Will porn fans reject "condoms-only" films?

A number of porn films HAVE been using condoms, but they aren't always easy to see; they're transparent.

Esp. you who don't like close-closeups, the diff will not be noticeable.

J.
 
shereads said:
A mini-hijack, also known as an innocent aside: In r/l, I can't imagine anything sexier than the volcanic eruption of a cock. The most frustrating thing about sex is not knowing where to look - his face, or Vesuvius. Either way, you miss something exciting.

The other sexiest thing in the world is a man who insists on admiring a woman's dangly and not-so-dangly parts.

She? In my quite limited experience, women aren't nearly as …um… obvious at that moment with that particular piece of anatomy. So the face is where I get my feedback from. The voice and any involuntary muscle movements works well too.

And although I do love the dangly and not-so-dangly parts. I always look at a woman's face, more specifcally her eyes first. They are the windows into the soul after all.

And that's the sexiest part of any woman, their soul.
 
Ok, one more opinion.

I’ve seen porn movies that use condoms and personally it just does not work for me, especially when a guy is getting a blow-job while wearing one. I understand the need for there use and I don’t blame the actor’s for wanting to stay safe, but for me “Raw” seems to be the biggest turn on.
Maybe they will find monogamous couples who can make these movies, that way everyone wins.

Jmt
 
jmt said:
Ok, one more opinion.

I’ve seen porn movies that use condoms and personally it just does not work for me, especially when a guy is getting a blow-job while wearing one. I understand the need for there use and I don’t blame the actor’s for wanting to stay safe, but for me “Raw” seems to be the biggest turn on.
Maybe they will find monogamous couples who can make these movies, that way everyone wins.

Jmt

For only a few more tens of millions of dollars per movie, they could make the condoms disappear in post-production. Or do away with real genitalia altogether.
 
shereads said:
from salon.com

Butts: That's a wrap!
As the porn industry reels from an HIV scare, "gonzo" king Seymore Butts announces a condom-only policy. He tells Salon why.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Responding to title only: UH YA! HELLO? Dental dams are next!
 
The point of the condom is to prevent any infection entering the bloodstream. Originally, doctors believed that oral sex was not an risk since the semen entered the body and passed through it without entering the blood. I know of a few gay couples who still practice oral sex today without rubbers as they have been told that this is 'safe'.

My friend this week attended an abortion clinic and was advised by the nurses there that the condom was the 'least safe' method of contraception. If it cannot prevent semen leakage who is to say that it will prevent the mingling of blood during vigoroous sexual intercourse?


I don't want to introduce a major downer here, but exactly what does constitiue 'safe sex' any more?


Sadie :confused:
 
Back
Top