Condoms now required in L.A. porn films

[RichardNailder]

CA is broke we need all the Tax revenue we can get so shut up all ready moralizing weenies.

So silly.

Actual, everything I've read on this issue indicates that the expense of enforcing this will fall on California tax payers.

I admit that my concerns are more about the loss of personal liberties connected with this issue than with the the resources that the government will waste while in the process of destroying out freedom of choice. One thing I do know is that the consumers/tax-payers ALWAYS bear the cost of any government regulation - no matter what method the government decides to recoup their expenses.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/143387

"Steven Hirsch, founder/co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment, told XBIZ Wednesday, “History has shown that regulating sexual behavior between consenting adults doesn’t work. Testing procedures are already in place and have worked well for years. Vivid is a condom optional company and we leave it up to the performers to decide, without repercussion, whether or not they want to use condoms.”

Hirsch continued, “We don’t believe that trying to police thousands of movie sets a year is the best use of taxpayer money. Public funds should be spent on things that matter. We do not believe that this is a public safety or health issue, but rather an attempt to regulate an industry that is already operating quite well with self-regulation. We will look into our options.”

 

[Sam Fisher]

What's next? Nipple Condoms?

 

[RichardNailder]

When you inevitably respond to my post, try to be less of a total fucking retard then you are in this one, m'kay?

Seeing as you are supposedly based in Colorado, this decision affects you in precisely ZERO ways.

Secondly, link to precisely where the LA City Council has recently said they want to ban/outplaw porn, otherwise retract and apologize for your bullshit lies.

Third, if you are so much of a financial retard, which wouldn't be the least bit surprising, that you can't spring $30 or so for a couple of boxes of condoms you have absolutely no business being in porn, plus it proves beyond all doubt that you have absolutely no respect for women and are in fact a vile misogynist. But we have known this for some time now.

I eagerly await your incoherent blowhard spazzed out response so that I may spend much time guffawing and laughing at it.

If you had followed this issue from the start, like me and many of my industry colleagues, then You Might know who is actually behind this initiative.

You would also know that the issue is MUCH larger than just LA County.

One members of said organization has stated to me personally, at a convention in Vegas last year, that their agenda is much broader that just LA County and California. The fact that we weren't even in LA made it pretty clear that they were willing to pursue this issue wherever porn is produced.

It is my opinion that if this measure that is successful in California, it's just a matter of time before said anti-porn group will then be lobbying in other porn-producing locals across the nation - therefore, I have a direct interest in the outcome of any California legislation on this issue.

And where did I say that the "LA City Council" wanted to ban porn? As an elected body, they are responding to vocal minority pressure from an external organization, who in my opinion, sole purpose is to stop the production, sale and viewing of any material they determine to be pornographic.

Last - it's not my position to put up links (or any other supporting information) for organizations that I disagree with. Use Google, get educated on the issue and then come debate. In the mean-time, this will be the last time I respond to your childish rantings.


I will however put a few links to the an industry source that provides some background.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/143387
http://www.xbiz.com/news/143052
http://www.xbiz.com/articles/122217/AIDS+Healthcare+Foundation+(AHF)

 

[No_Man]

For those that say the city has no right to do it, doesn't a city have a right to enforce workers safety laws?

Who exactly claimed that the city has no right to do it?

 

[larss]

I have no problem with the use of condoms in porn, but it should not be mandatory. It can be made an integral part of the performance, which does seem to be lacking somewhat. Most of the time when condoms are used (from what I have seen), the action tends to go directly from the woman giving a blow job on a naked cock to him fucking her wearing a condom that seemingly sprang from nowhere. It does seem to be the trend most of the time, though, in the same way that fully or even partially clothed participants in one shot are suddenly naked in the next.

 

[zdenka]

I can't see what the fuss is about. Condoms or not, a BIG FAT penis will still be pounding the pussy for all its worth!! Makes no difference if its covered by a 0.00001" clear rubber

 

[knowone]

For those that say the city has no right to do it, doesn't a city have a right to enforce workers safety laws?

Normally yes, but since the Meese Commission (and others) tried to outlaw porn and it went to a Supreme court decision, gov't agencies are limited to how much they can control porn due to first amendment rights.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't watch porn to look at the guy's cock. I watch it to look at the women. While I agree that there probably shouldn't be a law mandating the use of condoms, they won't really ruin anything for me. I can still see just as much of the woman as I could when the guy wasn't wearing a condom. Now if they starting making them use dental dams, then I WILL be annoyed.

 

[bobjustbob]

Normally yes, but since the Meese Commission (and others) tried to outlaw porn and it went to a Supreme court decision, gov't agencies are limited to how much they can control porn due to first amendment rights.

I'm not willing to read the whole 960 pages of the report. But I do know this, each municipality has the right to set its own standards concerning pornography and regulate it. It is the choice of the people. If the people allow their legislators to take away their porn then that is their fault.

Ask the average citizen if porn is good they will probably say no. Either they don't consume it or they don't want to admit it. Tell these citizens what they are going to pay for this and they'll say,"Fuck no!" or they should. If Los Angeles County thinks that EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN is willing to pay more in taxes to enforce this law then they are nuts.

But, hey. This is their choice. Go have your condom police if you want. It comes out of your pocket.

 

[prof_porn]

Given STD risks, this is actually welcome. These girls and guys are people who should take precautions.

Condoms, used properly, are a highly effective barrier against STD's, esp HIV.

 

[bobjustbob]

Given STD risks, this is actually welcome. These girls and guys are people who should take precautions.

Condoms, used properly, are a highly effective barrier against STD's, esp HIV.

All you said is true. Given the choice, I don't think there is one actor or actress that would object to using a rubber. The thing is how do you enforce it as a law?

 

[georges]

:shocked:

Have you ever thought about a career in law enforcement? Los Angeles County is seeking qualified individuals to add to our ever growing task forces. Be there in exotic locations in the heart of the adult motion picture industry.

Candidates will receive paid training and a county benefits package 90 days after graduation. Send your resume to The Los Angeles County Department of Condom Enforcement.

Wasn't this a part of a jobs bill introduced last year?

I hope you are not joking :eek::surprise:That is quite interesting:1orglaugh