The passage of the law created an outcry Wednesday in the adult entertainment industry. Porn producers have long said consumers will not purchase movies in which actors wear condoms and on Wednesday, executives and directors once again threatened to move from long-time production sites in the San Fernando Valley to other California counties, Las Vegas or Hungary, Europe's center of adult moviemaking....I look forward to reading the Free Speech arguments!
In a letter to county supervisors, the head of an industry lobbying group called the law "untenable for adult production" and said the group was preparing a lawsuit to stop it from going into effect on 1st Amendment and other grounds.
ADDED: Everyone knows that an ejaculation is a part of speech. Oxford English Dictionary definition:
The putting up of short earnest prayers in moments of emergency; the hasty utterance of words expressing emotion.
Posts
152 comments:
Guess what else happens when you socialize health care and insurance?
You don't get real porn.
You might as well ask them to have a plot.
Or acting.
I look forward to reading the Free Speech arguments!
Like a corporation... the male penis is a person with its own thoughts and needs.
Looks like Trojan Man (a USC grad?) is going to have work beyond his radio commercial job.
Free Range Porn!
We demand
Free Range Porn!
No artificial additives!
I thought I'd invented the term "Free Range Porn," but a Google search proved otherwise...
The linked article is nowhere near as interesting as you might hope. It's the predictable "porn must be rethought in accordance with feminism bullshit."
The state of California might as well just admit they won't be happy until they've driven all businesses out of here.
Stories like this will be useful, when California comes looking for a federal bailout of their broken state government and insolvent public employee pension systems.
There can never be too many fringe-social-freak stories out of California. We need to stockpile them for later use when it comes down to their wanting U.S. taxpayer money.
New Job created: Penis Inspector.
Did LA fund a condom inspector?
What are the job qualifications?
Will they be "handled" under State OSHA?
If one is allergic to latex, does ADA or EEOC have juristiction?
Or is this just another unfunded mandate?
Letting the entire public decide what should be a law leads only to chaos, because there are always people out there who think they know best about what just absolutely must be done. For the good of everyone, you understand.
Some of those guys protesting in favor of making other guys wear condoms seem like they'd be up for the job of Penis Inspector. Win-win.
It violates equal protection.
Talk about being hung with your own petard...
Julie C said...
The state of California might as well just admit they won't be happy until they've driven all businesses out of here.
It wasn't a state-wide ballot measure--L.A. only--the same voters who overwhelminging went for Obama and tax the rich. Who are these people, demographically?
"If you have a hot dog stand, you apply for a permit and periodically a health inspector comes out and determines whether you're operating safely, so you don't give food poisoning to people," Weinstein said. "We have 134 businesses that require county permits. Why is this so exotic?"
He noted that the county has required sex clubs and bathhouses to obtain government permits since 2006.
You soon will need a permit to get a permit. Unfortunately, you don't need a permit to require people to get a permit.
Duh, it is a restriction on the artistic content aimed only at video, that is, speech. Clearly an equal protection problem as well unless EVERYONE is require to use one. Cripes, any lefty could easily find it unconstitutional. Griswold, Griswold!!!!!!
When people see actors in pornographic movies having intercourse without protection, it makes them more likely to so themselves.
Similarly, when people watch I Love Lucy, it makes them more likely to attempt wrapping candies on a rapidly accelerating conveyor belt.
That television show was a nuisance to public safety, and I'm glad it's no longer on the air. People cannot be expected to distinguish fiction from reality.
Oh, good. The plumber just showed up. I'm going to go answer the door as seductively as possible and ask if he's "got a snake for my pipes." Booooo condoms!
Why are people paying for porn?
Hahaha! I just thought: Of some poor guy going home for Christmas and his parents are all,
"So, with unemployment so high in California, have you gotten a job yet?"
And he's all,
"Yeah, actually...I did."
"And what is it? Tell us about it?"
"I go around to porn sites and make sure the actors are wearing condoms when they're fucking."
"Oh...well, it is the Obama Economy! Be thankful for what you can get."
Letting the entire public decide what should be a law leads only to chaos, because there are always people out there who think they know best about what just absolutely must be done. For the good of everyone, you understand.
Are you saying people are phallible?
Keep your laws off my body!
Fucking Democrats always trying to tell other people what to do.
A couple of years ago, I re-read "War of the Worlds" when my son read it for school. I found the sentence below in chapter 14. I still wonder if HG Wells meant for a double entendre.
His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating.
Regulating porn = safety.
Regulating Planned Parenthood = trampling rights.
More stupidity from my state. Ban activity that will simply be done elsewhere with no effect other than to reduce tax income for your own services. The same voters who voted for an energy tax on themselves, who are already paying some of the highest energy prices in the nation, all so that they can pretend to stop global warming on the whole planet. The state who just decided to raise taxes on businesses as it already loses them faster than anywhere else on the planet.
The stupid is strong here on the left coast. Come to California, where even the average are above average.
Bagoh-
Congratulations on Prop 30.
Forward!
The NY Daily News had a predictably droll time with this story, which it headlined “Los Angeles porn industry in stiff opposition to referendum forcing actors to wear condoms on sets.” It included such turns of phrase as “Hollywood porn titans are threatening to pull out of Los Angeles County . . .” and that the referendum’s “victory could quickly go soft . . .” God, I love the Daily News.
I remember reading that some of the Justices were uncomfortable with using the word "Fuck" in Cohen (was it Cohen?), the "Fuck the Draft" free speech case.
I wonder what additional words/phrases could be generated in this case.
I regret not coming up with a suitable double entendre for this post.
S Thomas, I don't even want to know what "free range porn" is.
OK, I'm a little curious....
OH MY GOD!!!!!
It violates equal protection.
I cant beat that.
Honestly, I don't know how you do it, Bagoh. Good luck out there.
"It violates equal protection."
I think it sounds more like the twisted 1973 version of Due Process.
Kind of like "A man has the right to make his own decisions about his body."
And if you have the right to use them, you have the right to not use them. The inverse of Griswold, if you will.
Really highlights the silliness of some of our constitutional jurisprudence.
So if the inspector gets there in the middle of a scene:
Inspector: "OK, stop a second, and pull that out so I can take a look at it."
Oops - facial.
Director: "Cut, and that's a wrap. Same time tomorrow people."
Chikelit -
I'm aware it was a County measure only. But add it in with everything else this state is doing and it highlights just how silly we are. The Democrats in Sacramento now have a super-majority and I can only imagine what else they have in store for us. Gives me nightmares actually.
Why are people paying for porn?
In NJ we call it pay to play.
This ordinance will be cast off before the money's shot.
For First Amendment purposes, there is a large difference between private conduct and commercial activities.
Here, we are not talking about two consenting adults having unprotected sex in the privacy of their bedrooms. Rather, we are speaking of two paid performers having sex in a room of paid people who are filming it and then selling the video/film for profit.
Even if one could articulate the "speech" or "idea" that is being expressed with sex acts culminating in being able to see sperm shooting out, the commercial aspect of this places a very low hurdle for government to meet in imposing the regulation for public health purposes.
So the adult entertainment industry and the Catholic Church agree, condoms ruin sex.
One might have a fundamental right to say something. But that does not then translate into having a fundamental right to make money in saying that thing.
Of course, if the porn industry is willing to give away its "speech" for free, then that would present a different question.
How is this law even enforceable, at all? Just don't inform the government of your filming location so they aren't on the set.
Govt: "Hey, in all the movies you released last month, no one is wearing a condom!"
PornCo: "All you can see in the background is the wall of a bedroom. Prove it was filmed in your jurisdiction! We filmed in, um, Nevada last month".
The Secret Service will serve as the courts amicus curiae.
I've already contacted the Nevada economic development people to see if they want a hundred new employed tax payers to move in. I'll probably go there next week to scout for locations.
Not that we're in the porn business, but isn't everyone in some way?
Now we are all John Holmes.
The performers are tested regularly, and thus the financial impact of the regulation far exceeds any possible safety benefit. Unfortunately, the courts decided long ago that violations of economic rights aren't subject to strict scrutiny. So I don't like the industry's chances of prevailing in court, here.
Aplication are coming in...
California has finally fucked itself stupid at this point and there is no going back. They now have a democrat super majority. Republicans in the state house and senate are just there as toys to be trifled with. Nothing more. California as a state is finished. They've now already will begin taxing themselves into oblivion and the mass exodus will only get worse. Even the porn industry is getting the hint. They are already looking elsewhere for succor.
I voted for it.
So, I'm the demographic.
Why? I'm a social conservative and this offered me a way to help shape my community. Their going elsewhere was reason why I voted for it.
Abstinence only education doesn't work, after all...
"If they want taxpayer financed benefits, then they will submit to taxpayer scrutiny
I wonder if Sandra Fluke agrees with that.
If they want taxpayer financed benefits, then they will submit to government scrutiny.
Perhaps they did not understand the consequences of voting for redistributive change. They elected to exchange liberty for submission with benefits.
A values voter..
Courage Paddy O
"heir going elsewhere was reason why I voted for it."
Which is fine. That should have been the only argument offered, because it's the only valid one. But you will now need to make up the tax revenue, and some of those communities have become dependent on it. Watch out people, you're next.
I also voted no on every tax (sadly 30 won), I voted no on labeling food (and I agreed with my fellow Californians on that, voted against union dues (sadly California still likes unions; "I've been to Wisconsin, and California, you're no Wisconsin").
"Here, we are not talking about two consenting adults having unprotected sex in the privacy of their bedrooms. Rather, we are speaking of two paid performers having sex in a room of paid people who are filming it and then selling the video/film for profit. Even if one could articulate the "speech" or "idea" that is being expressed with sex acts culminating in being able to see sperm shooting out, the commercial aspect of this places a very low hurdle for government to meet in imposing the regulation for public health purposes."
You think the govt can censor movies because they are made for a paying crowd? Only starving artists have rights?
It seems to me that the form of expression is at one with the message. Unless you want to say this material is obscene and therefore unprotected, you are restricting speech.
For obvious reasons, porn is one of the few industries were jobs cannot be shipped over to China.
On a more serious note, could the government require all adults engaging in non pro-creative sex to use a condom (so as to cut back on sexually transimitted diseases)?
If they all wear condoms, where will the baby porn stars come from?
I know, but I'm anonymous, and thus can't control myself,
"But you will now need to make up the tax revenue"
Maybe by depleting the dependence on the Entertainment industry California can end the entertainment industry money that flows into liberal causes and politicians.
The more liberals who leave certainly take their taxes with them, but also their votes.
The law about "commercial speech" is about advertising products and services, not about artistic and theatrical productions that have a paying audience.
Surely, Larry Flint has some dirt on some CA judges that will come in handy.
"On a more serious note, could the government require all adults engaging in non pro-creative sex to use a condom (so as to cut back on sexually transimitted diseases)?"
No. But imagine the person who has to enforce this law within the industry, having to watch hours upon hours of porn checking for condom use.
bagoh20:
Of course she doesn't. She considers it an invasion of her privacy. She does not, however, consider the moral issues with progressive involuntary exploitation. It's odd that the "friend with benefits" doesn't accept responsibility and contribute for the sake of their mutual pleasure.
So, let's compromise. Taxpayers will pay for the condoms, and Flukes will support a comprehensive ban of abortion, except when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life (not livelihood or welfare).
On one hand, we have the invasion of privacy (harshing someone's mellow).
On the other hand, we have human rights violations (i.e. elective termination of innocent human life).
The choice is clear. Liberty is only suitable for individuals capable of self-moderating behavior.
"If you have a hot dog stand, you apply for a permit and periodically a health inspector comes out and determines whether you're operating safely, so you don't give food poisoning to people," Weinstein said. "We have 134 businesses that require county permits. Why is this so exotic?"
Note the inherent rationalization, that one set of regulations justifies the next. It's not even necessary for the next set of regulations to justify themselves, you just point to other regulations.
But somehow when discussing rules they like even moderates like to pretend this isn't the case. Sure, let's restrict what adults can do "for their own good", it's just tobacco. You people that say food regulation is next are nuts.
How many times can the do gooders be proven liars about their intended scope before we realize there is no limit.
"artistic and theatrical productions"
You mean that stuff is fake? They aren't really in love?
IS there a free speech argument? My guess is that any average genital penetration displaying porn movie would EASILY meet the 'community standard' obscenity (unprotected by the 1st amendment) test.
Obscenity prosecutions WIN lots of times, but nobody brings them anymore.
Its just that, since clinton, there have been no real attempts to prosecute porn any more. Frontline did a documentary on it.
Now we are all John Holmes.
Tell my wife.
Meh. I only watch lesbian porn anyway.
First they came to take the hetero porn, and I said nothing, because I only watch lesbian porn...
My guess is that any average genital penetration displaying porn movie would EASILY meet the 'community standard' obscenity (unprotected by the 1st amendment) test.
Your guess is incorrect. In order to be obscene, it must be "patently offensive" according to "community standards".
Unless the prosecutor shops around for a particularly right-wing "community" (as federal prosecutors like to do), it is essentially impossible to find twelve people who will find that ordinary sex is patently offensive. Hell, the majority of adult men in American either own porn or look at it online -- you think they'll agree that they should be arrested for possession of obscene materials? :)
Renee:
The government taketh away and the government giveth.
They can exploit Obamacare to require regular testing for HIV and other STDs. With a quality control methodology, they can infer infractions through the presence of STDs.
As the porn industry possesses greater means, they will be taxed at higher rates in order to provide this service.
Part of the fun of porn is watching the joy juice fly!
I'm liberarian. Test the porn stars. Make sure they are informed of the STD risks as a condition of employment. Basic workplace "safety" regs precautions...albeit of a different nature than most industries.
And there is absolutely no added risk of a couple that is hooked up in real life and doing "couples porn star scenes " with one another exclusively, infecting themselves in the workplace any more than in their homes.
From the article: ...the law, pushed by AIDS activists concerned about disease outbreaks, forces the establishment of a new bureaucracy...
"Gloves not Mittens" was their rallying cry.
mccullough said...
For obvious reasons, porn is one of the few industries were jobs cannot be shipped over to China.
Could be a growth industry.
From Manga comix to "race car queens" to 10,000 fetish etc vids made each year, the Japanese are world-class sex pervs.
So are the Koreans.
And Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines all have thriving sex industries.
China is behind the ball. And while the typical Chinee male may be "dinky", and the Chinee woman squat and thick-legged, there is the Yao Ming Exception that means a stable of at least a million well-hung men seeking employment plundering the wet pink orifi of comely, lithe, Chinese hotties or imported pussy.
As greedy and capitalistic as the Chinese have become, only the 80+ year old hardline end of their era Commie old guard is stopping China from mounting a lube and semen storm on Western and global porn industries.
I demand equal protection for Catholic pornographers!
I never understood porn. From an objective point of view, the whole concept is stupid. Sure, I'm a woman, but still it's the equivalent of empty calories at most. Really, looking at other people having sex as an act is entertaining?
I feel bad for addicts, because that it what is for many.
Does the vagina have a say in all this?
You think the govt can censor movies because they are made for a paying crowd?
Where is the censorship in this regulation?
Such a condom rule is not a content-based restriction because the ungloved erect penis offends the sensibilities of the people and government. It is a public health regulation.
There is no more of a speech restriction here than there is in requiring people in restaurant kitchens to wear hairnets or requiring surgeons to wear gloves during operations -- even if they film it.
They monologue... so I guess not.
"They can have my condom when they pry it from..." Never mind.
What if an actor has an allergy to latex? Are true lamb skins still made?
Sure, I'm a woman, but still it's the equivalent of empty calories at most.
Porn is to men as chocolate is to women?
There's never been a day in the last 25 years I've been proud to be his vice... or something.
The industry needs to up their game...
This is only the tip of the spear...
Am I leaving anything out?
Chocolate has health benefits, porn doesn't.
A better analogy would be Doritos.
Lem said...
Does the vagina have a say in all this?
Thi sis clearly the best question. Who are these men who think they should have a say in women's reproductive choices?
Such a condom rule is not a content-based restriction because the ungloved erect penis offends the sensibilities of the people and government. It is a public health regulation.
Well, no. It is a regulation aimed at discouraging production of pornography. "Health" is just the flimsy excuse; you're less likely to contract HIV from a 20-year-old porn performer than you are to contract it from a 20-year-old chosen at random.
A protection order against the vagina is the massagenist approach.
What's amazing is that in all these comments there is not one good lead with which to use: "That's what she said."
I know, cause I checked.
Chocolate has health benefits, porn doesn't.
Orgasm has lots of health benefits, Renee. Porn is an enjoyable vehicle for orgasm just as chocolate is an enjoyable vehicle for cholesterol-lowering chemicals. :)
I know, cause I checked.
That's what she said.
They are already looking elsewhere for succor.
And that, Methadras, IS TODAY'S WEINER...er...WINNER!!!!!
Not sure if that fits, but I thought I'd try.
Succor... it is.
Succor... didn't see it coming.
There is no more of a speech restriction here than there is in requiring people in restaurant kitchens to wear hairnets or requiring surgeons to wear gloves during operations -- even if they film it.
Not even if it has a disproportionate negative impact on the commerce?
What if an actor has an allergy to latex? Are true lamb skins still made?
That's it ... drag the animal rights activists into this thing.
It is a regulation aimed at discouraging production of pornography.
Right. The Los Angeles City Council and mayor who enacted a similar ordinance earlier, and the voters in LA County, where the present measure passed, are all a bunch of uptight bluenose prudes.
Isn't groaning with joy and physical ecstacy a form of speech? An excited utterance?
Isn't groaning with joy and physical ecstacy a form of speech? An excited utterance?
See ADDED:
An exited utterance...
I seem to remember something about an exception to the seven words you cant say on television... an exception being an exited utterance.
I know, cause I checked.
That's what she said!
Now we are all John Holmes
As I understand it, he died of AIDS he got from the porn industry. And when he first learned he was HIV-positive, he continued to make a couple of films, having unprotected sex without notifying the women involved.
I don't know about Eastern European porn but Eastern European porn actresses are a nice alternative. See VivThomas
I know, cause I checked.
That's what she said!
MadMan - See Patrick, 3:19 PM.
ndspinelli said...
What if an actor has an allergy to latex?
Swelling may ensue...
Bender I think its well established that the desparate, drug dependant, flaccid Holmes got AIDS through his involvement in homosexual activity, in particulay gay porn and prostitution. See Boogie Nights. Not sure how Lisa Deleeuw got it.
I've already contacted the Nevada economic development people to see if they want a hundred new employed tax payers to move in. I'll probably go there next week to scout for locations.
I think I'm living on a different planet. The only initiative that I voted with in common is the GM food ban. I didn't have time to make an informed position on 32, so didn't vote on it.
I was talking to a friend (the one who showed me this blog), and it turns out the vast majority of funding for proposition 39, the "Green Energy" proposition, is a hedge fund manager.
I think the porn industry itself has required checks for STDs, and keeps track of who's been with who.
You can think of lots of reasons they'd automatically do that on their own.
Goffman says that sexual intercourse can't be acted, unlike a kiss (which is taken as "acted but not meant"). A matter of what counts socially as acting and what doesn't.
Semantics matter.
Perfect job for a liberal, they like covering up dicks they work with.
"Looking forward"---With a dirty mind?
Here's a Daily News article on the same issue written a little more colorfully
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/porn-industry-stiff-opposition-condom-rule-article-1.1198315
The industry is in "stiff opposition," porn titans threaten to "pull out," because voters "rubber" stamp a ballot measure.
Tee hee...she obviously enjoyed writing this up. Reminds me of how writers for the Leave it to Beaver show reportedly slipped lines into scripts like "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night?"
" the desparate, drug dependant, flaccid Holmes got AIDS through his involvement in homosexual activity, in particulay gay porn and prostitution."
Tasting of all that life has to offer.
Semantics matter... they like covering up dicks they work with.
Devil in a Blue Dress (1995)
We are missing Pogos contribution here... I mean his professional testimony... of course.
Best thread ever!
Are porn actors in the union?
Ann,
It seems to me that the form of expression is at one with the message. Unless you want to say this material is obscene and therefore unprotected, you are restricting speech.
I confess that I don't understand how it can be legal to pay a woman to have sex only if there's a video camera running. No video, woman paid for sex = prostitution. With video = "adult film industry."
Revenant,
"Health" is just the flimsy excuse; you're less likely to contract HIV from a 20-year-old porn performer than you are to contract it from a 20-year-old chosen at random.
You think? If nothing else, your 20-year-old "porn performer" has probably had a lot more sexual partners than the median, offscreen as well as on-.
The likelihood that your basic college freshman or sophomore is HIV+ is very, very small. The likelihood that your basic young military recruit is HIV+, smaller still. If you want to find HIV+ persons age 20, you could probably find greater concentrations of them on the sidewalks of SF than in the porn industry, but that's about it.
Bruce wrote:
How is this law even enforceable, at all? Just don't inform the government of your filming location so they aren't on the set.
Wait are they actually getting people from the govt to come to the set to look at guys putting condoms on their dick?!
Maybe the can combine that job with the fluffer girls and she/he can give him an erection as well.
"Porn is an enjoyable vehicle for orgasm"
Orgasm releases the hormone Oxytocin. Oxytocin is the hormone of 'bonding', so what are you bonding with?
I always pity the women, who claim they have no problem with their male partner viewing it. It just sad, there you are and your husband rather look at porn.
There are other ways to bond, non-sexual and receive this benefits without it being addictive. Hugs and also breastfeeding for a mother/infant.
So when you use porn for the orgasm/oxytocin boost, you're essentially misusing it like a drug. And because you only see orgasms as a self-gratification purpose, you're unable to communicate love and bonding to your partner even if you have sex on a regular basis.
This is how I view it, if your husband has to view porn to have sex with you, then your body is nothing more then an extended use of his hand.
Porn is so available for young male teens. They have such a distorted view of sex is all about his gratification and not designed to bond/love/share.
Feminists use to really be proactive educating how pornography was misogynistic, to educate men and women.
Sorry I'm not a sexual aid for an oxytocin high, I'm a person.
Revenant wrote:
Well, no. It is a regulation aimed at discouraging production of pornography. "Health" is just the flimsy excuse; you're less likely to contract HIV from a 20-year-old porn performer than you are to contract it from a 20-year-old chosen at random.
hate to disagree, but thats not really true.
Because it assumes that we;re referring to porno stars that are having sex with your everyday joe.
But the question is, the odds of a porno actor/actress contracting aids from another porn actor/actress. There the odds are much higher.
The porn industry is a very closed bunch. In general they have sex with the same people and don't have sex outside of that circle. So if someone goes outside of that circle and contracts Aids, he/she will hten bring it into that circle and potentially infect all the people in that circle. Since porn stars are working from a much smaller pool than the average person the odds are much higher of them contracting aids.
Renee wrote:
So when you use porn for the orgasm/oxytocin boost, you're essentially misusing it like a drug. And because you only see orgasms as a self-gratification purpose, you're unable to communicate love and bonding to your partner even if you have sex on a regular basis.
If you use sex with your wife for the the orgasm/oxycontin boost why wouldn't you also be using it like a drug? And how are you not also engaging in self gratification when having sex with your wife/husband? I can see if you're using porn at the expense of sex with your significant other. But many use porn as a means to explore WITH your partner.
Renee wrote:
Sorry I'm not a sexual aid for an oxytocin high, I'm a person.
Not to be disrespectful, but this is the reason a lot of guys use porn when they have gf's.
Because They have such a distorted view of sex is all about his gratification and not designed to bond/love/share.
Sorry I'm not a sexual aid for an oxytocin high, I'm a person.
The problem with this is it's suggestive that sex should not be about his gratification. That's the reason guys want to do it. So even if you love the person you're having sex with it will be about his gratification (and hers). Therefore if you are not a sexual aid, but a person, then sex will not be gratifying. And thus he will seek out stuff like porn where sex on screen is such that it gets him off.
Sex in marriage is still sex. And both partners will hterefore have to act as sexual aids/objects for their spouses gratification.
Um... no I'm expressing love when I have sex. I'm not just having sex for personal gratification, who just happens to be with my husband.
It's not 'all the same', it is the intent of the action. Am I being used, or are you expressing something to me through action?
If one thinks sex is just about personal gratification and mutually satisfying one another, then it really explains why the divorce rate is so high.
Pornography is a distraction, like clutter in the bedroom. How can you really focus on your loved one, when there are other things on your mind?
Therefore if you are not a sexual aid, but a person, then sex will not be gratifying.
That should say, therefore if you take the attitude that you are not a sexual aid but a person (as if the two were mutually exclusive) then sex will not be gratifying.
I don't think guys ever think that the women they are having sex aren't people. The issue with guys treating women like sex objects may be bad in the dating world in that they are screwing women and then leaving them as if they were only there to get the guy off. But in the case of a marriage, the guy is not leaving you afterward. Therefore, why would having sex with your husband be considered objectifiying women.
Renee wrote:
PUm... no I'm expressing love when I have sex. I'm not just having sex for personal gratification, who just happens to be with my husband.
It's not 'all the same', it is the intent of the action. Am I being used, or are you expressing something to me through action?
But the activity is the same regardless of the intent. Screwing is screwing whether you are doing it with a stranger or your loved one.
What is the expressing something through action other than sexual?
Just because someone feels lust doesn't mean that they aren't in love.
or to put it another way, if you love someone you're not going to have sex differently than if you are having the one night stand. The feeling behind the action may be different but the action itself is the same.
Or take another example. If you're a good soldier or you're a nazi, when it gets down to war, killing is still killing. Yes you can separate intentions of the various parties, but its not as if the Nazis feel getting shot differently than the American's because they're nazis.
Feminists use to really be proactive educating how pornography was misogynistic, to educate men and women.
Unfortunately, Andrea Dworkin first put a face on that movement. Naomi Wolf was more credible--barely. Not sure I know Hanna Rosin's views on this but since she considers men subhuman and dispensible, it's not hard to guess.
Renee,
Nagging wives are the reason for the divorce rate.
And given your comments, I have no doubt you are either not married or your husband is a major consumer of porn.
Right. The Los Angeles City Council and mayor who enacted a similar ordinance earlier, and the voters in LA County, where the present measure passed, are all a bunch of uptight bluenose prudes.
Bender, it is rare to find a person with such an innocent view of politics. I almost hate to ruin your sunny disposition with this information. But, alas, I will.
You see, Bender, quite often a special interest group will have some goal in mind that is not especially popular with the public. In order to support laws enacting that goal, they tell the public that the law serves some interest the public DOES care about.
For example, when a union tries to get card check legislation passed, they never say "we want to make it easier to coerce people into supporting unions by making it impossible to vote against them anonymously". They say "this is about protecting worker's rights".
So no, the people of Los Angeles aren't blue-noses. They're just easily led. Sorry if this comes as a surprise to you. :)
"On a more serious note, could the government require all adults engaging in non pro-creative sex to use a condom (so as to cut back on sexually transimitted diseases)?"
No.
What makes you so sure of that?
...the voters in LA County, where the present measure passed, are all a bunch of uptight bluenose prudes.
Well, I don't know about that, but obviously the majority of them have never tried to put a condom on a donkey.
You think? If nothing else, your 20-year-old "porn performer" has probably had a lot more sexual partners than the median, offscreen as well as on-.
There are a number of factors in play here.
First, testing is regular and mandatory. An actor or actress who slept with a zillion people and picked up HIV prior to entering the industry... never actually enters the industry, because he or she fails the test.
Secondly, after entering the industry almost all of the person's partners are other people in the industry, who are (see above) tested regularly. Dating outside the industry is actually pretty rare for the obvious reason that most girlfriends/boyfriends don't like the idea of their significant other boning random other people. The exception to the above is escort work, which a not-insignificant number of actresses engage in as well -- but like all non-crack-ho prostitutes, they require condom use by their clients.
Thirdly, female-to-male HIV transmission is incredibly unlikely compared to the reverse (this of the direction the HIV-carrying fluids travel in). The pool of hetero *male* porn talent is fairly tiny and nowhere near as sexually in-demand outside of the industry as the women are.
Finally, the manner in which most porn is shot -- with external ejaculation -- has the ironic side effect of making HIV transmission a lot less likely.
In contrast, "civilian" Los Angeles is filled to the brim with idiotic heterosexual men and women who cheerfully sleep around, are bad about following safe sexual practices, and seldom if ever get themselves tested.
Whoa, how'd I miss this thread?
"are all a bunch of uptight bluenose prudes."
Well, some of us are...
For what it's worth, I agree with Renee.
And I'm not single, and I'm not a major consumer of porn.
I also don't think such distorted views are limited to porn use. It's just another in the continuing source of egocentric self-gratification.
A lot of the sources lead to terrible marriage even among those who don't consume porn.
It's definitely like a drug. Some people need it. Lots of folks justify it. But it's dancing with darkness and disintegration, so the better way is to maintain the kind of positive relationships Renee is emphasizing as a possible contrast.
It's just another in the continuing source of egocentric self-gratification.
That, and an example of the difference between pleasure and happiness.
leslyn said...
It's just in LA. They'll pick up and move north. Have porn, will travel.
Which if you think of it is a good way to foist the industry off on someone else, if that's what you want.
I have a hard time believing the porn industry will leave LA. It's the quintessential hub of all things porn and deviant. You have West Hollywood not to far away, you have the San Fernando Valley right there too. It would be a big deal for them as an industry to leave. Will this push them over the edge? Doubtful. I'm sure they will continue on as normal, satisfy the nosy regulators with onsite inspections and after they leave, off come the jackets.
Don't really know, but I would think the porn industry is pretty mobile, especially if it needs to be.
I'm not really sure how it has survived the internet this long though. I'm not sure who would be paying for it. Maybe fetish stuff, but the internet is a crazy place.
leslyn said...
Which if you think of it is a good way to foist the industry off on someone else, if that's what you want.
You know we would have all lol'd if you'd written "unload" instead of "foist."
Ventura county is right there. Orange county is easy to get to. Vegas is welcoming. Lots is shot in Florida. Or we could cede the industry to Hungary. Does anybody think Hungarian and Ukranian girls will be treated better or work under safer conditions than their American counterparts if we do?
I'd so much rather discuss this topic than the recent election.....The porn industry is its own perversion. It seems like some kind of extreme sport like skydiving where the participants are constantly testing the limits. I'd bet a lot of the performers join up not for the money but for a chance to explore their limits......There are other forms of entertainment that are equally risky. Lots of Flying Wallendas have gone splat over the years. When they appear in LA, the tightrope should be lowered to three feet above ground. Football is none too gentle on the knees and brain pans. Perhaps in LA they could play flag football. All of the excitement but no harm done to the players. I see no reason why NASCAR races cannot be held using go carts.
Nagging wives are the reason husbands watch porn.
Cheating wives are the reason for the divorce rate.
Funny that our resident expert in the gay porn industry, Zachary Paul Sire, is nowhere to be found. It's one of the few times his take on a subject would be welcome.
But there's nothing here to sneer and gloat about, so I'm not surprised he hasn't visited.
It's just another in the continuing source of egocentric self-gratification.
As opposed to altruistic self-gratification or egocentric self-exasperation, one presumes.
Seriously, though -- you do realize that literally translates to "it is another example of something people do because they enjoy it", right? I like to think our culture hasn't gone so far down the collectivist rabbit hole that all non-communal fun is viewed as deviant. Who shall we scorn next -- people who listen to rock music with headphones on? Or perhaps people who watch Netflix streaming video instead of going to the movie theater. Or reading a book on the sofa. There is such a rich banquet of pleasurable single-person activities out there, and limited time to scoff at them. :)
Revenant, rhhardin, and anyone else who thinks that the porn industry's testing schedules are sufficient, go read the archives of Mike South's blog. (Warning. Really, really NSFW. Possibly even if you work in porn.)
I'm still not sure I'd have voted for the condom measure if I were in LA County, but after reading Mike South's stories (and testimony in his blog from porn stars), I would have had to think about it, instead of just automatically voting against it.
Another industry moves to Texas.
Is this even legal under the equal protection clause?
Anthony said...
Revenant, rhhardin, and anyone else who thinks that the porn industry's testing schedules are sufficient, go read the archives of Mike South's blog. (Warning. Really, really NSFW. Possibly even if you work in porn.)
I'm still not sure I'd have voted for the condom measure if I were in LA County, but after reading Mike South's stories (and testimony in his blog from porn stars), I would have had to think about it, instead of just automatically voting against it.
They have the option to choose another line of work. The bottom line is that this regulation will have zero effect. The industry will move out of the county. If it becomes statewide they'll move to NV or AZ. If it becomes national they'll film in Canada or Mexico. If it becomes worldwide porn will go underground.
This is an exercise in self-righteousness, nothing more.
The new law regarding the use of condoms when shooting porn movies might cause some negative effects to the industry.
--Ryan| sex toys Philippines
Post a Comment