Condom only porn. (page 3)

Author	Post
Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Jun 8 2011 : 3:11PM celluloidferox wrote: I don't believe the government has any right to impose this kind of law. Then again, big brother hasn't done anything worth a fuck in the last ten years anyway. Between passing Obamacare without a fair vote on a society that doesn't need or want it, to forcing mandatory condom use on an industry that doesn't want or need it. Click to expand Actually when it comes to businesses, it does and has for a long time. OSHA has always had wide power when it comes to any workplace. I think because they don't always enforce or oversee things, people tend to "think" they don't. They don't need to go through the three branches of the Federal Government either. Balancing the scales is what they are there to do, whether it always helps us citizens or not. [Link]
charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jun 27 2011 : 8:16PM I've seen photosets that have lots of closeups of condoms in vag. That's an indication of where the porn industry could go. Instead of zooming out to show whole bodies, they may keep doing the same dumb shit, with condoms. [Link]
angryassdrummer Member 559 Posts 3/11	Posted - Jun 27 2011 : 9:17PM there is something about condoms in porn scenes thats so not sexy, at first i didnt even realise i was skipping every scene that had it. it just does zero for me. like others have said, i will either watch older porn without it or stick to euro porn. In the 90s Wicked & Vivid had all my favourite stars but their use of condoms turned me off and havent bought a dvd from those companies in over a decade. [Link]
mstrhole All-Star Member 490 Posts 9/10	Posted - Jun 27 2011 : 9:47PM I wonder how many of those posting (recently) in this thread have been following he press surrounding the CalOSHA hearings on their proposed rulemaking? It isn't the porn actors/actresses who want condoms, and condoms are not a workplace safety issue, according to the comments I've seen on other boards and in the news. Regular testing and timely treatment is a much better alternative -- that system is already in place and working. This isn't a workplace safety issue, it's about people who want to get rid of porn using this (workplace safety) as an excuse (now who would that be, I wonder?) to shut down the industry. There are a LOT more dangerous professions than being in porn and many of them have little or no regulation (doing stunts for Hollywood films for example). If CalOSHA promulgates rules requiring things like face shields, dental dams, rubber gloves, and condoms, the porn industry will just move somewhere else and California will lose more money. I seriously doubt if we'll be seeing a massive move toward condom only porn. It doesn't make any economic sense and it doesn't make the on-screen sex any safer. [Link]

WardqueenJanine Member 914 Posts 2/08	Posted - Jun 28 2011 : 9:46AM I dislike condom porn and although not quite as bad it approximates the fake cum and huge fake cock porn which I categorically will not watch. [Link]
Algaliarept Senior Member 3557 Posts 7/08	Posted - Jun 28 2011 : 10:48PM Blossom wrote: there may be more porn actresses willing to do boy/girl scenes due to using condoms, so maybe that's a good thing. Click to expand That had never occorred to me, but you could be on to something with that [Link]
kromos Member 12 Posts 6/11	Posted - Jun 28 2011 : 11:18PM To begin with, I fully support the rights of those who work in the porn industry (or any other industry) to control their working conditions. If performers want to go to a "mandatory condom" policy, I do think that is their right. However, I suspect that such a policy would destroy the industry, and take their jobs down with it. Porn is fantasy: in our fantasies, we don't worry about STDs, pregnancies, or social conventions. Condoms do/would, by their vary presence in a scene, inject a continuous dose of reality. Some people might find that reassuring, but I imagine that most fans would be seriously put-off by it. While it may not be an exact comparison, the STD rates in the mostly-condom gay porn industry are likely much higher than the rates in the testing-dominated straight porn industry. We certainly know that far more gay performers than straight performers have died from contracting HIV/AIDS. Testing would seem to be a more effective means of controlling HIV among straight performers. I would think that other STDs could be better controlled by shorter testing intervals. Again, I want the performers involved to be the ones making the decision. Not the government, the production companies, or self-appointed guardians of sexual health. [Link]
Algaliarept Senior Member 3557 Posts 7/08	Posted - Jun 28 2011 : 11:21PM ^^ as previously stated. It won't destroy the Porn Industry worldwide. European porn will just have to take its place. [Link]
charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jun 30 2011 : 5:29PM [Image not found DB] [Link]
tbetts12 Member 87 Posts 11/10	Posted - Jun 30 2011 : 8:34PM Im a democrat, so I support condom regulation in the porn industry. We dont allow inmates to work in building with abestos that can cause lung cancer. and you have to make the, condom policy mandatory and not voluntary,because girls who are willing to to not use condom will force other girls out of the market. We have 40 hour work rules in this country we wanna force performers to contract herpes. if I was the industry I would self regulate with condoms for vaginal and anal scenes,before the government comes in and makes it condom, for oral as well. [Link]
Cody McLarge Senior Member 2668 Posts 8/10	Posted - Jun 30 2011 : 8:35PM Uhum, and porn is a public health arena how? [Link]
kromos Member 12 Posts 6/11	Posted - Jun 30 2011 : 9:30PM If condom usage were legislatively mandated, the straight porn industry in the US would be decimated. Few people would watch pornography which uses condoms for all sexual encounters. Consumers of straight porn would undoubtedly look to foreign sources of product and to already-produced material they haven't yet seen. But the biggest source of condom-free porn production would likely be material produced under the legal radar. We know from American history what happens when a product/service desired by the public is made illegal by government mandate. After passage of The Volstead Act, alcohol production didn't end. Today, gambling, prostitution, and drug transactions take place regularly in spite of their largely illegal status. What does happen (look at prostitution in Sweden after the 2000 prostitution legislation) is that production and activity is driven underground--where control and oversight are virtually nonexistent. Significant numbers of performers would continue to make condom-less porn. However, since legitimate testing services would no longer exist in the open, those performers would be left working without condoms AND without the ability to know the health status of their co-stars. Unlike those in the gay porn industry, performers in straight porn are not high risk for HIV/AIDS. The process of testing seems to have functioned very well for those in straight porn, and more frequent testing would certainly reduce the rates of other STDs. I agree that performers engage in a certain amount of risk, and again, I support the rights of performers to make a decision concerning the use of condoms. But, mandatory condom usage would not only destroy the business of porn in the US, it would make it far more dangerous for those performers who would likely continue to work in underground production. [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Jul 1 2011 : 1:11PM I may be considered partially biased since I don't mind condom porn but I'm not so sure that European porn companies are going to be able to increase their sales since many of them have started using condom in more shoots. I know that most French shoots usually have condom in them and it's far more common now in the rest of Europe. I know that many hardent haters of condom porn have already stated that they will never watch condom porn but I wonder how many of them will stick to that decision if popular gperformers that wouldn't have done B/G shoot before are now willing to do it because of condoms. I also agree with some that have said that some girls are waiting for forced condom rules to be implemented to start doing hardcore. [Link]
Riograndeler Senior Member 1033 Posts 11/08	Posted - Jul 1 2011 : 7:08PM We have many excellent girls, who are not afraid to fuck without condoms. Nikki Sexx , Ashli Orion , Phoenix Marie , Amy Brooke and many others. I have not any interest to see new girls, who start doing b/g with condoms. Sex with condoms is not porn. If I will be forced to watch just 3 girls, who will work bareback, I will be a fan of those 3 girls. But i will not buy any videos with condom use. Sales come down, the rates come down in France. So many performers have to work somewhere else (Hungary for example or USA), many French performers are based in foreign countries now and they are gladly working without condoms. Condoms are killing the porn industry. [Link]

Dvamp44 Member 133 Posts 10/10	Posted - Jul 1 2011 : 8:25PM Like many people have said, If condoms were mandatory then it probably move underground or in another country. Personally, I don't care too much for condoms in my real life so I don't really want to watch them in porn either. If some of my favorite performers decided to use condoms I would still watch them though.. [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Jul 1 2011 : 9:58PM ^You aren't the first to mention that the porn business in America would move undeground if condoms became mandatory but I don't think it can anymore. The days of porn being filmed Undeground are over. These days porn companies have studios with well known addresses to film their movies. They deal with marketing companies to help sell their products. They deal with distributors to increase business. You could probably film your bareback movies underground but these would still have to be marketed and you`d still have to find a distributor and that`s where companies might encounter problems. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 2 2011 : 2:22AM charn wrote: [Image not found DB] Click to expand I like minivans. I'd rather have a minivan than a sports car. I'd like to have a pimped minivan. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 2 2011 : 2:37AM pat362 wrote: I know that many hardent haters of condom porn have already stated that they will never watch condom porn but I wonder how many of them will stick to that decision if popular gperformers that wouldn't have done B/G shoot before are now willing to do it because of condoms. Click to expand Well, we can always wait and see. I can tell you I won't be buying it. I think some people are either delusional or just plain pretending they actually believe what they're saying. Real hardcore came about because people want to see it. You can't keep that down no matter what you do. I also agree with some that have said that some girls are waiting for forced condom rules to be implemented to start doing hardcore. Click to expand Hardcore with condoms is softcore made to look like hardcore. Might as well just take the fucking out completely. [Link]
Cody McLarge Senior Member 2668 Posts 8/10	Posted - Jul 2 2011 : 8:09AM I don't know, I have Here Cums the President, of which most of the scenes include the rubbers, and it's noticeable but it looks like it doesn't detract from the hotness of the intercourse. [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Jul 2 2011 : 11:32AM Well, we can always wait and see. I can tell you I won't be buying it. I think some people are either delusional or just plain pretending they actually believe what they're saying. Real hardcore came about because people want to see it. You can't keep that down no matter what you do. Hardcore with condoms is softcore made to look like hardcore. Might as well just take the fucking out completely. Click to expand I take it that you are definetely in the "will never watch condom porn" camp. I respect that choice. I hope that if they go condom only that you may at some point reconsider your stance but if you don't then you still have 30 plus years of accumulated content to satisfy your desire. My view on hardcore is very different than yours. If there is penetration than it's hardcore. The condom changes nothing to that except that the penis or toy used is now covered with a rubber. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 3 2011 : 4:01AM tbetts12 wrote: Im a democrat, so I support condom regulation in the porn industry. Click to expand I've spent hours trying to convince people the Democrats are as much behind this as anyone else. To no avail. At least you're (semi) honest and you have to make the, condom policy mandatory and not voluntary,because girls who are willing to to not use condom will force other girls out of the market. Click to expand Holy shit what an epiphany! Do you just think that might be the way a market is supposed to work? How can anyone offer a superior product if the superior product is against the law? We have 40 hour work rules in this country we wanna force performers to contract herpes. Click to expand I'm not a porn expert but I don't know of anyone in the United States who has been forced into the porn industry. Nor have I heard of any performers being dragged onto a set and forced to perform. Even the ones who later had issues with what they were asked to do walked onto the sets and chose to stay even when things got ugly and they were no longer cool with it. Additionally, we have overtime pay for people willing to work more than 40 hours. And overtime laws don't cause any industry to create an inferior product that customers don't want. Nobody has responded adequately to that, either. They might have to hire more employees or charge slightly more for their products so they can pay overtime but the product is virtually the same. if I was the industry Click to expand If you were the industry, I wouldn't buy a used soda can from you for a penny. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 3 2011 : 5:03AM pat362 wrote: I take it that you are definetely in the "will never watch condom porn" camp. I respect that choice. I hope that if they go condom only that you may at some point reconsider your stance but if you don't then you still have 30 plus years of accumulated content to satisfy your desire. Click to expand Obviously, you don't get it. It's the principle. Not the availability. I already have enough porn to last me until my dick shrivels. My view on hardcore is very different than yours. If there is penetration than it's hardcore. The condom changes nothing to that except that the penis or toy used is now covered with a rubber. Click to expand My view is that if the man has a condom on he's fucking a condom and the woman might as well not even be there. And that happens to be the reality of it. I've used condoms before and that's why I stopped having sex. To me, the risk of unprotected sex is too high and wearing a condom makes it pointless and as unsexy as it could possibly be. But my opinion is that every person who has sex has a right to decide whether or not they want to take risks. Porn is a unique business and you can't change that with bullshit. Most businesses do not mix sex, business and money the way the porn business does. And again, you don't go to work at the hospital to get fucked up the ass on camera so people can watch it and get off to it. It matters what it looks like because they are selling the visual. That's the whole point. It's amazing that people have to keep saying this and people like you keep ignoring it. But that's to be expected because you're arguing in favor of big brother government. You people are all the same. I argue with people like you every day about the same shit (just different themes) and it's always the same story. And you know what? If you really are a porn fan I hope you get your way because that's the only way you're ever going to learn anything. People only ever learn when they get exactly what they asked for. [Link]
mstrhole All-Star Member 490 Posts 9/10	Posted - Jul 6 2011 : 11:30AM tbetts12 wrote: Im a democrat, so I support condom regulation in the porn industry. Click to expand One has nothing to do with the other. Your statement is patently absurd. We dont allow inmates to work in building with abestos that can cause lung cancer. and you have to make the, condom policy mandatory and not voluntary,because girls who are willing to to not use condom will force other girls out of the market. Click to expand Your post assumes, as many others have on this thread, that condom use is the only way to prevent STD's. Peer reviewed studies have clearly demonstrated that regular testing of adult performers along with treatment for those found to be infected, reduces the STD risk much more than mere condom use. We have 40 hour work rules in this country we wanna force performers to contract herpes. Click to expand No one is forced into the adult industry. if I was the industry I would self regulate with condoms for vaginal and anal scenes,before the government comes in and makes it condom, for oral as well. Click to expand In order to maintain your logic you would also need to force the use of dental dams or other shields for cunnilingus, condoms for blowjobs, and face shields for pretty much anyone in a scene. You would also need to end all kissing in porn (not that there's all that much out there to begin with, but that's for another thread) and eliminate any possibility for the transfer of bodily fluids from one person to another. There's more to porn than just vaginal/anal sex. If your goal is to prevent the infection of porn performers you must address all of the possible means of fluid transfer, not just one or two. That, of course, is absurd. There would be no industry if these types of rules went into effect, voluntarily or otherwise. The only, proven effective, way to ensure the continued health and safety of adult performers AND preserve the industry itself is to strenghthen the system of regular testing and treatment of performers. Condoms alone cannot do it and it is ridiculus to continue to insist that the truth is otherwise. Edited by - mstrhole on 7/6/2011 11:32:14 AM [Link]
kromos Member 12 Posts 6/11	Posted - Jul 6 2011 : 1:09PM Here is an interesting research paper done by an economics professor. It is entitled "Self-Regulation in the Adult Film Industry: Why Are HIV Outbreaks the Exception and Not the Norm?" http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/10239/Padilla_Self-RegulationintheAFI.doc Among other things, the author looks at some of the economic principles of the porn industry, the role of AIM in diminishing STD risks of performers, and comparisons of STD rates within the straight porn industry to those in the general population. [Link]

Ignatz Deactivated User 269 Posts 2/12	Posted - Feb 11 2012 : 7:56AM Sign of the times. [Link]
silex Member 475 Posts 12/09	Posted - Mar 9 2012 : 2:12AM The Huffington Post is doing a poll on the mandatory condome use issue Join the debate here [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 9 2012 : 9:58AM ^I found the excercise pretty useless because the poll is too limiting. I think the use of condoms in porn in conjecture with the current testing system can only be good news to any performer wishing to avoid getting an STD. I find that most people talking about condoms in porn keep bringing up AIDS as one of their main arguments for or against the use of condoms and that's where they lose me. I know the group behind the condom progrm don't like it but the facts don't lie. The number of performers that have been infected with the HIV virus in porn is extremely small compared to those that haven't been and the circumstance in which they were infected is also pretty clear. Of course one person infected is still one too many but I think they would have had a far better argument if they had used the number of performers that have been infected with herpes, vaginal or anal warts, ghonorrhea and a slew of other STD's. Herpes may not kill you but you are still stuck with this disease for the rest of your life. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Mar 9 2012 : 2:07PM pat362 wrote: Herpes may not kill you but you are still stuck with this disease for the rest of your life. Click to expand And that costs money, right? It's really about money. The people who are behind this don't give a fuck about the performers. It's just the money. That's why a manageable health issue is unacceptable even if the performer was aware of the risk and chose to take it. I keep making this point and people keep pulling away as soon as they realize this is directly linked to Obamacare. If an insurance company or the government has to pay for people's medical bills, you'd better believe they're gonna butt into our lives anywhere they need to in order to keep costs down. The way they see it, they're just keeping their livestock healthy so we can keep paying our taxes and bills and they can keep collecting. Universal healthcare for all! Just don't get sick. There's your "concern for the safety of the performers". Well, I'll tell you what. If people aren't allowed to fuck on camera without a condom, I'd hate to see what else they have in store for us. There's really not much difference between fucking a stranger on camera and picking a stranger up at a bar, taking them home and fucking them in your own house. They will not stop here. Because there are a lot more people who get herpes that way than who get it on a porn set. When they are in your bedroom, don't say no one ever warned you. Edited by - randomprecision on 3/9/2012 2:14:35 PM [Link]
the traveler Deactivated User 309 Posts 8/11	Posted - Mar 9 2012 : 3:04PM I don't watch porn with condoms now and I wont do it when it becomes mandatory. [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 9 2012 : 9:00PM ^That's your right. Just as it is mine to say that I'm quite happy to see a gorgeous girl having condom sex. For me it's the look of the performers, the heat of the action and the chemsistry that interest. The fact that the guy is wearing a condom in no way stops me from enjoying the scene and can increase the heat of the scene if he cums while inside the girl. This way I don't have to see him pull out and cum somewhere on the girl. [Link]
RedDevil87 Senior Member 1044 Posts 4/11	Posted - Mar 9 2012 : 9:27PM Porn with condoms just isn't porn at all. I'll pretty much be done with it (new stuff) if it goes completely condom only. [Link]
mayotteru Member 17 Posts 3/12	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 4:49AM Would suck... but there will always be alternatives. I can't envision a future where no one, no where is producing quality condom-free porn. Hell, there's bestiality and scat porn and who knows what else. [Link]
InFamous Deactivated User 1051 Posts 2/12	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 3:14PM mayotteru wrote: Would suck... but there will always be alternatives. I can't envision a future where no one, no where is producing quality condom-free porn. Hell, there's bestiality and scat porn and who knows what else. Click to expand There always amateur and european porn, they don't used condoms btw. Edited by - InFamous on 3/10/2012 3:17:48 PM [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 3:54PM ^Nope they are also starting to move toward more condom scenes. If you've ever seen porn made in France then you know that they almost never shoot any penetration without condoms. Porn is a business and talent catching an STD on their set is bad for business and since so many girls have gone the escort route then many studios are getting nervous about hiring them because you have now added the unknown player into the equation. Girls have to have a valid test which is normally good for a month but once they have the test and do escort duties in-between shooting porn then you have the potential for a girl to get infected by her customer. Yeah I know you'll say that customers have to wear condoms but can anyone be sure that some extra cash. Doesn't make that rule disapear. The amount some of the girls make in Europe are tiny compared to some of what I have read girls make in the US. You can't tell me that a girl wouldn't consider it if she's offered triple the amount she charges for condom sex? [Link]

InFamous Deactivated User 1051 Posts 2/12	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 4:09PM pat362 wrote: ^Nope they are also starting to move toward more condom scenes. If you've ever seen porn made in France then you know that they almost never shoot any penetration without condoms. Porn is a business and talent catching an STD on their set is bad for business and since so many girls have gone the escort route then many studios are getting nervous about hiring them because you have now added the unknown player into the equation. Girls have to have a valid test which is normally good for a month but once they have the test and do escort duties in-between shooting porn then you have the potential for a girl to get infected by her customer. Yeah I know you'll say that customers have to wear condoms but can anyone be sure that some extra cash. Doesn't make that rule disapear. The amount some of the girls make in Europe are tiny compared to some of what I have read girls make in the US. You can't tell me that a girl wouldn't consider it if she's offered triple the amount she charges for condom sex? Click to expand Not european porn, but some amature porn websites do used them but some don't. [Link]
MorganKane Senior Member 6037 Posts 10/10	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 5:35PM While it does seem like I'm in the minority, I don't really mind condoms and condoms has never really bothered me. Condoms or not, I'll still get great pleasure from watching my favorite pornstars. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 5:53PM ^ So you really don't have a stake in it. It doesn't bother you and you don't care one way or another. If it does happen bother you, you don't have a choice. They don't give a fuck. You can't decide not to let it bother you if it does. That's what's wrong with mandates. The only choice you have if you don't like it is to glean your porn from elsewhere. There are other sources but... 1. I object on principle first and foremost. Even if it didn't bother me, I'd still be against it because I believe the right to choose supersedes the government's right to butt into the sex lives of consenting adults. 2. Amateur porn is dangerous because nobody is checking IDs. [Link]
InFamous Deactivated User 1051 Posts 2/12	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 6:50PM Check this out from a director [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 7:37PM ^He was making some good points and then it started to unravel at an alarming speed with his comparaison of the test each performer has to have each month being equal to the helmet football players wear. It's not remotely the same because helmets are there to protect the players head from injury. I'd say that if he was really a pro condoms in porn guy then he would have said that helmets are like condoms. They are both there to protect people from injury. Both do as good a job as technology permits but they aren't perfect. They just happen to be the best we can offer at the moment. I like the fact that he compares Ava Devine to Raquel Devine and says that Ava gets so many more offers because she doesn't requere condoms while raquel does. No offense but Ava is significantly more extreme than Raquel. It's like comparing a non-anal performer VS an anal performer in todays gonzo world. The anal performer is going to get a lot more offers than the non-anal one. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Mar 10 2012 : 8:23PM pat362 wrote: ^He was making some good points and then it started to unravel at an alarming speed with his comparaison of the test each performer has to have each month being equal to the helmet football players wear. It's not remotely the same because helmets are there to protect the players head from injury. I'd say that if he was really a pro condoms in porn guy then he would have said that helmets are like condoms. They are both there to protect people from injury. Both do as good a job as technology permits but they aren't perfect. They just happen to be the best we can offer at the moment. Click to expand Once again - 1. A helmet doesn't ruin the game. A condom (and other barriers) ruins the porn for (I believe) the majority of people. But if a player didn't want to wear a helmet, I wouldn't force him to. Again, I don't have a problem with something like this on a voluntary basis. I think most people are intelligent enough to at least understand the risks. 2. Testing works the vast majority of the time for the most serious STDs. The few HIV cases there have been have been blown out of proportion by these opportunistic shitbags. 3. If people stopped wearing pads and helmets in football and kept playing as hard as they do, people would be dying and getting crippled right and left. Most STDs are treatable. Many are even curable. And HIV is exceedingly rare in the porn business when you consider the sheer number of scenes shot. HIV was the crux of their argument. They obviously successfully did this by blowing the risk completely out of proportion. Edited by - randomprecision on 3/10/2012 8:26:32 PM [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 11 2012 : 12:02PM ^You and I both know that you are completely against condoms in porn to the point where there will never an argument good enough to make you change you mind. I respect your choice but because you aren't open to even looking at the possibility then it makes it hard to argue the point with you. Here goes anyway. 1-A Helmet doesn't ruin the game because it's part of the equipment that people have gotten used to seeing on a weekly basis and the industry forces it players to wear them because they really don't want to see a dead or bleeding player on the field because he fractured his skull during a game. You will never see a helmet being optional because the owners know that regardless of the choice the player made in not wearing an helmet. They would get sued the moment the player was injured and they would lose in court. 2-You are correct that testing works amazingly well the vast majority of the time but I'm affraid that your assessment that some STD are more serious lesser than others is incorrect. Yes, many STD's can be cured with the proper treatment but there are also those that can only controlled. I don't know about you but telling a performer that she doesn't have the HIV virus but has Herpes can't be the greateste piece of news she gets. On the one had she doesn't have a life theatrening disease but on the other hand she does have an incurable one. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 1:23AM pat362 wrote: ^You and I both know that you are completely against condoms in porn to the point where there will never an argument good enough to make you change you mind. Click to expand Where did I deny that? I never suggested you could change my mind. I have said repeatedly in all condom threads that I will never change my mind about it. I don't recall speaking to you in many past threads. Consider yourself informed. This is not a debate as far as I'm concerned. You can ignore me if you choose but I'm not some softheaded imbecile who will go along to get along. I have my own principles and I don't compromise when I know I'm right. I respect your choice but because you aren't open to even looking at the possibility then it makes it hard to argue the point with you. Here goes anyway. Click to expand No you don't. That's an obvious case of doublethink and it's pretty cowardly too. At least have the guts to admit you have absolutely no respect for freedom of choice. You're absolutely right. I'm not going to look at the possibility of mandatory condoms in porn. Ever. This is where I will stand up and say you're just plain wrong. Forever. 1-A Helmet doesn't ruin the game because it's part of the equipment that people have gotten used to seeing on a weekly basis and the industry forces it players to wear them because they really don't want to see a dead or bleeding player on the field because he fractured his skull during a game. You will never see a helmet being optional because the owners know that regardless of the choice the player made in not wearing an helmet. They would get sued the moment the player was injured and they would lose in court. Click to expand No. The helmet doesn't ruin the game because the object of football is not to derive pleasure from ramming your uncovered skull against another 300 pound player. Football is about taking a ball from one place to another. How it gets there is basically irrelevant. Sex (Particularly for men) is (For many of us) about the pleasure derived from flesh on flesh contact. Actually having our most private parts in full contact with her most private parts. Porn is about conveying (as fully as possible) the sensations of pleasure derived from that contact. I've tried using condoms in my personal life and stopped using them because I just hated it. When I see a condom in porn, I get instantly remember all the times the condom just ruined it for me. The mere sight or even the thought of it destroys everything. I have never "gotten used to it" and I never will. One of my favorite niches is bukkake. How do you do real bukkake and swallowing with a condom/barrier mandate? The whole point of porn for many people is bare, hardcore sex. With testing behind the scenes, everything is taken care of before the camera rolls and the viewer doesn't see the proverbial wires and blue screens. Whether or not individual customers mind seeing them is irrelevant. Very few people would ever even try to seriously argue that a condom makes porn more of a turn on. No one watches a James Bond flick to see a bunch of obvious stunt doubles on wires and fireproof suits pretending to be secret agents and villains. Most people don't watch porn to see two people pointlessly bumping into one another through layers of rubber. It's already enough of a stretch to imagine most of them are feeling anything at all without all that crap. To beat it all, if your particular "fetish" happens to involve something like swallowing, it's physically impossible without some serious trickery. Which ruins it because you know it's trickery and you're constantly looking for the trickery instead of just enjoying yourself. In this sense, porn is not like a James Bond flick. A stunt is just not good enough. I can't get off to girls swallowing watered down mayonnaise if I know it's just a trick. And that kind of thing is damn hard to pull off without it being spotted even when people aren't looking for it. If they know real swallowing isn't allowed, that's it. Forget it. 2-You are correct that testing works amazingly well the vast majority of the time but I'm affraid that your assessment that some STD are more serious lesser than others is incorrect. Yes, many STD's can be cured with the proper treatment but there are also those that can only controlled. I don't know about you but telling a performer that she doesn't have the HIV virus but has Herpes can't be the greateste piece of news she gets. Click to expand When I was about 16, a neurologist told me I'd probably have epilepsy for the rest of my life. Wasn't the best news I ever got. I'm 38 now and am no happier about it than I ever was. I have taken three pills a day at exactly the same times every day for the last 22 years. Look up Depakote and read the side effects and imagine taking three of them every day for 22 years. And even so, sometimes I have breakthrough seizures out of the blue. As far as I know, I never did anything to cause it. It just is. I never read a sheet of paper that said "If you do this, this might happen" and signed my name at the bottom to say I understood the risk. But it turns out that someone did make a decision that probably made it inevitable. My parents chose to have kids knowing they didn't have the best genes in the world. Can you imagine waking up in the middle of the night in the aftermath of a terrible seizure as a result of the fact that two people decided to fuck and have kids 38 years ago? This thread isn't about me so I won't go into a ton of detail (I've written a lot about it elsewhere on this forum if you care to use the search function). I'm not ignoring the significance of a herpes diagnosis but compared to what I've had to deal with in my life, herpes is kind of like being diagnosed with acne. I'd give anything to have been given a choice. If someone had told me "What you're about to do is risky and this is exactly what could happen if you do it". If I could have said "No way! I'm not doing that!" These people have choices and they should be allowed to make them on their own. The fact that they may not be the best choices or the ones that you would make is not your cue to go ahead and try to make their choices for them. I wish someone had made an effort to talk my parents out of reproducing. Or at least gave them an inkling of the possibilities of what could go wrong even if their kids appeared to be healthy. But you can't force people. You just can't. It's wrong. And you know what? I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it if someone tried to talk young girls out of doing porn before they did it. I wouldn't have a problem with an industry standard method of making sure they fully understand exactly what they're doing. What I do have a problem with is assuming they're incapable of thinking and making informed choices even if they're armed with the knowledge that they need. That's the kind of thinking that always leads a society to dark places. On the one had she doesn't have a life theatrening disease but on the other hand she does have an incurable one. Click to expand And as long as she was aware of the probability that would happen ahead of time, I can live with that. I am deeply suspicious of people who try to push emotional buttons with me. I'm not turning off my brain for you or anyone else just because you invoked the obvious fact that choices have consequences. Now. Like most mandates, this one simply ignores all dissent and nuance and uses brute force to hammer people into compliance with arbitrary rules without respect to their wishes. These people spent a lot of time and energy (and I'm assuming money) on instituting a blanket mandate on a bunch of people who are doing this of their own free will and didn't want their brand of "help". If their intent was really to help people with STDs, they could have instead focused their attention on doing other things to help people who actually asked for their assistance. There is obviously more than meets the eye to this. If you choose to deny that, so be it. When someone wastes this much time and energy on forcing people to do something most of them don't want to do and say they're doing it for their own good, they're almost always lying. They're up to more than just "protecting" a very small number of people from themselves. And that's beside the point. They have no right to. Edited by - randomprecision on 3/12/2012 1:27:21 AM [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 10:27AM ^Let me first say I'm sorry for your health issues. I can't say that understand what it's like living with your problems because I have no idea. I'd only like to say that if your parents hadn't had sex 38 years ago then you and I could never have this and all the other discussions we've had. I think that would be my loss. Where did I deny that? Click to expand You never did. You have always been honest on your feelings. That's why I said that you will never change you mind regardless of what might be put forward. You only want condomless porn and nothing else. At least have the guts to admit you have absolutely no respect for freedom of choice. Click to expand The problem with choice is that if a performer request a condom and the producer doesn't want one then she's not going to get hired and that's the current reality for performers. The way it currently stands. Condoms are not an option to girls if they want to be hired and that's regardless that they might want to use one with a particular male performer that they don't know. No. The helmet doesn't ruin the game Click to expand It doesn't ruin the game but not having a helmet would. For the same reason that not having padding would also ruin the game. Contact sports by definition involve multiple bodies coming into contact and there is always the chnae of injury. That's why sports companies spends millions in R&D to improve the equipment which in turn improve the protection of the players. Baseball players only wear a helmet when they are bat and yet the number of players that have been hit on the head is insignificant compared to all those that haven't but they still wear one to prevent injury otr death. One of my favorite niches is bukkake. Click to expand I could be wrong and if I am then my current poitn will be useless but as far as I know. the condom rules is in regards to penetration so bukkake swallowing are not affected by the mandate. [Link]
regomar Member 34 Posts 6/10	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 12:22PM I'll never buy porn with condoms. Ruins the whole damn thing for me. Fuck that. [Link]
ControlFreak Member At the end of the day, it is what it is. 629 Posts 12/09	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 12:31PM Strap-on lesbians and solo girls should use condoms. We don't know where that dildo has been...but they can go bare-dildo if OSHA can see on film that it came directly out of the package and was thrown away immediately after use... [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 2:57PM ^If you've watched some Kink scenes then you must have seen that the dildos have condoms on them. I think that unless the dildo belongs the performer and will only be used on her then it should have a condom on it. I'm not too familair with the capacity for disease to adhere to a dildo but better safe than sorry. [Link]
ControlFreak Member At the end of the day, it is what it is. 629 Posts 12/09	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 3:02PM ^^^ Wo! I just made that up as a joke! Never heard of it and never watched kink.com! All I knew was that porn shops have a no return policy on sex toys. [Link]
pat362 Senior Member 10079 Posts 3/10	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 8:32PM ^Would you really want someone to return a sex toy a few days after they bought it if you owned a sex shop? [Link]
kirby Member California 187 Posts 8/06	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 9:32PM pat362 wrote: The problem with choice is that if a performer request a condom and the producer doesn't want one then she's not going to get hired and that's the current reality for performers. The way it currently stands. Condoms are not an option to girls if they want to be hired and that's regardless that they might want to use one with a particular male performer that they don't know. Click to expand i hope you don't mind if i enter your debate, but i think requesting condoms is similar to having a no-list. some girls don't do anal, some don't do interracial and this hurts who they can work for. just as you say there are girls who may want the option of using condoms, there will be the girls who want the option for their partners to not use condoms. i believe it's more important if there is an option whether one can use condoms or not. also, i've never understood why people complain that porn isn't glamorous. it's not meant to be. nobody is forced to perform in the industry are they? if they don't like it, they shouldn't get into it. if they think the risks outweigh the advantages- do something else. i agree with random when he said "talk to the girls before they enter porn". i thought sex-ed was compulsory in schools now, or are we under the assumption that anyone that goes into porn missed that part of schooling? [Link]
ControlFreak Member At the end of the day, it is what it is. 629 Posts 12/09	Posted - Mar 12 2012 : 9:52PM pat362 wrote: ^Would you really want someone to return a sex toy a few days after they bought it if you owned a sex shop? Click to expand no. I didn't suggest that I did. [Link]