Verified answer

the law may be well intentioned but i think it does go a bit too far , what they should require instead is than people be unable to get that kind of job with out first going through the proper medical exams ( if they don't do it already ) , that way they will not get infected and sex will still be as raw as it should be .

2

Like it or not young folk access porn though the Internet and all this bareback stuff is sending them the wrong message. So requiring condoms is probably a good thing just for general public awareness. Worker safety is something we as workers should strive for in all work places.

All that these 'concerned' liberal California politicians accomplished is to move the multi-billion San Fernando valley porn industry into a state that doesn't have a 'helmet' law.

i find the facial to be the worst part but that's just me. but, no, it is not better that some porn stars get aids so you can see a facial.

maximum females human beings will say they don t like porn...ingredient is they don t know till they watch it. probability is, they gets excitement from it staring at each so in lots of cases with their husband or a severe boyfriend. I watch porn with my spouse (completely on her request), she shall we me %. what to observe. i hit upon that she get excitement from porn parodies of mainstream video clips e.g. The whore of wall highway or Avengers xxx an ingredient of humour consistently enables in case you prefer to observe with spouse or female buddy

relax they're just going to shoot the porn someplace else

The hell? Aids ain't a joke man...

Monkey see, Monkey do..

get me?