HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Porn producer Vivid Enter...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:36 PM

Porn producer Vivid Entertainment sues LA County over condom rule

A leading adult film producer has launched a lawsuit against Los Angeles County over a voter-approved measure requiring porn actors to wear condoms, saying the law infringes on first amendment rights and was driving the industry out of Southern California.

Vivid Entertainment, which was joined in the lawsuit by porn stars Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, claims the mandate was both an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression and a financial burden that studios could not bear.

"You don't have to win an Oscar to be protected by the first amendment," lead plaintiffs attorney Paul Cambria said, after filing the lawsuit in US District Court in Los Angeles on Friday.

The complaint, which also alleges that the law, known as Measure B, treads into an area regulated by the state, seeks an injunction that would stop the ballot initiative. The measure was approved by about 56% of Los Angeles County voters in November.

full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jan/12/porn-vivid-entertainment-la-county-condom-rule

Wow, so condoms = speech now? In a nation with Citizens United v. FEC, who knows?

186 replies, 11437 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 186 replies Author Time Post
Reply Porn producer Vivid Entertainment sues LA County over condom rule (Original post)
alp227 Jan 2013 OP
XemaSab Jan 2013 #1
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #2
TheGov97 Jan 2013 #3
Tempest Jan 2013 #5
flamingdem Jan 2013 #4
Tempest Jan 2013 #6
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #8
redqueen Jan 2013 #9
Tempest Jan 2013 #11
redqueen Jan 2013 #13
Tempest Jan 2013 #15
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #30
Tempest Jan 2013 #40
Tempest Jan 2013 #10
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #29
Tempest Jan 2013 #36
MNBrewer Jan 2013 #68
Tempest Jan 2013 #101
MNBrewer Jan 2013 #125
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #14
phleshdef Jan 2013 #39
Tempest Jan 2013 #41
phleshdef Jan 2013 #42
Tempest Jan 2013 #43
phleshdef Jan 2013 #47
Tempest Jan 2013 #49
phleshdef Jan 2013 #51
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #64
Tempest Jan 2013 #67
phleshdef Jan 2013 #74
phleshdef Jan 2013 #71
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #76
phleshdef Jan 2013 #79
Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #124
phleshdef Jan 2013 #144
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #151
AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #168
thucythucy Jan 2013 #180
blueamy66 Jan 2013 #163
gollygee Jan 2013 #86
hedgehog Jan 2013 #55
phleshdef Jan 2013 #57
hedgehog Jan 2013 #59
phleshdef Jan 2013 #61
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #69
phleshdef Jan 2013 #87
Tempest Jan 2013 #88
gollygee Jan 2013 #89
Tempest Jan 2013 #70
phleshdef Jan 2013 #90
Tempest Jan 2013 #103
phleshdef Jan 2013 #106
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #66
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #170
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #7
Tempest Jan 2013 #12
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #16
gollygee Jan 2013 #18
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #19
Tempest Jan 2013 #21
Tempest Jan 2013 #22
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #31
valerief Jan 2013 #34
Tempest Jan 2013 #35
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #130
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #153
thucythucy Jan 2013 #37
Tempest Jan 2013 #44
krawhitham Jan 2013 #45
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #154
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #152
Tempest Jan 2013 #20
gollygee Jan 2013 #24
Tempest Jan 2013 #25
Tempest Jan 2013 #26
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #32
Tempest Jan 2013 #33
blueamy66 Jan 2013 #164
MNBrewer Jan 2013 #113
jeff47 Jan 2013 #134
JVS Jan 2013 #155
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #17
derby378 Jan 2013 #28
jpak Jan 2013 #23
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #27
phleshdef Jan 2013 #38
Tempest Jan 2013 #46
phleshdef Jan 2013 #48
Tempest Jan 2013 #50
phleshdef Jan 2013 #52
Tempest Jan 2013 #53
phleshdef Jan 2013 #54
thucythucy Jan 2013 #142
phleshdef Jan 2013 #145
thucythucy Jan 2013 #147
phleshdef Jan 2013 #166
thucythucy Jan 2013 #173
hedgehog Jan 2013 #56
phleshdef Jan 2013 #58
hedgehog Jan 2013 #60
phleshdef Jan 2013 #63
hedgehog Jan 2013 #72
phleshdef Jan 2013 #77
quakerboy Jan 2013 #126
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #104
phleshdef Jan 2013 #107
Tempest Jan 2013 #111
phleshdef Jan 2013 #114
Tempest Jan 2013 #120
phleshdef Jan 2013 #121
gollygee Jan 2013 #141
thucythucy Jan 2013 #179
Tempest Jan 2013 #78
phleshdef Jan 2013 #80
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #85
Tempest Jan 2013 #93
phleshdef Jan 2013 #95
phleshdef Jan 2013 #94
Tempest Jan 2013 #91
phleshdef Jan 2013 #97
hedgehog Jan 2013 #62
phleshdef Jan 2013 #65
hedgehog Jan 2013 #75
Tempest Jan 2013 #82
phleshdef Jan 2013 #99
phleshdef Jan 2013 #84
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #171
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #83
phleshdef Jan 2013 #100
Tempest Jan 2013 #108
phleshdef Jan 2013 #110
thucythucy Jan 2013 #138
phleshdef Jan 2013 #143
thucythucy Jan 2013 #146
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #131
jeff47 Jan 2013 #135
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #81
Tempest Jan 2013 #96
phleshdef Jan 2013 #102
Tempest Jan 2013 #105
phleshdef Jan 2013 #112
Tempest Jan 2013 #117
phleshdef Jan 2013 #119
phleshdef Jan 2013 #116
thucythucy Jan 2013 #185
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #129
thucythucy Jan 2013 #139
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #159
thucythucy Jan 2013 #175
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #148
gollygee Jan 2013 #109
Tempest Jan 2013 #115
phleshdef Jan 2013 #118
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #136
thucythucy Jan 2013 #140
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #156
Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #73
Tempest Jan 2013 #98
orpupilofnature57 Jan 2013 #92
Tikki Jan 2013 #122
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #149
Democratopia Jan 2013 #123
Tempest Jan 2013 #127
Jmac2 Jan 2013 #128
Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #133
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #150
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #158
MNBrewer Jan 2013 #186
Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #132
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #137
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #157
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #160
hunter Jan 2013 #178
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #181
BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #165
TorchTheWitch Jan 2013 #174
BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #161
Orrex Jan 2013 #162
thucythucy Jan 2013 #182
Volaris Jan 2013 #167
taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #169
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #176
Volaris Jan 2013 #177
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #172
Stinky The Clown Jan 2013 #183
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #184

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:38 PM

1. It's a financial burden?

I'm sure they could get sponsors.

"Trojan: the official condom of pron stars everywhere!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:41 PM

2. In so far as it hurts their sales. Porn with condoms just doesn't sell as well,

 

and since they operate in LA county, it would hurt them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:48 PM

3. What ever happened to pulling out?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheGov97 (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:51 PM

5. Umm... By then it's far too late

Transmission is done by contact with secretions.

Secretions start long before penetration occurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:50 PM

4. I think the condom measure was a way to get the porn industry out of L.A.

and this is NOT good for the industry that's already hard hit by state subsidies drawing production out of Los Angeles. Porn producers buy tapes, cameras, lights, etc. and employ (sexy) people. Just kidding, many get their start in that biz. That said I wouldn't want them filming next door and they often invade neighborhoods with their crews and sexed up actors. The kids notice these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:52 PM

6. Actually, no.

It was in response to the high rate of infections among those in the porn industry and the high costs of treating it.

Porn stars are not rich and most use public health facilities meant for the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:55 PM

8. Actually The Rate of Infection Among Porn Performers is Far Lower Than The General Population

The industry has done a good job of health screening.

The whole issue is rather moot because the industry is changing dramatically. Porn can be made any where at any time by anybody. It does not have to be made in L.A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:57 PM

9. lol wut

Citation pls?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:02 PM

11. They're as wrong as they can be. See my response. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:06 PM

13. Oh trust me, I know.

The amount of industry money behind the disinfo campaign to prettify and popularize porn results in some side-splitting claims, though. I was mainly asking for entertainment purposes.

Ask any porn 'star' or read what they say in interviews... they have much less incentive to lie. It's the producers, the capitalists who make $$$ renting/selling/making equipment, and the users who demand to be able to see unsafe sex on screen who have all the skin in this game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:16 PM

15. From what I can piece together, the national average is under 20%. LA porn stars at 28%. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:52 PM

30. Let's Cut to the Chase, Shall We?

We all know that you prefer that porn be completely outlawed and banned. But, that train has long left the station. Porn can be made any where at any time by any body on planet earth.

This law, while it may be of good intention, will probably do a lot more harm than good. Production will just move to another city without such regulation or it will be online. Also, how can the city enforce the law when people are making porn in their own homes?

If the intention is to really assist people in the industry, then the better approach should be better testing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:16 PM

40. Do you know what a strawman is? Because it sure doesn't appear so. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:01 PM

10. Dead wrong

Rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia are significantly higher among adult film stars in Los Angeles County compared to legal prostitutes in Nevada, according to a report published this week. On Nov. 6, voters will consider a measure that would require porn actors to wear condoms.

A study of 168 adult film performers in Los Angeles County found that 28%, or 47 performers, tested positive for either gonorrhea or chlamydia or both diseases. The report was written by six public health experts, whose affiliations include the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and UCLA.

"Compared with the brothel workers of Nevada, another legal sex worker population in the United States, and prevalence in this study is significantly higher," said the report, published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases on Tuesday. The study ran from mid-May to mid-September 2010.

Sexually transmitted infection rates among legal prostitutes are negligible, the report said, because brothel workers in Nevada are required by state law to use condoms and are tested weekly for disease. Since those rules went into effect in Nevada, there have been no cases of HIV infection, and their infection rates were negligible, the report said.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/std-rates-in-la-porn-stars-higher-than-in-nevada-prostitutes.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:46 PM

29. "Porn Performer" Could Mean Anyone

Like I posted earlier, all kinds of people are involved with making and distributing porn. It's no longer just your typical porn industry. There are webcams, amateur sites, etc. This law would in no way regulate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:03 PM

36. This is about the corporate porn industry in L.A.

Not webcams, not amateurs.

Professionals working for corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:08 PM

68. however,

"Because performers in the AFI are a highly stigmatized population and are a difficult population to identify for any study, we used a convenience sample of performers who sought services at a trusted primary care clinic, which may have introduced selection bias. In addition, nearly all male participants
refused rectal screening; thus, the site-specific prevalence of rectal GC and CT for male performers was unable to be assessed. We collected no information on the sexual partners of participants and therefore cannot account for the surprisingly high prevalence of oropharyngeal infections or the sexual networks of performers. In addition, we do not know why each participant was seeking care when he/she was recruited. Our sample could therefore represent a group who felt that they were at high risk for STIs or specifically seeking treatment of a known STI, thus overestimating positivity."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:21 PM

101. Even if it's off by 10%, it's still a much higher rate than Nevada prostitutes

Who are required to wear condoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #101)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:51 PM

125. It's not a valid comparison regardless

In addition to the mandated use of condoms during any sex act in the Nevada prostitutes vs. no such requirement for the LA porn actors, there are other confounding factors. Living situations, being one. Shall we also mandate that LA porn actors live on a porn video compound and rarely, if ever leave it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #6)


Response to Tempest (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:11 PM

39. So what? Why should the presence of a camera and a paycheck make a difference where personal freedom

...is concerned?

The same people could go screw around a lot, unfilmed and for free, and get the same diseases, if they so desired. People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:17 PM

41. Ah, a conservative's wet dream

No regulation.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:28 PM

42. Actually no, anti-sexual freedom, controlling sex, etc... that would be closer to a modern day...

...conservative's wet dream.

My reasoning is the same exact reasoning behind my being pro-choice where abortion is concerned.

I'm all for regulation. Shit loads of it. Just not regulation of what people can and can't do with their bodies where consenting adults are involved and sex is concerned.

Attempting to reflect conservatism onto me in order to justify your anti-sexual freedom views is not going to win you any arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:47 PM

43. I have no problem with sexual freedom when its done responsibly

But a 28% infection rate is hardly being responsible.

Nor is passing the costs of treatment onto the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:29 PM

47. The government has no business regulating "sexual responsibility".

Regulate the environment. Regulate the financial industry. Regulate the insurance industry. Regulate all of Wall Street. That's all great. But keep your damn laws off my body. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:40 PM

49. That is an immature and irresponsible response

And it's not just your body if you're sharing it with others who could be infected and affected by your irresponsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:44 PM

51. Its takes 2 (or more) to tango.

Consenting adults should be able to do what they want as far as whether or not to have safe sex. Theres nothing you can say that will ever get past that argument. People like you are no different than the Republicans that want to tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms. No difference at all. You want to pretend its different because theres a camera and a paycheck involved. But you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:05 PM

64. So workers are "free" to work in unsafe conditions dictated by their bosses? Same for mine workers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:07 PM

67. This guy is a poster child on why these laws are necessary and he doesn't even realize it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:09 PM

74. Oh and just what are you suggesting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:08 PM

71. False equivalency.

You aren't stepping on people's right to sexual freedom by forcing mines to adhere to safety regulations.

Having control over the use of one's body and sexuality is a special kind of freedom. Its why abortion should be legal. Its why gay people should be allowed to be together. Its also why porn actors should be able to have unsafe sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:10 PM

76. Private citizens ARE free to their sexual freedom & condomless sex. Employees are not acting as

private citizens.

According to you, employees can be coerced into any unsafe work conditions.

Let the whole porn industry move to a right to work state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:11 PM

79. A paycheck doesn't make any difference. Sexual freedom is sexual freedom.

You act like the presence of a paycheck magically changes the nature of it. It doesn't. You are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #79)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:46 PM

124. OMG that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The presence of a paycheck DOESN'T change anything? Oh my fucking god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #124)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:16 PM

144. OH MY GODZ!!! THATS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:39 AM

151. It most certainly DOES change one's right to protections from employer abuse

and unsafe work conditions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #151)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:19 PM

168. They can find another job

They dont have to work in porn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #168)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:04 PM

180. You realize you can say the same thing about any other workplace, right?

People don't want to work in a meatpacking plant where lack of safety features means you might lose a hand?

They can find another job. They don't have to work in a meat packing plant.

People don't want to work in a coal mine with unregulated natural gas emissions that might lead to an explosion?

They can find another job. They don't have to work in a coal mine.

Here's a news flash: often times people can't just up and leave a paying job, especially if they have families to support, bills to pay, and most especially when the economy is bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:31 AM

163. Do you also agree that obese people should not be given access

to public health care when they develop heart issues? Or smokers who develop lung cancer? Or alcohol drinkers that develop cirrhosis? Or diabetics that don't watch what they eat and go into comas?

Are you in favor of health care for all or just for those that you deem fit to receive it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:14 PM

86. No, "freedom" to work under any conditions is a conservative's wet dream

Freedom to work for $2 an hour or less if that's what the job pays, freedom to work under unsafe working conditions, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:51 PM

55. but - is this a personal freedom issue or a worker safety issue?

People are being paid to perform certain acts. It's up to the employer to ensure that their health is protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:57 PM

57. Then make the employers responsible for paying for their healthcare.

But don't go around telling consenting adults what kind of sex they can have. Its a slippery slope we need not go down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:01 PM

59. Are you aware that antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is out there?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/08/first-antibiotic-resistant-gonorrhea-cases-detected-in-north-america

not to mention that anyone can pick up the HIV virus and pass it on between tests.

Yeah, having the producer pay for health care when the actor is left infertile or with a terminal disease, that takes care of everything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:03 PM

61. Yes. I'm also aware that the presence of a camera and a paycheck aren't required to spread it.

Given that undebateable fact, are you now going to suggest that we force everyone to wear a condom? Because that's the logical conclusion. And if you aren't saying that, then you are either suffering from cognitive dissonance or you are a complete hypocrite. Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:08 PM

69. But the presence of a camera owned/operated by & for someone else mean you are an employee

and deserving of protection against occupational hazards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:15 PM

87. Which is exactly why I'm fine with requiring THOROUGH testing.

One problem right now is that testing is not as good as it could be. They skimp on that and they shouldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:15 PM

88. Porn actors are considered either employees or independent contractors

Depends on the producer.

Actors for Vivid, the company fighting this, are considered employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:16 PM

89. My kitchen at home has different rules than a kitchen in a restaurant has

It is not unusual to have different regulations for work than for private life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:08 PM

70. The porn industry would disappear if they were required to pay for their healthcare.

The costs would bankrupt them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:16 PM

90. I highly doubt that. But thats a classical Randian argument.

The porn industry is extremely profitable. That sounds like the same argument conservatives make against environmental regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #90)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:23 PM

103. You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand and her philosophy.

Don't pretend that you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #103)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:24 PM

106. I know plenty about it. But thats neither here nor there.

The real point is, you are failing to make an effective argument so you are instead choosing to cower behind a disingenuous comparison between myself and Ayn Rand simply because I don't want to require porn stars to wear condoms. To any thinking person, that comes across as a painfully idiotic argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:06 PM

66. So there shouldn't be laws protecting health/welfare of miners. Just let the mine owners foot the

bill when something goes wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:43 PM

170. Would that be the same "personal freedom" to work in an unstabilized ditch?

Or does that only apply to sacred cow issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 02:52 PM

7. Hello, San Francisco! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:05 PM

12. And S.F. will pass a law when their costs escalate beyond control.

Just like L.A.

28% of L.A. porn stars tested positive for an STD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:40 PM

16. Geez... at least be honest about your dishonesty

Your claim that public health costs in LA are unendurable, as a matter of public finance, because of the porn industry is, of course, a lie.

The total health costs associated with STDs in the general population are, of course, vastly higher than costs associated with porn performers.

What laws do you have lined up to regulate the general populace? You have established what chlamydia rate demands this sort of government intrusion, right?

So where is your condom law for everybody? It would save LA roughly infinity more money than this law.

What is the AIDS rate in the general population versus porn performers? How about different sub-groups versus porn performers?

Do you favor a law criminalizing all unprotected gay male sex? I do not, of course. I'm a reasonable person. But how could you not favor, nay demand (!) such laws, by the standard you are promulgating here?

Yes, you are SOOOOOO concerned about public health.

What is the Chlamydia rate in the poor population of LA? Do you suppose there are economic classes, neighborhoods, ethnic groups, who exceed certain disease average by more than 28% to 20%?

Are you proposing a law that poor people, for instance, have to use condoms in all cases?

If not, why not?

It is your right to hold revolting attitudes, but please don't pretend you are motivated by pressing public health concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:44 PM

18. This might be a workplace issue

Like smoking in bars was banned because people working in bars got sick, but people have the right to smoke at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:48 PM

19. It *might* be a lot of things

My response was to the post it responds to, which is from a poster (now ignored) who has made a very specific claim about as to why it is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:55 PM

21. So you ignore people you disagree with.

How interesting.

Must be quite a narrow life you lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:55 PM

22. Very much a work place issue

In no other industry would we accept a 28% injury rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:55 PM

31. So, Then Football Should Be Banned, Right?

Retired football players are developing severe brain injuries. That's a workplace issue as well. Is it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:02 PM

34. Football should definitely be banned. It's barbaric. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:02 PM

35. And they have taken steps to minimize head injuries.

Why are you against the same steps being taken in the porn industry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:10 PM

130. This law does NOTHING to make the "porn industry" safer

The "porn industry" is so vast and wide spread that this kind of law does nothing to make the performers safer. It just means that production goes to other jurisdictions.

Even in L.A., this law cannot be enforced. How are you going to enforce it against a couple that have unprotected sex on a webcam?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #130)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:42 AM

153. It most certainly DOES make the sexual contact safer and less liable to result in AIDS etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:04 PM

37. First of all, the new law doesn't "ban" porn,

so asking if "football should be banned" is a classic straw man.

Secondly, last I heard, pro football players are required to wear protective gear.

When was the last time you saw a professional football game where the players weren't wearing pads and helmets?

And third, there are people, including people inside pro-football and the players' union, demanding action be taken about the high incidence of brain injuries in the game. This will no doubt result in further regulation somewhere down the road.

So your analogy is a complete fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:48 PM

44. Not the first strawman he's thrown out there

I wonder about those that are so passionate about such a subject as sex and being irresponsible about it.

Reminds me of the gun nuts in so many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:50 PM

45. OK I'll play. Make the NFL a touch football league?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:43 AM

154. No, but it's guaranteed it will be played differently with more things becoming illegal. Like NASCAR

changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:41 AM

152. Snapping opponents heads/necks back is an illegal move. They must wear helmets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:54 PM

20. This is about an industry that is socializing its costs while privatizing their profits.

unexceptable for any industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:56 PM

24. One of many

That seems to be the way it's done these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:01 PM

25. The Bain Capital business model. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:02 PM

26. L.A. porn industry has a much higher rate than the general population

And Nevada's laws on condom use show it's working. Prostitutes in Nevada have a much lower rate than L.A. porn stars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:56 PM

32. Poor People Have a higher rate of STDs than Rich People

Are you for mandatory condom use for the poor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:00 PM

33. Nothing to do with the workplace, now does it?

Name one other industry we would accept a 28% injury rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:39 AM

164. Amen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:28 PM

113. Not really.

28% of the *non-random sample* of porn actors tested *at that clinic* tested positive for an STD. It is not an exhaustive testing regimen, as it is being compared to in the case of the Las Vegas prostitutes. There is enough sample bias in the cited study to throw that number into doubt for applicability to the broader adult actor population (it could be higher or lower, no way to know).

also, when the videos are shot in the counties surrounding Los Angeles county, do you think the actors will pick up and move there? I doubt it. This will do nothing to shift the public health expense burden to other counties. Will you propose that people can only be treated for STDs in the counties in which they contracted them?

The excuse that's used, that the forced use of condoms is to protect the actors, is just that. It's an excuse to ban filming of unprotected sex in any form (including oral sex).

I don't know what the porn industry is like for women, but for the gay male porn performers, whether to perform with or without a condom is absolutely the performer's choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:25 PM

134. Your study is actors who said "I'm sick"

That's not a random sample. You'd expect there to be a higher rate of STDs, since these actors are actually seeking medical treatment.

A better law would be mandated STD testing, so that we can find out if they do indeed have a higher STD rate. Then we can go from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:46 AM

155. How exactly would this cost the city money? Did we get single payer national HC while I was asleep?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:42 PM

17. Unusual economic hardship...

Snort!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:09 PM

28. Meanwhile, lesbian porn producers respond, "So?"

I'm betting their operations won't be affected one bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:56 PM

23. Condoms are people too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:03 PM

27. Really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:09 PM

38. I'm still of the mind that consenting adults should be able to have sex any way they want.

On camera or off camera, for money or for free, protected or unprotected, people should be able to do what they damn well please with their damn bodies for the most part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:50 PM

46. The problem is they're not being responsible about it.

No other industry has a 28% injury rate, nor would one be tolerated in a civilized society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:30 PM

48. I don't care. Keep your damn laws off my body.

Not that I would ever work in porn myself. I'm happily married. But if I did, its none of your god damn business whether or not I wear a condom. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:43 PM

50. You act as if there's no victims

Read up on Marc Wallace and the literally hundreds of women he infected without their knowledge.

I'm sorry, but society requires a certain level of responsibility for your actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:45 PM

52. People who knowingly spread an STD should be prosecuted. Porn or no porn.

Its a type of assault in my book.

That's neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:48 PM

53. The problem is many don't know and Marc was one of them.

"That's neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned."

Actually it is and since it's a point you know you will lose on you don't want it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:51 PM

54. No. Its irrelevant. Shit happens when you are having sex with a lot of people.

I don't think its a smart thing to do. But people have the RIGHT to do stupid things where sex is concerned.

By your twisted logic, people prone to multiple sexual partners should be forced to wear condoms. And there are plenty of people that fit that bill with no camera involved. That's exactly the argument you are making. That's just fascist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:11 PM

142. It really bothers you, doesn't it, that some people are sex workers

and have "sex with a lot of people?" The heart of your objection really is you don't approve of sex with multiple partners. You've said as much in at least two posts.

And since you don't like their behavior, you'd prefer they be punished by being forced by their employers to have unprotected sex, and thus exposed to potentially life threatening diseases.

I sense you are less a libertarian than you are a Puritan. And so I would suggest you keep your Puritanism out of our public health policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #142)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:17 PM

145. LOL, what a phony argument. You don't even believe the nonsense you just said.

I smell a little trolly, troll, troll, troll!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #145)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:57 PM

147. I absolutely believe what I said, based on your insistence

that you would NEVER work in a porn film, because you're happily married and all, and your statement that you don't approve of people having multiple sex partners.

As if happily married people can't be porn stars. As if people who have multiple sex partners are less moral than yourself.

So you smell a troll? I smell a Puritan who would prefer that people who work in porn or have multiple sex partners be punished for their "sin."

Notice too--it isn't the porn workers who are suing about this, it's the owners of the company that produces the porn. Porn workers in and out of LA have been pushing for better working conditions, as well as safety regulations.

And as I've said multiple times now, this is an issue of workplace safety, not sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is the freedom to have multiple sex partners--whether you approve or not. But with that freedom comes responsiblity--the responsibility to try not to spread STDs on to your partners.

If I was a sex worker I would definitely want my health protected. I wouldn't want my boss to be the one who decides. Just as, in any workplace, I think the safety of the workers comes before the whims of any particular boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #147)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:26 PM

166. Moronic. Not even deserving of further response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #166)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:21 PM

173. Yeah, advocating worker safety. How moronic.

Not wanting people to be injured because of the work they do.

Not even deserving of a response.

Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:57 PM

56. So - instead of requiring that actors wear condoms because that would be

a terrible intrusion on privacy, you'd have a prosecutor forced to prove that the actor willingly and knowingly harmed his partners by engaging in unprotected sex while infected....

" and so, Mr. X, when you noticed that when you took a pee, it felt as it felt as if you were urinating molten lava, it didn't occur to you that you might be carrying an STD?"

" no, I thought that was normal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #56)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:59 PM

58. Yup. I would. Because its none of your damn business whether I ever wear a condom.

Whether I'm acting in porn or going out to clubs picking up multiple partners or whether its just between me and my wife. In any of those scenarios, its MY business and the business of the people that choose to have sex with me. Its none of your business. Its my body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:03 PM

60. It may be your business, but what about the right of the other actors to

have a safe workplace? Doesn't your business stop when it intrudes on the business of others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:04 PM

63. They can choose to not engage in sex with anyone that can't provide proof of recent testing.

They can also choose to do movies at all unless a condom is involved. No one is forcing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:08 PM

72. But recent testing doesn't solve the problem - check out the statistics

cited above. the "no one is forcing" argument applies to all levels of worker safety. It used to be that "no one is forced to work in a bar where smoking is allowed" Before that, Judge Bork suggested that requiring low levels of lead exposure was an undue burden on employers because no one forced pregnant women to work in such places.

As soon as money is exchanged for services, it's a reasonable right for society to demand as safe a work place as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:10 PM

77. Sexual freedoms are different.

You want to start infringing on those, then say goodbye to abortion rights and gay rights and reproductive rights, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:52 PM

126. Workplace

Sexual freedom has nothing to do with what your boss instructs you to do at your workplace. And porn is a job, same as any other ins far as employee protections should be concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:23 PM

104. Then if people want to film porn, they should know there are risk.

Yes, there is some risk involved when you have sex with lots of people, but that is a risk they are willing to take. If they don't want the risk, then find a different line of work.

Look, there is lot of talk about concussions in the NFL, and I know there are some risk. If I got a call to play for an NFL team, I would do it in a heart beat, and I would have to accept that risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:25 PM

107. Exactly. Its not like porn is some crucial industry anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:26 PM

111. But doesn't it make sense to minimize the chance of the risks?

Which is what this law will do.

And it's what the NFL is doing by improving the equipment the players use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #111)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:28 PM

114. It makes sense. But it also makes sense to outlaw alcohol and tobacco.

That doesn't mean we should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #114)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:32 PM

120. Strawman. No one is talking about outlawing the porn industry. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #120)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:33 PM

121. Not a strawman because I never said anyone was.

The topic was "things that make sense" not "things we should outlaw". Its just a coincidence that my example involved outlawing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:10 PM

141. THis is exactly why workplace protections exist

There is risk, but your workplace is supposed to make reasonable accomodations to minimize the risks. Like NFL players have to wear certain safety gear. They cant' decide to play without a helmet.

And saying, "If you don't accept the risk, don't take the job" doesn't work because obviously either you accept the risk of a sweat shop with no fire protection, or a sport where there are lots of injuries with no safety gear, or whatever, or you don't work at all. It's the same reason why we have a minimum wage, or people would say, "Accept the job at $2 an hour, or find another line of work." Our government demands people give a certain level of pay at a minimum, and provide a certain level of safety protection at a minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #104)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:53 PM

179. Again with the football analogy.

If you play for the NFL, you have to wear a helmet, right?

So what's the big deal about actors in porn having to wear a condom?

In both cases it is a matter of safety.

Why shouldn't people who work in porn be safe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:11 PM

78. This guy is a classic Ayn Randian. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:12 PM

80. Thats an idiotic statement.

My politics are about as liberal as it gets. Stop trying to insult me with disingenuous comparisons to conservative nutjobs in order to avoid losing an argument. Its not going to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #80)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:14 PM

85. Your politics are only as liberal as your willingness to protect workers health & safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:17 PM

93. EXACTLY! He's a classic Ayn Rand follower. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #93)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:17 PM

95. Stop cowering behind that argument. Its nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:17 PM

94. I'm fine with protecting workers safety up and to the point of regulating sexuality.

That's where I draw the line.

Don't tell me how liberal I am or not. That's not up to you and it never will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #80)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:16 PM

91. Your politics are not liberal if you believe in no regulation

in an industry with a 28% injury rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #91)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:19 PM

97. Oh wait. So let me get this straight.

I am pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-environmental regulation, pro-gun control, pro-financial regulation, pro-universal health, pro-LGBT rights, anti-death penalty, pro-progressive taxation and pro-universal healthcare...

Yet, because I don't want to require porn actors to wear condoms, I'm not a liberal. Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:04 PM

62. You are sidestepping the question - forcing actors to wear a condom may be intrusive,

but wouldn't it be more intrusive proving that someone knowingly exposed others to STDs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:05 PM

65. Intrusiveness is warranted where malicious acts are concerned.

And knowingly giving someone a disease is definitely a malicious act.

I didn't sidestep shit. You just don't like the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:09 PM

75. But - how do you prove that a person knowingly gave another person a disease?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:13 PM

82. You can't unless they've been tested and many are not tested.

And even then, they can infect others between the time of the testing and when the results are back.

Marc Wallace infected up to 200 women he had sex with between the time it was suspected he was a carrier and when he got tested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #82)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:20 PM

99. They should be tested better and more frequently.

Regardless, it doesn't change my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:13 PM

84. The same way we already do. If they tested positive for it and went out and had sex...

...then they knowingly gave someone a disease. People are ALREADY prosecuted for knowingly spreading AIDS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #50)


Response to phleshdef (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:13 PM

83. It is if you are an employee and your employer is forcing you to work in unsafe conditions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:20 PM

100. No one is being forced to do anything. Its fucking porno.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:25 PM

108. You are very dense

No one is forcing you to do what you do, but you expect a safe working environment, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #108)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:26 PM

110. To a certain degree. But I don't expect 100% safety.

Unlike you, I'm not an extremist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:57 PM

138. "Keep your damn laws off my body....Not that I would ever work in porn myself..."

I see. So then it's not really YOUR body we're talking about at all, is it?

And why wouldn't you ever work in porn? Is this a bit of your Puritanical streak showing here? As in: "If these people get a disease, it serves them right for doing something I, as a happily married person, would NEVER do?"

Try this out for size: "I would NEVER work in a coal mine, but I think regulations protecting coal miners are an infringement of MY 'rights.' I have a 'right' to get black lung disease. I have a 'right' to be crushed in an improperly reinforced shaft. And it is just so unfair for anybody to try to impose safety standards on mine operators. Not that I would EVER work as a coal miner, you understand."

This is about worker safety, pure and simple. If you can't acknowledge that simple fact, you've missed the whole point of the law.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #138)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:15 PM

143. Wow, too many insane arguments there to count.

I wouldn't do porn because I have no desire to have sex in front of other people. And I'm pretty sure no one wants to see that. I have no problem with people that do porn or porn itself. Your argument here is pretty high on the stupid scale. That's like saying I'm pro-choice because I hate babies. I'm pro-sexual and reproductive rights, period.

Coal mines are not pornographic films. Its a stupid comparison. One is an issue of reasonable labor safety, the other is an issue of freedom of sexual expression. On top of that, I'm pretty sure people if someone tried to setup an unsafe mine on their own property, with no paycheck involved, there are STILL regulations as to how that has to be done. So if you want to make the coal mining comparison, then you damn well have to come to the conclusion that you can dictate people's sex lives when theres no paycheck involved. Because if you want to attempt to draw that silly logical comparison in the first place, then you can't have it both ways.

Its not about worker safety. Its about playing the sex police. People hiding behind worker safety are about as disingenuous as people who hide behind "sanctity of marriage". Don't feed me that crap, I don't buy it.

Its as simple as this. You should not be allowed to tell anyone what kind of safe sex choices they have to make. The presence of a camera and a paycheck (being the ONLY difference) should not change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #143)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:40 PM

146. Coal mines and the sets of porn films are both work places

and as such they should both be subject to safety regulations.

If you want to have unprotected sex, that's your problem (and the problem with those with whom you have sex. Of course, the least you could do in such a situation is to inform your partner ahead of time you insist on unprotected sex, and allow them to decline to ball you, if that's their choice).

But if you're doing this for money, on a movie set, you are by definition in a work place, and work place rules should apply. BTW, I'M pretty sure that if you want to dig for coal in your own back yard, on your own time, you in fact AREN'T covered by OSHA regulations. You're entitled to be as stupid as you want on your own time and on your own property, (Though I, as a taxpayer and someone who pays health insurance premiums, would prefer not to have to foot the bill for your stupidity).

You don't do porn "because you have no desire" to do so. Well huzza for you. So what gives you the right to insist that those who do must in all instances obey their bosses, who want them to work in unsafe conditions?

If anyone here is playing "sex police" it's you--insisting your libertarian standards be applied to everyone else.

BTW--what makes you think porn workers might not also be "happily married?" Perhaps they need the money. Perhaps they enjoy working in front of a camera. This, however, does not mean they should be forced by their employer to take risks with their health, even if you think such risks are "the price" for having multiple sex partners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:11 PM

131. The 28% Study That You Cite Is Dubious

Their selection sample methodology does not hold up to scrutiny. You cannot determine if the people contracted the STDs from actually working in the industry or away from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:27 PM

135. As mentioned elsewhere, there's enormous problems with your 28% figure. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:13 PM

81. Employees are due certain protections against unsafe working conditions. You agree with Bush/Cheney

letting mine workers work in unsafe conditions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:18 PM

96. But he's a liberal, remember?

He seriously believes we'll fall for that nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #96)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:21 PM

102. Yea. I'm a liberal and you are a sex nazi. Thats pretty much where we stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #102)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:24 PM

105. Godwin's law. You lose.

I'm talking about responsibility.

You're talking Ayn Rand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #105)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:27 PM

112. You don't know what Godwin's law actually is.

Nowhere is Godwin's law does anyone lose. Its only the prediction that Nazis will come up. It has nothing to do with winning the argument one way or the other. That's some bullshit people made up. I reject it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #112)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:30 PM

117. And Nazis did come up. By you. Godwin's Law. You lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #117)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:32 PM

119. No one loses because it comes up. But I'm glad you found something new to cower behind.

Considering the dumb Ayn Rand argument wasn't working out for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:30 PM

116. Of course not. But sexual freedom isn't being compromised by enforcing mining regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #116)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:26 PM

185. But what if there's a regulation

prohibiting sex while working in a coal mine?

Isn't that "compromising" "sexual freedom?"

Couldn't resist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:07 PM

129. So, Boxers and MMA Fighters Should Be Required to Wear Head Gear

You would be okay with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #129)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:00 PM

139. Boxers ARE required to wear head gear

aren't they? And teeth guards, and padded gloves to cover their fists?

You have a problem with those protections as well, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:18 AM

159. Amateur boxers wear headgear. Pro's do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #159)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:23 PM

175. Thanks for the clarification.

They do wear teeth guards though, don't they? And gloves?

And aren't there rules about where a boxer can be hit? I seem to recall something about "no hitting below the belt."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:29 AM

148. http://www.livestrong.com/article/244343-safety-rules-for-boxing/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:26 PM

109. Why should the fact that they're sex workers mean they shouldn't get workplace

protection like any other kind of worker? That seems really unfair to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #109)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:28 PM

115. Seems unAmerican to me.

It would be the same as not wanting protections for miners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #109)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:31 PM

118. They should get workplace protection, as long as it doesn't compromise sexual freedom.

Forcing them to wear condoms compromises that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #118)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:37 PM

136. This is so not about sexual freedom.

But, I suspect you know that. The actors don't get to decide what sex acts they are going to perform. They perform according to the script. They don't get to write the lines they perform either. Let me guess you believe professional wrestling is unscripted as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #109)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:05 PM

140. I think there are people here who believe sex workers don't DESERVE protection.

We have one poster, for instance, who stresses how "I would NEVER work in porn" but is opposed to protecting those who do. I find that very telling.

I sense an undercurrent here of Puritanical disapproval of sex workers in general, and hence an aversion to protecting their safety.

Check out some of these posts and see if you don't agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:15 AM

156. If they weren't getting paid for it I would be in complete agreement with you

Once money enters the picture the employer has a responsibility to ensure the safety of workers. If they are shirking that responsibility they deserve to be regulated. I just don't see it as the same situation as two consenting adults agreeing to get busy for the jollies of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:08 PM

73. I don't see the big deal its just a condom

We are told everyday in our regular lives to use condoms to help prevent stds and pregnancy. I see it as a good idea for a business that is based on Sex to do this in fact I would think from business sense being proactive in this keeps money flowing for everyone involved. As far as cost I can't believe there isn't one Condom company that would love to get in on this and be able to say we are the choice of the porn stars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arcanetrance (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:19 PM

98. And they're proven to work

Earlier in the thread I posted how prostitutes in Nevada have a much lower STD rate than L.A. porn stars because the state requires the use of condoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:16 PM

92. Condoms = Gun Laws ,another words it's yours to bare...

in a safe manner .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:42 PM

122. Come on;)...The porn industry is advanced enough to know how to film with condoms and look...

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

like they are not using condoms. There are diseases transmitted in that kind of
contact. Why not try to make less transmissions?



Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:31 AM

149. I'm thinking they could easily be airbrushed/retouched out of the pix. It's not like porn watchers

give a crap about "realism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:45 PM

123. Maybe they can make hard core porn more tasteful too

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democratopia (Reply #123)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:58 PM

127. The biggest growing segment of porn is porn catering to women.

And women want it tasteful and erotic, not what you usually see from porn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:06 PM

128. Dumb law

This is the equivalent of Republican TRAP laws on abortion for the purpose of shutting down a business they don't approve of. The only difference is that at least they put it up for vote and didn't do it in by legislators.

Sure it may sound like a common sense type thing to put on the ballet. But all it is basically just a rule disguised to run the industry out of town. They might as well have put porn production up for a vote.

As a porn connoisseur, I never watch porn with rubbers. I am sure many other are like me or the industry wouldn't be fighting it. That's like buying a swimsuit edition magazine in which they all wear an overcoat over their swimsuits. Nobody will buy a product like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jmac2 (Reply #128)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:18 PM

133. Are you really equating a condom with a swim suit

Are you using the condoms from the naked gun I mean come on the penis is still Clearly visible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jmac2 (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:36 AM

150. This has nothing to do with shutting down a business. It's about protecting employees safety.

And it would not be too difficult to retouch footage of condoms.

And the better analogy is buying diamonds from companies that don't give a shit there's child labor and human rights abuses going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to KittyWampus (Reply #150)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:08 AM

186. I think it's more a case of Slut Shaming than protecting employee safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:58 PM

137. How the HELL do you get the money shot if the dude is wearing a condom?

Isn't that how every porn movie ends?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:16 AM

157. Stunt penis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:23 AM

160. Post production editing, retouching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #160)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:49 PM

178. Where others see unwanted government intrusion...

... some see a business opportunity. Movie makers could erase condoms just like they erase wires in action films.

Heck, porn makers could just use computer generated nudity for everything. The actors could all be wearing full body protective suits. Porn stars could have safe, secure careers lasting forty years, maintaining their youthful appearance for all of it, never having skin-on-skin sexual contact with any of their co-stars.

It would work like this scene did in Pirates of the Caribbean:



http://www.awn.com/articles/brilliant-vfx-year-oscar-nominees-say-why

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #178)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:09 PM

181. I swear, you just posted what I had in mind. You may have hit upon the near future of pron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:40 AM

165. Well. . . .

he pulls out with condom on, slides condom off, and lets it spew. Nobody saying there won't be "cum" shots, but during insertive sex, condoms are to be worn. Penis comes out of whatever orifice it's in, condom can come off. Condom is there to protect the partner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:22 PM

174. editing

So much of it is edited anyway it wouldn't be noticed. Just like regular movie making most of the action ends up on the cutting room floor.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:28 AM

161. This is actually a public-healh issue. . .

Testing individuals doesn't help a lot in cases like this, as people who become infected don't test positive for HIV at first yet are still very infectious.

Porn is a business. Porn actors are copulating primarily for $ and to entertain the public. This is not a free speech issue.

Other businesses must follow OSHA regulations to protect their employees. This is no different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:29 AM

162. What if a law were passed forbidding the use of stuntpeople in films?

All because of safety concerns, of course. Would that be an acceptable infringement upon the filmmakers' expression?

Not in any way addressing the social implications of porn nor the impact upon its performers, its audience, or the public at large. Simply isolating it to the 1st Amendment challenge that's being raised here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #162)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:16 PM

182. Actually, working conditions for stunt actors

are regulated -- studios have to follow the rules. There are also regulations now around the use of animals in films, for instance, no trip wires for horses.

Regulating something isn't the same as "forbidding" something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:11 PM

167. "a financial burden that studios could not bear."...

Riiight.... 'cause a box of condoms is sooooooooooo much more expensive than an Industry-wide HIV scare...

Unless you're doing customer specific or mass internet saturation work, running a porn "Studio" is a dumb idea in the modern age, and getting dumber every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #167)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:34 PM

169. Consumers don't want to watch porn with condoms

proven fact that it doesn't sell as well. That's what they mean by financial hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #169)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:36 PM

176. they can edit or airbrush the condoms out. It's LA. They can find people capable of doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #169)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:15 PM

177. ahhhh...well then I'll concede your point, (and the industries as well)

but isn't that a bit like a consumer saying that they prefer French Fries without salt, because it's healthier?
It's PORN. Anyone who thinks theyre getting a "quality product" out of the exchange strikes me as just a tad holier-than-thou on the consumer happiness scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:58 PM

172. my shithead family that is in this business have already left for Phoenix.

I can think of no greater loss to the community than than my cousin's fetish videos are no longer being filmed in West Hollywood. I'm counting the days till they are camping out with Sheriff Joe since antics that got them trespass warnings in L.A. will probably get them thrown in jail in Phoenix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:20 PM

183. I side with the porn industry.

Not for the reasons one might wish to joke about. I think the lawyers are right, and yes, I think it is a free speech issue, at least in the way speech has most recently been defined.

Now let this go to court and see what affect iyt might have down the road on Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #183)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:24 PM

184. if you have time could elaborate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread