Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:04 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,413
Mandatory condom use on all porn films: not just a good idea, it's the law!

If you film porn in Los Angeles County, the law now requires performers to wear condoms for all vaginal and anal scenes.

Many porn stars have spoken out against the measure, saying that they should decide for themselves what risk to accept. Former porn actress and current born-again Christian/anti-porn activist Shelley Lubben joins several health organizations in speaking in favor of the measure.

Those against the measure have said, in effect, "Get your laws off my body."

The law makes sense to me.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #2  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:05 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Why just porn actors? Why not everybody?
Edited to add: If it is legal to do it in real life, how can you possibly justify banning it on film?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 07-13-2013 at 02:07 PM.
  #3  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:14 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 18,950
I'm against it. The obvious solution is for the industry to simply stop filming in Los Angeles County, and let the nanny state do without the jobs/tax revenue etc that would have otherwise been generated there.
  #4  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:22 PM
Cyros Cyros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlantic Canada
Posts: 2,642
I am against the law. I would possibly support mandatory risk waiver forms to be signed by the actors but I do agree with them in that if they wish to take the risk it is their choice.
  #5  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:46 PM
Hank Beecher Hank Beecher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,555
If the government can mandate the use of hardhats for construction workers...
  #6  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:47 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I'm against it. The obvious solution is for the industry to simply stop filming in Los Angeles County, and let the nanny state do without the jobs/tax revenue etc that would have otherwise been generated there.
Move the studios down or up the 101 to Orange or Ventura counties.
  #7  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:51 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,351
I wonder how they're going to enforce it.
  #8  
Old 07-13-2013, 02:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Beecher View Post
If the government can mandate the use of hardhats for construction workers...
...Then they might possibly be able to mandate that people depicting construction workers in movies be required to wear them...but I doubt it.
  #9  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:03 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post

The law makes sense to me.
Makes as much sense as forcing anyone else to wear condoms.
  #10  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:05 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
  #11  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:17 PM
typoink typoink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,529
Yeah, I hate this. I understand the rationale, but it really does seem foolish and prudish to me.

I'm not a fan of "big studio" porn at all in the first place, but I think the lack of condoms is among the least of my worries about the piss-poor sexual attitudes on display.
  #12  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:21 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
None that I can think of. This would be a first.

But there are plenty of occupational safety rules that don't apply to an amateur doing the same thing for personal reasons.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-13-2013 at 03:23 PM.
  #13  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:22 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 27,358
Why can't the actors claim that they are really just prostitutes in order to get around this law?
  #14  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Does the law apply to people who film their personal sex acts then sell tapes of their exploits?
  #15  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:29 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 20,761
I have a friend that actually had to vote on this issue. I think its hilarious!

California is ridiculous.
  #16  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:33 PM
Hank Beecher Hank Beecher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
I don't think this law does that. One could still make a documentary that featured people having condom-less sex, right?

This law appears to be a mandate that requires reasonable personal protective equipment in the workplace, which is commonplace. Can you legally pay someone in LA county to sand wood floors and not require the use of a respirator, or make hearing protection optional for your employees in a loud factory?

Then again if there was a porn made of a monogamous, disease free couple, mandating their use of a condom would be like requiring hearing protection in a quiet factory.
  #17  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:36 PM
Kenm Kenm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,314
Once upon a time it was illegal to buy or use condoms. Now it's illegal not to.

Land o' Goshen. What's this world coming to?
  #18  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:41 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
But there are plenty of occupational safety rules that don't apply to an amateur doing the same thing for personal reasons.
Isn't this something that should be handled by OSHA?
  #19  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:52 PM
leahcim leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Beecher View Post
I don't think this law does that. One could still make a documentary that featured people having condom-less sex, right?
Even for porn, are you required to explicitly show the condom being put on? Can not the porn "depict" condom-less penetration, without actual condom-less penetration happening (in the same way that ordinary films with sex scenes depict sex without the actors actually having sex)?
  #20  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:58 PM
Don't Panic's Avatar
Don't Panic Don't Panic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahcim View Post
Even for porn, are you required to explicitly show the condom being put on? Can not the porn "depict" condom-less penetration, without actual condom-less penetration happening (in the same way that ordinary films with sex scenes depict sex without the actors actually having sex)?


I don't know how much porn you've ever seem, but most of doesn't exactly seem to go for the "tastefully hinted" approach. More the "gynecologically explicit".
  #21  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:35 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
Killing somebody in self-defense?
  #22  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:41 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
The distinction isn't that they're performing on film. The distinction is they're working. So the question should be are there any other cases where it is illegal to do something at work that is legal to do at home? And as Bricker points out, the answer is yes. There are numerous other safety laws that apply to people doing their job that don't apply to amateurs doing the same thing at home.
  #23  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:45 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,280
I should also point out that the motivation for this law started within the porn business. A group of porn performers have been trying to get this law enacted for years.
  #24  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:51 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,002
So no more money shot, then?
  #25  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:54 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So no more money shot, then?
They'd just take the condom off for that.
  #26  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:57 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,134
Wait a minute-- This law applies to all anal and vaginal penetration scenes? That's the criterion? Because not all anal or vaginal penetrations are penile. What if it's a solo woman using a dildo, does the dildo have to have a condom stretched over it? OK, putting a condom on a dildo doesn't make much difference, but what if, say, it's a fisting scene? Does a glove count in that case?
  #27  
Old 07-13-2013, 04:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The distinction isn't that they're performing on film. The distinction is they're working. So the question should be are there any other cases where it is illegal to do something at work that is legal to do at home? And as Bricker points out, the answer is yes. There are numerous other safety laws that apply to people doing their job that don't apply to amateurs doing the same thing at home.
And to the both of you I say, point taken.
  #28  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:01 PM
jasg jasg is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I wonder how they're going to enforce it.
I see a possibility for a new job category at Cal OSHA
  #29  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:15 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,042
Cost benefit analysis advocacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
Move the studios down or up the 101 to Orange or Ventura counties.
That may be the idea. This seems to me to be a zoning ordinance.

Wikipedia has an article on Aids in the porn industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in..._film_industry If I understand it correctly, it is standard industry practice for erotic actors to be tested every 30 days. Is this sufficient? Should the law be tightened? I don't know: I oppose this measure because I don't think OSHA type requirements should be settled by ballot initiatives. At any rate wiki says that no adult film industry actor has caught HIV in the past 8 years. Still, I don't have a problem with this regulation in theory: I do think it should go through the ordinary rule-making process.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 07-13-2013 at 05:17 PM.
  #30  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:16 PM
enomaj enomaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The distinction isn't that they're performing on film. The distinction is they're working. So the question should be are there any other cases where it is illegal to do something at work that is legal to do at home? And as Bricker points out, the answer is yes. There are numerous other safety laws that apply to people doing their job that don't apply to amateurs doing the same thing at home.
That ain't working!
  #31  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:22 PM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So no more money shot, then?
That depends on whether the penalty is a fine or jail time.
  #32  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:28 PM
Omg a Black Conservative Omg a Black Conservative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,031
This is a dumb law. As I'm sure has been pointed out, what's the difference between doing a porno without a condom and simply doing an amateur video without a condom? Is the latter legal? If so, then this law is nonsensical.
  #33  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:56 PM
Condescending Robot Condescending Robot is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ubekibekibekibekistanstan
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
That may be the idea. This seems to me to be a zoning ordinance.

Wikipedia has an article on Aids in the porn industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in..._film_industry If I understand it correctly, it is standard industry practice for erotic actors to be tested every 30 days. Is this sufficient? Should the law be tightened? I don't know: I oppose this measure because I don't think OSHA type requirements should be settled by ballot initiatives. At any rate wiki says that no adult film industry actor has caught HIV in the past 8 years. Still, I don't have a problem with this regulation in theory: I do think it should go through the ordinary rule-making process.
The self-monitoring program is a joke run by a former porn actress who was granted a PhD in "sexology" by an unaccredited school and then began putting herself forth as a "doctor." Porn is like wrestling--there is no such thing as "out of character." Nothing you hear from people in the industry can be trusted. It's inevitable that many of the porn performers who simply disappear from the video racks after a few years contracted an STD; and I can name several performers in gay porn who are quite honest about it, but they are just waved off as not counting when giving numbers like this.

I don't think the condom law is enforceable or a great idea necessarily, but it's pretty clear that the porn industry brought this on itself with its fake HIV testing and fake HIV statistics. Not to mention the myriad non-HIV infections out there.
  #34  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:58 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
If you film porn in Los Angeles County, the law now requires performers to wear condoms for all vaginal and anal scenes.

Many porn stars have spoken out against the measure, saying that they should decide for themselves what risk to accept. Former porn actress and current born-again Christian/anti-porn activist Shelley Lubben joins several health organizations in speaking in favor of the measure.

Those against the measure have said, in effect, "Get your laws off my body."

The law makes sense to me.
Similar to motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws. The public has an interest in that if medical expenses are incurred by risky behavior the costs are most often borne by the public. Years ago my FIL was in a rehab hospital after suffering a stroke. I once visited him in the cafeteria and noted that there were about a dozen young men. I asked why they were there and found they were all(!!) motorcycle riders, most who had been riding without helmets.

An emergency room physician friend of mine says he calls helmetless motorcycle riders, "Organ Donors".

Perhaps a compromise law could be enacted. Condomless sex workers agree to become "human lab rats" for experimental drugs. Some of them, unknowingly, will be "controls". I wonder if that would scare any of them.
  #35  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:20 PM
Hank Beecher Hank Beecher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Isn't this something that should be handled by OSHA?
Yes
  #36  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:39 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condescending Robot View Post
The self-monitoring program is a joke run by a former porn actress who was granted a PhD in "sexology" by an unaccredited school and then began putting herself forth as a "doctor." Porn is like wrestling--there is no such thing as "out of character." Nothing you hear from people in the industry can be trusted. It's inevitable that many of the porn performers who simply disappear from the video racks after a few years contracted an STD; and I can name several performers in gay porn who are quite honest about it, but they are just waved off as not counting when giving numbers like this.

I don't think the condom law is enforceable or a great idea necessarily, but it's pretty clear that the porn industry brought this on itself with its fake HIV testing and fake HIV statistics. Not to mention the myriad non-HIV infections out there.
I'll grant you that Sharon Mitchell's academic credentials were shaky. The "school" that gave her a degree is unaccredited. But while she's probably not qualified to do medical research, I haven't heard anything to suggest she couldn't run a blood testing facility.

AIM (the Adult Industry Medical Associates) seemed to take its job seriously and professionally. It conducted regular tests and kept good records. And on two occasions it announced it had found an infection problem in the porn business and shut down all production while the problem was addressed so it doesn't appear it was just a front operation to give the studios cover.

I think it's unfortunate AIM was targeted with hacker attacks and lawsuits and had to shut down in 2011.
  #37  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:50 PM
aNewLeaf aNewLeaf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
Can't smoke on television, that's sort of similar.
  #38  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:52 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Can't smoke on television, that's sort of similar.
Since when?
  #39  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:52 PM
Hank Beecher Hank Beecher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,555
Are porn actors covered by workers compensation? Insurance companies probably do more to enforce and reward workplace safety measures than the government.
  #40  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:53 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Beecher View Post
Are porn actors covered by workers compensation? Insurance companies probably do more to enforce and reward workplace safety measures than the government.
"You can't work because you sprained what?"
  #41  
Old 07-13-2013, 07:08 PM
aNewLeaf aNewLeaf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Since when?
Since long ago. Network TV, anyway. Can't say certain words either.

And movies edited for TV will have (positive) recreational drug use censored.
  #42  
Old 07-13-2013, 07:32 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,052
Are you watching television in Saudi Arabia, Leaf? It's certainly not the programming I've been watching these past few decades.
  #43  
Old 07-13-2013, 07:36 PM
Hershele Ostropoler Hershele Ostropoler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: BK.NY.US
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Since long ago. Network TV, anyway. Can't say certain words either.

And movies edited for TV will have (positive) recreational drug use censored.
Except for language, is any of that required by law?
  #44  
Old 07-13-2013, 07:56 PM
Justin_Bailey Justin_Bailey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Since long ago. Network TV, anyway. Can't say certain words either.

And movies edited for TV will have (positive) recreational drug use censored.
I don't think you've watched TV in a long time...
  #45  
Old 07-13-2013, 08:50 PM
DWMarch DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any other cases where it is illegal to depict doing something on film that is legal to do in real life?
Pornography itself. Depending on your jurisdiction, you can legally have sex anytime you want after you hit the age of 14-16. But film it and you are a heinous criminal. (Note that I am not advocating for minors being able to film themselves having sex, just noting the act is legal while filming is not.)
  #46  
Old 07-13-2013, 09:07 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
Outlawing creampies? Might as well outlaw sunshine and birthdays too.
  #47  
Old 07-13-2013, 09:21 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'll grant you that Sharon Mitchell's academic credentials were shaky. The "school" that gave her a degree is unaccredited. But while she's probably not qualified to do medical research, I haven't heard anything to suggest she couldn't run a blood testing facility.
Her credentials are good enough that a profile on her in the New York Times referred to her consistently as "Dr. Mitchell". Generally speaking, if it is good enough for a New York Times fact checker, it should be good enough for the Dope.
  #48  
Old 07-13-2013, 09:37 PM
Condescending Robot Condescending Robot is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ubekibekibekibekistanstan
Posts: 1,416
She's clearly trying to insinuate that she is a medical doctor who has some qualification to be running a disease-testing program; the fact that she has a PhD in "human sexuality" is enough to make this dishonest. The fact that the PhD was from an unaccredited school with no real information available as to the rigor of study just adds to the BS level. She's playing the role of a doctor for the meta-narrative of the porn industry, no less than Vince MacMahon plays the role of the evil CEO who fights with his employees at WWE events.
  #49  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:05 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 18,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Can't smoke on television, that's sort of similar.
Bullshit. Ever seen Hell's Kitchen? The chefs often smoke in the dorms.
  #50  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:05 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condescending Robot View Post
She's clearly trying to insinuate that she is a medical doctor who has some qualification to be running a disease-testing program; the fact that she has a PhD in "human sexuality" is enough to make this dishonest.
As Little Nemo pointed out, she was running an HIV testing program, one that the adult industry thought enough of that her organization was able to shut down production.

If the state really wanted to guarantee the health of adult film performers, they would do exactly what AIM did, with monthly testing.

Quote:
The fact that the PhD was from an unaccredited school with no real information available as to the rigor of study just adds to the BS level. She's playing the role of a doctor for the meta-narrative of the porn industry, no less than Vince MacMahon plays the role of the evil CEO who fights with his employees at WWE events.
Comparing her to Vince MacMahon? Now that's just low.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017