Bareback Sex - Is there really any difference here?

Ken,

You are correct in saying that what guidlines people choose to produce their content does fall in their moarl issues on the sibject. I agree with you on that.

My (and these are MY moral issues) is first and foremost protection of the models. That is why MY moral issue would not let me produce the content.

To a lesser degree I have moral issues with how the content is presented. It can be presented in a way that I PERSONALLY find more acceptable than others.

And what somewhat scare ME is when it is widely presented in a way with no education and just very hardcore to a wide audience, what is to say that an uderage surfer (they are there) may find it and with no knowledge (they are out there) think that is the ONLY way to have sex.

These are just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

De Angelo, I don't know if you remember Cole Tucker, but he was one of the only HIV-positive porn stars who was vocal about his serostatus, and he became something of a spokesman for a few years there. And he got work just fine. He may have been an exception to the rule, though.

---

Yes, we know him and actually, he did not get work for quite a while.

We worked with him in a group scene for MSR. The movie was Don't Ask Don't Tell. Cole Tucker filled us in on what had happened after he went public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo

Yes, we know him and actually, he did not get work for quite a while.

We worked with him in a group scene for MSR. The movie was Don't Ask Don't Tell. Cole Tucker filled us in on what had happened after he went public.

---

Hmmmm, I don't know all the backstory. I was a bit younger then, but I seem to recall seeing him pop up in all kinds of movies after he went public. Didn't Unzipped do a big story on him at one point as well? Maybe it was just my perception, but I'm pretty sure he worked for Chi Chi and a few other majors after he outed himself...

I totally disagree with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

I HATE it when someone says, "My brother or my sister or my so-and-so died as a result of BLANK," b/cuz it immediately turns a debate emotional, and there's simply no room for emotion in mature, theoretical debate. In fact, there's no quicker way to kill a debate than to turn it personal.

Whether or not anyone tested positive as a result of barebacking has no relevance on how others should live their own lives or produce their content. Ultimately, it must boil down to what is best for each person going by their own moral compass.

---

The very reason that people feel so strongly about this issue is that we are talking about an incurable, chronic condition with very real health consequences. It is because our friends are living with (and eventually dying early because of) HIV/AIDS that this debate even exists.

I also think that many individuals who decide to bareback are only considering the consequences for themselves personally, and do not consider the larger social issues. If a gay man cannot even do the most basic thing to prevent HIV from spreading in the community (by using a condom when fucking with strangers) then how on earth can he expect the government and community to support that decision by paying for his meds and providing counseling, housing and all sorts of other supports?

As long as HIV remains incurable and the health consequences so serious it is the responsibility of every gay man to practice safer sex unless he is 100% sure that he is fucking with someone with the same HIV status.

I also think that, until there is a cure for HIV, bareback porn is unethical.

Yep, I've just judged every barebacker and the entire bareback industry. This issue is way too important not to be judgemental.

And, by the way, two old friends of mine have died of HIV related causes in the past two months. Guess I'm just being emotional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

They don't understand, or rather, they just don't listen???

---

I'm not going to get embroiled in this controvery again, but I will say not to forget that if a public school teaches anything EXCEPT abstinence, the school will lose its federal funding.

John, my partner, grew up in south Georgia. He never had a sex education class. When we first met, he had no clue how to put on a condom. He thought you unrolled it, put two fingers in, stretched it out and then put it on. Many kids today, graduating from high school, are just as unaware...maybe even more so since you rarely ever see PSA's talking about HIV like we did in the 80's and early 90's. Keep in mind, the kids graduating from high school today, usually don't know anyone with HIV and what they do know, or think they know, is that it is an "old gay mans disease".

Nuff said,

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

I'm not going to get embroiled in this controvery again, but I will say not to forget that if a public school teaches anything EXCEPT abstinence, the school will lose its federal funding.

John, my partner, grew up in south Georgia. He never had a sex education class. When we first met, he had no clue how to put on a condom. He thought you unrolled it, put two fingers in, stretched it out and then put it on. Many kids today, graduating from high school, are just as unaware...maybe even more so since you rarely ever see PSA's talking about HIV like we did in the 80's and early 90's. Keep in mind, the kids graduating from high school today, usually don't know anyone with HIV and what they do know, or think they know, is that it is an "old gay mans disease".

Nuff said,

Bill

---

I grew up in a small town in Maine. Sex education was a joke. My first two sexual experiences were bareback. Firstly, the one gay vhs tape I had was an 80's babeback its was cool. The other videos I watched were straight. No one used a condom and I was NOT taught in school, and my dad never pulled one out and told me how to put one on. So it was like I guess this is how its suppose to be done. For all I knew at the time you could get HIV from a blowjob. I wasn't educated. Was I to blame? I mean we are talking late 80's here. I couldnt hop on the web.

And what really bothers me about bareback now is the misconception of the "education" gay men are getting. My friend works for aid action commity and was involved in a study with Fenway Community Health (they have some of the pioneering Docotors on aids research in the country). The findings that they found was gay men were practicing unsafe sex beacuse of the information that the "new" pills made them lead a better life and that they felt a cure was right around the corner.

This is just such a touchy issue. I find it unethical, but I also find it unetchical to dictate my ethics to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaMan

I totally disagree with this:


The very reason that people feel so strongly about this issue is that we are talking about an incurable, chronic condition with very real health consequences. It is because our friends are living with (and eventually dying early because of) HIV/AIDS that this debate even exists.

I also think that many individuals who decide to bareback are only considering the consequences for themselves personally, and do not consider the larger social issues. If a gay man cannot even do the most basic thing to prevent HIV from spreading in the community (by using a condom when fucking with strangers) then how on earth can he expect the government and community to support that decision by paying for his meds and providing counseling, housing and all sorts of other supports?

As long as HIV remains incurable and the health consequences so serious it is the responsibility of every gay man to practice safer sex unless he is 100% sure that he is fucking with someone with the same HIV status.

I also think that, until there is a cure for HIV, bareback porn is unethical.

Yep, I've just judged every barebacker and the entire bareback industry. This issue is way too important not to be judgemental.

And, by the way, two old friends of mine have died of HIV related causes in the past two months. Guess I'm just being emotional.

---

You certainly have the right to disagree, and I certainly understand your side of the debate, but I just think there is a much bigger picture here than that.

Do you fight just as strongly for the obliteration of smoking privileges?

How many gay men who say they are against barebacking go out and light up a cigarette the first chance they get?

If you want to judge everybody who participates in bareback as being unethical, that's your right. But... it doesn't mean that are ARE right.

And again, THAT'S the bottom line: We're all entitled to our opinions. That's what makes us who we are.

Respectfully,
Ken

The problem with this debate about barebacking is that too many people allow their emotions to get involved in the discussion. Once emotions become involved then a reasonable, intelligent discussion becomes impossible.

We all have the right to our opinions. That makes them neither right nor wrong. They are only opinions, nothing more.

The making of bareback films are not unethical. If the making of bareback films are legal. If the models are adults, are fully informed of the consequences, participating on a consensual basis and are sero sorted according to their HIV status, then a very compelling argument can be made that nothing unehical is taking place. In fact, a very compelling argument can be made that encouraging sero sorting.....that is, HIV+ individuals only have sex with other HIV+ individuals and HIV- individuals only have sex with HIV- individuals, actually leads to a decrease of new HIV infections. This theory is now being studied by the New York Health Department and others and have been looked at seriously by the CDC.

Further, as long as appropriate warnings, cautions, PSA's, etc. are included at the beginning of any bareback films and on the literature and box cover; then the producers of bareback films are not doing anything unethical, but rather, are simply giving the public a choice in the viewing matter they choose to watch. And, after all, isn't that what 1st Amendment rights really men.

Most of us on the board and all of the other board scream that our 1st Amendment rights are being violated whenever the politicians or the DoJ try to restrict our right to produce adult entertainment, or create an adult website. Yet many of the same people who scream the loudest about infringement of their 1st Amendment rights, are the first to scream that the production of bareback films are immoral or in some way unethical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. .

Let's keep the emotions out of the debate. I make bareback films.Those of you who critisize me have never been on my set and you've never seen how we treat the models. You've never heard the discussions that take place between our staff and our models. Our models are treated with the utmost dignity and respect which is why the majority of them film over and over for us. Their health concerns play a very primary part in every decision we make regarding our models.

To the best of my knowledge, we are the only gay adult entertainment company that has a drug testing policy that all models must adhere to. We don't condone illegal drugs of any sort on the set which is why all models are subject to random drug testing as well as for cause drug testing.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

How many gay men who say they are against barebacking go out and light up a cigarette the first chance they get?

---

How many goto clubs and hand out condoms and goto the dock at Prov Town and hand out condoms and ask if they know what safe sex is on the way down. That's the question one should ask as it directly relates to this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

So, is it bareback sex only if you're actually seeing a bare cock in a butt hole? And if you're implying bareback sex, or at least not confirming the models are engaging in condomed-sex, isn't that sending out an irresponsible message, too? I could pretty much guarantee if we took the exact same shoot in that magazine (picture for picture) and just renamed it "Bareback Afternoon Fuck," there would be an outcry. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Michael

---

To answer the original question of the poster. And I believed you asked two.

1. Yes, it IS only bareback sex if they are truly barebacking. I can ask is it child porn if you have 18 year old models that look 16 in a video called Jr High Dropuots. No. It's simulated child porn and perfectly legal. Though some may argue unethical.

2. And yes, if you are implying barbeck sex, even simulated, though you may feel iirresponsible, others may not.

Concerning the last point Magazines are limited to what they can show. Very few show actual penetration. (Feshmen, men, etc etc etc). I believe it has to do w/ laws in certain states. I may be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Most of us on the board and all of the other board scream that our 1st Amendment rights are being violated whenever the politicians or the DoJ try to restrict our right to produce adult entertainment, or create an adult website. Yet many of the same people who scream the loudest about infringement of their 1st Amendment rights, are the first to scream that the production of bareback films are immoral or in some way unethical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. .

---

That is for me the crux of the issue. As much as I'd like to be able to say "Let's ban all barebacking", I can't do it because then I'm trampling on the Constitution just as much as the right-wingers who want to ban *all* adult content.

There really is no solid black-and-white right or wrong on this issue, at least not for me. I find myself in complete agreement with Trevor, and having been an adult at the beginning of the AIDS crisis, I saw a lot of people die as well. And I also find myself in complete agreement with Bill that you can't argue that someone doesn't have the right to produce bareback content, in the same way that the Nazis have the right to march and demonstrate, the sites that produce extreme, violent, appalling content should also be protected by the First Amendment.

It's the cost of living in a country with free speech.

As soon as we start abridging our ability to express ourselves (well... not like Bush hasn't done so already), it is a very slippery slope.