LMAO! What are you talking about? I never said you were referring to me so slow down there quick draw. I quoted you verbatim to show examples of what I was referring to. The fact that you were "apologizing" for people who don't need it and then saying the above statement. To put it short, that fans want pornstars to risk their health for their pleasure etc, when that isn't the case. No one in this thread up to the point of your post in question said anything to warrant your said response. Hell, even in your last post you state "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," First, where are you reading these comments because I just read everyones post again and no one said or implied anything of the sort in this thread. Some people may have put out statistics or info , but not necessarily to say pornstars should accept the risk. But more to put minds at ease or just simply to state facts. As for the second part of your sentence and I quote "and those who stated outright that porn stars should do unprotected porn because they won’t watch anything else." No one said or implied this either. Actually what they have been saying is that its up to the stars to do what they want or that they don't care, or both. Some did say they would watch other movies without condoms, but so what?! Its their choice, their preference and its their money. They are not forcing the girls to not wear condoms. All I'm trying to say is maybe you should try not to be a superhero and jump to the defense of these girls when they don't need it. And maybe you should speak for yourself instead of speaking or apologizing on other peoples behalf. *****The Dr. of Nasty***** Edited by - Dr. Nasty on 6/14/2009 8:22:29 PM
I guess you haven't read the posts in this thread, because there are a lot of people that disagree with you.IDK when this post was first stated, but.. yea, add me to this list.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Jun 15 2009 : 1:05PM
Very nice. Really. Deserved too. Looking over it. I am a little over the top. In my own defense, though I did give myself the moniker. I’ve watched friends die of AIDS and others living with the anxieties of being HIV positive, and I wouldn’t wish either experience on anybody. It’s just not possible for me to reduce any discussion of condom use to a matter of aesthetics or prurience or even personal choice.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Jun 15 2009 : 2:32PM
I highly agree. The current general manager for Evil Angel is Christian Mann. IMHO, for the past 14 years that I've known him, I've thought he is an amazing person. He was the owner of Video Team when I met him and when I became HIV+. He was one of several people who offered me a off-camera job. He also, with a good conscience, changed Video Team to a condom-only company. Within 6 months, he had to with a lot of sadness reverse that decision. The sales of Video Team's DVDs that were condom-only plummetted. His 6 month-old DVDs were still selling as to be expected, but by the time he made the decision to switch back to condom-optional, sales on the others barely paid for production of the movies. Even IF every gonzo company in Southern Califonia decided to go condom-only, there would be internet porn companies who would find girls willing to do non-condom scenes. And that IF was a huge IF. There's enough companies who would choose to go out of state or out of country, that there would be enough passable non-condom porn for people to seek out. It's not that Evil Angel doesn't care about the performers. We definitely do. But we also need to stay in business. We take enough flack for having stopped making creampie scenes, but it's a decision that HAD to be made. I appreciate immensely the respect that the directors have for John. They respect him enough to comply with his request to have stopped shooting creampie scenes for 5 years straight now. I know the directors could almost definitely sell a few more pieces by including creampie scenes, but they have shown a great deal of compassion for the performers and respect for John's decision. So, to all of the Evil Angel directors that are reading this, thank you SO much for helping John and I feel like we can continue to be involved in the porn business with a good conscience. Evil Angel distributes your movies because we believe in you, and thank you for continuing to believe in Evil Angel. We love you. :)
For the posters who have been very vocal about how condoms should be used... vote! Don't buy porn without condoms used. If sales trends head in that direction long, far, and fast enough, that is exactly what will reverse the current no-condom trend. John
^I agree. the opinion of someone who lives in the industry with the ups and downs is probably the best part of this forum thanks to people like you. Thanks. I guess, though, that my thing with some of the comments in the thread, is that even the people who prefer condom-free scenes aren't saying they don't care about the performers. I mean, seriously, with all the enjoyment we all get from your work, it would be immoral AND stupid to take a carefree attitude. i just think the condom-free people were being falsely characterized...Since I commented on your posts earlier, just to say thanks, I appreciate your point of view. I guess it's almomst the same as when the thread about nazi pubes came up, or when the thread about people who won't do IR scenes keeps going. For every person on each of these topics that says it's just entertainment, there are people who live and die quite literally with the decisions of not just themselves, but those in communities around them, about these very issues. Maybe that's why none of these topics will die. And they probably shouldn't.
Why do you and others keep bringing up the risks associated with other fields of endeavour and why do you think this has anything to do with the production of porn?
Personally, as a reminder that there's no such thing as a 'safe' job. It's more dangerous to drive on civilian US soil, than it is to drive on any US military installation in the world. It's more dangerous to drive to a porn shoot (especially in Southern California) than it is to work on set. I don't see anyone advocating that we require people only take jobs within walking distance of their house, simply because it would be safer. If Cal-OSHA attempts to requires condom use right now, it'll drive an already fragmenting porn industry into an even more scattered and decentralized business model. Two things will happen: first, it'll be more cost effective to fly a girl to Vegas or Miami to shoot movies that are marketed as condom-free, leaving the California industry, which is already gasping and wheezing, in it's dust. Second, it'll spur on the ever increasing popularity of 'pro-am' web only pornography, shot well under the radar, with barely a nod to existing conventions. John
We didn't bring a compass 'cause we ain't got nowhere to go 173 Posts 4/09
Posted - Jun 16 2009 : 8:00AM
Here is a quote from an AVN article. It's from Ernest Greene, who is married to Nina Hartley.Now while many might disagree with what he says, it should be noted that his position is not that of an outsider or stereotypical sleazy producer who exploits talent and sees women as expendable. He is the real life partner of a porn performer. As such, he's also exposed to her STD risks. He's referring to information coming from longtime experience. Nina Hartley is not an uninformed 18 year old parotting industry slogans. The point i am trying to make here is that while you may feel better when watching a scene with condoms because you think that the performers are on the safe side, this might actually be an illusion.
^ That's a fair point, and an interesting quote. Really, the thing that bothers me is why condoms are such a turn-off in the first place (and I'm sure a bunch of people will have their own personal feelings on this), as well as the rhetoric some people use when arguing for condom-free sex. Sure, if you have a preference that's one thing, but when people start talking about "fantasy" and speaking about the performers as though they are mere images, it gets a little more complex. I think the bottom line here is that some performers who prefer to use condoms feel pressured to relax such a demand - something mentioned a couple of times by performers here on this thread, and elsewhere - and this is surely something that needs to be addressed. I'm on the fence about legally requiring it, but I think our attention needs to be directed toward why certain attitudes exist in the first place, as well as the mental and physical well being of performers.
[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 16 2009 : 3:47PM
It is my understanding that in Japan, amongst the general population, condoms are thought of as sexy. Obviously porn consumers their put up with the pixelation of genitalia (so no one knows if condoms are being used or not). I gather that in Japan, porn sales are pretty good. If all porn producers have come together and have basically supported AIM, why can't they all come to together an support a condom only initiative? If the only porn available is condom only no one company should should be hurt.
Japanese pixelization of genitalia is, essentially, what gave rise to far more disturbing and graphic hentai (the sexualized anime, manga, etc.) To say that consumers put up with it, isn't exactly accurate; with the rise of the internet, I'd be curious to see what the actual sales figures in Japan have been (as opposed to simply assuming that they're good.) Porn companies were happy to support AIM, as the cost of that support came out of the performer's pockets, and gave companies a strong excuse to discourage condom use (and thus, boosting their sales.) John Edited by - JohnHenry on 6/16/2009 4:12:18 PM
Studios will push for what sells best, and as long as the trend of condom-only studios under performing continues there will be a pressure to make non-condom films. I'm intrigued by the idea someone posted of narrowing the testing window to the point that a performer is being tested before every shoot. As a consumer I know that I'd be amenable to paying a premium for non-condom porn if the performer was being compensated to account for the burden of increased testing.
[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 16 2009 : 4:30PM
^that sound doubtful. By the way what does the HIV test cost?
$120, plus the drive to wherever you get tested. Getting tested once a month isn't tough; getting tested every two days would be a wreck. Edited by - JohnHenry on 6/16/2009 6:33:57 PM
I was referring to the sales of condom-free movies that were being boosted. I wasn't intending to comment on AIM's altruistic visions or not; I believe the foundation does have a strong interest in helping protect performers. I think the foundation has a sound vision, but the overall execution is rather dismal; I've heard stories from several performer of their tests being reported back as false positives, coming back nearly a week late, their databases constantly going down, and even more recently with the woman testing positive, and shooting the next day. That sort of thing is EXACTLY what the whole AIM system was designed to prevent. A bicycle with no seat can get you from point A to point B, but you'll feel like you're taking it up the ass the whole way there. John
Unfortunately there aren't that many porn films with condoms to be found anywhere. Which means that voting with their dollars is not a viable option for porn fans at this time. I'm afraid that sooner or later the government will get involved and prohibit condomless porn the way child-porn is prohibited now. They'll call condomless porn 'exploitation of vulnerable sex-workers' to justify such a law. If the porn industry and porn fans don't behave reasonably and clean up their act on their own. Then the government will do it for them in its own way sooner or later. All you need is an incident where an STD outbreak spreads from the porn industry into the community and some innocent housewives get infected. And then public outrage will force the government to act. HIV is a red herring in the porn industry. Most STDs porn actors get infected with are Chlamydia and Gonorrhea. Edited by - Dan on 6/16/2009 5:39:35 PM
[Link]
sauce Deactivated User
43 Posts 6/09
Posted - Jun 16 2009 : 6:07PM
i hate condoms in scenes..as a interracial fan and black man..its impossible to watch!i mean with white guys it can blend in sometimes and not as noticable..but not in i.r. Only one i could watch is monique alexander! but i dont know how she can get away with that 4 so long. I mean shes a contract star and doesnt even shoot that many scenes. vivid must think she the hottest woman on earth.
Wicked's a notable exception. The reality, is that porn consumers as a whole just aren't going to switch to porn with condoms out of any sense of compassion for the talent. Ask Joe Schmoe what he thinks on the street about a porn star, and you're more likely to hear the world 'slut' or 'whore' than you are 'mother' or 'wife.' The federal government isn't interested in the issue; it'll fall to the state government. The state of California would have to take the issue up (and is certainly considering it on the heels of the recent HIV case) and it'd be a Occupational Safety Hazard issue. I don't forsee any real changes to the status quo, as enforcing such rules on pornographers really does end up punishing the larger companies (who already permit condom use) and leaving the smaller companies who already barely exist on paper to ultimately go unregulated. An excerpt from the link you posted (which has spread quite a ways through the netI find these statistics highly questionable, considering the National Institute of Health says:
I have never understood why sexual protection in porn has not been used as a means of getting the word out "hey there are some nasty things you can get from a sexual encounter besides cum in your eye!" Okay okay I know why. The reason is we (the fucked up Western Civilization and the rest of consumer civilizations) still has sexual hang ups. We titlize, we shun and we secretly look, but we do not outright talk in the fucked up American schools and many European schools about sex. I blame most of this on nearly 2000 years of fucked up male monotheistic religion that demonizes the feminine and sees sex as "production." Embrace the Goddess as maiden, mother, warrior, crone and sexual lover (hetaira). Dump the religions of Abraham. Empowerment through sex not disempowerment by the objectification religous bigots. Please get rid of this "God" crap in society and its views of sex as taboo and women as the source of some fall from god's fucked up grace.
Not to burst any bubbles, but I can't think of a single Eastern civilization that is without their own taboos and sexual hang ups. I don't know any women being stoned to death on the streets of San Francisco for being in a sexually explicit movie. That snag aside, I agree; the sooner humanity gets over itself, the closer we'll be to enjoying natural, healthy sex. John
I think that you understand very well that most of fans know, that unprotected sex is risky, but they love to watch it. Unprotected sex is much hotter and extreme. More fantasies, more fun for viewers. Porn is for people's pleasure. Performers make this risky stuff for them. Fans of professional boxing also know that boxers can get serious injury, but they love to watch their favorite sport. If you are watching sport gymnastic, you are also watching many risky things. If you love to watch it, it not mean that you are psychopath. If something is risky, it not mean that it is bad. It is very sad that bad things sometimes happen, but it is life. If we talk about empathy, it not mean that we need to lie. It is very easy to say: " Condoms in porn are OK" . Where is the sense to say that, if I will not buy such videos? Why I need to lie? I read that many performers also do not like to work with condoms. If performers are ready to take the risk, why someone want to force them to start using condoms in porn scenes?
JohnHenry, My bubble is not bursted. Maybe the most "evolved" of cultures might be some Native American Indian cultures where human sexuality and gender diversity were more open. There is in the "East" those of Vajrayana Buddhism (Tantric Buddhism) who who have a more open view of sexuality. After a lecture in university some years ago that I did a student from Napol (I think he was from Napol) came up to me and told me that what i just talked about was pretty much what his grandfather practices. His grandfather was in a high position the Vajra Buddhist community in California. In ancient India of course there are some traditions that are far more open about human sexual diversity, but most of that is gone or 'hyper" titlized by modern media. When I lived in India (married a Hindu) I saw noothing but sexual oppression and a socialized system of "ownership" of women. Most women in India are recognized (by state and culture) through a dominant male be that father, husband or brother. Kerala I have heard is an exception to that rule, but I am not sure how much of an exception that is. Bollywood and the State are very powerful forces and where that force can not cohersein culture it imposes in law. There are still Hejira (a formerly "sacred" transgendered subculture with ties to the Gallae in the ancient Mediterranean) that over the last few centuries has been pushed towards prostition (as opposed to sacred release) and the social margins. Of course Marget Mead's classic work on Samoa would suggest that many Polynesian communities had a more open view of human sexual variants and gender identity. But all in all with the birth of consumer civilization (which is western, eastern and practically everywhere) the dominant meme is sex is a taboo and for sale as well as a means of oppression instead of liberation. Be Free, Be Wild! Oh! Wear a condom or dental dam!
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 17 2009 : 5:24AM
How do you figure this? There's a long tradition of extremism in Japanese visual and literary pornography long before pixelization was enforced by the US during occupation. The extremes of hentai have to do with the fact that it's not real so the furtherest pornographic extremes can be expressed.
[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 17 2009 : 8:37AM
That's interesting. I know it's OT, but do have a little more details of that or a link?
personally, i prefer scenes without condoms. i used to watch marc dorcel films until they started using them. i haven't watched one in a while, so i don't know if they still require them. that being said, if condoms are used, why not use the ones that are almost sheer? i have seen some movies where a guy is wearing a dark rubber. if you are pale skinned it just looks wrong.
I'm sorry but that's just wrong information. Japanese laws regarding porn pre-dates WW2 and the Americans didn't create it. The actual code goes back to the Meiji era of Japan, dating back to about the 1860's. There was a law established back then that prohibited materials deemed to be offensive to public morals...sort of an early decency law. During WW2, Japanese military and government officials took many more rights away from the people of Japan. After WW2 and Japan's surrender, American influence helped to re-establish things like freedom of speech in Japan and other "First Amendment" democratic principles. They did not, however, remove the earlier (and still established) ban against pornographic images. The Americans didn't enforce anything...they simply didn't work to repeal it.
juha wrote: The whole "there ain't no condoms in my fantasy" is selfish. I agree 110% with Juha on this. We are talking about the health and safety of sex workers/erotic artists/adult entertainment actors and just to demand "no condoms" so some dick wad can beat off is just wrong. And testing for STDs only informs at the moment of the test. Of course the "moment" is null and void if the artist/actor/worker is having unprotected sex during the time of the test .. there are some hot nurses and doctors you know. Some old friends of mine back in a university town use to say "having sex with a condom on is like wearing a raincoat in the shower." Well ... if that shower water was toxic waste maybe wearing a raincoat and biohazard suit might not be a bad idea. Anyway this is not to say "do not have sex" or "no more porn" but Jesus H Christ lets use some common sense.
Yes. I'm selfish if by selfish you mean that I expect to be able to get off to porn. Porn performers don't perform for free, do they? I'm not demanding that hapless women be forced to do it with a gun to their head. My position is that I'm willing to pay for movies featuring people who know the risks and are willing to take them. It's business. Business is not altruistic. It is inherently selfish. If I don't want a risky job, I have to find a job with minimal risk. Some jobs are inherently risky and can't realistically be any safer than they are without compromising the quality of the work. If porn performers want to use condoms, they can use condoms. But I won't be buying it because I can't jerk off to it. I don't do it on purpose. I can't will my dick to work differently than it does. So yeah. I do kind of expect to be able to jerk off to porn. I'm selfish like that. I'm such a monster.
[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 17 2009 : 2:28PM
It seems to me that if a guy can fantasize that he is fucking the likes of Jenna Haze, he can also fantasize that he isn't wearing a condom either.
Hi Arany, I don't wish to sound like I'm discounting the existence of a few societies, but inevitably these would be small, communal societies. Sex is one of the most powerful means of control that can be imposed on a population, and both religions and governments use it as a means of asserting authority and establishing greater power for their leaders. Perhaps I should reword my original statement: No sizable culture is without it's taboos and sexual deviance. BlackSix, I only point out that there seems to be a connection, at least to me, between hentai and the censorship of pornography in Japanese culture. There's an interesting (if a little dry) paper on the emergence of hentai here but I think the gist is that during the Meiji period, heavy censorship was imposed on many topics (politics, western thought, foreign religion, and pornography.) This clamp down on traditional erotica seemed to result in heavy taboos almost turning inward, socially. Forbidden fruit became more highly sought after, and as the censorship of pornography was never repealed, 'alternatives' were pursued. John
@CD - Yeah and if I really need to imagine that the biggest turnoff on the planet isn't right in the middle of what's supposed to be a hardcore porn flick, I might as well imagine the whole thing. Why are we even paying for it at all? Millions and millions of men have it all wrong. You have the answer we've all been missing! We should all just save our money and imagine everything.
This is the consumer reality, in focus. So long as people prefer to buy porn without condoms, either a) condoms will have to be invisible, or b) they usually won't be used. It's not exactly black and white, but if I want to sell porn, I have to be prepared to give consumers what they want. Posters here who proclaim they're happy to see the performers protecting themselves with condoms aren't likely to avoid paying for condom-free porn. The flip side, is consumers who don't want condoms in their porn, aren't likely to pay for it. Perhaps the motivations of some of the posters have more to do with smearing a little brown on their nose... John
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
^^ Wait, so you mean to tell me that if someone could invent a condom material to completely remove any visible evidence that there is, indeed, a condom in use, you'd be against the scene on general principles? What about digital processing....I doubt porn will ever invest that much money, just asking. Is it the sight of a condom-clad dick or the philosophy of condom use (even if you can't see it) that you think porn viewers oppose?
[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 17 2009 : 4:04PM
^Now we become Clintonian, as in {i]it depends on what is is.. What it is is a rubber on someone else's dick and not on yours. When one is jerking off while watching a scene are they bothered by the fact that it is there hand that they are using and not a real pussy. The last time I checked, a closed fist feel very different then a pussy, of course unless we fantasize.
^^ Since 99% of the scenes end with a guy jerking himself off to pop anyways, I'm not sure that it matters that much to the performers since they obviously enjoy the feeling of their own hand to any orifice on the woman. The first jerk can just be condom removal, just like it is with condom scenes right now.
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - Jun 14 2009 : 7:40PM
