There is actually pressure on hollywood to curtail smoking in movies, so that point is moot.

Yeah, because smoking is the worst thing movies promote... Frankly the government should stay away from things like this and work on making sure they can educate people enough that nanny state BS like this isn't needed.

Indeed. You'd think that this would be a pretty simple and easy point. "Porn is not a simulation of real sex. Consent, STI safety, practicality, activities, and more are all covered off-screen, to present a more immersive, enjoyable fantasy for the consumer. Most pizza delivery drivers do not get laid by rich, 22 year-old housewives. Most women do not enjoy having you jerk off on their face. Most women do not enjoy being slapped in the face during sex without asking if they're into that first. Taking your cock out of a woman's anus and shoving it in her mouth without proper cleaning is unsanitary, and also not on most women's lists of favorite things. Porn is not "real sex", any more than Hugh Laurie is a real doctor."

Requiring condom use in porn, moreover, presents to said morons who can't tell if something is fictional an image of "all you need to do to avoid being infected is use a condom," which isn't true. Government should be promoting things which encourage people to be aware of the risks, be aware of preventative measures, and think critically about their own personal risk level and desires, not require entertainers to promote mediocre solutions at their own expense.

Depends on what type of pressure we're talking about here. Financial pressure is one thing, but the government should stay hands off imo.

Making porn actors wear condoms is like forcing all movie stunts to have to have the wire and harness visable at all times during the scene. That way people know that you can't do stunts without saftey gear.

Why? It's in the governments interest to promote safe sex practices to stem the spread of STD's.

The governemnt can make their own creapy and useless sex ed porn, or maybe they can just provide proper sexual education so porn doesn't have to do the job for them.

Or they can put in place regulations aimed at both workplace safety and public benefit.

While we are at it, we should ban all violence from movies. It would benefit the public if they never saw a violent act in movies ever again. Murder is illegal. So simulated murder in a movie should also be illegal.

Since when is unsafe sex illegal? Since when has viewing violence been linked to actual violence?

Thought so.

You're trolling right? You really can't see the link between what Alyeska said the condom law and why they're both stupid?

Exactly.They can have their own programs, let them leave others to express themselves in their own way. And let's not pretend that this is not just bullshit aimed at porn because it's porn.

When movies show reckless driving and gun usage and drinking and drug use they never have to immediately have a government mandated safety lesson. When people fuck in movies there never needs to be a show of putting on a condom. When people jump off buildings or such there never needs to be a graphic showing how falls from heights of greater than 30 ft are deadly or whatever. Why? Because we realise that it's fiction, an overblown version of reality.

For public benefit? Please. That's not their job nor is it the job of the government to make them do it.

No, I'm not trolling. There is no link and it's a retarded analogy.

Is there a link between watching porn and getting an STD Flagg? If there is I expect you to show it.

I never claimed there was, liar. But there sure as shit is a link between having unprotected sex and STD's.

And you think showing condoms in porn will fix this when sex education classes haven't? That's like saying we should only show people in movies driving the speed limit so people will speed less.

Considering that alot of the US doesn't even teach condom use and that pornography is alot of kids' sexual education, why not?

[quote="FlaggConsidering that alot of the US doesn't even teach condom use and that pornography is alot of kids' sexual education, why not?[/quote]

So the US should restrict the freedom of people making porn because fixing inadequit sex ed is too hard? Should they ban speediong in movies because not all driver's ed is equal? How about banning drinking in movies because not all drug and alcohol education is equal? After all speeding and drink cause far more deaths in a year than unsafe sex does.

Since when has watching pornography without condoms been linked to actual unprotected sex?

---

"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

Safe sex should be mandated by law. Any woman caught pregnant will be sent to prison on the assumption she had unsafe sex.

Anyway, mandating porn actors to wear condoms would actually be a violation of free speech. Pornography has been deemed free speech. And mandated condom use is an infringement on that right.

Would never pass court challenges.

[/quote]

Right. The implication? We're too fucking stupid to have a comprehensive sex ed program so we're going to foist that responsibility on the porn industry.

You know, it actually is a rather bizarre proposition. "We have shitty sex-ed! Make porn into sex-ed!" rather than "We have shitty sex-ed! Get better sex-ed!"

---

"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

Not my proposition at all. We have shitty sex ed, let's make it better and require condoms in porn for workplace safety and public benefit, is my position.

Actually a great deal of American voters would rather force constraints on 'those people' than actually send their kids to sex ed.