Prop 60 calls for condoms in porn


#1

ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=71852

I don’t even know what the proper response to this is as a Christian. Should porn stars be legally obligated to use a condom. :shrug:

Maybe just, whatever happens, happens?


#2

I call for the shutting down of porn sites altogether.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1015930


#3

I think the condom proposal could be categorized as a harm reduction measure. I may be wrong, but I think the Church is opposed to harm reduction strategies. We shouldn’t promote one evil to counter a different evil.

Perhaps as Christians the proper response is to devote our energy to restricting the porn industry and curbing the demand for porn which fuels that industry.


#4

An amazing situation. Adult performers are unionized. :rolleyes:

It will only drive production of porn offshore.


#5

That should be the thread title. I
'll report it and see if they remove it as it has no place here; discussing the use of contraceptives in pornography. What is happening in this forum???


#6

I agree Porn Internet Sites should be shut down. You can’t control teens from watching it no matter how many parental controls you use. Kids get addicted and waste a lot of time watching it. People who want to watch Porn should pay for it on their Cable TV bill then you have a real tracking device in dollars paid out.


#7

This thread is about a proposed law will be voted upon by all Californians in November. As such, it is part of public discourse across the state.

I understand your distaste for the subject matter. However, perhaps discussing what is the proper Christian response to the proposed law is not unreasonable. Should we simply ignore that the vote will take place? Are we indifferent to the debate over the proposal?


#8

Strange?..

I havent heard of any recent problems stemming from porn actors not wearing condoms, like more unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc? I wonder why anyone would even suggest this is needed, Im pretty sure the porn industry has the actors get checked frequently for STDs, and Id imagine majority of the females have their tubes tied or at least taking BC.


#9

Did some research, turns out excessive use of them can cause a variety of health problems with both parties involved.

You’ll be happy to know then it’s slowly happening. Back in October of last year I was reading an article that was stating that most of them have been in financial trouble over the last few years, and they’re not generating enough revenue to stay ontop of their debt.

In addition, many people are beginning to realize the dangers and side effects of not only porn, but our sex obsessed culture.


#10

Well, the porn industry is loosing money mainly due to the rise of free porn thanks to the internet. Who is going to go out and pay for a DVD when they can get the same exact thing on the internet for free?


#11

I have heard, admittedly from interviews from ex-adult performers on anti porn sites (in other words consider the source), that STDs are surprisingly common within that industry.


#12

How is that surprising? Getting an STD after having sex with hundreds of random people seems par for the course.


#13

Typically yes, but this is an industry that allegedly heavily screens for STDs for its “performers”. I know people who swear that adult film actors and actresses are clean because the “rigerous” health and safety standards wouldn’t let them in studio if they were to test positive.


#14

FWIW, I seem to recall that Benedict XVI mentioned something in one of his books where he acknowledged something the medical community has been saying for a long time and that is that condoms can help prevent the spread of AIDS. Of course, in this context he was speaking of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and he was referring specifically to male-on-male homosexual sex. His argument was that sin could be somewhat mitigated because the sin of infecting the partner with AIDS would be minimized leaving only the sin of the homosexual sex.

Applying this logic to the porn industry, requiring the use of condoms might lessen the spread of STDs and lessen the chances of unwanted pregnancies (which could lead to abortions). The sin of the illicit sex though, would still be present.

My :twocents:


#15

I am glad you brought that up, because what Pope Benedict said was widely misinterpreted and caused a great deal of confusion. News reports made it sound as if Benedict was advocating a philosophy of using a lesser evil with good intention. However, that philosophy is contrary to established Church teaching.

Because the news publicity given to the misinterpreted remark about condoms, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had to issue a statement one month later to clarify what the pope meant. Here is that statement, which received Pope Benedict’s approval.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

I will quote the most relevant section:

[quote=Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom “with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil.
[/quote]

So, to tie this back into the discussion of the proposed California law, I think the Christian response would be be to not support (or oppose) the ballot initiative. Rather, our concern would be to curb the consumption of porn and the industry which produces it.


#16

Sounds like a good way to chase the porn producers out of the state. I’d support it if it were my state.


#17

I agree that this would be the best thing to do. But I also think it is unrealistic to expect everyone who consumes pornography to suddenly stop using it on the notion it will drive the porn industry out of business. But until such a lofty goal can be achieved, the condom idea might serve as a stop-gap measure to help prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Sadly, many unwanted pregnancies lead to abortion and IMHO, it is better to prevent a baby - even if one commits the sin of contraception - than to kill one.


#18

You wouldn’t expect a factory worker to inhale toxic fumes without a respiratory. And actually, most jobs I’ve had in CA involving lifting items gave us back support belts. So why wouldn’t that industry be required to mandate some level of protection? It doesn’t stop everything, but it’s better than nothing.

Yes, it will probably push them out of state. But I suspect that industry has only a decade or so of profitability left due to the flood of shall we say “user generated content” by nearly anyone with a cheap camera.


#19

I don’t think it’s going anywhere. It’s still a multi billion dollar a year industry. People definitely pay for web cam girls and niche porn (i.e. specific models, fetish stuff).

Condoms make porn less enjoyable. Nothing like a bit of reality to disrupt the fantasy. If the porn industry fights something, we should probably pursue it.


#20

Twenty years ago when the Internet was still an up and coming thing, I did my graduate research paper on how the laws and legalities might be applied to the 'net. One of the subjects I touched on (in a purely academic respect) was the subject of the Internet being used to distribute pornography. One surprising thing I did learn was was that high-budget professionally produced pornographic material using well-known stars of the business already require the use of condoms.

It’s the cheap stuff made in someone’s basement where precautions aren’t so readily taken.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.