Did a gay media giant (Here Media) kill an article because it didn't want to upset a certain class of advertiser (porn studios) with a piece penned by a Queerty contributor (Matt Siegel)?
If you hear the version from Siegel, who pens The Unabashed Queer for this website, the answer is a definite … mebbe.
"Business Before Pleasure" — which delved into how complicit porn studios might be in helping spread HIV with a loose condoms policy — was live on Advocate.com for eight days, before it was inexplicably pulled. Mediate floats a theory that The Advocate, which is owned by Paul Colichman's Here Media, which also publishes porn rags Freshmen and Unzipped, yanked Siegel's item because it didn't want to risk offending paying porn advertisers.
Is that a possible explanation? Certainly. Lord knows we've seen plenty of media outlets kill pieces because of advertiser conflicts. Just this month, the Hartford Courant fired its consumer advocate for running a story about the Connecticut Attorney General looking into mattress store Sleepy's, one of the newspaper's clients.
Similarly, the same day Advocate.com pulled Siegel's porn piece, news reports surfaced about 16 porn studios facing complaints about unsafe sex practices related to condom use. It's usually bad business to publish negative stories about the advertisers who pay your bills.
The magazine isn't saying why it pulled the piece, but one other reason could be potential libel concerns, though Siegel says editor Ross von Metzke removed them before it went live.
But if you're interested in reading it — and if you care about HIV, health, or the porn industry, you'll want to — it's published in full, uncensored, here. To us, it's a poignant look at the real risks associated with helping America get off.
For Her Big Return, Janet Jackson Returns to Her Entire Past (11)
· dontblamemeivotedforhillary says: Don’t stop ’til you get it UP! Obviously about... »
Are Glee’s Kurt + Ugly Betty’s Justin Bad for Gay Youth? Absolutely Not. (49)
· freethinkingelder says: Many people seem to be saying that we should fit in, change our identity to... »
EXCUSES: The Senate Just Knocked DADT’s Hearings Into Next Year (3)
· Brian says: B.S. »
What Happened Last Month Before Your Little Boycott? The DNC Raised $11.5 Million (9)
· Brian says: Good idea Steve. Get the commitment first. »
· Brian Miller says: The announced boycott is far too late. The “leaders” of it now were... »
Is It Wrong to Report on a Marine Starring in Hardcore Gay Porn? (55)
· B says: In No. 46 · CHIP1218 wrote, “Old school Bel Ami models deal with everyone in their... »
· Eric says: Dawson, Hate to break it to you buddy, but I do know the guy and what I said is entirely... »
“Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy?” (37)
· Brian Miller says: The Constitution of the 18th century interpretation also wouldn’t have... »
The German Spy Exposed When His Wife Found Out About His Gay Love Affair (3)
· romeo says: Chick was way too beautiful. She had to have been guilty as hell. LOL »
Canada’s Immigrants Learn About Homosexuals Via Meaningless Sidebar (4)
· alejandro says: fuck stephen harper. »
What porn companies? last time I checked the Advocate wasn't featuring ads from Treasure Island Media or any other of the "sex at your own risk" bareback porn companies.
Probably was the web-porn sites, where sometimes they use condoms, sometimes they don't, model's "choice"
The big porn companies have not moved into BB porn as far as I know, but facials are making a big, er, cum back.
You would 1st need advertisers in order to 'piss advertisers off.' Just sayin'
The only way this story makes sense is if Siegel reveals what the Advocate's people told him was the reason for pulling the story. I'm sure other stories in the Advocate piss off one advertiser or another. It's inevitable, so in the face of any evidence, I'm calling bullshit.
Ok, here is my beef about this "wear a condom" B/B and porn. It was my understanding that all studios test their models for HIV regardless of whether it is barebacking or "safe sex".
If both models came up negative then please explain what all the screaming and yelling about bareback sex if both agree to it. I personally look for bareback sex first because it is MY preference and I personally don't give one damn about admitting it nor searching for it.
Is the real issue here to blackmail the studios into making dvd's that don't sell (barebacking outsells safe sex)as well as the dvd's that do satisfy what the paying customers have CLEARLY indicated that is what they want?
Only a fool would not stop this type of reporting in a climate like this where even the bars on Christopher street ALL have happy hour from 12pm till closing EVERYDAY. Things are too rough right now to not give the public what it clearly wants to see versus some sanctimonious B/S.
@Bob Lablah: "If both models came up negative then please explain what all the screaming and yelling about bareback sex if both agree to it."
I'll tell you exactly what the problem is – the example it sets for others. Kids watching porn online will see sex without condoms, and that's what they'll go out and do. And that, in case you need it pointing out for you, would be bad.
@naprem:"Kids" watching online porn? And bareback porn would set a bad example?
Sorry sir/madame, but I stick to my argument.