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
Bookmarks