Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Jun 13 2009 : 10:33AM
I went to Gettysburg some years ago when they happened to be shooting a movie about the Civil War battle that now justifies that town’s existence. I drove past a scene they were shooting of soldiers around a campfire out in a field. Only they weren’t out in a field. The were on a patch of grass underneath the sign at a Denny’s restaurant with the traffic of Route 30 roaring past them just inches away. It’s call editing, folks, and camera angles and lighting and sound dubbing. It’s called illusion and skill and imagination and professionalism, and they’ve been doing it in film since the days of Thomas Edison’s Black Mariah (the very first movie studio) and D. W. Griffith. I could make a porn movie in which condoms were used where appropriate and yet were not once seen on screen. So could you. Moreover, condoms are not the only safe sex alternative. The use of husband and wife or significant other couples, if for nothing else than close shots would also be safe. The porn business has been using stand ins ( “fuck ins”?) for years. The methods and alternatives to condoms on screen are too numerous and too obvious to list. If you don’t want to show condoms, you don’t have to. All it takes is a little extra effort. It is not that many producers could not make a safe product that satisfied even the demands of that paragon of porn customers, RandomPrecision (hope you enjoy those infomercials, fella!), but that they want to go on churning out the same drivel in the same way because it's easy or they think it’s more profitable or they have no real skill or no imagination or they’re lazy and don't give a shit. I understand and sympathize with the actors here who fear they won’t work if they insist on their safety. I know this issue will create real and difficult problems for them. For them I can only offer my own conviction that , sooner now than later, the issue will no longer be whether to practice safe sex. Your industry, by its continued contemptible placing of profit above care, its pretense of adequate testing that is clearly not adequate has sealed it’s fate and will inevitably be regulated by laws that mandate safety. Until that time, consider the possibility that your worries about working may be unfounded. The last thing the guys who sign your checks want you to think is that they need you a shitload more than you need them. We buy your movies to see you, to imagine being with you, to erase for a moment our own miserable existences with you. You are not as expendable as you think. The producers know this, but they know that if you find it out, it’ll cost them. Stand up for what you know is right for you – just once – and see for yourself who needs who. I think you might be pleasantly surprised. I hope you will be. If you aren’t, well you have always been the world’s best judge of what is best for yourself. Please don’t be discouraged or fearful. Your industry is undergoing big changes, but take it from a guy who’s been supporting that industry since before your mothers were born. Me and my ilk ain’t going anywhere. Condoms or no, shitty economy, ‘net porn, fire, famine or pestilence, we’ll still be out here combing the racks or the downloads for V.Von’s or Gianna’s or your latest.
OMG! I just have to post because some of you are getting a bit full of yourselves here. All the people in here that are blaming the consumers and saying things like " i dont see why our health has to be sacrificed for all you non-condom porn fans." and "Some here seem to imply that an increased risk for AIDS/HIV and other STDs is something you should accept as a performer. You’re a porn star, so you owe them, your audience, a performance without condoms...". I have read most of this thread and for the most part I don't think you get the point or you are trying to blame others for the choices you make or don't make. No one is saying you have to sacrifice anything. The question of this thread is "what's your take on the use of condoms in scenes?" and people gave their truthful answers. They don't prefer them. So what? Now they should be condemned as horrible porn fans who "think with their dicks". Its porn. They aren't saying that if a girl goes to condoms they will hate her forever, etc. They are just stating what their preference is. Period. So if you want to use a condom then by all means do. Like Velicity said. There's no sex like safe sex. But please refrain from crucifying people just because they say they don't prefer condoms in scenes. That said, IMO I don't mind condoms. I prefr non-condom scenes but if there was a change then I wouldn't care that much. I also think Pornlaw made some good points. It can't really be forced either way. *****The Dr. of Nasty*****
I don't really have a problem with it. When I first started watching hardcore in the mid-'90s, pretty much all the movies I saw had condoms. For me it doesn't detract from the fantasy, if anything it helps because it seems all the more real, like this is something that could really happen. (Not that I've ever come across a woman who looks like Jenna Jameson hitchhiking, given her a lift, offered to let her stay at my place until she got back on her feet and had her give me her body as a "thank-you", but I digress.) The other thing about it is that as much as I try to fantasize, there's always that one section of my brain (and this happens when I'm watching any movie, porn or mainstream) that thinks about how the movie was produced. In other words, I'm always conscious that these are real people and that not wearing condoms puts them at risk even with all the testing and safeguards. In that respect seeing condoms is almost comforting; I know that the actors didn't risk getting a disease just so I could get off. But that's just my opinion, and I know most viewers don't like seeing condoms, so I don't really care one way or the other. If anything about it bothers me, it's when they just magically appear on the guy, and then when the director opts to have the condom disappear and then have the guy jack himself off to produce the cumshot.
So, the one test per shoot idea would only apply to those not using condoms? Otherwise, this would tend to encourage performers not to use them, wouldn't it?
^So you basically just incorporate the cost of the test into the pay...would seem to work out. They would still need the tests as they do them now for everyone, though.
And on that fateful day, the hatred consumed me... 1423 Posts 3/09
Posted - Jun 13 2009 : 1:33PM
That's exactly the point, and echoing the one I made earlier: The OP (who in this case happened to be the divine Velicity Von) simply asked in her words "So to all the fans I have one question for you...what's your take on the use of condoms in scenes?" before going on "There's no sex like safe sex! :)", and that's it! Nothing more was asked... The question was posed. People answered. There has been some very reactionary views on this, that has nothing to do with the original question. In all honesty, in terms of fanboi moralising before a couple of days ago... Did everyone just think unprotected sex was the safest thing in the world? Did everyone just forget about the outbreak 5 years ago like it didn't exist...? Of course not. Things just moved on, and everyone was happy while the going was good. Just 2 weeks ago for example, fanbois in unison prematurely ejaculated when it was announced that Gianna took it anally for a film - that's without condoms, and nobody even thought twice about that aspect... wasn't talked about. Wasn't thought of. So is 'Big Wet Asses 15' going to have nobody buying it in protest of something that 2 weeks ago was okay, but now a terrible crime for enjoying (i.e. an condomless, ANAL scene... THE HORROR...) Before anybody kicks off at me (which I have to assume will happen, 'cause that's just what people do), I'll reiterate that OF COURSE this is serious (far more so than porn production), and if it means the whole production side shutting down or going all-condom for a while to sort this mess out, then so be it. There's enough existing product to be getting on with anyway, from a porn fan's point of view. Only when the question's asked as FANS, which do they enjoy more, personally whacking off to... Fans will think with their dicks because that's the part that's stimulated as it's porn. No-one needs vilifying. The industry as a whole needs to take a united stand on how they're going to deal with this. Passing the blame onto the fans isn't accepting responsibility. Edited by - Dubious_Leftovers on 6/13/2009 1:35:49 PM
For those who want to see safe sex porn, you know that to be 100% safe you will also have to shoot condom-only blowjobs because you can also catch something from a blowjob. And of course no more pussy licking and no rimming because you can also catch something doing that. And there's of course the facial which is toally out of the question. So people who want to see safe sex porn should be careful what they wish for because before you know it every pornmovie will look like a movie from Wicked.
Legally I do not think condoms can be forced on the industry under the guise of performer safety. I dunno. There are a lot of smokers out there who might argue about what they can do legally about people's safety. Admitedly, I'm not much of a gonzo fan so condom use is no deal breaker for me. I'm more interested in the girls, the fantasy element and the production than any particular sex act. None of these girls need to have their health or their lives threatened for my benefit. Just be your sexy gorgeous selves and I'm good.
Nothing wrong with a facial as long as the cum doesn't hit the eyes.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Jun 13 2009 : 2:31PM
Has absolutely nothing to do with the way condoms look. It's all about the cum worshippers being in panic mode. If it becomes condom only, public mens rooms will be mobbed with cum freaks trying to get their fix.
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Jun 13 2009 : 3:17PM
I'm a guy. In my personal life I do not prefer to use a condom. But then again I'm not out clubbing and having indiscriminate sex with multiple anonymous partners. If I were, condoms would be my preference. When I watch porn I care very little about the male, other then they take their time getting the girl hot (even if it is an act). I want to see him do a good job eating the pussy. I want to see busy, probing fingers, and her pleasant reaction. I want to see good fucking. I want to see the girl cum, even if it is only pretend. If I can see all of that in a scene, I don't much care if a condom is in use. If any of my all time favorite porn girls, for some reason, invited me to have sex with them, but only on the condition that I wear a condom, upon being revived from my faint, I would proudly wear one. I do not think I'm alone here. Otherwise if a male performer wears a condom, I am rational enough to understand that it isn't covering my cock. If he isn't feeling sexual tension at it's peak, because he's wearing a condom, I don't care, again it is not my cock. Those who feel that the eroticism of porn is diminished, for them because a guy is wearing a raincoat, are not really paying attention. Most condom free porn, is simply unerotic. And this fact has nothing to do with condoms. It has everything to do if poor lighting, poor camera work and a general overall lack of imagination. All this talk about condom ruining porn, is the clearest example of people failing to see the forest for the trees.
Smoking is a privilege not a Constitutionally protected First Amendment right. Though I do think that performer safety should be taken into account on each and every set. The decision to use a condom/dental dam rests with the performer, not the company and certainly not the government. Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com www.2257Safe.com Edited by - pornlaw on 6/13/2009 3:35:35 PM
I think the acceptance of condoms in porn is just a matter of changing people's habits and tastes. Which can happen when major porn studios start producing a lot of porn films where condoms are used. The fact is that in their personal lives vast majority of porn-fans use condoms, whenever they have casual sex with strangers. Whenever I fantasize about having sex with a lady I haven't yet met. My fantasy always includes using a condom with her. Because that's what I normally do, whenever I manage to shag the lady I like. And fantasizing about it in a way I don't normally behave doesn't make sense to me. Because that kind of an unrealistic fantasy seems too artificial to me. And as I've mentioned in another thread. The latest polyurethane condoms can actually enhance sex performance of studs. Because from my own experience I can say that these condoms are more slippery than the latex rubber condoms or human skin. Which means that well-lubricated polyurethane condoms can make the sex-action faster and more spectacular than has been possible until now. Dildos are plastic. And their use is quite acceptable in porn films. And I see no reason why condoms that actually enhance some types of sex action can't become acceptable and desirable too.
Requiring the use of condoms in heterosexual porn will not change the voracious appetite of the public at large to view explicit, unprotected sexual acts on video as part of their fantasy lives, as evidenced by how quickly "barebacking" became an initial underground fad, then a rather mainstream availability in gay pornography after that industry segment's own rigorous call for mandatory condom use in all penetration scenes. I'm rather surprised that at this point in the discussion, no one has mentioned the many working performers in the industry who avoid condom and/or synthetic toy work due to severe latex (or other foreign compound) allergies. No easy answers here, as the efficacy of animal membrane prophylactics to prevent pregnancy or venereal disease passage has long been in question. Point of interest: DIGITAL PLAYGROUND is the one major studio regularly producing features with a level of high-end visual effect work that would make shooting with condoms, then removing the appearance of condoms in post to suggest unprotected intercourse a feasible possibility. But there is significant risk in passing on these additional post-production costs to an increasingly fickle consumer base who seek out ways to acquire even the lowest-grade of adult content without paying for it. As always, just one bloke's opinion... - Zen Edited by - Zen Master 2007 on 6/13/2009 5:21:57 PM
^I'm with you -- I'd prefer that they "keep it real" and let the condom be shown than removing it digitally. When stuff like that starts to get manipulated, it starts taking away from the authenticity.
This is completely overgeneralized. I saw a lot of honest opinions, and even the guys who said they demand condom-free made no comment about porn ladies who are condom-only...just like the guys who want only anal scenes aren't necessarily degrading the the girls who don't do anal. I know I didn't say anything degrading about one of my favorite performers, and i don't need someone to apologize on my behalf. The more condom-free guys who answered the question probably feel the same way.As someone said in an earlier post, part of the condom-free thing is the desire to see creampies. I am a HUGE fan of creampies, and those would be threatened, as well as swallowing if i'm getting the sense of this thread. Actually, when i first responded, i noticed it was someone in the industry asking, but i didn't check the name. it's funny because velicity von's creampie in 'pump my ass full of cum' is quite possibly my favorite scene of any kind. so condom use DEFINITELY has an impact on scenes more than just how I think i would feel if I was wearing one. It's a matter of not seeing something i found so sexy. Then again, another favorite performer is Austin Kincaid, and she doesn't do anal, which i am a huge fan of. So the world won't end. That said, a while ago, i came across an amatuer scene posted by a couple, and the guy came inside her while wearing a condom. I thought that was kinda hot anyway...and I've never thought SEEING the cum drip was that important, because I like the reaction of the performers...just a thought... Edited by - wraithlead on 6/13/2009 8:51:27 PM
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Jun 13 2009 : 9:58PM
^I am a big fan of creampies. Anal creampies is probably the riskiest thing that happens on a porn set. Evil Angel will not shoot anal creampies, as noted by Tricia sometime ago, That is how she came to be HIV positive. When it comes to the health of the performers, I can do without them. I think you have got to be an especially craven individual if you can only get your rocks off by watching performers putting themselves at risk.
Just make swimming goggles mandatory for all scenes too. That should take care of it. Didn't someone report that the incidence of HIV among porn performers is lower than in the general population? The industry must be doing something right.
I guess you're not a big fan of motor racing. What I don't like in this thread is how some people try to give other people a bad conscience just because they don't share their opinion. I as a consumer buy what I like - which is scenes with no condoms. The performers health is not my responsibility - which doesn't mean that I don't care about it. I don't think it's fair to blame the consumers. If some performers/producers want to do condom only scenes - it's fine by me - it's their choice. I'd just watch something else. Edited by - lange on 6/14/2009 3:58:15 AM
Although I don't like to see the use of rubbers in porn, that's my own personal opinion. However, if condoms are made mandatory so that my favourite stars can perform to their best ability and safely and provide sexual fantasies to their fans for years to cum, then so be it! Then I say, "Condoms Rule"! G
I was trying to make two completely unrelated points. 1. your comments: a. 'not seeing the forest for the trees' b. 'Otherwise if a male performer wears a condom, I am rational enough to understand that it isn't covering my cock. If he isn't feeling sexual tension at it's peak, because he's wearing a condom, I don't care, again it is not my cock.' are an oversimplification, because there are PLENTY of reasons not to want condoms. not just the 'i don't want a condom on me as i fantasize about this woman.' 2. i don't see anyone saying 'screw the pornstar, make her go condom-less.' I would never buy a yellow car, either. But it's not an insult to those who do. surely you can see the difference between "i'll go look for a scene where the girl agreed to no condom," and "I demand THIS chick to screw guys with no condom." I think you're implying something that none of the other guys here said. and just as a side note, i completely disagree with your statement about 'most scenes without a condom are un-erotic.'
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Jun 14 2009 : 8:46AM
When I was growing up injury and death was not uncommon at the Indy 500. Though not a real fan, I can't tell you the last time a driver either died there or was grievously injured there. Very few posters on this board would think of having unprotected sex with strangers. Why should porn stars be any different. I think the idea that watching your favorite female performer having sex with a guy will be any less entertaining or less hot, is just silly. And another thing, sales have been in a decline for a couple of years while being largely condom-less. I doubt safer porn will have any affect.
If Wicked shoots with condoms and all our favourite stars go there they force the industry in using condoms. Is there anybody in this thread who wil watch less porn if they use rubbers in it? For me it's a kind of contradictionary making movies were girls like sex and are always in the mood for some impulsive hot sweaty sex and using condoms telling she is planning to have sex and is aware of the consequences. porn with condoms is like a boxingmatch were the gloves are replaced with pillows. I believe that in the porn industrie you are tested before entering it. This means STD's are transmitted outside the industrie by pornstars having unsafe sex in their private lives. Therefore safety is dependant of the professionalism of the stars. Anyway, I prefer non-condommovies but safety first. Velicity Von You are a true star and if you would only perform in movies with condoms I don't think anyone would mind.
I will switch to condom-free euro porn only if all American porn will have condoms. But then again I think I have a DVD backlog of like at least 2 years.
Do you really believe that the next episode of Ass Worship or Big Wet Butts will sell as many copies if all scenes where with condoms? I find that hard to believe.
I almost only watch porn produced in Europe so it would not make much of a difference to me if all American porn would become condom only. But i really don't think that would happen.
If the good-looking ladies like Natasha Nice and Jenaveve Jolie are persuaded to have wild anal sex with condoms. Then such an anal film would be very popular indeed, regardless of the condoms issue. Quite a few years ago, a good-looking lady named Samantha Strong finally consented to have anal sex with a condom. And her anal scene was a sensation among porn-fans at that time. Because she was such a good-looking lady. And few porn-fans ever thought that she would agree to have anal sex. Condoms do make anal sex safer. And ladies who normally wouldn't consent to have anal sex might consent if condoms are used. That's why I'm all for allowing condoms in porn movies.
I think that condoms will never be used in all porn movies. If a company starts using condoms in their movies I won't watch their movies anymore.There are enough good looking ladies who are having wild anal sex without condoms. So I will always watch their movies. So condom use is a reason not to buy a movie, how hot the girls are.
I think that some here are infusing some common sense with porn which by its very nature is fantasy. Simply put, they can go together, but they are an uncomfortable fit at best. Porn should be porn, unencumbered by all of those constraints that would prevent us from doing those same things in our lives. This is why special effects and fantastic story lines are such a big box office draw in mainstream films. No matter which side your on on this one, no one seems to disagree that the use of condoms contributes significantly to safer sex. Since we all seem to know that do we really need to turn porn into a quasi-educational forum? If this continues down its logical course we will see the end of porn at our own hand.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Jun 14 2009 : 11:18AM
That you or anyone who posts here finds any of this hard to believe, is really not the point. People who post on ADT, in the porn threads are hardly representative of most of the viewers of porn. I suspect that ADT'ers or true rain-coaters hardly raise a pimple on the sales charts of Wicked or of the other successful companies in the industry. It's just that we make the most noise. NOTE TO Ramsey, if you were to stop buying American porn, no one is ever going to notice. Big trees fall in forests all the time and are never heard.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Jun 14 2009 : 12:07PM
If the rules of this forum required staying on the subject, there wouldn’t be a thread I’ve seen yet that didn’t break that rule. The original question was indeed what our take was on condoms. That is the question I answered, and I see surprisingly little in this thread that does not direct itself to that question. My own condemnation above specified those in this conversation and the related one on a recent HIV case who stated or implied that an increased risk of HIV was ‘part of the job,’ those who blithely stated that the risk was small and should therefore be accepted, and those who stated outright that porn stars should do unprotected porn because they won’t watch anything else. For those individuals, my condemnation (crucifixion, if you like) stands as does my apology for being a member of their gender. BTW I did not say, as your syntax contends,that You’re a porn star, so you owe them, your audience, a performance without condoms... I was decrying those who did. Next time you want to fault what is being said in a discussion, maybe you should read more than just "most os the thread."
I am sorry that these are not the responses you wish to see here. Humans are indeed maddeningly uncooperative when it comes to thinking what you wish them to. I don’t know what ‘full of themselves’ means in your context. Perhaps it refers to one who interprets ‘freedom of speech’ to the mean freedom of others to say what you think they should say. If that is what you mean, then I agree with you. There are many of those here.
This may be a very hetero male perspective, but I just don't focus that much on the dick in the scene. So condom/no-condom, it really doesn't matter to me. As long as the woman is pretty and getting fucked, I have all my visual focus on her. This is why I'm such a fan of POV porn as 75-95% of the screen is filled with the female performer. Now if I was focused on the dick in the flick...well, I can see the preference for bareback.
It is not question about empathy. It is question about risk factor in porn. What you think about risk factor in professional sport? For example sport gymnastic. Gymnasts take serious risk, when make crazy exercises. Millions of fans watch it and enjoy, but one mistake and ... What about professional boxing? What you think about risk factor there? I do not think that millions of fans are psychopaths.
Amen. And thank you to all the other posters who have supported the idea that adult film actresses (and actors - we're talking about all performers involved, not just the women) are *human beings* that deserve to be treated as such. Furthermore, I think porn films really do have something to offer in terms of an example. No, porn doesn't have to be "sex ed" but it certainly can contribute to a change in attitude toward contraception and sexual activity in general - the venomous opposition toward condoms suggests a cultural trend that could be broken. And to those of you who want to push the "porn is just a fantasy" argument, you are clearly not considering the real life implications of the fantasy you wish to indulge in. Or, perhaps you don't care, which is even more disconcerting.
