I know this was discussed awhile back but now it seems that California might be taking a stand: http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040917/D855ERLG0.html

__________________
Corey

Not as innocent as one might think

Quote |

YEAH!!!! The trouble with barebackers is that they don't die soon enough.

Quote |

I wonder how the State of California made the determination that porn actors had contracted HIV on the job and cited the production companies for failing to notify state authorities?

Don't porn actors have private lives too? It is possible the porn actors contracted HIV by having unprotected sex with others not related to their careers or jobs as porn actors. If the production companies did not comply with the law, they should be fined for not ensuring their employees (porn actors) used condoms/barriers while on the job. But, these same actors do have private lives too where they may not be using protection.

It has been estimated, according to Porn Industry experts, that at least 50 percent of the actors in Gay Porn are 'gay for pay' only. Some of these 'gay for pay' actors are married and have children. Accordingly, these actors have private lives where they probably arn't using protection if they are in a monogamous relationship with their girlfriend/wife. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the porn industry to regulate the private lives of their employees (porn actors).

It would be difficult to determine if an actor contracted the HIV while on the job if they were not using protection in their private lives away from the job. Porn actors do have private lives. It would be unrealistic to expect a porn actor's employer (production company) to be involved in an actor's private life where sexual intimacy with a spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend is beyond the span of control of an employer.

While I do agree that an employer must provide a safe working environment for their employees and appropriate safety and health regulations must be strictly followed, there are some things which are beyond an employer's span of control. The private lives of employees, for the most part, are usually beyond the employer's span of control.

__________________
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. And, under a just God, cannot long retain it.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Quote |

While I advocate for gay men to treat themselves well, in all aspects of their life, I have a huge problem with this.

It seems that our society seems to pick and choose what they want to "take a stand" on as the original poster claims.

Are we going to fine cigarrette companies for all the cancer they spread and how much they drain the medical system? What abou the alcohol companies that play a part in a large percentage of all homicides?

It's typical sexual repression and puritan views that they are taking a stand on safer sex. Really, if the "state" really cared about our well being, well, Phillip Morris, McDonalds, Kraft, and Budweiser would all be out of business.

I know a lot of guys on here claim to be safe sex advocates to the end of the earth, but I wonder how much they care about these other things that are killing us on a daily basis.

I always think of a good buddy of mine who smokes three packs of cigs a day and goes on and on about the guys having unsafe sex because they're risking their lives.

Live and let live, let people make "educated" decisions and go from there. We're not perfect, we're not immortal and fuck, who needs the "state" now checking up on who's blowing loads into who. Where will it end?

Funny, I have a thing for straight porn, and don't see many condoms used in them.

Quote |

Politicized For Your Protection.

While it may be fun to inject our own political agenda into each and every thing that happens on a daily basis, this can often lead to a skewed perception of reality, which can often lead to a persecution complex.

The article quoted above seemed to be speaking about standard state health code violations which are designed to protect ALL workers in ANY profession from being exposed to bodily fluids without the proper barrier protection.

I'm quite sure this applies to phlebotomists just as much as it applies to fluffers, fuckers, and cocksuckers.

At some point, after the recent "scandal" a short time ago which was discussed here, in which a porn star became infected with HIV, allegedly from on-the-job contact, someone in the CA state legislature certainly thought it would be a good idea to apply the EXISTING law to the situation and put some pressure on the porn industry.

Big deal.

Hospitals have strict rules which enforce the very same law -- and frankly, I WANT those rules enforced. While some laws are outdated, antiquated, and just plain foolish, MOST laws exist for a good reason. There IS a good reason for these health code laws to be in place. I would hope the citizenry of California would approve of these laws which are constructed to help protect them in a professional setting.

Sure, maybe somewhere in the chain of decision-makers there sits someone who thinks: "This will make things tough on the faggots." That person can be found just about everywhere. But these laws do not discriminate against gays -- they apply to the entire porn industry. We may tend to forget, but straight porn is a HUGE part of that industry.

If McDonald's violates a health code in their kitchen, they can be fined. It doesn't matter if they are making high cholesterol product: it is the CHOICE of the public whether or not to purchase that product. If you make the choice to eat a Big Mac for lunch, you'd probably want that served WITHOUT rat feces or roach legs in the special sauce.

This is NOT about sexual repression, unless you decide that it is based on your own political agenda. This is about HEALTH CODE LAWS which the porn industry ignored in the state of California.

The state found a nifty catch-all after the recent controversy. The porn industry is a legitimate business, and as such, falls under the jurisdiction of the laws which already exist.

Truthfully, it would be hypocritical of the state to NOT enforce these laws. Why should ONE type of job be exempt when all the others are not?

It's really all a matter of how you look at things, if you can see them as they really are or if you see them through your own political veil.

Even if such sentiments exist, I sure don't see any comments from the State Of California saying that this measure is now being enforced in order to TEACH the viewers of porn about safe sex. It's about protecting the actors and employees of the porn industry.

New laws are added as new situations arise which may warrant them. With the advent of the HIV epidemic, it makes perfectly logical sense that new standards would be put in place to protect health care workers and workers in ANY other profession who might come into contact with infectious bodily fluids and other bio-hazardous material.

While it is certainly true that Big Brother is often working behind the scenes to come up with obscure ways to stifle fun and frivolity, this is not one of them.

In MY city, there are laws in place which restrict the public showing of ANY type of pornography. There are NO porn theaters, no ABSs with video booths. Citizens can buy and rent films, but they cannot be shown in any public venue. Some smaller cities and town are dry -- no liquor is sold of any kind. If residents want alcohol, they need to go elsewhere to get it. In my local area, one county sells alcohol until 1:00 AM in stores. Another county sells it until 2:00 AM. State and local laws vary. I do not like the porn laws of my community -- I wish I had an ABS around here. Lawmakers are responding to the demands placed upon them by the citizens of this area who do NOT want porn shown publicly. Given the extreme conservative nature of the constituency here, it is unlikely that even if a liberal official was voted into office that this would change. He or she would probably never stay in office for long if he or she took those laws off the books. The public WANTS them there.

Laws are in place in nearly every state and city in the nation which prohibit smoking in public places. Smokers have had "freedoms" taken from them in recent years. Most smokers see the logic in this and are respectful of the rights of others who do not wish to be exposed to smoke. Perhaps we should repeal those laws, too. If we believe that porn actors and viewers have a "right" to see whatever kind of sex they want to see, then we should also support the rights of smokers to smoke wherever they want. Isn't that fair? What? Second hand smoke is MORE dangerous than unsafe sex? How so? Unsafe sex spreads disease. A porn actor with HIV fucks a guy in a bar, gives HIM HIV, and he gives it to four other people at a bathhouse over the following year. THEY give it to more people... ETC. A smoker in a restaurant passes second hand smoke to someone sitting at a table ten feet away. The person ten feet away gets... what, exactly? They sure don't get cancer with a single exposure to smoke. While you also don't necessarily get HIV from every sexual act with an HIV positive person, if you DO get it, you DIE.

We all still have our own choices to make. We can smoke, we can have unsafe sex, we can drink, we can drink and drive, we can parachute out of planes, we can remain in our trailers during hurricanes, we can cross the street against the light.

If we don't want any government involvement in our lives at all anymore, we need to also remove DUI laws from the books. Make it legal. Why not? We don't need anyone "telling" us what to do, right? It's infringement of our rights!

Extremism is so, so dangerous...

And while we're at it, let's stop all this nonsense at the airports. The security measures are out of control, don't you think? MORE government interference, alas. "They" pretend they are trying to protect us, but in reality it is just bureaucratic bullshit, right? They just want to find even MORE ways to make our lives that much more difficult and bothersome.

It's fun and easy to slam hypocrisy labels on others who at least TRY to do the right thing. A smoker who preaches safe sex... well, THAT person MUST be a hypocrite. How DARE he or she think of the safety of others when he or she is "draining the health care system," right?

For years and years I've been hearing complaints from the left-wing extremists who say that the government is IGNORE THE AIDS CRISIS. "Where's the outrage?" they ask. "Where is the education we need?" they wonder. "Why isn't the White House DOING something?" they want to know.

WHAT IS IT YOU WANT? ONE state enforces a rule of law which was created BECAUSE of the AIDS crisis, and now we bitch about that? Aren't you the SAME PEOPLE who want the government to RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM?

"Oh, yes... but this isn't the way to do it. This infringes on our rights!"

WHAT rights? The right to spread disease? I don't see that in the Constitution Of The United States, nor in the constitution of ANY state!

How many complaints were heard about the Reagan Administration's amazing lack of concern regarding the AIDS crisis. And just how many more say the same thing about the Bush Administration? And I AGREE -- but at the same time, I am NOT a hypocrite who gets riled if someone, somewhere actually DOES something about it!

Either you WANT some help with this crisis or you don't. Which is it?

Some folks just WANT ANY EXCUSE to get pissed off without thinking things through. Makes it easier to justify their own rationalizations when they are pissed off, you know?

We need more funding. We need more education. We need more people on OUR SIDE. We need more people in OUR OWN COMMUNITY to take a stand against this disease. We need to petition for government assistance in the fight against HIV, and we EQUALLY need to do our own part.

My conscience is clear on this, at least.

It's all in how you look at it. If you WANT to see a conspiracy, it is extremely easy to create one in order to add fuel to your own political views.

Some people look up in the sky and see UFOs gathering for an alien invasion of planet Earth. Other people look up and see weather balloons and airplane contrails.

There is NOTHING in the enforcement of this law that discriminates against homosexuals. Straight porn doesn't have as much condom use as gay porn because GAY PORN MAKERS MADE THAT DECISION FOR THEMSELVES!

I had previously thought it was a law which stated that gay porn MUST have condoms used for anal sex. Corey corrected my thinking on that (thanks). Even though I would support such a law if it were to ever exist, I am EXTREMELY PLEASED that gay porn filmakers decided to do this ON THEIR OWN. THEY are making a statement FOR the gay community (and clearly covering their own asses against frivolous litigation, but still...).

This law is being enforced for ALL porn, not just gay porn.

It's still perfectly legal to purchase bareback porn -- go do that. It's still legal to buy porn made in other countries which have no such laws -- go do that.

Quote |

While I don't have fun injecting political agenda's, look for any excuse to get pissed off to rationlaize my views, or have fun slapping hypocrasy labels on people as Scruffy's post may suggest, I do have a sincere interest in social problems and how we deal with them.

As for this law, yes, all workers, no matter what industry have a right to be protected from bodily fluids that could lead to disease. I'd just hate to see the law become a tool for a witch hunt against gays and it's a situation to be monitored to make sure that doesn't happen.

As for the smoking issue, like HIV, when it comes to Cancer, you die as well.

It's not so much I would call someone a hypocrite who smokes and preaches about unsafe sex, it's just that I beleive we can't be throwing stones unless we are looking at our own self destructive behavior as well. Meaning, the smoker may find it hard to understand why someone would bareback knowing the health risks and the barebacker may find it hard to understand why someone would smoke knowing all the health risks. If they both realize how difficult it is to stop whichever self destructive behavior it is they have, they should take time to understand the other persons before they cast that stone of disdain.

I have great concern for these kinds of problems and try to be a part of the solution when I can. It's just my opinion that laws, fines and red tape are not very effective and the underlying problems are never properly addressed in order to help curb them.

Quote |

somebody here must not remember all the lawsuits filed against the tobacco industry due to the health related issues for smoking. I have forgotten how many millions of dollars my state won in their suit....there have been many others to file suit......so much for them not being held responsible.

We maybe need to look at the good example that would be set by using condoms....they would be protecting the health of their employees....protecting the health of their bank accounts....and set a good example for those younger guys that just dont think it will happen to them!

Go get-em Scruffy!!

__________________
40 something, 6' 175 brn/brn hairy looking for other married wm or younger guys to play.

Quote |

The Porn Industry is a legitimate business interest not unlike the alcohol and tobacco industries. It should also be pointed out that two of these 3 industries are subsidized by the American taxpayer -- via agricultural price supports and other economic structures. The Porn Industry receives no such taxpayer subsidized support in any form, so the industry doesn't have it's own lobbyists trolling the halls of Congress in Washington D.C. or the hallways of the State of California's legislature in Sacramento. Does it make a difference when it comes to enforcement of Federal and State Occupantional Safety and Health standards? You bet it does.

Porn actors are employed in a legitimate industry. There are recognized hazards associated with their careers. Having unprotected sex during the production of a porn video is a recognized hazard. The production company, as employers of porn actors, are obligated under the various laws to provide a safe and healthy work environment. As such, each and every porn actor must use protection as a barrier against the transmission of STDs. It is, after all, for their own safety and health -- on the job. But, as many in the Porn Industry readily and reluctantly admit -- it is the consumer who buys the porn who does not want to see condom use by the actors. It hurts the Porn Industry's bottom line -- the profitability of porn videos.

The public at large -- the very same people who buys the porn -- demand porn that shows action. We want action -- fucking, sucking, rimming, etc. au natural and nothing less. We don't want our vivid imaginations cluttered with images of condoms penetrating an ass or vagina. We want to see spectacular cum shots ... and copious amounts of it splashing someone's face or some other body part or in some body orafice. We want close-up shots of large penises reaming a tight ass. We want it all -- au natural that is -- without our imaginations being disturbed by the sight of a condom.

It is the consumer of porn that drives what the Porn Industry produces. The Porn Industry knows what the consumer wants and demands. The consumer of porn wants and demands porn that does not show actors using protection. Perhaps more revealing about the consumer of porn is their indifference about the hazards faced by porn actors. That indifference about the hazards faced by porn actors is also reflective about our society's prevailing attitudes towards practicing safe sex in our own private lives.

__________________
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. And, under a just God, cannot long retain it.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Quote |

That's an interesting and informative post Butch, especially the last paragraph. I guess indifference is really key here in this issue and could be applied to many problems we face when it comes to all health issue's our culture faces constantly.

On a lighter note, it could be applied to the fast food industry being under fire. Consumers demand more for the dollar and they provide it, hence the film Super Size Me.

I however have no solid idea's on what would solve the problem in the porn industry that would keep the actors safe but the posts here have given me things to think about in regards to the issue.

Quote |

Yes, admittedly, it is a indifferent consumer-driven market economy which largely ignores the many health and safety hazards in certain industries. It is a very high price we pay as a society that demands more goods and services for the valuation of our labor and leisure.

The consumer of pornography is the very same consumer of goods and services in other sectors of our economy. The porn industry is not unlike other industries in our market economy. We consumers exert demand pressure on those industries to produce goods and services. In that respect, the consumer demands pornography that does just about everything we expect it to do. When it comes to the health and safety of porn actors, we consumers seem to feign amnesia when it comes to the inherent dangers and hazards of producing the pornography we demand. Not only do we ignore those dangers and hazards in our own private lives, we also don't want to be reminded of them in the pornography we purchase for our own enjoyment and pleasure.

Our society is not sold on the very idea of safe sex and I don't think we ever will. The dangers and hazards of unsafe sex are abundantly clear. The question for each of us is not that we are unaware of the consequences of having unsafe sex. Rather, I would strongly suggest, the question is whether each of us has made the judgment of what is an acceptable risk in having unprotected/unsafe sex. For many people, the making of that judgment is a deeply personal one and no government can make that judgment for us. Our insistence that the State (government) not interfere with our private lives goes to the heart of the public debate.

__________________
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. And, under a just God, cannot long retain it.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Quote |

"Live and let live" is a great motto, and one in which I subscribe to myself. But just because I believe that MOST of the time people should be allowed to live a happy life unencumbered by legislation culled from ignorance and hatred, I do not see the doctrine of "live and let live" as written in stone. Some laws exist for a very good reason -- and some social actions have far-reaching consequences which extend beyond the harmless. "If it feels good, do it" sadly no longer applies. HIV put an end to that.

I think we often spend too much time pretending HIV doesn't exist, or at the very least ignoring it. It's easier that way.

Except for childhood experimentation with neighborhood buddies, I have never had sex in a world without HIV. Men in their twenties and thirties today have also never have sex in a world without HIV. Because they have survived so far, I think some of them consider it just another annoyance which can be easily disregarded. It's like your Mom telling you not to go outside without wearing a hat in winter. You understand WHY she wants you to keep warm, but the hat looks so stupid and your friends will make fun of you -- so you ignore her admonitions. And hey, you haven't had any problems because of it so far, so why should you expect any problems in the future? And while we know cold viruses don't proliferate as a direct result of being cold, we would probably wish we DID have a hat on our heads if we ever had to spend an extended period of time outdoors in January. Frostbite on the ears isn't pleasant, after all. We could have prevented this if we had listened...

Anti-smoking laws do NOT protect the smokers themselves. They are designed to protect NON-smokers. Also, only 10% of smokers will get lung cancer. Many, many more will develop heart disease, emphysema and other conditions from smoking. Many of these people will also die as a result. But it is NOT true by any stretch of the imagination that ALL smokers will die from smoking, nor is it true that all will die from lung cancer (odds are good, yes -- but it is not absolutely certain). My ex-mother-in-law is eighty-six years old now. She has had emphysema for about twenty-five years. It's not a good thing. Her life from age seventy-five until now has been limited because of her condition (she quit smoking just before she was diagnosed). However, she is FAR from dead. Additionally, her life with emphysema was a cake-walk as compared to the life of an HIV patient. I won't get into the gritty details, but we are all aware that just because some people are ALIVE and have HIV does't mean their life is pleasant. The meds are HORRID, the infections never end, the sickness is FOREVER. Just because you are "getting by" doesn't mean you are doing well and have a QUALITY life.

On the other hand, as it stands right now, HIV kills you EVERY single time. There are NO exceptions at the present time. We can use imaginary justification and say that some people have had HIV for twenty years and the anti-virals are keeping them going. We can hold out hope that a cure will be found before they actually DO pass away. I wish and I hope and I pray (in my own way) that this DOES come true. But so far... it sure hasn't. Right now, HIV IS A TERMINAL DISEASE.

Furthermore, most smokers that I have met have a desire to quit and do the right thing. Most smokers also would NEVER advocate to ANYONE that they start smoking. Most smokers respect the wishes of the non-smoking public and do not force their habit on others.

We cannot say this is equally true of barebackers. There are, in fact, advocacy groups of barebackers who, for some incomprehensible reason, try to defend their deadly choice.

And because we strive to be non-offensive and politically correct, some of us refuse to stand up to them. THAT is a huge mistake.

Even though we may not believe that we need to EARN the respect of anyone in government, it would be in our best interest to play the game and make it clear that the gay community, as a whole, does NOT support the dangerous behavior of a few deluded individuals.

By age thirty, I'd think most of us should have learned that life is NOT fair. There are little injustices in daily life, and HUGE injustices within the social fabric. We've come to EXPECT societal perfection, yet such a thing does not exist anywhere in the world at the present time. So we are obligated to play the game to the best of our ability. Sometimes we will draw the right card or roll the right number on the dice and we can advance a little on the playing field. Other times... "Do not pass Go, do not collect $200." Bummer. But we ALWAYS get another turn to play.

As for BMG's question -- at least ONE of the porn actors who tested HIV+ had his infection traced to a porn actress from a South American nation, so they know it was an infection spread within the industry itself. But of course you are correct: actors and actresses can certainly get it from their private lives. I do believe the story that came out in mid-April from whence this all originated also traced infections within the industry.

So, just like legalized prostitution in Nevada, there is going to be a push for certain rules to be put in place within another sex industry. Ladies of the evening in Nevada brothels are tested, and while we can debate the validity of such testing when we consider that HIV doesn't always show up immediately on a test after infection, we can see from the lack of infection among prostitutes there that this actually DOES work. It's a matter of SOMETHING being better than NOTHING at all. May as well do what we can.

"Employees must wash hands after using the restroom." This rule exists for a reason. I am not sure about ALL fifty states, but I do believe it is an actual law and not just a workplace suggestion. It's impossible to enforce it ALL the time, but I'm glad it exists just the same. MOST folks would follow through with some soap and water before heading back to the kitchen to cook up the next Big Bacon Classic.

The crux of all this isn't that anyone is out to put a damper on homosexuals enjoyment of porn. As I mentioned, I'm sure there are some in government who see this as a nice benefit, hating gays as they do. But this isn't the "agenda." The agenda is to ask WHY laws apply to ALL other professions to protect employees against biohazards, yet porn studios have ignored these laws so far.

I think it is important to see the big picture. There are plenty of examples of government interfering with the personal lives of gays and straights, and plenty of legislation written as the result of hatred, ignorance, and Biblical delusion. It's just that this is NOT part of that.

Gay porn studios have used condoms in many films in order to set an example and to teach. That has been their own CHOICE.

Do we also know that the manufacturers of hard liquor products have VOLUNTARILY refrained from using television advertising? This was an industry CHOICE. It placated the government as well as the populace -- and it hasn't hurt sales at all.

Laws and rules of conduct and community health codes exist for a reason. If we trace them all back to their source, we find that the reason for each and every one is to protect individuals from the poor choices that OTHER individuals might make.

If someone doesn't want to be around me if I'm smoking, there are laws which stop me from doing so. I can't hide it. I can't somehow "sneak" a cigarette in a supermarket or movie theater. I cannot force anyone to be around me when I want to smoke if they do not wish to do so. Yet someone who barebacks CAN hide this fact. They can lie about it, they can avoid the topic. If they have HIV, they may not even KNOW it. Therefore, I must do what I have to do on my OWN in order to protect myself from these people. There is no way the government can protect me.

So... one little rule which would make the porn industry adhere to the same rule which has applied to all other industries doesn't seem like a big deal. It's one very small thing out of many.

It would be fun to see how the non-smokers might feel if the laws banning public smoking were changed. The outrage would be intense and immediate.

I don't like wearing a seatbelt, but I do it anyway. The laws vary from state to state. In NH, you are not required to wear one if you are over eighteen (maybe sixteen, I forget). Yet I've worn a seatbelt for so many years now that it feels completely WRONG to get in my vehicle without putting it on. I WISH it wasn't a law -- it just seems to me that most people would wear them because it is the right thing to do. It isn't necessary, in my opinion, for the government to tell me that I MUST wear it or pay a fine. I'd wear it anyway, just because flying through the windshield doesn't sound like fun to me. A cousin of mine died from not wearing hers (I only met her once, we were not close). Had she made the right decision on her own, she'd be alive today. Had she followed the law even if she didn't want to make the decision herself, she'd be alive today.

Too many people just jump the gun these days -- it is EASIER and quite often much more "fun" to have something to get riled about. When we don't like our existing government, we often LOOK for more things about which we can complain.

And that's really the bottom line. I'd be willing to accept differing opinions, provided they are based on good, solid logic and have been carefully thought through.

It isn't easy to change someone's mind, and it is unlikely that this will happen in each and every circumstance. We have found out the hard way that we cannot change the opinions of those who hate us based on religion or some warped political bias. But... we still at least TRY.

So I have to TRY, when I can.

It's not about forcing people to see it MY way. It's about asking people to think things through before committing to a gut-emotional response.

That's all.

Quote |

I've got some news for some of the earlier posters. The actors in question are straight porn actors and actresses and the action by the State of California is a strike against pornography in general. Save your righteous indignation for a time when it is warranted.

As far as requiring condom usage in porn, give me a break! Porn is all about fantasy. I mean if you could do what you want with who you want there wouldn't be any need for porn, would there?

It so happens that the big US straight porn companies have a policy of requiring that every actor be tested immediately before a shoot by a third party testing service using the most sensitive tests available. In the case in question an actor was infected during a shoot in Brazil but his antibody levels were not yet detectable when he had his next film in the US. His infection was detected the next time he was scheduled to do a film and all people he had worked with were embargoed from porn work until their HIV status could be determined. That is why there were only 4 people infected.

This is not a perfect system because of the seroconversion latency but it works quite well; the previous time an HIV+ stright porn worker was discovered was 5 years previously. This is still a pretty high rate but not as high as other occupations, such as race car driver, that nobody objects to.

Quote |

It was clearly discussed in the above posts that this was in response to heterosexual porn.

It's kind of interesting, too: no one, including myself, mentioned that there were no headlines when gay porn stars caught HIV and subsequently died of AIDS during the last two decades.

Excluding documentaries, just about ALL films are about fantasy. The difference between mainstream movies and porn is that we can use special effects and CGI to create just about anything we want in order to suspend the viewer's disbelief. While I can certainly imagine a time when even porn studios might use CGI to get some interesting footage, it isn't going to happen soon, mostly for financial reasons. That, and the fact that porn-enthusiasts would be less likely to enjoy a film if they knew it wasn't real. We already know that alien invaders are NOT real so we can easily dismiss obvious CGI. Not the case with porn: if it isn't real, we aren't going to be interested for long.

As times change and as necessity warrants, fantasies change as well. There was a time when men looked to the skies and fantasized about flying like birds. Today, we just buy a ticket and check our luggage: the fantasy of flight has changed.

Perhaps it is time to alter our fantasies to some degree to include that which is still erotic but still keeps us alive. Personally, I've been both repulsed and aroused when viewing bareback sex. Yet the restrictions condom use in porn films place on our fantasies isn't really the issue here: the issue is simply the safety of the actors and the fact that porn studios disregarded existing laws which apply to EVERYONE. These laws are also not relegated to porn exclusively: they apply to any situation where bodily fluids are part of the job.

I don't feel that anyone who has responded here has done so with righteous indignation -- even those with whom I disagree. Seems to me that each of us applies the basic facts presented here to our own standards of what constitutes appropriate behavior as well as what constitutes erotic content.

I personally do not usually enjoy anal sex scenes in most porn films. Repetitive ass-pounding with little other contact, devoid of sensuality and lacking passion doesn't get me off. So my fast-forward button tends to get a workout, at least until the money shot. For me, a condom on a dick that is pounding an ass doesn't matter. HOWEVER, I have considered many times that I would despise porn if it came down to having all ORAL scenes include a condom as well. So I MUST allow myself to understand that condoms for anal can essentially "ruin" porn for the guys out there who DO enjoy those scenes. It would by hypocritical to suggest that these men "deserve" to have their porn experience diluted as such.

Yet at the same time, I cannot ask a porn actor or actress to put themselves at risk for my own personal entertainment. This is not my decision to make, is it? If I'm enjoying an action movie and a character jumps across the tops of speeding train cars, I do not expect the actor to do this stunt without proper safety precautions and a little CGI assistance.

And frankly, the way I see it... There are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of porn movies already made. Hell, I was in a video store last night and the selection included at least twenty thousand different videos. In just ONE store. No matter WHAT the porn industry decides, there is always going to be a wide selection of existing films from which to choose. It's not as if our fantasies are going to be stolen from us overnight.

I'll grant, however, that we always seek out new things and often have favorite actors that we like to watch often. Newer films from these folks might not satisfy us as deeply as older, less restricted ones.

And, of course, whatever is going to happen hasn't been decided yet. I can imagine all sorts of loopholes just ripe to be exploited. I highly doubt sexual fantasy will EVER be lost from pornography.

Quote |

Scruffycub wrote:
You didn't think that my last post was addressed to you, did you? I usually skim thru the first screen of your posts and then skip the rest if I don't find anything of interest. On searching this thread I find that you were the first to use the words "actress" and "straight" concerning the participants in the video where the health laws were allegedly violated. While it is clear that you understood the background of the story it is equally clear that some others did not.
mascguybost wrote: Scruffycub again:
No, it's not your decision; it is the actor's decision. The actor knows much better than you how risky the situation is and the actor is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

You have the decision of what type of porn to pick up and when it was made. At least you do now. If the California action is successful you won't have some of those choices any more. I am very strong on people taking the necessary actions to protect their health but make no mistake; this is not about enforcing health regulations, nor gay oppression, it is an attack on the first amendment.

I don't have any hard figures to present but there are a surprising number of deaths in making mainstream Hollywood movies. Car crashes. Dramatic shots from helicopters. Explosions. People love 'em but they can and do kill and maim real actors. I'll bet that there were more deaths among stunt men and actors making mainstream movies over the past five years than HIV infections among straight porn actors working for major porn companies. So if you are really serious about protecting the health of actors, you shouldn't view any action films until such movies are entirely rendered by computers. Romantic comedies should be ok, tho, unless you think that the protagonists might have actually had sex off-screen as a result of working together on the film.

Quote |

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.

Quote |