Should smut performers be mandated to wear condoms by law?

I posted this question, which is pertinent, because millions of Californians will have to answer this question today on the ballot (Prop. 60).

For some reason, this thread, which is appropriate as a moral theology question, was deleted. Why?

This one wasn’t deleted: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1023636

A question like this is better resolved through a PM to the moderator of the subforum in question.

My guess is that, since it is a ballot issue, it was deemed more appropriate for the World News forum. That’s where all the political discussions should take place.

My thought on the question is that it shouldn’t because, because you shouldn’t compound one evil act with another. At the same time, I’m sure that most of the time if one of these smut performers gets pregnant they just have an abortion…

How about a ballot referendum to re-illigalize pornography? That’s something I could get behind!

I’ll admit, maybe it’s not the completely right frame of mind (and as long as I was in confession I did bring it up), but I voted yes on Prop 60 for one reason – maybe, if the law is as onerous as they claim it is, the porn industry WILL pull up stakes and leave California as they’re “threatening” to do if it passes.There aren’t a lot of locales, IIRC, in the US that they can set up shop legally and openly, so maybe it’ll diminish the supply?

Commercial pornography is, by definition, prostitution, and should be considered a crime almost everywhere in the US. The toleration of commercial pornography as a business is one of the bizarre things happening in recent decades.

:thumbsup:

“Smut performers?” Really? Judge much?

…only in California.

“Smut performers”?!?!? :D:D:D Is that the language on the ballot? Who comes up with this stuff???

No judgement necessary, just objective fact.

Of course in a sane society it would be recognized that pornography is a danger to society and thus outlawed, so this wouldn’t even be an issue. Just more proof of how far we’ve degenerated.

As a social commentary - sex ‘performances’ have been around throughout recorded history, it’s not a question of degeneration, but of failing to outgrow degenerate desires. Just sayin’

Yes.

All moral and ethical reasons aside, this will prevent the spread of STDs.

That was my reasoning as well.

Good point. :thumbsup:

Pornography is, by definition, smut. Therefore, the people who perform in pornography are “smut performers.”

I live in California, and yes, this was on the ballot.

I could not vote in favor of condoms, but voting no also seemed an endorsement of porn.

I elected (yes, pun intended) to skip voting on this proposition. I believe it’s the first time I’ve skipped a proposition.

I’ve said that for a long time. Pay someone to have sex with you and it is considered prostitution and is illegal. But if you pay for someone to have sex with you, record it, and then sell that video for profit, it magically becomes “free speech” that is protected by the 1st Amendment. :confused: :shrug:

Have you ever seen a movie or television program depicting a violent act that would be considered illegal? Do you think the actors in such a movie or television program should be prosecuted for assault or murder when they depict such acts?

I’m certainly not pro-pornography, but how can we expect anyone to take our position seriously when it is expressed in such a bizarre and confused way like you are doing here?

How is that position odd?

When you see an illegal violent act performed on screen, it is almost invariably fake. Pornography is not fake, it is literally paying someone to have sex with you, recording it, and then selling it. The equivalent would be paying someone to let me kill them, recording it, selling it, and the police not doing anything about it.

If you’re still confused, then I can’t help you.

Your comparison is not apt. Actors in such movies where illegal acts are depicted are not actually engaging in what they are portraying. They are not actually killing people.

In pornography, people are actually engaging in sex in exchange for money. Prostitution is engaging in sex in exchange for money. Why do you find that comparison bizarre or confused?

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.