Can't say I necessarily thought you were referring specifically to me -- I was instead defending everyone who posted in response to this article who may not desire a label of "righteously indignant." Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I always think that person is basing everything he or she thinks on emotion alone (though sometimes this IS, in fact, true).
If you're going to get into a discussion and/or debate about a topic, you are mandated to actually READ everything presented to you so that you can make an appropriate response. Skimming isn't allowed, sorry. Now, if I'm just bantering about the "good old days" or posting something about good sex, bad sex, some dude I met, telling a story, etc. -- that's different. Skim or skip away...
I absolutely do NOT see this as an attack on the First Amendment as you do. States have ALWAYS maintained the right to adopt their own Constitution and create their own laws within the boundaries of our EXTREMELY FLEXIBLE and ADAPTABLE national Constitution. If porn studios don't want to abide by the proposed action in California, they have a very simple choice of their own: break the law and pay the fines, pack up their lube and start filming in Nevada or any other state, or follow the new laws. We can argue for fun that the framers of the Constitution certainly never had pornography in mind, but that doesn't really matter since the Constitution IS flexible and adaptable.
It's really a huge stretch, by any imagination, to suggest that a condom in a porn film restricts free speech.
I DO agree this is not about gay oppression. But I sure don't see how this is NOT about health code regulations: quite simply, it IS.
"The Twilight Zone" is one easy example of a prominent film in which actors died. "Risk of death or personal injury" is written into their contracts, in case you weren't aware of this. They sign those contracts to accept the millions they will be paid for a film. The same applies to stuntmen and women (though they don't get the millions that the actors do). I honestly do not know, but something just tells me that I highly doubt porn stars have to sign such a contract... but maybe.
Doesn't matter, though. See, what has happened in our society since the advent of the AIDS epidemic is that laws and rules of conduct of behavior have been applied to situations involving biohazardous materials. A very simple and easy to understand example would be the changes made in the disposal of used syringes in hospitals. Also, the fact that your dentist now wears gloves AND protective eye coverings. I'm not sure if you recall, but about thirty years ago there were no rules in place which mandated this. It was up to each medical professional to decide. Even more obvious examples -- watch as any fast food is made when you place an order. The kitchen help now wears disposable plastic gloves. They do this not only for basic sanitary measures, but also because patrons WANT to be protected from anyone who has a cut or scrape on his or her hand. As illogical as this fear might be, since we know it would be nearly impossible to get HIV in this way, it's just a simple step that is now required in many states by law, and if not required by law, it is required by the corporations which own the restaurants. Better to appease the public than to lose massive revenue.
I never made a statement that I would not watch any porn films unless they showed only safe sex with a condom -- so why should it be suggested that I must also not watch action feature films? I didn't take any moral high-ground here.
It's also supremely absurd to say that the actors "know better than me" just what risks are involved in their performance. This statement presupposes that because some gets fucked for a living he or she has more general knowledge about methods of HIV transmission than someone who does not. You totally lost me there.
My entire position on this subject is very simple: I see this as an odd anomaly within the existing laws which protect employees (and patrons) from infectious bodily fluids. The porn studios slipped through the cracks and weren't noticed until now, when some recent HIV infections caught the attention of the media and California law-makers. I see no reason why the existing laws should NOT apply to porn studios. I don't see this as an attack on the Constitution, nor do I see it as an attack on sexual orientation. It all seems pretty cut and dry to me: it was only a matter of time before something brought this out in the open, and what's happening now is a perfectly logical response to it.
Those who see pornography as some sort of sexual art form may have a different opinion. I wonder how many guys out there actually view their porn collection as such? I am going to safely bet that the vast majority of folks pop in a tape and get their rocks off in under twenty minutes, getting little to no artistic satisfaction from the aesthetically pleasing porn they have just watched. In fact, if you ever want to know exactly WHAT gets a guy off, just look at his porn collection. Put a tape in and see where he has stopped it. Rewind a few minutes. The scene you will see when you play it forward will be exactly what made him cum.
|