|
Personally, I don't think this has as much to do with 'condoms' as it has to do with the fears of an industry that has historically signed girls off the street to exclusive contracts, used them up and then spat them back out being forced to take responsibility for the welfare of their employees. It's a 'don't tread on me' attitude. Next thing you know they'll start having to pay health insurance and into a retirement fund.
If you read any of the AMA's with porn editors/producers/directors over reddit it quickly becomes clear that at least over there most of the consumers think there is too much cock in porn anyway. They want to see the chick so if the condom law forces directors to shoot around the dick as much as possible then that may very well be an improvement in the eyes of the average porn consumer. TBH I think a lot of people in the industry are so desensitized that they have lost touch with what the viewer wants to see which is probably why we are seeing a resurgence in 'big budget' and glam. The industry raced to the bottom only to find out no one wanted to pay for the crap they were peddling. So this is not about condoms at all - this is about a general attitude in the porn industry that they shouldn't be responsible for the well-being of a bunch of cum-guzzlers (a common term in some segments of the industry girls).
|