Talking about mainstream flicks nobody complaints about special effects. But if special effects are used in porn the audience screams: "FAKE! WE WANT REAL ANAL CREAMPIES!!"

Sad, but true.

[Link]

Porn is about fantasy. And in my fantasy, I don't want to see a condom.

If a girl goes condom-only, okay. I respect her decision, but I will immediately stop watching anything she ever does with a condom just the same way someone strictly opposed to implants might stop watching a girl if she gets 'em.

I, as a consumer, am unabashedly cut-throat. I understand there are risks involved for the performers, but if they didn't like it they shouldn't have gotten involved in the biz in the first place. They get paid a lot of money so they should put their asses (no pun intended) on the line.

----

Personally, I understand the fantasy POV, but from a pragmatic standpoint I do think it is a bit ridiculous that the straight adult film industry is so staunchly anti-condom. Now with Vivid condom-optional, Wicked is the only one that mandates it. Do I think all companies should mandate it? No. However, I like the idea of condom-optional. Most of the guys will argue vehemently against condoms because it is harder for them to do their job with a condom on, hence Rocco's reported trick of actually cutting off the very tip of the condom to increase sensation (and also rightfully piss off the female partner when they find out). And surely some of the women do prefer the sex without condoms. However, the fact that there is so little options left for a girl who insists on condoms doesn't seem right. At least they can go to the online companies.

Ah, yes, the online companies. Now, that is a bit of a different beast. There is a temptation to compare online porn to video porn, noting that some of the condom-optional online companies seem to do okay so, really, why are the major companies so firm in their believe that allowing condoms in their productions would be cataclysmic? However, I think that would be an unfair comparison. Now, I would be curious to see how well Naughty America and Bang Bros do on DVD sales with condom-option scenes. That would be interesting. I'd also be curious to see how well the condom-only scenes that Avy Scott did for Northstar Associates sold, seeing as how they were not scenes culled from an online pay-site but shot specifically for video, and if they received any complaints about her condom-having scenes.

It's like as fan's we've been trained to enjoy only non-condom work. During the prominent contract girl days, an a-typical fan might view a porn actresses' rise in the industry as being demarcated by events of increased nastiness. There is the solo stage, girl-girl-only stage, boy-girl with boyfriend stage, boy-girl condom only, sudden willingness to take facials, boy-girl without condom, anal, DP, gangbang, etc. Not many of the girls would hit all of the stages of course, and at any point in the climb a contract could stop her "nastiness" in its tracks. Also, a girl's trip down the line wouldn't always go in the a-typical order. For instance, I read old reviews of PJ Sparx films in which reviewers wax nostalgic on the good ole days when PJ would actually do boy/girl without a condom. How is it that different? Again, realistically it's not. But from a fantasy POV it clearly makes a world of difference.

Edited by - -Kelly- on 2/2/2006 4:11:01 PM

[Link]

In any other business there are safety rules.
But when it comes to porn the market shall figure it out.
We all know that Mr. Smith was wrong when he invented this idea of an absolutely free market three hundred years ago.

[Link]

Fuck, Adam Smith would LOVE the porn industry, stripped of any moral objections he-living in the 18th century-might have of course. As much as the government has tried, they've been unable to substantially regulate that market due to free speech issues. However, the issue I do have with the biz is not of a free speech variety, nor do I wish government intervention upon it because that would surely mean ungodly censorship under our current theocratic administration and (now) Supreme Court.

Pure capitalism doesn't work in the long run; it cannibalizes itself. But it's because of pure capitalism that the straight industry is so anti-condom. Let's say that Evil Angel decides to go condom-optional. Will sales suffer as boxcover after boxcover starts showing guys with condoms (in only the scenes where a performer requested it of course)? According to industry logic, undoubtedly yes. Consumer opinion on condoms will trump brand loyalty and their money will go to someone else. So, there is no economic incentive for the all-sex companies to do it because the competition is fierce and the consumer rigidly tied to what he/she enjoys in porn, which is completely their right. You would think there would be an incentive, however, for feature companies, like Vivid or Wicked, who appeal to different markets, the couples-one and hotel/cable PPV one. But the fact that Vivid has gone to condom-optional might in fact be a response to sagging sales.

There's a high level of risk involved, but as performers will argue due to AIM they are more comfortable going non-condom in their work than they ever would be outside of it. AIM is flawed, of course, and HIV outbreaks are going to happen at a statistically insignificant rate (tell that to the people it affects) and girls are going to get Chlamydia and gonorrhea and other STDs. However, that's part of the game, and some will be lucky enough to go through a career without catching any STDs. That's great, but is it fair that girls who still don't want to take that risk have to find ways to circumvent the system? Well, if that's what the market dictates then it's perfectly fair. After all, the demands of the online market are different and they can get plenty of work there.

If there was a porn star union, would things be different? Possibly. However, directors such as Paul Thomas argue that most of the girls prefer to work without condoms. If they had more options on the other side of the fence (and just as importantly had always had these alternate options during their career), would that still be the case?

Edited by - -Kelly- on 2/2/2006 4:24:00 PM

[Link]

If condom use becomes mandatory, most people's fantasy will adjust quickly.

[Link]

So comdom for me in porno...well they sucks, i hate to see them. I know that they are not confortable for sex and low the pleasure, sure if i fuck with a girl found in a bar i will use them, but if i have a girlfriend serious we will do all nessary to be able to do it whitout.

So when i watch a porn movie, i don`t want the girl to having comdom, nothing on a feeling of risking life here, just that condom are not for porn simply as that, im a very gonzo fan , i like when a girl is a complete package(anal, DP, A2M, Swallow, Multiple Facial) so condom really annoye me.

Enought said...cuz im the Dude !

[Link]

Edited by - Rubyred on 2/2/2006 11:22:08 PM

[Link]

Performers in the USA are tested for HIV infection, a test which can usually detect HIV that's had enough time to grow in the system to the point of becoming detectable. Please note that the virus does not have to be detectable to be transmissible.

Previous discussions on worker safety have suggested that other, less deadly infections are pretty common, though not cheap to deal with, nor without risk. So, I think it's fascile to suggest there's little cause for concern, unless only death gets your attention.

" Lot of time the girl do a scene with condom and get a belly cumshot that have most of the chance to reach her hole and then you see what."

I can't remember the last time I saw a belly cumshot - 1989? I have no idea how you arrive at the odds of such a cumshot ending up reaching 'her hole.' However, I think it's safe to say this argument is a non-starter.

"So comdom for me in porno...well they sucks, i hate to see them. I know that they are not confortable for sex and low the pleasure"

This is fascinating, and probably the only argument you've made that has a basis in fact.

Just to be clear, it doesn't matter to you whether the stud appears to be enjoying the sex, or that the girl is enjoying the sex? The fact that you don't believe you would get optimal pleasure in such a situation overrides the 'reality' on screen? If you aren't engaged by what you're watching to the point of accepting the fiction on screen, then I wonder how all the other flaws in porn pass you by.

[Link]

And well how much pornstar die of disease like this? we don`t ear of much, and how much do gonzo-no-comdoms? plenty. So i supose these guys and girl know what they do, they know how to not catch it, they probably don`t fuck everywhere with anybody.

So as a personal choice, i prefer to see movie without them, and as a personal choice, i prefer to use them as less as possible. But all this is personal, and yeah there plenty of other thing in porn that sometimes bother me but its like that, its like video game, you can play 10-15 video game before coming across the big block buster hit that you will remember for years, same with porn movie, you can watch plenty of ``good`` movie before coming across the big one. So its something i accept.

Enought Said...cuz im the Dude

[Link]

Keep in mind, and it's likely mentioned somewhere in between you & I, but performers are supposed to undergo monthly STD testing, which limits the chances of spreading disease.

That all said, what's it to you? Do you get off on watching condom-only sex? If not, I don't get your point other than to harass the industry like so many of these yahoo's about the "safety", "obscenity" and all that jazz. Open up your own condom-only production studio & see how well the product sells, and how many performers line up to work for you.

In response to condom-optional -v- condom-only, I think that most of the "nasty" fans really want to see the girl get spunk-faced, or swallow. Movies with condoms tend to promote the "belly shot", or "titty shot", having to cut from orgasm to actual blast so the (male) performer can whip off the condom in the heat of exploding. At least in the few "condom" titles I've viewed, that seems to be prevalent...although I can't be certain my reason is correct. But who wants to deal with too many cuts & edits...maybe that's where any beef I have lies on the condom-only titles.

DUDE: While some of your morals are honorable, that isn't always the case. You'll always get the occasional male (performer) who can't keep his pecker to himself, and will fuck anything that walks, inside or outside the industry. No different would you find a female (performer) who can't get enough dick. The chances of bringing in the disease, most likely from outside the industry, are very present but not revealed. To a degree, I understand that, because even if I were talent, I wouldn't want everyone knowing my sexual business - inside or outside the industry. While Kelly notes the oft fan argument that "if they're in this business,...they should put their asses on the line", I think it's more a case of having a respect for your job. I actually respect those girls who DO have significant others more so, even though I'd rather not know about it. Because, naive as this sounds, they are less likely to spread for just anyone.

FWIW, I support condom-optional as well, based on the preference of the performer, since it's their body at risk.

Just my $.02, subject to change :)
~E

[Link]

I think that there is a big difference between the viewers of feature movies and gonzo movies. Feature movies are movies which you can watch with your partner. Nasty sex isn't the reason that people are watching this movies. So the use of condoms doesn't have a great impact on this movies. When I watch gonzo movies I want to see hard and nasty sex performed by beautiful women. That's the only reason I'm watching gonzo movies. I don't want to see anything that distracts from the action. No story and no condoms.

Again there's a difference between feature movies and gonzo movies. In feature movies a condom-optional policy is good. I think that almost all gonzo companies have a strictly no-condom policy. I think that's good. When I'm buying a gonzo movie I don't have to worry about the use of condoms.

Performers who want to use condoms should try to perform in feature movies and not in gonzo movies. And if someone is going to play in porn movies nowadays he/she knows that in most adult movies no condoms are used. If a perfomer doesn't want to have sex without condoms but wants to perform in adult movies maybe he has made the wrong choice. No-condom sex is standard in most adult movies. It's part of the deal just as the huge amount of anal sex in todays adult movies. Accept it as a performer or do something different.

Edited by - blueyonder on 2/3/2006 11:14:13 AM

Edited by - blueyonder on 2/3/2006 11:15:46 AM

[Link]

~E

Edited by - eric381 on 2/3/2006 11:31:57 AM

[Link]

Edited by - blueyonder on 2/3/2006 11:17:58 AM

[Link]

To compare it with sports is good, because sure all the protection player wear are sometimes not enough but its part of the sports, they know in what they go before doing it and for that guy who volontary spread the disease knowing he was infected, yeah that suck, but there some jackass in hockey too that will volontary hurt somebody sometimes, we should not condamne the whole sports for that so same thing here.

Plus for girl there the big name to do, for exemple guys like Evan Stone, Erik Everhard, Peter North, they know they won`t have probleme with them, there serious guy shooting great stuff so it all depend too where the girl go.

Personally feature movie with story interest me less, i mean all the time i just fastforward the story, i don`t watch porn with my girlfriend, when i watch it its alone. So i have nothing against straight sex sometime, or story in movie, sometime there good like Contract Girl, the view of Even Stone and the other guy i forgot the name trying to act and speak like mexican give a big laught but its not what i watch the most. I don`t mind a condom here and there too, but im glad that no condom compagny are there and im able to watch there movie. Sure its frustrating when you see a very hot girl not doing any gonzo and you wish she would do it, but its her choice so its ok.

But sure girl in porn should know that if they go in that, they will have probably to do Anal and Facial, even if this is something that they don`t like much and don`t do at home, its like that in the business

[Link]

But still... if the US regulates that condoms have to be used... ill be either picking up older porn for a veeery long time(there is so much good stuff that is already out), or from another source... I just found out one of my favorite girls only does condom stuff now... I'm gonna be searching for all her old movies, but alas, unless she does solo stuff or girl on girl as well, its adios from El Rey. I respect that people do what they gotta do in this world, cuz thats what I do.

[Link]

1) The sports analogy—Athletes in sports (Football, Hockey, Nascar) that have high injury rates are covered head-to-toe in protective equipment all designed to reduce risk of injury. Moreover the people who run the leagues do everything they can to minimize serious injury by improving the protective equipment worn by their athletes and experiment with rule changes as well. If the NFL, NHL or NASCAR had a simple technology like a latex condom that is 98% effective in preventing the most devastating injuries sustained by their athletes, then they would go condom only. It’s a no brainer. Porn is going in the wrong direction on this one. No one asks football players to take off their helmets we shouldn’t be asking porn stars to stop using condoms.

2) AIM makes condoms obsolete—I think that the AIM people would cringe at this argument. AIM’s testing program exists to make porn safer for performers. It’s a second layer of protection and shouldn’t be used as a rationalization to do away with the primary and best proven method for preventing the spread of communicable diseases which is using a condom.

3) Free Choice/Fantasy/Consumer Responsibility—Insisting on no condom porn puts more pressure on the performers to shoot without protection which places them at greater risk for STD’s, unwanted pregnancy etc… If your favorite performer were to be infected and lose his/her ability to work, looks, health and life, you as the ostensible consumer of a non condom product would be partly responsible for their demise. That is to say we are complicit in the harms caused by this industry practice. Knowledge of this alone causes me to loose wood.

4) Long Live Chi Chi Larue. Wherever he ends up making straight porn again, that’s product I’ll buy.

Edited by - alexander portnoy on 2/7/2006 7:16:01 PM

[Link]

I quoted the most relevant part for the consumer.

I can't change the laws and I can't tell the industry what to do. But I can make a difference with my dollar. And it's my responsibility as a consumer to buy condom-porn.

[Link]

EDIT: Might I add that such a comparison is saying that if I don't stop buying cigarettes, I'm contributing to the deaths of everyone else as well b/c I'm supporting the industry as a whole.

~E

[Link]

I've always favored safer sex practices in porn, and my position has only solidified since the 2004 HIV outbreak. I understand that shooting conditions occasionally make condoms impractical or ineffective, but on the whole, I'd much rather see them than not see them.

In fact, I will never again review or knowingly purchase movies that include condomless penile penetration, with very few exceptions. Finding porn that I can enjoy has become an increasingly complex task, sometimes involving time-consuming research on out-of-the-way movies which often haven't been previously reviewed. But it's important enough to me that I will put the extra effort into finding what I want.

I will be reviewing at least one Chi Chi LaRue movie this year and none from Vivid.

[Link]

Look at Japan. Showing genitals is not even allowed. (I'd love to be the Japanese guy who watches those videos and places those mosaic censors. What a job!)

[Link]

In real life when you use condoms, you can barely feel anything. The friction effect disappears. There is also a disconnect, in terms of contact, with the person you are having sex with, subsequently, some intimacy is lost. Obviously, if one is having sex with random people in daily life, condoms are a necessary evil, but in porno I do not like to see it. I don't watch porno just to look at the girls. I also get off on the interaction between the participants, the level of contact and connect. Condom destroy the level of intimacy I am looking for when I watch porno. It's bad enough when someone is using a condom for intercourse, but when it is for a blowjob scene, that is a real wood killer. A total turn off.

Sometimes I also like to put myself in the place of the guy performing, but if he is wearing a condom, it only reminds me of what it is like to have sex with a condom, not very enjoyable. I don't buy the argument that if one cannot fantasize things into and out of a scene, that they are somehow deficient. The fact is that I don't want to. That's what separates porno from Hollywood. I don't want to imagine it or fantasize about it. I want to see it.

In conclusion, for me, condoms destroy the nastiness, the intimacy, the fantasy and the reality of sex, all of the things that turn me on about sex and porno.

There are risks in many professions, but if you think of the number of scenes that are filmed each year and look at the number of people infected with STDs it is very low to barely on the scale for serious cases such as HIV. Nothing is going to be perfect, but the testing they have in place at the moment is doing a good job. I think that most people who work in the industry also feel that they have an obligation to be careful in their private lives, so that they do not hurt people in the industry, many of whom will be friends of theirs. The risks are not as high as they appear sometimes.

Gaspard

Edited by - gaspard on 2/9/2006 1:01:01 PM

Edited by - gaspard on 2/9/2006 1:11:06 PM

[Link]

Edited by - gaspard on 2/9/2006 1:10:18 PM

[Link]

We must be watching different Gonzo's, because I see very little intimacy in gonzo films, which are largely non-condom. If anything, non-condom scenes seem to dismiss any thoughts or acts of intimacy altogether. Its mainly "bend over and take it" from what I've seen. Nothing "real" about it as far as I'm concerned.

[Link]

xoxo
Devinn

[Link]

Devinn, when I see a condom in a scene it does not really make me think of mortality or STD's. Obviously, I know that these are the reasons why they are used, but I will not be thinking about this throughout the scene. I just find them a sexual turn off for the reasons already stated. In real life, aside from being necessary, they are more tolerable because the actual physical presence of, whoever you are having sex with, heightens the sexual atmosphere anyway, so to some degree compensates for any loss in libido.

Gaspard

[Link]

When I'm watching adult movies I want to see women who are willing to do everything. They must have no boundaries. A performer who doesn't want to have sex without condoms isn't willing to do everything in my opinion. It's the same thing with creampies. When there are creampies in a movie I wanna see real creampies and no fake ones. If you don't wanna do a creampie as a performer don't do it, but also don't fake it.

Porn movies aren't mainstream movies. I think, that many people are watching adult movies, because they show you sexual practices which aren't acceptable for large parts of the society. Is it acceptable for a woman to have anal sex with four men at the same time without condoms? No. Is it hot to watch? Yes.

[Link]

1] For those of us who enjoy size queens going at it with well-hung studs, condoms cause the hard-on to appear a couple of inches shorter. It looks gross, like tattoos or body pins.

2] It's absurd to suggest that if condoms were mandatory, the viewers woud have to adjust their fantasies. If porn were to be made mandatory all-male, would the het male viewer "find" a way to get off on two guys getting it on? Rather, he'd just stop watching porn - it's not like he's addicted to watching anything sexually explicit.

3] Note: as a football fan, I can tell you that the helmet analogy is false. Fans like for the players to wear helmets - helmets clashing make for a cool sound, and bloodied heads don't look good. More importantly, football is not an athletic FANTASY, but actual competition.

The argument that the viewers should adjust their fantasies to support safe sex doesn't work. Fantasies are not amenable to political correctness.

Bottom line: if all hardcore goes condom-mandatory, then sales and rentals will drop catastrophically and 'safe' sex workers will be laid off, thickening the unemployment lines. The porn business will die and we'll have nothing more to bitch about on this website.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...<g>

[Link]

It would likely create a black market in the US, where producers, directors, and performers go underground to shoot non-condom and are no longer under AIM's thumb. This would be very, very bad.

That's according to Sharon Mitchell of course.

The industry won't self-regulate itself because it's not centralized and profit is the ultimate concern across the board. If profit were not the primary concern and the fallout from Darren James actually meant anything, Red Light District and Platinum X would no longer shoot creampies like they said they wouldn't (at least Evil Angel sticks to that policy, though when Jake Malone decides to stay with RLD what do fans say, "Good. Now you can do creampies!!!") and Seymour Butts would be condom-only like he said he would be (his press release, which I can n longer find in AVN's archive, even included a phrase about how he realized that he could no longer put profit over people anymore). There is no one organization that can really organize them into action either. AIM is close, but they are powerless to enforce a moratorium. They can simply strongly suggest one.

So, that leaves government intervention. However, the adult industry is such that it attracts people who are so naturally rebellious, with Rob Black the absolutely extreme example, that telling them that they have to use condoms is a bad idea. Of course, it is a business so tied to capitalism that there are also many businessmen involved who simply view pornography as just another product they sell. So, they wouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to rebel. Instead, they'd seek to protect their bottom-line, and because the market is such that it simply doesn't place a premium on actual concern for the performer's safety (just as American consumers don't stop to think about the working conditions of the foreign factories that make pretty much everything we wear) they'd explore their options, such as contributing to the FSC for lobbying purposes or, more likely, just outsourcing their productions to Europe and switching to producing entirely Europorn (I should point out that the European industry has had its fair shair of health concerns recently) and distributing it in the states. It's a global market, and if the government did mandate condom usage it wouldn't kill the industry because it can't, eh, won't stop them from going elsewhere (why pay our factory workers minimum wage when you can manufacture the same product in China for $.10 an hour type of thinking). It would, however, kill the revenue accumulated from porno shoots throughout California though.

Until there is a porn star union (which there won't be for quite some time, and it's possible that there'll never be one), I don't see a resolution to the problem. But if only the American porn stars unionize, it will be somewhat defanged. But before any of that, how the hell do you even unionize porn stars? I seem to remember that Mr. Marcus held talent-only meetings during the last moratorium and reports indicated that hardly anyone showed. And then if it did happen we might run into a mentality where fans find unionization a deterrent to fantasy, robbing porn of that "dangerous" quality.

I realize that this is a thread primarily about exploring the individual consumer's opinion on condoms in porn, and I keep spouting stuff about capitalism and globalism because it's the macro-level factors of the issue the interest me. Also, while the potential for moving production to foreign countries is far more limited in the adult industry than it would be in the manufacturing realm, I think the principle is still similar.

Edited by - -Kelly- on 2/10/2006 1:37:04 PM

[Link]

There's already a black market for child porn, snuff movies and all kinds of sick stuff.
But that doesn't mean this stuff should become legal to dry up the black market.

If hardcore goes condom-mandatory only the die hard anti-condom fans would seek out the illegal stuff from the black market. The common hardcore fan would buy the legal condom porn. Hence lots of lifes would be saved.

[Link]

Fantasies changed over the course of history just as anything else changed.

[Link]