In the eye of the porn be­holder

Los Angeles Times - - OPINION -

Re “Be­ware the porn po­lice,” Opin­ion, June 3

Conor Friedersdorf dis­misses as “pu­ri­tan­i­cal at­tacks” any at­tempts to make the adult film in­dus­try safer from dis­ease. In his view, the essence of porn is that it “seem dirty and danger­ous” to the viewer.

He to­tally misses the point that adult films can be safer for per­form­ers as well as ap­pear “danger­ous” to the viewer. Hol­ly­wood gets this, but not pornog­ra­phers. For ex­am­ple, eye pro­tec­tion wouldn’t be needed if imi­ta­tion ejac­u­late was used — and the viewer would never know the dif­fer­ence.

I hate to punc­ture any­one’s fan­tasy, but some adult pro­duc­ers are al­ready do­ing this.

Paula Tavrow

Los An­ge­les The writer is direc­tor of the Bixby Pro­gram in Pop­u­la­tion and Re­pro­duc­tive Health at UCLA’s Field­ing School of Public Health.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.