Safe Sex With Bristol And The Situation

It must be a slow news day because I've got nothin'. My head is about to explode reading about all of the TSA nonsense and so it's hard for me to format a coherent post about that. (I could probably ramble on for quite some time about how, in some fashion, this country has decided that we are only going to be attacked from the air and has focused every, single, freaking effort on that. Maybe it's because they don't want to admit, yet do realize, that there's nothing we can do to prevent some Muslim extremists (or other terrorists) from blowing up a mall.) Lindsay Lohan is still in rehab, so there's a once perfectly reliable go-to topic straight out the window. So, here I am. Nearly topic-less. Fortunately, I found a video of a PSA that Bristol Palin did with The Situation which is supposed to steer one toward either abstinence or using condoms. Yep. That's what I've got. I don't think that this is going to do any good, nor do I think that The Sitch is really in need of a magnum condom. (I'll bet it's baggy.) But at least they're both sticking to their guns. Bristol is not going to have sex and Mike is going to have all of the sex. Fine. Now go away.

Have A Safe Sex Halloween

Remember when you were a kid and you went out trick-or-treating and there was always at least one house you went to where the people were just jerks and they gave you something like a penny or a pencil or the dreaded box of raisins or the unwanted and slightly ironic toothbrush? What was wrong with those people? Talk about a bunch of fun-sucks. But those sorts of people haven't gone away. No, in fact, a couple in Oregon have actually taken it up a notch. Wait. Maybe they've taken it down a notch. I'm not sure which one would be correct here. You tell me. What do you call it when people hand out condoms for Halloween? Um, what now?

Correct. According to MSNBC, a one Daniel Harris and a one Kathleen Harris, of Silverton, Oregon, handed out condoms to trick-or-treaters. They claimed that it was their "effort to promote health." It's Halloween! It's not about promoting health! And since when is giving away condoms considered to be promoting health and not making you think about having sex?

See, the way that this came to light was "The father of one 14-year-old girl who received the condoms, Daniel Cote, was offended and says it was inappropriate to give them to children without parents' consent." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Offended? Really? He wasn't just pissed off? Because I think that I'd be a little pissed off if someone was giving my kid a condom for Halloween. Screw being offended. What's wrong with just being pissed off that some people are morons?

Now, now. Before we all get all irritated, I should tell you that "Kathleen Harris says giving the condoms to the 14-year-old was a mistake." See? There you go. Yeah, um, "She says their usual practice is to ask teens if they're 16 or older and to give them a speech on safe sex." What the...? OK. Now we can be pissed off. Are you freaking kidding me?

Look, I don't live in Oregon, but what in the world is going on over there that 16 year old kids are trick-or-treating? For that matter, what's a 14-year old doing trick-or-treating? I mean, I guess you could make the argument that it's OK for the 14-year old, but that would have to be the last year. I thought that trick-or-treating was just for younger kids, like those under 13? I don't get it.

But what I also really don't get is that couple. Boy, they sound like a treat, don't they? You go to their house hoping to get candy and instead you get a lecture about safe sex. Real fun. But, I'm guessing that the 16-year olds that are out trick-or-treating really don't have to worry too much about having sex. What is wrong with some people? It's Halloween! Not Wrap That Rascal Day! Leave the condoms alone! Hand out little Butterfingers! It's a fairly simple concept. Get with it!

That's A Wrap!

Since I was just going on about one of the very many ridiculous bills that California legislators attempt to get passed into law, I might as well keep going and address an article which appeared in the LA Times and informs us that state regulators will be creating an advisory committee because they want to consider increasing the regulation of the porn industry in California. That's right. They want to mandate "....the use of condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases." Uh-huh. Wait. Condoms?

That's right. Condoms. They want porn stars to wear condoms. Wow. How hot. Or not. What is wrong with people?!!? Leave porn alone!

Now, the state regulators want to hear from the porn industry on what they think about all of this regulation. According to a one Jonathan Frisch, principal risk manager at PG&E (Wait. PG&E? The utility company?! Why is the risk manager of the power company weighing in on the porn regulation issue? What in the heck is going on over there at PG&E anyway?!), "It's going to be very, very important that we do have them at the table." At the table. In the shower. On the hood of a convertible. In a stable. All very, very important. Yeah, we know.

According to a one former porn participant Darren James, "...who tested HIV-positive during a 2004 outbreak in the San Fernando Valley's porn community (if you picked up on the key phrase there being "porn community" then I think you're a bit more understanding of how there could be an HIV outbreak in 2004) "You think you're safe, but you're not. In between scenes, you don't know what other actors are doing." Do I think about what the other actors are doing between scenes? I never have before. Is he saying that in between all of the filmed fornication that there is more fornication going on? Freelance fornication?! I've heard of taking your work home with you and stuff, but I guess I didn't figure that it included porn folks as well. Huh. Learn something new...

Mr. James was speaking before the board a crowd of about 40 at Costa Mesa City Hall. I'm not sure what the crowd was doing there. Then again, I'm not sure that 40 constitutes a crowd. Whatever it is, at one point, he turned to the 40 folks and said, "I'm living your nightmare every day." He is? My nightmare changes from day to day and I don't think that he's living any of them. It's a nightmare if I don't get my trash cans to the curb on trash day. Is that what he means? It seems awfully different, so I don't think it is. How is an ex-porn star who contracted HIV during the Great Breakout of 2004 living my nightmare?

But here's the apex of all of this insanity. A one Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (and someone who has clearly never had much of an interest in watching porn), recommended "...the board mandate condom use and require the adult film industry to pay for testing." Condom use. In porn. Mandated. Great. Does he not know that people are not a big fan of the condom in general? They're certainly not a fan of the condom in porn. No one wants their porn to have a responsible feel to it. If that was going to be the case, then everyone would finally be able to come out of their darkened basements (or sex dens, dungeons, whatever) and not feel their current shame. Actually, strike that. They should be more ashamed if they're watching porn with condoms. Back to the basements, weirdos!

Dr. Kim-Farley (no relation to Chris Farley from what I can tell) also stated the obvious by saying that "Infection rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea...are seven times higher in the porn industry than in the general population, and as many as a quarter of porn performers are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease in any given year." Hmmm. I wonder if all of the wild sex that they're having in front of cameras and for a pittance has anything to do with it. OK, the pittance is irrelevant, as is the cameras. Let's just try and focus on the ridiculous amount of sex that they have and why they're having it, shall we? Yeah, it's a wonder some of the guys don't insert Tab A into Slot B and just spontaneously combust.

After the vote, Mr. James voiced his opinion saying that "...he wished more hard-core porn actors had come forward to tell their stories." Trust me. So do some people on that board. He also derided the board for taking so long (something that I thought was a boon in the porn industry) by saying, "They need to do more. They should have done this years ago." Dude, I don't mean to judge (or maybe I do; you don't know), but no one forced you to do porn. You say that they should have done more, but in reality, couldn't you have done less? As in less porn?!

I don't know how much money California already makes from the porn industry, but I'll tell you this much: The state needs every freaking penny that it can scrounge up from wherever it can. However much money the state makes from porn, it needs it. And what will happen if this advisory board makes porn actors in California start wearing condoms? That's right. The porn industry will pack up their unmentionables and go film the unwatchable with all of their unsheathed penises (penii?) in another state. And they'll take the state's revenue with them. A brilliant idea, California. Simply brilliant. As if it isn't hard enough to start or run a business in this state, please, go ahead and make it more difficult for an industry that fueled the development of the Internet! The porn industry makes money hand over fist (pun totally intended) and California needs that money. Please don't make it harder (pun intended again) and force them to pull out early (can't stop myself).