the only compelling argument that matters when you get right down to it is this. Pr0n with Condoms isnt as popular as Pr0n without. The guys who assemblyline this stuff out of the camera and into the market know what people want and condom porn isnt what people want.
One of the most ironic things ive seen in a porn movie was a bbj that turned into condom penetration, then they removed the condom and she swallowed his dna. I honestly nearly fell on the floor laughing at the level of histronics they must have went through just to make sure he had on a condom when he went balls deep.

I think its a good argument. Its true that making it illegal would cause it go underground and that would make testing less mandatory and routine. The reason they don't want bareback sex going on in porn is because they feel it sends a bad message....so what, we are all grownups right? Do we need the politicians to tell us how to have safe sex... fxcx them, that's what I say.

It always cracks me up when the dude puts a condom on that is obviously too short for his horse dick and you can clearly see that his lower shaft is getting covered with puss juice.

I prefer lesbian porn(hot lesbians ), no dicks.

This actually seems like a powerful argument. I wonder if an HIV positive porn star would win in court? Has this ever been brought to court?

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt it would stand up. I'd be willing to bet that porn actors and actresses are legally contractors, not employees.

Yes, I'm fairly certain that the actors are contractors. Good point.

I am not an Attorney either but believe an argument could be made that porn stars do not fit the Department of Labor's definition of an independent contractor since the Director controls not just the outcome of the shoot but also the specific actions of the performer. However person's with HIV infections are considered "disabled' and an employer would be required to make a "reasonable" accommodation for a person with a disability or present an argument that employing a person with a particular disability would present an unreasonable economic hardship on the business. It would seem to me it would not be difficult for an Attorney to present an argument that, given the risk, their employment in this industry is unreasonable and other porn stars would be reluctant to work with an HIV positive performer or that the use of condoms would not seriously limit the sales of the product. It would make for a very interesting court case but I have doubts that either the state of California or an Attorney that would try to test the law in court given public opinion and potential damage it could do to the credibility of the fair employment laws for persons with disabilities.

Since we're speaking hypothetically, maybe what might happen in a situation where an HIV positive individual feels discriminated against by an adult company is that the porn company would hire the HIV positive individual but would give him/her a role in the video that did not involve having sex. Or they would hire him/her as an "associate producer" or some type of behind-the-scenes position. This way, they put the HIV positive person on the payroll without causing an unnecessary health risk.