It doesn't matter anyway. Now these bastards know how to kill porn. They will follow wherever it goes. It's only a matter of time now. Fucking scumbags can't let you have anything in this goddamn country. Your best bet is to buy up as much good porn as you can and make multiple redundant backups so you have enough for a porn drought of indeterminate length. Fuck this shit. Some of us have been collecting porn for years. Many didn't even have a reason. Well, now you do. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/18/2013 10:18:35 AM
The industry is fucked imho. Yeah, I'm glad I've been buying dvds and building my collection for almost 10 years now. I'm glad I did while we still had freedom of choice and expression in this country. This measure b bullshit is just a freedom of expression killer in sheep's clothing.
Actually with the way the law was written that is still possible. Vernon, Pasadena and one other small city within LA County is exempt unless they un-exempt themselves. However these cities are too small to support all of porn.
AHF: CalOSHA Fines Streamray Studios $28K for No Condoms, Other Safety Issues (AHF press release) LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has learned that Cal/OSHA (California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health), the state’s health and safety regulatory and watchdog organization, issued multiple workplace safety citations to Chatsworth-based adult film production company Streamray Studios Inc., including several for failing to follow workplace safety regulations, including for failure to ‘…ensure use of appropriate personal protective equipment, such as…condoms…” The OSHA citations came about after stepped up inspections following an outbreak of syphilis, a highly contagious but curable STD, shut down the entire adult industry for several weeks last summer. Inspections at Streamray occurred on or before October 4th and October 17th 2012. On January 10, 2013, officials from the High Hazard Unit of Cal OSHA issued seven (7) citations ranging in degree from general to serious to Streamray. Three (3) of the seven dealt specifically with condom use and availability (or lack thereof) and/or safer sex practices among the adult film performers, including a citation for failure to ‘write, establish, implement, and/or maintain an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) which met the requirements of this standard for their employees who were exposed to hazards including but not limited to sexually transmitted illness in the course of producing adult videos. The seven citations resulted in financial penalties or fines totaling $28,460, of which $14,175 of the fines were specifically issued for lack of condoms on set, lack of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) and Exposure Control Plan. more at the link above
Coming from the legit film industry (with almost 30 years of experience) I might have a slightly different perspective on this issue. The most important thing performers need to be aware of is that it is the producers job to maximize profit for investors and get a product made and out onto the market. That is their job description. If it was up to them everyone would work for free and have zero protections. This is why in the legit industry there are trade unions. Everyone, esp. in LA knows full well that the technology exists to digitally erase condoms and a decent director and a camera crew can block scenes in such a way to minimize the need VFX in post. So, basically the entire first amendment argument is a red herring. This is all about money and saving on production costs potentially at the cost of health and safety for the performers. Why are some of the performers complaining? Let's see... they have shit contracts, no retirement fund, no health coverage and no union in an industry where blacklisting runs rife. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on. Runaway porn productions? Californians have heard this threat before from the Majors for everything from tax breaks to reducing union wages. Guess what? They still make movies in LA. Runaway productions DO FOLLOW CALIFORNIA Health and Safety regulations tho.. why? Because they can be sued in a California court if there is an accident on one of their sets. The same would presumably apply to Vivid if some performer is able to prove they got sick on a set (or more likely a group of them got together and launched a class-action suit). I personally know of a few girls with cervical cancer so this is not as unlikely as it may seem. This law is not state-wide yet but there is always the possibility that it will be one day so the producers should plan for that. The bigger companies like Vivid and Adam & Eve actually have the budgets to produce high quality porn for DVD/cable/PPV in this environment so I don't really see what their problem is. All the smaller companies will be forced to flee LA driving down the cost of equipment, studios, locations and talent in LA. I see it as advantageous to them. This is a financial issue folks not a free speech issue. The free speech canard is going to get laughed out of court. And of course the real bullet in the head for the 'civil liberties' argument is that without such a law performers are FORCED to engage in unsafe sex practices to enrich their employer. The entire basis of the legal argument is a joke. At least the lawyers will make money. Edited by - cineprep on 1/25/2013 9:31:37 PM Edited by - cineprep on 1/25/2013 10:43:58 PM
SnipEver seen anyone missing fingers because of a table saw accident? I have. It's usually because of the missing guard. Marked breakers can come in handy in a studio in the event of a small fire or other electrical mishap. All these regulations are there for a reason.
Nonsense. Safety first, like any other industry. It is, after all, just a job. The porn industry may not like having to follow the same rules everyone else has to vis-a-vis workplace health and safety but neither did the coal mining industry decades ago. Don't expect any sympathy from the courts or the general public on this issue.
These numbers generally include every employee at Starbucks who serves someone who works in the industry a coffee, waiters who serve them lunch, hotel workers etc etc. To put it in perspective IATSE Local 728 which is the Hollywood lighting technicians union that services the legit film and television industry (and porn on the side too most likely) had around 2000 members last I checked. The lighting department is one of the biggest on any movie so I think that figure must be inflated indeed.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Jan 25 2013 : 11:46PM
Guess what: no one is interested in watching porn scenes which are "block[ed] in such a way to minimize the need VFX in post," i.e., phony, softcore, hotel room-and-cable style porn where no visible penetration is happening. Please tell us what you think it would cost to "digitally erase condoms" in an average real porn film which has at least an hour of extreme closeup on cocks.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Jan 26 2013 : 12:16AM
Mind boggling lack of understanding as to costs involved, spread out over very small numbers of units. This isn't exactly Disney converting their back library into "3D" releases, is it Glad to hear "the entire first amendment argument is a red herring." [o\|]
The cost is irrelevant. Safety first. That is how the rest of the entertainment industry works. Why should the porn industry (of all industries) get a free pass on safety? It is very much a safety issue since there is currently no way to reliably test for the HPV virus. Why should porn actresses be at a higher risk of cervical cancer due to their job because the industry is unwilling to spend the money to invest in a safe work environment? Why should women be pressured into an unsafe work environment or face losing their livelihood? As for the 'they'll just shoot it somewhere else' argument. Every industry uses that when confronted with any regulation and it is quite simply a race to the bottom. If we all accepted that argument ourselves we would all be working for third world wages to compete with China and Bangladesh. At least you admit it is a money issue and has nothing to do with 'freedom of expression' Personally, being straight, I could do with a lot less cock in my porn anyway but that is a matter of taste and YMMV.
How much does a hysterectomy cost? Oh right, the producers don't even supply health insurance so why the fuck should they care. Anyone who has made a real movie with real special effects knows it is pretty easy to make bunch of realistic rubber dicks to stick in some chicks face... and if it's too expensive? Sorry... shoot the scene another way. What is mind-boggling is the idea that pornographers seem to believe they have the right to skirt workplace safety rules that everyone else has to follow simply because they don't have the budget. This is after all about budget and not about the 'first amendment'. The 'first amendment' does not give a producer the right to shoot anything he wants regardless of safety simply because he does not have the budget. That argument is indeed a red herring or straw man or if you prefer a chewbacca defense. It is ridiculous and I highly doubt it will fly in court.
Horseshit. Porn is not every other industry. It's porn. These people are not slapping pieces onto cars on an assembly line. Their job is to fuck each other. For real. Skin on skin IS the product.No one is trying to masturbate to films of coal miners working. As far as I know. As long as they get the coal out of the ground, no one cares what they look like while they're doing it.
Then why are people allowed to have unprotected sex at home? If safety is the only thing that matters, what's the difference between getting fucked up the ass on a porn set and getting fucked up the ass by a stranger in your own home? Will you people be barging into people's bedrooms next and insisting that safety trumps privacy? Seems to me that what you are really saying is that people don't have the right to sign a waiver. You are saying the person's wishes are completely irrelevant. They can't choose. But you haven't exactly explained why people are not capable of making this choice. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/26/2013 2:06:45 AM
So use sheepskin condoms. Just because it is the pornography industry the plaintiff should not have any special rights under the law. Why should they? I hate to be the one to break that to you but I think you can safely bet the court will not buy that argument. These are fap films. Why the fuck should porn producers have special rights under labor law simply because they claim to be too poor or are too unimaginative to abide by it? DO you seriously believe anyone outside a few in the industry believe they SHOULD have special rights simply because they are producing smut? This battle is making the porn industry look like tobacco companies or the oil companies claiming there is no global warming. It can potentially do more damage to an industry that is actually slowly becoming more mainstream than the law itself because it shows everyone who takes a moment to listen to the industries laughable arguments just how little concern there is for the health of the performers. We all know that many women in porn (esp. the new ones) get tricked and pressured into doing things in the industry - which makes it look bad enough BUT these silly anti-condom arguments in light of that manage to make it look even worse. Porn is about sexual control and of course, if the guy puts on a rubber and appears to be showing some respect for the well being it is not as hot. I get that and I agree. I never use the things myself. Well... too bad, a porn set is a workplace and people are there to make a living so they deserve minimal legal/health protections even if it means some people can't have as much fun fapping to the product as they used to. Edited by - cineprep on 1/26/2013 3:04:12 AM
It is a job site. People are going to work to collect a pay check. What they do on their time is their business. What they are asked to do at work is the employers. This is a simple concept. I don't really understand why people don't understand it.Actually they don't where safety is concerned and for very good reason. It would put the safety conscious out of a job and likely get them blacklisted so many people would be signing the waiver under duress. So the waiver would be useless anyway and likely challenged in court. Just as there are always people willing to work for a cheaper rate there are always people willing to cast aside safety considerations to get a job.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but I'm just a customer. I don't have to buy this stuff. I don't have any idea who you are but if you care at all about the survival of this business, you must be completely delusional if you think people are going to pay good money for fake, watered down porn in this economy. Or even in a good economy. Many of the people on this forum have spent years collecting good, full contact porn without rubbers. And frankly, just about everyone who likes porn enough to buy it on a frequent basis has probably collected more than enough to keep them in porn for many years. If not, they will be able to acquire older porn in various ways.
So don't. I am sure there are enough men more interested in tomorrows hot chicks than yesterdays dicks to keep the industry from the apocalypse all the doomsayers are predicting. But hey, whatever rocks your boat. Personally, I think if you have been such an avid collector you wouldn't stay away for long.
Why does that matter? Safety first. Remember?Really? Why is it their own business when they are at home but not when they are at work in an industry that they specifically chose to work in doing exactly the same thing? If they fuck the wrong person at home and get HIV, the chances are that someone other than themselves is going to feel the financial impact of that. It's unlikely that an ordinary person could pay for all their treatment for HIV over the course of a lifetime. It is more likely their insurance company will have to pay for it. So why is it only their business when they are doing this at home?Indeed. It is very simple. They are there by their own choice. The employer did not abduct them off the street at gunpoint and force them to make porn. They chose to make a living fucking with full knowledge of the fact that fucking entails fucking. This is extraordinarily simple.It is quite obvious that you don't understand very much.If this is the case, everyone who signs a waiver for anything can be said to be doing so under duress. Because just asking someone to sign a waiver could be seen as putting them under duress. So why do waivers exist to begin with? With this convoluted view of the world that you have, do people have any right to choose at all? You are essentially saying that someone who wants to make porn but doesn't want to have unprotected sex has a right to demand to be hired. And also that people who are willing to make porn the right way don't have a right to do so because it isn't fair. This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You have a right to make porn but you don't have a right to have unprotected sex because it isn't fair to the people who want to make porn but don't want to do it right. And this whole train wreck adds up to giving the state an excuse to censor porn. GTFOHAnd it could be upheld on the grounds that the whole purpose of the waiver was to make sure the person who signed it knew what they were doing and would take responsibility for their own actions. If you feel that this cannot hold up in court, the whole concept of porn falls like a house of cards. The entire idea of porn is predicated upon the foundation of consenting adults. If you don't have the right to hire people who have the right to choose to do things others wouldn't, you don't have the right to make porn at all. From there, the destruction of porn as a business is inevitable. It's only a matter of time.And there are always other jobs. Porn is a very different kind of job and if you don't at least acknowledge that, you're being dishonest with yourself and everyone else on a very fundamental level.
Maybe. But then you have things like piracy and the fact that most of the things people want to see in porn are going to eventually be banned by the same assholes who are responsible for the condom mandate. This would include real blowjobs, oral cumshots, bukkake, creampies and any kind of exchange of bodily fluids. The idea that people are going to enthusiastically buy up this kind of porn just to see naked chicks is really preposterous. Might as well just go to a strip club or look at still images of naked chicks. There's no point in even having a male in a porn flick if the only reason anyone is watching is to see naked chicks. They might as well save some money on talent and use dildos. Go and see how many top rated porn flicks you can find with absolutely no exchange of bodily fluids.Well, you've been wrong about everything else so it's no surprise that you got this one wrong too. Again, many people on this forum have stacks and stacks of porn from years of collecting. They are not going to pay good money for worthless porn when they probably have more than they will ever really need to begin with. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/26/2013 4:11:54 AM
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation would be against CGI being used to digitally erase condoms from porn to make it look like convincing bareback action, because they are trying to turn porn into advertising for condoms and their safe sex agenda. Porn that used CGI to convincingly erase condoms would have to be carefully monitored to make sure they were really doing this and not just claiming to do it. The monitoring required to ensure compliance would probably prove to be quite costly. The technology doesn't exist to erase condoms convincingly in real-time. The major portion of Steamray Studios' business is live webcam girls working at home from their bedrooms. NB: With the huge amounts of free porn movies now available on the Internet doing live sex shows is now one of the few ways to actually get many people to pay to watch porn. Measure B says nothing about live webcam work, but it's position would appear to be that if a fluid-bonded, real-life couple are doing live webcam shows from home, then they should use condoms because Measure B would still consider this to be adult video production? It's not defined at all in this badly written and appalling sloppy law. What if it's a girl-girl couple? Should dental dams be used for cunnilingus? Measure B says nothing about cunnilingus or dental dams. It just says condoms must be used for vaginal and anal sex - which presumably means they are not required for a fellatio. Measure B has to be challenged, tried and tested in court on a whole range of issues because it is ill thought out and badly written. It is anything but sensible, knowledge based work place health & safety legislation as it currently stands Edited by - Geri on 1/26/2013 5:15:53 AM
RandomPrecision: Most of your post is tl;dr but... Maybe you have free will where you work but where I work I generally have to do what I am told as long as it is legal and not dangerous (or if it is every precaution is taken to minimize the danger to both myself and others). It is not at all like staying at home and banging my gf tho I wish it was! If your job is like that. Good for you. Edited by - cineprep on 1/26/2013 6:25:48 AM
The same can apply to tossing talent out the window of an exploding building or crashing a helicopter next to an actor. Some producers can afford to do it and other can't. So yes, the cost is irrelevant as far as any 'first amendment' argument is concerned imo. IANAL so we have to see what the court says but I doubt that argument will fly. I think it is a total waste of money to even pursue that defense. As for how much it would cost? I have no idea. I don't do post-prod. I do pre-prod and production. I don't think it would be as expensive as people seem to think if custom software was developed. We are not talking about remaking Lord of The Rings. It is a pretty simple matte job of a small object that only has to be done when the penis is inserted and on the portion in shot. SO if the condom was chroma key green I don't think it would have to be a big deal - with custom software. It is very simple in the film industry. If you cannot afford the shot you don't shoot it - you shoot something else. Real producers make these decisions every day.How so? I am hostile towards forcing girls to take unnecessary health risks. I have nothing against porn. From Yahoo News 'One actress, who declined to be named because she worried her opinion might infuriate her boss, confessed that while she would “prefer” to have her co-stars wear condoms when they filmed sex scenes, she doesn't "want the government telling me that has to happen. That is really not cool.' Edited by - cineprep on 1/26/2013 6:52:36 AM
Michael Weinsteinis the one who suggested it. In the LA Times "This is not a free-speech issue. This is a workplace safety issue," said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "If they want to digitally remove a condom" from the final cut of a film, "there's no issue."
Wow. Way to come in and act all high-and-mighty as you propagate on a self-righteous screed as if you and AHF know what's best for the industry, the talent, and the rest of us. To join AHF's insane policy of applying lab technicians' regulations for people that trade in the act of swapping spit and swallowing semen cannot be genuine care. You are you, really? These zealots really have workplace safety in mind!?! Get real. They want to kill porn. This just happens to be the most effective means of doing so because in a world where government bureaucrats always get the benefit of the doubt, they can regulate, mandate, and control any business they want with total impunity. And the public will swallow it like a Peter North cum shot. And will the porn police actually have to prove they've had any impact on safety? Not on your life, and they're lucky because they probably couldn't even be half as effective as AIM. But will that stop them? Of course not. Bureaucracy never dies and bureaucrats never stop. This isn't about protecting porn - it's about, first, redefining it and controlling its production/distribution and they know, as we all know, that whatever could come out of this approach isn't adult entertainment as we know it now. And no, things don't need to change. Why does some taxpayer-salaried schmuck know better than a producer or performer taking their own risks? And finally, dental dams aren't fire-retardant suits. Condoms aren't roll cages. This would be tantamount to placing monitors on sets in Hollywood to ensure that even replica guns aren't making it into the shot. Kinda kills the medium, doesn't it? So a challenge, why don't you take all that cinema expertise and make a realistic porno under Measure B/Cal-OSHA/AHF's standards?
LOLWUT?!?!? Weapons handling is tightly controlled and the handlers are certified and monitored. Ever hear of Brandon Lee? There was no weapon specialist on the set when he was killed. The production cut corners on safety and a guy ended up dead.People take risks for money all the time they, or someone else, may end up regretting later in life. Especially 19 year old girls straight off the bus who are pressured into taking them for your fapping pleasure. As for porn producers, their job is to get a movie made, on budget and on time. There are a lot of things they will not do unless they are forced to. Many producers have no problem making people get in their cars and drive home after working a 24+ hour shift for example - to save money on equipment/location. Every now and then someone wraps their car around a tree and is called. Everyone in the film industry has at least one friend this has happened to - including me. Stuff like that does not get fixed unless there is government or union intervention. Often this intervention is actually welcomed by the producers (esp. in the commercial production industry) because it levels the playing field and the extra costs are passed on to the client/investor. It becomes the cost of doing business. As for government intervention in this case, the porn industry is NOT unionized so that leaves the 'taxpayer-salaried schmuck' to handle it. Edited by - cineprep on 1/26/2013 8:38:46 AM
You're missing the point. Adding or subtracting something from the production that changes the overall delivery of it is an unnecessary step, in this case one that would reduce that delivery. We could go with nightclubs having the type, or sound level, of music they play regulated. That would effect the nightclub experience, no? That might even reduce it. Or. because AHF/Cal-OSHA were originally modeling their proposals on lab technicians' regulations, back to Hollywood, it would be like forcing everyone on a set with fire to follow firefighters' safety rules, fire-retardant suits, masks, and oxygen tanks. But because it's a controlled environment, and that would be unnecessary and stupid, you don't have to. So again, do you really think you could make porn under Measure B/Cal-OSHA/AHF's standards?
Ever notice the DJ's and Lighting guys? They wear ear plugs behind the booth - if they are smart. As for loud noises on a set like explosions and gunfire there is always ear protection distributed to the crew.Huh? The fire department is always present (as is an ambulance) and anyone in close proximity would indeed be protected with whatever protection is necessary if there is any danger. I personally have had to wear a mask and a more or less flame retardant suit in one particular location I worked in.Sure, by making the talent wear a rubber. People put them on all the time.
So? It's not rape. It won't kill them. Its' NOT exploitation. But I'll assume your one of those that believes everyone is being exploited unless they're working full-time with full benefits, and union representation. Spare me. And again, nice conjecture, but that gives you, and everyone else in your pocket the high ground in telling porn producers and performers what to do? I don't think so.Nor should it be.AIM handled it. And while you come in here to denounce everything you think is wrong in adult entertainment, this thread is about the mandatory use of condoms. Would they be stipulated in union contracts? Doubt it. They aren't like hard hats or harnesses. You want Cal-OSHA to police the use of condom on porn sets. Your misgivings about the industry aside, why? More importantly, the question at hand is whether or not this unnecessary safety measure diminishes and censors a protected First Amendment right in the State of California. I say it does. You say otherwise. Which is why I'll keep asking: Could you make porn realistic under Measure B/Cal-OSHA/AHF Standards? I'm a conservative in California. I've helped write legislation to shut down abortion clinics by regulating them as if they're surgical facilities. I know when "business safety regulations" are really just an effective means of harassment, intimidation, and/or control. That is the case here. No doubt about it.
But you don't see that in the movie! That is where you started from, that producers and editors would just have to spend a few hours digitally removing the condom. Once we pointed out that is likely impossible, you came clean that this condoms in porn crusade really is just that.That is not, technically, the standard. Read the legislation, and an outline. Could you do that? All that PPE?
So I guess there is no point in discussing health rights of female performers with you is there? So what happens if a performer forgets to take her pill and gets pregnant? I suppose she is supposed to have the baby huh?
It is not impossible at all. It is what I would do because it is cheaper and I am not really interested in shooting dicks anyway. I like to shoot hot, sexy women. Nor am I a huge fan of extreme close-ups or between the guys legs shots so the rubber would not be a huge issue. If I ran vivid video I would invest in developing a software package to matte out condoms but I don't so I do not have that option. Or since we don't have that law here anyway I would probably just leave it up to the girls w/o putting any pressure on them one way or the other. Laws like that get passed because of perceived abuses in an industry. So far there has been no clamor for such a law here. Edited by - cineprep on 1/26/2013 9:40:23 AM
I don't think it's feasible. You'd have to determine A)condoms and other PPE are necessary safety feature (Cal-OSHA's stance) or B)it is unnecessary and censors this protected right (the industry's). I'm far more inclined to side with B. They aren't a necessary safety feature. There is no reason for Cal-OSHA to be mandating this particular rule for hardcore adult films. There's usually a C) as this was a ballot measure and overturning a ballot measure passed by the people, regardless of the merits, was usually given its due deference as a feature of the state's tradition of direct democracy, but since the Prop 8 ruling and subsequent AG offices of Edmund Brown and Kamala Harris, that just isn't the case anymore. And that is a rigged game that puts everyone on the progressive/government/bureaucratic turf, which is why AHF chose this route, and why there's little hope of winning a challenge.
I think the court will go with 'A'. I do not believe the court will see it as a 'protected right' in an industry as unregulated, pressurized and cowboy as the porn industry. I know girls who have been pressured into gang-bangs, DP's, supplied Coke, GHB and or Ketamine before performing, you name it. None of this helps the industry's claim that it is self-regulated and it gives a shit about the health and welfare of their performers and is likely to come back and haunt the industry over the course of this case.
We'll see. Right now, the industry doesn't seem to have changed. I would hope the next step would be relocate to Vegas hoping some local politics can keep AHF, the Mormons, and the Republicans at bay. But it's not good. Though, why the condom crusade? HIV, in particular, isn't a problem in the industry. AHF took up the issue and found the zealots at Cal-OSHA and the LA City Council favorable, but to enlist the public as they did, and what's it to you? Why the condom crusade? I'm always struck by progressives that take up these grand causes, then get upset when businesses protest. Well, yeah, maybe you should balance idealism with practicality. The condom crusade hasn't. It's a cause disguised as "safety regulation."
[Link]
InFamous Deactivated User
1051 Posts 2/12
Posted - Jan 26 2013 : 2:55PM
I say they should moved to Vegas, I hear reports that they would welcome the industry with open arm. But San Francisco is another place for porn, Kinks shoot.
That's nice to know. That you seem to believe fervently in censorship but can't even be bothered to read the counterargument. And by the way, I trimmed at least a couple hundred words off of that post when I wrote it in an attempt to make it easier to read for people with short attention spans. I have attention span problems myself so I do understand how difficult it can be to read a long post that you know you aren't going to like. Nevertheless, we are talking about censorship and if you think your argument justifies censorship, I'm not going to back down just because you are too lazy to read my response.I have never worked anywhere I didn't choose to work and/or where I wasn't free to quit anytime. The idea that the porn industry is responsible for the fact that some of these girls do not plan ahead is just so wrongheaded. Everyone has free will unless someone is literally forcing them and won't let them walk away. You might have a problem if you have no other source of income and you walk away from porn at a time when it's your only source of income. But how hard is it to think about that ahead of time?
cineprep - You are also missing the entire point here by suggesting that the industry could simply use technology to digitally airbrush out the condoms. 1. First of all, such things are almost always easy to spot if you know what to look for. 2. If the public knows that the porn is fake, no amount of digital perfection is going to change the fact that they know they're not watching the real deal. There is a certain type of customer who would adapt to it but I believe many simply would not. 3. When you go to watch a mainstream Hollywood flick, you know it's all staged. You don't expect it to be real and the story is (somewhat) more important than the realism (In real life machine guns run out of ammunition really fast, for example). The porn customer doesn't just expect realism. The porn customer expects reality. If you look at the trends and you read what has been written by porn fans on this forum when they are asked what they want, they want as close to reality as you can get. 4. Customers like myself do not just "get used to" things we don't like. Fake boobs, for example. I have never gotten used to them and avoid them. If every scene had fake boobs, I would not just keep buying porn. I'd have no choice but to fall back on what I already have and give up buying porn. At that point, it's a lost cause to keep buying stuff you don't want and will never get used to. And finally, the conclusion - Even if they could do it plausibly, we are going to know what they're doing and why they're doing it. The very thought that anything is being faked in porn can kill an erection faster than the sight of a pair of gardening shears. Or, eventually, just kill the desire to see it at all. If I'm watching porn and I see fake boobs, I go to the next scene in the hopes that it isn't a total loss. If I know all porn is fake to the point to where the fucking isn't even real, there's just nothing left. You are talking nonsense. You apparently just don't get it. Even if you can hide it, people will know reality isn't allowed. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/26/2013 3:37:50 PM
Wrong. I've been moving in that direction for a while. I took the lesbian porn route, but I might get to features eventually. Penetration was interesting for a while, when I had a VCR and porn was new to me.
RE: "This is not a free-speech issue. This is a workplace safety issue," said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "If they want to digitally remove a condom" from the final cut of a film, "there's no issue." LA Times article I think he is bluffing. It would prove to be an issue even if he currently "honestly" doesn't think it would be. What about trying to respond to some of the other issues I raised?
Unregulated? Ever heard of 2257? And again, I'm not a porn insider but I'd bet even that is light compared to the papers that have to be signed before you can even pick up a camera for a porn scene. Unregulated my ass. Everything is "unregulated" according to liberals who won't be happy until their "regulations" bog things down so much there's nothing left.That's nice but what does that have to do with the overall industry and rubbers? These girls may or may not have a legitimate complaint against the particular people who allegedly did these things but I'm not buying that this is standard industry practice. It is more likely that they hooked up with the wrong people. And don't get me wrong. I don't doubt there are some bad people in the porn business. I'd be surprised if there weren't. And yes. The more ethical people should get together and make life difficult for those bad people who do end up giving the whole industry a bad rap. At the end of the day, porn is a very libertarian pursuit. If you don't believe in individuality and the right of each person to choose, you might as well give up on making porn. Every time someone starts with this BS about coercion and fairness and blacklists safe working conditions, they're really saying "you know, I just basically really hate the whole idea of porn". Edited by - randomprecision on 1/27/2013 5:17:45 PM Edited by - randomprecision on 1/28/2013 6:53:42 AM
Introducing Kalani Luana
Posted - Jan 18 2013 : 10:15AM
