How a Straight Adult Performer Convinced Me That Condoms Are Useless in Porn

  • metta

    Posts: 39075

    Nov 22, 2012 6:44 AM GMT
    How a Straight Adult Performer Convinced Me That Condoms Are Useless in Porn

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-williams/how-a-straight-adult-performer-convinced-me-that-condoms-are-useless-in-porn_b_2165066.html
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Nov 22, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    there are a lot of logical fallacies in that argument.
  • Rowing_Ant

    Posts: 1504

    Nov 22, 2012 4:42 PM GMT
    Not Phalusies? icon_wink.gif
  • imbrad

    Posts: 377

    Nov 22, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    Its a sick world when government dictates sex...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 5:10 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]metta8 said[/cite]How a Straight Adult Performer Convinced Me That Condoms Are Useless in Porn

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-williams/how-a-straight-adult-performer-convinced-me-that-condoms-are-useless-in-porn_b_2165066.html[/quot



    The real issue here is government spending out of control. If we are going to survive as a country we have to get spending under control. In the day when we were fiscally conservative an issue like would never come up because the cost to benefit ratio is extremely small. In a demcracy you have to shoot for the middle hump, the big percentages or you will go broke. Statistically speaking this law affects no one. Yet the money that was spent could have built a couple parks or built housing or planted hundreds of trees.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 5:54 PM GMT
    At the end of the day i think people should do what they want, its really their business but the 14 day thing is flawed.


    There was a story about Belladonna (A straight porn actress) who said that people get tested every 14 days/2weeks and can contract something by someone else and spread it because there test is current. then by the next time they have to stop because they have something but they already infected other.


    having uprotected sex is dangerous and if they want to then fine, but the should be tested more often.

    Condom burn is temporary, Aids/Hiv is longterm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 6:03 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said[quote]The real issue here is government spending out of control. If we are going to survive as a country we have to get spending under control. In the day when we were fiscally conservative an issue like would never come up because the cost to benefit ratio is extremely small. In a demcracy you have to shoot for the middle hump, the big percentages or you will go broke. Statistically speaking this law affects no one. Yet the money that was spent could have built a couple parks or built housing or planted hundreds of trees.


    In what day was our country fiscally conservative? In what day did that mean people wouldn't vote in referenda?

    You're pining for a day that never was, for a tax rate you never experienced. You want our country to be something it had when, what, times were simpler? Simpler for who?

    My best recollections of the near past are from my grandparents who farmed from the crack of ass dawn until dark (and me too as a child). These grandparents had little to nothing, quit school in the eighth grade and did factory or farm work for a dime a day. Oh, and something about a depression when the unregulated money changers crashed the Stock Market, police forces were owned by the Carnegies and black people shined shoes.

    What the fuck are you talking about, "...in the day..."? Get your head out of your ass or stay on topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 6:05 PM GMT
    "In so much as you harm no one, including yourself; do as you will, and this is the whole of the law.'

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

    Nov 22, 2012 6:31 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    Alpha13 said[quote]The real issue here is government spending out of control. If we are going to survive as a country we have to get spending under control. In the day when we were fiscally conservative an issue like would never come up because the cost to benefit ratio is extremely small. In a demcracy you have to shoot for the middle hump, the big percentages or you will go broke. Statistically speaking this law affects no one. Yet the money that was spent could have built a couple parks or built housing or planted hundreds of trees.


    In what day was our country fiscally conservative? In what day did that mean people wouldn't vote in referenda?

    You're pining for a day that never was, for a tax rate you never experienced. You want our country to be something it had when, what, times were simpler? Simpler for who?

    My best recollections of the near past are from my grandparents who farmed from the crack of ass dawn until dark (and me too as a child). These grandparents had little to nothing, quit school in the eighth grade and did factory or farm work for a dime a day. Oh, and something about a depression when the unregulated money changers crashed the Stock Market, police forces were owned by the Carnegies and black people shined shoes.

    What the fuck are you talking about, "...in the day..."? Get your head out of your ass or stay on topic.


    I couldn't have said it better myself. Does he ever know what the fuck he's talking about? He's an ass... head in his ass... One wonders, does this make him a cannibal.... what's the next stage up from cannibalism...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    I understand where the performers were coming from and how they explained it then it makes sens. Although I do have this question:

    Does this law apply just to straight performers or to the gay ones as well because I've only been hearing performers of straight porn lamenting this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2012 10:16 PM GMT
    JamieJfromtheA saidAt the end of the day i think people should do what they want, its really their business but the 14 day thing is flawed.


    There was a story about Belladonna (A straight porn actress) who said that people get tested every 14 days/2weeks and can contract something by someone else and spread it because there test is current. then by the next time they have to stop because they have something but they already infected other.


    having uprotected sex is dangerous and if they want to then fine, but the should be tested more often.

    Condom burn is temporary, Aids/Hiv is longterm.


    I agree that they should test more but if they tested like every three days wouldn't that become too costly for a lot of studios or the performers who pay for the tests themselves?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2012 10:29 PM GMT
    I don't think porn actors should be forced to wear condoms. Should they wear them? Yeah. From a purely logical and rational standpoint, they should. Does the government have the right to do so? Constitutionally though, the government doesn't have that right.

    Honestly, this all stems from the fear that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. While I agree that there are a lot of morons out there, it's not a governmental right to regulate idiocy. People will be stupid and have risky sex whether or not they see it in porn. Furthermore, seeing it in porn isn't going to make anyone think it's a good idea.

    Quite frankly, if you're dumb enough to have unprotected sex with people you don't trust, you the consequences are just. That said, everyone has the right to do what they want. It's their lives, and they can choose the level of risk they feel is appropriate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2012 10:38 PM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidI don't think porn actors should be forced to wear condoms. Should they wear them? Yeah. From a purely logical and rational standpoint, they should. Does the government have the right to do so? Constitutionally though, the government doesn't have that right.

    Honestly, this all stems from the fear that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. While I agree that there are a lot of morons out there, it's not a governmental right to regulate idiocy. People will be stupid and have risky sex whether or not they see it in porn. Furthermore, seeing it in porn isn't going to make anyone think it's a good idea.

    Quite frankly, if you're dumb enough to have unprotected sex with people you don't trust, you the consequences are just. That said, everyone has the right to do what they want. It's their lives, and they can choose the level of risk they feel is appropriate.

    I suppose it's a work safety issue. Just like the govt regulates other worksites.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3270

    Nov 23, 2012 11:51 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    Alpha13 said[quote]The real issue here is government spending out of control. If we are going to survive as a country we have to get spending under control. In the day when we were fiscally conservative an issue like would never come up because the cost to benefit ratio is extremely small. In a demcracy you have to shoot for the middle hump, the big percentages or you will go broke. Statistically speaking this law affects no one. Yet the money that was spent could have built a couple parks or built housing or planted hundreds of trees.


    In what day was our country fiscally conservative? In what day did that mean people wouldn't vote in referenda?

    You're pining for a day that never was, for a tax rate you never experienced. You want our country to be something it had when, what, times were simpler? Simpler for who?

    My best recollections of the near past are from my grandparents who farmed from the crack of ass dawn until dark (and me too as a child). These grandparents had little to nothing, quit school in the eighth grade and did factory or farm work for a dime a day. Oh, and something about a depression when the unregulated money changers crashed the Stock Market, police forces were owned by the Carnegies and black people shined shoes.

    What the fuck are you talking about, "...in the day..."? Get your head out of your ass or stay on topic.


    Government and politicians can dream up a whole lot of laws that sound like they make sense. But actually have no impact other than to waste money. This law will have NO EFFECT other than possibly the effect of actually talking about safe sex.

    Production companies will move out of LA county and areas where there are no such silly laws. Not to mention the fact that the government may or may not be able to interfere in this area.

    Remember way back most if not all laws regarding sexual conduct were deemed unconstitutional because of the right of privacy. Now the government wants to regulate the sexual act ? You know using the same logic and legal precedent the government could be used to ban Gay sex entirely.

    This is a great example on the dangers of a nanny state. For some the constitutionality is secondary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2012 12:07 AM GMT
    I Love James Deen, he's Hot!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2012 12:36 AM GMT
    " This law will have NO EFFECT other than possibly the effect of actually talking about safe sex."

    We could use more talking about safe sex done by the nanny state and everyone else.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Nov 24, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    I view porn performers as sexual stunt people. There are laws that require productions to use all available means to protect them during stunts. Condoms are protection. Can they still get hurt? yes.
  • DR2K

    Posts: 346

    Nov 24, 2012 1:21 AM GMT
    Timbales saidI view porn performers as sexual stunt people. There are laws that require productions to use all available means to protect them during stunts. Condoms are protection. Can they still get hurt? yes.


    Thing is a stuntman can't go out into public and spread injuries. Porn stars can spread STDs.

  • reptile18

    Posts: 199

    Nov 24, 2012 1:32 AM GMT
    MashogaNubianPrince saidI understand where the performers were coming from and how they explained it then it makes sens. Although I do have this question:

    Does this law apply just to straight performers or to the gay ones as well because I've only been hearing performers of straight porn lamenting this.


    Yeah, if condoms are that dangerous for 4-5+ hours of shooting, shouldn't it also be dangerous for gay performers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2012 1:52 AM GMT
    reptile18 said
    MashogaNubianPrince saidI understand where the performers were coming from and how they explained it then it makes sens. Although I do have this question:

    Does this law apply just to straight performers or to the gay ones as well because I've only been hearing performers of straight porn lamenting this.


    Yeah, if condoms are that dangerous for 4-5+ hours of shooting, shouldn't it also be dangerous for gay performers?


    I was thinking the answer was yes but the only ones I've seen complaining about this were straight actors so I was confused. A good chunk of the gay porn I see has the guys wearing condoms anyway unless it bukkake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2012 1:53 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    mickeytopogigio said
    Alpha13 said[quote]The real issue here is government spending out of control. If we are going to survive as a country we have to get spending under control. In the day when we were fiscally conservative an issue like would never come up because the cost to benefit ratio is extremely small. In a demcracy you have to shoot for the middle hump, the big percentages or you will go broke. Statistically speaking this law affects no one. Yet the money that was spent could have built a couple parks or built housing or planted hundreds of trees.


    In what day was our country fiscally conservative? In what day did that mean people wouldn't vote in referenda?

    You're pining for a day that never was, for a tax rate you never experienced. You want our country to be something it had when, what, times were simpler? Simpler for who?

    My best recollections of the near past are from my grandparents who farmed from the crack of ass dawn until dark (and me too as a child). These grandparents had little to nothing, quit school in the eighth grade and did factory or farm work for a dime a day. Oh, and something about a depression when the unregulated money changers crashed the Stock Market, police forces were owned by the Carnegies and black people shined shoes.

    What the fuck are you talking about, "...in the day..."? Get your head out of your ass or stay on topic.


    Government and politicians can dream up a whole lot of laws that sound like they make sense. But actually have no impact other than to waste money. This law will have NO EFFECT other than possibly the effect of actually talking about safe sex.

    Production companies will move out of LA county and areas where there are no such silly laws. Not to mention the fact that the government may or may not be able to interfere in this area.

    Remember way back most if not all laws regarding sexual conduct were deemed unconstitutional because of the right of privacy. Now the government wants to regulate the sexual act ? You know using the same logic and legal precedent the government could be used to ban Gay sex entirely.

    This is a great example on the dangers of a nanny state. For some the constitutionality is secondary.


    ...and you're a doctor?

    And you're confusing Nanny State, which is what what you like to call the current gov't, with Big Brother, who came close to being voted in, re: your last line " You know using the same logic and legal precedent the government could be used to ban Gay sex entirely"

    Good grief.

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

    Nov 24, 2012 1:54 AM GMT
    I need to get laid... but I'm making things too difficult, Fuck! icon_mad.gif
  • camfer

    Posts: 891

    Nov 24, 2012 1:56 AM GMT
    imbrad saidIts a sick world when government dictates sex...


    Your statement is true, however pornography is not sex. It is a series of sex performances shot with lots of takes and edited together to look like sex. It's work for pay, and it's commerce.

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

    Nov 24, 2012 2:05 AM GMT
    camfer said
    imbrad saidIts a sick world when government dictates sex...


    Your statement is true, however pornography is not sex. It is a series of sex performances shot with lots of takes and edited together to look like sex. It's work for pay, and it's commerce.



    +1
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3270

    Nov 24, 2012 2:38 AM GMT
    ...and you're a doctor? ( frankly if you want to HIV and HIv research I would love to have the conversation. However I doubt if it would get too far.....icon_cool.gif

    And you're confusing Nanny State, which is what what you like to call the current gov't, with Big Brother, who came close to being voted in, re: your last line " You know using the same logic and legal precedent the government could be used to ban Gay sex entirely"

    Good grief.


    as usual your posts make no sense.

    The cornerstone of reversal of anti-pornography laws was the right to privacy. So if the argument that the government has a right to regulate what goes into pornography , then it therefore has a right to regulate the whole sexual act.

    Regulating sex during a porn shoot and calling it "Commerce" would also allow the government to regulate kissing in movie theaters, and whether you use 2ply or 1 ply toilet paper in the bathroom of a restaurant.

    There are far more dangerous acts done and portrayed in TV's and movies than bareback porn. In this case some well meaning but uninformed individuals choose to impose their ideals because they think they are morally right. The reason we have a constitution is to constrain government to the limited area it has power to do so. Because political views and majorities change. The liberal ( not liberatarian ) mind ignores this and is just is for or against a myriad of ideals depending on how they feel on the topic. They do this without thinking about the consequences of laws going one way can be turned in the exact opposite way.