Printable View
When there is a gay producer that is condom - only that starts to produce straight material, but does so without condoms, is that bareback?
Seriously, is that producer who makes condom-only gay content but does not use condoms in their straight content, are they a bareback company or not? Should their material be excluded from awards considerations?
.
i don't know, but i think it's pretty cold if a company feels that one group of people should be protected and another shouldn't.
damn, that seems very sick to me :(
I actually just had a conversation with someone about this double standard.
I am not aware of any statistics (but I haven't looked) indicating that the risk of unprotected vaginal sex is any lower than the risks of unprotected anal sex, yet the straight industry doesn't seem to suffer from the stigma about producing bareback content.
I'm not sure what to think. The gay industry in the 90s pretty much stopped producing bareback, then a few producers started in again, and now it's a major trend (albeit, a lot of buyers don't give a shit one way or another if the guys are hot.)
Yet the straight industry, as far as I know, never produced condom porn in any appreciable quantity.
We know that testing is of only limited value, and that doesn't change whether it's straight or gay porn.
Perhaps there is a noticeably increased transmission risk with anal penetration as opposed to vaginal, but the same arguments can be made in either case.
Under the current double standard, straight content shot without condoms is considered fine, gay content is considered bareback.
Why should the industry care about this when no one in the industry cares about anything else of importance either?
actually for years the larger str8 companies were almost all condom-only, then recently they became condom-optional. vivid comes to mind here first.
it seems to me that HIV is becoming taken for granted. the news and non-porn people used to feel HIV was shocking, awful, horrible. but lately it's not only porn companies that have changed their tune. sure, the news still says "hey, we should do something", but there's no urgency in the articles or in conversation any more. it seems to me like HIV has been added to a long list of things in modern life that somebody should do something about.
We have models in town for shoots this week.
I had a somewhat lengthy conversation with one of our models. He was arguing that HIV "isn't a big deal" using the evidence that he has friends that have been postive for 3+ years and are "healthy as a horse" and "never felt better."
I was trying to explain that no one I know with AIDS looks at it that way, that his friends are lucky they haven't yet progressed past having the virus. He argued back "Well, there are drugs now and it's really not a big deal any more."
I argued back "I will be happy to put you in touch with some of our models who are fighting AIDS with all of the latest treatments and good health care. They will tell you just how "not a big deal" it is for them, how much it affects what they can do, and how they have to take care of themselves.
I think that's a big part of the issue, the kids 18-25 have never seen anyone suffer from HIV and so they have this idea it's maybe slightly more inconvenient than an occasional bout with the flu.
it's more than that. a good friend of mine was diagnosed with HIV in december of 1989. he has never progressed beyond HIV, and a lot of people who know him feel that he's pretty much cured, but he's not. they choose to perceive it that way, however - i suppose it makes them feel safer.
he is very responsive to treatment, and his doctors know their stuff. not everyone is that lucky, but it's still no fun for him. he takes many medications, some of which make him really ill at first, and he's usually a tiny bit queasy, always has a slight metallic taste in his mouth, and has to avoid certain drugs and foods that change when his meds are changed. he has to switch meds regularly, and usually takes 3 different medications in any given period - generally he takes 13 - 18 pills per day. it's worked out really well for him, and i'm glad he's relatively okay, but i'd do a lot to avoid what he goes through. if i had a dick, you can bet i'd wrap that thing up if that's what it took.
of course, this isn't the impression most people will give you if you talk to them about him. they talk about him as if he's really healthy, feels great and couldn't be better... i guess it makes them feel better, but it's pretty much a lie that they tell themselves and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
good point Chad - perhaps the director is searching for something - only analysis could say for sure - however, a director who directs should be able to experiment and broaden their artistic expression - neçt pas?
their principals and ethics shouldn't get in the way should they?
and as far as awards go, they should be allowed to submit the video for straight market consideration but I would think that the gay market wouldn't stand for it - unless of course there were special considerations - $$$ or something else perhaps?
Now here's what I would do If I were asked to direct a "straight movie" that involved models who fucked without condoms - I would consider doing something unique like shooting a video of two or more straight people fucking without condoms while they watch a video "on tv" of gay guys fucking with condoms... that would take care of the squeamish on both sides of the fence wouldn't it - or would I be banned because I AM a bareback director who actively fucks without condoms on and off the screen
all of this condom/no condom stuff - sheesh!
clue me in, I can't keep up with all the changing tides of the industry...
thank god Cam and I only shoot "natural sex"
What about the awards shows?
If gay bareback content is excluded, why not the same standard for straight condom less films?
If a producer makes gay films WITH condoms and straight films WITHOUT condoms, is that gay content considered to be from a "condom" or "bareback" producer??
I think it only shows that the standards of these gay directors that are now shooting straight porn are "TWO FACED".
Why would they stand on a soap box and point fingers at the bareback producers as bad people and then keep them out of the award shows, and then, think its OK that testing is enough to shoot straight porn. If they shot one cock, gay or straight without a condom on it, they ARE a bareback director PERIOD.
This only shows that they really don't care. They should put a condom on every cock or, not at all, otherwise everything they have said about bareback was just lip service.
If it is OK for them to be considered for awards for shooting straight bareback then, gay bareback should be considered for awards as well.
To get back to the original question about qualifying for awards shows...
I am a judge for the GayVNs, and I believe Chad Beecher is going to be running the awards this time, so hopefully he can back me up.
A scene or a movie is disqualified if it has barebacking in it. A director can be nominated for a specific non-barebacking movie, but if he directs bareback movies, those SPECIFIC titles won't get nominated.
Movies that are primarily M-F scenes qualify for the AVN (straight awards), Bisexual categories are part of GayVN Awards. I believe the Bisexual categories requires condoms, too, but we'll have to consult Chad Beecher on that.
Pre-condom movies can be nominated in the Classic Re-issue categories.
Hall of Fame awards allows for pre-condom work, but if a director is currently doing non-condom straight movies, he probably qualifies, but I'm not sure. Hall of Fame is nominated and voted by GayVN internally, not by judges.
If a studio known for making bareback movies feels excluded from the awards, they can always make a condom-only movie and submit it for consideration.
Dose it matter if a condom or bareback producer makes a straight film?Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
I think it is a similar situation with many awards shows.
It is a double standard, but it is a business and it is their choice to exclude bareback gay content but allow condom less straight content.
This is why the GayVN's are discriminatory and meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderLounge
They do not reflect the entire gay video output of the fiscal year. How can you say anything is the best of the year if you don't open it up to all.
It is all about "industry" awards and not peoples' awards - and it is all about the most money a company can spend to promote their videos - HOWEVER, since we have not been given the chance to have our titles reviewed or even advertised freely in GAYVN or other publications (because of industry standard, supposedly) we are not given a fare shake by the panelists that make up the rules for submitting content...Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
rather biased I'd say -
strange thing is, we ALL use the same videographers, same editors, same replication houses, same printers, and oh yes, some of the same models too -
to tell you the truth, I would never submit anything to the GAYVN group, or their awards knowing how short sighted and venomous the industry can be - not in a million years !
this is an entertainment award, not a social services award.
i can't see any reason ,if this is a single-title award, why the entire output of the company should be considered. that's like denying an author a fiction award because she wrote non-fiction books the same year. if companies making gay bareback videos are eligible for the award, so should companies making str8 bareback videos.