'Bareback' Videos

[Giles]

I know this is a small specialist video release, since most all mainstream gay porn features and promotes the wearing of condoms, but do you think that this kind of release promotes the non-use of condoms and specifically 'unsafe sex'. I think it does and not that it shouldnt be outlawed, but I think it could be damaging to those who think it's okay not to use condoms and that the contracting of HIV/AID has declined.

[grunter]

Does this mean one can't enjoy the classic 70's pre-condom videos? Must I throw out my partner's moth-eaten collection of Colt videos? You mean no more "L.A. Tool and Die?!?" (ACK! Heresy!)

I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two - aside from the fact that the barebacking videos put it out there front and center the "bad" behavior they're selling - capitalizing on it rather blatantly.

Hey - I'll admit it. I watch 'em. I enjoy 'em.

Would I do the deed with a stranger without a raincoat?

No way, no how.

Plus mainstream gay porn sucks. It's all twinkie, all the time. :yack:

[Giles]

Sorry, I didnt clarify this, there are some brand NEW productions that are foregoing the condoms. No, but I do love the Colt, early Bjorn and Joe Cage flicks.

[grunter]

Joe Cage :drool:

[Jepthah]

Now this thread really surprises me; I find it impressive info that so much condom use is in gay porn. I would think that gay men find condoms in porn a turn-off just like heterosexual men, so there would be much more condomless gay porn. Don't they do the same thing as the hetero porn actors and just get HIV tested regularly?

[grunter]

Jepthah - yes, I would imagine that virtually all gay porn actors get tested for HIV on a very regular basis.

The difference with gay porn is - surprisingly - the perceived "copycat" effect it's supposed to have on its audience. In this age of "silence=death," the devastating AIDS crisis in Africa and the national wooziness having to do with anything remotely involving gay sexuality, perception is everything.

Monkey see, monkey do.

The hardline safe-sex-ers want you to use a condom - in every situation, every time, no exceptions. In the real world, it's very good advice. But (as you straight guys no doubt know) it makes for really lousy porn.

The requirement of condom-use in gay porn stems from very similar reasoning to that applied in San Francisco at the height of the AIDS epidemic there in the late '80s when the bath-houses were all shut down. Supposedly if people don't have the opportunity to act inappropriately (ie. not use condoms in the wild and woolly atmosphere of the SF baths) and if they don't have a bad example to learn from (ie. bare-backing videos), then the bad behavior ought to stop, right? Crisis averted. Epidemic cured.

Of course, that's a huge load of horse puckey. Because unsafe sex carried on even after the bath-houses were darkened. And it occurs even now - probably while gay guys are sitting around together watching these oh-so-safe modern mainstream gay porno films.

Hey, it's one more way supposedly to endear us to the mom-and-pop America. And anything that looks good to straight people must be A-OK. Can't you see how responsible we gay men are? We even use condoms in our dirty movies. Now won't you respect us? Now won't you take us to heart and make us your equal? :rolleyes:

Again, it's all about perception. Perception and "passing" in the straight world.

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by grunter


Hey, it's one more way supposedly to endear us to the mom-and-pop America. And anything that looks good to straight people must be A-OK. Can't you see how responsible we gay men are? We even use condoms in our dirty movies. Now won't you respect us? Now won't you take us to heart and make us your equal? :rolleyes:

Again, it's all about perception. Perception and "passing" in the straight world.

If this is true, I just don't get it. First off, I am a straight guy, but I like to try and understand different cultures--and yes, I consider homosexuals to be a cultural group with its own identity.

I have never personally known gay people (women OR men) to try and overextend themselves to appear 'respectable,' 'mainstream' or what have you. Neither do I believe they should in any respect, because homosexuals should form and represent their own identity as they see fit--which they do, with aplomb. So, basically, why should the gay porn industry care what straight America thinks of them? All of the Federal/local prosecution action seems to fall only on the shoulders of straight porn, because the authorities simply don't want to get near gay porn--I think they ignore it or willfully pretend it doesn't exist.

If it's some code the gay porn industry imposes on itself, I guess that's interesting; maybe I just made an invalid comparison between the gay and straight porn factories. I'd have to be naïve to assume that gay people always like the same things in their media that straight people do, wouldn't I? :D

[grunter]

Originally posted by Jepthah
So, basically, why should the gay porn industry care what straight America thinks of them?

Actually I think I mis-spoke. It's not the gay porn industry per se that really cares what straight America thinks of them. Rather it's certain hard-line gay rights activists that are just unbelievably fastidious about the public perception of gay people (gay men in particular). We can't have gay men running around having unsafe sex with everything that moves, now can we? That might make gay people seem reckless and dangerous or, at worst, simply unsuitable for membership at the Uptown Racketball Club. These are the same people that protest Hollywood anytime a slang term for homosexuality is dropped in a film script. A lot of this "perception" thing I mentioned is rhetoric ripped straight out of the more militant "gay rights" handbooks. Therefore as a gay person, I must keep up my end of the facade, showing a uniform acceptable face to my sexuality for straight America to - maybe - love, or some lesbian couple down in Florida isn't going to get to adopt a healthy white baby. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jepthah
All of the Federal/local prosecution action seems to fall only on the shoulders of straight porn, because the authorities simply don't want to get near gay porn--I think they ignore it or willfully pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure it always falls only on straight porn. I just think the focus is different for law enforcement. Why go after the gay pornographers when you can just arrest the poor horny schmo who's whacking his willy silly in an adult theater to Jeff Stryker vids? Authorities can cut out the middlemen - the pornographers - and go right to the source of the "real" evil - those that actually practice this "filthy" sexuality. Again :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jepthah
If it's some code the gay porn industry imposes on itself, I guess that's interesting; maybe I just made an invalid comparison between the gay and straight porn factories. I'd have to be naïve to assume that gay people always like the same things in their media that straight people do, wouldn't I? :D

That location in your sig: "Fascination Street" = Robert Smith = The Cure. :thumbsup:

Trust me, there's enough crossover in gay and straight media to allow for some common ground.

[joeblow69]

I've seen a few of these videos, and to be honest, they seem a little sleazy to me.

1) A lot of the guys that star in these bareback flicks are no-names and just aren't that attractive (though this is changing, as Jeff Palmer is going to be the star of an upcoming HDK film . I don't find Jeff particularly hot, but I know a lot of guys do.)

2) It's almost like these bareback directors go out of their way to break every single one of the "safe-sex" rules. If you go back and watch some of the early precondom porn, sure, you'll see bareback sex and the occasional oral cumshot. But these "new-breed" of bareback flicks seem like they have to go to the extreme... "Let's see how many loads of cum we can plant in this boy's ass!" I think this is the attitude that pisses off mainstream porn.

3) They need to acknowledge that all the stars are already HIV+. I read an interview with the head of Hot Desert Knights that he assumes all his stars are HIV+ and if anyone of them admits that they aren't, they are not used. That's all fine and dandy, but shouldn't they put that as a disclaimer at the front of the video? Of course, then it might seem like they are saying "Look at how much fun you could be having if you were HIV+?"

4) Somehow bareback and extreme gay sex got lumped together, and a lot of these bareback flicks tend to also have humongous dildoes, fisting or golden showers. I think these activities will scare away your average gay porn viewer, keeping bareback porn from every becoming too mainstream.

Boy, that was alot of rambling, and I don't even remember what the point was that I was trying to make. ANyway, I think everyone should know by now how to contract HIV, and anyone stupid enough to go out and have unsafe sex because they saw it in a video will get no sympathy from me.

Now here's a good question: Why were oral cumshots given the ol' heave ho when bareback did in porn? Relatively speaking, sucking down the sperm slurpy is much safer than unprotected anal sex.

It sure is a shame to see a scene end with a facial where the guy getting sprayed has his lips clamped shut like a vice. :( Of course, it looks like the oral cumshot is finally making a cumback in mainstream porn, as I've seen them "pop" up in quite a few major releases lately, most notably Kristen Bjorn's Isle of Men.

[Giles]

oh and how, "Isle of Men" is stunning. All of Bjorn's video's are exceptional.

[rfduncan]

I just love how the condom "magically disappears" when it is time for the "shooting"! Where can I get these magical rubbers that evaporate as soon as I pull out?! :lol: