It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is trying to shut down Los Angeles porn?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I read some news today about a new law that requires condom use in porn films.

What sense does that make? Who has the political and legislative power to require something like this, and why do they want to drive the porn industry away?

It seems to me like porn is a rather non-location specific film type. Porn made at a house with a swimming pool in Los Angeles will probably be replaced by porn made at a house with a swimming pool in Texas or Florida. Why would Los Angeles want to push this business away?




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXX777
I read some news today about a new law that requires condom use in porn films.

What sense does that make?


Uhh.... it's safer?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Not necessarily, if they are screening for STD's as well but if they are using condoms just so that diseased actors can partake then that's when it's dangerous



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


it makes no sense for the government to control the private, non violent behavior of two consenting adults. what's next? throw some anti sodomy laws in the books because disease spread is higher with that? say you can't have two guys on a girl because its disrespectful to women?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Haha really now?? I havent seen that law take place yet then....



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by XXX777
I read some news today about a new law that requires condom use in porn films.

What sense does that make?


Uhh.... it's safer?


Actors are required to test regularly, but you're right.

This is probably to avoid lawsuits concerning STDs and pregnancies contracted while working. It's a strange industry, that's for sure.

Besides, who looks at the guys in porn anyway?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by XXX777
 


I think it only applies to films made inside the city limits of LA. The "actors" and "actresses" in the porn industry are regularly screened for diseases. Most of them know each other. And regularly make the films together. And they really aren't as promiscuous as one would think when it comes to casual sex outside of the industry.

This law comes straight from the same people who clapped at Rush Limbaugh the other day for calling that law student a slut for trying to support birth control clinics and other things the religious right is against.
Unless it fits their needs at the moment...like this condom issue. You can't pass condoms out to teenagers to help prevent teenaged pregnancy, but you can force the use of them in movies....

I wouldn't know about porn of course....this is just what I have read btw!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sounds_of_Silence
 

If Steve Jobs wasn't dead he would have been my guess, as he was trying to censor the internet from all porn before he died.

But there's more condom free porn that you could ever see out there...why the concern of this? Unless, you've done the impossible and ran out of porn.

edit on 6-3-2012 by Darkchemistry because: sp



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXX777
I read some news today about a new law that requires condom use in porn films.

What sense does that make? Who has the political and legislative power to require something like this, and why do they want to drive the porn industry away?

It seems to me like porn is a rather non-location specific film type. Porn made at a house with a swimming pool in Los Angeles will probably be replaced by porn made at a house with a swimming pool in Texas or Florida. Why would Los Angeles want to push this business away?


Who cares? You're making a conspiracy where there is none.Porn is a business.It's regulated as it should be.As much as I hate to say it these people are actors.They're #ing for money.Damn right they should be using protection.I wouldn't be involved with someone who does that for a living that's for sure.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
The hell does this have to do with ATS?

Far out

no really, FAR OUT...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Well that's a whole bunch of comments that are interesting and stuff, but really why make this law? Who evens believes is could ever be enforced? How is violation detected? Why not just leave Los Angeles to make the porn? This law is completely senseless, anti-porn, unable to be enforced, and would only drive business away. There must be some other reason behind it. There must be some strange reason for people with power to make such a law.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
If they are going to require condoms in porn out of safety reasons, then I guess they should start requiring helmets and elbow/knee pads in all (non-porn) action movies.

We don't want the actors getting hurt or sending the wrong message. You should always use protection when doing something dangerous.

edit on 6-3-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
i admit i've heard the same

apparently a vast sector of the cali porn industry is moving due to the law as well

i heard it from a friend however but i would imagine it would be a law being passed by the state government?

not american tho so dont have all the info



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Yeah, man. Why do they want to push porn out of LA? Is there some super religious powerful group in the area that is going down such a weird path?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
What is next? Does the morning weather news reporter have to wear a mouth guard when making location shots? You know you could chip a tooth on a microphone in a strong breeze.
edit on 6-3-2012 by XXX777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nephlim
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


it makes no sense for the government to control the private, non violent behavior of two consenting adults. what's next? throw some anti sodomy laws in the books because disease spread is higher with that? say you can't have two guys on a girl because its disrespectful to women?


It's not "private". It's porn, which has the intent to show the public sexual acts. Not that I am for or against this but I am just answering the OP's questions.

Using a condom is much safer than "raw dogging" it, and if people watch porn where they are not using a condom they could take the impression that it is perfectly okay to go out and have sexual intercourse with anybody they please without protection.

Porn creates these types of fantasies in people's minds. They watch group sex porn with no protection and it seems appealing to them. Then they have the urge to do the same thing, which can be dangerous.

Any way, your counter-argument isn't really valid as this supposed law does not state what two individuals do in their privacy. This is about porn which is for view to the public. Also, anti-sodomy laws would not be needed in pornography either as long as they were using a condom.

Either way, I don't really care but the OP asked.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by XXX777
 


Because it is a destructive business that breeds disease, pain and death?

I'm not a puritan by any chance of the way but I do think that people who star in porn films should ALWAYS wear condoms. I've read horror stories of porn stars contracting HIV from other porn stars that never disclosed it!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Using a condom is much safer than "raw dogging" it, and if people watch porn where they are not using a condom they could take the impression that it is perfectly okay to go out and have sexual intercourse with anybody they please without protection.

Porn creates these types of fantasies in people's minds. They watch group sex porn with no protection and it seems appealing to them. Then they have the urge to do the same thing, which can be dangerous.


Using this kind of argument, you can say we shouldn't show kids going out in fantasy adventures, or movies where some guys becomes a hero and saves the day by grabbing a gun and challenging the bad guy, or any number of things.

People know that movies and reality are two different things. This includes porn.

Those who don't should be dying off anyway, so there is no need to regulate that aspect of it in this hypocritical way.

EDIT: I would like to see every genre of media that show people being punked, or being stupid, I.e. Jackass, prohibited, before seeing them require actors to wear a condom.
edit on 6-3-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Apples to oranges here.

Using a condom is common sense.

You can't use the freedom analogy here. There are liability issues that arise from the spread of STDs, etc.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Yes that all makes sense on the surface, you can win a lot of believers with those statements, but really it just doesn't make sense unless somebody in power is seeking to drive porn out of Los Angeles other than big money sound stage productions. See how goofy that is? There is no barrier (haha!) to entry in this business. Porn can be filmed just about anywhere. Why would LA want to drive away small budget, hotel room and backyard porn shoots? I can't wait until they make skateboarders use safety ropes and harnesses at the skate park.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join