4 ms·

Or the law could require both condom use and std tests

KirinDave 17y ago
The point of the article is that it seems like the law is pointless and only introduces complications and special cases to existing laws. And the simple truth is you cannot stop pornography from being produced, you'll just turn it into a black-market affair. That may be an acceptable problem for certain types of exploitative porn, but for the general body of pornography it's generally a bad idea.
- dkarl 17y ago
  The point of the article is to miss the point. It frames the condom requirement as a protective measure for performers, a possibly flawed solution that threatens to cost lives by pushing some performers outside the very effective safety regime that is already in place. However, that is not the intent at all. The intent is to require the porn industry to portray safe(r) sex. The movies do not portray professionals in a highly regulated industry having sex with each other in a professional setting. They portray people routinely having unprotected sex at the drop of a hat with whatever babysitter, repairman, job applicant, or high school student who happens to be nearby. Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen.
  - omgsean 17y ago
    But people don't want to watch that. The barrier to entry for creating and distributing porn is so low these days that it's almost guaranteed to just push more of the industry into the "amateur" realm.
    - dkarl 17y ago
      Yeah, that's a good argument. It should be discussed and balanced against the true intent of the legislation, not against the phony and disingenuous idea that it's meant to protect performers.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen. So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover up our profound failures in sexual education? The last 15 years have seen schools engaging in the most ridiculous forms of sexual education imaginable, and then we wonder why people don't make informed decisions. It must be the porn. It's this kind of authoritarian control-their-thoughts logic that gives rise to all sorts of absurd laws. It's not even clear that it'll do anything. It's legislation for the sake of itself. So we can have that discussion, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere for that argument.
    - dkarl 17y ago
      So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover up our profound failures in sexual education? I'm pretty sure all the supporters of this legislation are strongly in favor of comprehensive, explicit sex education in public schools. The idea that they're working to undermine sex education by using porn as a distraction is ludicrous. If anything, condoms in porn will increase the credibility of sex education in kids' eyes. We know kids are skeptical what they're taught in the public schools is artificial, idealistic BS that will never fly in the real situations they're faced with. (And who can blame them?) We know they're not just influenced by porn but often consciously turn to it as a source of information about sex. Seeing condoms in porn, even if they're only used in 10% of the porn they see, encourages them to think, "Huh, I guess real people actually do this. It's a normal practice that I can reasonably demand of my partners without being a total priss/dweeb." The legislation won't do anything to either promote or discourage better sex ed, but it will make it easier for students to trust the sex ed that is actually offered to them. In what way could it possibly detract from sexual education?
      - barry-cotter 17y ago
        Sex education has no credibility. Abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, but guess what? Neither does any other kind. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp Lack of contraceptive education effectiveness http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/ http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_se...
  - pfedor 17y ago
    This may be their true intent, but they chose not to pursue this goal directly (I'm guessing because a direct attack on free speech would have less chance of succeeding). Instead, they're filing a complaint with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. "we see it as our duty to pursue action on the issue of safety in the workplace": http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-calosha.html http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-ca...
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
zngtk4 17y ago
What about this point? >Second, condom-only regulation would also encourage a black market in adult film production. So movies featuring no-condom sex would not only still exist, but those actors and actresses would no longer be required to participate in the industry's HIV testing program, increasing the risk of an HIV outbreak in the industry and the population at large. One need only look at prostitution to see what happens when an industry operates underground.
jrockway 17y ago
It should also make an exemption for allowing employers to refuse to hire HIV-positive actors. In most cases, this would be horribly discriminatory... but when your job involves putting your sex organs inside other people's bodies... I don't think that restricting the job to the HIV-negative is going to be too damaging to society :)
- Confusion 17y ago
  If HIV infected surgeons are allowed to operate, why shouldn't HIV infected persons be allowed to act in a porn movie?
  - presidentender 17y ago
    They should be. But producers should be able to choose not to hire them.
  - nudded 17y ago
    that entirely depends on the precautions taken.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Because the surgeons aren't spraying their bodily fluids into you.
    - dunmalg 17y ago
      And nobody using a scalpel EVER accidentally cuts themselves
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Do you have figures for the number of surgeons who cut themselves during a procedure?
  - pyre 17y ago
    I think this may be a place where anti-discrimination and OSHA bump up against each other. If producers can't turn down HIV-infected actors, then aren't they endangering their HIV-negative actors? To answer your question, the risk of a condom breaking is much higher than a surgeon getting bodily fluids into a patient. Sexual intercourse necessarily involves production of bodily fluids with nothing but the condom to contain them. A surgeon is not required to produce highly infectious fluids as part of performing an operation. If a latex glove breaks during an operation what are the chances that some HIV-infected fluids will leak out and into the patient? What are the chances that an actor/actress will be infected when a condom full of HIV-positive semen breaks inside of them?

The point of the article is that it seems like the law is pointless and only introduces complications and special cases to existing laws. And the simple truth is you cannot stop pornography from being produced, you'll just turn it into a black-market affair. That may be an acceptable problem for certain types of exploitative porn, but for the general body of pornography it's generally a bad idea.

dkarl 17y ago
The point of the article is to miss the point. It frames the condom requirement as a protective measure for performers, a possibly flawed solution that threatens to cost lives by pushing some performers outside the very effective safety regime that is already in place. However, that is not the intent at all. The intent is to require the porn industry to portray safe(r) sex. The movies do not portray professionals in a highly regulated industry having sex with each other in a professional setting. They portray people routinely having unprotected sex at the drop of a hat with whatever babysitter, repairman, job applicant, or high school student who happens to be nearby. Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen.
- omgsean 17y ago
  But people don't want to watch that. The barrier to entry for creating and distributing porn is so low these days that it's almost guaranteed to just push more of the industry into the "amateur" realm.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    Yeah, that's a good argument. It should be discussed and balanced against the true intent of the legislation, not against the phony and disingenuous idea that it's meant to protect performers.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  > Whether that's a good enough reason to require condom is worthy of discussion, but this guy evidently doesn't want that discussion to happen. So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover up our profound failures in sexual education? The last 15 years have seen schools engaging in the most ridiculous forms of sexual education imaginable, and then we wonder why people don't make informed decisions. It must be the porn. It's this kind of authoritarian control-their-thoughts logic that gives rise to all sorts of absurd laws. It's not even clear that it'll do anything. It's legislation for the sake of itself. So we can have that discussion, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere for that argument.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    So is unprotected-sex pornography the newest scapegoat we're erecting to cover up our profound failures in sexual education? I'm pretty sure all the supporters of this legislation are strongly in favor of comprehensive, explicit sex education in public schools. The idea that they're working to undermine sex education by using porn as a distraction is ludicrous. If anything, condoms in porn will increase the credibility of sex education in kids' eyes. We know kids are skeptical what they're taught in the public schools is artificial, idealistic BS that will never fly in the real situations they're faced with. (And who can blame them?) We know they're not just influenced by porn but often consciously turn to it as a source of information about sex. Seeing condoms in porn, even if they're only used in 10% of the porn they see, encourages them to think, "Huh, I guess real people actually do this. It's a normal practice that I can reasonably demand of my partners without being a total priss/dweeb." The legislation won't do anything to either promote or discourage better sex ed, but it will make it easier for students to trust the sex ed that is actually offered to them. In what way could it possibly detract from sexual education?
    - barry-cotter 17y ago
      Sex education has no credibility. Abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, but guess what? Neither does any other kind. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp Lack of contraceptive education effectiveness http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/ http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_se...
- pfedor 17y ago
  This may be their true intent, but they chose not to pursue this goal directly (I'm guessing because a direct attack on free speech would have less chance of succeeding). Instead, they're filing a complaint with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. "we see it as our duty to pursue action on the issue of safety in the workplace": http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-calosha.html http://www.aidshealth.org/news/press-releases/ahf-to-file-ca...

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

zngtk4 17y ago

What about this point? >Second, condom-only regulation would also encourage a black market in adult film production. So movies featuring no-condom sex would not only still exist, but those actors and actresses would no longer be required to participate in the industry's HIV testing program, increasing the risk of an HIV outbreak in the industry and the population at large. One need only look at prostitution to see what happens when an industry operates underground.

jrockway 17y ago

It should also make an exemption for allowing employers to refuse to hire HIV-positive actors. In most cases, this would be horribly discriminatory... but when your job involves putting your sex organs inside other people's bodies... I don't think that restricting the job to the HIV-negative is going to be too damaging to society :)

Confusion 17y ago
If HIV infected surgeons are allowed to operate, why shouldn't HIV infected persons be allowed to act in a porn movie?
- presidentender 17y ago
  They should be. But producers should be able to choose not to hire them.
- nudded 17y ago
  that entirely depends on the precautions taken.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Because the surgeons aren't spraying their bodily fluids into you.
  - dunmalg 17y ago
    And nobody using a scalpel EVER accidentally cuts themselves
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      Do you have figures for the number of surgeons who cut themselves during a procedure?
- pyre 17y ago
  I think this may be a place where anti-discrimination and OSHA bump up against each other. If producers can't turn down HIV-infected actors, then aren't they endangering their HIV-negative actors? To answer your question, the risk of a condom breaking is much higher than a surgeon getting bodily fluids into a patient. Sexual intercourse necessarily involves production of bodily fluids with nothing but the condom to contain them. A surgeon is not required to produce highly infectious fluids as part of performing an operation. If a latex glove breaks during an operation what are the chances that some HIV-infected fluids will leak out and into the patient? What are the chances that an actor/actress will be infected when a condom full of HIV-positive semen breaks inside of them?