Slog Comments
He Don't Wanna Wear a Condom
1
Yeah, I understand the porn industries complaint but I don't have a lot of sympathy. It simply won't change that much while being explicitly safer, even if only to a small degree.
3
I don't see how it's going to make anything safer. More likely, it'll just push a lot of the porn industry out of California. So instead of getting condoms on cocks, the California economy will be missing out on sweet, sweet smutbucks.
I know it's hard to believe for people in that state, but it's not actually the only place people can aim cameras at hot young bodies.
I know it's hard to believe for people in that state, but it's not actually the only place people can aim cameras at hot young bodies.
4
The whole idea that "people won't watch porn featuring guys wearing condoms" is bullshit. Guys fantasize when watching porn and rubbers don't change the fantasy at all. If anything, they make it more realistic. When I deliver a pizza and all the babes in the sorority have their way with me, you can bet I'll use protection.
6
The legit producers will move out of the county, and the underground providers don't care about laws. This changes nothing. No one is safer.
8
I voted against it. Ten years ago I suppose I would have voted for it.
The law could have many effects, but I doubt saving lives will be one of them. The studios will probably start buying finished scenes from 3rd parties. Basically, every port star is about to become a movie vendor.
The law could have many effects, but I doubt saving lives will be one of them. The studios will probably start buying finished scenes from 3rd parties. Basically, every port star is about to become a movie vendor.
9
@4: I don't know about your taste in porn, but for me "more realistic" isn't a good thing.
And I don't get Dominic's point: if the law is only targeted at low end, semi-underground porn shoots... will they follow it? And if everyone's agreed that the law isn't necessary for "legit" porn... why not tailor the law to that reality?
I don't much care one way or the other -- if porn with condoms sells as well, nothing changes. If it sells less well, the studios move. And the "semi-underground" stuff will ignore the law anyway, just like they probably aren't big on workers' comp insurance and OSHA laws.
And I don't get Dominic's point: if the law is only targeted at low end, semi-underground porn shoots... will they follow it? And if everyone's agreed that the law isn't necessary for "legit" porn... why not tailor the law to that reality?
I don't much care one way or the other -- if porn with condoms sells as well, nothing changes. If it sells less well, the studios move. And the "semi-underground" stuff will ignore the law anyway, just like they probably aren't big on workers' comp insurance and OSHA laws.
10
@4: If anything, they make it more realistic.
Since when is fantasy about being realistic? Unless you're some kind of condom fetishist, I doubt you fantasize about condoms any more than you fantasize about other realistic aspects of sex like queefs, stopping to use the bathroom, or picking up a whiff of BO.
I'm not sure I see the difference between this law and a law that requires everyone to wear condoms. That decision should be left up to the people doing the fucking.
Since when is fantasy about being realistic? Unless you're some kind of condom fetishist, I doubt you fantasize about condoms any more than you fantasize about other realistic aspects of sex like queefs, stopping to use the bathroom, or picking up a whiff of BO.
I'm not sure I see the difference between this law and a law that requires everyone to wear condoms. That decision should be left up to the people doing the fucking.
11
I can see both sides. For performers, condoms have a downside that isn't acknowledged here: it's a lot harder (no pun intended) on the receptive partner. Put another way: it's harder to fuck for a long time with a condom. Needless to say, the job requires fucking for a long time. And by "harder," I don't just mean that it's slightly less comfortable; I mean that there's an increased chance of abrasions when condoms are used, which of course facilitate the transmission of STIs. The porn industry's current way of handling this - mandatory regular testing for all - does, contrary to one might expect, appear to do a very good job of keeping performers healthy.
On the other hand...people often imitate what they see in the media. Does seeing porn actors regularly not use condoms mean that people who watch will necessarily not use condoms? Of course not. But it might increase those odds for some people: people with limited sexual experience, especially those cut off from good sources of sex ed - like, oh, people who have abstinence only education.
On the other hand...people often imitate what they see in the media. Does seeing porn actors regularly not use condoms mean that people who watch will necessarily not use condoms? Of course not. But it might increase those odds for some people: people with limited sexual experience, especially those cut off from good sources of sex ed - like, oh, people who have abstinence only education.
12
Nicely done there, @2.
I was gonna say something similar to what @11 there did. Just point out that a lot of (highly impressionable) youths early introductions to sex involves same manner of porn watching. I'd think if more or most states adopted this as a requirement (thus limiting the likelihood of shifting the operation elsewhere) it'd probably be worth the time & effort.
I was gonna say something similar to what @11 there did. Just point out that a lot of (highly impressionable) youths early introductions to sex involves same manner of porn watching. I'd think if more or most states adopted this as a requirement (thus limiting the likelihood of shifting the operation elsewhere) it'd probably be worth the time & effort.
13
@11: people often imitate what they see in the media
So, you think it's reasonable to outlaw art, literature, and other forms of expression if it is deemed to be a bad role model?
Does that include films featuring cigarette smokers, people taking drugs or drinking too much, or kids skipping school?
I don't recall Billy Bob Thornton putting a condom on before he banged Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. Should that scene should be illegal?
So, you think it's reasonable to outlaw art, literature, and other forms of expression if it is deemed to be a bad role model?
Does that include films featuring cigarette smokers, people taking drugs or drinking too much, or kids skipping school?
I don't recall Billy Bob Thornton putting a condom on before he banged Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. Should that scene should be illegal?
14
@13 Did I say that? No. Quite a leap you made there. I said that was one potential argument in favor of regulating the industry in this way. I also pointed out one argument for not regulating the industry in this way. Nowhere did I say I supported mandatory condom use because I thought there was a potential for imitation. In fact, nowhere did I say I supported mandatory condom use at all.
15
@ 14, don't worry. seandr is one of the dimmer dimbulbs on Slog. Reading comprehension, much like success in relationships, is beyond his ken.
16
@11: Well said. So a sensible law would say something like "condoms are required if any performer has not been tested in the past 30 days."
17
Anytime I am surfing porn on Redtube or whatever, the second I see I condom I click close. Does ANYONE enjoy masturbating to porn with condoms? Kills the wood bro.
18
I watch a lot of porn. As soon as I see a condom, I switch to something else.
I guess if there was some way to force everyone to use condoms, I wouldn't have a choice. But I expect that'll happen around the time spam is eliminated.
But then again, I don't pay anything for porn, so I don't count.
I guess if there was some way to force everyone to use condoms, I wouldn't have a choice. But I expect that'll happen around the time spam is eliminated.
But then again, I don't pay anything for porn, so I don't count.
19
@14: I didn't make any assertion about your beliefs - asked you whether you believed the argument (and the slippery slope that comes with it) that you laid out after "on the other hand...". I guess not?
Apparently, some folks on SLOG don't have any problem legally banning certain forms of consensual sexual expression in order to promote their sexual values. Ironic, to say the least.
Apparently, some folks on SLOG don't have any problem legally banning certain forms of consensual sexual expression in order to promote their sexual values. Ironic, to say the least.
21
@15: Zing.
@19: Your framing suggested you were making assumptions about my beliefs. ("So, you think it's reasonable to outlaw art, literature, and other forms of expression if it is deemed to be a bad role model? ") It suggests that I've in already endorsed some form of censorship, when in fact I haven't.
But I will respond to what you've written, since I now think I have a better understanding of your meaning. My feeling is that pointing out that something may have harmful effects does not necessarily imply an argument for censorship. I can understand why you made that leap - it's one often made in arguments about media content - but it need not necessarily follow that media content should be censored if it leads (or can lead) to harmful effects. You're still reading what I wrote as endorsing some form of censorship - even if only of non-condomed sex in porn - but I'm not. I didn't, as you say, lay out an argument for censorship. There's no slippery slope to go down because I'm nowhere near the slope.
The outcome of the argument about imitation I *do* endorse is not censorship, but better sources of sex education - starting with comprehensive sex education in schools. Media effects are most powerful when the portrayals go unchallenged, and without ready sources of information to challenge the portrayals in porn, the likelihood that they will have harmful effects is maximized.
@19: Your framing suggested you were making assumptions about my beliefs. ("So, you think it's reasonable to outlaw art, literature, and other forms of expression if it is deemed to be a bad role model? ") It suggests that I've in already endorsed some form of censorship, when in fact I haven't.
But I will respond to what you've written, since I now think I have a better understanding of your meaning. My feeling is that pointing out that something may have harmful effects does not necessarily imply an argument for censorship. I can understand why you made that leap - it's one often made in arguments about media content - but it need not necessarily follow that media content should be censored if it leads (or can lead) to harmful effects. You're still reading what I wrote as endorsing some form of censorship - even if only of non-condomed sex in porn - but I'm not. I didn't, as you say, lay out an argument for censorship. There's no slippery slope to go down because I'm nowhere near the slope.
The outcome of the argument about imitation I *do* endorse is not censorship, but better sources of sex education - starting with comprehensive sex education in schools. Media effects are most powerful when the portrayals go unchallenged, and without ready sources of information to challenge the portrayals in porn, the likelihood that they will have harmful effects is maximized.
22
@13,19,
You're comparing art, literature, smoking cigarettes and skipping school to the choreographed act of busting a nut on a person you've just met while delivering a pizza? I don't think you're talking a slippery slope there, I think it's apples & oranges (and for the record, I always enjoy the crap out of your comments and am not in disagreement with you. Just think that @11 was probably correct when he said a pretty compelling case could be made for both sides.)
But then for all the porn I watch, and I'm straight, I'm just generally not into looking at dick, regardless of whether or not it's protected. So maybe I lack, um, perspective.
You're comparing art, literature, smoking cigarettes and skipping school to the choreographed act of busting a nut on a person you've just met while delivering a pizza? I don't think you're talking a slippery slope there, I think it's apples & oranges (and for the record, I always enjoy the crap out of your comments and am not in disagreement with you. Just think that @11 was probably correct when he said a pretty compelling case could be made for both sides.)
But then for all the porn I watch, and I'm straight, I'm just generally not into looking at dick, regardless of whether or not it's protected. So maybe I lack, um, perspective.
26
Can someone explain to me why watching porn that includes condoms is such a turn off? I find it puzzling.
27
@26,
Not sure exactly. With a condom, it's not raunchy, not risky, not "real." It feels forced and staged. With no condom it's like the woman doesn't care about the consequences because she's SO into the fucking. Something like that?
Having sex with a condom and watching sex when the participants are using condoms is a turn off. Nobody wants to think about the consequences of sex.
I understand the necessity of condoms, and don't complain when I had to use them. But I'm not going to lie and say they're fun or a turn on. They suck. They're both a necessary and shitty thing.
Not sure exactly. With a condom, it's not raunchy, not risky, not "real." It feels forced and staged. With no condom it's like the woman doesn't care about the consequences because she's SO into the fucking. Something like that?
Having sex with a condom and watching sex when the participants are using condoms is a turn off. Nobody wants to think about the consequences of sex.
I understand the necessity of condoms, and don't complain when I had to use them. But I'm not going to lie and say they're fun or a turn on. They suck. They're both a necessary and shitty thing.
28
I'm pretty sure I agree with seandr on these comments.
Banning condoms from porn is a feel-good measure for people who have too much power and too much time on their hands.
It won't do shit to prevent teen pregnancies or stop disease. It'll force porn companies to either: 1) move, 2) lose business, 3) go OUT of business, or 4) become criminals.
It's a stupid fucking pointless pollyanna waste of time.
Banning condoms from porn is a feel-good measure for people who have too much power and too much time on their hands.
It won't do shit to prevent teen pregnancies or stop disease. It'll force porn companies to either: 1) move, 2) lose business, 3) go OUT of business, or 4) become criminals.
It's a stupid fucking pointless pollyanna waste of time.
32
It is a workplace safety issue. If your workplace gets the quarterly syphilis and HIV outbreaks, while the outside agency that is supposed to be the watchdog, is controlled and funded by the owners, it would cause a huge uproar..
The LA County Board of Health got fed up with the Adult Film Industry for refusing to share their health records, either being in denial or actually covering up STDs outbreaks or minimizing HIV cases. The safeguards were a joke. The condom rule helps protect the workers in the workplace..
The LA County Board of Health got fed up with the Adult Film Industry for refusing to share their health records, either being in denial or actually covering up STDs outbreaks or minimizing HIV cases. The safeguards were a joke. The condom rule helps protect the workers in the workplace..
33
@32: Bullshit. The risks that porn stars take to make good porn are nothing compared to the risks of test flying airplanes, mining coal, working as a stuntman, or starring in big mountain snowboarding films.
What's more, the regulations governing any of these professions shouldn't be decided by a general public that no clue about the industry in question.
What's more, the regulations governing any of these professions shouldn't be decided by a general public that no clue about the industry in question.
Comments (33) RSS