Don't get me wrong here, the use of condoms with teens, for casual/pick-up adult sex and as a part of family planning, is not only advisable but a necessity. To require them, however, with the MOST blood-tested employee work force on the planet, is just plain ludicrous, and thus, whenever I see them in ANY porn scene, they become "CONDUMBS" to me. Nevertheless, some adult film companies, including Wicked Pictures--my favorite--continue to "lower the heat" of their sex scenes by filming "condumb only", and nothing looks more ridiculous than dressing up "Mr. Johnson" in red, blue, yellow and green suits, a practice I'm starting to see more and more of lately. Even the flesh-colored "RUB-HERS," not only take away the sensation and "feel" of a good fucking for the man and woman in the sex scenes, but significantly distort my "fantasy world," which I am sure is equally true for the vast majority of the porn patrons reading this post. Yet, "hangers-on" continue to insist on "condumbs" and defend their decision on the VERY VERY RARE cases of porn-related HIV, forgetting the fact HIV, and other sexually-transmitted diseases occur MUCH MORE often among other work-force employees who are NOT tested---and I COMPLETELY support all adult performer HIV testing programs, btw. Then too, many producers and directors still cling to the "anti-edicts" handed down by porn's self-appointed Health Czar, once-powerful AVN publisher Paul Fishbin, who consistently directed staffers to use the "power of the pen," to discourage "bare-backs" (sans condumb) scenes and even, female cigarette smoking scenarios within adult film presentations--an "anti-rule" steadfastly followed by well over 95% of ALL adult film producers and directors today!
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 28 2009 : 4:00PM
Some people in the porn industry are not very honest about their health conditions, and they probably did things outside the movie set that even trheir co-workers would frown upon. With that in mid, someone who is very fussy about health issues may insit on condom use. So be it, that's their choice. When a company actually imposes condom use on its performers, who would be willing to work without them, and perhaps not just for health issues, then you have to wonder if it's a marketing ploy to demonstrate they are being responsible and concerned and out there to protect their hired workers. Even the performers (male and female) complain that condom use just ruins the heat and their performance. And on a physical level they just looks ungly and when the male is not really that hard (which is frequently the case) it becomes painful to watch. The other aspect is how and when the condom makes an appearance in a particular scene. If you are watching a couple totally nude in a tropical setting having sex under a waterfall, and all of a sudden the camera gets closer and you see a condom, you have to wonder how did it get there? Did the guy quickly go back to land and get a condom from his pants, don it and continue the screwing?
Let's see now Bluto, we can spit on em, piss on em, choke em, slap em, chewonem's toes, grab and pull em by the hair, wrap em up in tight latex, restrain them with various devices and kick em to the curb, BUT Heaven Forbid! if we film beautiful, well-built women dangling smouldering cigarettes beweeen their luscious red lips--- for THAT would DEFINITELY "shock" our senses!!
I've never understood why condoms are used during sex scenes then the female swallows the cum. Didn't that just completely cancel out the safety precaution and invite STD contraction through the front door?
exactly. besides, porn first of all already comes with the safe sex disclaimer that i fast forward through all the time and second, it's supposed to be fantasy, and in the middle of a fantasy, i wouldn't be saying, "oh, hold up a minute. gotta use protection." sure you want to make sure the performers are protected from stds. that's why there's testing. but at the same time, with all due respect to the performers, if you dont like smoke, dont be a firefighter. you dont like blood, dont be a nurse. if youre worried about stds, dont fuck for a living.
I agree with the OP. I haven't purchased a Wicked Pictures release since they started tilting at windmills with condom-covered lances; and I doubt that will ever change. Thankfully there's plenty of other non-condom porn to choose from.
I don't trust men who don't like big tits. 1067 Posts 12/04
Posted - Sep 30 2009 : 5:44PM
I just had a feeling this guy(chick?)was going to say they liked Wicked or Vivid while complaining about scenes with condoms. My favorite series is Big Wet Asses, I just wish they'd stop with the oil and water."
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09
Posted - Sep 30 2009 : 6:15PM
I love watching b/g scenes without condom use as much as the next guy, but I understand why they are used. Although STD testing is an important component in STD prevention, they are far from perfect. Besides the small error rate (it's pretty small), the incubation period phenomenon found in most infections (including STDs) are a real and are a huge hole in STD testing. Incubation periods are just the time it takes for a bacteria, virus or other pathogen to enter a person and then show up on a test (STD). Usually these incubation periods are on the order of a week to as long as several weeks. For example, a negative STD panel/tests on day X, only signifies that a person is not infected with the STDs tested back on day X - incubation period (I think the incubation period for HIV in current tests is about 4 weeks). So this excludes any possible infection during the past 4 weeks. I disagree with the prior sentiment that if a female performer demands condom use, then they should not work in this profession. Many professions these days have biological/infectious disease risks (e.g., medical field). This is why many employees in medical field wear gloves and other barrier devices for prevention. Would you say this to these employees as well? Edited by - BYOB_Kenobi on 9/30/2009 6:24:46 PM
If I were in porn I probably wouldn't do it without a condom, honestly can't believe anyone does. Saying that I'm not a huge fan of seeing them but I definitely understand.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Sep 30 2009 : 8:58PM
Condoms are a joke! The have extensive oral sex with one another, but the minute cock goes into pussy somehow everything all of a sudden becomes disease infested. Edited by - rosco fuji on 9/30/2009 8:59:46 PM
it really depends on who's doing what in a scene. I actually liked what Heather Brooke(Ideepthroat.com) did with her husband's penis with a condom on it. She'd suck the guy off and deep throat him till he nutted and then pull the guy's dick out of her mouth with the condom full of 'content'. You couldn't deny the sex was real, and it's also very horny.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Oct 1 2009 : 10:51AM
Sorry, but the only condoms are useful in porn are the ones used as a cum catcher which one girl immediately wrings out onto another girl's face.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 1 2009 : 1:29PM
And what of the scene/movie in which an actress has safe sex with a male, but non-condom with another male either in same scene or another scene in the same movie? One actor is considered "safe" while the other is disease infested? It shows a level of distrust, and it's hard to get stimulated either in one scene or get turned off in another.
I watched a scene from Russian Institute: Lesson 8 with Stella Delcroix getting DP'd, and the guy in her pussy was wearing a condom, but the guy in her ass wasn't. Maybe she wasn't on birth control?
kbv69, that's just as bad as some Vivid gal insisting on condoms or it being mandated for the pussy, but will give the guy head bareback!! Go and figure
Not to mention the fact that if oral is involved, you can also contract diseases like the big "Herp". Which last I checked, was in the same boat with HIV (having no cure available).
^Huh? While herpes is incurable, it won't gift you an untimely death. The only company that requires condoms right now is Wicked Pictures. If you hate it OP, stop watching them. Like someone else said there is lots of porn without condoms available. I don't understand why you keep watching product you obviously are dissatisfied with.
And neither will HIV (which has groundbreaking modern medications that can even increase cell counts in some candidates). HIV does not always lead to AIDS. This is an uneducated myth. I just think it's silly that the only STD people fixate on is HIV, when there are other incurable diseases that you can get from non-intercourse sex. Even if a person is "shedding" skin, you can contract Herpes. No blow jobs, creampies, or anal licking needed.
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09
Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 10:24PM
100% no, but I was under the impression that it's a large majority (could be wrong). Theoretically even if a HIV+ person were not to get develop AIDS, the cost for HIV/AIDS related diagnosis & treatment makes herpes associated costs look like a drop in the bucket. Also, I'm no expert on STDs, but not all routes are equal. Transmission and infection exposure rates are different between oral, vaginal, and anal. Edited by - BYOB_Kenobi on 10/3/2009 10:38:51 PM
Never implied that one was better than the other, that's like arguing the difference between shitting and pissing in my mouth. I was simply stating that the focus of contracting HIV through sex vs. having hella unprotected oral is an "absurd". Just the same as when women (or men) think its harder to contract diseases by having anal as opposed to vaginal sex. And contrary to popular belief, most people who are diagnosed with HIV do not die from AIDS, period. Unfortunately, this has led to the belief that HIV has become some sort of "Diabetes" (especially amongst some of the Gay community). If I were to break down which one is riskier (based on which is easier to contract through non intercourse) it would be Herpes. Most people don't know (or simply can't understand) that you can, infact, get an ulcer through skin shedding or come in contact with a breakout that is not even visible to the human eyes (in the mouth area). Herpes is claiming more victims in the United States than HIV, so that must be a clear indication of the number of people that are uneducated on how to contact it.
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09
Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 10:55PM
^ Can you please clarify on your cause of death comment? Also, can you please be more specific on your herpes epidemiology comment (are you talking about HSV-1 or HSV-2)? Yes, more people are infected with HSV-x than HIV in US (yes, >50% of pop is seropositive for HSV-1 and 20%> of pop is seropositive for HSV-2), but that is neither here nor there. I disagree about the diabetes comment. There has been a lot of progress in education of the general public (esp. younger generation) on routes of infection/causes of HIV during the past couple of decades. You wouldn't happen to be who I think you are? [mod edit: cropped quote] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 10/4/2009 12:03:16 AM
^ HSV-2 (genital herpes) is the third fastest growing STD in this country for young adults, coming in behind "the clap" and HPV. So this attempt to make it seemingly unproblematic and less threatening is really starting to wear out the carpet on this end. Are there people developing AIDS from HIV? Of course. But are there medicines within the last 5 years that have shown amazing results? Hell yes. HIV doesn't guarantee a signature on the death certificate as it once did in the 1980's. PCP Pneumonia is the x that marks the spot for AIDS. It all depends on how well your system is and how well you take care of yourself. I try to keep current via my mother, who is a nurse and has worked with HIV patients quite frequently. Unfortunately as of 2008, the reported number of new cases in men ages 13-29 saw a significant spike. One of the contributing factors was the disconnect younger people feel as opposed to those who saw the early ravashing effects the disease had in the 1980's. I read an article in OUT magazine towards the end of last year about Gay Porn Actors and how "going bareback" with sketchy precaution (i.e regular testing) was a rising hot commodity. Some of the men (very young ones, btw) interviewed reported on how the fear of getting HIV in the community had diminished because of all the treatments available now a days. My criticism for people who preach about condom use but practice unsafe sex acts (such as oral) with little regard of the shared severity leads me to believe that these individuals might not be just "naive"....but D-U-M-B. Because Genital Herpes is one of those diseases commonly spread without having intercourse (and according to the statistics, it's in no shortage). And I don't know who you know, so I can't answer whether you might think I am who you know Edited by - Starr Santiago on 10/3/2009 11:51:27 PM
Like Savoy said, Wicked is the only "condoms-only" company I know of. Most have gone condoms-optional or simply don't shoot with them at all. Other than a Wicked produced film, I really can't recall the last modern film I've seen with them being worn. I don't think Wicked is gonna change their policy anytime soon, so you may have to go with an alternative feature company like Adam & Eve, Vivid, or Digital Playground. There are other lesser known feature companies you can go with also.
[Link]
deadmanwade Deactivated User
161 Posts 9/09
Posted - Oct 4 2009 : 8:43PM
I hate wearing condoms from a comfort point of view so watching porn with condoms is just visually meh for me. I could be watching my favourite performers in the hottest scenes of their careers but the sight of that condom just kills it for me.
