Barebacking and Kiddie Porn

[Dzinerbear]

Hi all,

Yesterday, in response to Lee's request for content help, I referred him to a content provider who also happens to cater to the barebacking market. And Lee said that he couldn't buy a lot of their content because he said, "as a company we want to portray the safer sex image we cant use the vast majority of their content because it is all bareback."

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with his stand. I've taken a similar stand on my twink site, in that I will not use the words boy or barely 18. And initially, I wouldn't even promote sponsors who used those words. But I've found that last part too difficult to abide by.

So, my question to you all is this: Lee and company have decided that to host barebacking pictures in their galleries would be promoting unsafe sex, do you agree? And second, if we're taking a moral and ethical stand on that issue, should we not also consider banning the words boy, barely legal, just 18, and teen on our sites, in an effort to support the fight against child pornography?

Or, do the two issues, while both moral dilemmas in nature, have nothing to do with one another?

Cheers,
Dzinerbear

[Bec]

Good questions.

I know for myself I won't use the barely legal or boys when creating niche site names ... and we were trying like hell to not promote sites that use the words, including teen - but just like you, we're finding that a damn near impossible option and still have a nice stable of sites to promote.

I do have to admit I hadn't thought about the "safesex" approach to the images I use.

As to are they related - on some levels, yes ... on the moral points -- but no, on legal (at least right now!)

[tonydvt]

Though I completely agree with Lee in this regard I think that if properly done and promoted barebacking sites can be the alternative to barebacking. Putting text on the page reflecting the danger of this practice if not in a complete monogamous relationship and advertising it as fantasy.

My thoughts
Tony D

New Here Lee so don't beat me too badly

[basschick]

if someone is barely legal, wouldn't that be definition mean that he or she IS legal?

i really have to think about that barebacking issue. it really got me thinking. a few years ago, an ex of mine was a rising pornstar. his name was getting out and he was working for the "A" companies. he was doing work for a very large company who was considering contracting him exclusively, but along the line, he decided he would no longer work without a condom.

they stopped using him altogether after giving him the message clearly that to work for them, one HAD no use no condom. they said that the viewers weren't interested in condom sex, and to a degree that was true. two years later, they require condoms (as well they should).

i remember ten years ago, people who wanted to use condoms had to pretty much fight new partners into them. now a lot of people use them as a matter of course.

i believe that seeing condoms in porn videos sort of acclimates guys to the idea of using them.

[BDBionic]

I really don't have a problem with the words "boys" or "teen" in and of themselves.
It's how they're presented as part of the whole context of the site that I view them.
"barely legal" doesn't bug me at all because... well I've always read the term to make it pretty clear that they're legal. Right? As basschick said. It's right there in the phrase! hehe.
"boys" and "teens" and what not... I look at the entire site to see if they're pushing the line. There are a lot of twink sites and what not that include that text but also make it pretty clear that their models are above the age of 18. Prominence of the "above 18" notification is greater than any thing that says "boys" or "teen" so it's all good and fine in my book. Or they don't overly stress the terms and occurence of them within copy or graphics is nominal.
But then on a lot of these sites that seem to fly out of Russia on a daily basis where not only do the guys look way, way young but the names of the sites, themes, photos, copy, and how they're marketing themselves make it seem really really sketchy on age issues? I ain't gonna promote one of those.

Barebacking? To be honest my jury is still out on that. I remember submitting a site of mine to a link list type site and it never being approved. When I ran in to the owner of the site at an industry event he said he couldn't accept my submission because I had a barebacking movie featured on it (the site has movie and website reviews and all that jazz).
The barebacking movie was released by a studio run by a friend of mine, so I wasn't going to just up and take it down to get listed. However, its prominence on the site was about to drop anyways because I was going to add new featured movies to my site to keep the content fresh. But did I drop it entirely? Naw. I chose to keep it up on the site over getting listed on this particular directory because I was getting about several thousand visits a month from Google on searches run for the name of the movie's top model, the title of the film, and the studio that released it (my site had been ranked 1-3 spots for all of those).
So... quite frankly, I chose the qualified Google traffic over this person's link list traffic.

[jIgG]

i have a problem with the word boys.
all these "very young boys" type sites cater to people i have no intention of satisfying. if the models look borderline 16-17 i stay away. i don't do twink sites since it's not something i'm interested in myself, but 19-22 would be the age range i'd look for in a model if i did twink sites.

from working with a link list, i've learned a lot of webmasters are trying to attach that damn "boy" word to every single site they have even if the model is looking at lot like he's in his 30s.

barebacking does promote unsafe sex, in a way. it tells people see those two do it so it must be okay. putting a disclaimer might work for some, but the bug chasers and gift givers are gona do it regardless

[jIgG]

Originally posted by basschick


i remember ten years ago, people who wanted to use condoms had to pretty much fight new partners into them. now a lot of people use them as a matter of course.

i believe that seeing condoms in porn videos sort of acclimates guys to the idea of using them.

it's not so with gays. unsafe sex is on the rise, as are HIV infections. think they said HIV is back to the levels it was 10 years ago.

from looking at all the profile sites, you either don't talk about it or if you do talk about safe sex only you get very few to 0 replies.
barebacking just insites people to be irresponsible. now, nothing wrong with two monogamous people do it bareback. i do it with my boyfriend of almost 5 years, but the 'no care' attitude a lot of gay guys have these days i'd rather not glorify it

[Lee]

WOW! Awesome topic :groovy:

One thing i should also mention when it comes to words of a nature which may be condusive to underage stuff such as boy, barely legal ec etc.

You will also notice that as a company we dont use that type of content anywhere on our sites

In fact, speaking for the Stud Money sites specifically now, we actually do have a fully operations 'twink' site however, as yet, it hasnt gone live because it has the word 'teen' in the domain name

Anyway just wanted to say what a great topic this is and im looking forward to seeing some more replies in it :thumbsup:

Regards,

Lee

[Dzinerbear]

I've certainly had to grapple with the barebacking issue. And the only thing I can tell you is that I go back and forth on it.

Ultimately, I decided to use barebacking guys and pictures in my galleries because they sell, and they sell big.

I call my site a "fantasyland of bears and hairy men." So, in a sense, I've already put it out there that every one on this site is a fantasy, and in the real world things would be different.

On my list of things to do is to write out a disclaimer that tells anyone reading it that I'm not telling guys they should use condoms and I'm not condemning guys who don't, all I expect from people is that they talk about it. If two positives, or two negatives, or a mixed bag of knowns and unknowns decide to engage in unsafe sex, but they've talked about it, then who am I to stand there on my mount giving a sermon.

I believe that not disclosing your status and engaging in unprotected sex is wrong. If you disclose a positive status and someone still wants to play with you, and do so in an unprotected way, that's up to you guys to sort out. After all, we continue to smoke and let people we love smoke in spite of the fact that we know it will probably harm or kill us in some way. Is there a difference between barebacking and smoking?

If you work at McDonald's and you're serving up three Big Macs to a 450 pound man, do you not owe it to the guy to say, "Dude, did you think about what you're doing to your body?" No, that would be insane and probably get you fired. The guy walked into McDonald's willingly.

If you know that a famous jean manufacturer or shoe producer is using near-slave labour in under-developed countries, do you continue buying those products knowing that you're helping to hurt thousands of people? Do you continue to shop at Wal-Mart knowing that more and more of the products they sell are not made by Americans, and shopping there is costing Americans their jobs?

Just exactly where do you draw the line? They're all moral and ethical issues, but we each have to draw our own line somewhere. As long as we've thought about it and can live with ourselves, then we've made an informed choice.

I would like to get my disclaimer written soon, and tell people to (a) talk about it, and (b) realize that these actors in these barebacking galleries have probably talked about it and know the status of their partners. Along with the disclaimer, I will provide some links to well-known AIDS organizations around the world so that people can seek out the information they should have.

As far as the boy, teen, barely legal thing is concerned, I wished we'd clean it up ourselves before VISA or MasterCard pulls support on any site using those words, just like they did with "protect", "adult verification" etc. Yes, I know that "barely legal" means they're legal, but for me it's implying a grey area. Just like we all know that "free memberships" aren't really.

BTW, I still thing a post this long should count as three or four posts in this contest. I do, I do, I do. :goof:


Cheers,
Dzinerbear

[Xstr8guy]

Very interesting thread!

Plain and simple, I do bareback sites because it is a turn-on of mine. I don't do "boy" sites because it is a turn-off for me.

Both fetishes are fantasies for the surfers. Those that fantasize about bareback sex are hurting no one. Will men continue to engage in risky behaviors? Yes. Will showing bareback images cause people to engage in unsafe sex who would otherwise use comdoms? I highly doubt it.

If you read the model release forms for HDK photo sets, there is a disclaimer that states that the performer is to assume that all participants are HIV+. For the stars of bareback movies today, let's be honest here folks, I'm about 99% sure that most, if not all are HIV+ and healthy. There is some risk of re-infection for these performers, but modern medicine has done a lot for reducing viral loads, thus reducing further risk for the performers.

"Gift givers" and "bug chasers" are another matter completely. This is a growing phenomenom I just don't understand. Who in their right mind would knowingly infect or try to contract a deadly disease? This verges on murder/suicide.


Those that fantasize about sex with under-age boys are the scum of society. Imo, many of the teen/boy sites that I have seen ARE pushing the line... bigtime! Even if the models are "barely" 18, many of them look impossibly pre-pubescent... and that makes my stomach turn! These sites seem to pander to potential pedophiles.

[EC Steve]

Barebacking although is an unsafe method of sex no matter what your sexual orientation is the question is that the use of barebacking pictures is ones own preference. Many Straght sites have anal action photo sets and videos with out the use of condoms so i dont see why a gay site needs to follow different rules.

use of the word teens, Boys etc etc well not extremely smart in this day and age it is widely used even by my company Teenerotica.com 18teenboys.com etc etc But teen and boys are internet terms to refer to teens 18 - 19 which is legal, to bad the off line world does not understand that and they refer to teen as being Kiddie Porn.

So to close Visa has issues with teen and boys and twinks etc etc. but they have no issues with barebacking or unsafe sex.

EC Steve

[desslock]

I'll tell ya-

Whenever I get a new porn to review, and I mention it to anyone of my friends, do you know what the first question out of their mouth is?

"Is is bareback?"

For that matter, whenever I let a friend borrow a movie, guess what's the first to be selected?

the bareback ones.

[dirtygeek]

Honestly, I won't touch bareback stuff. Even with my video distribution I do. When companies come to me wanting bareback stuff I refer them to someone else. It's a free country and people are allowed to buy and sell whatever they wish. However, I can not sell it with clear conscious. I've seen what STDs do, and I could live with myself knowing that I might have helped with someone becoming sick, maybe dying, or someone catching something from a video I produced or sold so someone for their store.

People watch these movies and if they see a hot guy doing something that looks “hot/sexy/fun” they are going to try it. (I know I would on the rare occasion that I watch a vid.) If they see someone doing it without a condom, and it looks hot the chance, to me, are higher that they are just going to do it and not think much about what might happen after.

[TheLegacy]

Lee is a smart enough cookie to know what is right and wrong, I am sure that any questionable material he has done a great deal of research into it. He really knows who to avoid doing business for fear of being associated with questionable people and content.

thats probably why he hasnt called me :crybaby: