• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California WHY?

M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Proposition 60, if passed, will require porn actors to wear condoms. This is meant to reduce the risk of STDs.

The problem: when you want to see a man's dick, do you want to see it being obstructed by a condom? no? Well neither does the government of California.

And the worst part about it: according to ballotpedia, the "yes" vote is leading.

In addition to being a stupid law, prop 60 could cause the porn industry to leave California and relocate somewhere else.
 
Anyone care to touch this?
 
Masterhawk said:
Proposition 60, if passed, will require porn actors to wear condoms. This is meant to reduce the risk of STDs.

The problem: when you want to see a man's dick, do you want to see it being obstructed by a condom? no? Well neither does the government of California.

And the worst part about it: according to ballotpedia, the "yes" vote is leading.

In addition to being a stupid law, prop 60 could cause the porn industry to leave California and relocate somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I don't know, why do you look at men's dicks?
 
Casper said:
Anyone care to touch this?
Click to expand...

He is correct this law could very well cause the porn industry to relocate, and it is a multi-billion dollar industry. What will California do with all those pre-2008 deserted McMansions if not film porn in them? But I think the big question here is whose job is it going to be to watch every porno made in California to check if the actors are wearing condoms?
 
Masterhawk said:
no, I'm referring to those who do
Click to expand...

I've never found it particularly distracting to see a condom in porn, honestly. It's really not a huge deal. I mean, are you incapable of having sex with a condom? Because if it's so distracting you can't even look at the things without losing the mood, then I really hope you aren't the type who likes some novelty.

I also think the porn industry should have sensible workplace safety measures like every other profession does, and they've proven unable to get this problem fully under control sans condoms. So go California for looking like they're going to do what needs to be done.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I've never found it particularly distracting honestly. It's really not a huge deal. I mean, are you incapable of having sex with a condom? Because if it's so distracting you can't even look at the things without losing the mood, then I really hope you aren't the type who likes some novelty.

I also think porn stars should have sensible workplace safety measures like every other profession does, and the porn industry has been unable to get this problem fully under control sans condoms. So go California for looking like they're going to do what needs to be done.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no problem, if I remember correctly the reason people want this law enacted is to promote safe sex because apparently actually teaching kids sex ed. is way too much of a hassle. The porn industry does have rather strict safety standards including very regular STI testing.
 
A case could be made if STDs were rampant in the porn industry but they are not. They are tested very frequently and they all know their livelihood depends on them being STD free. They seem to have things under control without this additional law.
 
Carjosse said:
The problem is that there is no problem, if I remember correctly the reason people want this law enacted is to promote safe sex because apparently actually teaching kids sex ed. is way too much of a hassle.
Click to expand...

Actually there is. There was an HIV outbreak at one of the most supposedly responsible studios in the US not too long ago. Getting herpes is practically expected. And in large part, it's because even when porn actors want to use condoms, their directors discourage it. Testing windows have lag times, especially with viral STD's, and it creates risks that don't need to be there and, yes, are irresponsible to subject people to.

A condom is too much hassle? Wow, this is a depressing place sometimes...
 
This is just nanny state getting out of control. If the parties consent to have sex without a condom then the topic seems to be over. The real purpose of this law is encourage men to wear condoms through social engineering. They figure that since men watch porn they must be following the example they see and that if they change that example men will be more willing to wear them. Will it work? I have no idea, but it's possible, I suppose.
 
Carjosse said:
The problem is that there is no problem, if I remember correctly the reason people want this law enacted is to promote safe sex because apparently actually teaching kids sex ed. is way too much of a hassle. The porn industry does have rather strict safety standards including very regular STI testing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's really a way to get men to wear condoms. It's just disguised behind the STD excuse like that somehow makes it a valid law. The problem with that excuse is that:

1. Both parties can just leave if they want a condom to be used and it's not looking it will happen.
2. Both parties are adults and can make their own decisions on what risks they want to accept.
3. The excuse is transparent as ****.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually there is. There was an HIV outbreak at one of the most supposedly responsible studios in the US not too long ago. Getting herpes is practically expected. And in large part, it's because even when porn actors want to use condoms, their directors discourage it. Testing windows have lag times, especially with viral STD's, and it creates risks that don't need to be there and, yes, are irresponsible to subject people to.

A condom is too much hassle? Wow, this is a depressing place sometimes...
Click to expand...

Hassle? No, try condoms suck in just about every way imaginable. We have spent decades encouraging the use of these things and less than 20% of men use them regularly. That should tell you something, but no one appears to be listening and just keeps promoting something men have pretty much rejected forever ago. I just end up laughing at the whole thing because the fight will never be won. It's basically abstinence only education all over again. :lol: Just as dreamy and fought for way longer than any person with sense would do.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the merit of the complaint.

Can anyone cite another career where one is unnecessarily infected with diseases ? Note that signing up to be a human guinea pig wouldn't qualify.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't understand the merit of the complaint.

Can anyone cite another career where one is unnecessarily infected with diseases ? Note that signing up to be a human guinea pig wouldn't qualify.
Click to expand...

People can decide if they wish to have sex without a condom rather money is involved or not. This isn't somehow different than any other interaction except that they getting paid for it. You're basically suggesting that they are too stupid to decide who they will have sex with for money, so the government must save them from their own stupidity. How does it feel to take up a conservative position but with a slight twist?
 
Also, the real idea behind this is pretty stupid when you consider that 96% of men will use a condom in their lifetime, but less than 20% will use it regularly. That means, that getting men to use condoms isn't the problem, but that getting men to keep using them is. That means among other things that it isn't the fact that men are seeing porn without condoms that is causing them to not use them. When a product fundamentally sucks people generally figure it out when they use it. When they figure out that it sucks they are significantly less likely to keep using it, which is in fact the problem with condoms. You're not going to get any sort of considerable increase in condom use among men because of this law or similar laws.
 
Last edited:
I voted "No" on this one.

Granted, in any other industry preventative measures are taken to avoid injury, so there is an argument for consistency as it relates to other fields. But this one just seemed like meddling from some group like:

1) Conservatives who are out to prevent people from watching porn; and
2) Liberals who are out to make sure women aren't oppressed or some other bulls**t

It just smacks of people not minding their own damn business.
 
Masterhawk said:
Proposition 60, if passed, will require porn actors to wear condoms. This is meant to reduce the risk of STDs.

The problem: when you want to see a man's dick, do you want to see it being obstructed by a condom? no? Well neither does the government of California.

And the worst part about it: according to ballotpedia, the "yes" vote is leading.

In addition to being a stupid law, prop 60 could cause the porn industry to leave California and relocate somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I live in California, and I'm amazed by how much I've heard about prop 60, when prop 57 also deals with sex, and would let rapists out of prison early.
And almost no one is talking about prop 57! I can't believe that people care more about if they can watch weiners than about whether we decide to let violent criminals out of prison early.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually there is. There was an HIV outbreak at one of the most supposedly responsible studios in the US not too long ago. Getting herpes is practically expected. And in large part, it's because even when porn actors want to use condoms, their directors discourage it. Testing windows have lag times, especially with viral STD's, and it creates risks that don't need to be there and, yes, are irresponsible to subject people to.

A condom is too much hassle? Wow, this is a depressing place sometimes...
Click to expand...

You're right, in fact the girl who Anthony Weiner was sexting got caught up in an HIV scare when she came in contact with HIV positive performers during her first shoot. Heather somebody.

You're also right that other STDs are run of the mill in the porn world.
 
Masterhawk said:
In addition to being a stupid law, prop 60 could cause the porn industry to leave California and relocate somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Relocate where? There are only 2 states that it is legal to shoot porn in
 
Carjosse said:
'Merica, the land of free. Well unless you want to not wear a condom in a porno.
Click to expand...

Who the hell votes for this ****? Who sits and thinks "gee you know what would make pornography a better influence? Making sure the actors wear profilactics."

For love of ducklings it's porno
 
Masterhawk said:
Proposition 60, if passed, will require porn actors to wear condoms. This is meant to reduce the risk of STDs.

The problem: when you want to see a man's dick, do you want to see it being obstructed by a condom? no? Well neither does the government of California.

And the worst part about it: according to ballotpedia, the "yes" vote is leading.

In addition to being a stupid law, prop 60 could cause the porn industry to leave California and relocate somewhere else.
Click to expand...

The world is on fire, our government is rife with corruption, and this is the issue you hang your hat on? Pun intended. :roll:
 
Crovax said:
If you dont look at dicks then why do you care what the dicks look like?
Click to expand...

If you watch pornography that has penises in it you look at penises. You can pick porn that doesn't. But if you don't it's because you want to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom