What happened to condoms in porn?

[Rube E. Tewesday]

Hope this is the right forum...

I took kind of a break from watching hard core porn for a few years (I never watched a lot, but some). In the past year or so, I've watched a few again ...maybe a dozen, I dunno. When last I watched, condoms seemed pretty common -- in fact, you'd see them in movies where they made no sense, even for porn, like about the sex lives of Hercules and various wood nymphs. It made sense, given the times, and the number of porn performers who contracted HIV a few years back.

In the movies I've seen lately, though, that were apparently made in the last couple of years, the condoms are gone -- everything's pretty much like it was twenty years ago, no safe sex at all. Is this just a result of my small sample, or does it reflect a larger trend?

(Yeah, and I know, in the short history of this board, I've started threads about prostitution, porno spam and porno movies. Somebody had to do it.)

[Oliveloaf]

(Yeah, and I know, in the short history of this board, I've started threads about prostitution, porno spam and porno movies. Somebody had to do it.)

That's cool. But trust me, stay away from lists.

[Claptree]

My theory: when the HIV scare was at its prime, it was financially viable to show that you were responsible. Now it's faded and to be honest, fucking with a condom is not the same as without.

It's all about the fantasy, anyway. Wrapping your tool, whether or not you're a fool, is not very sexy.

[pepperlandgirl]

It might depend on the porn, too. Condoms in gay porn are ubiquitous.

[Batman]

There's not alot of condom use in gir/girl scenes either.








...Well there isn't.

[MsRobyn]

This article suggests that regulation is essential if the transmission rate is to be lowered. It also has the current scheme for testing performers for HIV and other STDs. It's also got some interesting numbers.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

This article suggests that regulation is essential if the transmission rate is to be lowered. It also has the current scheme for testing performers for HIV and other STDs. It's also got some interesting numbers.

Very interesting, thanks. I found it particularly interesting that Vivid, probably the highest profile porn studio, formerly had an all-condom policy, and dropped it.

[digitalC]

Its just hotter without condoms, if i remember correctly they do test all performers weekly for STDs. Not that HIV cases are completely unheard of, but its a lot safer to bareback a porn star than a regular girl you picked up at the club.

[renee]

I know this is totally un PC, but I can't help it: Condoms in porn are distracting. I try to ignore it, but I just can't seem to. It doesn't render the porn unwatchable or anything, but it does kind of bug me, then it bugs me that I'm so shallow as to be bugged by it. Gah!

Anywho, what amuses me, and I've seen this a few times, is when they've been using a condom the whole scene and then the guy pulls it off and comes right on the woman's vagina, which she's got spread open to receive him.

I mean, WTF? This is basic stuff here! Stupid porn.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

I know this is totally un PC, but I can't help it: Condoms in porn are distracting. I try to ignore it, but I just can't seem to. It doesn't render the porn unwatchable or anything, but it does kind of bug me, then it bugs me that I'm so shallow as to be bugged by it. Gah!

I'm kinda the same way. On the other hand, if condom use were universal, I'd probably just accept. Certainly the gay porn audience doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

[iftheresaway]

I've noticed this too, and I also find it distracting - but in the opposite direction. Seeing them go at it without a condom always makes me take a moment and go "ewwwwwww...... diseases". Maybe just because I've had sex=condom in my head for so long that the absence is noticable, and icky, to me.

[Johnny]

Based on some of the spam I get, I think it's morphed into cons in porndom.

[Chimera]

I'd say that the reason they're largely gone is that they interfere with "the money shot". Like the poster above said, it makes little to no sense to wear a condom and then pull it off so that you can cum on someone.

A lesser reason is that people watching porn don't want to be reminded of diseases and/or birth control. They want to see everything and fantasize about it all being good without any thoughts of negative consequences.

[Hostile Dialect]

I know this is totally un PC, but I can't help it: Condoms in porn are distracting. I try to ignore it, but I just can't seem to. It doesn't render the porn unwatchable or anything, but it does kind of bug me, then it bugs me that I'm so shallow as to be bugged by it. Gah!

Anywho, what amuses me, and I've seen this a few times, is when they've been using a condom the whole scene and then the guy pulls it off and comes right on the woman's vagina, which she's got spread open to receive him.

I mean, WTF? This is basic stuff here! Stupid porn.

I could've written this word-for-word, except that condoms do, sadly, make porn just about unwatchable for me. I know, I'm a terrible person or whatever, but it just ain't the same.

Certainly the gay porn audience doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

There's plenty of condom-free gay porn out there. Most of it seems to suck for totally non-condom-related reasons, but it's out there.

A lesser reason is that people watching porn don't want to be reminded of diseases and/or birth control. They want to see everything and fantasize about it all being good without any thoughts of negative consequences.

I think this is the key right here. Porn is supposed to be about fun, cool, perfect sex without all those communication problems, teeth scrapes, diseases, unwanted pregnancies and stretch marks. (Unless you're into that, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[Control-Z]

They suck in movies, just like in real life. I just had one break this weekend.

[badbadrubberpiggy]

I think this is the key right here. Porn is supposed to be about fun, cool, perfect sex without all those communication problems, teeth scrapes, diseases, unwanted pregnancies and stretch marks. (Unless you're into that, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Until you see it on HD. We recently got an HDTV, and it's truly amazing how much more detail you can see in your porn.

And not all of it's good.

[Skald the Rhymer]

A great deal of porn imagery is dedicated to degrading women. Not all of it, certainly, but much of it. On-screen fucking done in such a way as to potentially endanger teh female partner may be part of that.

[Hostile Dialect]

To be fair, it's not like it doesn't endanger the male, too.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

And is anybody really going "Ooh, the chick may get a disease and die in ten years, cool?"

I think the real issue is the one that's been identified: porn is about our fantasies of sex. However, in hard core, real people are having real sex, which can lead to real disease. It creates a tension.

[Chimera]

Skald, why do you hate America?

Er, I mean, why do you hate porn?

Er, I mean, why do your hate American Porn?

Um, no. That's not it.

Why do you hate men?

After all, there's plenty of porn out there dedicated to humiliating men too.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Skald, why do you hate America?

Er, I mean, why do you hate porn?

Er, I mean, why do your hate American Porn?

Um, no. That's not it.

Why do you hate men?

After all, there's plenty of porn out there dedicated to humiliating men too.

I didn't say that all porn imagery is dedicated to degrading women. I didn't even say "most." I said "a great deal."

[Chimera]

To be fair, I didn't use those words either.

[Misanthropic Contrarian]

A great deal of porn imagery is dedicated to degrading women. Not all of it, certainly, but much of it. On-screen fucking done in such a way as to potentially endanger teh female partner may be part of that.

How much? What %? Also please explain what the hell your last sentence in the quoted post actually means? Are you talking about porn where a chick has a gargantuan dildo rammed in her twat or butthole? You obviously don't know that every porn set has a copious supply of different types of lube on hand.

Testing for STD's is a standard practice in the adult industry nowadays; it's quite simple, if you don't get tested, you don't get work and thus don't get paid.

[Skald the Rhymer]

[quote=Misanthropic Contrarian]

A great deal of porn imagery is dedicated to degrading women. Not all of it, certainly, but much of it. On-screen fucking done in such a way as to potentially endanger teh female partner may be part of that.

How much? What %? Also please explain what the hell your last sentence in the quoted post actually means? Are you talking about porn where a chick has a gargantuan dildo rammed in her twat or butthole? You obviously don't know that every porn set has a copious supply of different types of lube on hand.

Testing for STD's is a standard practice in the adult industry nowadays; it's quite simple, if you don't get tested, you don't get work and thus don't get paid.[/quote:1g50b02m]


I didn't say that ALL porn is meant to degrade women. But movies with titles like "Suck My Cock, Bitch" are clearly not meant to present an image of feminine sexuality as ennobling or worthwhile.

As for the last sentence in my post: part of the reason (it seems to me) that many porn videoes omit condom use is that they wish to present women as being so overwhelmed by their sexuality as to be incapable of ordinary prudence, or as being of so little worth relative to men that the danger of condomless sex presents to them simply doesn't matter. (Please note that I'm not saying that condomless sex is without peril for men.)

[Exy]

I'm kinda the same way. On the other hand, if condom use were universal, I'd probably just accept. Certainly the gay porn audience doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Ehhh . . . barebacking is certainly more "marginal" within the gay porn world, but there's a couple major studios that do all barebacking films. It's more fraught with retarded political overtones than in hetero porn but it's not hard to find movies without condoms. It's considered "not mainstream", I guess, but there's plenty of consumers who prefer watching men go at it unwrapped. I can't friggin' stand the sight of a condom in a porn film. It's called pornography for a reason. I wasn't watching it for the moral.

A great deal of porn imagery is dedicated to degrading women. Not all of it, certainly, but much of it. On-screen fucking done in such a way as to potentially endanger teh female partner may be part of that.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

I'm kinda the same way. On the other hand, if condom use were universal, I'd probably just accept. Certainly the gay porn audience doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Ehhh . . . barebacking is certainly more "marginal" within the gay porn world, but there's a couple major studios that do all barebacking films. It's more fraught with retarded political overtones than in hetero porn but it's not hard to find movies without condoms. It's considered "not mainstream", I guess, but there's plenty of consumers who prefer watching men go at it unwrapped. I can't friggin' stand the sight of a condom in a porn film. It's called pornography for a reason. I wasn't watching it for the moral.

Live and learn... I was just going off what I've read.

[Cartooniverse]

Live and learn... I was just going off what I've read.

I envy you. I can't get off from what I read. I usually need some visuals. --rimshot--

Not sure condoms wreck it for me. They remind me of sex in High School and college and various other times when condoms were required. During the marriage to The Ice Princess, we were infertile and didn't use them. So in some weird way, condoms = excitement. Weird eh?

As far as the entire bareback = degrading women issue, I'm a boy. I don't get off on degrading women and it wouldn't have occurred to me that condom use was any more degrading/risky/controlling/threatening to women than it would be to men.

Last time I checked, in hetero porn, a set of genitalia from each camp are involved. Both can get HIV or other STD's, no?

Cartooniverse - "Proudly providing transport, nourishment, lubrication and shelter to a penis since 1962"

[Misanthropic Contrarian]

[quote=Skald the Rhymer][quote="Misanthropic Contrarian":1ux6vwdh]

A great deal of porn imagery is dedicated to degrading women. Not all of it, certainly, but much of it. On-screen fucking done in such a way as to potentially endanger teh female partner may be part of that.

How much? What %? Also please explain what the hell your last sentence in the quoted post actually means? Are you talking about porn where a chick has a gargantuan dildo rammed in her twat or butthole? You obviously don't know that every porn set has a copious supply of different types of lube on hand.

Testing for STD's is a standard practice in the adult industry nowadays; it's quite simple, if you don't get tested, you don't get work and thus don't get paid.[/quote:1ux6vwdh]


I didn't say that ALL porn is meant to degrade women. But movies with titles like "Suck My Cock, Bitch" are clearly not meant to present an image of feminine sexuality as ennobling or worthwhile.

As for the last sentence in my post: part of the reason (it seems to me) that many porn videoes omit condom use is that they wish to present women as being so overwhelmed by their sexuality as to be incapable of ordinary prudence, or as being of so little worth relative to men that the danger of condomless sex presents to them simply doesn't matter. (Please note that I'm not saying that condomless sex is without peril for men.)[/quote:1ux6vwdh]


Dude, you are entirely missing the point of much if not all of the porn that has been produced in the last oh lets say 10 years. It's all about FANTASY. Whether that fantasy involves fucking a chick in her butthole, then pulling your shit covered dick out of her butthole and making her lick it clean, or fucking a chick in her butthole while another dude slaps and punches her in the face, or doing a parody version of The Brady Bunch or Three's Company or Britney Spears, it;s all about fantasy and how said fantasy gets fulfilled.

Sadly a good deal of the most popular porn , and here I'm talking about Max Hardcore, Rob Black and Gregory Dark are all about degrading and "torturing" women. but one also has to know that the women all have a choice in whether or not they do a particular scene or perform a particular sexual act. These days the more outrageous or vile the sexual act, the more the chick gets paid.

Do I like that?

no, but then I don;t like to see anyone dudes or chicks having a cock slamming in and out of their butthole.

[pepperlandgirl]

Ehhh . . . barebacking is certainly more "marginal" within the gay porn world, but there's a couple major studios that do all barebacking films.

Just out of curiosity, which ones?

[Exy]

Ehhh . . . barebacking is certainly more "marginal" within the gay porn world, but there's a couple major studios that do all barebacking films.

Just out of curiosity, which ones?

Uh I actually can't remember. I don't really watch much porn in general, so while I've run into some I don't really remember any names off the top of my head.

I'm at work now so I probably shouldn't google "gay barebacking movies", I'm not sure my boss is into that.


ETA: Wait, check out Treasure Island Media, I'm pretty sure they're all bareback.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Dude, you are entirely missing the point of much if not all of the porn that has been produced in the last oh lets say 10 years. It's all about FANTASY. Whether that fantasy involves fucking a chick in her butthole, then pulling your shit covered dick out of her butthole and making her lick it clean, or fucking a chick in her butthole while another dude slaps and punches her in the face, or doing a parody version of The Brady Bunch or Three's Company or Britney Spears, it;s all about fantasy and how said fantasy gets fulfilled.

Sadly a good deal of the most popular porn , and here I'm talking about Max Hardcore, Rob Black and Gregory Dark are all about degrading and "torturing" women. but one also has to know that the women all have a choice in whether or not they do a particular scene or perform a particular sexual act. These days the more outrageous or vile the sexual act, the more the chick gets paid.

Do I like that?

no, but then I don;t like to see anyone dudes or chicks having a cock slamming in and out of their butthole.

I think I shall cede your superior knowledge of contemporary porn memes & themes.

[Hostile Dialect]

one also has to know that the women all have a choice in whether or not they do a particular scene or perform a particular sexual act

That's not necessarily true, considering that one of Max Hardcore's victim/costars has filed rape charges against him for what he did to her in a film. Somehow I doubt it's just her--or just him, despicable as his particular brand may be.

[Exy]

That's not necessarily true, considering that one of Max Hardcore's victim/costars has filed rape charges against him for what he did to her in a film. Somehow I doubt it's just her--or just him, despicable as his particular brand may be.

I'm not what one would call a connoisseur of heterosexual porn (or really any kind of "porn movie" per se) but even in my limited awareness I am aware of what Max Hardcore does.

It's just very hard for me to imagine any circumstances in which a lawsuit like this could be legitimate. She knew what she was signing up for. I hate to come across like I'm defending this dude, because I suspect he really is a terrible person, but this could create a chilling effect in which adults can no longer freely consent to filming themselves in certain activities for money. Shouldn't they be allowed to do so in a free society?

[Hostile Dialect]

Sure, as long as it's all clear up front. I get the impression from what I've heard about Max Hardcore in particular and the, um, male participants of that genre in general, that it's usually not a case of industry stars versed in the procedures agreeing to do really nasty stuff for a lot of money, but of amateur actresses showing up on the set and being attacked. A rape scene is a rape scene is a rape scene. Agreeing to get fucked on a porn set is not the same as giving total consent to be brutalized.

By the way, I've done some Googling and it appears I was thinking of Paul Little (aka Max Hardcore)'s obscenity conviction, which was a criminal trial, not a civil suit. My apologies for mixing those up. But check these articles/blogs out. They're not the most objective sources, but the information in them is easily verified, and it's pretty horrifying. Some of these films lead to hospitalization and some other pretty awful physical and emotional consequences. This is rape on film, nothing less.

And I say that as someone who has watched some of the movies before, and not for an essay on the porn industry. I'm glad to be over that phase, but today I'm ashamed of what I've supported.

[Misanthropic Contrarian]

Sure, as long as it's all clear up front. I get the impression from what I've heard about Max Hardcore in particular and the, um, male participants of that genre in general, that it's usually not a case of industry stars versed in the procedures agreeing to do really nasty stuff for a lot of money, but of amateur actresses showing up on the set and being attacked. A rape scene is a rape scene is a rape scene. Agreeing to get fucked on a porn set is not the same as giving total consent to be brutalized.

By the way, I've done some Googling and it appears I was thinking of Paul Little (aka Max Hardcore)'s obscenity conviction, which was a criminal trial, not a civil suit. My apologies for mixing those up. But check these articles/blogs out. They're not the most objective sources, but the information in them is easily verified, and it's pretty horrifying. Some of these films lead to hospitalization and some other pretty awful physical and emotional consequences. This is rape on film, nothing less.

And I say that as someone who has watched some of the movies before, and not for an essay on the porn industry. I'm glad to be over that phase, but today I'm ashamed of what I've supported.

Actually contrary to what you claim, a good number of industry stars including Briana Banks have done numerous vids with Max Hardcore. The chick mentioned in your first link made no less then 14 vids with Max Hardcore over a period of 3 years. It's not like she somehow got amnesia after each one or was held captive by Hardcore.

[Exy]

If the issue was obscenity, I'm even less convinced that this is a legitimate exercise of government power.

[Hostile Dialect]

Actually contrary to what you claim, a good number of industry stars including Briana Banks have done numerous vids with Max Hardcore.

I'm well aware that the litany of footage he's published includes familiar names at times.

The chick mentioned in your first link made no less then 14 vids with Max Hardcore over a period of 3 years. It's not like she somehow got amnesia after each one or was held captive by Hardcore.

But it could be like he shot a lot of film and released it in bits and pieces over a long time. Or her soul could have been crushed after the first one and she couldn't, or wouldn't bother to, get any other work doing anything else. Who knows?

If the issue was obscenity, I'm even less convinced that this is a legitimate exercise of government power.

That's fair, and I'm a, well, hardcore small-L libertarian myself, so this is a complex issue for me. I'm just not willing to accept the "all speech is good speech" line. IMO, as long as the government is sticking its nose into prostitution, drug use, and all of the other things that can hurt you, it might as well help protect these girls from this kind of abuse. I mean, some of the stuff out there is seriously shocking. Shocking content is not sufficient for government intervention, but when people are being terrorized, raped and puked on on film, it's going too far.

Honestly, I can't believe I'm even saying this. A year or two ago, I would have said, "You can't tell anyone what to film or not to film, ever!" But the world just doesn't look that simple to me anymore. And there's also the issue that a lot of the stuff portrayed in these movies would be illegal if there weren't a camera in the room, and for good reason. IIRC (I'm not going back in there), the forum thread linked to by the second blog I linked to in the last post, had a list of one user's favorite Max Hardcore scenes. There was a common theme: women were being physically abused and begging Max to stop, and he wouldn't. If these events weren't recorded and the recordings weren't sold later, this would be called rape. Can I walk around beating people up and have it be perfectly OK because I slap the copyright sign on it and sell it on the Internet? I don't think so.

[ivan astikov]

Consenting participants can shove baseball bats up each others poop-chutes AFAIAC, but at the risk of being called old-fashioned, I get no sexual satisfaction from seeing a female being put through a series of painful contortions to gratify another male. WTF is wrong with me? What am I missing?

[Misanthropic Contrarian]

[quote=Hostile Dialect]

Actually contrary to what you claim, a good number of industry stars including Briana Banks have done numerous vids with Max Hardcore.

I'm well aware that the litany of footage he's published includes familiar names at times.

The chick mentioned in your first link made no less then 14 vids with Max Hardcore over a period of 3 years. It's not like she somehow got amnesia after each one or was held captive by Hardcore.

But it could be like he shot a lot of film and released it in bits and pieces over a long time. Or her soul could have been crushed after the first one and she couldn't, or wouldn't bother to, get any other work doing anything else. Who knows?

If the issue was obscenity, I'm even less convinced that this is a legitimate exercise of government power.

That's fair, and I'm a, well, hardcore small-L libertarian myself, so this is a complex issue for me. I'm just not willing to accept the "all speech is good speech" line. IMO, as long as the government is sticking its nose into prostitution, drug use, and all of the other things that can hurt you, it might as well help protect these girls from this kind of abuse. I mean, some of the stuff out there is seriously shocking. Shocking content is not sufficient for government intervention, but when people are being terrorized, raped and puked on on film, it's going too far.

Honestly, I can't believe I'm even saying this. A year or two ago, I would have said, "You can't tell anyone what to film or not to film, ever!" But the world just doesn't look that simple to me anymore. And there's also the issue that a lot of the stuff portrayed in these movies would be illegal if there weren't a camera in the room, and for good reason. IIRC (I'm not going back in there), the forum thread linked to by the second blog I linked to in the last post, had a list of one user's favorite Max Hardcore scenes. There was a common theme: women were being physically abused and begging Max to stop, and he wouldn't. If these events weren't recorded and the recordings weren't sold later, this would be called rape. Can I walk around beating people up and have it be perfectly OK because I slap the copyright sign on it and sell it on the Internet? I don't think so.[/quote:2oy9f8az]


Dude, did you even read my post? I'll say it again: The chick mentioned in your first link made no less then 14 vids with Max Hardcore over a 3 year period. That does not mean that Max shot all of the vids of her at one time and then parceled them out over 3 years. It means that at different times over that 3 year period, the chick in question, went willingly and with full knowledge of what doing a scene with Max Hardcore would entail.

As for your being able to walk around beating people up and it being perfectly Ok because you slap a copyright sing and sell it on the Internet, you obviously have never heard of the Bum Fights series of vids? Do a Google search and prepare to be entertained, The best part is when the due rips his own teeth pout with the bolt cutters.

As for chicks being physically abused on vids. c'mon, dude, put on some big boy pants and man up. You have to have at least some slight passing knowledge of the whole B&D scene. That's all about getting physically and mentally abused.

[Exy]

That's fair, and I'm a, well, hardcore small-L libertarian myself, so this is a complex issue for me. I'm just not willing to accept the "all speech is good speech" line. IMO, as long as the government is sticking its nose into prostitution, drug use, and all of the other things that can hurt you, it might as well help protect these girls from this kind of abuse. I mean, some of the stuff out there is seriously shocking. Shocking content is not sufficient for government intervention, but when people are being terrorized, raped and puked on on film, it's going too far.

If women are actually being abused here, then there is no need to resort to obscenity laws in order to prosecute. Clearly you aren't any kind of libertarian, however small the L may be, if you think it falls upon the government to decide what kinds of speech are "good" and what kinds aren't. (Or, for that matter, if you think it's the government's place to outlaw prostitution or drug use.)

I'm usually the one arguing against the rather childish, absolutist view of "free speech" that tends to dominate here (and in other internet forums), and I'm fine with regulation of speech when there's a good reason. And in fact I don't have a basic problem with judging the value of speech in regulating it. As it is, for instance, laws restricting political speech are subject to a higher standard of scrutiny than laws restricting commercial speech, and I have no difficulty with judgments like that. I'm fine deciding that pornography is less worthy of protection than, say, political speech. But obscenity laws aren't there because some deliberate trade-off is being made to restrict speech for some specific, positive end -- instead, they boil down, basically, to restricting speech just because most people find it distasteful. That's farther than I think the government should be permitted to go, and certainly libertarians don't support granting the State that much latitude in controlling what citizens are allowed to say.