The growing trend of gay porn studios switching to produce content without condoms has become so prevalent, major pro-condom studios have started to jump on the so-called bareback bandwagon.
In the most shocking (read: not shocking at all) announcement since staunch condom advocate Michael Lucas released his first bareback film and subsequently outed the HIV statuses of his performers, gay porn conglomerate Falcon Studios has announced that an upcoming film, California Dreamin 1, will feature “digitally removed condoms.” Falcon has long been one of the leading studios for condom advocacy in the gay porn industry.
Bareback porn films sell better than films that use condoms—regardless of what Internet trolls or terribly mistaken advocates will lead you to believe, this is a fact. The logic behind asking models to wear condoms and then spending a large amount of time removing them in post-production, obviously, is to sell more copies of a film while still being able to coin it as “safe.” “Safe,” here, implying that performers have little risk of transmitting HIV or other STDs while wearing condoms.
Although Falcon also owns and continues to distribute one of the largest collections of “vintage” bareback porn, they sell it under the title “pre-condom.” California Dreamin’ 1 director Tony Dimarco calls his new film “a throwback to the classic, pre-condom Falcon poolside movies from the 70’s and 80’s.”
He adds (NSFW):
With this movie I really wanted to capture the essence of that time, when life seemed more carefree and spontaneous. In keeping with this concept, I felt that condoms need to be addressed. I wanted to give the impression of a pre-condom movie, but use condoms as we do in every scene we film. I found a way to film the movie safely and effectively, while giving the experience that I had intended and using the hottest modern stars.
And thus, the discussion begins. In lieu of pointing out the obvious flaws with creating “bareback” porn and continuing to remain a pillar of condom advocacy, we’ll let Gay Porn Blog (NSFW) commenter Jay do the talking for us. He hits the nail on the head, to say the least:
One of the big arguments against bareback porn is that it sends ‘the wrong message’ by glamorizing unsafe sex. So, if viewers are unaware of the digital trick, won’t that message still be sent?. Conversely, if we bareback lovers are aware of the digital removal of the condom, the magic will be gone(at least as far as ‘raw’ appeal; the scene might still be hot). I don’t know exactly which segment of the market they’re trying to please and what they’re trying to accomplish with this silliness: those who love bareback will be automatically turned off by the fact it’s fake; and those naive enough not to notice will probably be hooked on bareback porn which I assume is not Falcon’s intention.
What do you think?