“I’m not going to start insisting that all future editions of ‘barely legal’ or whatever start to include instruction manuals, but it’d surely be a public service if these kids saw contraceptives portrayed as a normal part of a healthy sex life. ”

It would be a public service if they didn’t portray women as constantly gagging for it!

It would also be a public service if they didn’t portray the doing of unpleasant things to women as somehow acceptable or sexy.

Well done, Neil. It’s about time someone highlighted the issues around Health and Safety in the bedroom.

With the teenage pregnancy rate, the Aids epidemic, genital warts etc, it is clear the vast sums of money the Government are spending on telling us how to have sex safely is not working. It would seem that many people can never be trusted to know what’s good for them. Especially after binge drinking.

Surely it is time to make the act of having sex without a condom a criminal offence. This would eliminate STD’s at a stroke and in time would help to solve the problem of over population. (Those wishing to procreate would have to apply for a “bareback licence” from their local authority renewable after a year and priced at say £50 to cover the admin).

Repeat offenders could have CCTV installed in their bedrooms and/or have their genitals electronically tagged.

So what I am saying is, Neil, once you’ve successfully clamped down on the Californian porn industry, there’s a big job to do at home.

“but it’d surely be a public service if these kids saw contraceptives portrayed as a normal part of a healthy sex life”

I’m not convinced – by a long way – that the kind of sex depicted in pornography is indicative of a healthy sex life.

Nor am I convinced that we should insist on contraception in porn, on the basis that porn is sex education. I’d rather actually have sex education…which is woefully inadequate in this country.

“Repeat offenders could have CCTV installed in their bedrooms”

Where does one apply to monitor the footage on said cameras, not that I am remotely interested in selling the footage of any crimes on Ebay?

I’m rather amused by your constant reference here to condoms as “contraception”.

For of course that’s not what you mean at all. All of these “actresses” (for all the visual evidence that most of their “acting” does not involve the liklihood of conception, vide your remarks about faces) will have contraception well taken care of by hormonal methods.

What you are talking about here is the use of condoms as an anti-viral measure. So why not say so?

Neil, it’s interesting that you developed an argument throughout this article, only to bottle it at the end when you realised how unbelievably authoritarian and illiberal the only possible conclusion to your article would have been.

Hilarious stuff.

It would also be a public service if they didn’t portray the doing of unpleasant things to women as somehow acceptable or sexy.

The problem with this is that what one person may find sexually unpleasant will be exciting and pleasurable to another.

Of course, pornography is mainly consumed by men and it is therefore targeted at a male audience. For this reason, and because pornography is, itself, a symptom of the disconnect between male and female sexuality, its content is likely to reflect, exaggerate and perhaps exacerbate that disconnect.

“only to bottle it at the end…”
The article doesn’t need a definite conclusion as it’s simply throwing out a question. There’s even a question mark in the title.

I wonder if there’s a connection with workers in other industries resisting other health & safety measures? The argument that adopting such changes could make them less competitive gets used a lot and quite often seems to override personal safety concerns. Certainly imposing the rules from outside tends to cause a lot of resentment.

This article just reinforces the common belief that lefties are rubbish in bed, have never had good sex, and don’t therefore undersand it.

Agreed, Letters From A Tory, this article is dreadfully draconian. Almost as bad as if he’d said somebody deserved to be bludgeoned to death for walking slowly with his hands in his pockets, or something…

Neil:

Forgive the pun, but this is just nuts. In catering, if you spend your days handling a lot of meat, you need to maintain hygeine by wearing a clean pair of gloves. Likewise, if you’re handing meat for very different purposes, you’d think it might be smart to make sure your implements are safe.

Well, one way of doing that is to take regular HIV tests, insist that your co-workers (as it were) do the same and have HIV-negative3 status, and provide proof of both at your place of (ahem) work, which (apparently) standard practice in the porn industry. The same would apply to all other STDs, so why pick out HIV for this argument (and not bother to check on employment practices)? Since the rest of us don’t expect to produce such documentation in our private sexual lives, it’s easier to wear/ask for a condom – oh, and to remember that porn and reality are different, as any fule kno.

Neil Robertson said: ”What I find much harder to understand is why porn actors – whose hygiene is pretty essential to get paid – would prefer not to wear them. Is it because the sans condom market is much more lucrative? Would insisting on safe sex ruin your reputation as an entertainer? Or is their objection similar to the punters – that ’safety first’ is just a turn-off? I suspect my readership probably doesn’t extend to porn actors, so I might never find out, but it certainly seems that the potential risks of not wearing a condom are far worse for both the individuals and the industry than any limp costs incurred from a disappointed public.”

On the first question, I think the answer is – yes.
2nd question I’m not too sure about .
3rd question is a bit presumptuous.

Porn is everywere (on the net at least), and I’d be really interested to read some inteligent discussion about it.
I liked a recent programme (on channel 4 or 5) wher high school kids were asked about their views on porn and the opposite sex.
Slightly explicet, but educational for the kids too (I thought).

Is it not worth noting just how rare this sort of outbreak is in the highly prolific world of pornographic film making?

I mean given that this involves thousands of sexually active people engaging regularly in sexual activity with a great many partners, it is worth some credit is it not that that industry has managed to keep itself relatively disease free?

The fact that it requires regular testing of its “stars” and promotes the use of condoms when they sleep with people in their private lives has kept there from being an outbreak for five years.

And when there is an outbreak it tends to shut down production and get everyone at risk tested before having them work again.

Frankly – if every person in the western world took the precautions that porn stars do with their sexual health, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases would be dramatically reduced.

You would have thought some judicious cutting would allow actors to wear condoms anyway without it becoming a major feature of the scene, which is certainly how most couples treat condom use.

I don’t believe in coercive regulation, and especially not of sexuality (unless it is the fun kind of coercive regulation), but I must admit it does seem strange that the producers would go out of their way to avoid taking basic safety precautions.

re vicky, 9

Under UK law an employer can subject an employee to disciplinary procedures, which may include dismissal, if the employee does not use personal protective equipment that has been provided after a risk assessment has been undertaken.

I’ve negotiated with workers resisting the use of hearing protection equipment in a noisy work place and the UK law and the advice from HSE is clear. Use the gear or get out.

Don’t know what the laws are in California but I suspect that the producers of porn are mindful that they could get sued for a lot of money if they are found to have breached whatever the Californian equivalent of common law duty of care is. Being a bit dim or voluntering to undertake a risky activity does not necessarily mean that you don’t have a valid claim for damages if your employer has failed in their duty of care. But as I said, i don’t know the Californian laws.

I wouldn’t be able to resist a giggle if the Cal. porn trade is brought down by a bit of health & safety legislation rather than the ethical issues.

“I wouldn’t be able to resist a giggle if the Cal. porn trade is brought down by a bit of health & safety legislation rather than the ethical issues.”

Health & safety legislation is an ethical issue.

They might be the butt of many a pc joke but particuarly to people working in construction the shocking lack of health and safety legislation in our country is a life-and-death issue.

I know this isn’t the most delicate way of putting this, but I think the problem isn’t so much the lack of health and safety regs covering condom use as it is the weekly hour-long, double ass-ramming sessions.

I’ve no idea which unfortunate government clerk it is who’s going to have to draft the legislation setting out strict regulations on the frequency and ferocity of double ass-ramming sessions, but my heart goes out to him or her.

Nina Hartley (Porn actor/director) has actively worked against safer sex regulations in the porn industry. Sex workers die and get ill because condoms are voluntary and therefore only 20% of porn productions, mostly gay male films, use them. Hartley insists that if sex workers want to perform with condoms then they should “just say no” to pornography jobs that don’t use them, thereby putting all the power to keep sex workers safe in the hands of more powerful director-pimps who are not complying with basic OSHA regulations because no-condom sex makes bigger money for pornographers like Hartley than actually protecting worker’s health.

Safe sex saves lives and no one needs safer sex practices than persons subjected to sexual capitalism’s extreme bodily demands in pornography.

Here is the section of the California State Assembly Committee on Labour and Employment post-hearing report on “Worker Health and Safety
in the Adult Film Industry” where Nina Hartley rejects safety measures for sex workers. Directly afterwards is the rebuttal to her pornography corporation-defending remarks by HIV prevention expert Thomas J. Coates:

http://www.nswp.org/pdf/CAL-ADULTFILM.PDF

Dr. Coates also suggested that perhaps all adult films should carry a disclaimer: “Do not try this at home as it could be hazardous to your health and that of your loved ones.”

He concluded his testimony by stating that the main barrier to reform is usually cited as economic or market driven. But legitimacy often requires industries to take steps that might cut into profits or market share. Advancing public health cannot occur on the basis of legislation or regulation alone.

Under UK law an employer can subject an employee to disciplinary procedures, which may include dismissal, if the employee does not use personal protective equipment that has been provided after a risk assessment has been undertaken.

I’ve negotiated with workers resisting the use of hearing protection equipment in a noisy work place and the UK law and the advice from HSE is clear. Use the gear or get out.

Well Dave. You are saying you enjoy having power invested in you by the state to compel others to do what has been decided is in their interests? Why? Why do you revel in such power?

Health & safety legislation is an ethical issue.

It may be to some but it should be an issue of risk management.

The problem is that when inexperienced legislators and jobsworth practitioners get together there results a culture in which, when risk is identified, they demand its absolute elimination. Thus, when a single case of HIV infection is detected in a porn star, the answer is simple- compel them all to wear condoms, no matter the cost to their industry.

The impulse to eliminate all risk is ultimately stultifying to peoples lives. Strangely enough, the HSE actually seem to understand this- whether the likes of Dave and Tim ever will is another matter…….

Dr. Coates also suggested that perhaps all adult films should carry a disclaimer: “Do not try this at home as it could be hazardous to your health and that of your loved ones.”

I think you’ll find most of the market for adult films comprises people who don’t have the opportunity to try it at home.

Evening folks, ta for the comments.

Pagar,

I’ll say this for you; you do have a fine line in dystopian visions, even if it doesn’t manage to bear a passing resemblance to what I wrote or how I think. Your error here was blithely assuming that people you disagree with are going to have sinister motives. Nothing wrong with that at all; you might even strike lucky once in a while (see Draper, D). But when it falls flat, it really falls flat.

A. Tory,

Your comment only really works if I was starting out from the position you assume I had, and not (as Vicky said) throwing out a question. Are you claiming to be a telepath as well as a blogger? Or are you just a bit pissed that you didn’t get the chance to harrumph ‘This site should be renamed Illiberal Conspiracy’? Seriously mate, I’m only on the other end of the internet. You don’t have to assume; just ask.

Tim Worstall,

I’m not sure that using a word twice in a 500 word post really counts as ‘constantly’, but I take your point. I was just trying to stop overusing the word ‘condom’, which was probably a bit daft.

Matt Munro

This article just reinforces the common belief that lefties are rubbish in bed, have never had good sex, and don’t therefore undersand it.

Post, dear boy, it’s a blogpost. Articles are things which people write after doing a bit of research and coming up with a considered opinion. Blogposts are things that you write in 45 minutes on a Sunday evening after eating large quantities of barbequed chicken. I would respond to the ‘lefties are rubbish in bed’ thing, but I’m pretty sure you just copied & pasted it from a comments thread on a 5-year-old Michelle Malkin piece. You need to write your own material, Matt.

Paul Sagar,

Nor am I convinced that we should insist on contraception in porn, on the basis that porn is sex education. I’d rather actually have sex education…which is woefully inadequate in this country.

Well, I think the porn industry should be more conscientious about condoms on the basis of harm reduction rather than sex education, but considering that kids are using porn as sex education anyway and there’s nary a thing we can do to stop it, it’d be nice if they could show at least one realistic & healthy aspect of sex. I actually think (and I’ve nothing more than anecdotal evidence to back this up) that sex education has improved since my day, but you’re obviously correct that there’s a lot more to do.

I think Margin’s point about the porn industry’s track record shouldn’t be ignored. Considering the volume & intensity of sex being produced, the infrequency of these outbreaks certainly suggests that they’re not too bad at self-regulation, but that really makes the no-condom thing even more strange & anomalous.

On a broader note, my thinking in this post starts out from the perpective of harm reduction, and that’s actually the best argument against heavy regulation. If you were to regulate condom use, you’d have to regulate a whole lot else besides, and if you do that then you won’t end the production of the riskier types of porn; you’ll just drive it underground and risk undermining those same health & safety standards that you hoped regulation could safeguard. The industry should just be more pro-active on the condom front simply because it’s the sensible thing to do, that’s all.

If you were to regulate condom use, you’d have to regulate a whole lot else besides, and if you do that then you won’t end the production of the riskier types of porn; you’ll just drive it underground and risk undermining those same health & safety standards that you hoped regulation could safeguard.

The claim that forcing pornographers to use condoms will only push the porn industry underground is an interesting argument, however.

100% condom compliance in SouthEast Asia is touted as The Solution for AIDS and is deemed a vital part of any strategy dealing with prostitution. I have never seen it suggested that pushing for condom usage in Asia will make the industry go underground.

The same people who say enforced condom usage in a First World country would make pornographers go underground don’t suggest that enforced condom usage in Third World countries makes pimps go underground. If anyone can reason a non-racist rationale for this discrepancy I’d be interested in hearing it.

“enforced condom usage in Third World countries makes pimps go underground”

Your error is in thinking that it’s either the pornographers or the pimps that enforce or do not enforce condom usage. It’s the participants who do. The “actors” or the prostitutes.

And for pretty much the same economic reasons. Non condom usage by a prostitute in SE Asia is going to kill her in a few short years even if it will make her more money in those years. Non condom usage by an “actress” is most unlikely to kill her but will make her more money. (As an aside, the numbers quoted for HIV + in the porn industry actually seem to be lower than in the general population, or am I missing something?)

As economists would insist that all do (when fully informed of course), each are trading off their own risk reward ratios.

The surge in condom usage in the sex trade in SE Asia is, at least I think it is, because the participants are now fully informed. Those in hte porn industry I would suggest are also so….look at the testing and exclusion of anyone who won’t be tested.

That’s not to say that we have to like or agree with their calculations of their own risk reward ratios. But we do have to go an awfully long way into illiberality to insist that we should impose our own ideas of what such ratios should be upon others and their actions.

A. Jack,

The claim that forcing pornographers to use condoms will only push the porn industry underground is an interesting argument, however.

It’s a bit of hypothesising on my part, but I’ll explain further what I mean and you can make of it what you will.

Just to be specific, I think that regulation of porn on explicit health & safety grounds would probably end up going a lot further than just forcing actors to wear condoms. At present, the porn industry can cater for just about every taste, craving, fetish or fantasy in the human imagination, and I think regulation would have the effect of discouraging the ‘legit’ film makers from producing the riskier material. Problem is, regulation wouldn’t make the demand for the riskier stuff go away, and there’d be plenty of other film makers either outside of California or outside of the United States who’d be happy to fill that gap in the market. On top of that, these days anyone can just make a porno and upload it for the world to see. There’s no guarantee that these new producers would adhere to anything like the same health & safety standards they seem to have in Callifornia, and as a result, the risk to the performers might actually increase.

I guess I’m drawing quite a few parallels with the effects of drug prohibition, and that may well be misguided, but it’s at least something to consider as a possible consequence.

“enforced condom usage in Third World countries makes pimps go underground”

Where did I say that? I said “I have never seen it suggested that pushing for condom usage in Asia will make the industry go underground.”

“Your error is in thinking that it’s either the pornographers or the pimps that enforce or do not enforce condom usage. It’s the participants who do. The “actors” or the prostitutes.”

If this is your belief that I’m afraid that you know absolutely nothing about the sex-industry, in any area of the world. Try telling that to the so called “agents”.

Neil – there already exists a prolific underbelly of porn and I cannot see how mandatory condom use will exacerbate it. The majority of gay porn already uses condoms so why can this not be extended to heterosexual porn? We don’t hear of scare stories regarding gay porn going “underground” cue scary music

In addition, this may just be me, but I’m not terribly interested in hearing of economic analysis in favour of capitalistic enterprises when it regards people’s health and lives.

In addition, this may just be me, but I’m not terribly interested in hearing of economic analysis in favour of capitalistic enterprises when it regards people’s health and lives.

Well, that’s fair enough, but those things are related.

Look, this post wouldn’t have been written were it not for the desire to reduce harm in an industry already riddled with things I find troubling. It’s just that you & I differ about whether regulation will reduce risks or simply shift them elsewhere. One of us is probably wrong, but at least neither of us is indifferent to the problem.

“Look, this post wouldn’t have been written were it not for the desire to reduce harm in an industry already riddled with things I find troubling.”

How do you envision harm reduction then? not being snarky, but am I missing something?

How do you envision harm reduction then? not being snarky, but am I missing something?

Preferably, the old fashioned method of political activism; bringing enough pressure to bear that agreeing to make condom use mandatory is far more preferable to being subject to state regulation.

“Preferably, the old fashioned method of political activism; bringing enough pressure to bear that agreeing to make condom use mandatory is far more preferable to being subject to state regulation.”

Yes. I obviously have not made my self very clear

@tim f
good point, well made.

I hope everybody knows what I meant by those comments however poorly stated.

Tim Worstall @24: “As an aside, the numbers quoted for HIV + in the porn industry actually seem to be lower than in the general population, or am I missing something?”

My recollection is that there have been two disclosures of an HIV+ performer exposing (unknowingly) him/herself to others in the last five years in California. Undisclosed incidents?

Comparing HIV+ incidence in the porn industry with the general population will never give meaningful results. As others have commented, porn performers are going to be more aware of sexual health because they rely on a doctor’s non-HIV+ certificate (which is not an HIV- certificate) to work. Us folks who do not work in the porn industry only worry about STDs when our personal bits get a bit out of shape. But indirectly we are exposed to serial shaggers, barebackers and crack heads.

A couple of weeks ago I read a newspaper article about sexual behaviour amongst young people — and 20%+ of the young people claimed that they had attended an STD clinic. Really? Is anyone familiar with STD clinic stats to confirm that? Have the mortgage lenders yet removed the question “Have you ever had an HIV test?”

Preferably, the old fashioned method of political activism; bringing enough pressure to bear that agreeing to make condom use mandatory is far more preferable to being subject to state regulation.

Agreeing to make condom use mandatory?

Who is going to agree? If they wanted to use condoms they would be doing so.

So you are left with proposing state regulation to compel their use?

This is how it all starts!!!!! And you say my dystopian vision is paranoid?

PS Don’t argue with A. Jack. She’s got more pixels than you.

PS Don’t argue with A. Jack. She’s got more pixels than you.

Where did I say I was female? But yes, I enjoy an abundance of pixels.

@24

“(As an aside, the numbers quoted for HIV + in the porn industry actually seem to be lower than in the general population, or am I missing something?)”

Presumably, once you’ve got HIV it’s pretty hard to continue your employment as a porn actor, which would reduce the numbers of people with HIV in the porn industry somewhat. Or am I missing something?

This is how it all starts!!!!! And you say my dystopian vision is paranoid?

But… I didn’t say that.

Who is going to agree? Well, it’s not exactly uncommon for industries to pre-emptively agree to self-regulation. If they worry that a political issue is gaining enough public traction that it might one day lead to some opportunistic pol taking matters into their own hands, the preferred course of action would be to self-regulate. If you lose the argument then you lose the argument, but as you should be able to see from my contributions further up the thread, I’m not trying to build a trojan horse here.

Anyway, I should retire from the battlefield for the night. All this talk of sex is making me sleepy & bordering on incoherence.

“Well Dave. You are saying you enjoy having power invested in you by the state to compel others to do what has been decided is in their interests? Why? Why do you revel in such power?”

Well Pagnar, I made no claim to have or enjoy any sort of power let alone revel in it, and “the state” has invested bugger all in me so far as I can see. I act as a health & safety representative on a voluntary basis. I can only claim to have some influence and were I to start compelling people to do things I would lose that influence pretty pronto.

As Tim f says; “particularly to people working in construction the shocking lack of health and safety legislation in our country is a life-and-death issue.” This is also true of agriculture unfortunately, and there are many other areas of work where people are exposed to risk by their employer. The sex industry being the one under question here.

You’re spot on about risk assessment and management being the key to H&S. Trouble is a lot of employers don’t do it and a lot of employees go along with the status quo. I have met people who willfully expose themselves to risk by engaging in dangerous work practices and not using the provided protective equipment. As UK law stands I can only advise such people that they can be disciplined and even dismissed. There is no opt-out. Don’t know if there are any UK porn production companies (legit registered companies that is), but if they do not provide their staff with the appropriate protective equipment, as identified by a risk assessment, for a given activity they are in breach of the law. Perhaps there could be a dispensation from condom use if the performers were able to satisfy the employer that they are in a stable monogamous relationship?

And as I also said, I’ve no idea how any of this would work under Californian and US federal law. I suspect a class action by an HIV infected worker could be a possibility, but the porn industry would fight dirty, and how would the worker prove culpability?

Neil, you seem to be arguing that in a situation where there is a risk of over the top regulation being applied, an industry should voluntarily adopt that regulation ahead of time in order to avoid having to suffer that regulation. Or am I missing something?

I think this threat epitomizes the problem behind libertarianism: what begins as an effort to prevent the state from introducing legislation to outlaw something invariably mutates into an ideology which demands no efforts may be taken to change anything. The idea of a political campaign which does not petition the state, but instead opts for placing pressure upon an organisation, individual, etc via rhetoric and media coverage is entirely alien to them.

Libertarians are often rendered effectively incapable of conceiving of social reform.

@38 under English H&S law at least, if your employee is injured or killed but you’ve taken reasonable precautions to ensure their safety – ie it’s a genuine accident – you aren’t liable. Since the testing measures in force in the US porn industry are very rigorous indeed, I think you’d struggle to find a court that ruled they weren’t reasonable precautions.

(unless it was a court whose ideological puritanism, whether nanny-left or religious-right, led it to make decisions that weren’t justified in law. Not that such things could *ever* happen…)

James, you are in some ways confusing a bug with a feature. The Libertarian viewpoint is that people should be free to make their own choices and have the information available for them to do so. The only point at which other efforts must be made is where one persons choice has caused injury to another, then the state should step in because an offence will have taken place.

There is no real place for social engineering in libertarian pilosophy because the people are free individuals, not groups to be catagorised and controlled.

Right, so society as it is is perfect & we should make no efforts to alter things?

“Right, so society as it is is perfect & we should make no efforts to alter things?”

Don’t be daft. Of course society is not perfect. You have every right to inform people, hector them, persuade them, cajole them, wheedle with them and any other synonym you can think of. What you don’t have the right to do is use force, either directly or through the State, to insist that they must do as you wish, even if it is better for them. The exception to this “no force” rule is when their enjoyment of their freedoms and liberties as autonomous human beings conflicts with or damages the right of others to enjoy their freedoms and liberties as autonomous human beings.

This is what used to be known as “liberal” and some of us still think that it is indeed liberal to allow others to live their lives as they wish. Even as we try to persuade them that other paths might be better.

Well in which case you/Falco haven’t read my comment. Forming a political movement does not require you to petition any state for legislation relating to your concern to be introduced.

I don’t see a real distinction between the industry being coerced into using condoms by the state, and the industry ‘voluntarily’ adopting condoms to pre-empt compulsion by that same state.

In fact the latter is far more sinister.

And James seems to be having real difficulty in understanding ‘libertarianism’ in any of it’s forms; since – at the very least – libertarianism places a limit on the power of the state, and since we live in a country with a very powerful state indeed, then you can’t possibly say that libertarianism is against social change.

I think what we’re seeing here is yet another manifestation of the ‘yuck-factor’ dressed up as ‘concern for sex-workers’.

“I think what we’re seeing here is yet another manifestation of the ‘yuck-factor’ dressed up as ‘concern for sex-workers’”

Even if some folks do have the ‘yuck-factor’ so what? Porn is hardly a celebration of the humanity of women. Eroticised/ sexualised violence and body punishing hatred by corporate pimps and their advocates isn’t every persons wank fantasy. Thankfully.

And not forgetting that the ‘yuck-factor’ gets translated (projected) by closet puritans as puritanism. When in actual fact all the ‘yuck-factor’ advocates are attempting to deflect is ‘porn-is-sex’ which of course any fully operational human knows is a total load of tripe.

Porn is to sex as what food is to McDonalds ~ Gail Dines.

So yeah what’s wrong with Yuck?

I don’t see a real distinction between the industry being coerced into using condoms by the state, and the industry ‘voluntarily’ adopting condoms to pre-empt compulsion by that same state.

In fact the latter is far more sinister.

I didn’t mention the state. You really are struggling with the idea of political organisation that isn’t state-based, aren’t you?

And James seems to be having real difficulty in understanding ‘libertarianism’ in any of it’s forms; since – at the very least – libertarianism places a limit on the power of the state, and since we live in a country with a very powerful state indeed, then you can’t possibly say that libertarianism is against social change.

You’re completely missing my point. :3

I think what we’re seeing here is yet another manifestation of the ‘yuck-factor’ dressed up as ‘concern for sex-workers’.

Well if you’re going to assume bad faith then obviously you’re picking to argue over a non-falsifiable. Good luck to you, that’s not something which I intend to get myself involved in.

“Forgive the pun, but this is just nuts. In catering, if you spend your days handling a lot of meat, you need to maintain hygeine by wearing a clean pair of gloves. Likewise, if you’re handing meat for very different purposes, you’d think it might be smart to make sure your implements are safe.”

Which they do. There are these things called “doctors” which porn stars regularly have to see. They don’t need condoms because of things like the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation.

And the comparison with catering is very stupid. Hygiene is needed in catering because otherwise customers get sick. However, there is no chance of a customer buying a porn film and then contracting HIV THROUGH THEIR TV SET!

“Beyond that, for better or worse (and I’ll leave the angsty rants for another day), a lot of teenage boys receive their sex education from pornography, and when it comes to having that first experience, their main frame of reference is going to be some skin flick they swooned over in their bedrooms. I’m not going to start insisting that all future editions of ‘barely legal’ or whatever start to include instruction manuals, but it’d surely be a public service if these kids saw contraceptives portrayed as a normal part of a healthy sex life. In the end, it wouldn’t just be the sexual health of the actors that you’re improving, but the health of a great many people whose perceptions of intercourse are heavily influenced by what a bunch of oddy-named entertainers get up to without clothing.”

So your saying that porn has a responsibility towards its customers? So does that mean that Lord of the Rings was wrong to portray battles and violence, or millions of movies for swearing? I mean, you’re asking not just for realism (else there would be no complaint since condoms are commonly not used), but only “moral” or “correct” behaviour depicted in film. If that’s not autocratic, then I don’t know what is. Porn has no reason to be “ethical” to benefit society, but tv channels are made to not show porn before the watershed, and unless soft-core, only on pay per view.