You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Coming Condom Law”.
|
|
The Coming Condom Law 14 comments to The Coming Condom LawYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
   |
|
Copyright © 2012 MikeSouth.Com - All Rights Reserved |
||
[New Post] The Coming Condom Law - via @twitoaster http://www.mikesouth.com/mike-south-comm...
Maybe I'm an idiot but I really don't get the condom issue. If a condom use is much safer, then why would someone not want to use them? It should be simple, who wants to die or get diseased from work? I just want to make money.
Condoms don't bother me when I watch porn. Is the rest of the porn buying public so against condom use that companies/performers are afraid of the backlash if they do use them?
The argument from the producers has always been, "videos with performers using condoms don't sell."
Mike: A couple of years ago, I wrote you a note that despite idiots like Rob Black, the real threat to porn was from the health department. And, you're right: Porn producers can scream all they want about freedom of expression, but the difference between porn and other plastic arts - like mainstream filmmaking - is that it's real. Those are real penises going into every conceivable orifice; that is real semen in a facial or open mouth cum shot or in vaginal and anal cream pie videos. Those are real actors and actresses putting their health at risk. My dentist, on the other hand, has to wear latex gloves and goggles just to check my teeth. And, I think it's not just mandatory condoms - what good are condoms if you still have swallowing. There is the very real possibility that the facial cum shot is at risk. Truth be told, if this were any other industry, they'd be shut down by OSHA or the health department in a heart beat. Porn can argue that they'll just go to another state, but ask yourself this: Can you think of another state that is going to say to the porn industry, "We don't care about the health of your workers, we welcome your risky sexual practices as long as they make us money." Once California does it, it will provide a model for other states. So, the next porn argument is that, well, it'll just drive it underground - if that's the case, the day of the high-priced porn chick is over. When stuff goes underground, it's harder to distribute and sell in mass quantities and that's what pays these gal's salaries. It'll also be harder than it already is to control content being cannabalized by the free states: Are underground pornographers going to go into court and complain that their illegally-produced content has been appropriated by free porn sites? Where are they going to apply for copyright? That's really death to porn companies. What's more likely is that professional companies like Vivid, Wicked, etc., have creative talent that will figure out how to play the game within the rules. You may even see the off-shoring of the industry, just like other industries. They'll seek out nearby countries where the laws might be more permissive. The argument that videos with performers using condoms don't sell is only valid if condom use is voluntary and some companies mandate them and some don't. If everyone has to use a condom, then the only way that argument would hold up is if you assume that people will simply stop watching pornography cold turkey. Remember, for years, Playboy thrived never showing pink.
BT well said and 100% spot-on...Mike and I have been talking about this issue ad-nauseum for months...in fact I even wrote an article several months back about it...AIM is obviously a joke, which incidently is the reason I have scoffed at the dozens of offers I get each and every month to go to shoot in LA. I could probably make between $15,000-25,000 at a pop going there to shoot for a couple weeks at a time but I don't want to...btw, I'm moved in and working on a new article for this blog...should be posted soon..thanks for all the kind words from everyone!
some of the biggest porn sites on the planet use condoms. its time for them to be in all productions.
Thanks, Lindsey. BTW - I'm not advocating for or against condoms in porn. As a consumer, I don't really mind seeing condoms during sex, but I do enjoy facials. All I'm saying is that I can completely understand how Cal-OSHA or the state Dept. of Health could easily pass a regulation or law that would withstand a court review. Freedom of expression does not include the right to pass on a sexually-transmitted disease. Aren't brothels in Nevada regulated, and aren't condoms mandatory?
I definitely think condoms should be taken seriously. Football players wear helmets, and performers are like athletes. The least we can do for these people who risk their health to entertain us is find a way to enjoy them even if they are wearing a condom.
All I can say for facials is that at least saliva has a lot of bacteria-killing properties. It doesn't protect the facial skin from herpes, and therefore, herpes outbreaks, but very few diseases are contracted through the mouth. And now, of course, as I type that I remember that a performer friend got gonorrhea in her throat after a scene and nearly suffocated on the way to the hospital. Never mind.
I love this post. I feel bad, Mike, for posting mine, just now, on top of this one.
never feel bad for that Julie, my readers are bright enough to scroll down and read all the new posts.
Out of all the things I have done in my 17 years in this biz I think asking you to blog was the best
Thanks BT, you turned me on to a good one.
Glad it worked out. And, Julie, the Sardo's blog is great. Nice job.
Thank you both. Gracious as ever.
Nah I just believe in giving credit where it is due.
meaning I didn't give it to you, you earned it
i'm clearly not a health expert so can someone explain what's the point of using condoms during penetration scenes when the performers still practice oral and facials unprotected? that's gotta be one of the biggest contradictions i see in porn.
I can offer you some insight, how's that.
Truth is despite what the mass media would have you believe HIV transmission, is almost non existant in gay couples who only practice unprotected oral, even when one partner is HIV positive. The HIV Virus is rather weak and saliva has been show to kill it. It also needs a direct path to the bloodstream, which oral generally doesn't provide.
Assuming you have no open sores in your mouth/on your face oral/facials are not a risky behavior for HIV transmission.
As Julie pointed out you can contract other STDs that way but it is actually a more difficult transmission method. (Thats why most prostitutes will do bare back oral but not bareback sex)
All that said if Cal-OSHA gets their fingers in this direct contact with semen is going to become unlikely, again something that would appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.
The "appearance" of condom use on the part of the industry could be argued to hold the would be legislation at bay, but we will never know if that would have worked or not.