General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Porn producer Vivid Entertainment sues LA County over condom rule
A leading adult film producer has launched a lawsuit against Los Angeles County over a voter-approved measure requiring porn actors to wear condoms, saying the law infringes on first amendment rights and was driving the industry out of Southern California.
Vivid Entertainment, which was joined in the lawsuit by porn stars Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, claims the mandate was both an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression and a financial burden that studios could not bear.
"You don't have to win an Oscar to be protected by the first amendment," lead plaintiffs attorney Paul Cambria said, after filing the lawsuit in US District Court in Los Angeles on Friday.
The complaint, which also alleges that the law, known as Measure B, treads into an area regulated by the state, seeks an injunction that would stop the ballot initiative. The measure was approved by about 56% of Los Angeles County voters in November.
full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jan/12/porn-vivid-entertainment-la-county-condom-rule
Wow, so condoms = speech now? In a nation with Citizens United v. FEC, who knows?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I'm sure they could get sponsors.
"Trojan: the official condom of pron stars everywhere!"
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)and since they operate in LA county, it would hurt them.
TheGov97
(18 posts)
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Transmission is done by contact with secretions.
Secretions start long before penetration occurs.
flamingdem
(40,891 posts)and this is NOT good for the industry that's already hard hit by state subsidies drawing production out of Los Angeles. Porn producers buy tapes, cameras, lights, etc. and employ (sexy) people. Just kidding, many get their start in that biz. That said I wouldn't want them filming next door and they often invade neighborhoods with their crews and sexed up actors. The kids notice these things.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)It was in response to the high rate of infections among those in the porn industry and the high costs of treating it.
Porn stars are not rich and most use public health facilities meant for the poor.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)The industry has done a good job of health screening.
The whole issue is rather moot because the industry is changing dramatically. Porn can be made any where at any time by anybody. It does not have to be made in L.A.
Citation pls?
Tempest
(14,591 posts)
redqueen
(115,186 posts)The amount of industry money behind the disinfo campaign to prettify and popularize porn results in some side-splitting claims, though. I was mainly asking for entertainment purposes. 
Ask any porn 'star' or read what they say in interviews... they have much less incentive to lie. It's the producers, the capitalists who make $$$ renting/selling/making equipment, and the users who demand to be able to see unsafe sex on screen who have all the skin in this game.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Yavin4
(37,182 posts)We all know that you prefer that porn be completely outlawed and banned. But, that train has long left the station. Porn can be made any where at any time by any body on planet earth.
This law, while it may be of good intention, will probably do a lot more harm than good. Production will just move to another city without such regulation or it will be online. Also, how can the city enforce the law when people are making porn in their own homes?
If the intention is to really assist people in the industry, then the better approach should be better testing.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia are significantly higher among adult film stars in Los Angeles County compared to legal prostitutes in Nevada, according to a report published this week. On Nov. 6, voters will consider a measure that would require porn actors to wear condoms.
A study of 168 adult film performers in Los Angeles County found that 28%, or 47 performers, tested positive for either gonorrhea or chlamydia or both diseases. The report was written by six public health experts, whose affiliations include the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and UCLA.
"Compared with the brothel workers of Nevada, another legal sex worker population in the United States, [gonorrhea] and [chlamydia] prevalence in this study is significantly higher," said the report, published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases on Tuesday. The study ran from mid-May to mid-September 2010.
Sexually transmitted infection rates among legal prostitutes are negligible, the report said, because brothel workers in Nevada are required by state law to use condoms and are tested weekly for disease. Since those rules went into effect in Nevada, there have been no cases of HIV infection, and their infection rates were negligible, the report said.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/std-rates-in-la-porn-stars-higher-than-in-nevada-prostitutes.html
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Like I posted earlier, all kinds of people are involved with making and distributing porn. It's no longer just your typical porn industry. There are webcams, amateur sites, etc. This law would in no way regulate them.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Not webcams, not amateurs.
Professionals working for corporations.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"Because performers in the AFI are a highly stigmatized population and are a difficult population to identify for any study, we used a convenience sample of performers who sought services at a trusted primary care clinic, which may have introduced selection bias. In addition, nearly all male participants
refused rectal screening; thus, the site-specific prevalence of rectal GC and CT for male performers was unable to be assessed. We collected no information on the sexual partners of participants and therefore cannot account for the surprisingly high prevalence of oropharyngeal infections or the sexual networks of performers. In addition, we do not know why each participant was seeking care when he/she was recruited. Our sample could therefore represent a group who felt that they were at high risk for STIs or specifically seeking treatment of a known STI, thus overestimating positivity."
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Who are required to wear condoms.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)In addition to the mandated use of condoms during any sex act in the Nevada prostitutes vs. no such requirement for the LA porn actors, there are other confounding factors. Living situations, being one. Shall we also mandate that LA porn actors live on a porn video compound and rarely, if ever leave it?
Response to Tempest (Reply #6)
cthulu2016 This message was self-deleted by its author.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...is concerned?
The same people could go screw around a lot, unfilmed and for free, and get the same diseases, if they so desired. People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)No regulation.
Got it.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...conservative's wet dream.
My reasoning is the same exact reasoning behind my being pro-choice where abortion is concerned.
I'm all for regulation. Shit loads of it. Just not regulation of what people can and can't do with their bodies where consenting adults are involved and sex is concerned.
Attempting to reflect conservatism onto me in order to justify your anti-sexual freedom views is not going to win you any arguments.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)But a 28% infection rate is hardly being responsible.
Nor is passing the costs of treatment onto the public.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Regulate the environment. Regulate the financial industry. Regulate the insurance industry. Regulate all of Wall Street. That's all great. But keep your damn laws off my body. Period.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)And it's not just your body if you're sharing it with others who could be infected and affected by your irresponsibility.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Consenting adults should be able to do what they want as far as whether or not to have safe sex. Theres nothing you can say that will ever get past that argument. People like you are no different than the Republicans that want to tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms. No difference at all. You want to pretend its different because theres a camera and a paycheck involved. But you are wrong.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You aren't stepping on people's right to sexual freedom by forcing mines to adhere to safety regulations.
Having control over the use of one's body and sexuality is a special kind of freedom. Its why abortion should be legal. Its why gay people should be allowed to be together. Its also why porn actors should be able to have unsafe sex.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)private citizens.
According to you, employees can be coerced into any unsafe work conditions.
Let the whole porn industry move to a right to work state.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You act like the presence of a paycheck magically changes the nature of it. It doesn't. You are wrong.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)The presence of a paycheck DOESN'T change anything? Oh my fucking god.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and unsafe work conditions.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They dont have to work in porn.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)People don't want to work in a meatpacking plant where lack of safety features means you might lose a hand?
They can find another job. They don't have to work in a meat packing plant.
People don't want to work in a coal mine with unregulated natural gas emissions that might lead to an explosion?
They can find another job. They don't have to work in a coal mine.
Here's a news flash: often times people can't just up and leave a paying job, especially if they have families to support, bills to pay, and most especially when the economy is bad.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)to public health care when they develop heart issues? Or smokers who develop lung cancer? Or alcohol drinkers that develop cirrhosis? Or diabetics that don't watch what they eat and go into comas?
Are you in favor of health care for all or just for those that you deem fit to receive it?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Freedom to work for $2 an hour or less if that's what the job pays, freedom to work under unsafe working conditions, etc.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)People are being paid to perform certain acts. It's up to the employer to ensure that their health is protected.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But don't go around telling consenting adults what kind of sex they can have. Its a slippery slope we need not go down.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)not to mention that anyone can pick up the HIV virus and pass it on between tests.
Yeah, having the producer pay for health care when the actor is left infertile or with a terminal disease, that takes care of everything!
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Given that undebateable fact, are you now going to suggest that we force everyone to wear a condom? Because that's the logical conclusion. And if you aren't saying that, then you are either suffering from cognitive dissonance or you are a complete hypocrite. Which is it?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and deserving of protection against occupational hazards.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)One problem right now is that testing is not as good as it could be. They skimp on that and they shouldn't.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Depends on the producer.
Actors for Vivid, the company fighting this, are considered employees.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It is not unusual to have different regulations for work than for private life.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)The costs would bankrupt them.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The porn industry is extremely profitable. That sounds like the same argument conservatives make against environmental regulation.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Don't pretend that you do.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The real point is, you are failing to make an effective argument so you are instead choosing to cower behind a disingenuous comparison between myself and Ayn Rand simply because I don't want to require porn stars to wear condoms. To any thinking person, that comes across as a painfully idiotic argument.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)bill when something goes wrong.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Or does that only apply to sacred cow issues?
MrScorpio
(73,772 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Just like L.A.
28% of L.A. porn stars tested positive for an STD.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Your claim that public health costs in LA are unendurable, as a matter of public finance, because of the porn industry is, of course, a lie.
The total health costs associated with STDs in the general population are, of course, vastly higher than costs associated with porn performers.
What laws do you have lined up to regulate the general populace? You have established what chlamydia rate demands this sort of government intrusion, right?
So where is your condom law for everybody? It would save LA roughly infinity more money than this law.
What is the AIDS rate in the general population versus porn performers? How about different sub-groups versus porn performers?
Do you favor a law criminalizing all unprotected gay male sex? I do not, of course. I'm a reasonable person. But how could you not favor, nay demand (!) such laws, by the standard you are promulgating here?
Yes, you are SOOOOOO concerned about public health.
What is the Chlamydia rate in the poor population of LA? Do you suppose there are economic classes, neighborhoods, ethnic groups, who exceed certain disease average by more than 28% to 20%?
Are you proposing a law that poor people, for instance, have to use condoms in all cases?
If not, why not?
It is your right to hold revolting attitudes, but please don't pretend you are motivated by pressing public health concerns.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Like smoking in bars was banned because people working in bars got sick, but people have the right to smoke at home.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)My response was to the post it responds to, which is from a poster (now ignored) who has made a very specific claim about as to why it is needed.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)How interesting.
Must be quite a narrow life you lead.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)In no other industry would we accept a 28% injury rate.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Retired football players are developing severe brain injuries. That's a workplace issue as well. Is it not?
valerief
(53,235 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Why are you against the same steps being taken in the porn industry?
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)The "porn industry" is so vast and wide spread that this kind of law does nothing to make the performers safer. It just means that production goes to other jurisdictions.
Even in L.A., this law cannot be enforced. How are you going to enforce it against a couple that have unprotected sex on a webcam?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)thucythucy
(9,103 posts)so asking if "football should be banned" is a classic straw man.
Secondly, last I heard, pro football players are required to wear protective gear.
When was the last time you saw a professional football game where the players weren't wearing pads and helmets?
And third, there are people, including people inside pro-football and the players' union, demanding action be taken about the high incidence of brain injuries in the game. This will no doubt result in further regulation somewhere down the road.
So your analogy is a complete fail.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)I wonder about those that are so passionate about such a subject as sex and being irresponsible about it.
Reminds me of the gun nuts in so many ways.
krawhitham
(5,072 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)changed.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)unexceptable for any industry.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)That seems to be the way it's done these days.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)And Nevada's laws on condom use show it's working. Prostitutes in Nevada have a much lower rate than L.A. porn stars.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Are you for mandatory condom use for the poor?
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Name one other industry we would accept a 28% injury rate.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)28% of the *non-random sample* of porn actors tested *at that clinic* tested positive for an STD. It is not an exhaustive testing regimen, as it is being compared to in the case of the Las Vegas prostitutes. There is enough sample bias in the cited study to throw that number into doubt for applicability to the broader adult actor population (it could be higher or lower, no way to know).
also, when the videos are shot in the counties surrounding Los Angeles county, do you think the actors will pick up and move there? I doubt it. This will do nothing to shift the public health expense burden to other counties. Will you propose that people can only be treated for STDs in the counties in which they contracted them?
The excuse that's used, that the forced use of condoms is to protect the actors, is just that. It's an excuse to ban filming of unprotected sex in any form (including oral sex).
I don't know what the porn industry is like for women, but for the gay male porn performers, whether to perform with or without a condom is absolutely the performer's choice.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's not a random sample. You'd expect there to be a higher rate of STDs, since these actors are actually seeking medical treatment.
A better law would be mandated STD testing, so that we can find out if they do indeed have a higher STD rate. Then we can go from there.
JVS
(61,935 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Snort!!!!
derby378
(30,262 posts)I'm betting their operations won't be affected one bit.
jpak
(41,780 posts)
[img]
[/img]
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)On camera or off camera, for money or for free, protected or unprotected, people should be able to do what they damn well please with their damn bodies for the most part.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)No other industry has a 28% injury rate, nor would one be tolerated in a civilized society.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Not that I would ever work in porn myself. I'm happily married. But if I did, its none of your god damn business whether or not I wear a condom. None.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Read up on Marc Wallace and the literally hundreds of women he infected without their knowledge.
I'm sorry, but society requires a certain level of responsibility for your actions.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Its a type of assault in my book.
That's neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)"That's neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned."
Actually it is and since it's a point you know you will lose on you don't want it to be.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I don't think its a smart thing to do. But people have the RIGHT to do stupid things where sex is concerned.
By your twisted logic, people prone to multiple sexual partners should be forced to wear condoms. And there are plenty of people that fit that bill with no camera involved. That's exactly the argument you are making. That's just fascist.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)and have "sex with a lot of people?" The heart of your objection really is you don't approve of sex with multiple partners. You've said as much in at least two posts.
And since you don't like their behavior, you'd prefer they be punished by being forced by their employers to have unprotected sex, and thus exposed to potentially life threatening diseases.
I sense you are less a libertarian than you are a Puritan. And so I would suggest you keep your Puritanism out of our public health policy.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I smell a little trolly, troll, troll, troll!!!
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)that you would NEVER work in a porn film, because you're happily married and all, and your statement that you don't approve of people having multiple sex partners.
As if happily married people can't be porn stars. As if people who have multiple sex partners are less moral than yourself.
So you smell a troll? I smell a Puritan who would prefer that people who work in porn or have multiple sex partners be punished for their "sin."
Notice too--it isn't the porn workers who are suing about this, it's the owners of the company that produces the porn. Porn workers in and out of LA have been pushing for better working conditions, as well as safety regulations.
And as I've said multiple times now, this is an issue of workplace safety, not sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is the freedom to have multiple sex partners--whether you approve or not. But with that freedom comes responsiblity--the responsibility to try not to spread STDs on to your partners.
If I was a sex worker I would definitely want my health protected. I wouldn't want my boss to be the one who decides. Just as, in any workplace, I think the safety of the workers comes before the whims of any particular boss.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)thucythucy
(9,103 posts)Not wanting people to be injured because of the work they do.
Not even deserving of a response.
Absolutely.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)a terrible intrusion on privacy, you'd have a prosecutor forced to prove that the actor willingly and knowingly harmed his partners by engaging in unprotected sex while infected....
" and so, Mr. X, when you noticed that when you took a pee, it felt as it felt as if you were urinating molten lava, it didn't occur to you that you might be carrying an STD?"
" no, I thought that was normal."
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Whether I'm acting in porn or going out to clubs picking up multiple partners or whether its just between me and my wife. In any of those scenarios, its MY business and the business of the people that choose to have sex with me. Its none of your business. Its my body.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)have a safe workplace? Doesn't your business stop when it intrudes on the business of others?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)They can also choose to do movies at all unless a condom is involved. No one is forcing it.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)cited above. the "no one is forcing" argument applies to all levels of worker safety. It used to be that "no one is forced to work in a bar where smoking is allowed" Before that, Judge Bork suggested that requiring low levels of lead exposure was an undue burden on employers because no one forced pregnant women to work in such places.
As soon as money is exchanged for services, it's a reasonable right for society to demand as safe a work place as possible.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You want to start infringing on those, then say goodbye to abortion rights and gay rights and reproductive rights, etc.
quakerboy
(14,868 posts)Sexual freedom has nothing to do with what your boss instructs you to do at your workplace. And porn is a job, same as any other ins far as employee protections should be concerned.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Yes, there is some risk involved when you have sex with lots of people, but that is a risk they are willing to take. If they don't want the risk, then find a different line of work.
Look, there is lot of talk about concussions in the NFL, and I know there are some risk. If I got a call to play for an NFL team, I would do it in a heart beat, and I would have to accept that risk.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Which is what this law will do.
And it's what the NFL is doing by improving the equipment the players use.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That doesn't mean we should.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The topic was "things that make sense" not "things we should outlaw". Its just a coincidence that my example involved outlawing something.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)There is risk, but your workplace is supposed to make reasonable accomodations to minimize the risks. Like NFL players have to wear certain safety gear. They cant' decide to play without a helmet.
And saying, "If you don't accept the risk, don't take the job" doesn't work because obviously either you accept the risk of a sweat shop with no fire protection, or a sport where there are lots of injuries with no safety gear, or whatever, or you don't work at all. It's the same reason why we have a minimum wage, or people would say, "Accept the job at $2 an hour, or find another line of work." Our government demands people give a certain level of pay at a minimum, and provide a certain level of safety protection at a minimum.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)If you play for the NFL, you have to wear a helmet, right?
So what's the big deal about actors in porn having to wear a condom?
In both cases it is a matter of safety.
Why shouldn't people who work in porn be safe?
Tempest
(14,591 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)My politics are about as liberal as it gets. Stop trying to insult me with disingenuous comparisons to conservative nutjobs in order to avoid losing an argument. Its not going to work.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That's where I draw the line.
Don't tell me how liberal I am or not. That's not up to you and it never will be.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)in an industry with a 28% injury rate.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I am pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-environmental regulation, pro-gun control, pro-financial regulation, pro-universal health, pro-LGBT rights, anti-death penalty, pro-progressive taxation and pro-universal healthcare...
Yet, because I don't want to require porn actors to wear condoms, I'm not a liberal. Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds?
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)but wouldn't it be more intrusive proving that someone knowingly exposed others to STDs?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And knowingly giving someone a disease is definitely a malicious act.
I didn't sidestep shit. You just don't like the answer.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)And even then, they can infect others between the time of the testing and when the results are back.
Marc Wallace infected up to 200 women he had sex with between the time it was suspected he was a carrier and when he got tested.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Regardless, it doesn't change my mind.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...then they knowingly gave someone a disease. People are ALREADY prosecuted for knowingly spreading AIDS.
Response to Tempest (Reply #50)
Sen. Walter Sobchak This message was self-deleted by its author.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)No one is forcing you to do what you do, but you expect a safe working environment, right?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)I see. So then it's not really YOUR body we're talking about at all, is it?
And why wouldn't you ever work in porn? Is this a bit of your Puritanical streak showing here? As in: "If these people get a disease, it serves them right for doing something I, as a happily married person, would NEVER do?"
Try this out for size: "I would NEVER work in a coal mine, but I think regulations protecting coal miners are an infringement of MY 'rights.' I have a 'right' to get black lung disease. I have a 'right' to be crushed in an improperly reinforced shaft. And it is just so unfair for anybody to try to impose safety standards on mine operators. Not that I would EVER work as a coal miner, you understand."
This is about worker safety, pure and simple. If you can't acknowledge that simple fact, you've missed the whole point of the law.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I wouldn't do porn because I have no desire to have sex in front of other people. And I'm pretty sure no one wants to see that. I have no problem with people that do porn or porn itself. Your argument here is pretty high on the stupid scale. That's like saying I'm pro-choice because I hate babies. I'm pro-sexual and reproductive rights, period.
Coal mines are not pornographic films. Its a stupid comparison. One is an issue of reasonable labor safety, the other is an issue of freedom of sexual expression. On top of that, I'm pretty sure people if someone tried to setup an unsafe mine on their own property, with no paycheck involved, there are STILL regulations as to how that has to be done. So if you want to make the coal mining comparison, then you damn well have to come to the conclusion that you can dictate people's sex lives when theres no paycheck involved. Because if you want to attempt to draw that silly logical comparison in the first place, then you can't have it both ways.
Its not about worker safety. Its about playing the sex police. People hiding behind worker safety are about as disingenuous as people who hide behind "sanctity of marriage". Don't feed me that crap, I don't buy it.
Its as simple as this. You should not be allowed to tell anyone what kind of safe sex choices they have to make. The presence of a camera and a paycheck (being the ONLY difference) should not change that.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)and as such they should both be subject to safety regulations.
If you want to have unprotected sex, that's your problem (and the problem with those with whom you have sex. Of course, the least you could do in such a situation is to inform your partner ahead of time you insist on unprotected sex, and allow them to decline to ball you, if that's their choice).
But if you're doing this for money, on a movie set, you are by definition in a work place, and work place rules should apply. BTW, I'M pretty sure that if you want to dig for coal in your own back yard, on your own time, you in fact AREN'T covered by OSHA regulations. You're entitled to be as stupid as you want on your own time and on your own property, (Though I, as a taxpayer and someone who pays health insurance premiums, would prefer not to have to foot the bill for your stupidity).
You don't do porn "because you have no desire" to do so. Well huzza for you. So what gives you the right to insist that those who do must in all instances obey their bosses, who want them to work in unsafe conditions?
If anyone here is playing "sex police" it's you--insisting your libertarian standards be applied to everyone else.
BTW--what makes you think porn workers might not also be "happily married?" Perhaps they need the money. Perhaps they enjoy working in front of a camera. This, however, does not mean they should be forced by their employer to take risks with their health, even if you think such risks are "the price" for having multiple sex partners.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Their selection sample methodology does not hold up to scrutiny. You cannot determine if the people contracted the STDs from actually working in the industry or away from it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)letting mine workers work in unsafe conditions?
Tempest
(14,591 posts)He seriously believes we'll fall for that nonsense.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)I'm talking about responsibility.
You're talking Ayn Rand.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Nowhere is Godwin's law does anyone lose. Its only the prediction that Nazis will come up. It has nothing to do with winning the argument one way or the other. That's some bullshit people made up. I reject it.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Considering the dumb Ayn Rand argument wasn't working out for you.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)thucythucy
(9,103 posts)prohibiting sex while working in a coal mine?
Isn't that "compromising" "sexual freedom?"
Couldn't resist.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)You would be okay with that?
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)aren't they? And teeth guards, and padded gloves to cover their fists?
You have a problem with those protections as well, do you?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)thucythucy
(9,103 posts)They do wear teeth guards though, don't they? And gloves?
And aren't there rules about where a boxer can be hit? I seem to recall something about "no hitting below the belt."
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)protection like any other kind of worker? That seems really unfair to me.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)It would be the same as not wanting protections for miners.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Forcing them to wear condoms compromises that.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, I suspect you know that. The actors don't get to decide what sex acts they are going to perform. They perform according to the script. They don't get to write the lines they perform either. Let me guess you believe professional wrestling is unscripted as well.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)We have one poster, for instance, who stresses how "I would NEVER work in porn" but is opposed to protecting those who do. I find that very telling.
I sense an undercurrent here of Puritanical disapproval of sex workers in general, and hence an aversion to protecting their safety.
Check out some of these posts and see if you don't agree.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Once money enters the picture the employer has a responsibility to ensure the safety of workers. If they are shirking that responsibility they deserve to be regulated. I just don't see it as the same situation as two consenting adults agreeing to get busy for the jollies of it.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)We are told everyday in our regular lives to use condoms to help prevent stds and pregnancy. I see it as a good idea for a business that is based on Sex to do this in fact I would think from business sense being proactive in this keeps money flowing for everyone involved. As far as cost I can't believe there isn't one Condom company that would love to get in on this and be able to say we are the choice of the porn stars.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Earlier in the thread I posted how prostitutes in Nevada have a much lower STD rate than L.A. porn stars because the state requires the use of condoms.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)in a safe manner .
Tikki
(15,140 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)
like they are not using condoms. There are diseases transmitted in that kind of
contact. Why not try to make less transmissions?
Tikki
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)give a crap about "realism".
Democratopia
(552 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)And women want it tasteful and erotic, not what you usually see from porn.
This is the equivalent of Republican TRAP laws on abortion for the purpose of shutting down a business they don't approve of. The only difference is that at least they put it up for vote and didn't do it in by legislators.
Sure it may sound like a common sense type thing to put on the ballet. But all it is basically just a rule disguised to run the industry out of town. They might as well have put porn production up for a vote.
As a porn connoisseur, I never watch porn with rubbers. I am sure many other are like me or the industry wouldn't be fighting it. That's like buying a swimsuit edition magazine in which they all wear an overcoat over their swimsuits. Nobody will buy a product like that.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Are you using the condoms from the naked gun I mean come on the penis is still Clearly visible
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)And it would not be too difficult to retouch footage of condoms.
And the better analogy is buying diamonds from companies that don't give a shit there's child labor and human rights abuses going on.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Response to alp227 (Original post)
Arcanetrance This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)Isn't that how every porn movie ends?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
hunter
(40,690 posts)... some see a business opportunity. Movie makers could erase condoms just like they erase wires in action films.
Heck, porn makers could just use computer generated nudity for everything. The actors could all be wearing full body protective suits. Porn stars could have safe, secure careers lasting forty years, maintaining their youthful appearance for all of it, never having skin-on-skin sexual contact with any of their co-stars.
It would work like this scene did in Pirates of the Caribbean:
http://www.awn.com/articles/brilliant-vfx-year-oscar-nominees-say-why
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
BigDemVoter
(4,700 posts)he pulls out with condom on, slides condom off, and lets it spew. Nobody saying there won't be "cum" shots, but during insertive sex, condoms are to be worn. Penis comes out of whatever orifice it's in, condom can come off. Condom is there to protect the partner.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)So much of it is edited anyway it wouldn't be noticed. Just like regular movie making most of the action ends up on the cutting room floor.
BigDemVoter
(4,700 posts)Testing individuals doesn't help a lot in cases like this, as people who become infected don't test positive for HIV at first yet are still very infectious.
Porn is a business. Porn actors are copulating primarily for $ and to entertain the public. This is not a free speech issue.
Other businesses must follow OSHA regulations to protect their employees. This is no different.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)All because of safety concerns, of course. Would that be an acceptable infringement upon the filmmakers' expression?
Not in any way addressing the social implications of porn nor the impact upon its performers, its audience, or the public at large. Simply isolating it to the 1st Amendment challenge that's being raised here.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)are regulated -- studios have to follow the rules. There are also regulations now around the use of animals in films, for instance, no trip wires for horses.
Regulating something isn't the same as "forbidding" something.
Volaris
(11,704 posts)Riiight.... 'cause a box of condoms is sooooooooooo much more expensive than an Industry-wide HIV scare...
Unless you're doing customer specific or mass internet saturation work, running a porn "Studio" is a dumb idea in the modern age, and getting dumber every day.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)proven fact that it doesn't sell as well. That's what they mean by financial hit.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Volaris
(11,704 posts)but isn't that a bit like a consumer saying that they prefer French Fries without salt, because it's healthier?
It's PORN. Anyone who thinks theyre getting a "quality product" out of the exchange strikes me as just a tad holier-than-thou on the consumer happiness scale.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I can think of no greater loss to the community than than my cousin's fetish videos are no longer being filmed in West Hollywood. I'm counting the days till they are camping out with Sheriff Joe since antics that got them trespass warnings in L.A. will probably get them thrown in jail in Phoenix.
Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)Not for the reasons one might wish to joke about. I think the lawyers are right, and yes, I think it is a free speech issue, at least in the way speech has most recently been defined.
Now let this go to court and see what affect iyt might have down the road on Citizens United.