John Burt
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
-
Dammit, I was waiting for hot city council porn starring Antonio Villaraigosa.
Councillor, you made the honourable member move.
Boom chica bow ow!
-
Ferdinando Woicickoski
Brazil
Porto Alegre
Rio Grande do Sul
-
I may be wrong. But as far as I know, that is the law in Brazil.
-
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
All haw-hawing aside: the porn industry is wildly under-regulated (mostly because of public squeamishness with admitting that porn exists, is widely consumed, and is not going away), and ninety-five percent of the ethical and moral problems to do with porn stem from that under-regulation. A condom-use regulation is not unreasonable given the regular flareups of HIV within the industry. (The argument against it, IMO, isn't paternalism but the fact that female performers find their use unpleasant given that porn production takes much longer than normal everyday sex.)
-
Clay
United States
Alabama
-
mightygodking wrote: All haw-hawing aside: the porn industry is wildly under-regulated (mostly because of public squeamishness with admitting that porn exists, is widely consumed, and is not going away), and ninety-five percent of the ethical and moral problems to do with porn stem from that under-regulation. A condom-use regulation is not unreasonable given the regular flareups of HIV within the industry. (The argument against it, IMO, isn't paternalism but the fact that female performers find their use unpleasant given that porn production takes much longer than normal everyday sex.)
Just as regulation isn't inherently bad it also isn't always a good thing. This seems like an example of bad regulation. For one thing, it seems like a bad precedent to require safety measures for people working a particular job doing an activity that many people do daily without any such requirement when the sole concern is personal safety. There's just no need for it.
-
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
The Message wrote: Just as regulation isn't inherently bad it also isn't always a good thing. This seems like an example of bad regulation.
I agree that it's bad regulation, but it's badly designed policy meant to achieve a good end. Right now the porn industry essentially relies on self-policing to prevent HIV spread, and this works about as well as you would think - e.g. there's a flareup every 2-3 years and a couple dozen careers are ended/lives are wrecked.
Quote: [q]For one thing, it seems like a bad precedent to require safety measures for people working a particular job doing an activity that many people do daily without any such requirement when the sole concern is personal safety. There's just no need for it.
But it's not bad regulation because it's unnecessary. It's obviously somewhat necessary - after all, the HIV flareups exist and can be devastating. It's bad regulation because it won't do what it's supposed to do.
Your argument that condoms shouldn't be required because regular folks have sex without condoms all the time doesn't fly - we don't require people working at home repairing things to wear hard hats, but we do require construction workers to do so, precisely because they bear greater risk. Now, you can say that mandatory condom use is not likely to address that risk properly, and I would agree with you. But denying that the risk exists? Ridiculous.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
The logic that somehow people see porn stars as role models on proper, responsible, sexual behavior is just.....bizarre.
Was Darth Xaos behind that law?
Darilian
-
Chad
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Are ther any statistics showing HIV (or any other STD for that matter) being more prevelent in the porn industry than the general populance?
I seem to recall there not being a significant differance.
-
Clay
United States
Alabama
-
mightygodking wrote: [q="The Message"]Just as regulation isn't inherently bad it also isn't always a good thing. This seems like an example of bad regulation.
I agree that it's bad regulation, but it's badly designed policy meant to achieve a good end. Right now the porn industry essentially relies on self-policing to prevent HIV spread, and this works about as well as you would think - e.g. there's a flareup every 2-3 years and a couple dozen careers are ended/lives are wrecked.
Quote: Quote: For one thing, it seems like a bad precedent to require safety measures for people working a particular job doing an activity that many people do daily without any such requirement when the sole concern is personal safety. There's just no need for it. But it's not bad regulation because it's unnecessary. It's obviously somewhat necessary - after all, the HIV flareups exist and can be devastating. It's bad regulation because it won't do what it's supposed to do. Your argument that condoms shouldn't be required because regular folks have sex without condoms all the time doesn't fly - we don't require people working at home repairing things to wear hard hats, but we do require construction workers to do so, precisely because they bear greater risk. Now, you can say that mandatory condom use is not likely to address that risk properly, and I would agree with you. But denying that the risk exists? Ridiculous.
To save us a lot of time I'll just say I'm also against requiring construction workers to wear hard hats and requiring anyone to wear a seat belt while driving. Good regulation improves the interactions between people in a system, it's not about making sure little Johnny doesn't skin his knee doing something stupid.
If the idea is to deal with HIV why not require frequent HIV tests and ban individuals with HIV from participating in porn? Unless I'm missing some very important information it doesn't just magically come into being, it has to be introduced into the equation from one party. Put that party in a different room and the issue is resolved.
As a final note, I never denied any such risks existed, nor did I imply that. I'm a bit confused as to how you actually got that from my post, to be honest.
-
-
There gets to a point where not having public safely laws is just punishing stupid people with death.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
The Message wrote: mightygodking wrote: All haw-hawing aside: the porn industry is wildly under-regulated (mostly because of public squeamishness with admitting that porn exists, is widely consumed, and is not going away), and ninety-five percent of the ethical and moral problems to do with porn stem from that under-regulation. A condom-use regulation is not unreasonable given the regular flareups of HIV within the industry. (The argument against it, IMO, isn't paternalism but the fact that female performers find their use unpleasant given that porn production takes much longer than normal everyday sex.) Just as regulation isn't inherently bad it also isn't always a good thing. This seems like an example of bad regulation. For one thing, it seems like a bad precedent to require safety measures for people working a particular job doing an activity that many people do daily without any such requirement when the sole concern is personal safety. There's just no need for it.
I doudt most people have sex as regulay as porn stars (yourself excluded of course). So I am not sure the analogy is that apt.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
MyTwoCents wrote: The Message wrote: To save us a lot of time I'll just say I'm also against requiring construction workers to wear hard hats and requiring anyone to wear a seat belt while driving. . Thought experiment. If there was a button that you could press that would force everyone on the planet to wear blue socks 1 day per week, but would also eradicate bowel cancer, would you do it? I would, its a no brainer - a tiny imposition on liberty is a reasonable cost for a massive public benefit. the same applies to hard hats and seatbelts. Massive reduction in pain and misery for miniscule imposition on people's liberty. Liberty does not absolutely and in all cases outweigh life and the pursuit of happiness, to not pass such a law when the chance presents itself would be immoral.
Yes. Yes. To hold in my hand, a capsule that contained such power. To know that life and death on such a scale was my choice. To know that the tiny pressure on my thumb, enough to break the glass, would end everything. Yes. I would do it. That power would set me up above the gods. And through the Daleks I shall have that power!"
-
Clay
United States
Alabama
-
MyTwoCents wrote: The Message wrote: To save us a lot of time I'll just say I'm also against requiring construction workers to wear hard hats and requiring anyone to wear a seat belt while driving. . Thought experiment. If there was a button that you could press that would force everyone on the planet to wear blue socks 1 day per week, but would also eradicate bowel cancer, would you do it? I would, its a no brainer - a tiny imposition on liberty is a reasonable cost for a massive public benefit. the same applies to hard hats and seatbelts. Massive reduction in pain and misery for miniscule imposition on people's liberty. Liberty does not absolutely and in all cases outweigh life and the pursuit of happiness, to not pass such a law when the chance presents itself would be immoral.
The thought experiment doesn't really relate to this issue though, since it affects other individuals. Whether or not you wear a hard hat only affects you. You do see the difference, yes? It's a pretty important one.
-
Xander Fulton
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
The Message wrote: MyTwoCents wrote: The Message wrote: To save us a lot of time I'll just say I'm also against requiring construction workers to wear hard hats and requiring anyone to wear a seat belt while driving. . Thought experiment. If there was a button that you could press that would force everyone on the planet to wear blue socks 1 day per week, but would also eradicate bowel cancer, would you do it? I would, its a no brainer - a tiny imposition on liberty is a reasonable cost for a massive public benefit. the same applies to hard hats and seatbelts. Massive reduction in pain and misery for miniscule imposition on people's liberty. Liberty does not absolutely and in all cases outweigh life and the pursuit of happiness, to not pass such a law when the chance presents itself would be immoral. The thought experiment doesn't really relate to this issue though, since it affects other individuals. Whether or not you wear a hard hat only affects you. You do see the difference, yes? It's a pretty important one.
But that pretends that every individual is an island, which is patently not so. Even in this example, at the very least, other impact (outside the individual) for a construction worker not wearing a hard-hat and suffering the attendant injury:
- Loss of their skill from the project they were working on, requiring delay or risk of project failure (depending on how important they were) resulting in financial loss to their employer.
- Burden on emergency response system. You'd feel pretty silly if a child died of an asthma attack because the local ambulance was busy taking this construction worker to a hospital from a beam smacking his head...when simply wearing a helmet would have merely knocked him on his ass with no harm done.
- Burden on health system. Assuming he survives his injury (that a helmet would have prevented entirely), he may now need to see further treatment, painkillers, may even be on disability permanently from now on and acting as a further financial burden on others.
- Let's not even bring up his family.
And this is as close as you can get to one of the examples of "it only affects the one person"...nothing ever effects "only one person".
-
Chris White
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
-
The gay porn industry is required to use condoms. I fail to see the issue with straights taking the same safety precautions.
-
|
|
Posted Wed Feb 1, 2012 3:59 am
