Except that porn already has a great safety record and the public safety benefit isn't likely to be significant. You've also failed to respond to points asking if you would support similar things in Hollywood movies; such as not allowing people to speed so that kids can learn that speeding is bad.

Sorry, but no. Simulations and stunts are just that, simulations and stunts. Porn is real people having real sex. Porn may have a great track record, but so what? What happens when they get lax?

Porn is two actors portraying a fantasy that just happens to involve sex. If they get lax on testing the worst thing that happens to people in porn is the same thing that could happen to anybody else having unprotected sex. Should we pass laws to require that all sex not intended for procreation should require a condom?

I don't believe in legislating in the bedroom, despite how much I want to knock the doors down of people that appear on shows like 'Maury' and drag them to the castration depot. And you don't believe in workplace safety regulations Jub?

Is working in porn currently unsafe enough to be worth legislating? Or are you more concerned about the added effect of getting more morons to use condoms.

Is it safe to serve fast food without gloves on even if you wash your hands all the time or should we not require them to wear gloves?

That's totally different because your average guy jerking it to porn can't get sick because the actors he's watching aren't wearing condoms.

So you don't care if the actors get sick?

Except that the actors already get sick less than the average American, thus safety legislation seems like a complete waste. If anything the rest of the nation should act more like porn and get tested for STI's more often.

A solution in search of a problem.

Because of the legal technicalities involved in pornography, any law you pass would encompass anyone who is recorded performing sex. Be it amateurs, pornography, or home videos.

The legal distinction on pornography is that it is two consenting adults having sex who are being paid so that others can record them.

And if you passed a law mandating condom use in recorded media, I guarantee you that prosecutors will go after non pornography stars whose home videos somehow got released.

And it could also be argued that mandating condoms is discriminatory against men. You would have to require women to use diaphragm's to be equal.

I'm not sure a diaphragm is an appropriate analogy, since it's only meant to be effective at preventing pregnancy, and doesn't have the additional anti-STI properties of a condom.

Alyeska probably meant female condoms, which are, depending on use, slightly better than condoms at STI prevention.

You know, I can't say I've ever seen any exhaustive data on contraceptives based on STI transmission rates, it's usually measured by pregnancy. Link?

I somehow doubt the sincerity of that website:

except depressions which may lead to suicide.

I'll repeat, what is the source for this great safety record? I knew a couple people in the porn industry personally and they all got something despite the required testing. Some stds such as hpv is basically non-testable in men unless they are showing some kind of symptom. Again, maybe they are safer per encounter but they have many more encounters.

In fact, she tested positive for herpes but continued doing porn... so the rules are not that stringent.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not the porn industry should be required wear a condom though.

---

Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Prior to mandatory testing STD rates in the Porn industry were higher than the average population. After mandatory testing no one has done a proper scientific study and so all you have is the word of the porn industry that they have lower rates than the average public.

Herpes is neither a serious disease (for most people anyways) nor would it be actually avoidable, also not through condom use. HPV is best preventable through vaccination for women.

Please. If not having sex led to suicide, half of Reddit would already be dead. Planned Parenthood is one of the most progressive, sex-positive, pro-choice organizations in the US.

And it's quite accurate. No contraceptive method is 100%, except for abstinence.

0 HIV infections in over 8 years of frequent sex with no barrier methods says a lot.



Unless you know for a fact that she did not have sex outside a porn set (highly unusual, as far as porn producers I know), this doesn't mean she got it in the industry. HSV is one of the viral, latent infections that condoms do very little to protect against, after all.

Yeah but statistics show that virgins die far younger on average...

Joke aside, where did I ever say it lead to suicide in 100% of the cases? This is an issue that should not be completely overlooked.

Joking aside, are you proposing that abstinence be classified as having a side-effect of "risk of depression" and "early death"? I mean, if you think it's an issue that shouldn't be overlooked.

Quoting from a few posts up, because I think its helpful:

First of all, you admit that porn currently has a great track record. This means immediate action isn't needed in order to fight a current problem.

Second of all, what is the problem with observing the situation, and if it gets lax, then step in?

Third - I think the best argument in favor of such legislation would probably be the educational, or rather image effect. Why don't you think that this is an effective argumental (is that a word?) path to take in this discussion. I think it will lead to a better discussion than bleating about non-existent problems (health risk to porn actors).

Somehow there seem many to be many parallels to the Halloween thread.

Getting off topic here, so I'll keep this short. Obviously more research is needed on the likelihood of depression resulting from abstinence to backup a classification. But I would propose it at least not be classified as uncontroversial.

The only reason abstinence is controversial in the United States is because of "abstinence-only sex education", in which students are told that sex is icky and gross and immoral and evil and don't do it. They are not taught about proper usage of birth control methods, in fact they might be told that they don't work.

There's nothing wrong with proper sex education that stresses the only sure way not to get an STD or get pregnant is to abstain from sexual activity entirely. Because that's objectively true.