Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  buttsecks

If You Say You Care About Safe Sex In Gay Porn, You’re Probably A Hypocrite

HIV+ gay porn bottom Mason Wyler is staging a career comeback by starring in a bareback porn scene for Dark Alley Media (link NSFW). And predictably the gay porn blog comment boards are lighting up with people denouncing Wyler and bareback studios as reckless. But those who are upset because gay porn “should promote safe sex” are also full of crap.

Don’t get me wrong. Wyler regularly cruised Adam4Adam for bareback fuck buddies and even held a competition to let a fan fuck him. When he tested HIV-positive, it surprised no one. But anyone reading this should realize that their parents had bareback sex too. They probably didn’t troll Adam4Adam or film it and sell it to thousands of people, but they did make a conscious decision not to use condoms and to live out their fantasies by engaging in barrier-free sex and having children — health risks be damned. Same-sex sex, your biology teacher probably forgot to tell you, doesn’t generate children. This makes it recreational rather than procreational. And as such, gay guys use condoms mostly to avoid contracting and transmitting HIV. Read that again: If it weren’t for HIV, almost no gay men would use condoms. (Herpes and Hepatitis are just not as scary.)

When it comes to sex, bareback is an ideal—it’s the sort of sex we all want to be having because it represents carefree, unguarded vulnerability and spontaneity, a 1970s Eden of sorts where intimacy and pleasure lay in self-contended fulfillment without shame, death, and anxiety hovering over every sexual encounter. As such, barebacking signifies more than just acquiescence to the fact that “it feels better without condoms”—the desire not to use condoms is so strong that it even figures into our fantasies. My proof? How many of you masturbators imagine your dream man putting on a condom before you get it on? I’m betting zero. Porn’s a fantasy and bareback porn caters to the powerful and very real desire to have sex without fear.

Yet the strongest argument for condoms in porn goes something like this: Because there’s a lack of gay sex portrayed in mainstream media, a lot of gay guys end up learning about sex through porn. As such, condoms in porn are instructive. They teach you that condoms are a safe-sex precaution so basic and necessary that even professionals in the business of sexual fantasy use them. Furthermore, not every queer person has the same access to safe-sex education or medical attention. And because we’re a smaller, politically-oppressed community vilified for “causing” AIDS, we owe it to ourselves to model healthy sexual behaviors that will reduce the outbreak, even in our porn.

But here’s the disconnect: sexual precaution and fantasy contradict one another. Safe-sex porn says that on the one hand you should cut loose and fuck however you want, but on the other hand you shouldn’t dare do it without treating your partner like he has a lethal disease. Even gay author Andrew Holleran repeatedly mentions this contradiction in Ground Zero, a book of essays written at the height of the NYC AIDS outbreak: condoms are boner-killing symbols of death. Yes, some porn studios have attempted to sex-up condoms, like with twink star Andy Kay’s mantra “Safer Sex Is Hotter Sex”, Chi Chi LaRue advising men to “Wrap It Up”, and Hot House Backroom and DC FUK!T campaigns showing actual fucking. But the porn industry certainly isn’t consistent in its safe-sex crusade either.

For one, porn studios never use condoms during blowjob scenes. The last time I checked, the CDC still considered oral sex a mid-risk activity for contracting HIV, let alone cauliflower-lookin’ growths. Every so often a guy will pull out and shoot “a cream pie” right on his bottom’s butthole—certainly not so safe. Even worse, Corbin Fisher requires their models to wear condoms in their gay scenes but not in their straight ones hosted on sister-site Amateur College Sex. That’s either anti-gay, misogynist, ignorant … or all three.

 
By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Feb 13, 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 90 Comments
    • Kamikapse
      Kamikapse

      This article actually was quite good for something on Queerty

      Feb 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe
      Joe

      I have to agree, it raises many good points. I actually had to think about whether I fantasized about whipping out a condom to get it on. I would of course use one, but I never really fantasize about it.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 1:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • double standard
      double standard

      Ah so if someone is a HIV poz, they should not be allowed to do porn? Anyone else see the legality of this issue? I though we was not allow to discriminate based on- you fill in the blank

      Feb 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      This is kind of stupid no?

      If you use condoms to avoid STDs for penetration, you are still at a risk when it comes to oral sex. Same for rimming or having someone shoot cum in your mouth [even if it hits the air rather then throat deposition].

      So you have options. Use protection and have less preconscious sex with other preconscious men or use protection and sleep with someone every day of week and use condoms but avoid other risky behavior.

      So if you choose NOT to wear condoms and accept the risk then regardless of what myself or others think, you have made your choice and I will personally avoid you sexually.

      Now if this openly Poz actor does bareback porn with other actors who are aware of his status, what the fuck does it matter?

      Bareback porn is not something we as a community should police or be against. If someone is really stupid enough to see bareback porn and have bareback sex, then I’m sure it was only a matter of time before someone would have talked them into taking a drug or too much alcohol to not have enough sense to NOT engage in bare sex.

      Also, if sex without condoms feels better how does bareback porn help anyone watching it FEEL the bare sex?

      And this romanticism is bullshit too. I see hot guys fisting each other in porn or pissing but never once have I been tempted to try either.

      The only danger the LGBT community has are bug chasers and gift givers.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      THANK you for an honest article on the subject of barebacking and the reasons why we as gay men prefer to see it by and large. I get so sick of the sermonizers who demonize wanting to feel the FLESH of a fellow human being. I remember on an episode of ’1 Girl/5 Gays’ where one of the five ’8-inch Lynch’ was trying to shout down another panelist who was being HONEST that he doesn’t always use safe-sex after dating to the point of having a monogamous relationship, and this guy then was saying this would spread disease.

      I wanted to tell that guy that NOT talking about it and NOT being honest about the issue of condomless sex and a man’s desire to partake in it, even if it’s just psychological, would in fact spread more disease than putting a “No, NO, NO” on the subject. Same goes here and other forums, I’d rather have an HONEST discussion than having the self-appointed ‘safe-sex police’ trying to styfle discussion.

      Great article Queerty, good job :)

      Feb 13, 2011 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      The reality is that the HIV epidemic as well as STI’s are propagated by men who have turned bareback sex into a fetish.

      Of course it feels better, but I’m not stupid enough to bareback on a first time hookup or at a bathhouse or sex party.

      And no one ever mentions a very practical reason for using condoms when you pick up guys in bars, etc. If you ain’t sure he’s cleaned out or if you know you ain’t cleaned out…use a damn rubber.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel
      Daniel

      A friend of mine posted the following comment in regards to this article. It raises lots of great points:

      “I have three thoughts on this post:

      1.) You’re equating gay porn with gay fantasy. Although gay porn may be the ultimate fantasy for many, there are greater fantasies for some. This article ignores those who may find gay porn stimulating but not something they want to emulate in their relationships. Condoms are a temporary precaution that can help build trust in fledgling relationships.

      2.) Although I agree that gay porn is probably not the most ideal vehicle for safe-sex education, it is A vehicle and should be utilized until gay sex education can be better distributed amongst the masses. As you rightly argue, HIV is not the only disease that is spread through sexual contact and intercourse. You would be surprised how many people don’t understand this. I think we need to do more as a community to spread the word, and the porn industry can help.

      3.) This article adds fire to the condom debate with incendiary language while also ignoring the bigger issue. STDs, HIV in particular, and sex addiction are a major problem within the gay community. And with the promulgation of the internet, the gay porn industry has shaped the way the world sees gay sex – glamorized, clean (for the most part), and anxiety free. I’m sure I don’t have to remind your readers that sex in the real world is often not any of those things. While gay porn can be used to help us escape the worries of this world and find solace in fleeting pleasure for a time, the real world is still rarely so safe or kind. My major concern is that we as a community do not become lackadaisical on the condom issue and find a resurgence of HIV infection. Unfortunately, if you read the latest numbers from the US health departments, they indicate that we are miserably failing at this task.

      So to directly challenge this article – I do care about safe sex in gay porn, but I am not a hypocrite. This issue is much more complex than this article gives it credit, and if I had two more hours I would elaborate further. I believe in free speech and free expression, but I am glad that the gay porn industry is doing something to address the issue of condom use – even if it is imperfect and makes the more informed of us cringe.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tazz602
      tazz602

      I found this article very well written and hits the mark quite well. The porn industry is NOT where we learn about sex education – and nor should we expect them to be the vanguard in educating on safe sex. If some studios chose to, that is awesome, but those that don’t are providing a service, not providing a gay “sesame street” education.

      Safe sex is something each and every one of us should practice and pass on to the younger generation. Practice what we preach – which has always been the gaping hole in the gay community in regards to safer sex. What we should be rallying against are websites, sex clubs and groups that promote bareback sex and making poz sex something attractive to young people.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hanson
      Hanson

      This is simply ridiculous: There are people risking their lives so the fantasies of guys like you in search of a “real”, “natural” sex are fulfilled.
      Do you really tell these people who fuck for money that “part of what makes sex so exciting is the messiness, spontaneity, and danger of it all”? Do you honstly wanna tell us that the porn you watch is produced and shot just for the fun of it?
      You can fuck however and whoever you want, but safer sex in the porn industry is not a private thing, like security in any other working environment is not private thing. Whoever tries to suggest someting else is the real hypocrate.
      Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/03/gay-porn-self-organise#start-of-comments

      Feb 13, 2011 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hanson
      Hanson

      This is simply ridiculous: There are people risking their lives so the fantasies of guys like the author of this article in search of a “real”, “natural” sex are fullfilled.
      To tell these people who fuck for money that “part of what makes sex so exciting is the messiness, spontaneity, and danger of it all” is simply cynical? Do you honstly wanna tell us that the porn you watch is produced and shot just for the fun of it? That may be right for some of the actors, but not for the majority.
      You, Mr.Villarreal, are free to fuck however and whoever you want, but safer sex in the porn industry is not a private thing, like security in any other working environment is not private thing. Whoever tries to suggest someting else is the real hypocrate.
      Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/03/gay-porn-self-organise#start-of-comments

      Feb 13, 2011 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      What confuses me is the fact that CF has had “teasing” videos on the ACS portion of their website where gay sex has occurred. And all of those videos end up being bareback when two men “tease” Delila or whatever….

      confusing

      Feb 13, 2011 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roger Rabbit
      Roger Rabbit

      Sheesh!

      DO YOU REALLY WANT GOVERNMENT MANAGING OUR GAY PORN??

      In this day and age, gay boys do NOT learn about gay sex from gay porn. If they’ve had their heads buried through high school sex ed, they learn about it from X-tube and their kind.

      Gay porn was the FIRST to use condoms in their scenes, and have been doing so for 20 years. We self-regulate FAR better than the straight porn companies.

      Condoms were put on BECAUSE of the threat of AIDS. I agree that if AIDS weren’t a threat there would still be no condoms being used by ANY of us.

      Since those that are HIV positive are consenting adults, it should be their choice to be double exposed in their lives and in their videos. Watching that porn should be considered a fetish.

      Also, for those that test negative, acting in bareback porn should be a choice for the actors and for the audiences that watch them. BelAmi anyone??

      I agree that filming bug-chasing or drug using activities is immoral and should not be filmed or sold, but there are ALREADY laws covering these issues.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      AIDS is not due to your sexual orientation. It is due to promiscuity, drug use and all-round poor lifestyle choices such as poor diet. These factors are common in a party scene where people spend all their money on drugs and get very little sleep to boost their immune systems.

      AIDS is basically what you’re body is telling you when you have mis-treated it. It’s got nothing to do with you being gay.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jay_max
      jay_max

      @jason: That’s beyond offensive. I have found over the years that the worst enemies of people living with HIV are within the gay community.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DillonS
      DillonS

      This article is not well written. It is a POS POV from someone who is afraid that his sad addiction to watching men promote a dangerous lifestyle and risk their own health will be harder to find. All the people praising the article are doing so not because it is well written but because of their own interest in seeing bareback porn protected (how ironic) and allowed to thrive.

      HIV+ partners are not stigmatized through the use of condoms, you idiot. The willful spread of a disease through bareback sex is. They are two different things.

      But of course, your right to get off trumps the health and well-being of the actors, their partners, and society at large.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gry
      Gry

      The false premise of your claim: the inevitable “It’s just fantasy!” cop-out every bareback mitigator relies on.

      This is not anime. It’s not pantomime. It’s not Skinemax. It’s actual people having actual sex. You can’t seriously be equating that with what goes on in somebody’s head. Can you?

      But what a lovely Libertarian argument you make: “Look, there are people out there with zero self-respect and no fear response. Why shouldn’t we profit from them? Hey, we can pay them a pittance and make a great return! Yeah, HIV sucks, but let’s turn lemons into lemonade and fetishize not just possible but probable infection! Make it hot! Then we’ll drape it all in a banner of freedom and personal choice! We’re just giving people what they want!”

      “Let the free market decide!”

      Feb 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @Gry:

      How is it a “lovely libertarian argument” when you seem to point out that only people with zero self respect and no fear response engage in pornography?

      People make CHOICES and if those choices lead them to pornography, why not let them be part of whatever kind of pornography they wish to participate.

      Jayden Grey and Hot House Studios had a falling out over the studio wanting him to cut his faux hawk and him refusing so clearly if someone in porn does not want to be in a porn of any kind, they can choose NOT to participate.

      I find bareback porn similar to watching an S and M or bondage film or film. Those people are not forced to do that. They want to and they have decided to get paid for it.

      Look at bodybuilders who take steroids. No one forces them to that but they do it to compete and get big so that they can get sponsorship from companies that sell protein that won’t EVER make you half as big as those on steroids.

      “Profiting off the misery of others” would be something similar to child pornography or snuff films. Bareback films are like watching YOUTUBE videos or JACKASS where real people feel real pain.

      I’m so tired of the LGBT community and everyone making excesses. The real reason people used condoms and HIV/AIDS rates were low is because people died and every gay person knew dozen of gays that died. It was a true death sentence. Condoms prevented things and everyone chilled out. Now though its manageable and people decide to risk it.

      Bareback porn is not a fetish because the words bareback don’t exist in straight sites. Most don’t even use that as a sell point. Nowhere in my BANG BROS website do I see bareback.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jj
      jj

      HEP C is rarely if ever transmitted sexually. Hep B is sexually transmitted and Hep A is transmitted via rimming mostly. Get your porn gay and your heptitis straight.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      No. I won’t tell you “how to fuck.” But don’t tell me — and any other gay guy who has had an STD scare — to not demand condoms during anonymous sex. Fuck. I’m really lucky that I didn’t contract anything permanent. But still, the not knowing killed me for a week while my STD screen was being analyzed.

      Aren’t all STDs on the rise among gay men? Yes! Could it be because of reckless, condom-less sex? Absolutely. Porn is porn, which is what this article seems to be implying. I actually agree. Porn is a great *fantasy.* But calling safe-sex porn anti-fantasy and homophobic (???) is asinine. Anyone who actively engages in dangerous sex — which is what bare-back sex is until you really know your sex partner!! — is an idiot and they get what they deserve.

      For fuck’s sake people, if you are going to have anonymous sex, put on a condom. Catching *anything* isn’t worth the pleasure.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 7:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      “Saddling bareback sex with immorality, disease spreading, and carelessness sows the seeds of a sexual discontent.”

      That might be the wrong message to actually get guys to wrap up, but barebacking outside a monogamous relationship is still all three of those things, so I don’t care to see it in my porn.

      Honestly, I’ve taken guys to task before for wishing they weren’t born gay. But if the sheer fatalism that encompasses the barebackers ever becomes the only view amongst gays, I’ll be the first to line up for a cure. Fuck your recklessness, and what it costs us and society. Every one of you nitwits who screams about it being ‘my choice!’, then contracts HIV, how about you start paying for the true cost of your own health care, instead of saddling an already precarious system with the extra weight of your inconsiderate asses?

      Feb 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stan
      Stan

      Queerty, MAJOR FAIL.

      YOU SEEM TO FORGET THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OR STRAINS OF THE HIV VIRUS. YOU CAN GET “SUPERINFECTED” WITH MULTIPLE STRAINS OF HIV, WHICH IS EVEN WORSE.

      One of the main reasons why there is currently no vaccine or cure for HIV is because the HIV virus mutates (changes) its profile easily. Some strains of HIV are more resistant to medications than others. How fast someone progresses to full-blown AIDS depends on the strain of HIV virus they have, as well as their own immune system.

      Bottom line — just because you’re HIV Positive doesn’t give you a free ticket to bareback bliss (either in porn or real-life). You can get Co-infected with another strain of the HIV virus, and then your progression to AIDS will likely be faster.

      Furthermore, if you are HIV Positive, you should really try to avoid getting herpes, hepatitis or any other STDs. When your immune system is taxed enough from fighting HIV, you don’t need the extra challenge of fighting another infection.

      Come on, people, use a condom (regardless of whether you’re a gay porn actor, a closeted husband cheating on your wife, or a regular gay guy). Frankly, it’s alarming how laissez-faire a lot of gay men (and the LGBT community) have become about HIV. Do you know how many thousands of gay men have died from HIV?

      How many more gay men must we lose, because we put the indulgence of our momentary fantasies over our shared responsibilities to each other?

      Feb 13, 2011 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      Aannnnd there we go, the conversation has now devolved due to the sermonizing ‘same-sex’ police who say that this subject cannot be discussed honestly, and strongly implied that anyone who gets an STD from condomless sex deserves it, etc. God, you type of people are a LOT like the X-tian Right, so hypocritical when it’s been shown in the past that many who decry against condomless sex are often caught doing it themselves.

      And besides, the point of the article from what I read wasn’t so much about doing the deed but about how porn can rejoice that gay sex is good yet in a psychological sense there is a point in that the enforced usage of condoms can seem to be saying, “You are most probably DISEASED if I touch you, so I must protect myself from catching anything from your DISEASED body if I TOUCH you sexually.”

      Am I advocating against safe-sex? Absolutely not. I am talking about the psychological realities inherent in why men at times in either their fantasy of viewing porn or in reality choosing to not have sex with a condom. And until we as a community are REALLY ready to have an HONEST discussion about it, where we do not DEMONIZE others who may think and/or do differently than ourselves, than I think that STD transmission will be even higher than it can be through honest discussion of the pros & cons, both physically, mentally, romantically, and spiritually.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      Ooops, meant to say ‘safe-sex’ police in my first sentence above.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      @Ian:

      “and strongly implied that anyone who gets an STD from condomless sex deserves it, etc.”

      It’s clear how HIV is transmitted. Anyone who contracts it after barebacking was reckless and stupid. They don’t deserve it, but that doesn’t diminish their breathtaking stupidity. Use condoms, get regularly tested if you absolutely need to sleep with someone new each week, and it’s very, very unlikely you’ll get HIV.

      “there is a point in that the enforced usage of condoms can seem to be saying, “You are most probably DISEASED if I touch you, so I must protect myself from catching anything from your DISEASED body if I TOUCH you sexually.”

      That is breathtakingly stupid, and if that’s the first impulse a gay man has, he needs to kick himself in the ass and actually use his brain. I hope those aren’t the dumbass assumptions guys make out in the field – ‘oh, he doesn’t want to wear a condom, therefore he must not be diseased!’

      Moreover, do you carry that stupidity over to other precautionary measures? Do you not wear seatbelts in cars, or a helmet when cycling, because it reminds you that something bad might happen? Is sticking your fingers in your ears, humming ‘la la la, if I don’t think or hear about it, bad things won’t happen’ really an effective strategy to get through life?

      ‘it can be through honest discussion of the pros & cons, both physically, mentally, romantically, and spiritually.’

      In an ideal world, said discussion would begin and end with this: “Hey! You know how to probably live longer, not unnecessarily waste tens of thousands of dollars, and not drain the health care system? Use a condom, and stop fucking everyone in sight!’

      In our actual world, I’m open to suggestions. But not from people who ultimately refuse to endorse safer sex. You can take valid issue with current strategies, but if your end goal is to use ‘valid discussion’ as a way to validate barebacking (in much the same way as Christians use ‘teach the controversy’ to insert creationism into science class), then fucking scram. Barebacking advocacy is illegitimate discourse. It doesn’t make its practitioners monsters, but it does make them very, very dumb.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stan
      Stan

      @Ian: Aannnnd there we go, someone wants to defend barebacking because the concept of someone wearing a condom automatically means they are “diseased.” Even if they are really HIV negative.

      And you know nothing about what I do in my personal life so the empty follow-up of calling me a “hypocrite” doesn’t hold any water.

      As for the “diseased” argument — If someone refuses to shake your hand, give you a hug, or touch your body, I can see how that would make you feel “diseased”. On the other hand, using a condom is common sense.

      As for the “fantasy of viewing porn” — you have to remember that while porn might be “fantasy” for you, it’s “reality” for the people producing it — those people are at risk for HIV and other STDs. If the porn was some virtual software that didn’t require real people to have sex, then that would be purely a product of fantasy.

      Contrary to what you might think, the “safe sex police” care about you, and the health of the gay community at large. If we didn’t care, we would just say “hey — if it feels good, do it…”

      People who engage in risky practices act hyper-sensitive & use the cop-outs of “they’re making us feel diseased!”, “they’re just like the Christian Right!”, and “hypocrites!” to deflect taking more responsibilities for their actions.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      I have to agree with Queerty on this one. Good job :)

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomMc
      TomMc

      Outstanding article! Best thing I’ve ever read on this subject.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      @Zach: And all I heard was, “My way of thinking is the ONLY way and if the gays who don’t think EXACTLY like me get AIDS then they DESERVE it!” That was exactly how you came across. You sure as hell aren’t going to get people who are practicing unsafe-sex practices to listen to you with a hate-mongering attitude like that.

      @Stan: I’m not deflecting from taking responsibility for ones behaviors. What I am saying is that I have worked with a LOT of teens and young adults over the years, and I know that if you get all preachy and judgemental right from the start you will get NOWHERE with them. Starting from a place of NON-judgement is often the only way you will get them to be willing to actually LISTEN to you. You talk about ‘common sense’ and ‘contrary to what you may think’ etc. As an adult I understand where you are coming from, but a teen and/or young adult is only going to hear a judgemental person when all they want is understanding. Take it from a person with over 19 yrs of experience working with resistant clients, if you come off preachy you’ve already lost the battle.

      Talk WITH them and not TO them.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • merkin
      merkin

      There are so many holes (no pun intended) in the argument put forth here its not even funny.

      First off, writer is making BROAD generalizations about how “all” gay men fantasize or why. Yes, bareback feels better but I’ve never thought of it as some sort of “ultimate” sex. Maybe because I came of age in the height of the epidemic, the idea of having unprotected sex with someone I don’t know VERY well turns me off incredibly. (This has been the case even when i was shitfaced drunk) Something like 20 percent of gay guys aren’t even into anal. And yes, there is some risk from unprotected oral, but its minimal—NOT mid-level—risk behavior. (There would be a lot more evidence of people seroconverting from oral.)

      Secondly, I dont think the importance of condoms in porn is education (otherwise any porn pre-1980 should be banned). Its workplace safety. Its the government’s job to make sure that a certain workplace is not at risk for spreading disease, whether that’s AIDS, measles or salmonella

      We don’t live in an absolute democracy, there are certain things you can’t do TO or WITH your body. That’s not right or wrong, its just a fact. A chicken restaurant can’t just ignore health codes if their customers say they don’t mind.

      HIV+ people should not be allowed to make porn, especially bareback porn. If you have typhoid you can’t work in food prep. Again, its a workplace-safety issue. Not discrimination.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 10:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steven
      Steven

      I think one thing this article failed to mention is that there are plenty of gay men out there who don’t even have anal sex.

      Is it an option for me? Sure. But after years of failing to experience the “euphoria” of anal penetration that gay porn has been trying to sell — I just stopped. No mess. No fuss. Certainly there are other ways to contract disease but this personal choice has eliminated some higher levels of paranoia.

      The porn I choose to watch is quite varied. I don’t really seek out a certain “act” because for me it’s more about the guy in the front of the camera. If he’s to my liking I’ll contently sit and watch him peel bananas or knit. I don’t need to see penetrative sex to enjoy the show.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie
      Charlie

      Complicated topic ti be sure. If you’re in favor of bareback porn you really can’t have problems with Mason Wyler continuing to do it after he tests positive. Essentially that’s saying you will pay these actors to risk infection over and over but then stop paying them once they are infected. I generally assume every actor in a Treasure Island video is positive.

      I am one of those people that thinks the porn industry should use condoms. It does send a message about the importance of safer sex and shows that people can have ridiculously fun gay sex with condoms on.

      I always hear people complain that straight porn doesn’t use condoms and well… maybe they should. That’s for them to work out.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 11:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      Don’t know if Queerty will post my comments any more since it seems I offended someone. Nevertheless and regardless, hopefully some editor will see this.

      I take umbridge with the tag line used in this article (“It’s Time To Start Policing Bareback Porn”) when that seems to be the last thing the author is suggesting. Moreover, and counting myself among the crowd that counts this topic so over-debated and endlessly critiqued by the gay community that it really is pointless, it seems that the article is either a well-placed ad for Wyler’s Dark Alley performance, or a baldfaced attempt by Queerty to gain readers by once again pandering to the crowd that endlessly debates this topic.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 2:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rrr
      rrr

      Whenever I talk to straight guys about the hubbub in the gay porn community over barebacking, they usually exclaim, “Wow! You never see condoms in straight porn.”

      Normally professional straight porn made in America requires the performers to constantly present proof they are free of disease. That’s one way to responsibly handle worker safety in porn. The other way is through condom use.

      I’ve read before that in the gay porn industry there’s a big suspicion that pretty much everyone is HIV positive, which makes the idea of testing unpopular with those involved since they’d rather keep that secret from other performers and consumers for the sake of their careers. It’s common for gay porn stars to escort too, and obviously there would be less market for them if it became known they’re poz. Condoms would help prevent new performers from getting infected.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 2:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @No. 30 · Steven -”I think one thing this article failed to mention is that there are plenty of gay men out there who don’t even have anal sex.”

      Bugger me! Really?

      How boring.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 3:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pip
      Pip

      I just find it odd that AFTER someone contracts HIV they would be invited into the bareback porn scene. Doesn’t that seem a little backwards?

      Feb 14, 2011 at 5:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • damo
      damo

      BAREBACK SEX,HMMM WOT HAPPENED wots going on how come we lost our fear of the monster hiv/aids i find it terrifieing,do we not care,if we bareback were gonna become infected..we are..the monster is evolving all the time..changeing,IT WILL EVENTUALY BECOME COMPLETELY DRUG RESISTANT..and are we helping it?,this isnt pre 78 gay world the lost nirvana..this is now.the safe sex message has been said a million billion trillion times..its the only msg we have ..we cant bareback ok..we cant,ive been so bloody lucky im mid 40s still neg..maybe because ive been terrifyed of hiv/aids its all ive seen[and im not makeing myself out to be a saint]..but i owe it to my pals that died and to myself to not become poz,our lives are a rollercoaster of ups and downs very tuff times ..and good times,lets live not make it harder,lets celibrate liveing long healthy happy lives..it requiers work disaplin and dedication,,but we can do it,lets learn to love take care and respect ourselves ad each other,then just maybe we can have the gay worldthat WE ALL DREAM OF..who knows

      Feb 14, 2011 at 6:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Gay men have not died from AIDS because they are gay. They’ve died from AIDS because they’ve partaken of promiscuous sex with total strangers, taken party drugs which are full of white blood cell-destroying chemicals, and not looked after themselves in an overall sense. It’s got nothing to do with being gay.

      Being gay is wonderful, it’s great, and it’s healthy. However, the behavioral choices you make will eventually bite you on the backside if you’re not careful. It’s the behavior, stupid.

      As for porn, if two people who are healthy want to have bareback sex in front of a camera, who are you to judge them? Keep your nose out of their business. They’re perfectly entitled to have as much bareback sex as they please. If they’re healthy, there’s no risk.

      However, if you partake of a culture of promiscuity, expect the worst.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 8:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jake
      Jake

      In recent months I’ve found out way too many 20 somethings I know were diagnosed as poz and the open acceptance of BB for those under 25 is the beginning of a pandemic again. Sure HIV is now seen as a control terminal illness instead of a death sentence but is complicating your life and putting your health at risk worth a load up your ass? I even know people that thought they had partners that were supposedly monogamous and ended up contracting HIV bc that wasn’t the case. It’s still a problem and until there’s a cure I’m going to make sure my partners and I always wrap it up.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 11:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I5.
      I5.

      HIV does not cause AIDS. That’s the reason why they haven’t been able to find a cure for a virus that does not cause disease.

      Every gay person should read the book “Positively False” which details how the HIV paradigm came to be despite no evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

      Available on on Amazon.com: ‘Positively False: Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS’ by Joan Shenton http://amzn.to/eNN4gh

      Feb 14, 2011 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I5.
      I5.

      People who died in the ’80s and ’90s did not die of AIDS, most of them died of AZT poisoning. The reason people stopped dying as quickly is because pharma lowered the dosage of AZT in their drugs to keep HIV+ people alive and buying their meds longer.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jocklover
      Jocklover

      If you had done ANY research other than sit on the commode reading an outdated copy of HX Magazine you would realize that there is no such thing as a condom you can’t see, that was Raging filming bareback sex and trying to be PC about it.

      To go from talking about condoms in sex to saying it should be policed to saying you want the freedom to decide shows you have no clear intent with your half-sarcastic half-wannabe logical article that says nothing more than Queerty wants to cash in on the gay bareback traffic just like everyone else does.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan
      Jonathan

      @damo: Beautifully said, thank you.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tony x
      tony x

      What a bunch of crock spewed here -

      Good people do not want to get off watching people put themselves at risk for a crippling and still often fatal illness.

      That said – good people who are HIV would want to produce films that do not glamorize behavior that got them sick.

      The problem is there are a lot on BAD people.
      Bad HIV poz people and Bad HIV neg people.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      “Ah so if someone is a HIV poz, they should not be allowed to do porn?”

      YES

      ” Anyone else see the legality of this issue? I though we was not allow to discriminate based on- you fill in the blank”

      Let’s see — restrictions on a person with a communicable disease in food handling work, or a person with certain lung or heart conditions working in a deep mien shaft or any other workplace safety rules.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan

      Barebacking is not always the wrong thing to do. In a committed, long-term relationship, with a man you trust, I don’t see any problem with it.

      @Kurt: Food handling and porn are not at all analogous, the porn worker doesn’t touch the product and if the studio knows he is HIV positive I don’t see the problem in letting two HIV positive men work together. You just hate people who have HIV and want them banned from having sex whether or not cameras are rolling.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reality 101
      reality 101

      I have no problem with HIV people having sex with each other on video — except it is glorifying what got them into trouble in the first place and makes them fools who are actively NOT promoting safer sex as a good thing.

      Childish and selfish is legal for now.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      @Ian:

      Can your disingenuous bullshit, please.

      You know why guys get defensive when barebacking is harangued? It’s because they bareback, they know it’s wrong, and they hate being called on it. That’s it. I am tired of this deflection from men who obviously refuse to use condoms, and who will never be talked into wearing condoms.

      Either call yourselves for what you are – bareback advocates – and stop hiding behind ‘oh, we need to have a positive, non-judgmental dialogue…’ or come out and say here, clearly and unequivocally, that – incendiary language aside, barebacking outside a monogamous relationship is wrong. If you think insults don’t work, fine. But just make your opposition to barebacking clear.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Idi Amin Dada
      Idi Amin Dada

      But anyone reading this should realize that their parents had bareback sex too.

      That has to be the stupidest line I’ve ever read on Queerty.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott
      Scott

      Cigarettes create fatal diseases too, also for people exposed to secondhand smoke (those who don’t smoke), and all the regulators have managed is a warning on the box. It seems to me the U.S. is saying that everyone has the right to choose to endanger themselves. I’m amazed that sky divers are allowed to jump out of airplanes. We need creative ways to educate people. When education comes wrapped in a catchy tune and lots of artistry or fanfare, people will learn.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • no thanks
      no thanks

      What none of you are admitting is where your opinions are coming from, which is a place of fear.

      The ones who are waving their fingers at others for their sexual habits are doing so because they are afraid. They don’t want to have even the slightest chance that their “by the book” safer sex won’t keep them safe from big bad AIDS. They want AIDS to go away so they won’t have to be afraid. I think everyone can understand that feeling.

      The ones who are saying “hands off my condom-free sex life” are doing so also from a place of fear because they don’t want to feel repressed in their sexuality. They want to be free to do whatever they want to any orifice that will submit itself to their desires and dna, without question, without discussion of hiv status. They want to feel another person’s flesh, they want to feel connected, they don’t want to have to remember to pull out before finishing just at the request of a “paranoid” partner. That, too, is understandable on a level.

      What none of you are admitting is that the only solution to this problem is knowing and disclosing your status. I think gay men should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they do so without contributing to a known social problem of communicable disease. What no one is taking into consideration is the burden of health care that hiv+ people face and are unable to carry alone. We cannot leave these people behind, so costs for everyone increase. This is a part of society. Maybe men who bareback and are hiv+ should think about what infecting another person of negative or unknown status will do to their personal tax load–since austerity seems to be the sentiment of the moment?

      If everyone in TIM is poz and discloses, what is the harm? Could they be superinfected? Yes, but only with each other.

      Is that an optimal scenario, since they can also pass on a mutated strain to others? No, but they would know they were infected in the first place, which is a start.

      Does every single infection pose the risk of a wild mutation that can kill and spread more easily? Yes.

      It’s still sad that more of our lovely friends and brothers in our community will die, but they are making these choices and we have to support and love them.

      There seems to be a basic set guiding assumptions based on data, history, and medical fact that hold the key to releasing us from some of the problems we face around HIV/AIDS:

      1. If everyone (gay, straight) was tested for HIV, we would know who is infected. They would also know.
      2. The infected population is sure to be larger than everyone thinks, making the possibility of leveraging the needs of this community even greater.
      3. A larger community that is united in their struggle to live with this disease will drive down the cost to treat it while accelerating research to cure it out of pure need, visibility, and diversity.
      4. Knowing and disclosing status and thus making decisions about sex has had empirically proven benefit to containing infection (serosorting). No matter how hot a partner is, knowing your status and theirs makes this a completely different ball game.
      5. Resources for “magnetic couples” (one poz, one neg) would increase due to people knowing more individuals whom face the disease.
      6. Routine testing would give ample opportunity for frank discussions about safer sex, serosorting, risky behavior and emotional well being vis a vie sex.

      Of course, there are issues with this model, since people seem to bristle at the idea of mandatory testing, disclosing status, and asking people’s status. But if we could look past our own fear and take responsibility to keep ourselves and others safe and healthy, we stand a greater chance of fighting this disease and the others that have yet to introduce themselves to humans.

      On the other hand, we can keep going the way we are going and just say “it’s not my problem, it’s yours”, and have more infections and limited resources to handle them.

      I think facing your own vanity and getting tested and disclosing is worth your own life and the life of someone else.

      BTW, before you say I’m some old croane who lived through the crisis, I am a 28 year old with a BA in theater, so draw your conclusions there.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      @Scott:

      Smoking in public has been banned in many jurisdictions. Laws have also been passed banning smoking in cars with children, and tobacco companies are regularly subjected to punitive lawsuits to pay for the healthcare costs associated with the diseases they contribute to. Regulators have managed quite a bit more than slapping a label on the box.

      A more meaningful analogy is America’s terrible eating habits. There has been little effort as of yet by lawmakers to find a workable plan to combat the gluttony, because when it comes to food, most people think they should be allowed to eat as much as they want.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 5:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie
      Charlie

      Ok the line in there about how we are all the products of unprotected sex. That is true! The problem with using that as your argument is that I would wager that a large number of the people reading this were the product of unprotected sex between two people who knew each other fairly well. Most people are probably not the product of unprotected sex with a random mechanic, cop, guy at the gym, doctor, college professor, or any other wacky scenario which makes the fantasy of porn so fun.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin (New Jersey, US)
      Kevin (New Jersey, US)

      I’m fairly sure that whoever wrote this is an idiot.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan
      Jonathan

      @no thanks: Simply amazing! Who are you?

      Feb 14, 2011 at 11:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      This was brutal. Thirty years after being yelled out of discussion groups at Stanford, UC Berkely, and SF State for suggesting safe sex strategies, I see all the same bull—- rationalizations are still out there. It’s too boring.
      I’m still waiting for the community to grow up, for peer group pressure to kick in, for the bareback crowd to be shouted down instead, and for the gay community to put a stop to aids.
      But then, self hatred is still rampant among us, and it can’t be cured by rational argument. There are unlimited rationalizations they can use to keep acting like heartless rubes.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 11:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse Archer
      Jesse Archer

      @WillBFair YES!!! Self-hatred in the guise of self-expression.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 7:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Unprotected sex is great. Without it, we wouldn’t have been born. I’m all for unprotected sex.

      It’s not the sex that is the problem, it’s the abuse of sex. Certain people within our community are promiscuous and nihilistic. They have a subtle suicide wish. They will fuck anything that moves, and often. In such an abusive situation, you expose yourself to sundry risks.

      I truly have no time for the professional victims who go around saying “Oh, look, I’m a victim”. Get over it. When it comes to the choices you make regarding promiscuity versus moderation, you and only you are responsible for your actions.

      If you choose a path of moderation – which I myself have – you will lead a more fulfilling life in that you will remain healthy. The anemic druggie, promiscuous set can dig its own hole.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 7:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gigi
      Gigi

      @Jason

      Try as we might we’re not making babies, so unprotected sex 24/7 isn’t always the answer. It’s not enough to say that only those who abuse sex are in for trouble, as even those who choose moderation over promiscuity can get sick and die if they “choose” the wrong bed partner. Not everyone who is sick looks sick. But then again, I’m not expert on the subject. My partner and I celebrate our 23rd anniversary next month (we were VERY YOUNG when we met), and we never use protection. Many years ago we had a female family doctor who kept warning us of the dangers of having unprotected sex with one another. We told her that we were monogomous and trusted one another. She told us we had to be careful, that we couldn’t be certain (of one another). I asked her if she gave her straight patients the same advice. She didn’t answer. We changed doctors.

      About five years ago when bareback films just started becoming more prevalent I wrote Jake Cruise an e-mail and told him that I thought it was irresponsible to be making bareback films and promoting them as a good thing. I was concerned. He went off on me, told me that he was just giving the customers what they wanted and called me a prude. I find it disturbing that young men performing in gay porn are encouraged to perform without a condom. It should be their chioce, but at that age we all feel that we’re invincible. Unfortunately we’re not.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 8:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rabbit
      Rabbit

      I am amazed at the self delusion so many of these comments are making. Get real. Standing on or near the fire (AIDS, STDS) will get you burnt. period.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 8:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      @Jesse Archer: Thanks for the response. I was hoping for a flood of people to shout down the dingbats here who say that ‘unprotected sex is great.’ But even after thirty years, the community is still in denial. It’s sad.
      Anyway, thanks again.
      And for the record. Unprotected sex is NOT great. It’s lethal. Get a clue, Hickville.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      @Rabbit: Thanks guy, for the warning. I only wish there were more people like you.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Gigi:

      I agree with you. What I worry about is that the studios are getting some 18 year old, kicked out of his house, who gets to L.A. is cute, looks insecure and the porn producers move in, flatter him, etc… get him to shoot a scene or two and then toss him after that. So now the kid is still kicked out of his house, broke and oh guess what, you are probably HIV positive now.

      OSHA and other organizations regulate our workplaces to make sure that they are safe, I have no problem with having actors at the bareback studios tested and additionally, the studios held liable for any infections transmitted during production. I have a feeling just the threat of that will make the studios much more careful about this.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 10:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hf2hvit
      hf2hvit

      As a registered nurse, I am truly amazed about the ignorance I see here regarding HIV (the knowledge of hepatitis is worse). I suggest some of you look up “fact” in the dictionary and when you understand that try reading on the following site:

      http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/

      Feb 15, 2011 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      @WillBFair:

      Co-signed.

      Though I don’t think eradicating HIV is possible merely based on human choice – there will always be gays who engage in bareback sex, just as there are people who use crystal meth, even knowing the overwhelmingly negative consequences. But we can bring the numbers down, and we can work to shutter bareback advocacy as a dinosaur from the pre-HIV era.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 11:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      Thank you. And I agree. We can’t stop it completely. But we can stop making excuses for the vicious trolls who act irresponsibly.
      On the other hand, who knows how much we can stop it if the community made up their minds and turned on the peer group pressure. There should have been an avalanche of rage at this article: the over-the-top, ironic title about ‘policing’ the studios, the endless rationalizations and distractions in the article itself, and the sexy photo complete with abs. It’s an outrage. But few bothered more than a tepid protest. They’re too busy making fun of right wing loonies, and acting all self righteous. Please. When we’ve stopped aids, then we can be self righteous. Until then, this community is a disgrace.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott
      Scott

      @Zach:

      I think you’re strengthening my point. The U.S. allows people to make decisions that endanger themselves. When a person endangers another then the law intercedes to punish. Most laws aren’t prophylactic but rather reactive. Until there’s a known crime no one cares. Cigarettes aren’t illegal. Shouldn’t they be because they’re known to eventually cause diseases? All they have is a warning label. You may choose to smoke. Blow smoke into a child’s face, then you’re in trouble. Activists haven’t been able to deal with the core problem, only deal with a smoker’s affect on others.

      I would assume that bareback films will wind up protected by the 1st Amendment as free speech/creative expression but if one person infects another with a disease then the corporation will be fined out of existence while the infecting performer is jailed. That’s how the U.S. handles deterrence, make it economically unfeasible for the perpetrator to continue, make someone an example.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      @Scott: But gay people having sex period would be argued by many on the right as a “danger of spreading disease” and you and zach & your ilk show that by wanting to attempt to enforce behaviors that you advocate onto others, no matter if it’s ‘for their own good’ you are no better than any X-tian right-wing tea bagger.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Ian:

      It’s clear you’re nothing but a bareback advocate masquerading under the guise of ‘open dialogue’. I asked you and your ilk to categorically state you were opposed to barebacking in principle – that should not be that difficult, even if you disagreed on the best way to promote that message. The fact that you think bareback sex is as valid as safer sex – less than a generation after a generation of gay men was eradicated through barebacking – speaks volumes. It is not negotiable for health authorities, and it should not be up for discussion amongst gay men. Harm reduction does not mean harm promotion or harm acceptance, two things you’re implicitly supporting if you do not come out and say you endorse the use of condoms.

      And there is a world of difference between the Christian view and the safer sex view. The fact that you would ever compare them – especially when an entire fucking continent was decimated because of ignorance about condoms doesn’t really speak much to your sense of events.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Scott:

      I’m not sure how I’m strengthening your point, because I’m only observing that the United States – like almost every other Western country – is inconsistent in how it regulates harmful behaviour. However, it is very easy to regulate workplace behaviour – you craft out health and safety guidelines to regulate conduct that would be – outside of the workplace – permissible. And you can’t save having bareback sex on film for money under the First Amendment like that. That’s not how it works.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 7:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • UserQQQQ
      UserQQQQ

      good jesus that was a terribly written second paragraph. I had to read it four times and I’m still not entirely sure what the point was. So much so that I barely bothered to skim the rest of the article.

      I fully get that condoms aren’t ‘sexy’. in straight porn we have a mix. It’s not just the ‘studio productions’ like “Pirates!” or “Speed.XXX” that has condoms. I’m pretty sure MilfHunter usually has condoms for instance. If you’re straight friends are telling you they never see condoms then either a) they’re watching the same three videos over and over again for the last 14 years or b) they’re lying to you. I’m not saying it’s common, or confluent in everything but we do see condoms.

      You’re also a bit insane for suggesting that: if they aren’t going to use condoms in every sexual act it’s unfair to suggest that they use condoms in the most dangerous ones. Yeah noone even in straight porn has ever used a condom for a blow job scene but even the CDC called it a mid-risk. How does that compare to how they assess bareback anal sex? I’d be willing to wager that rates higher.

      It’s not unfair to try to curb the most dangerous habits from a community and then work your way down to the lesser ones.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      Just so QUEERTY can get his rocks off a bit hotter, that’s alot of risky exposure ,guy.Porn actors need to protect themselves and the public by practicing safer sex also. There are thousands of porn actors having sex with many thousands more persons outside of the porn industry. Obviously, Queerty is the guy in the patient support group of the future, who laments, “I didn’t think it could happen to me.”

      Feb 16, 2011 at 7:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wills'
      Wills'

      I have only two things to say about this BS. One, there are indeed standards used in the US, to the best of my knowledge, to regulate unsafe porn actors and I believe that the gay industry has to live up to them as well as the herto-porn producers. Second, the actors in these films agree with full knowledge to engage in unsafe sexual behavior. So I believe the point is rather moot. However, I think it is important to remember that the gay porn industry is very active in the third world: South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and so on and in these places a few hundred American dollars makes a persuasive arguement for taking risks in an unregulated environment.

      Feb 16, 2011 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James
      James

      This article is bullshit and is just trying to make excuses for unprotected sex. Even if there wasn’t HIV, I would still wear a condom because of all of the other diseases. I do think gay porn should be condom only, and I don’t think bareback should be in mainstream porn. If underground sites with HIV positive actors wanna do bareback then there isn’t much I can do about it. But when sites like Corbin Fisher have it, I think its very sad and a bad reflection of our society today. Mason Wyler is a chump, and the people that wrote this article are morons. Trying to compare a couple having a baby with just regular sleeping around is dumb as hell, especially when we are talking about anal sex here. I will NEVER have bareback sex in my lifetime, and I might sound like a condom nazi, but better safe than sorry.

      Feb 17, 2011 at 8:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      The term “unprotected sex” assumes that sex is dangerous. Sex is not dangerous. Promiscuous behavior is dangerous, not sex.

      Sex is beautiful, enjoy it. However, it is HOW you enjoy it which determines everything.

      Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TARI
      TARI

      Poorly written article and you should have researched your facts better about HIV and oral sex. It’s a theoretical risk and in NO WAY a mid risk. The infectious disease community puts your risk of getting HIV from oral sex at 1 and 10000 and many think that figure is way too high. Everyone has cuts and scrapes in their mouth, you would literally have to have big, gaping wounds in your mouth that required immediate medical attention to have that risk and if you have those kind of wounds it’s highly doubtful you are blowing anyone. Gonorrhea is the most common STD transmitted orally.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 4:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag

      Who is the fuck twat that wrote this article. Speak for yourself dumb ass. I always use condoms, cause 1. Many people in USA don’t have access to adequate health care. 2. Ridiculous amounts of shame and guilt cloak many people about their sexual feelings. So even though they know they should get treated for that clap, etc , they don’t, and then just run around and spread their disease.

      Who cares about AIDS/HIV? What about all the other stuff you can catch? — Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes, Hepatitis, Non-Gonococcal Urethritis, Chylamydia, etc.. Many gay guys think these diseases combined with the gross drugs they like to imbibe in are no big deal. Yeah, keep on thinking that :\

      Feb 27, 2011 at 12:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      “And what about other nasty STDs like chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and gonorrhea? You can get gonorrhea from a blowjob and hepatitis by eating a dirty butthole. Syphilis can kill you if left unchecked, and so can HPV if a bisexual guy passes it on to a woman whom develops cervical cancer. But when it comes to STIs, porn studios mirror the attitude that I and a lot of other gay guys share: if it can be cured or treated then who really cares?”

      Seriously? You don’t see a real and qualitative difference between something that can be cured and something that can’t? You don’t see a difference between something that is mildly inconvenient like gonorrhea and something that is life altering and ultimately deadly like HIV? That’s ridiculous.

      And it’s one of the biggest logical fallacies that people fall into when they talk about safe sex. Just because there is a safer option out there (everyone wears full body condoms and sits in different rooms) doesn’t mean that you should be fine with not wearing condoms. It would be safer if cars were outlawed and everyone just walked everywhere they wanted to go, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t wear seatbelts. It’s not hypocritical to be safe doing one thing and not safe doing another where the risk is less severe. I could make my kid wear a bicycle helmet 24/7, but the fact that I don’t do that doesn’t make me a hypocrite for making him wear one when he rides his bike.

      Jul 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @ No. 77Chris:… I don’t think you understood the gyst of my last post. The point I’m trying to make is, there may be a connection here. Do you really think it’s ok for people to repeatedly get STDs and treat them with antibiotics, or not treat them at all, or not treat them for a long time, and on top of that, destroy their immune systems with bad foods, excessive alcohol and recreational drug consumption? These types of activities and conditions are extremely harsh on the body’s immune system and could explain why some people get HIV and some don’t even though they’re exposed to it.
      If the HIV drugs being prescribed today are doing more harm than good, what pharmaceutical company do you think is going to admit that??? Hello? Do you remember AZT??
      Also, there is mounting evidence that after all, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and the HIV virus had more to do with boat loads of money that could be earned by being the first one to get a patent, or otherwise be funded because of the new discovery of this epidemic virus and patented AIDS “test” for antibodies.
      HIV is not acting like an epidemic virus- not as we have known epidemics in the past. It’s been stagnant since the 1990s. This is very suspicious.
      In the scientific community, the original science developed by the American doctor that developed the HIV test ( I can’t remember his name) has not been respected because of new discoveries of how he came about the HIV “test” for antibodies and what became known as the standard AIDS test which is still used today. The science is flawed and was about money and greed.

      What is super tragic today is, no one in the scientific community dares to dispel the alleged myths surrounding HIV and no one in the scientific community is allowed to question the validity of the original science patents surrounding the HIV tests that were patented in the 1980′s, because if they do, their careers and survival will be destroyed

      Jul 14, 2011 at 9:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag [Different person #1 using similar name]

      (cont) also, there has never been any virus known to man that is selective by gender or sexual orientation. HIV affects men more than women and in the USA affects male homosexuals more than any other group. This is not characteristic of how a virus usually behaves at all.

      Jul 14, 2011 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @BlogShag: I wasn’t responding to you. I was responding to the article. But let’s pretend for a second that I was, because I can’t sleep if someone is wrong on the internet. I never said it was okay to repeatedly get STDs, or to live an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle. What I said was that just because a perfect solution isn’t being employed, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try for as perfect a solution as possible. What I said was that while it’s not ideal to get syphilis, it’s even LESS ideal to get HIV. What I said was that it’s not hypocritical to be more fearful of a dangerous and uncurable disease than of a less dangerous one that’s curable.

      I don’t even know where to start with the frankly insane conspiracy you’re hinting at in your comments. For one, if no one in the scientific community dares to dispel the alleged myths surrounding HIV, who, exactly is alleging it? People outside of the scientific community? Like, non-scientists? I have to view their opinions as rather suspect….

      For another, just because someone is making money off of a scientific finding doesn’t necessarily mean that the finding is faulty. Would you deny that the flu exists because flu medication makes pharma companies millions?

      For a third, HIV hasn’t been stagnant since the 1990′s, it’s actually been on the rise of late, but even if it had been stagnant, that doesn’t mean it’s somehow not real. That would just mean that it’s being kept relatively in check.

      For a fourth, HIV isn’t selective by gender or sexual orientation, it’s selective by behavior. It’s just that anal sex (whether the bottom is male or female) is more likely to cause bleeding and therefore more likely to result in HIV transmission than vaginal sex. And gay men are just more likely to have anal sex than straight people. African Americans are statistically more likely to get diabetes, but you wouldn’t say that that “selects by race.”

      For a fifth, do you want a list of the AIDS denialists who have died of AIDS related complications? Because it’s really long. It basically includes almost every famous AIDS denialist ever.

      Jul 15, 2011 at 5:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag

      @@Chris: Alright you opened this bag of worms. What do you know about conspiracy? You only know what your brainwashing mainstream media tells you. How do you explain that some people that are exposed to HIV don’t get it, while others get frail and sick and die quickly. If HIV is supposed to be this menacing disease and epidemic that everyone claims it is, there should be a hell of alot more people sick and dead

      The points I was exlplaing about the patents obtained and discovery of the virus in the 1980′s was very much cloaked in suspicion. I beleive his name was Gallo or something like that. Everyone knowledgable about this subject knows about that scandal. I lived through that era, did you?

      Jul 15, 2011 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag

      ….And another point about the MORON who wrote this article. What’s most offensive about it, is his generalizing. He claims that bareback sex is the kind of sex EVERYONE wants to have. Some of us don’t gloat on the idea of sticking our unprotected penis up a POOP CHUTE. We don’t like to swim in sewers either. :\

      Jul 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @BlogShag: I explain it the same way I explain why some people exposed to swine flu get sick and die and others don’t get it at all. I explain it the same way I explain why some people seem to put on weight no matter how much they exercise and watch what their diet and other people can eat an entire cheesecake at 2 AM and never gain an ounce. I explain it the same way I explain why some people who are shown scientific studies with cold hard facts believe them and others are respond with insanity. Different people respond to the same thing differently.

      Malaria is a menacing disease and an epidemic, but a hell of a lot more people don’t die from it because there are mosquito nets and quinine, in other words “protection” and “treatment.” HIV is a menacing disease and an epidemic, but a hell of a lot more people don’t die from it because there are condoms and anti-rhetrovirals, in other words “protection” and “treatment.”

      Jul 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Absurdist
      Absurdist

      And then there are the non-gay-identified men who have sex with men, who look at HIV as a purely gay thing and don’t watch much gay porn at all.

      Dec 18, 2011 at 3:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anthony
      Anthony

      Bareback porn incourages risk taking.
      HIV infections are going up not down. 44% of HIV infected men do not know they have been infected. It is possible to be reinfected with another strain if you are already positive.
      The average cost of the drugs to extend life of somebody living with HIV $350,000-$650,000.
      There is no cure for HIV. The right to have unsafe sex is yours. I call upon the gay community not to condone bareback porn and stand up and continue the to fight the AIDS epidemic. Our community must not let AIDS fatigue happen.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag [Different person #1 using similar name]

      First of all I’d like to mention that the only reason this website is claiming that I’m a “different person” is because I forgot my log in specifics.

      @Anthony, the reason bareback porn proliferates is because it’s about money. Being someone who retails porn, there is no question that bareback porn is what viewers would rather see for the same reason that for a truly talented singer and musician, the live performance always sounds better than the recording

      What I’m not really able to grasp is why today, people have such vulgar or extreme tastes. Before HIV you didn’t see all these homosexual cream pie videos, ass to mouth :\, etc. etc. These days with many studios the focus seems to be on bodily fluids, whereas before it was just incidental or cum shot after the lust making.

      And to respond to Chris (No. 77) “You can get gonorrhea from a blowjob and hepatitis by eating a dirty butthole. Syphilis can kill you if left unchecked, and so can HPV if a bisexual guy passes it on to a woman whom develops cervical cancer. But when it comes to STIs, porn studios mirror the attitude that I and a lot of other gay guys share: if it can be cured or treated then who really cares?”

      Answer: Uh, what are you talking about? To my knowledge, there is no cure for HIV/AIDS,Many of us don’t have that attitude about disease, simply because we have more respect for ourselves and get tired of going to the clinic. There are those of us out there who wouldn’t put our lips on someone’s ass again, even if we know it’s clean based on our past experience. And there are many who would never do that ever, even though this practice is as popular as blow jobs in porn, simply because it repulses us. There are some who might have rimmed, simply because they thought this practice was ok based on what they saw someone else doing or they saw it in a video. The same goes for “wet showers” — However there are those of us that have learned from our mistakes.

      This article is offensive, because it claims that most gay men would rather be fucking a dirty ass bareback, or getting peed on, or would like to have feces spread all over them, and all the other extreme or disguting things they do in porn these days

      It also claims most men wouldn’t be using condoms if not for HIV. How does he know this? Gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis and herpes are quite scary and not a walk in the park to many men. And if they can walk away from sexual R and R not having contracted those diseases because they used condoms, you can bet their tight ass, they’re very happy about it. It is strange to me, how so many don’t care about contracting those diseases, even if the sex was all that.

      If people weren’t so vulgar and polluted with drugs (recreational poisons), bad food, and got their nasty asses checked and treated by physicians like they should, we wouldn’t have these sexual disease problems. We have ourselves to blame for HIV, etc

      Apr 14, 2012 at 12:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anthony
      Anthony [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Anthony:
      encourage geez
      Why is porn so nasty? 20 load weekends! I think guys get bored when they get older and their sex gets more risky. HIV infections are higher in LA County with men over 35 than under.
      HIV is still an epidemic

      Apr 16, 2012 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Anthony: , No, it’s because they’re skanks and like being sick and immune compromised

      Apr 17, 2012 at 1:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Anthony: So based on how you think if I or someone sees someone smoking, that’s going to make that person smoke too? Pfffft. Get real.

      I don’t think bareback porn does anything that many people aren’t already doing in real life. Some just don’t care about safety or health. They figure there will always be magic potion or pill to cure their ills

      Apr 17, 2012 at 1:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Chris:

      “Seriously? You don’t see a real and qualitative difference between something that can be cured and something that can’t? You don’t see a difference between something that is mildly inconvenient like gonorrhea and something that is life altering and ultimately deadly like HIV? That’s ridiculous”
      ________________________
      Response:

      No I don’t, because what people don’t understand is there is a cumulative effect. You simply cannot fuck a different buy every day, use poppers, drink alcohol, cyrstal meth, heroin, etc etc, and not get the complications you get from indulging in that behavior and putting those POISONS in your body treated. You can’t do that all in the same breath and be surprised when you get HIV. Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.

      How many jokers are running around out there playing the field while infected with diseases like gonorrhea or something else? Gonorrhea is no walk in the park. It’s not exactly the kind of disease you wanna leave untreated. Hmm, well there are probably many that do just that, cause 1. Like you, they don’t care, and don’t think it’s a big deal 2. They don’t have access to medical care. 3. They don’t know they have anything, because for some strange reason their body is asymptomatic, or all of the above??

      Apr 17, 2012 at 2:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.