I don't want you to feel sorry for me. I want you to understand the difference between having something horrible inflicted on you involuntarily and choosing to take a known risk and facing the consequences. Whatever they may be. That is why I brought my health issues up. I'm beyond caring if people feel sorry for me. How many times does it need to be said? If porn performers were kidnapped off the street and dragged kicking and screaming onto porn sets, you'd more than have a point. You don't get to decide you're going to work in a certain industry and then demand that people hire you even though you're not willing to do the job.You can't possibly believe this. That's just blatantly stupid. We have to get rid of choice so people will get hired and then be required to do their job wrong? IT'S PORN! The reality is that people expect to see real fucking in porn. You will never justify a condom mandate in porn. You are just insulting people's intelligence with this bullshit. It might have flown for those rubber stampers in the LA government but it won't fly with most porn fans. You're not going to tell me that there should be a hamburger ban in fast food restaurants because people who have ethical problems with meat might not get hired. Fucking ridiculous. Of course they won't if they refuse to do the job.
Edited by - randomprecision on 3/12/2012 10:13:54 PM
I have no problem with anyone joining the debate. A new voice can always bring a new way of looking at the problem. I don't know if you have read som of my past post but in case you haven't then let me first say that my view on condoms porn is that it doesn't bother me. I don't judge the quality of the scene based on it being bareback or with a condom. My only interest in this is in regards to the health of the performers that choose to do porn for a short period time in their life. A condom is the only current protection against catching an STD during penetration. It's true that performers who choose to limit what type of porn they are willing to do also limit the number of companies that will hire them but this is their choice. Many of them limit their options to increase the demand which in turn increases the amount a studio will pay for said porn scene. Anal DP and IR are usually at the top of the list. If a performer had the choice to shoot condom porn and was still able to get hired then that would be one thing but the problem is that very few performers can request a condom and still be able to shoot porn since the powers that be don't want to shoot porn with condom so those girls aren't getting hired. Since girls can't request a condom then there is no way to truly know if they would be happier if the guy wore one and I don't know if we can believe everything they say in public because there is always the chance that she would get black listed for her pro-condom view. It's natural for people to want to be rewarded for the job they do and porn performers are no different. That's why there are awards given out each year and I think that's where the glamorous part comes in. Otherwise it's porn sets with very little glamour but then again mainstream tv/movie sets aren't glamorous anyway. I don't think the bulk of girls that choose porn do so out of any desire to be in porn. There are different reasons but quick cash is usually a recuring theme for many of them. I don't know if anyone sits with them before they join but I wonder how many of them would still do porn if they were told that shooting porn is likely to mean that they will catch a couple of STD's in their career and although none of them will be HIV. There is a good chance that one of them will be herpes. How many 18 or 19 years old understand that herpes is not curable. It's only treatable. I remember reading a few years ago that many teens were having unprotected sex because they were under the impression that AIDS was no longer a problem since they had drugs to treat it.
No. That's not what you're saying at all. Well, it is but you're not saying it very clearly. What you're really saying is that it would be one thing if the performers could stipulate that they would only work with condoms and directors/studios/whomever (The people who OWN the business) would be REQUIRED to hire them. So what you're saying is that since certain performers aren't willing to meet the requirements that many of these people have and they also can't force people who don't shoot condom porn to hire them, the government should step in and force everyone to wear condoms whether they want to or not. That (seems to me) to be exactly what you're saying. Now think about that. It's outrageous! It's insane. Not to mention the fact that condom use has never been entirely extinct from porn. I have always seen them from time to time no matter how hard I tried to filter them out. So I can imagine condom use hasn't really been so rare that an attractive performer wouldn't be able to get any work at all. So you're also not being entirely honest. Some of them would still be able to work. They just wouldn't be shooting anal creampies that somehow happen through a condom.The "powers that be" in this case are the people who are supposed to be the powers that be. They paid the money to buy the equipment. They pay the people who work for them. They're supposed to be in charge. Where did you get this bass ackwards idea that you're supposed to be able to walk into someone's office and demand that they hire you?1. They can request a condom. But some people don't shoot condom porn. Why should they expect to agree to work with someone who tells them he/she doesn't use condoms and then demand one? 2. Why are the girls the only ones who matter? Why don't you care whether or not the male talent can request a condom?What does that have to do with anything?Maybe so. So you're arguing that people who just want to turn a quick buck should be allowed to destroy the primary product of an entire industry simply because they're too good to work at Wal-Mart?I don't know if this is done either but I don't have to wonder if it would stop some of them from doing porn. Sure it would. And if it is done and we just don't know about it, I'm sure it does. This would be reasonable. Mandating that the people who make porn have to ruin their own product with rubbers and (Likely) other types of barriers) is just not reasonable in the context of what porn is, what people expect it to be and so on. Anyway, that's reasonable and that's why no one from AHF ever brought it up. Because they are not reasonable people and that's not what they want. They don't care if people understand the risk they're taking. They want to take the choice completely out of their hands whether they understand it or not. They simply don't give a shit about a person's right to choose. Edited by - randomprecision on 3/15/2012 2:53:31 AM
Just to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing (strictly for amusement): What would happen if a pornstar was Catholic and says that the use of condoms is a violation of her rights as a Catholic since the church specifically prohibits condoms? Sue on a religious freedom defense - that would be hilarious. Then if one group is exempt, the everyone is. Just a thought.
Dr Chauntelle's Study on Porn Performers Health and Saftety The participants shared so much, but I was able to distill four relevant points. Here they are… 1. Barriers (ie condoms) introduce a series of complications and risks that may outweigh the benefits they provide. Women and men experience these complications and risks differently. 2. Knowing a co-performer’s STI status is both imperative and preferred over barrier protection alone. Every performer who participated in this study expressed this. 3. Performers are aware of workplace-related risks in an occupationally unique way. Relative to “average persons,” adult performers have “uncommon” understandings of risky sex behavior, STI status, etc – these understandings help shape the way performers think about their jobs, etc. 4. Adult performers feel as though they are the only ones who should be in control of their bodies. Luke is Back
I read the article but I didn't see an explaination as to why performers thought that about the use of condoms in porn. You would think that once you ask the question and you get an answer than you would ask them why they think that. I'd love to know what risk there is in using a condom vs going barback. As far as i know the use of condom would not replace the standard monthly test and would also not allow any performer that tested positive to work using a condom.
If you listen to Dr Chauntelle's podcast for women it's an allergy to latex plus other factors and for men it's just stopping that puts them off their rhythm.Remember FDA rules on condoms are still in the dark ages. The sizes offered under their rules are the root cause of all the complaints about using condoms.They still live in an age where there only two sizes , large and small, whilst the the most recent surveys show a large variety in sizes.
I did something special today. I dug an old condom porn scene out, whipped out my dick and tried to jerk off to it. My dick actually shrank. I spent maybe ten minutes trying to work up a semi and I couldn't even get that hard. All I could think was "Rubber, rubber, rubber, rubber" every time the rubber slid in and out of her. I don't even think the rubber in the movie was hard. I ended up sitting here naked eating a sandwich and trying to read the tattoos and wondering if the male rubber had a hemorrhoid or what. Yeah! This is the future of porn! Just shoot me. Edited by - randomprecision on 5/15/2012 2:58:43 AM
You can blow rubbers up like balloons and staple them around the edges of your front door. Just to let people know you support rubbers. But I wouldn't.
[Link]
2Chainz Deactivated User
40 Posts 6/12
Posted - Jun 14 2012 : 1:38AM
Condoms in porn are like releasing a rap cd without the cuss words or having a bathroom without toilet paper
I've actually heard intentionally "clean" rap before (I just don't remember what it was called). But it was funny as hell. It was like hearing the Sesame Street version of Straight Outta Compton (with special guest MC Mister Rogers). Edited by - randomprecision on 6/15/2012 4:22:29 AM
[Link]
HollywoodBilderbergGroup Deactivated User
Undiscovered Genius 361 Posts 7/11
Posted - Jun 15 2012 : 4:42AM
I've never jerked off to a porno with a condom being used and honestly this move sounds like some High School shit. It's like they're trying to put this image out there to teens becuz they know they watch their shit. Let's see how long this lasts though, at the end of the day the condom kills the fantasy
^ Judging from the number of times that it's actually happened, they have to be pretty low. But you know how it is. People rarely let facts get in the way when they want to do something like this.
Uggghhh condoms are a pain in the vaj to shoot with, I did one shoot with one (for wicked) and it was very uncomfortable, I can do it if I need to but if not then I prefer no condom...leaves my pussy a lot happier!
I don't think it's condoms in porn that will save things, but condoms in the real life of people who work in the adult industry. As rates for scenes decrease there are more performers (both men and women) who end up escorting. And who knows who'll do stuff without condoms because it pays more. It would be great to know that everyone protects themselves, but I don't think that's true.
Measure B was just about HIV. The porn industry has been very good about keeping HIV under control. Sadly it's been less good at gonorrhea and chlamydia, both of which can cause infertility. Boooo.
no, measure B was about the owner of aids healthcare getting more money. It was and is still all about money, they don't give a fuck about whether or not hiv is prevented...as long as weinstein gets his check he is happy!
^That may very well be the truth but I would think that the chances of getting HIV are pretty slim compared to getting all of the other STD's and although herpes is not likely to kill you. I don't think you or anyone else would be happy to be diagnosed with an incurable disease.
Well, you DO know what's best for her (and everyone else), after all. I just ate three plates of food. I guess you're going to demand that Big Brother dictate to me what I can and can't eat now because you don't think I or anyone else would be happy to be diagnosed with whatever eating too much food causes. Tell you what, Pat. If you want to dictate my life to me, don't send Big Brother. Come to my house and do it yourself. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/16/2012 2:22:30 PM
It works in a lot of gay porn and I don't think it will be any different in straight porn. People will get used to it. Anal used to be outwith the norm and now people get upset if they don't see it. There's a whole new generation of porn consumers who don't know anything different than using condoms. I really think that eventually they'll outnumber the people who find it inhibits their enjoyment. If you don't use condoms in your real life you've obviously been with someone for a long time, or care not a jot about your or your partner's sexual health. The former is understandable, the latter not so.
I'm bi and I never watch gay porn. I could not name a single gay porn star. Of course I like women more than I like men but if that were the other way around, there's no way I'd be buying worthless porn ruined by rubbers.Stupid people will get used to it. Smart people will simply stop buying American porn and/or buy porn that has no rubbers and/or fall back on their collected porn and just stop buying porn altogether. I'll be 40 next year. I have never "gotten used to" rubbers and I never will. Some of the first porn movies I bought were condom only. I didn't realize it until after I'd bought them. At that time, porn was very expensive where I bought it. Believe me, I noticed and I felt ripped off. I thought it was the stupidest thing imaginable to sell people movies in which the entire point was obviously supposed to be uncensored, no holds barred sex and then to have these obnoxious things in exactly the spot where all the attention is focused. I hope the majority of people are never too stupid to understand what porn is supposed to be. Not knowing anything but censorship is no reason to just accept the turd in the punchbowl.I hated the porn they made in the days before anal. I'm sure I was far from the only one. I didn't get used to it. I had no choice but to settle for what I could get at the time but I didn't buy much porn either.You might be right. People can get used to doing things backwards. I don't know why you'd want to promote blatant censorship and hope nobody notices though. I personally don't care if people believe this level of censorship is normal or acceptable. It isn't.1. I don't get tested for STDs on a regular basis. 2. It's none of your business what I do in my private life (Hence the term "private"). As long as I'm not deceiving someone into taking a risk they aren't aware of, there shouldn't be anything at all wrong with a mutual agreement to take the known risks.
all of us performers take these risks, we know the risks and understand that having sex with other performers is a lot safer than having sex with someone in the general population that is not regularly tested. Condoms don't do shit, thery only cover the shaft of a cock, they don't cover the testicles (which you can also catch something from) and we all know the testicles rub or hit against a womans vagina during sex so therefor the protection is MINIMAL but the condom companies want you to believe differently. Also the micron size of viruses and diseases is smaller than what a condom can contain making it very easy for something to pass through without you knowing. The solution? Everyone test everyone before fucking them and bitches get on or stay on the pill.
^Let me first say that I don't expect to change your mind. After all. I am just a guy that enjoys watching women (like yourself) have sex on film so although my opinion may seem important to me. It doesn't necessarily transalte that it will be for anyone else. That said here I go on my soap box. It's one thing to take a risk and quite another to play russian roulette. By you own admission. A condom is only good for covering the shaft so contact with the surrounding infected skin might still allow for the transmission of an STD but I recommend that you read the following link to the CDC's opinion on condoms and std's and you will see that a condom is still an amazing piece of technology in the fight against STD's. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm Let's say for argument sake that you are completely right and condoms don't do shit and you do have those great monthly test that clearly prove that the performer you are about to have sex with is free of any of the tested std's. Is the test in question for all possible std's or only the big ones? Let's say it is. You still have one huge problem that is not really talked about in the industry andit's that the test is only valid if the performer in question has not had sex outside of the industry since his/her test was done, did not have sex with any of the performers that escort on the side(and therefore have sex with non-performers) at the same time that they do porn and you now have to add the rare occurence of a perfomer lying about his test and actually having sex all the while being infected with syphilis. If you are aware of all of these things and doing porn is still an acceptable thing for you than that is all right.
Every Industry e.g -manufacturing,IT,Telco has always given a priority for safety of its employees at work location.People working in a porn do have every right to have safe sex and take all precautionary measures.For enjoyment of people they should not risk the life. New desi girl shanti is working together with organisation "designer against aids" and she is running a HIV AIDS Awareness campaign and after first video release, as a next step she will be releasing a documentary also on HIV AIDS Awareness.It is the biggest enemy what every country has. HIV AIDS has taken life of 2.31 Million people in India and every day daily infections around the world is 2500. Yes i support the move of condom only porn, no one has a right to risk any one's life for his entertainment or pleasure. this is the link for DAA Website and video of shanti posted on the website, they are running HIV AIDS Awareness campaigns all over the world. http://www.designersagainstaids.com/press/item/shanti_against_aids/ I hope many people will support use of condoms in porn and save life of people and stop HIV Spread and infections.
this is the link for video from designer against aids, if people want to see the statistics for HIV Spread and importance of using condoms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ProNHRWMYM8
The folks in Bhopal might not agree with you. The history of the industrial revolution is anything but a tale of workplace safety. Workplace safety in the West exists in large measure because of public pressure on governments to require and enforce it, and only came into common practice in the 20th century. Even now there are industries, like coal mining, where fatal accidents are far too common.
Good to know that your understand the importance of safety and precautions at work location because i believe you are referring to a bhopal gas tragedy incident which happened in 1984.since you mentioned about coal mines so i believe you are referring to chasnala coal mines accident which happened in 1975. So now look at the actions which are taken by government after that, government taking control over coal mines after chasnala accident.still payments are made for damages to victims of bhopal gas tragedy. Yes accident happened and the reason was not enough precautions and safety at workplace and which took a life of many people.so are the actions taken by government for safety of workers are enough?i guess many people won't agree that they are enough and that is another question for debate. what we agree on is a point that safety is important factor in a workplace. In India yes more safety measures to be taken for workers but 80% of porn is shot in US and Europe so we are talking her about safety of workers in porn industry and they have every right to protect own life .As a human i don't want to see any one dying because of not taking precautions because some people want to see porn movie without condoms and don't like to see condom in a porn movie. now see this how many pornstar got HIV AIDS because of not using condoms.this should be eye opener for many pornstars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXEp376G4ow http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showthreaded.php?Board=infected&Number=47929 we got a big list here. who is responsible for death of these pornstars? Porn Industry? people who wanted to see the porn without condoms? or these pornstars who ignored the fact that they have to take safety and precautions?
The problem with HIV AIDS is that it is not just an occupational hazard - people have sex in their private lives, as well. Yes, we know that some people were infected while doing their job, but we cannot extrapolate from that to say everybody got infected while doing their job. Raw numbers are not enough, we need epidemiological evidence.
I am surprised the way you take HIV AIDS lightly .it is not about fun and entertainment of some people ,it is a question of life and death of people .even after knowing HIV is sexually transmitted disease and still if people support porn without condom then I think it is serious problem .check the link below for some evidence of number of people died with HIV AIDS. http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm I hope millions of people who died with HIV is sufficient evidence . many pornstars working as escorts also and they can spread up the disease.i saw killergram girls working as escorts and shooting porn without condoms and many other studios doing the same . The number of pornstars who died with HIV I guess is a good indication for people to be cautious .
1. They have every right to make that decision for themselves and not to be ordered to do it by you or anyone else. 2. Manufacturing does not generally depend upon what the employee looks like while they're in the process of manufacturing the product. In porn, what you see IS the product. With such a product, anything that destroys what people want to see destroys the value of the product. If performers want to wear condoms and the people who hire and pay them agree to allow it in their productions, I have no problem with it. I won't buy it but if they are able to make a viable product in this way, more power to them. 3. People do not have a right to demand to be hired for a job that is inherently risky and then demand that the inherent risks that they accepted when they got hired be removed. The person who does the hiring has a right to hire someone who doesn't have condoms as a requirement for their performance. This is how it should work. The market should decide whether condom porn is viable or not. If you want to fuck and wear condoms at the same time, do it at home. I'm not going to pay to watch it. You may be able to force the porn business to ruin their product but no one can force people to buy it. If you're an enemy of porn, congratulations, I guess. If you say you aren't, you might as well be.
Edited by - randomprecision on 12/19/2012 2:31:32 PM
condoms do some good, but VERY little and it is still russian roulette. syphillis can still be caught even with a condom. The problem isn't condoms in porn, its those going outside of the industry unprotected with untested and random partners and not being in tune with their body when something is wrong and being honest about it.
condoms are one of the way to protect against STD ,yes more precautions to be taken to avoid the spread.i feel sorry that we have people in this world who can afford millions of people to die because it is less entertaining for them.i would say it is more a skill what every industry hire in a employee and for every industry the skill are different but no industry can sacrifice on safety of employees no matter what working conditions they are in. I cannot change your thinking if you want million more to die as evidence that condoms are one of the precautionary measures what porn industry needs to have for all people working in industry. i have given links where it shows number of porn stars died with hiv aids ,if you still want more people to die with painful death ,then you are enemy of porn and want people working in porn industry to die painful deaths. many pornstars quit porn business because of STD and companies forcing them to have scenes without condoms. All educated people who cares about life and death of people will support the condoms in porn industry ,there are so many campaigns running all over world to make uneducated people aware about the importance of using condoms to stop spread of HIV. If we have more people like some of you who don't want to buy the porn just because they are doing sex scenes with condom ,i suggest you should go and talk to some of those pornstars and some people in hospitals suffering from HIV.i hope when you see a person going through a painful death ,that may get tears in your eyes and change your views. If you don't support condoms in porn and telling porn industry that you will not buy porn if they use condoms ,remember if there is another HIV infection in porn industry or next HIV infection from porn star working as escort ,people who are supporting the porn without condoms will share the responsibility of one of the causes of death of the person.so it's upto you ,who you want to be ? one of those people supporting porn without condoms and which may end the life of some one and make him die painful death ?or you want to be the one who will come forward to save the life of people.choice is yours,no one can change your individual opinion but you can be a better person if you care about life and death of people instead of your own entertainment .
What about other things, "santasingh"? So many people are dying in car accidents. Maybe we need to ban autos. Tricycle is safer. No speed - no risk. What about professional boxers? Maybe they need to play chess. Every contact is a risk. It is dangerous. Chess is safer - no doubts... Sex with a condom is not porn for many people at all. If you want to buy auto, you will buy the auto, but not the tricycle. If I want to buy porn, I will buy porn, but not the educational material of safe sex!
[/quote] What about other things, "santasingh"? So many people are dying in car accidents. Maybe we need to ban autos. Tricycle is safer. No speed - no risk. What about professional boxers? Maybe they need to play chess. Every contact is a risk. It is dangerous. Chess is safer - no doubts... Sex with a condom is not porn for many people at all. If you want to buy auto, you will buy the auto, but not the tricycle. If I want to buy porn, I will buy porn, but not the educational material of safe sex! [/quote] You are comparing sexually transmitted disease with accidents.People take every precaution to avoid accidents, that is why you see speed limit signs on the highway,no drink and drive and if still people do it they may loose life.Accident may give you a instant death but HIV gives you a world full of pain.Games like boxing also have rules and they have to follow those rules to avoid major injuries. If people don't bother about the life and death of someone and for them entertainment is more important then 2500 infections which are happening everyday, they are partially responsible for the death of those people dying with HIV AIDS. If we don't take a step to stop the spread of it ,may be after few years the numbers of infected people will increase and anyone of us can get HIV Infection.The number is 33.3 Million now and it is increasing everyday. Porn stars working as escorts and doing porn , so that is a big risk for spreading out the disease. My Suggestion is Take some time off from watching porn and visit and meet some HIV AIDS infected people in hospital, i hope after seeing them it may change your attitude how you look at things. I understand, it is selfish world and people don't bother about anyone's life or death and what matters to them is if they are getting entertainment, But now it is not abotu life and death about other's . It is a risk for everyone's life. HIV AIDS is near you with 33.3 million people infected and the only way to stop it is to take precautions.
I don't think anyone has mentioned public health, and the discussion has focused on the health of the performers and whether the citizens of California have the right to legislate on their behalf. Understanding infectious diseases requires you to shift your gaze away from individuals and think about populations. (Individuals are endangered when an infection spreads through a population, and individuals are protected when the rate of infection within a population drops.) Because infections spread exponentially, small changes in the transmission rate can have huge effects on the population at large. If the average person infects 0.9 people before they either die or stop being infectious a disease will not spread through the population. But if the average person infects 1.1 people then you have a problem. (The fraction of the population that is susceptible is also important, so people who get flu vaccines help protect the whole population, even though flu is very easily transmitted. The cut off at 1.0 assumes that everyone in the population is susceptible, which is probably never true in the real world.) Infections tend to spread from areas within a population with high levels of infection to areas with low levels of infection. By controlling the transmission rate in these centers from which the infection spreads, you can protect the whole population. (For instance, multiply antibiotic TB represents a very real public health threat. Right now, it is concentrated in third world slums and prisons. By controlling the spread of the disease there, you can protect the whole human population. If we fail to control it there, then TB could become a problem for everyone.) Granted, levels of HIV infection and transmission are low among performers, but if the rates infection and/or transmission of other STD's are elevated among performers, then the State has a legitimate interest in reducing the rate of transmission within that segment of the population, not only to protect the performers but to protect all the citizens of California. Whether or not you think the State has the right to establish workplace safety laws that may interfere with people's free expression rights, I think the State has the right and the duty to protect public health. I would note that almost every other state in the Union has banned the production of pornography outright. Let me offer an analogy: I believe that prostitution is illegal in every state in the Union (though the law is not enforced in Nevada). What if California were to legalize prostitution, but required that prostitutes got licensed, and made established regular testing and use of condoms as a licensing requirement. Would any of you object, or would you celebrate the policy as respecting the right of people to engage in commerce while protecting public health?
Whether or not I object depends on what claims are made regarding the benefit of such a law. If the prostitute is considered as the vehicle by which a disease is moved from one party to another then 'regular testing' would have to be very regular indeed, because every transaction is another opportunity. Porn is not like prostitution because producers control when performers have sex with each other, and can lay requirements upon their employees that are not possible in prostitution, for obvious reasons. Thus, I regard any attempt to treat both professions as if they were the same to be foolish.
