...is that women are to be used and discarded. Or as an author once called it, "catch and release." And the men are only stand-ins for the males in the audience. Face it; would you want to know anyone so monomanically attached to one aspect of human existence? Post-coitus, they'd be as dull as dishwater.

thanks but no thanks. I don't care if the chickens I eat suffered, because chickens aren't much smarter than worms. I'll eat whatever produce is cheapest, and who needs porn with condoms? What's next - girl porn with REAL lesbians? Who want's to see a bunch of 'she-men' having sex? Porn is about fantasy FFS.

On, for example, HIV killing creams. Invisible condoms (surely the rim can be photo-shopped out). With all the technology out there, surely the porn industry can come up with a solution that pleases their viewers. Alternatively, they could cut and paste shots. Close up of bare parts, action with socks on, etc.

With Gov't regulation, I suspect a solution would be found quickly -- and I doubt it would be graphic close-ups of condom-clad pistons pumping away.

A closer look at the LAT article will show that the incendiary bit about the cockroaches actually refers to roaches on the set of Guillermo del Toro's science fiction film, Mimic. Cockroach erotica probably exists somewhere, I'm sure, but...

You know this is one issue where "How the World Works" and "Broadsheet" can come together (now stop it you dirty pervert). What would happen to the American Porn industry (which is already suffering from piracy and a porn glut) if condom were mandated. My thought is that like any industry it would wither away (no pun intended) from global competition from non-condom porn producers (Eastern Europe, China maybe India). Strangely except for some exception that's what happens to most industries, increased regulation (even if warranted) makes domestic industries non-competitive and foreign industries that are less regulation bound have the edge. Porn is different in the sense that "taste" and not price drive demand. Maybe it's time to have a minimum level of global regulation to protect workers but I don't see how you can enforce it.

If the testing is ineffective because of a "detectability window", then extend the time between when one can work on the set and one has been tested. Only one "working session" between the testing and "wait window". Should have the effect of reducing supply of available porn workers, and drive up wages. Workers who agree to use condoms would be exempted from wait requirements, possibly pushing the industry toward more responsible attitudes toward condoms. And hurry up with the CGI to moot this whole issue.

Depending on the sex act.

HIV creams don't protect from all STDs. And oral-after-coitus video shots would take REAL acting skills.

Judging a porn star, male or female, from their onscreen personae is a big mistake. You might as well judge someone from seeing them on the bus. Some are stupid, some are intelligent, some have other talents, some have none, and even the 'stupid' ones have a right to not be judged.

In the end, it's up to the individual performer to protect themselves, or to choose not to. Sort of like perfectly ordinary folks, in a way. And in a documentary about Ron Jeremy, I'll never forget the scene where he goes to have his monthly industry-demanded HIV test, and is sitting there waiting for the results. No matter how many times he does it, it's still stressful.

Interesting topic, and important, considering how many people watch porn.

Your suggestion is a good one but it doesn't cover amateur porn, foreign made porn, and the whole issue of porn actors working on the side.

>If as conscientious consumers we can commit to fair trade coffee beans, free range chicken and local produce, we can cope with condom porn, right?

... that the crowd so interested in such things are *not*, at least, the majority "consumers" of bareback pornography. I suspect they're an extreme minority of pr0n viewers in the first place, although that is on conjecture and a title of questionable relevance.

I think that's a good idea. It's reasonable, it protects the workers on several levels, and it doesn't compromise the, ah, art.

Comes with the job.

It doesn't really help, because who is to say the performer didn't have unprotected sex with someone in their personal life? You can't verify any of their claims in that regard.

The industry swears up and down that their voluntary monitoring is enough and that the number of infections is low considering the thousands of porn actors out there

The new numbers come out to less than 4 additional cases a year for a grand total of slightly more than 4 cases a year. 16 of these new cases where men which suggest they worked in gay porn* which seems to be made by smaller producers more likely to flaunt the law or work around the law by shooting in Mexico or other places where the law is not enforced. Force all porn to wear condoms you make the extra cost for raw porn that much more valuable.

Never mind that they could have contracted Aids or any other STD outside of the porn industry. I really doubt these performers are exactly celibate except on screen. And I would not even be shocked if some of the even hooked. So even with mandatory condoms I don't see the numbers of the next 4 years being much different.

Still, as Dr. Jonathan Fielding of the Los Angeles County Department of Health told the Lost Angeles Times, "I don't know of any other industry where people are subjected to that kind of risk."

I know of an industry that puts in employees at much higher risk, its called the NFL. Life expectancy of lineman on both sides of the ball is in the 50's. Estimates range all the way up to the 80 percent of the number of players with permanent injury. Never mind commercial fishing, dairy farming, meat processor all jobs with very high injury and death rates.

There have been efforts in recent years to require condom use by law but, whaddaya know, lawmakers are apprehensive about having their name attached to legislation that protects porn stars.

And I can all but guarantee you that most porn actors and actresses do no support bills that require condoms use. Going raw makes them more money. These laws also have the very real chance of killing their livelihood. With the porn industry being international and all if the public wants raw they will get it from Russia or some other country.

Their argument is a compelling one: If hard hats are required on construction sites to protect workers, why not mandate condoms on porn sets? After all, most workers have basic legal protection against, you know, death on the job.

I am not sure if you are aware but AIDs is no longer a death sentence. And many jobs you end up with your body being worse for the wear from construction to the NFL.

*Before anyone gets all up in arms, no not every gay person has aids or anything close to this. It just extremely rare for men to contract the hiv virus from female partners.