General Discussion

thucythucy

(9,103 posts)

138. "Keep your damn laws off my body....Not that I would ever work in porn myself..."

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:57 PM

Jan 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

186 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Porn producer Vivid Entertainment sues LA County over condom rule [View all] alp227 Jan 2013 OP

It's a financial burden? XemaSab Jan 2013 #1

In so far as it hurts their sales. Porn with condoms just doesn't sell as well, Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #2

What ever happened to pulling out? TheGov97 Jan 2013 #3

Umm... By then it's far too late Tempest Jan 2013 #5

I think the condom measure was a way to get the porn industry out of L.A. flamingdem Jan 2013 #4

Actually, no. Tempest Jan 2013 #6

Actually The Rate of Infection Among Porn Performers is Far Lower Than The General Population Yavin4 Jan 2013 #8

lol wut redqueen Jan 2013 #9

They're as wrong as they can be. See my response. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #11

Oh trust me, I know. redqueen Jan 2013 #13

From what I can piece together, the national average is under 20%. LA porn stars at 28%. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #15

Let's Cut to the Chase, Shall We? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #30

Do you know what a strawman is? Because it sure doesn't appear so. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #40

Dead wrong Tempest Jan 2013 #10

"Porn Performer" Could Mean Anyone Yavin4 Jan 2013 #29

This is about the corporate porn industry in L.A. Tempest Jan 2013 #36

however, MNBrewer Jan 2013 #68

Even if it's off by 10%, it's still a much higher rate than Nevada prostitutes Tempest Jan 2013 #101

It's not a valid comparison regardless MNBrewer Jan 2013 #125

This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #14

So what? Why should the presence of a camera and a paycheck make a difference where personal freedom phleshdef Jan 2013 #39

Ah, a conservative's wet dream Tempest Jan 2013 #41

Actually no, anti-sexual freedom, controlling sex, etc... that would be closer to a modern day... phleshdef Jan 2013 #42

I have no problem with sexual freedom when its done responsibly Tempest Jan 2013 #43

The government has no business regulating "sexual responsibility". phleshdef Jan 2013 #47

That is an immature and irresponsible response Tempest Jan 2013 #49

Its takes 2 (or more) to tango. phleshdef Jan 2013 #51

So workers are "free" to work in unsafe conditions dictated by their bosses? Same for mine workers? KittyWampus Jan 2013 #64

This guy is a poster child on why these laws are necessary and he doesn't even realize it. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #67

Oh and just what are you suggesting? phleshdef Jan 2013 #74

False equivalency. phleshdef Jan 2013 #71

Private citizens ARE free to their sexual freedom & condomless sex. Employees are not acting as KittyWampus Jan 2013 #76

A paycheck doesn't make any difference. Sexual freedom is sexual freedom. phleshdef Jan 2013 #79

OMG that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #124

OH MY GODZ!!! THATS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!!!! phleshdef Jan 2013 #144

It most certainly DOES change one's right to protections from employer abuse KittyWampus Jan 2013 #151

They can find another job AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #168

You realize you can say the same thing about any other workplace, right? thucythucy Jan 2013 #180

Do you also agree that obese people should not be given access blueamy66 Jan 2013 #163

No, "freedom" to work under any conditions is a conservative's wet dream gollygee Jan 2013 #86

but - is this a personal freedom issue or a worker safety issue? hedgehog Jan 2013 #55

Then make the employers responsible for paying for their healthcare. phleshdef Jan 2013 #57

Are you aware that antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is out there? hedgehog Jan 2013 #59

Yes. I'm also aware that the presence of a camera and a paycheck aren't required to spread it. phleshdef Jan 2013 #61

But the presence of a camera owned/operated by & for someone else mean you are an employee KittyWampus Jan 2013 #69

Which is exactly why I'm fine with requiring THOROUGH testing. phleshdef Jan 2013 #87

Porn actors are considered either employees or independent contractors Tempest Jan 2013 #88

My kitchen at home has different rules than a kitchen in a restaurant has gollygee Jan 2013 #89

The porn industry would disappear if they were required to pay for their healthcare. Tempest Jan 2013 #70

I highly doubt that. But thats a classical Randian argument. phleshdef Jan 2013 #90

You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Tempest Jan 2013 #103

I know plenty about it. But thats neither here nor there. phleshdef Jan 2013 #106

So there shouldn't be laws protecting health/welfare of miners. Just let the mine owners foot the KittyWampus Jan 2013 #66

Would that be the same "personal freedom" to work in an unstabilized ditch? Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #170

Hello, San Francisco! nt MrScorpio Jan 2013 #7

And S.F. will pass a law when their costs escalate beyond control. Tempest Jan 2013 #12

Geez... at least be honest about your dishonesty cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #16

This might be a workplace issue gollygee Jan 2013 #18

It *might* be a lot of things cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #19

So you ignore people you disagree with. Tempest Jan 2013 #21

Very much a work place issue Tempest Jan 2013 #22

So, Then Football Should Be Banned, Right? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #31

Football should definitely be banned. It's barbaric. nt valerief Jan 2013 #34

And they have taken steps to minimize head injuries. Tempest Jan 2013 #35

This law does NOTHING to make the "porn industry" safer Yavin4 Jan 2013 #130

It most certainly DOES make the sexual contact safer and less liable to result in AIDS etc. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #153

First of all, the new law doesn't "ban" porn, thucythucy Jan 2013 #37

Not the first strawman he's thrown out there Tempest Jan 2013 #44

OK I'll play. Make the NFL a touch football league? krawhitham Jan 2013 #45

No, but it's guaranteed it will be played differently with more things becoming illegal. Like NASCAR KittyWampus Jan 2013 #154

Snapping opponents heads/necks back is an illegal move. They must wear helmets. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #152

This is about an industry that is socializing its costs while privatizing their profits. Tempest Jan 2013 #20

One of many gollygee Jan 2013 #24

The Bain Capital business model. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #25

L.A. porn industry has a much higher rate than the general population Tempest Jan 2013 #26

Poor People Have a higher rate of STDs than Rich People Yavin4 Jan 2013 #32

Nothing to do with the workplace, now does it? Tempest Jan 2013 #33

Amen blueamy66 Jan 2013 #164

Not really. MNBrewer Jan 2013 #113

Your study is actors who said "I'm sick" jeff47 Jan 2013 #134

How exactly would this cost the city money? Did we get single payer national HC while I was asleep? JVS Jan 2013 #155

Unusual economic hardship... nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #17

Meanwhile, lesbian porn producers respond, "So?" derby378 Jan 2013 #28

Condoms are people too jpak Jan 2013 #23

Really In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #27

I'm still of the mind that consenting adults should be able to have sex any way they want. phleshdef Jan 2013 #38

The problem is they're not being responsible about it. Tempest Jan 2013 #46

I don't care. Keep your damn laws off my body. phleshdef Jan 2013 #48

You act as if there's no victims Tempest Jan 2013 #50

People who knowingly spread an STD should be prosecuted. Porn or no porn. phleshdef Jan 2013 #52

The problem is many don't know and Marc was one of them. Tempest Jan 2013 #53

No. Its irrelevant. Shit happens when you are having sex with a lot of people. phleshdef Jan 2013 #54

It really bothers you, doesn't it, that some people are sex workers thucythucy Jan 2013 #142

LOL, what a phony argument. You don't even believe the nonsense you just said. phleshdef Jan 2013 #145

I absolutely believe what I said, based on your insistence thucythucy Jan 2013 #147

Moronic. Not even deserving of further response. phleshdef Jan 2013 #166

Yeah, advocating worker safety. How moronic. thucythucy Jan 2013 #173

So - instead of requiring that actors wear condoms because that would be hedgehog Jan 2013 #56

Yup. I would. Because its none of your damn business whether I ever wear a condom. phleshdef Jan 2013 #58

It may be your business, but what about the right of the other actors to hedgehog Jan 2013 #60

They can choose to not engage in sex with anyone that can't provide proof of recent testing. phleshdef Jan 2013 #63

But recent testing doesn't solve the problem - check out the statistics hedgehog Jan 2013 #72

Sexual freedoms are different. phleshdef Jan 2013 #77

Workplace quakerboy Jan 2013 #126

Then if people want to film porn, they should know there are risk. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #104

Exactly. Its not like porn is some crucial industry anyway. phleshdef Jan 2013 #107

But doesn't it make sense to minimize the chance of the risks? Tempest Jan 2013 #111

It makes sense. But it also makes sense to outlaw alcohol and tobacco. phleshdef Jan 2013 #114

Strawman. No one is talking about outlawing the porn industry. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #120

Not a strawman because I never said anyone was. phleshdef Jan 2013 #121

THis is exactly why workplace protections exist gollygee Jan 2013 #141

Again with the football analogy. thucythucy Jan 2013 #179

This guy is a classic Ayn Randian. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #78

Thats an idiotic statement. phleshdef Jan 2013 #80

Your politics are only as liberal as your willingness to protect workers health & safety. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #85

EXACTLY! He's a classic Ayn Rand follower. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #93

Stop cowering behind that argument. Its nonsense. phleshdef Jan 2013 #95

I'm fine with protecting workers safety up and to the point of regulating sexuality. phleshdef Jan 2013 #94

Your politics are not liberal if you believe in no regulation Tempest Jan 2013 #91

Oh wait. So let me get this straight. phleshdef Jan 2013 #97

You are sidestepping the question - forcing actors to wear a condom may be intrusive, hedgehog Jan 2013 #62

Intrusiveness is warranted where malicious acts are concerned. phleshdef Jan 2013 #65

But - how do you prove that a person knowingly gave another person a disease? hedgehog Jan 2013 #75

You can't unless they've been tested and many are not tested. Tempest Jan 2013 #82

They should be tested better and more frequently. phleshdef Jan 2013 #99

The same way we already do. If they tested positive for it and went out and had sex... phleshdef Jan 2013 #84

This message was self-deleted by its author Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #171

It is if you are an employee and your employer is forcing you to work in unsafe conditions. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #83

No one is being forced to do anything. Its fucking porno. phleshdef Jan 2013 #100

You are very dense Tempest Jan 2013 #108

To a certain degree. But I don't expect 100% safety. phleshdef Jan 2013 #110

"Keep your damn laws off my body....Not that I would ever work in porn myself..." thucythucy Jan 2013 #138

Wow, too many insane arguments there to count. phleshdef Jan 2013 #143

Coal mines and the sets of porn films are both work places thucythucy Jan 2013 #146

The 28% Study That You Cite Is Dubious Yavin4 Jan 2013 #131

As mentioned elsewhere, there's enormous problems with your 28% figure. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2013 #135

Employees are due certain protections against unsafe working conditions. You agree with Bush/Cheney KittyWampus Jan 2013 #81

But he's a liberal, remember? Tempest Jan 2013 #96

Yea. I'm a liberal and you are a sex nazi. Thats pretty much where we stand. phleshdef Jan 2013 #102

Godwin's law. You lose. Tempest Jan 2013 #105

You don't know what Godwin's law actually is. phleshdef Jan 2013 #112

And Nazis did come up. By you. Godwin's Law. You lose. Tempest Jan 2013 #117

No one loses because it comes up. But I'm glad you found something new to cower behind. phleshdef Jan 2013 #119

Of course not. But sexual freedom isn't being compromised by enforcing mining regulations. phleshdef Jan 2013 #116

But what if there's a regulation thucythucy Jan 2013 #185

So, Boxers and MMA Fighters Should Be Required to Wear Head Gear Yavin4 Jan 2013 #129

Boxers ARE required to wear head gear thucythucy Jan 2013 #139

Amateur boxers wear headgear. Pro's do not. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #159

Thanks for the clarification. thucythucy Jan 2013 #175

http://www.livestrong.com/article/244343-safety-rules-for-boxing/ KittyWampus Jan 2013 #148

Why should the fact that they're sex workers mean they shouldn't get workplace gollygee Jan 2013 #109

Seems unAmerican to me. Tempest Jan 2013 #115

They should get workplace protection, as long as it doesn't compromise sexual freedom. phleshdef Jan 2013 #118

This is so not about sexual freedom. Kalidurga Jan 2013 #136

I think there are people here who believe sex workers don't DESERVE protection. thucythucy Jan 2013 #140

If they weren't getting paid for it I would be in complete agreement with you Major Nikon Jan 2013 #156

I don't see the big deal its just a condom Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #73

And they're proven to work Tempest Jan 2013 #98

Condoms = Gun Laws ,another words it's yours to bare... orpupilofnature57 Jan 2013 #92

Come on;)...The porn industry is advanced enough to know how to film with condoms and look... Tikki Jan 2013 #122

I'm thinking they could easily be airbrushed/retouched out of the pix. It's not like porn watchers KittyWampus Jan 2013 #149

Maybe they can make hard core porn more tasteful too Democratopia Jan 2013 #123

The biggest growing segment of porn is porn catering to women. Tempest Jan 2013 #127

Dumb law Jmac2 Jan 2013 #128

Are you really equating a condom with a swim suit Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #133

This has nothing to do with shutting down a business. It's about protecting employees safety. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #150

Personal Protective Equipment Major Nikon Jan 2013 #158

I think it's more a case of Slut Shaming than protecting employee safety. MNBrewer Jan 2013 #186

This message was self-deleted by its author Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #132

How the HELL do you get the money shot if the dude is wearing a condom? Bay Boy Jan 2013 #137

Stunt penis? Major Nikon Jan 2013 #157

Post production editing, retouching. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #160

Where others see unwanted government intrusion... hunter Jan 2013 #178

I swear, you just posted what I had in mind. You may have hit upon the near future of pron. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #181

Well. . . . BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #165

editing TorchTheWitch Jan 2013 #174

This is actually a public-healh issue. . . BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #161

What if a law were passed forbidding the use of stuntpeople in films? Orrex Jan 2013 #162

Actually, working conditions for stunt actors thucythucy Jan 2013 #182

"a financial burden that studios could not bear."... Volaris Jan 2013 #167

Consumers don't want to watch porn with condoms taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #169

they can edit or airbrush the condoms out. It's LA. They can find people capable of doing it. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #176

ahhhh...well then I'll concede your point, (and the industries as well) Volaris Jan 2013 #177

my shithead family that is in this business have already left for Phoenix. Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #172

I side with the porn industry. Stinky The Clown Jan 2013 #183

if you have time could elaborate? KittyWampus Jan 2013 #184