Major porn producer sues to block Los Angeles condom law

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

    Jan 12, 2013 10:49 PM GMT
    Views? My own suspicion is that LA porn producers are losing market share to porn from former Soviet Bloc countries and elsewhere, that have blossomed in the last 10 years outside the US. And most of these non-US productions allow actors, including gays, to omit condoms, which is popular with audiences, who think a condom reduces the eroticism of the scene.

    This action contradicts voluntary agreements in the late 1990s by the US porn industry to enforce condom use. Producers like Chi Chi LaRue became strong advocates for condom use, especially in gay porn.

    So what are your thoughts?

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/12/16479353-major-porn-producer-sues-to-block-los-angeles-condom-law?lite
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2013 11:10 PM GMT
    If the actors know the risks and are willing to take the risks, bareback should be allowed in porn.

    After all, if the porn industry fails, half of California's tax revenue fails as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2013 11:29 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidIf the actors know the risks and are willing to take the risks, bareback should be allowed in porn.

    After all, if the porn industry fails, half of California's tax revenue fails as well.

    And are they being pressured by the producers to take the risks, in order to get the work? And the producer's argument that actors get HIV tests is no guarantee against HIV transmission. The test only indicates your status from 3 to 6 months ago, not if you are infected & contagious today. And there are other STIs that condoms protect against. Are the actors getting a complete physical before every movie?

    And I don't think you really want to justify increased health risks to porn actors on the basis of higher tax revenue, do you? Or was that your sarcastic humor?
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jan 12, 2013 11:51 PM GMT
    I disagree with bareback porn. I consider porn actors to be sexual stuntmen and condoms protective equipment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2013 1:09 AM GMT
    This law is yet another example of liberals trying to control people(nanny state), like with the ban on large sugary drinks in NYC.

    People are in porn for the money. Straight men are in gay porn for more money, and you get paid more to work without a condom than with one, especially in gay porn, which is slowly going all bareback. Some of the companies provide not always accurate quickie HIV tests before filming scenes.

    I read an article about this law and it sounds kind of ridiculous. Porn "police" would do random checks at porn studios to make sure performers are abiding by the condom law. Ron Jeremy and Nina Hartley were mentioned in the article. He's had sex with thousands of women on screen and off without condoms, in the pre and current AIDS world. I've yet to hear he has STD's or is HIV+. And the same with Nina Hartley, condom free sex with thousands of men and apparently still HIV free. Most of the gay porn "stars" from the past have died of AIDS. Very few straight porn performers have been infected with HIV but other STDs are rampant. The majority of people who view porn don't want to see condoms and the porn industry is complying with them.



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

    Jan 13, 2013 1:50 AM GMT
    Draper saidThis law is yet another example of liberals trying to control people(nanny state), like with the ban on large sugary drinks in NYC.

    OK, you just lost any credibility on this topic."Liberal nanny state" means you aren't even using half your brain.

    I suppose you also think FDA food inspections are part of the liberal nanny state, correct? Eat poison foods, it's your choice, your risk, right?

    And requiring vaccinations to prevent epidemics? I know, liberal nanny state.

    Well guess what, Sherlock, it was right-wing Republicans who made it a crime to have sex with someone if you have HIV in some jurisdictions, not liberals. Is that the conservative nanny state at work? Shouldn't the responsibility for safe sex rest with both parties, not just one?

    How about the Republicans who still want to make private sex acts between consenting same-sex adults a crime? Isn't that the right-wing nanny state trying to "control people", to make our private decisions for us? Sure sounds like it to me. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2013 2:19 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    paulflexes saidIf the actors know the risks and are willing to take the risks, bareback should be allowed in porn.

    After all, if the porn industry fails, half of California's tax revenue fails as well.

    And are they being pressured by the producers to take the risks, in order to get the work? And the producer's argument that actors get HIV tests is no guarantee against HIV transmission. The test only indicates your status from 3 to 6 months ago, not if you are infected & contagious today. And there are other STIs that condoms protect against. Are the actors getting a complete physical before every movie?

    And I don't think you really want to justify increased health risks to porn actors on the basis of higher tax revenue, do you? Or was that your sarcastic humor?
    The tax revenue thing was my sarcastic humor.

    As for the rest, if the actors/actresses are aware of the risks and are willing to take them, it's their decision. The pressure comes from within themselves. If they don't want to bareback, they should stand up for themselves and walk out when asked (or take the pay cut and only do 'safe sex' scenes).

    If they give into the pressure for more money while knowing the risks, then they're just as guilty as the producers for giving into the consumers for more money while knowing the risks. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2013 2:40 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    The tax revenue thing was my sarcastic humor.

    As for the rest, if the actors/actresses are aware of the risks and are willing to take them, it's their decision. The pressure comes from within themselves. If they don't want to bareback, they should stand up for themselves and walk out when asked (or take the pay cut and only do 'safe sex' scenes).

    If they give into the pressure for more money while knowing the risks, then they're just as guilty as the producers for giving into the consumers for more money while knowing the risks. icon_wink.gif

    I assumed as much about your humor. There is only 1 paulflexes. icon_wink.gif

    But on a more serious note, the spread of disease in the general population is a matter of concern to everyone. It means higher medical costs, and competing access to medical care.

    It's the basis on which government says you must wear car seat belts. Maiming yourself shifts the cost to the rest of us, for insurance premiums and medical care.

    Do we get to say to the victim at a car crash: "You weren't wearing your seat belt, so we're not gonna help you. You've gotta lie there and bleed to death. We're not wasting an ambulance on you, or critical care at the hospital, because you fucked up, and don't have enough personal insurance to pay for your poor decision. So why should the rest of us pay for your mistake?" No, we're gonna absorb those higher medical costs for the unbelted.

    Who's gonna pay when porn stars contract HIV or other STIs? It may be their choice as you suggest, but should I pay for them when they contract HIV as a result of it? Or do we get to deny them medical care for their stupidity, and let them suffer & die?

    The reality is they'll be another drain on the system, coming out of your pockets & mine, directly & indirectly. Just so a sleaze-bag porn producer can make more money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2013 3:05 AM GMT
    itsmejeff said
    Republicans are assholes too, but that does not mean that liberals are the love child of Jesus and Mohammad.


    Did you just use the prophet Muhammad (pigs be upon him) as a moral exemplar? LOL. He married a 6-year-old and fucked her when she was 9. He also executed people for not converting to Islam. Yeah, what a holy dude.