• 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?

Henrin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Then you admit you cannot name any other career where employees are forced to be unnecessarily exposed to diseases ?
 
Absentglare said:
Then you admit you cannot name any other career where employees are forced to be unnecessarily exposed to diseases ?
Click to expand...

How is that a good argument? Just because one industry is regulated doesn't somehow mean all industries need regulated. Your argument is nothing but black and white thinking.

And how are they forced to do anything? You do realize people can quit if they don't like the terms of their employment, right? Using such alarming and false language isn't helpful to your cause.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
How is that a good argument? Just because one industry is regulated doesn't somehow mean all industries need regulated. Your argument is nothing but black and white thinking.

And how are they forced to do anything? You do realize people can quit if they don't like the terms of their employment, right? Using such alarming and false language isn't helpful to your cause.
Click to expand...

...

We have workplace safety rules. Why not extend them to porn stars ?

Hell, why is prostitution illegal when being in a porno is the same thing except with an audience, which you'd think would be worse ?
 
Absentglare said:
...

We have workplace safety rules. Why not extend them to porn stars ?
Click to expand...

You do know who you're talking to right? You might want to save that question for someone else.

Hell, why is prostitution illegal when being in a porno is the same thing except with an audience, which you'd think would be worse ?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me this question? Did I say somewhere that prostitution should be illegal?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

I listened to a porn actress talk about prop 60, and there are apparently a few major problems with it.

1)Porn stars regulate themselves better than the rest of us do, and with insane consistency. There hasn't been an std transmission in porn in a really unbelievable amount of time. If her statistics are to be believed, the rest of us are an astronomical percentage higher in risk from a one night stand than porn stars are. The strict regimen that porn stars adhere to is really impressive. Do you carry around paperwork on your person showing that you've been tested and cleared up to less than a week ago? Porn stars do, and will refuse to have sex with people who don't have paperwork that is official and up-to-date.
2)Porn stars have sex (to climax) upwards of ten times in a single shoot, which can cause two problems, one functional, one particularly serious:
a)Trying to get it up (and keep it up) with a piece of rubber around one's device is really difficult.
b)Latex has much more friction, leading to pain and more microtears in the woman's vagina. That leads to a greater risk of std transmission, the thing that condoms are ideally trying to prevent.
3)According to the porn actress, the law will result in a fine for everybody who works on a set where a condom isn't used. The best part? The person reporting the violation receives a percentage of the fine.

If you're curious, you can listen to the full podcast here: Madcast Media Network
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I listened to a porn actress talk about prop 60, and there are apparently a few major problems with it.

1)Porn stars regulate themselves better than the rest of us do, and with insane consistency. There hasn't been an std transmission in porn in a really unbelievable amount of time. If her statistics are to be believed, the rest of us are an astronomical percentage higher in risk from a one night stand than porn stars are. The strict regimen that porn stars adhere to is really impressive. Do you carry around paperwork on your person showing that you've been tested and cleared up to less than a week ago? Porn stars do, and will refuse to have sex with people who don't have paperwork that is official and up-to-date.
2)Porn stars have sex (to climax) upwards of ten times in a single shoot, which can cause two problems, one functional, one particularly serious:
a)Trying to get it up (and keep it up) with a piece of rubber around one's device is really difficult.
b)Latex has much more friction, leading to pain and more microtears in the woman's vagina. That leads to a greater risk of std transmission, the thing that condoms are ideally trying to prevent.
3)According to the porn actress, the law will result in a fine for everybody who works on a set where a condom isn't used. The best part? The person reporting the violation receives a percentage of the fine.

If you're curious, you can listen to the full podcast here: Madcast Media Network
Click to expand...

It's fun when the government claims to be protecting people and the people they are claiming to protect oppose their efforts. The government never listens to that kind of stuff though.
 
Henrin said:
It's fun when the government claims to be protecting people and the people they are claiming to protect oppose their efforts. The government never listens to that kind of stuff though.
Click to expand...

As in all cases, it's up to the voter to be informed on an issue before voting. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm super informed on prop 60 just because I listened to a porn star talk about it on a comedy podcast, but it does show that there's more to a bill than meets the eye.

Democracy's a bitch.
 
Carjosse said:
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?
Click to expand...
I wonder how much it pays?
 
Cardinal said:
As in all cases, it's up to the voter to be informed on an issue before voting. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm super informed on prop 60 just because I listened to a porn star talk about it on a comedy podcast, but it does show that there's more to a bill than meets the eye.

Democracy's a bitch.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that the government commonly doesn't really care about the people they are claiming to care about. If the people you're trying to protect are opposed to your efforts then it would seem logical to listen and back down, but the government never does.
 
Henrin said:
You do know who you're talking to right? You might want to save that question for someone else.



Why are you asking me this question? Did I say somewhere that prostitution should be illegal?
Click to expand...

Then you cannot provide any reasoning for any exception and forfeit the argument.
 
Absentglare said:
Then you cannot provide any reasoning for any exception and forfeit the argument.
Click to expand...

I never made an argument for an exception, so I was never in that discussion in the first place. :shrug: All I was saying is that your logic is black and white and is essentially arguing that because some industries are regulated all industries should be regulated. You basically ignore the merit of individual regulations and instead suggest that people need to argue against universal regulation like somehow the starting position is full on tyranny.
 
Henrin said:
I never made an argument for an exception, so I was never in that discussion in the first place. :shrug: All I was saying is that your logic is black and white and is essentially arguing that because some industries are regulated all industries should be regulated. You basically ignore the merit of individual regulations and instead suggest that people need to argue against universal regulation like somehow the starting position is full on tyranny.
Click to expand...

You're very confused. You are the one employing black and white logic. I am trying to discuss the topic, not your personal views.
 
Absentglare said:
You're very confused. You are the one employing black and white logic. I am trying to discuss the topic, not your personal views.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. You're suggesting flat out that because some industries are regulated for safety that I must argue against all industries being regulated for safety. You logic behind this is entirely black and white and ignores just about everything about the topic.
 
It's nice to see California leading the way in STD prevention..

In a few years it will be like this:

May I see your License, registration, and proof of insurance, And you mandatory condom for sex.

djl
 
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...

I don't think that condoms being too much hassle is a legitimate complaint. Pornography is too much hassle. They can always cut out where the sex worker puts it on.

I think they are discouraged because poeple that consume porn don't like seeing it. People don't like seeing it because having sex without a condom seems more intimate. I personal don't care.
 
bmr528 said:
It's nice to see California leading the way in STD prevention..

In a few years it will be like this:

May I see your License, registration, and proof of insurance, And you mandatory condom for sex.

djl
Click to expand...

:lol: No ****. Apparently people consenting to sex without a condom is bad now. Go figure that the party for keeping the government out of your sex life is leading the charge to do the exact opposite.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't think that condoms being too much hassle is a legitimate complaint. Pornography is too much hassle. They can always cut out where the sex worker puts it on.

I think they are discouraged because poeple that consume porn don't like seeing it. People don't like seeing it because having sex without a condom seems more intimate. I personal don't care.
Click to expand...

Whether or not someone likes seeing condoms in porn shoots seems a rather poor metric for determining the legality of not using condoms in porn shoots.

And there may be considerably more to the "con" side of the debate than it being a hassle, as I already listed several reasons.
 
By the way, regarding prop 60 as a means to limiting the transmission of stds, a fun statistical fact: The CDC showed 1,138,939 new cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis alone in 2013. That doesn't even include AIDS, hepatitis, HPV and Herpes. When a porn star gets an std it hits the front page news, everybody freaks out and the entire porn industry goes on lockdown while everybody gets tested for the zillionth time that week. Can you imagine if every non-monogamous sexually-active person in the United States went to full abstinence if the NYTimes reported that an adult in Duluthe got the clap? Of course you can't.

The next time you have sex with a porn star, don't be afraid of any stds they might have, they're much more afraid of you.

https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/by-age/15-24-all-STDs/state/2013/CA13.pdf
 
Cardinal said:
Whether or not someone likes seeing condoms in porn shoots seems a rather poor metric for determining the legality of not using condoms in porn shoots.

And there may be considerably more to the "con" side of the debate than it being a hassle, as I already listed several reasons.
Click to expand...

Attempting to regulate what people do between themselves regardless of whether they record it or not isn't the government's place if you ask me.
Law has no place between consenting adults.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Attempting to regulate what people do between themselves regardless of whether they record it or not isn't the government's place if you ask me.
Law has no place between consenting adults.
Click to expand...

Prop 60 is by all appearances a total mess. When you look at the financial motivations behind the proposition it was clearly made with the intention of making money and being able to keep OSHA in court indefinitely. And it was aimed at the adult film industry because it was a super easy target. Believe it or not, even the concept of regulating what adults do between themselves is utterly tangential to the measure.

Prop 60 in California: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com
 
Cardinal said:
Prop 60 is by all appearances a total mess. When you look at the financial motivations behind the proposition it was clearly made with the intention of making money and being able to keep OSHA in court indefinitely. And it was aimed at the adult film industry because it was a super easy target. Believe it or not, even the concept of regulating what adults do between themselves is utterly tangential to the measure.

Prop 60 in California: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com
Click to expand...

So, essentially it's okay to **** with adult film stars to make money because they're just whores?

I don't get this mentality. People consume pornography to the extent that it's an industry. Why is it okay to disregard their privacy? How do people justify this?
 
CLAX1911 said:
So, essentially it's okay to **** with adult film stars to make money because they're just whores?
Click to expand...

Yup, that appears to be the gist of it.

CLAX1911 said:
I don't get this mentality. People consume pornography to the extent that it's an industry. Why is it okay to disregard their privacy? How do people justify this?
Click to expand...
 
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 love modern times, and being able to practice, not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet, and porting it to real life whenever i have the presence of mind to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom