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