General Discussion

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)

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

Reply to Tempest (Reply #117)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:32 PM

Jan 2013

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

186 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Porn producer Vivid Entertainment sues LA County over condom rule [View all] alp227 Jan 2013 OP

It's a financial burden? XemaSab Jan 2013 #1

In so far as it hurts their sales. Porn with condoms just doesn't sell as well, Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #2

What ever happened to pulling out? TheGov97 Jan 2013 #3

Umm... By then it's far too late Tempest Jan 2013 #5

I think the condom measure was a way to get the porn industry out of L.A. flamingdem Jan 2013 #4

Actually, no. Tempest Jan 2013 #6

Actually The Rate of Infection Among Porn Performers is Far Lower Than The General Population Yavin4 Jan 2013 #8

lol wut redqueen Jan 2013 #9

They're as wrong as they can be. See my response. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #11

Oh trust me, I know. redqueen Jan 2013 #13

From what I can piece together, the national average is under 20%. LA porn stars at 28%. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #15

Let's Cut to the Chase, Shall We? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #30

Do you know what a strawman is? Because it sure doesn't appear so. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #40

Dead wrong Tempest Jan 2013 #10

"Porn Performer" Could Mean Anyone Yavin4 Jan 2013 #29

This is about the corporate porn industry in L.A. Tempest Jan 2013 #36

however, MNBrewer Jan 2013 #68

Even if it's off by 10%, it's still a much higher rate than Nevada prostitutes Tempest Jan 2013 #101

It's not a valid comparison regardless MNBrewer Jan 2013 #125

This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #14

So what? Why should the presence of a camera and a paycheck make a difference where personal freedom phleshdef Jan 2013 #39

Ah, a conservative's wet dream Tempest Jan 2013 #41

Actually no, anti-sexual freedom, controlling sex, etc... that would be closer to a modern day... phleshdef Jan 2013 #42

I have no problem with sexual freedom when its done responsibly Tempest Jan 2013 #43

The government has no business regulating "sexual responsibility". phleshdef Jan 2013 #47

That is an immature and irresponsible response Tempest Jan 2013 #49

Its takes 2 (or more) to tango. phleshdef Jan 2013 #51

So workers are "free" to work in unsafe conditions dictated by their bosses? Same for mine workers? KittyWampus Jan 2013 #64

This guy is a poster child on why these laws are necessary and he doesn't even realize it. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #67

Oh and just what are you suggesting? phleshdef Jan 2013 #74

False equivalency. phleshdef Jan 2013 #71

Private citizens ARE free to their sexual freedom & condomless sex. Employees are not acting as KittyWampus Jan 2013 #76

A paycheck doesn't make any difference. Sexual freedom is sexual freedom. phleshdef Jan 2013 #79

OMG that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #124

OH MY GODZ!!! THATS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!!!! phleshdef Jan 2013 #144

It most certainly DOES change one's right to protections from employer abuse KittyWampus Jan 2013 #151

They can find another job AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #168

You realize you can say the same thing about any other workplace, right? thucythucy Jan 2013 #180

Do you also agree that obese people should not be given access blueamy66 Jan 2013 #163

No, "freedom" to work under any conditions is a conservative's wet dream gollygee Jan 2013 #86

but - is this a personal freedom issue or a worker safety issue? hedgehog Jan 2013 #55

Then make the employers responsible for paying for their healthcare. phleshdef Jan 2013 #57

Are you aware that antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is out there? hedgehog Jan 2013 #59

Yes. I'm also aware that the presence of a camera and a paycheck aren't required to spread it. phleshdef Jan 2013 #61

But the presence of a camera owned/operated by & for someone else mean you are an employee KittyWampus Jan 2013 #69

Which is exactly why I'm fine with requiring THOROUGH testing. phleshdef Jan 2013 #87

Porn actors are considered either employees or independent contractors Tempest Jan 2013 #88

My kitchen at home has different rules than a kitchen in a restaurant has gollygee Jan 2013 #89

The porn industry would disappear if they were required to pay for their healthcare. Tempest Jan 2013 #70

I highly doubt that. But thats a classical Randian argument. phleshdef Jan 2013 #90

You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Tempest Jan 2013 #103

I know plenty about it. But thats neither here nor there. phleshdef Jan 2013 #106

So there shouldn't be laws protecting health/welfare of miners. Just let the mine owners foot the KittyWampus Jan 2013 #66

Would that be the same "personal freedom" to work in an unstabilized ditch? Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #170

Hello, San Francisco! nt MrScorpio Jan 2013 #7

And S.F. will pass a law when their costs escalate beyond control. Tempest Jan 2013 #12

Geez... at least be honest about your dishonesty cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #16

This might be a workplace issue gollygee Jan 2013 #18

It *might* be a lot of things cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #19

So you ignore people you disagree with. Tempest Jan 2013 #21

Very much a work place issue Tempest Jan 2013 #22

So, Then Football Should Be Banned, Right? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #31

Football should definitely be banned. It's barbaric. nt valerief Jan 2013 #34

And they have taken steps to minimize head injuries. Tempest Jan 2013 #35

This law does NOTHING to make the "porn industry" safer Yavin4 Jan 2013 #130

It most certainly DOES make the sexual contact safer and less liable to result in AIDS etc. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #153

First of all, the new law doesn't "ban" porn, thucythucy Jan 2013 #37

Not the first strawman he's thrown out there Tempest Jan 2013 #44

OK I'll play. Make the NFL a touch football league? krawhitham Jan 2013 #45

No, but it's guaranteed it will be played differently with more things becoming illegal. Like NASCAR KittyWampus Jan 2013 #154

Snapping opponents heads/necks back is an illegal move. They must wear helmets. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #152

This is about an industry that is socializing its costs while privatizing their profits. Tempest Jan 2013 #20

One of many gollygee Jan 2013 #24

The Bain Capital business model. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #25

L.A. porn industry has a much higher rate than the general population Tempest Jan 2013 #26

Poor People Have a higher rate of STDs than Rich People Yavin4 Jan 2013 #32

Nothing to do with the workplace, now does it? Tempest Jan 2013 #33

Amen blueamy66 Jan 2013 #164

Not really. MNBrewer Jan 2013 #113

Your study is actors who said "I'm sick" jeff47 Jan 2013 #134

How exactly would this cost the city money? Did we get single payer national HC while I was asleep? JVS Jan 2013 #155

Unusual economic hardship... nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #17

Meanwhile, lesbian porn producers respond, "So?" derby378 Jan 2013 #28

Condoms are people too jpak Jan 2013 #23

Really In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #27

I'm still of the mind that consenting adults should be able to have sex any way they want. phleshdef Jan 2013 #38

The problem is they're not being responsible about it. Tempest Jan 2013 #46

I don't care. Keep your damn laws off my body. phleshdef Jan 2013 #48

You act as if there's no victims Tempest Jan 2013 #50

People who knowingly spread an STD should be prosecuted. Porn or no porn. phleshdef Jan 2013 #52

The problem is many don't know and Marc was one of them. Tempest Jan 2013 #53

No. Its irrelevant. Shit happens when you are having sex with a lot of people. phleshdef Jan 2013 #54

It really bothers you, doesn't it, that some people are sex workers thucythucy Jan 2013 #142

LOL, what a phony argument. You don't even believe the nonsense you just said. phleshdef Jan 2013 #145

I absolutely believe what I said, based on your insistence thucythucy Jan 2013 #147

Moronic. Not even deserving of further response. phleshdef Jan 2013 #166

Yeah, advocating worker safety. How moronic. thucythucy Jan 2013 #173

So - instead of requiring that actors wear condoms because that would be hedgehog Jan 2013 #56

Yup. I would. Because its none of your damn business whether I ever wear a condom. phleshdef Jan 2013 #58

It may be your business, but what about the right of the other actors to hedgehog Jan 2013 #60

They can choose to not engage in sex with anyone that can't provide proof of recent testing. phleshdef Jan 2013 #63

But recent testing doesn't solve the problem - check out the statistics hedgehog Jan 2013 #72

Sexual freedoms are different. phleshdef Jan 2013 #77

Workplace quakerboy Jan 2013 #126

Then if people want to film porn, they should know there are risk. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #104

Exactly. Its not like porn is some crucial industry anyway. phleshdef Jan 2013 #107

But doesn't it make sense to minimize the chance of the risks? Tempest Jan 2013 #111

It makes sense. But it also makes sense to outlaw alcohol and tobacco. phleshdef Jan 2013 #114

Strawman. No one is talking about outlawing the porn industry. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #120

Not a strawman because I never said anyone was. phleshdef Jan 2013 #121

THis is exactly why workplace protections exist gollygee Jan 2013 #141

Again with the football analogy. thucythucy Jan 2013 #179

This guy is a classic Ayn Randian. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #78

Thats an idiotic statement. phleshdef Jan 2013 #80

Your politics are only as liberal as your willingness to protect workers health & safety. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #85

EXACTLY! He's a classic Ayn Rand follower. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #93

Stop cowering behind that argument. Its nonsense. phleshdef Jan 2013 #95

I'm fine with protecting workers safety up and to the point of regulating sexuality. phleshdef Jan 2013 #94

Your politics are not liberal if you believe in no regulation Tempest Jan 2013 #91

Oh wait. So let me get this straight. phleshdef Jan 2013 #97

You are sidestepping the question - forcing actors to wear a condom may be intrusive, hedgehog Jan 2013 #62

Intrusiveness is warranted where malicious acts are concerned. phleshdef Jan 2013 #65

But - how do you prove that a person knowingly gave another person a disease? hedgehog Jan 2013 #75

You can't unless they've been tested and many are not tested. Tempest Jan 2013 #82

They should be tested better and more frequently. phleshdef Jan 2013 #99

The same way we already do. If they tested positive for it and went out and had sex... phleshdef Jan 2013 #84

This message was self-deleted by its author Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #171

It is if you are an employee and your employer is forcing you to work in unsafe conditions. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #83

No one is being forced to do anything. Its fucking porno. phleshdef Jan 2013 #100

You are very dense Tempest Jan 2013 #108

To a certain degree. But I don't expect 100% safety. phleshdef Jan 2013 #110

"Keep your damn laws off my body....Not that I would ever work in porn myself..." thucythucy Jan 2013 #138

Wow, too many insane arguments there to count. phleshdef Jan 2013 #143

Coal mines and the sets of porn films are both work places thucythucy Jan 2013 #146

The 28% Study That You Cite Is Dubious Yavin4 Jan 2013 #131

As mentioned elsewhere, there's enormous problems with your 28% figure. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2013 #135

Employees are due certain protections against unsafe working conditions. You agree with Bush/Cheney KittyWampus Jan 2013 #81

But he's a liberal, remember? Tempest Jan 2013 #96

Yea. I'm a liberal and you are a sex nazi. Thats pretty much where we stand. phleshdef Jan 2013 #102

Godwin's law. You lose. Tempest Jan 2013 #105

You don't know what Godwin's law actually is. phleshdef Jan 2013 #112

And Nazis did come up. By you. Godwin's Law. You lose. Tempest Jan 2013 #117

No one loses because it comes up. But I'm glad you found something new to cower behind. phleshdef Jan 2013 #119

Of course not. But sexual freedom isn't being compromised by enforcing mining regulations. phleshdef Jan 2013 #116

But what if there's a regulation thucythucy Jan 2013 #185

So, Boxers and MMA Fighters Should Be Required to Wear Head Gear Yavin4 Jan 2013 #129

Boxers ARE required to wear head gear thucythucy Jan 2013 #139

Amateur boxers wear headgear. Pro's do not. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #159

Thanks for the clarification. thucythucy Jan 2013 #175

http://www.livestrong.com/article/244343-safety-rules-for-boxing/ KittyWampus Jan 2013 #148

Why should the fact that they're sex workers mean they shouldn't get workplace gollygee Jan 2013 #109

Seems unAmerican to me. Tempest Jan 2013 #115

They should get workplace protection, as long as it doesn't compromise sexual freedom. phleshdef Jan 2013 #118

This is so not about sexual freedom. Kalidurga Jan 2013 #136

I think there are people here who believe sex workers don't DESERVE protection. thucythucy Jan 2013 #140

If they weren't getting paid for it I would be in complete agreement with you Major Nikon Jan 2013 #156

I don't see the big deal its just a condom Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #73

And they're proven to work Tempest Jan 2013 #98

Condoms = Gun Laws ,another words it's yours to bare... orpupilofnature57 Jan 2013 #92

Come on;)...The porn industry is advanced enough to know how to film with condoms and look... Tikki Jan 2013 #122

I'm thinking they could easily be airbrushed/retouched out of the pix. It's not like porn watchers KittyWampus Jan 2013 #149

Maybe they can make hard core porn more tasteful too Democratopia Jan 2013 #123

The biggest growing segment of porn is porn catering to women. Tempest Jan 2013 #127

Dumb law Jmac2 Jan 2013 #128

Are you really equating a condom with a swim suit Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #133

This has nothing to do with shutting down a business. It's about protecting employees safety. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #150

Personal Protective Equipment Major Nikon Jan 2013 #158

I think it's more a case of Slut Shaming than protecting employee safety. MNBrewer Jan 2013 #186

This message was self-deleted by its author Arcanetrance Jan 2013 #132

How the HELL do you get the money shot if the dude is wearing a condom? Bay Boy Jan 2013 #137

Stunt penis? Major Nikon Jan 2013 #157

Post production editing, retouching. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #160

Where others see unwanted government intrusion... hunter Jan 2013 #178

I swear, you just posted what I had in mind. You may have hit upon the near future of pron. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #181

Well. . . . BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #165

editing TorchTheWitch Jan 2013 #174

This is actually a public-healh issue. . . BigDemVoter Jan 2013 #161

What if a law were passed forbidding the use of stuntpeople in films? Orrex Jan 2013 #162

Actually, working conditions for stunt actors thucythucy Jan 2013 #182

"a financial burden that studios could not bear."... Volaris Jan 2013 #167

Consumers don't want to watch porn with condoms taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #169

they can edit or airbrush the condoms out. It's LA. They can find people capable of doing it. KittyWampus Jan 2013 #176

ahhhh...well then I'll concede your point, (and the industries as well) Volaris Jan 2013 #177

my shithead family that is in this business have already left for Phoenix. Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #172

I side with the porn industry. Stinky The Clown Jan 2013 #183

if you have time could elaborate? KittyWampus Jan 2013 #184