So what you saying is that after Micheal has supported you and your business you drop him like a hot plate within a few hours. Wow I wish I had friends as good as you.
WTF.
Printable View
So what you saying is that after Micheal has supported you and your business you drop him like a hot plate within a few hours. Wow I wish I had friends as good as you.
WTF.
No, it was Michael who publicly stated in a News Release that HE was dropping all bareback studios and inferred in the News Release that studios who produce condom less films are somehow to blame for an increase in HIV infections among gay youth.Quote:
Originally Posted by marcjacob
If your company was attacked in such a way how would you respond? If you were told that he didn't want to have anything to do with the type of films you make, would you continue to send traffic to him?
He made the decision not to deal with bareback companies, of which we are one. We simply acquiesed to his wishes by removing his links from our sites.
Bill
LavenderLounge Mark is correct - that is a gutsy move. And of course, once you do it, that's it. You'd look like an idiot in a year or two if you started promoting a site that included bareback sex.
Personally, I see **significantly** greater amounts of unsafe sex practices culminating from the venues provided by gay.com, manhunt and all other dating/hookup websites, who are teaming with young guys. (Gay.Com Austin boasts three full chat rooms most of the time, and my ex slept with dozens of them in the last half of 2007. Care to multiply that out by thousands daily across North America?)
At least studios like Hot Desert Knights are honest about what they provide, and include PSAs. And as I reject Marxist philosophy, I do not think capitalist business exploits their workers and consumers in order to obtain their profits.
Now everyone in our business should run their business in the way they feel comfortable with. I respect that. Here's another example of how people really are torn on the subject.
Steve
I just took a peek and I immediately spotted several sites on gay porn pig that feature bareback fucking.
What I said above doesn't even include those sites that feature cum in the mouth/cum eating... If you're really about promoting only "safer" sex then why don't you take all of those down too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth
Wow this is getting a bit mean spirited. I guess I can thank my lucky stars that I am not a big league player in this industry, or I'd be chewing on a lot of anti acids about now.
I don't get the whole 'nastiness' or 'attack' mode so many seem to be in these days. (speaking generally) as it just seems to me to be rather counter productive.
Michael made a decision, we all do, and perhaps like most of us, he might have rushed through making the announcement, and not taken all of the 'business ends' into consideration, but hey, who hasn't made a mistake here? I know I sure have made a few.
Fact is, not many of us are big time players, we don't have a staff, so things get missed, or forgotten. I know when I did a major site revamp I missed some links, got yelled at too, but it was in private, because while I goofed, while I was wrong, the other party didn't think they needed to go over the top just because I goofed.
I have found that there are three ways to solve issues. One is to first go to the party in private, and discuss the issue. Yes, even when they do it publicly, I prefer to do it privately, because my momma taught me that two wrongs never make one right.
My other choice is to simply ignore the issue, sort of a cowardly way out, but at times it just isn't worth the aggravation.
Then too there is the go public route, and I have done it, and gotten satisfaction, but it was a fleeting feeling. It never really lasts, specially when the other party wasn't intentionally trying to screw me.
I have done work for a few people, know on a passing basis a fair number of folks here, do some link trades with them. Hell I do one with Bill at Hot Desert Knights, but that is a link trade, so does that make me a hypocrite because I don't promote bareback? I don't think so, but hey to each their own
There are some I have done written work for, and the terms include that credit of authorship is made known, and there are some who have ignored that agreed to stipulation, some have even taken credit for my work, and I made a choice, to ignore the issue. I don't do any more work for them, but it just isn't worth the conflict to call them out on it.
Michael made a choice, his execution might not be perfect, but he has taken a stand. I think if we don't like it, we can simply choose to ignore it, not go out of our way to cast aspersions or ridicule for his efforts. As for the link issues, well I have links with some here, they haven't kept mine up and I have given them the benefit of doubt, and talked to them privately about it.
Some have blown me off, others made the correction, and some even made the correction, then waited to remove them. It is life and frankly, just not worth the hassle to call them out. Others haven't touched a link since it went up, so it evens out.
Call me naive, old fashioned, or just old, but I think if there is a problem with a decision made by one, the first course is to discuss it with them, not bring it to the board. But then I am blond, or at least will be once again soon as the wife gets the hair color stuff. :innocent:
Gaystoryman,
VERY well said.
Thanks for inserting some logic into the controvesy. Michael does still have links to bareback sites on his sites but we all know Michael well enough to know that he's good for his word and I'm betting he is just as busy as the rest of us trying to make a living in this crazy economy and most likely he underestimated the time required to delete all of the links. If he says they are coming off, you can bet your ass they will be removed.
Bill
Michael is to be congratulated not only for taking a stand on an issue that's important to him, but also for being willing to think carefully about the bigger issues outside of his own views and his personal tastes, and make a tough call.
I credit Michael for being one of the main people that caused me to think about a viewpoint I'd never considered -- that of gay men who are HIV positive and are constantly reminded of that in safer-sex porn and in all of the media coverage of the importance of safer sex.
The issues involved are extremely complex, and there are few, if any, black-and-white answers to any of them. As many have pointed out, it is near impossible to be "pure" on the safer sex issue in the porn industry in part because of differing opinions of what safer sex is, in part because so many parts of the industry are driven by financial issues and not by ethical ones.
Michael has taken a bold step and put his money where his mouth is. That doesn't mean that his decision is the right one for everyone else, and it certainly doesn't mean -- as some seem to think -- that it is a condemnation of bareback or a call to ban bareback. It is simply a step, made from the heart, by a person who has been around long enough, both in the industry and in life, to understand the bigger issue.
And as for those claiming cheating or worse, sorry but I don't agree at all. This is a step made for reasons that are personally important to Michael. It is encouraging to me personally to see people taking such steps, and I hope that we will continue to see meaningful dialogue on the many issues that come into play -- the potential impact on a webmaster's income, the psychological effect on those who view bareback content, the safety and other issues surrounding those who perform in bareback productions, the absolute right of those who wish to view and to create bareback to create it, and the challenge that many of us face in balancing success or growth of our businesses against the ethical issues that arise.
Congrats Michael this is great news!
As far as the other posts in this thread it does seem the BB issue is being used to divide people, which is interesting. On one hand we have the non BB people saying there is so little non BB content out there and they need to stick together and support each other, yet they only promote a very small select portion of the non BB content that's out there.
On the other hand you have the BB producers and promoters feeling judged and demonized while being presented as a powerful majority by the other side.
It's starting to seem that the non BB camp is the only one benefiting from their consistent public promotion of their stance as a minority supporting the right cause which is strange because the biggest Gay sites on the web seem to be primarily non BB sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Chip,
You are absolutely right. Michael's decision to stop promoting bareback was a personal decision and not, and this is according to Michael, a condemnation of barebacking or an attempt to join the small minority you would like to ban barebacking completely.
However, as we have already seen, the vocal, rabid minority who would like to take a person's constitutional right to bareback if they so choose, or would like to take away my constintutional to produce bareback films if I choose, have already "jumped on the bandwagon" and started twisting Michael's words and his motives.
Look for example at the bullshit Keith at Titan immediately had to say; "Michael has chosen the interests and health of others in his community over his own personal self interests". Is he implying that EVERYONE who produces bareback films isn't concerned about the "health of others in the gay community, or that we who produce bareback films aren't concerned about the health of and welfare of our models?" Well, if he is, he's full of crap and he damn sure better not ever publicly accuse me or anyone in my company of not caring about our community or of not caring about our models.
Keith goes on to say; "Michael has chosen to no longer support the commercial exploitation of films that glorify high risk and unsafe sex, putting performers and the entire gay community at risk". That certainly sounds like a condemnation of the bareback industry to me. Again, what a load of crap. Are we to believe that a company who produces a bareback film is putting the entire gay community at risk? Talk about sensationalism! Watch out....the shy is falling, the sky is falling! Does he want all of us to believe that we only produce bareback films so that we can "exploit" models and our community just so we can make, if you believe the crap the anti-barebackers keep saying, HUGE profits? I'll guarantee you this, as Squirt somewhat pointed out in his post, the big NON BB companies such as Titan, Channel 1 Releasing, Falcon, Raging Stallion are making a hell of a lot more money than bareback companies are making.
The anti-bareback studios, of which Titan seems to be the "leader of the pack", keep inferring that companies who produce bareback films are the cause of the increase of HIV among young gay men. Why don't we hardly hear them talk about other STD's? The reason is that in EVERY film they produce they are absolutely NOT having their models perform "safe" sex. Keith needs to catch up with the times and come to understand that the term "safe sex" is no longer used in the health community. Why, because the only "safe sex" is NO sex. The proper word is "safer sex".
Have you ever looked at a Titan film and seen one man sucking the dick of another man without the use of a condom? Have you ever looked at a Titan film and seen rimming going on without the use of a dental dam? Have you ever looked at a Titan film and seen a model pull out of an ass, yank of the condom and then shoot his load on the ass and/or back of the other model? And, what about Raging Stallion, who a couple of years ago, created a ton or publicity promoting a film that featured....Oh my God, a FACIAL CUM SHOT? Of course you have, we all have. The fact of the matter is that everyone of those activites is considered unsafe by most health organizations. Everyone one of those activites has the potential to spread STD's including HIV. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Keith from Titan who stated on this board or some other board or forum about a year or so ago that the bareback industry had better be careful because having anal sex without a condom violates Cal-OSHA regulations? The fact of the matter is that every activity I just mentioned above absolutely violates Cal-OSHA regulations. That is, of course assuming that in California a model is considered an employee. And, for those of you who don't know, as of December, models are in fact employees of the company even if they only work for you for one day or one hour and appear in a scene under your direction.
Their isn't a gay or straight production company who isn't violating a number of Cal-OSHA regulations every time they film.
The point I was trying to make and I somewhat got off the subject is that Michael, in making the decision he made, did not condemn the companies making bareback films. But, the rabid anti-barebackers are jumping on what they see as a "bandwagon" and using what was a very personal decision made by Michael, and trying to use it to condemn barebacking and bareback producers. They want you to believe that they are the only ones who care about the safety of their models, of if you believe what Keith at Titan had to say thread, they, the NON BB companies, are the ONLY ones who care about the gay community since, we have to assume, according to Keith, that THEY aren't putting the "entire gay community at risk". Some would say he sounds a bit like chicken-little, I would say he's full of hogwash and frankly, that's being polite.
Bill
A Proud Supporter of
Everyone's 1st Amendment Right.
Not just those who agree with me.
Bill, well said.
Personally, i dont see what all the fuss is about, this is just one of Michaels sites being mentioned, he never said he was removing BB content from them all, just from the Pig.
Regards,
Lee
Please see my clarification in this post
Thanks
Michael
Bill- Perhaps you can explain to us all how bareback sex with internal cumshots would not be considered "unsafe sex"? I'm very careful how I chose my words and I purposely chose those words because the sex depicted in bareback films is considered "unsafe sex". When I am referring to sex that includes the use of condoms, then I generally use the more correct term of "safer sex". Please do not try and put words in my mouth.
You've also heard me say many times, that people have the right to make and view whatever they would like to make. Above all I believe in the freedom of speech. But, freedom of speech is a two way street. I have every right to stand up and challenge what I believe is a dangerous and irresponsible business model. At the same time I applaud your efforts to stand up and defend your side of the issue as well.
Bill, you may very well be the exception to the rule within the bareback part of the industry. You where one of the originators of the genre and I believe your motives were very different from the motives of others that followed behind you. Unfortunately, many of the others that followed in your footsteps had much different motivations that ended up making you all look bad.
From what I have seen the vast majority of producers making bareback, and twink bareback in particular, are sleazy opportunists that are just out to make a buck. They are not doing it because they believe in the freedom of speech issues, they are doing it to make money. I know several of the producers that themselves are HIV negative and would never bareback personally, yet they will pay some 19 year old kid an extra $200 to take a load up his ass. That I find repugnant and disgusting!
I have never and will never personally attack you or HDK. I'm sorry that you feel attacked, but unfortunately you get lumped into the "bareback industry" by default. Perhaps you can take the lead in your part of the industry and get others to operate in a more socially responsible manner such as yourself?
I understand about take precautions in sex, HIV test in porn, etc...
but sometimes I see that is criminalized the gay bareback porn.
what happen with straight content?
is almost always without condoms and nobody says anything?
for straight porn its ok and is very bad for gay porn?
there are still people who believe that the AIDS only is for gay people?
If you have a straight link list, you remove all unsafe straight sex content?