Let's see now, who's the adult? Someone who holds the responsible, adult position that workers should be protected from infection.
Or the entitled toddler, who has a tantrum because his wank fantasies might not be as much fuuuuuuuun, unless there's the possibility of infection, or death, for the workers?
Or the entitled toddler, who has a tantrum because his wank fantasies might not be as much fuuuuuuuun, unless there's the possibility of infection, or death, for the workers?
73
I don't look at a lot of porn and, when I do, I tend to prefer "lesbian" porn so the presence of condoms isn't an issue for me. In male/female porn, I don't recall ever seeing condoms on guys but, if I did, it wouldn't bother me. Anyway, I'm fine with the LA City Council vote.
74
"The first thing you have to remember is that porn is (no pun intended) barely protected by the First Amendment in the first place. The Miller test still applies, and Paul Little (Max Hardcore) is in prison right now for producing obscene films directed at adults. So we are not talking about a situation where courts are not going to be as speech-protective as they would be where political speech is at issue.
The second thing you have to remember is that there is a distinction between the right to DEPICT something and the right to DO something. This actually should be pretty obvious. For instance, you have a First Amendment right to make a movie that depicts a murder. On the other hand, you do not have a First Amendment right to make a snuff film.
Now, I know, that argument doesn’t get you all the way to a condom requirement because unlike murdering people, or raping them, or having sex with children, having unprotected sex is perfectly legal. But it’s still important to remember that the First Amendment claim being made is DERIVATIVE. The proposal is NOT to prohibit any storyline in an adult film that involves people having unprotected sex. A film can be produced softcore, or through camera manipulation, or through an almost-invisible condom, or in any other way, that DEPICTS unprotected sex. The only rule being proposed is that any actual sex act performed in the filming be protected. So the First Amendment argument has to be that by restricting the performers’ ability to have unprotected sex on film, this would seriously impinge on a filmmaker’s ability to depict unprotected sex. Whether correct or not, that’s a second order argument, which makes it a harder First Amendment argument to win.
The fundamental problem, however, is that under the time, place, or manner doctrine, reasonable restrictions on speech to prevent secondary harms are constitutional so long as they do not suppress the message of the speech. This is why, for instance, the government can require strippers to wear pasties or a g-string or prohibit full-contact lap dances or zone adult caberets into a narrow portion of town. Strippers can still express themselves by dancing; however, these regulations address the secondary effects of strip clubs....
The condom requirement is a classic time, place, or manner requirement. Porn directors can still express whatever message they want about unprotected sex, i.e., that it’s fun, that it’s good, that it’s the sex that would likely be had between a particular couple or group of individuals in a particular situation. They just have to find a way to do that without the performers actually having unprotected sex with each other.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme…
More...
The second thing you have to remember is that there is a distinction between the right to DEPICT something and the right to DO something. This actually should be pretty obvious. For instance, you have a First Amendment right to make a movie that depicts a murder. On the other hand, you do not have a First Amendment right to make a snuff film.
Now, I know, that argument doesn’t get you all the way to a condom requirement because unlike murdering people, or raping them, or having sex with children, having unprotected sex is perfectly legal. But it’s still important to remember that the First Amendment claim being made is DERIVATIVE. The proposal is NOT to prohibit any storyline in an adult film that involves people having unprotected sex. A film can be produced softcore, or through camera manipulation, or through an almost-invisible condom, or in any other way, that DEPICTS unprotected sex. The only rule being proposed is that any actual sex act performed in the filming be protected. So the First Amendment argument has to be that by restricting the performers’ ability to have unprotected sex on film, this would seriously impinge on a filmmaker’s ability to depict unprotected sex. Whether correct or not, that’s a second order argument, which makes it a harder First Amendment argument to win.
The fundamental problem, however, is that under the time, place, or manner doctrine, reasonable restrictions on speech to prevent secondary harms are constitutional so long as they do not suppress the message of the speech. This is why, for instance, the government can require strippers to wear pasties or a g-string or prohibit full-contact lap dances or zone adult caberets into a narrow portion of town. Strippers can still express themselves by dancing; however, these regulations address the secondary effects of strip clubs....
The condom requirement is a classic time, place, or manner requirement. Porn directors can still express whatever message they want about unprotected sex, i.e., that it’s fun, that it’s good, that it’s the sex that would likely be had between a particular couple or group of individuals in a particular situation. They just have to find a way to do that without the performers actually having unprotected sex with each other.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme…
75
I'm a whiny, self-centered limp-dick (WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!), and 3,374 more people must die before my death-lust is satisfied.
judybrowni GETS IT, you guys. Infection porn FTW!
judybrowni GETS IT, you guys. Infection porn FTW!
77
Judibrowni @ 74 - There you go. That is how to do it. Well said, reasonable, forceful without being insulting.
I agree.
I agree.
79
@ 77, the only problem is that prohibiting something from being made in a locale, based on what is being depicted, is like those pesky "no free speech zones" they had during the WTO protests. Sure, you could go say what you want a mile away, but it was still a violation of the First Amendment.
Also, don't congratulate judybrowni for suddenly "being reasonable." She copied and pasted that, apparently because she's unable to discuss it rationally herself.
Also, don't congratulate judybrowni for suddenly "being reasonable." She copied and pasted that, apparently because she's unable to discuss it rationally herself.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (79) RSS