hmmm, interesting comparison ..... :)

[Link]

I think this is the beginning of the end because the next thing they might try to ban is anal sex because that might be dangerous also, condom use or not.

[Link]

The goverment ain't foolin nobody. Wear seatbealts, wear condoms, don't smoke, don't drink. I might listen if they weren't making money off of all of it.

[Link]

As far as the circus acts go, the only one I find attractive is the occasional DP's and gangbangs. I don't like them all the time, but occasionally they can be erotic to watch. I definitely have variable tastes. Most often I like a single girl and guy, but the variety definitely breaks up the monotony of porn films.

Porn without anal, fuhgettaboutit. Anal sex is raw and erotic. There are alot of women with gorgeous asses, and I love a hot woman receive anal sex. The best movies have the smorgasborg of sex: anal, oral, and vaginal. That is why I am partial to private films and evil angel. They give you raw, erotic sex in creative locals with some semblance of an interesting plot, story, or set up. Very enjoyable.

Seems to me that the breakout was handled quickly. Hopefully no one else will come up positive. They know more about HIV now, so generally people who contract the virus can still lead healthy, productive lives. It certainly isn't the "death sentence" it was previously made out to be. The industry seems to be regulating itself well.

Edited by - Blue Sword on 4/22/2004 4:23:36 PM

[Link]

Demanding condom use is about as dumb as the law that demands people must wear helmets on bicycles and motorcycles, and seatbelts in cars!!! Who the he-double-L is the government or anybody else to demand that I live my life according to their own thoughts on safety???? Think about this for a second…. I mean, as good as one of these ideas may sound (like a helmet for motorcycle riding), should there really be a LAW making it ILLEGAL to not abide by a certain safety practice?? Is this still America???!?!?!!! Obviously I am passionate about this issue, but let me also share something personal, and that is that my own father died in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet (years ago). I think that qualifies me uniquely, to see this issue objectively…

I don’t want to stray off into a tangent, but do any of you wonder how many of these “pro-governmental rules and restrictions” people are socialists? Or how many of them have actually ever owned a business or strived to be an entrepreneur? Just when you think that California couldn’t be any more stupid and set the table for the fall of the state, they take measures to bring down the entire porn industry. Yeah, the open borders with non-taxpayers draining us into bankruptcy along with the overly regulated business restrictions and the absurd Worker’s Compensation, and then finally the overspending socialist legislature weren’t enough - now we need to crack down on the Porn industry!!!!!

Stop the world I wanna get off……

If you are American, please help to stop the socialists from destroying the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for!!!

[Link]

Oh..and have a nice day :)

Quaze

[Link]

The other issue is that if you are driving and in an accident without a seatbelt and are injured, people have to take care of you. They could be taking care of me instead. If you crash your car while I have my heart attack, and EMS went on a run to get you first, I die.

People can be as dense as they want. But the problem is that other people often end up paying the bill.

There have always been limits to freedom. Except in the Somalia comparisons that always come up. I think it was Kimi that said you can either have freedom to or freedom from, but never both.

Myk

[Link]

Sorry for ranting, but this pizzes me off. I hope the porn labels can fight off this one.

[Link]

I don’t think though, that seatbelts in cars, helmets on bicycles, and mandatory condom use in pornos, is the answer…. Somehow I just can’t see that analogy of you missing out on your heart surgery because I just suffered a severe injury due to non-seatbelt use in my car.

Think about it like this – do we really need as many people possible to live safe and maximum length lives (at the expense of happiness I might add) instead of letting people live their lives as they individually see fit? I mean, is it the people without seatbelts and helmets causing the drain on healthcare or is it the abundance of elderly people? (let alone the people from other countries who come here illegally and use services which are supported by our tax dollars)

One other thing – are you really trying to tell me that riding a bicycle is a “privilege” (using your words here) granted to me by “the government” and not a simple act of freedom? What about walking down the street, or breathing air or going to the beach? Are those also “privileges” that are oh so graciously afforded to me by “the government”?

Anybody know where I can sign up for terrorism? If this is the government that my family fought and died for, then it’s time for a change… I don’t believe though, that it is.

[Link]

"People can be as dense as they want. But the problem is that other people often end up paying the bill."

Maybe in a socialist system this holds true, but that is not supposed to be the way it is in a Capitalist system, and that is not what our forefathers intended when they established FREEDOM....!

FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Liberty:

a) The condition of being free from restriction or control.

b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

c) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

[Link]

The truth is, they have been doing pretty good on their own. If condoms are mandated by the government, then condomless porn will just go underground, and there women will be under allot more pressure, with allot fewer safety nets against their contracting a disease.

There would be an even larger underground operating outside the bounds of industry satndards, and STD's would skyrocket.

So, if you are truly concerned about minimizing the amount of health services used, to keep them open for only the "good" citizens who deserve them, then you certainly don't want the government regulating it.

They screw up everything they touch in such cases. Just look at the war on drugs.

No one is saying there shouldn't be basic laws prohibiting humans from violatiing each other's rights. What I am saying is that we don't need a government to micro-manage every area of our lives.

Not only does it not work, it makes things worse. And I have a feeling they are going to do it, so I will eventually be able to say I told you so, lol.

The better thing to do would be to allow the industry to self regulate, and make adjustments based on this incident, just like they have after previous ones. Consumer demand, desire for safety by talent, and the company's profit margin will all work to make porn safer, just like it has up until now. Nothing is perfect, but if you want to see it fall, let OSHA control it.

I would say that you can have freedom to and freedom from, but you can't have just one.

Take care.

J.

[Link]

Of your freedoms, C is really the only one you have. The others will never completely exist.

Myk

[Link]

Industry self-regulation is a bit of a joke. They tend to self-regulate to the point that their profits are maximized. If I can pick oranges in my neighbor's yard and toss the peels into the street, I don't think my habits need regulation. But when the peels start to block traffic, others have to step in.

Industry is interrested in making money, not protecting the public welfare.

Myk

[Link]

The government didn't pave the highway, our tax dollars did. The government just worked as a contractor to get it done as expensively and inefficiently as possible, lol.

The government may have once been us, it's not anymore. That one is not even worth arguing.

And public welfare is part of the maximation of profit for any company, because they depend on consumer support to make profit in the first place.

This is becoming an economic argument, and I think it's off topic. But you understand my point, and I understand yours. We are arguing something that has been argued many times before.

With all of this said, I do think there is a place for government, so before anyone compares me to, I don't know, present day Fallujah, I do realize that govenment has a place. In fact, I'm not 100% sure where it should stop or start, but I know when it's gone too far, and it has.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/22/2004 9:46:19 PM

[Link]

In an ideal world, porn producers would take the health of the performers as seriously as they take making profits. They had a chance to show how serious they were, back last summer when the LA County Board of Health mandated that the porn industry start doing regular chlamydia and gonorrhea testing. But beyond what AIM did, it looks like producers couldn't have cared less about this, allowing people to work with out AIM papers, or being lax about calling AIM to verify that a person was free from these infections, if they had recently been diagnosed with one.

If the porn industry can't handle these easily treated infections, what chance to they have to handle something far more serious like HIV? No wonder the government feels they have to take matters into their own hands.

On another note, I have had positive experiences whenever I have turned to the government for help with a consumer problem. I have personally had to contact the Federal Trade Commission, the US Treasury Department, the Penna. State Attorney Generals' Office of Consumer Affairs, and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to help me out with intractable problems with banks, cable TV companies, and shady telemarketers. I've even called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in both Vancouver and Montreal, when my father was targeted by scam artists from Canada - and the Canadian authorities were a big help (Thank you Officer Duncan and Officer Chantal!). I've even had the FBI call me, wanting to investigate the people who scammed my father.

So, don't go telling me that govenments are useless, and don't care about the problems of average citizens.

[Link]

Never said they were useless. I did say we do better with less of it. Not none, but much less.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/22/2004 11:53:19 PM

[Link]

Does anyone know what came out of this dissater?
It looks like the industry didnt learn a thing 5yrs
ago.Cause here we are again.

[Link]

Someone in the industry can relate the history of AIM, I dont feel like looking it up.

But then again, as you said, it has been years since the last outbreak.

Sharon Mitchell, in this article, say's this:Click Here

"The worst thing I see happening is some wacky state legislator saying, 'Okay, we'll all go condom only now,' because that will drive this industry underground again, sure as shit, and we'll be faced with having to deal with HIV and STD outbreaks continuously," Mitchell said ominously.

Here is their profile: Click Here

It looks to me like the industry has done quite a bit to make things safer. But then again, nothing is perfect. You'll find that out clearly if Cali OSHA gets what it wants.

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/23/2004 1:19:08 PM

[Link]

You are not endangering anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt or helmet. Seatbelts and helmets lessen injuries, they don't prevent accidents.

Your example of someone getting into an accident and getting ahead in line of your heart attack is also wrong. It may be no fault of the guy not wearing a seat belt getting into an accident. Some other dumb bastard may have hit him, a collision which was not avoidable. That also assumes that there would be no injuries had a seat belt been worn. Lastly, your heart attack could have been your own damn fault for eating too many burgers and fries.

Porn is a different. Two or more people are getting it on in a somewhat controlled enviroment. They should be signing some contract, part of which I'm sure absolves the studio of the health risks. Now it is a a damn shame that it did happen, and it doesn't change that I still feel sorry for them, but they should have known what they are getting to.

[Link]

how do I go about acquiring porn underground, if it goes that way? (just trying to stay ahead of the game! lol)

[Link]

Oh and the ideas behind "freedom" and "liberty".... Sigh, but I won't, it will just end up as a locked thread off topic.

So with that said, do I agree with condom-only porn, no, but I would reluctantly watch it if I had to. It's a damn shame the Government wants to chime in here when we have drugs, tobacco, and alcohol that kill just as effectively as HIV/AIDS.

I have a question has any of you seen a Government official standing at the counter when you or someone else buy cigarettes or alcohol, making sure you NOT pregnant?

I wish the best of luck to these companies and their fight against the Government getting MORE involved in our "freedoms"

[Link]

I don't think calling people bleeding hearted socialist liberals is going to get your point across.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/23/2004 4:40:05 PM

[Link]

You didn't answer my question though - how would one go about acquiring underground porn (if they wanted to)? Have you ever considered this??

[Link]

Uh, underground. I have no idea. The thrust of my argument isn't against condoms in porn, although I would rather not see them. But if the industry or a company decided to do that, then great. That's their business.

So, I probably would just buy condomed(I do now some anyway) and European porn, and stay away from underground .

If you want underground porn, go to Kazaa, maybe? I don't know. I don't recommend it, though.

J.

[Link]

The point of the accident/heart attack allegory is that there are finite societal resources to deal with the ill and injured. If you choose to put yourself at risk for a more severe injury because you're too foolish to wear a seatbelt, those finite societal resources will be used on you, stupid or not. Then, I, as a taxpayer and insurance holder, get to pay for it. Yes, you might be independently wealthy and self insured, but I doubt it. Most people that don't wear seatbelts aren't CEO's of big companies, if you know what I mean. The other point is that since there are finite resources, they may be in use helping a severe accident/no seatbelt wearer and not be available for me, who gets hit by lightning on his way to church, or what have you. Society does get to regulate how stupid you can be sometimes.

Myk

[Link]

As to understanding 'the spirit of america, her freedoms, and our forefathers blood and guts', or whatever...you've missed the point of what america is, and you besmirch those from whom you claim your lineage. Our founders didn't fight for anarchy. They fought against taxation without representation...not exactly a freedom to do anything you want, just a right to tax and regulate yourself in the absence of monarchy. Your forefathers fought for a lot of other things...preservation of the Union (statist), elimination of Nazism, propping up puppet governments, elimination of indigenous peoples on the North American continent, maintaining rule over the Filipines...quite a list. None of it was for absolute freedom. They wanted to make their own rules, not to live without them.

Considering the list of freedoms we enjoy today, to talk about taking arms against the 'socialist liberals' is a bit of a 'living in a shack with the unabomber' comment. Other than the speed limit on the road home, I can't think of the last 'freedom' the government took away from me...typing here on a nice censorship free porn board.

I repeat, of your enumerated freedoms...

a) The condition of being free from restriction or control.

b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

c) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

A. will never happen. In the absence of government limiting you, other people will. Whoever has the biggest club gets to make the rules.

B. well, maybe. But there are consequences to your actions that make this meaningless. Lets say that I wanted to express my opinion of organized religion by burning churches. I _can_ do that, but I get to live in a little government sponsored cage. There are always, and will always, be limits to what you can do.

C. Pretty much what we have.

[Link]

Say... what forum do we use to post about politics here on Adult DVD Talk... LOL :P

[Link]

J.

[Link]

1. Not wearing a seat belt WILL NOT cause a traffic accident. It only reduces the likelihood for serious injury.
2. You may be a fanboy of big steaks, burgers, fries, and salt. All these foods do increase the risk of getting a heart attack.

Both people put themselves at additional risk. However, you decided not wearing a seatbelt was stupid, and obviously you don't approve of it, so you automatically assert that it should be law.
Your eating habits put you at additional risk, but you rationalized that it was OK, because burgers are so damn tasty. At the hospital, why shouldn't society place you in the front of the line, ahead of all the "stupid" people, so you can enjoy your tasty burgers?

Decison makers with rationale like you destroy freedom.

Edited by - mike_rach on 4/24/2004 10:48:55 AM

[Link]

A guy in an accident wearing a seatbelt walks away from it. A guy not wearing oneis injured, making the health care system take away resources from, potentially, me. Or other people that are smart enough to reduce their life risks. Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine. Don't drive on the roads my tax dollars paved.

Myk

[Link]

with all the ranting you have been doing and calling everyone scumbags.... saying they should "reap the whirlwind". can you venture to explain why you were added to the second generation list today. and considering that you are so involved, what took so long for you to report yourself?

[Link]

This thread hasn't been on topic for the last two and half freakin' pages--and that includes the final two posts about dac.

And while we're on that subject. What the heck does dac's post have to do with whether or not he's on the 2nd generation list, and more importantly, why should he have to explain himself to YOU--someone who's making a whole lot of veiled accusations and suppositions, and meanwhile not providing any objective primary or secondary source information. This is just getting ridiculous.

You guys have problems with each other, take it somewhere else. This is petty and stupid, not to mention, considering the stakes involved, unbelievably crass and mean spirited.

Does anyone else have anything ON TOPIC to say, or are we done here?

[Link]

(On topic?)

-T.C.

[Link]

it's not just condoms either, remember cal-osha says NO bodily fluid contact... that would mean no kissing, no pussy eating without unsightly dental dams, no blowjobs without condoms.... in reality it will cease to be pornography, it will then be something else... something very sad.

if you don't like being in porn, if you wont accept the risks... don't be here. period.

[Link]

But the last two pages? That hurts. You even posted on the page before this.

The title of this thread is State May Require Condoms in Porn .

My comments on whether or not the state should mandate condoms in porn is the very essence of the topic.

When talking about whether or not the state should impose a new regulation somewhere it has not previously been, it is quite relevant to discuss times when it has been done in the past, how it fared, whether the state has the right, moral or otherwise, and whether or not it will work in the first place.

You know what though, if I just speak to the topic of should there be condoms in porn, then I have a more nuanced answer.

I really agree with Rob and Tony.

Additionally, I would add that if any gonzo companies decided to go all condom, then I would still support them. I would also buy European and other porn that is condomless, but I wouldn't hold it against a company(gonzo) for deciding that they need to beef up their systems to provide for the safety of their talent.

I am curious about one thing. If condoms are mandated in porn, does that mean married couples, or monogamous couples that don't wear condoms in their personal lives would have to wear them on film?

** Note - I bolded the above text to make it stand out. So that if nothing else in my post was read or commented upon, then that would be it. I do not intend for it to denote yelling, or a strong tone of voice. I was reminded by someone wiser than I that it could come off wrong, so this is my disclaimer.

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/25/2004 1:08:16 AM

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

Sorry. My company isn't that bad, though.

Aristotle is dead.

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/24/2004 9:03:21 PM

[Link]

XOXO,
Pason
www.pasonxxx.com

[Link]