Dzinerbear:
Have you considered this? One idea competing with you here is that a great many people insist on seeing an HIV positive person as a suffering victim. (Unfortunately, so do lots of HIV positive individuals as well.) HIV positive people are supposed to be sick, dying... atoning for their past sins, as it were. Is it possible that some folks find it emotionally safer to see guys as portrayed like the 1980s images of Angels in America or And The Band Played On?
How disturbing it mught be to see HIV positive guys looking like everyone else, the only exception being their rich, freewheeling sexual lifestyle?
You know, it's as if so many people... after all these years... do not have a solid grasp on what being HIV positive means.
I have wondered this, so I thought I would articulate it. I'm just articulating something I've pondered, I don't mean to be stating absolutes.
Also, I think there is no currency in the argument that movies should be tailored in order to shape and nurture immpressionable viewers. I respectfully disagree with Chi Chi Larue that bareback porn motivates young viewers to parrot what they see.
If that were true - why then doesn't watching porn make you cheat on your wife? If that were true, why then doesn't watching gay twink porn motivate middle aged men to sexually molest seventeen year olds? Do all people who watch fisting movies engage in fisting themselves?
Countries like Canada or Australia still have government censorship boards because they cannot see the difference between fantasy and reality.
Is it possible that today's major gay porn producers think no differently in philosophy like a good old fashioned state censorship board?
Steve
PS: Along these lines I happen to be skeptical of "labeling" - particularly in our context of website labeling, or labeling of productions.





Reply With Quote
Bookmarks