Condoms for porn actors to be on L.A. ballot

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 4:17 AM GMT
    I have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 6:09 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidI have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4


    Good points... Honestly this is one area that I have to ask, who the hell is going to enforce it? In the day in age when phones have HD Video standard now and you can become a porn star at any moment thanks to the internet... are they going to come after like you said Monogamous couples for fucking bare and recording it for the world to see? Someone didn't think this through at all.
  • venusrider

    Posts: 68

    Dec 28, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidI have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4


    Sorry, but i am unable to resist posting. Only those of a certain political party would have anything close to a "I dont think" or an even later "I just donno..."

    The answer is this is certainly none of the gov. business. To allow this would encourage an already over reaching, freedom robbing, intrusive and fully incompetent fed. gov to attempt it to do more. More damage that is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 6:22 PM GMT
    Another step in the direction of Big Brothericon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 6:25 PM GMT
    This is directed towards hetero-porn actors and not gay-porn actors as the major of gay porn studios already require the use of condoms. Even Roman Heart and Benjamin Bradley use condoms when filming for professional studios but do not when they're broadcasting "private" live performances.
    This ordinance is also only for Los Angeles based studios... so it doesn't even apply to the majority of porn studios. It's just meant to offer piece of mind.

    A similar law can obviously not be passed for the gays, as there would be no way to verify whether they're actually using them or not. It's not like you can ask them to fill out a monthly questionnaire either because several hundred thousand people would lie anyways. Heck, they lie on this site. "Always" doesn't always mean Always.

    Individuals have even found ways of deceiving their partners into believing they're actually having safe sex when the top or bottom have intentionally broken the condom.

  • Dec 28, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    Ryan_Andrew said
    Art_Deco saidI have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4


    Good points... Honestly this is one area that I have to ask, who the hell is going to enforce it? In the day in age when phones have HD Video standard now and you can become a porn star at any moment thanks to the internet... are they going to come after like you said Monogamous couples for fucking bare and recording it for the world to see? Someone didn't think this through at all.


    Monogamous couples having sex and recording it arent becoming "porn stars." This is porn companies who pay salaries and provide health benefits and a W2 form to their workers. legits corporations having to use condoms in their films. people are taking that concept far in the debate...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 6:38 PM GMT
    california is so stupid.
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Dec 28, 2011 6:47 PM GMT
    I'm sure the gay libertarians will go berserk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 6:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidI have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4



    Well, as of now, the Federal government has the power (so it thinks) to compel any citizen to purchase anything that the Federal government deems to be for "the public welfare." So perhaps everyone in the age group deemed "sexually active" by the Federal government will need to purchase a certain number of condoms each year (as determined by the Federal government) and provide evidence with their annual tax filing to the IRS of having purchased said government-mandated condoms, lest they be subject to a "tax."


    The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
    Supreme Courting Season
    www.colbertnation.com
    Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive



  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Dec 28, 2011 6:55 PM GMT
    I can understand the motivation, but I just don't think it's the government's business, at any level, to legislate such intimate details of human behavior.

    The actors are adults, they (shoud) know and understand the risks of unsafe sex, and as such, it should be their choice alone as to whether they engage in unprotected sex. Whether in front of a camera or not, seems irrelevent to me. One could argue that the barebacking models are setting a "bad example" but that's a fairly hollow argument.

    Along the same vein, the government has no business interfering with a woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy, nor with one's choice of who he or she wishes to marry.

    For me, this boils down to individual liberties: the government should protect us from others, but not from ourselves.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 7:03 PM GMT
    Just for clarification, this is a California State ballot initiative, not a US-wide Federal requirement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    jeepguySD saidI can understand the motivation, but I just don't think it's the government's business, at any level, to legislate such intimate details of human behavior.

    The actors are adults, they (shoud) know and understand the risks of unsafe sex, and as such, it should be their choice alone as to whether they engage in unprotected sex. Whether in front of a camera or not, seems irrelevent to me. One could argue that the barebacking models are setting a "bad example" but that's a fairly hollow argument.

    Along the same vein, the government has no business interfering with a woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy, nor with one's choice of who he or she wishes to marry.

    For me, this boils down to individual liberties: the government should protect us from others, but not from ourselves.



    This is a great arguement. But I often wonder, is there a line that can be crossed when it is in soceity's best interest for the government to step in?

    Case in point: Obesity. What will happen to our country if obesity rates keep increasing? What will happen to our health and productivity? Morbidity and morality? healthcare costs? National security? Is there ever a time when something needs to be done (and not necessarily deploying "food police") for the greater good of the country?

    As for this issue... they went about it entirely the wrong way, but I'd give them an "A" for effort and commitment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 7:08 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 saidCalifornia is so stupid.


    RIGHT!!!
    I should just move to New York.... icon_cool.gif
  • biathlete01

    Posts: 81

    Dec 28, 2011 7:13 PM GMT
    Liberal California passing laws to control personal behavior? Conservatives and Liberals are all about control, just in different ways.

    I see a lot of profiles in here that say "lean liberal".

    I don't understand why everyone in here doesn't "lean libertarian".

    Do we really want more liberal control now? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 7:18 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    jeepguySD saidI can understand the motivation, but I just don't think it's the government's business, at any level, to legislate such intimate details of human behavior.

    The actors are adults, they (shoud) know and understand the risks of unsafe sex, and as such, it should be their choice alone as to whether they engage in unprotected sex. Whether in front of a camera or not, seems irrelevent to me. One could argue that the barebacking models are setting a "bad example" but that's a fairly hollow argument.

    Along the same vein, the government has no business interfering with a woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy, nor with one's choice of who he or she wishes to marry.

    For me, this boils down to individual liberties: the government should protect us from others, but not from ourselves.



    This is a great arguement. But I often wonder, is there a line that can be crossed when it is in soceity's best interest for the government to step in?

    Case in point: Obesity. What will happen to our country if obesity rates keep increasing? What will happen to our health and productivity? Morbidity and morality? healthcare costs? National security? Is there ever a time when something needs to be done (and not necessarily deploying "food police") for the greater good of the country?

    As for this issue... they went about it entirely the wrong way, but I'd give them an "A" for effort and commitment.


    Darwinism, that's what.

    If people want to engage in behaviors that will tend to lead to their deaths, like smoking, barebacking, over eating, etc. then they have the right to do so if they choose to do so themselves(and as long as they don't hurt anyone besides themselves in the process). That way, no one gets robbed of freedom and stupid people weed themselves and their genes. It's a win/win all around.
  • Stephan

    Posts: 407

    Dec 28, 2011 7:39 PM GMT
    That is Crazy and down right Discrimination!
    Singling out one type of men(Gay) and not the other men(Hetero's) who are also engaging in unprotected sex is completely wrong and violates the Fourth Admendment of the right to privacy
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Dec 28, 2011 8:16 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    jeepguySD saidI can understand the motivation, but I just don't think it's the government's business, at any level, to legislate such intimate details of human behavior.

    The actors are adults, they (shoud) know and understand the risks of unsafe sex, and as such, it should be their choice alone as to whether they engage in unprotected sex. Whether in front of a camera or not, seems irrelevent to me. One could argue that the barebacking models are setting a "bad example" but that's a fairly hollow argument.

    Along the same vein, the government has no business interfering with a woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy, nor with one's choice of who he or she wishes to marry.

    For me, this boils down to individual liberties: the government should protect us from others, but not from ourselves.



    This is a great arguement. But I often wonder, is there a line that can be crossed when it is in soceity's best interest for the government to step in?

    Case in point: Obesity. What will happen to our country if obesity rates keep increasing? What will happen to our health and productivity? Morbidity and morality? healthcare costs? National security? Is there ever a time when something needs to be done (and not necessarily deploying "food police") for the greater good of the country?

    As for this issue... they went about it entirely the wrong way, but I'd give them an "A" for effort and commitment.


    Thank you. Your point is well taken, but I see issues like obesity, smoking, motorcycle helment laws, even drugs, the same way. People should understand the risks of their behavior, and decide for themselves whether to take the risk -- so long as no one else is harmed.

    The argument about health care costs is valid, and as I am not heartless, I believe everyone deserves adequate health care. I don't know what the solution is on that point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 8:39 PM GMT
    Apparently "My body my choice" only applies for women vacuuming out an unwanted fetus.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Dec 28, 2011 8:48 PM GMT
    Thank you. Your point is well taken, but I see issues like obesity, smoking, motorcycle helment laws, even drugs, the same way. People should understand the risks of their behavior, and decide for themselves whether to take the risk -- so long as no one else is harmed.

    I agree but if the government is going to take money from everyone and then use it to cover the costs of people making those decisions, that is harm in a way. Why should you have to pay for the consequences of someone else drinking alcohol or over eating or having sex?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Dec 28, 2011 8:51 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidI have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4



    What is the point of that though unless condoms and dental dams are used for all aspects of sexual activity? Oral sex without a condom is not safe sex. Neither is messing around with a guys anus with fingers or mouth without a barrier. To say that a condom on a penis is safe sex and ignore the rest just shows that people aren't really interested in promoting safe sex practices.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Dec 28, 2011 8:53 PM GMT
    Larkin saidApparently "My body my choice" only applies for women vacuuming out an unwanted fetus.


    Yeah and what's funny about that is if it's done against the woman's will it can be charged as a murder.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 13, 2012 6:21 PM GMT
    venusrider said
    Art_Deco saidI have conflicted feelings about this. I don't think gay porn actors should bareback, but I'm not sure if this is a proper exercise of government. One of the pushers of this ballot initiative is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

    But can a similar requirement be passed to require all gay men to wear condoms? Even among monogamous partners? If the authority exists to compel porn actors, couldn't the same authority be used on the general public, in order to reduce the spread of HIV? I just dunno...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800698/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvqW35jyCy4


    Sorry, but i am unable to resist posting. Only those of a certain political party would have anything close to a "I dont think" or an even later "I just donno..."

    The answer is this is certainly none of the gov. business. To allow this would encourage an already over reaching, freedom robbing, intrusive and fully incompetent fed. gov to attempt it to do more. More damage that is.


    It's the city of L.A., not the federal government. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jan 13, 2012 6:37 PM GMT
    Hillie saidAnother step in the direction of Big Brothericon_mad.gif


    Not really, hiv is a virus and all this unprotected sex will lead to faster mutation of a strain that may not be stopped once again AIDS related deaths in the tens of thousands. The government has a duty to look out for the majority of it's citizens it's why most are adopting smoke free indoor atmospheres. Money wasted on medical treatments for cancer and hiv will not be able to keep up with public demand for cures. An ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cureicon_idea.gificon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 6:49 PM GMT
    WHO CARES?


    icon_neutral.gif
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jan 13, 2012 6:57 PM GMT
    DEKIRUMAN saidWHO CARES?


    icon_neutral.gif

    You would if gay men were dropping like flies all around you and hiv always lead to death, or would you just sit home alone and jack it to porn??