Jub wrote:Flagg, why should it be the job of pornopgraphy to promote safer sex when the sex they are having is already very safe? Should the task of education not fall to parents and schools?
I think you can do both.
The question is why should they? You don't make sure that Hollywood has to show everything in as safe a manner as possible so why do this for porn?
There is actually pressure on hollywood to curtail smoking in movies, so that point is moot.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote: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.
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.
Flagg wrote: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.
Flagg wrote: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.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote: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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Flagg wrote:
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.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:
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?
Flagg wrote: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.
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.
Flagg wrote: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.
[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.
Flagg wrote:
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.
Since when has watching pornography without condoms been linked to actual unprotected sex?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
Flagg wrote:I never claimed there was, liar. But there sure as shit is a link between having unprotected sex and STD's.
Safe sex should be mandated by law. Any woman caught pregnant will be sent to prison on the assumption she had unsafe sex.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Flagg wrote:Considering that alot of the US doesn't even teach condom use and that pornography is alot of kids' sexual education, why not?
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.
[/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!"
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
loomer wrote: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!"
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.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
loomer wrote: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!"
Actually a great deal of American voters would rather force constraints on 'those people' than actually send their kids to sex ed.
