My brother's bible class was teaching him about "addiction"

[Esquilax]

As I said, it's a legal grey area at best and in pornography a legal red area (except in the USA).

The broader issue is that the USA supplies pornography it thinks is acceptable, but that everywhere else thinks is not. Just like Denmark in the 1970's and their legally produced child porn.

Which is why I'm not terrible interested in the legality of all this, over and above the moral arguments for it which should, ideally but evidently not always in practice, be leading the law.

We've also, frankly, strayed beyond what my original point was meant to convey, which was that Aurora Snow's article doesn't contain anything that I would consider "nightmarish." Whether or not the scene actually was like that is neither here nor there; I can only comment on what she chose to write about and what she describes is not reflective of her conclusion.

As far as harm in pornography - or the broader adult industry - I don't think the argument can be made that harm is OK. Or for that matter that it's okay to perform high-risk scenes without condoms.

I think that a distinction should be made between harm and pain, too. I agree with you with regards to condoms, but as regards bdsm toys they're generally engineered to provide sensation, not injury. Conflating pain and harm is kind of a non-starter: an injection hurts, but it's not causing you harm. Getting flogged hurts, but it doesn't harm, especially not when that's what gets you off.

Now you can argue "oh well nurses are at risk of contracting HIV too you know" - that's true, that's why we have safeguards in place. We don't let them perform extremely risky behaviour. Same thing with the sex industry - condoms are mandatory in the Australian sex industry.

As for Kink, perhaps you can explain it to me, but it was my understanding that condom-use was made mandatory in 2012 across LA and enforceable in all public venues (ie booked venues), and Kink continues to ignore the law:

Oh, I'm not here to be a Kink apologist: if that's what they're doing then their policy is idiotic and should be changed. I'm not going to defend everything they do, just the parts that I feel are defensible.

STIs are much higher in porn performers than the general population, and although gay porn uses condoms (and refuses to do HIV or STI testing), "straight porn" traditionally refuses to use condoms and relies on ineffective STI testing (ineffective since there have been at least 5 outbreaks in the past 10 years requiring a suspension of the industry's activities including one this year).

You need to think beyond the scope of BDSM in your private life - you're in control of the activity and the risks involved. In the sex-industry (including pornography), regardless of whether it's BDSM or other activity you are not in control of all the risks.

I'm... not here arguing against safety measures for the health of porn actors. I'm really just taking issue with that one link you posted on the other page.

Yes that is the legislated line - violence or simulated violence isn't acceptable according to our classification system.

Then- and I know this sounds really bad to read it out of context - the law should be changed. Overly broad rulings like that have no place governing real life.