Comments on: porn studios in line of fire over condom use

By: Iamcuriousblue

Iamcuriousblue — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:18:57 +0000

You know, I would expect a little more of a critical perspective on this story from some of the sex-positive blogs who have been covering this. The fact that this lawsuit is coming from 1) Michael Weinstein, somebody with a history of irresponsible grandstanding around AIDS issues, notably his attempt to get Viagra banned as somehow promoting unsafe sex; and 2) the Pink Cross Foundation, which is essentially an evangelical ministry to the porn world led by former porn star-turned-fundie Shelly Lubin. Shelly Lubin is very much part of the religious right and her agenda for the porn industry ultimately is about eliminating it rather than making it safer.

The article talks about a “conversation” that needs to happen about porn and HIV, and I agree with that much. However, if you think that porn is really going to be made safer by bad-faith legislation and lawsuits by the likes of Michael Weinstein and Shelly Lubin, you are sorely mistaken.

By: Ell

Ell — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:42:00 +0000

Jizzillions!

By: Tony Comstock

Tony Comstock — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:01:04 +0000

“Condom, bareback, gay, straight —when the defense rests, the same threats emerge. If the government tries to make any regulations, the production companies will immediately up and move causing the state to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue. “

Billions in tax revenue from bareback porn? Really?

By: ChicksonSpeedSpotter

ChicksonSpeedSpotter — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:20:02 +0000

Nobilis, i agree totally. if porn is about fantasy, why not use realistic looking but fake/computer-generated members and holes, cumshots even? i will be honest, i have seen some ecus of penetration in gay films where i was almost certain: those organs are not real. i was pretty sure they must have been fucking a cast, that asshole was just too perfect looking, or it could have been digitally retouched. how about some whizzz kids developing CGI for porn movies, so that actors dont have to use their real genitals? how about a green-screen condom? lol

By: Nobilis

Nobilis — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:49:58 +0000

This isn’t about educating kids, Andrew, it’s about protecting the actors.

You completely missed the point.

Action movies are controlled environments with a great deal of care taken to ensure that what LOOKS dangerous on screen is not ACTUAL dangerous behavior on the set.

When was the last time an actor had live ammunition on the set?

The only place actors aren’t “shooting blanks” is in the world of porn.

If they can figure out a way for the talent on a porn shoot to LOOK like they’re exchanging bodily fluids without ACTUALLY exchanging bodily fluids, then that would be perfectly fine. Until then…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:23:58 +0000

One of the myriad of reasons non-condom porn is so attractive is that it’s aggressive, raw, and animalistic; it’s the mating ritual in it’s purest form, without barriers. It allows people to live their fantasies without the drudgery of real life and all the limitations it offers. It’s spur-of-the-moment uncontrolled lust. Personally, I don’t know of a single nurse who’s had or every would have sex with patients, nor have I ever heard of a real sexy french maid who’s only purpose is to clean my knob or a seductive teacher who wants to grade me on something other than my final paper. It’s fantasy. Condoms don’t belong in fantasy, unless that’s your thing.

If they’re going to pass this law, they should also require all violent and action films to have brightly colored water guns because they sure as shit don’t offer lessons on how to properly handle a real one. I’ll also put up $100 that kids learn gun safety from the cinema MORE than they learn sex education from porn. I’ll also venture to guess that there are far more gun deaths each year than from HIV or AIDS.

Say no to violence, not sex.