Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 25, 2012


i like a bit of porn. i make no !ahem! bones about it. the reason i mention this is that is that the los angeles porn industry is being hit with a new law that means that male performers will have to wear condoms.
for many this is a victory for health and safety for those involved in the industry, anything that cuts down on the transmission of aids or other sexually transmitted diseases is a good thing. right?

not so. a few have complained. ron jeremy, a porn legend, says that it will remove the element of fantasy for the viewers. others say that some performers prefer not to cover up. while some say that it will be the end of the porn industry as no one will buy condon based porn and they will just turn to imported porn. of course as this is only, for the time being, going to be the law in los angeles it is likely that porn companies will just move to other parts of the usa - after all it is not like they need large studios to shoot the latest instalment of 'anal carnage' or 'facial wipe off'.

the porn industry says the fact that all its performers have to be tested for disease every thirty days is a sufficient safeguard.

(if you are squeamish skip this next paragraph - old bloke talking about having sex. you have been warned).
scroll down to where you see there @@@@@@@@@@@@ for normal service.

back in the day when i was sexually active (and by active i mean a once a week shag with the ex) condoms were always involved. i was happy to 'suit up', as it were, which suited the ex, she didn't like using the pill. there were a couple of occasions when the reliance on condoms caught me short and unlike baden-powell i was not prepared which meant a lot of hanky panky at night and a serious case of blue balls in the morning.
just to spice things up we even got a variety pack of condoms - while it seemed like a good idea at the time, it turned out to be a disaster: the ones that weren't uncomfortable just made us laugh.
only once did we have a moment of condom failure and that was more to do with dilly dallying after the event. it lead to a couple of worrisome weeks. all was well.

(old bloke has stopped talking about his sex life).

i suppose the point i am trying to make with my little journey down memory lane is that using a condom in sex is hardly the buzz kill that the los angeles porn industry is trying to make it out to be.
contrary to ron jeremy's argument i don't think that seeing a bloke with a condom in a movie is going to take away from the 'fantasy' of it - that comes from the fact that the porn stars are all sexual acrobats who can fuck in positions that only trained yogi can get into, that they move effortlessly from one position to another in a ballet of porn. add to that they go on for longer and recover quicker than the rest of us can dream of and i thnk you have the fantasy part of it just there. a bit of rubber isn't going to change that.

however what a bit of rubber might do is send an important message out to all those who are sexually active that it isn't wrong to wear a condom. that wearing a rubber doesn't make you any less of a stud.

if that message is picked up on then the law passed in los angeles may just do more to cut down on stds/aids than all the guff that government and ngo educational programmes produce.

for that reason alone i say more rubber porn.

No comments: