Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Porn producer Vivid Entertainment sues LA County over condom rule [View all]Response to alp227 (Original post)
Arcanetrance This message was self-deleted by its author.
Edit history
Cannot view edit history for self-deleted messages.
186 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In so far as it hurts their sales. Porn with condoms just doesn't sell as well,
Egalitarian Thug
Jan 2013
#2
Actually The Rate of Infection Among Porn Performers is Far Lower Than The General Population
Yavin4
Jan 2013
#8
From what I can piece together, the national average is under 20%. LA porn stars at 28%. n/t
Tempest
Jan 2013
#15
Even if it's off by 10%, it's still a much higher rate than Nevada prostitutes
Tempest
Jan 2013
#101
So what? Why should the presence of a camera and a paycheck make a difference where personal freedom
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#39
Actually no, anti-sexual freedom, controlling sex, etc... that would be closer to a modern day...
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#42
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
Private citizens ARE free to their sexual freedom & condomless sex. Employees are not acting as
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#76
It most certainly DOES change one's right to protections from employer abuse
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#151
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
The porn industry would disappear if they were required to pay for their healthcare.
Tempest
Jan 2013
#70
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
It most certainly DOES make the sexual contact safer and less liable to result in AIDS etc.
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#153
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
How exactly would this cost the city money? Did we get single payer national HC while I was asleep?
JVS
Jan 2013
#155
I'm still of the mind that consenting adults should be able to have sex any way they want.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#38
No. Its irrelevant. Shit happens when you are having sex with a lot of people.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#54
LOL, what a phony argument. You don't even believe the nonsense you just said.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#145
Yup. I would. Because its none of your damn business whether I ever wear a condom.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#58
They can choose to not engage in sex with anyone that can't provide proof of recent testing.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#63
Your politics are only as liberal as your willingness to protect workers health & safety.
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#85
I'm fine with protecting workers safety up and to the point of regulating sexuality.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#94
You are sidestepping the question - forcing actors to wear a condom may be intrusive,
hedgehog
Jan 2013
#62
The same way we already do. If they tested positive for it and went out and had sex...
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#84
It is if you are an employee and your employer is forcing you to work in unsafe conditions.
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#83
"Keep your damn laws off my body....Not that I would ever work in porn myself..."
thucythucy
Jan 2013
#138
Employees are due certain protections against unsafe working conditions. You agree with Bush/Cheney
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#81
Yea. I'm a liberal and you are a sex nazi. Thats pretty much where we stand.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#102
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
Why should the fact that they're sex workers mean they shouldn't get workplace
gollygee
Jan 2013
#109
They should get workplace protection, as long as it doesn't compromise sexual freedom.
phleshdef
Jan 2013
#118
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
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
This has nothing to do with shutting down a business. It's about protecting employees safety.
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#150
I swear, you just posted what I had in mind. You may have hit upon the near future of pron.
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#181
they can edit or airbrush the condoms out. It's LA. They can find people capable of doing it.
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#176
my shithead family that is in this business have already left for Phoenix.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
Jan 2013
#172