Semen in Porn may become illegal, quick help stop this

[Legzman]

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s standards board may mandate the use of condoms in porn videos:

um...FUCK NO!!! I hate seeing condoms in porn. I won't watch a scene if it involves condoms. Just a personal choice thing for me. Not to mention this sounds like censorship which is something I'm very much opposed to!

 

[Smallville417]

I believe it should be up to the performers. I personally am not into condom porn.

 

[Skyraider22]

I don't want them to spam my inbox.

That is about right:1orglaugh

 

[pete rose]

I think they need to take note from the Japanese and mosaic the cum. Frame by frame.

 

[titsrock]

I don't see enough condom use in porn. I have no problem with more regulation, more testing required to protect the talent.

In some ways if Porn isn't going to be outright banned by the Gov't, than it's time to truly bring it out of the shadows and regulate it. If the gov't has specialists on the set of mainstream movies to make sure children and animals aren't harmed during filming why can't the Gov't have health inspectors on porn sets to make sure everyone's tests are uptodate, condoms are used, etc. :dunno:

 

[Big Drake]

Where are my lefties to argue for more government intervention on this one? What's next, a porn semen gestapo to arrest any persons caught exposing bodily fluids on film??

You are a political ignoramus.

The Democrats and what are called "Liberals" in the United States are actually Center-Right on the political scale. The "lefties" you scorn would be considered rightists anywhere else in the world. For example, even the ultra-rightists in Europe support universal healthcare (real universal healthcare, not the Obamacare plan under which everyone will be forced to BUY insurance).

Real "lefties" (people who would be recognized as leftist anywhere in the world) are against the intervention of the capitalist state into our lives; especially when it comes to sexual matters.

Here's a quote from the newspaper of the U.S. communist organization The Sparticist League:

"The government has recently seized on the spurious crusade against 'sex trafficking' to introduce draconian new legislation criminalising men who 'pay for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force', a move which marks a significant shift towards outlawing prostitution altogether by penalising customers. We Marxists oppose not only reactionary 'age of consent' and 'statutory rape' laws, but also other laws against 'crimes without victims', such as gambling, prostitution, drug abuse and pornography." - Hands off Roman Polanski!, Workers Hammer, Winter 2009-2010.

(On a side note, Nina Hartley belonged to this group for a number of years).

Remember the most important of the seven habits of highly successful people: seek first to understand then be understood.



PS. The Gestapo was the police arm of the fascist NAZIs. They were on the extreme right of the political scale. They were overthrown by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, which was run by a leftist bureaucracy.

 

[D-rock]

I don't mind if a performer doesn't want to work without condoms and demands them. I also don't mind if some producer doesn't want to hire that performer because of that. That should both be their choice. While testing to see if anybody is infected with anything is smart, I have a problem with the government forcing producers to use condoms.

Unlike a construction site where they make people wear hardhats or steal-toe boots, the end product is directly and significantly effected by something like this. One literally can't make the same thing, because it effects what's on screen. That's not the case with most safety requirements. When some building goes up the same building is there in the end no matter what safety devises are used. If an oil rig or a mine has to undergo safety requirements the same product comes out. This is different and because of that there is a legitimate reason for not using a potential safety devise in this instance.

I could also mention that all performers are adults capable of making their own decisions, and anybody that reasonable and has any common sense knows the dangers before they go into it. What they want to do is the equivalent of some government agency going and saying that their will no longer be any tackling in American football games because it increases the chance of injury or that the linemen can't but into each other hard. It would be like telling boxers MMA fighters that they are only allowed to hit their opponent with so much force to protect them. It would be like banning stuntmen from movie sets even if the scene couldn't be made because they might get hurt. The list goes on and on, even for an enormous amount of jobs outside of the entertainment industry. In some professions the risk are part of the job, and to do the job the workers need to take that risk because there is no way to do the same thing otherwise. Now if somebody wants to argue that they should get hazard pay, or that adult performers in general don't get paid enough, then that's another issue.

On top of that one could also argue there is a first amendment issue with it also. They're using some safety issue to limit something that could be considered an expression of the right to free speech by willing adults.

While I don't think it's fair to FORCE it upon companies to do this, I do fully support condom porn. You can't tell me Wicked is where it's at because people don't like seeing condoms on a dick.

I mean, the monthly basic panel tests that most of us get out of common courtesy for one another do not test for everything.

I don't think that's a good example. For a long time Wicked didn't use condoms, and it would be hard to argue that they weren't more popular and more successful back then. While it's true that some of that has more to do with than just the fact they didn't use them back then(They also had less competition, better performers, and made better movies in the past.), it's also likely Wicked is just living on their name from what it was in the past. I have a hard time believing that If Wicked started using them back then or didn't have their name recognition to live on now they wouldn't be doing even worse than they are.

 

[Big Drake]

I could also mention that all performers are adults capable of making their own decisions, and anybody that reasonable and has any common sense knows the dangers before they go into it. What they want to do is the equivalent of some government agency going and saying that their will no longer be any tackling in American football games because it increases the chance of injury or that the linemen can't but into each other hard. It would be like telling boxers MMA fighters that they are only allowed to hit their opponent with so much force to protect them. It would be like banning stuntmen from movie sets even if the scene couldn't be made because they might get hurt. The list goes on and on, even for an enormous amount of jobs outside of the entertainment industry. In some professions the risk are part of the job, and to do the job the workers need to take that risk because there is no way to do the same thing otherwise. Now if somebody wants to argue that they should get hazard pay, or that adult performers in general don't get paid enough, then that's another issue.

One could also argue the following:

- It's not a personal choice since a number of producers will not hire actors that want to use condoms.

- While in some industries it's impossible to produce the intended product or service after utilizing certain safety measures, porn can still be made with condoms. So, the safety of the workers can be significantly improved without detrimentally harming the final product. The product will be slightly changed, but production will not be hindered. Allowing for periodic safety inspections slightly limits the amount of coal that can be produced from a mine in a shift, but the safety benefits outweigh the slight loss in productivity. And actually the argument can be made that workers who feel safer do better work. Besides, the interests of the workers lies in protecting their personal ability to work, and to get as much pay as they can for the least amount of work possible (which is the exact opposite of the producers of porn, who want to get as much out of the workers for the least amount of pay possible). An actor gets paid the same whether or not they use a condom. Even if non-condom porn grosses more money (which is not a known fact), it wouldn't matter to the actors. They don't make royalties on each sale. They are paid per scene.

 

[tim987]

One could also argue the following:

- It's not a personal choice since a number of producers will not hire actors that want to use condoms.

- While in some industries it's impossible to produce the intended product or service after utilizing certain safety measures, porn can still be made with condoms. So, the safety of the workers can be significantly improved without detrimentally harming the final product. The product will be slightly changed, but production will not be hindered. Allowing for periodic safety inspections slightly limits the amount of coal that can be produced from a mine in a shift, but the safety benefits outweigh the slight loss in productivity. And actually the argument can be made that workers who feel safer do better work. Besides, the interests of the workers lies in protecting their personal ability to work, and to get as much pay as they can for the least amount of work possible (which is the exact opposite of the producers of porn, who want to get as much out of the workers for the least amount of pay possible). An actor gets paid the same whether or not they use a condom. Even if non-condom porn grosses more money (which is not a known fact), it wouldn't matter to the actors. They don't make royalties on each sale. They are paid per scene.

A number of producers may not hire actors because they're ugly and that's not illegal. A number of modelling agencies may not hire ugly people and that's not illegal. It's not illegal to not hire someone because they want to use a condom.

Some people don't want to be safe. For example, sometimes people go for a swim when there are sharks around because their willing to take the risk of swimming with sharks. Some porn stars may not want to wear condoms so they shouldn't be forced.
Why protect someone who DOES NOT want to be protected?

 

[grower_boy]

Well this is just absurd, now isn't it? Now on top of being a porn fan, I'm a big fan of sports and wrestling. Those are entertainment-based professions that risk your health and life on a weekly basis. If a pornstar wants to participate in a scene using semen (for any reason), how is a free country gonna stop her?

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Shouldn't it be a choice thing? If porn stars want to use a condom they can get with male porn stars that do use them. For those who do not want to use condoms then they can work with those who do not want to use them.

There is no need to make it mandatory. What do they do outside their personal lives? Next thing you know that will come into question to make sure condom porn is safer. Possibly. Slippery slope of things to come.

Besides, condoms only protect so much, they are not 100% effective.

 

[habo9]

Im sure Popeye will have something to say about this

Awwwwwwwwww right semen , silly me :tongue:

 

[masseffect dude]

Not my country...

 

[Big Drake]

A number of producers may not hire actors because they're ugly and that's not illegal. A number of modelling agencies may not hire ugly people and that's not illegal. It's not illegal to not hire someone because they want to use a condom.

Who said it was??

Some people don't want to be safe. For example, sometimes people go for a swim when there are sharks around because their willing to take the risk of swimming with sharks. Some porn stars may not want to wear condoms so they shouldn't be forced.
Why protect someone who DOES NOT want to be protected?

That's not a valid comparison at all. A person deciding to take a swim in shark infested water and a worker looking for employment in an industry that promotes unsafe practices. Apples and footballs brother.

You have no ideas what porn actors what or don't want. Show me a scientific survey to prove otherwise.

You've already got one actress in this thread saying she prefers condoms...

 

[Big Drake]

Shouldn't it be a choice thing? If porn stars want to use a condom they can get with male porn stars that do use them. For those who do not want to use condoms then they can work with those who do not want to use them.

That kind of free choice would only be possible in an ideal situation, where people had sex on film purely for pleasure. In reality, actors are motivated mainly by financial gain. And many producers won't hire them unless they perform without condoms. So, in practice, they're forced into an unsafe situation because they want to make a living.

Keep in mind, I don't even watch condom porn. I skip any scene with condoms. That doesn't change the facts though.

 

[DJCowboy]

I bet the performers could still take off the condoms for jizz shots. Didn't read any of the links so don't know if this was addressed but I'm guessing they can take it off, it just would be that they have to have them on during penetration

 

[tim987]

Who said it was??



That's not a valid comparison at all. A person deciding to take a swim in shark infested water and a worker looking for employment in an industry that promotes unsafe practices. Apples and footballs brother.

You have no ideas what porn actors what or don't want. Show me a scientific survey to prove otherwise.

You've already got one actress in this thread saying she prefers condoms...

if she said she "prefers" condoms that doesn't mean she will not have sex with someone without a condom. It's still her choice. No ones forcing her.

What about the actresses that DO want to use condoms? Freedom of choice. The law is NOT stopping people who WANT to use condoms from being in porn. If no one wants to employ a porn actress who wants to wear a condom, then that's the employers choice, just like if a modelling agency didn't want to employ someone who was only 5 feet tall.
If you want to be a police officer but you can't pass the Fitness test, you can't be a cop.
If you want to be a porn star but can't get your head around NOT wearing a condom, then the employer can say you can't work for them.
Certain employers have certain requirements. Don't meet the requirements and you can't get the job.

 

[Big Drake]

Ahh, and there we get to the crux of the matter: "free choice" in employment boils down to letting business make all the choices about employment.

So if you grow up in a town where the only employment is a coal mine, and the owner of the mine chooses to pay starvation wages and chooses not to pay for necessary safety equipment like respirators that's fine. Don't like it? You can choose to be unemployed.

If all the owners of all the businesses choose they can't afford any safety measures then you can choose to ... starve to death.

Great system!

 

[PamCarmen69]

On top of that one could also argue there is a first amendment issue with it also. They're using some safety issue to limit something that could be considered an expression of the right to free speech by willing adults.

I just wanted to add that this may no longer hold true. One of the prominent porn lawyers that holds this view (that every porn performance is an act of free speech) now questions whether a recent Ninth Circuit decision might harm a First Amendment opposition to the use of condoms in porn.

Here is an article on the ruling. He posted this on another forum. - http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/11/25500.htm

A small portion for those that don't want to read it all:

Legal brothels in Nevada cannot publicly advertise under the protection of the First Amendment because prostitution is a "vice" with unique social and legal characteristics that must be regulated by the state, the 9th Circuit ruled.

...

Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that a strong reason for agreeing with the state's position "derives from the degree of disfavor in which prostitution is held in our society.

...

Judge John Noonan concurred, stating that "the United States may constitutionally suppress speech that offers sexual intercourse for sale."

 

[rintoe]

Illegal jizz! What ever next?

That's male oppression damn it.

Free the spuzz now!