PornBox.com

Would you mind LegalPorno shooting scenes with condom's? I only ask this as Giorgio Grandi has said in a few previous post he would like to be shooting with condom's. I don't mind condoms being introduced to LP and it wouldn't stop me buying scenes. I'm sure others have differing opinions.

I did not see that post from Giorgio, can you please give a link to it?

My point is if condom play is also introduced (girl puts it on, removes it, puts it on again, drinks cum from it or chews it like bubblegum) I say YES.

If it's going to be 'always on' just for the sake of 'condom policy' or whatever - like in Dorcel movies - my answer is NO.

Cheers,
Gold

My point is if condom play is also introduced (girl puts it on, removes it, puts it on again, drinks cum from it or chews it like bubblegum) I say YES.

If it's going to be 'always on' just for the sake of 'condom policy' or whatever - like in Dorcel movies - my answer is NO.

Cheers,
Gold[/quote]


Could not agree more...

It would be a very bad idea if there would be scenes on LegalPorno in which the performers use condoms, so I hope this will never happen.

In France condoms are used by French producers because it isn't allowed to show condom-free porn on TV. So when you produce a porn movie in France and you want to sell it to French cable companies the performers must use condoms.
In my opinion this is ridiculous. Why shouldn't it be allowed to show condom free porn on TV.

Movies from Marc Dorcel are much more mainstream movies than Legalporno vids. LegalPorno is an extreme anal porn website. So they are really making porn for a different part of the porn market.

LegalPorno shouldn't begin with a "condom policy". They should stay a no-condom pornsite. That is what I expect from such an extreme anal website. It is logical that it is condom free.

scott271 wrote:http://www.legalporno.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=96&t=12028&p=93134&hilit=Condom#p93134

I hadn't read that posting of Giorgio. I hope that he changes his mind and that his vids stay condom free.
As long as actors get tested there is nothing wrong with condom free porn in my opinion.

LP actually tried it about a year back and it didnt work/sell/whatsoever.
I hope the condom idea never comes back!
For me its absolute no-buy since 15 years - will always be I guess - even if I do understand Giorgio writing what he wrote.

dap-addict wrote:LP actually tried it about a year back and it didnt work/sell/whatsoever.

Shocker...

There ewere about 5 condom scenes and xxx explained they allowed LP to get some girls they wouldnt otherwise and promised only the intro would be condomized. For me it looked rather like a testing field for sales rates etc and luckily after 1-2 weeks all the idea was dumped. I hope thats it for condom use here really!

dap-addict wrote:There ewere about 5 condom scenes and xxx explained they allowed LP to get some girls they wouldnt otherwise and promised only the intro would be condomized. For me it looked rather like a testing field for sales rates etc and luckily after 1-2 weeks all the idea was dumped. I hope thats it for condom use here really!

That really wasn't a success and luckily the dumped that idea very very soon. It is very simple, the customers don't accept condoms (and especially the LP customers).

Eugh! The thought of condoms in LP is enough to put me off porn for life. They are the epitome of anti porn and cold and sexless. Porn is about dirty fantasy and promiscuity which is eroded by the use of something so clinical and passionless. Obvs condoms have their place in real life but in an environment where one hopes std checks are super stringent then they are not needed. They just look awful on a penis as well, they really do.

Keep LP sheath free x

I wish there was a "maybe" option in this poll. Because I might watch it, depending on how the condom is used. It's not enough of a turn-off for me to say an outright "no", so I guess I could just say "yes", but again it really depends.

Fuck no

lokin66 wrote:Fuck no

+1

scott271 wrote:I don't mind condoms being introduced to LP and it wouldn't stop me buying scenes. I'm sure others have differing opinions.

I'm one of the others. It would stop me from buying those scenes. Why would anyone prefer to watch scenes whose added ingredient is a device guaranteed to keep the performers from fully enjoying what they're doing?

I despise the busybody repressed nanny-state psychopaths who try to legislate such things! A pox on Los Angeles County's legislators and the voters who approved "Measure B"; may they all suffer perpetual blueballs. And I disapprove, and won't support with my purchases, porn producers who willingly toady under to such repression.

Condoms are real-world. Porn is fantasy. The former is fully capable of destroying the latter, but we don't have to let it.

I don't think anyone would prefer watching scenes with condoms, but as Giorgio said he would prefer to produce porn with them. If I had to take a guess at the reason he would want to use them it would be for protective purposes.

Oldshark wrote:

scott271 wrote:I don't mind condoms being introduced to LP and it wouldn't stop me buying scenes. I'm sure others have differing opinions.

I'm one of the others. It would stop me from buying those scenes. Why would anyone prefer to watch scenes whose added ingredient is a device guaranteed to keep the performers from fully enjoying what they're doing?

As for performers enjoyment I don't think that would come far up the priorities of producers. They're paying the performers to do a job not to enjoy themselves.

scott271 wrote:They're paying the performers to do a job not to enjoy themselves.

You're missing this from two different angles, I suggest.

First: Yes, they're paying the performers to do a job. But the job definitely involves the performers enjoying themselves. If they don't enjoy themselves, it will be really shitty porn, and surely the producers know that. When the performers enjoy themselves (broadly defined, to include even very rough treatment when it's genuinely consensual), so will their fans, which leads to money for producers and performers.

Second: Apart from the diminution in my enjoyment of a scene when the performers' enjoyment is diminished, there's my own selfish desire not to look at the damned things. Porn isn't real life, from the consumers' point of view. It's fantasy, for us. I don't want porn directors reminding me that I ought to wear a glove IRL; I don't need that; I find that insulting and patronizing. I don't buy these for sex education. In my sexual fantasies, I want to be as free of reminders of STDs as I am free of reminders that I have to pay next month's rent. So again: Why would I pay to watch a fantasy which includes something that affirmatively turns me off and that makes me think about awful diseases? Answer: I won't, if there is any other alternative. (And there always is, with porn and the internet.)

I don't mean to be cavalier about performers' safety, and I certainly hope they, and the producers who hire them, aren't either. Yes, STDs are a real and serious threat, one which scales with frequency of new partners. And yes, HIV/AIDS and other STDs can be awful, even fatal, diseases. I'm pro-glove in real life unless one's in a circumstance in which there are other effective means of STD prevention in place.

But condoms aren't risk free, either for STD prevention or birth control. And heck, the most newly famous STD, the Zika virus, can also be transmitted by mosquito bites, meaning that abstinence isn't even sufficient to eliminate all STD risks. The way you handle risks is to eliminate or at least mitigate those that can be eliminated or mitigated without cost; then you do a cost-benefit analysis in order to decide whether the remaining risk is acceptable (which varies from person to person and time to time).

Producers and performers alike, and everyone who makes money from the industry, have very high incentives -- both financial and safety-focused incentives alike -- to mitigate STD risks, but they can never eliminate them. I don't know one way or the other whether the producers making porn for LP do or don't require contemporaneous STD testing or not, but they certainly have long-term self-interested reasons to do so, just as the performers have long-term self-interested reasons to submit to that, and to prefer (or perhaps insist upon) working with such producers. And from the producers' and performers' joint standpoint, they have strong incentives to find and use other means of STD prevention other than condoms.

EDIT: This isn't a new issue. I'm ripping some legacy DVDs to mp4 files tonight, and I just noticed this on a credits-crawl from 2006: "Diabolic is proud to inform our viewers that all performers appearing in this video have been medically tested and have shown proof that they are free of sexually transmitted diseases. Diabolic encourages our viewers to practice safe sex."

Yes, lets have condom porn! And we should probably also get rid of all the anal sex. From now on only dvp scenes... with grannies.

hjohjole wrote:Yes, lets have condom porn! And we should probably also get rid of all the anal sex. From now on only dvp scenes... with grannies.

if that's your fetish, ask and you may receive

No. Already had the PC decision with the piss ban, don't need another one.

Oldshark wrote:
And from the producers' and performers' joint standpoint, they have strong incentives to find and use other means of STD prevention other than condoms.

EDIT: This isn't a new issue. I'm ripping some legacy DVDs to mp4 files tonight, and I just noticed this on a credits-crawl from 2006: "Diabolic is proud to inform our viewers that all performers appearing in this video have been medically tested and have shown proof that they are free of sexually transmitted diseases. Diabolic encourages our viewers to practice safe sex."

Apart from condoms, what are the other means of STD prevention?

Testing only proves that on the day you took the test, you were free of sexually transmitted diseases. So between the day the test is taken until the next test fans favourite performers could catch any number of diseases and pass them on to others. This would have real-life consequences on them, maybe even life changing.

And if they can prove it happened on a shoot it could mean the producers are open to financial repercussions, maybe even some jail time. So I can see why Giorgio Grandi would be wanting to shoot with condoms. It's up to him to weigh up the loss of sales versus being sued by performers/prosecuted on work safety.

No condoms. Not now. Not ever.

The only place for condom porn:

scott271 wrote:Apart from condoms, what are the other means of STD prevention?

Testing only proves that on the day you took the test, you were free of sexually transmitted diseases. So between the day the test is taken until the next test fans favourite performers could catch any number of diseases and pass them on to others. This would have real-life consequences on them, maybe even life changing.

And if they can prove it happened on a shoot it could mean the producers are open to financial repercussions, maybe even some jail time. So I can see why Giorgio Grandi would be wanting to shoot with condoms. It's up to him to weigh up the loss of sales versus being sued by performers/prosecuted on work safety.

I agree that it's up to the individuals involved.

The individuals involved ought not expect me to pay for porn that features condoms, though, because I won't. Lots of people here are giving fair notice. That's called market signaling, and it helps prevent miscalculations (which GG would be making, as to all of us, if he thinks we'll pay to watch condom porn). I'm in favor of informed free choice all around.

Neither, for that matter, will I pay to watch a Disney film in which the magical characters have been forbidden to fly because one of the actors might have been injured in a fall. What I'm buying is a fantasy; if someone wants my money, they have to find a way to deliver a product I'd rather have than the one their competitor is selling.

To answer your question (although there are 10 zillion better resources available to you via Google): Other means of STD prevention include abstinence (obviously not practical for a porn-star, but again, being a porn star is a choice too) and, more practically, limiting one's pool of sexual partners (and their partners). The point of the STD tests is not just to show that as of the moment the test was taken, the performer is STD free. It's also to establish a history of freedom from STDs over time, and it's a credential traded and reasonably relied upon by others in the industry.

There are also high correlations between STDs and IV drug abuse, so if your partners aren't involved in that, that's another means of mitigating risk.

I don't assume all porn stars are promiscuous. Based on media reports, many are in long-term relationships or at least practice serial monogamy outside their work. There are famous examples of porn stars who were promiscuous and/or into IV drugs, who found themselves shunned and effectively drummed out of the industry because no one else would work with them. I assume, likewise, that someone with a good reputation -- including being at low risk of STD -- is going to find it easier to get bookings. Reputations matter -- this isn't a huge industry at this level (in contrast to, say, webcam girls), even though it's now definitely a global industry. The internet has tied everything together.

Oldshark wrote:

scott271 wrote:Apart from condoms, what are the other means of STD prevention?

Testing only proves that on the day you took the test, you were free of sexually transmitted diseases. So between the day the test is taken until the next test fans favourite performers could catch any number of diseases and pass them on to others. This would have real-life consequences on them, maybe even life changing.

And if they can prove it happened on a shoot it could mean the producers are open to financial repercussions, maybe even some jail time. So I can see why Giorgio Grandi would be wanting to shoot with condoms. It's up to him to weigh up the loss of sales versus being sued by performers/prosecuted on work safety.

I agree that it's up to the individuals involved.

The individuals involved ought not expect me to pay for porn that features condoms, though, because I won't. Lots of people here are giving fair notice. That's called market signaling, and it helps prevent miscalculations (which GG would be making, as to all of us, if he thinks we'll pay to watch condom porn). I'm in favor of informed free choice all around.

I regularly subscribe to porn websites. So you support the porn industry and new porn can me made. I will only subscribe to condom free porn sites.That is the porn I want to see and only for condom free porn I will pay. If there are condoms I won't pay for it, how good the actresses or the action is.

Oldshark wrote:Neither, for that matter, will I pay to watch a Disney film in which the magical characters have been forbidden to fly because one of the actors might have been injured in a fall. What I'm buying is a fantasy; if someone wants my money, they have to find a way to deliver a product I'd rather have than the one their competitor is selling.

Porn is fantasy. There is a huge difference between "normal sex" and what you see on a website like LegalPorno.com. Watching vids on LP is a form of entertainment. Some people like action movies, I like hardcore anal porn movies. The pornstars are the entertainers and are showing what they can anally to entertain the viewers. They are professional actors, so I assume that they know what they are doing. And off course porn isn't risk-free (which activity is risk-free?). I have seen many of Giorgio's movies. What will be next when he starts using condoms in his vids? Someone complaining that the anal sex is too hard and the actors could be injured? Then there would only be vanilla porn with condom use and I don't think that is what we want.

LegalPorno.com (and also Giorgio Grandi) are making vids for a niche market. There is enough softer porn (with or without condoms). So anyone who likes that has enough choice. Giorgio's movies are very, very good, so they should stay as they are. He is unique and I would really miss his vids, because there aren't many producers who make the same sort of vids like he does.

Oldshark wrote:To answer your question (although there are 10 zillion better resources available to you via Google): Other means of STD prevention include abstinence (obviously not practical for a porn-star, but again, being a porn star is a choice too) and, more practically, limiting one's pool of sexual partners (and their partners). The point of the STD tests is not just to show that as of the moment the test was taken, the performer is STD free. It's also to establish a history of freedom from STDs over time, and it's a credential traded and reasonably relied upon by others in the industry.

There are also high correlations between STDs and IV drug abuse, so if your partners aren't involved in that, that's another means of mitigating risk.

I don't assume all porn stars are promiscuous. Based on media reports, many are in long-term relationships or at least practice serial monogamy outside their work. There are famous examples of porn stars who were promiscuous and/or into IV drugs, who found themselves shunned and effectively drummed out of the industry because no one else would work with them. I assume, likewise, that someone with a good reputation -- including being at low risk of STD -- is going to find it easier to get bookings. Reputations matter -- this isn't a huge industry at this level (in contrast to, say, webcam girls), even though it's now definitely a global industry. The internet has tied everything together.

Porn stars have sex with lots of partners on the set. But they are also very regularly tested. So I think it is much more dangerous to pick up someone in a bar, have a one night stand and don't use condoms, then performing in porn. I don't know what the rules about testing are on LP. I have also seen lots of US porn and read about it and they have a good testing system there. Every performer must have a valid test, which isn't older than a certain amount of days. But off course this only works if girls aren't promiscuous outside the industry and don't use drugs. When there were STD problems in the US porn industry the source was in most cases not the porn industry but the private (sex) lives of the actors. But then the reputation of these actors is gone and they should never be allowed to perform in porn again, in my opinion.

If you start using condoms there must be something really extraordinary for me to continue buying your movies... Condoms is a big turn of and can only be compensated with AMAZING DAP:s. The girls have in that case get up to Arwen Golds level in Anal Stretching and train themselves to receive double anal like "a big girl". with two monsters balls deep in the ass!

No moore fake moans and other noices just the genuine facial expressions and wailing when she performs at her maximum level with two big ones up her but!

As long as DAP/TAP/heavy anal stays I'd watch, but here's the catch:

practically in order for them to be really useful for anal sex, one must use those
thick ugly ones (or 2 thin), which honestly will look horrible on camera.

Additionally having all those nasty sex acts around, the effect of protection will not be ideal, of course hopefully enough to stop most nasty STDs like HIV / Hep-C / Syph.

So I don't think condoms will be used soon on LP.

Oldshark wrote:
It's also to establish a history of freedom from STDs over time, and it's a credential traded and reasonably relied upon by others in the industry.

This is the sort of thing the porn industry tried to say to the legislators over Measure B , that testing regularly works and porn is clean. the legislators called their bluff and asked for them to prove that the rates of STDs infections was lower in porn performers than the general public. The porn industry couldn't.

scott271 wrote:

Oldshark wrote:
It's also to establish a history of freedom from STDs over time, and it's a credential traded and reasonably relied upon by others in the industry.

This is the sort of thing the porn industry tried to say to the legislators over Measure B , that testing regularly works and porn is clean. the legislators called their bluff and asked for them to prove that the rates of STDs infections was lower in porn performers than the general public. The porn industry couldn't.

I call bullshit. No one has an obligation to prove anything to justify their rights as free citizens. To the contrary, the government has an obligation to prove a compelling need to abridge freedoms before doing so. Here's a hint, dude: The "porn industry" isn't exactly Big Tobacco that can hire Ph.D.s to do research, but regardless, you're misdefining the issue, which is not whether the rate of STDs among porn performers is lower than in the "general public." If you haven't noticed, the reason porn performers are able to make money is that they don't resemble the general public.

Wear a glove if you want. Buy condom porn if you want. But you have zero right, and zero power, to impose your patronistic attitudes on me or anyone else.

scott271 wrote:

hjohjole wrote:Yes, lets have condom porn! And we should probably also get rid of all the anal sex. From now on only dvp scenes... with grannies.

if that's your fetish, ask and you may receive

Just for the record, that is NOT my fetish. I want to be super clear about this. I was just being sarcastic.

Oldshark wrote:
I call bullshit. No one has an obligation to prove anything to justify their rights as free citizens. To the contrary, the government has an obligation to prove a compelling need to abridge freedoms before doing so. Here's a hint, dude: The "porn industry" isn't exactly Big Tobacco that can hire Ph.D.s to do research, but regardless, you're misdefining the issue, which is not whether the rate of STDs among porn performers is lower than in the "general public." If you haven't noticed, the reason porn performers are able to make money is that they don't resemble the general public.

Wear a glove if you want. Buy condom porn if you want. But you have zero right, and zero power, to impose your patronistic attitudes on me or anyone else.

In California the government is trying to enforce the use of condoms again and again. Also in France there are condoms laws. When porn movies are shown on television the performers have to use condoms, so that is the reason why Marc Dorcel shoots his vids with condoms. Porn will always be controversial and so governments will always try to regulate it. People and politicians who are anti-porn mostly use moral arguments why porn is bad and should be banned or regulated. But there should always be the freedom to produce movies which are controversial. Porn actors are consenting adults, so it is their choice in what sort of porn vids they perform and what they do in those porn vids. There should be no government censorship about what can be done in porn and what can't be done in porn. F.e. in England certain activities in porn vids aren't allowed (Female ejaculation f.e. - https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/News/complete-guide-to-new-pornography-regulations-uk.html). Then the majority decides what is acceptable to watch and that isn't a good development.

Part of the freedom to make porn is that it is the decision of the people who work in porn if condoms can be used or can't be used. They decide what sort of vids they make and not the government.

Oldshark wrote:

scott271 wrote:

Oldshark wrote:
It's also to establish a history of freedom from STDs over time, and it's a credential traded and reasonably relied upon by others in the industry.

This is the sort of thing the porn industry tried to say to the legislators over Measure B , that testing regularly works and porn is clean. the legislators called their bluff and asked for them to prove that the rates of STDs infections was lower in porn performers than the general public. The porn industry couldn't.

I call bullshit. No one has an obligation to prove anything to justify their rights as free citizens. To the contrary, the government has an obligation to prove a compelling need to abridge freedoms before doing so. Here's a hint, dude: The "porn industry" isn't exactly Big Tobacco that can hire Ph.D.s to do research, but regardless, you're misdefining the issue, which is not whether the rate of STDs among porn performers is lower than in the "general public." If you haven't noticed, the reason porn performers are able to make money is that they don't resemble the general public.

Wear a glove if you want. Buy condom porn if you want. But you have zero right, and zero power, to impose your patronistic attitudes on me or anyone else.

You're right no one has an obligations to justify their rights, but industries have a responsibility to their workers to provide a the safest work environment possible. One of the reasons why construction workers have to wear hard hats and safety boots on site. Even as free citizens if they want to wear a baseball cap and trainers they're not allowed due to health and safety regs.
Now you and I on the other hand can choose what we want to wear whilst doing a bit of DIY or if we want to wear condom's or not during sex as we are not employees health and safety regs don't apply.

As for the porn industry not being big Tobacco they claim to be a billion-dollar industry. Surely they could hire Ph.D.s to do research. Plus they have an archive of data readily available to them from when AIM started to test and make a database of performers results up to today's database schemes they use in the US to show when performers are available to perform.

As performers being able to make money it's because they are willing to have sex in exchange for money on camera and allow it to be published. Anyone can do it, young, old, fat, thin, big dick, small dick, tattooed, not tattooed, stunningly beautiful or butt ugly. There's porn stars of all different shapes and sizes out there on the Internet making money.

hjohjole wrote:

scott271 wrote:

hjohjole wrote:Yes, lets have condom porn! And we should probably also get rid of all the anal sex. From now on only dvp scenes... with grannies.

if that's your fetish, ask and you may receive

Just for the record, that is NOT my fetish. I want to be super clear about this. I was just being sarcastic.

I knew you was being sarcastic so was I

scott271 wrote:You're right no one has an obligations to justify their rights, but industries have a responsibility to their workers to provide a the safest work environment possible. One of the reasons why construction workers have to wear hard hats and safety boots on site. Even as free citizens if they want to wear a baseball cap and trainers they're not allowed due to health and safety regs.
Now you and I on the other hand can choose what we want to wear whilst doing a bit of DIY or if we want to wear condom's or not during sex as we are not employees health and safety regs don't apply.

As for the porn industry not being big Tobacco they claim to be a billion-dollar industry. Surely they could hire Ph.D.s to do research. Plus they have an archive of data readily available to them from when AIM started to test and make a database of performers results up to today's database schemes they use in the US to show when performers are available to perform.

As performers being able to make money it's because they are willing to have sex in exchange for money on camera and allow it to be published. Anyone can do it, young, old, fat, thin, big dick, small dick, tattooed, not tattooed, stunningly beautiful or butt ugly. There's porn stars of all different shapes and sizes out there on the Internet making money.

No, industries do not have a responsibility to prove the "safest work environment possible." If safety were the overriding concern, the only concern, rather than something to be considered as part of a balance against utility and other factors, then we wouldn't have any porn, because no sex is safer than covered sex.

The question is what risks are reasonable in the circumstances. That should be up to individuals to decide for themselves if they're consenting adults. Construction sites pose rather spectacularly different risks than porn sets. In my day job, I litigate those lawsuits. I had a case a few years ago in which a flagman was crushed by a 20-ton steel plate dropped on his head by an overhead crane; I assure you his hard hat wasn't adequate for that risk, but I've never heard of a 20-ton steel plate being dropped on a porn star while she was working. For porn stars, given the legitimate but very different risks they take, other measures short of gloving up are reasonable and adequate.

It's really ironic to find a nanny-state proponent here on a hard-core porn website. If you give the government power to control what you watch in your bedroom, the government will soon control everything you do in your bedroom. That's especially true if it's a chicken-shit band of power-grabbing progressives like the ones who run the Los Angeles county government. And if you think their motivation was to protect porn workers, rather than to drive the porn industry out of the area, you're much more naive than I even thought.

Enough of the concern trolling. If you believed what you preach, you wouldn't be a member here, with your money going to subsidize those heartless bastards who produce condom-free porn, would you? Instead you want to wank off like the rest of us, in between pausing here at the forums to do some virtue signaling. Okay, well, you've seen what the community here thinks of your idea. Lonely?

scott271 wrote:You're right no one has an obligations to justify their rights, but industries have a responsibility to their workers to provide a the safest work environment possible. One of the reasons why construction workers have to wear hard hats and safety boots on site. Even as free citizens if they want to wear a baseball cap and trainers they're not allowed due to health and safety regs.
Now you and I on the other hand can choose what we want to wear whilst doing a bit of DIY or if we want to wear condom's or not during sex as we are not employees health and safety regs don't apply.

If porn companies would have the responsibility to provide the safest work environment possible, then condoms must be used by the performers (not only for penetrations but also for blowjobs), gloves when someone puts a finger(s) in the pussy or ass of another performer, a dentel dam for cunnilingus and anilingus. Because all exchange of bodily fluids and direct physical contact isn't allowed in porn anymore. And of course anal sex has to be done careful because otherwise the assholes of the actresses could get hurted. Then a website like LegalPorno and lots of other porn wouldn't exist anymore. If you like that porn, and I assume you like that, subscribe to the website of Wicked Pictures (they are a condom-only porn company).
I think that LegalPorno.com isn't the right porn website for you. I am a paying member of this website because I want to see very nasty hardcore anal action with performers who don't use condoms. The performers are consenting adults so it is their choice to perform on this website, nobody forced them to do that. Porn is about showing sex and then there is direct physical contact between the performers and bodily fluids get exchanged. So it is part of the job of the performers. If they don't like that, they shouldn't do it.

scott271 wrote:As for the porn industry not being big Tobacco they claim to be a billion-dollar industry. Surely they could hire Ph.D.s to do research. Plus they have an archive of data readily available to them from when AIM started to test and make a database of performers results up to today's database schemes they use in the US to show when performers are available to perform.

As performers being able to make money it's because they are willing to have sex in exchange for money on camera and allow it to be published. Anyone can do it, young, old, fat, thin, big dick, small dick, tattooed, not tattooed, stunningly beautiful or butt ugly. There's porn stars of all different shapes and sizes out there on the Internet making money.

The porn industry is a big industry, but there are many different porn companies. In America you had the AIM, but unfortunately they aren't active anymore. That is a good way to ensure that actors have valid tests. But if such an organization doesn't exist, and that is the case in Europe and also in the US, it is the responsibility of the porn companies to ask actors or actresses if they have a valid test if they want to perform in a porn vid. If she or he can't show that test they can't perform in the scene in my opinion. If there is a valid test and everything is okay, they can perform in a condom free porn scene. That is the way how it is done in the US and I assume LP also works with tests from the actors and actresses.

There are many different sorts of porn. LegalPorno.com is definitely one of the hardest sites, but there are many other porn sites with all sorts of porn. It is good that there is so much variation. So everybody can choose the porn he or she likes and everybody is happy. If you don't like a certain type of porn, don't watch it, but let other people who like it, watch it.

Porn performers do have sex in the workplace, yes. But are you under the impression that they're the only workers who have sex at the workplace, scott271? Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, tinkers, tailors, soldiers & spies all have sex at work too. Shall we pass a law requiring all of them to wear condoms? If providing the "safest work environment possible" is the overriding goal of world civilization, then why only protect sex workers with your righteous rubber umbrellas?

"Oh," you may retort, "they're not paid for sex! It's not part of their job!" Well yeah, right: Nobody ever slept with a boss to get ahead, never once in history.

Don't you have anything better to do than to be a misguided white knight for people who don't want or need your paternalism? Let's agree to disagree. For my part, here ends the discussion, because I'm going to watch some condom-free porn, giggling only occasionally about the fact that you disapprove, and you're too silly to waste more time arguing with.

Oldshark wrote:
Construction sites pose rather spectacularly different risks than porn sets. In my day job, I litigate those lawsuits. I had a case a few years ago in which a flagman was crushed by a 20-ton steel plate dropped on his head by an overhead crane; I assure you his hard hat wasn't adequate for that risk, but I've never heard of a 20-ton steel plate being dropped on a porn star while she was working.

Lonely?

Why was the flagman wearing a hard hat if it wasn't adequate for that risk? Why didn't he just go on site without it? Or did he have to wear it for legal reasons? I really would love to know the answers to this.

No,
I can watch my porn with or without condoms like the other members who voted yes in the poll above.

scott271 wrote:
Why was the flagman wearing a hard hat if it wasn't adequate for that risk? Why didn't he just go on site without it? Or did he have to wear it for legal reasons? I really would love to know the answers to this.

No,
I can watch my porn with or without condoms like the other members who voted no in the poll above.

That disappoints me scott271. You are for an industry that must provide "the safest work environment possible" and now you admit that you also watch porn without condoms.

pornlover_holland wrote:
If you like that porn, and I assume you like that, subscribe to the website of Wicked Pictures (they are a condom-only porn company).

like I said, I don't mind watching with or without condoms. I only started this thread after reading a post by Giorgio grandi, saying he thought all porn should be shot with condoms as he is one of the producers here.