Scott Bradley comes out of the closet

[Doug69]

RE: Bullshit

 

>>When Titan recently announced that they would create a

>Black

>>list pursuant to which they would refuse to hire any porn

>>actors who have barebacked on video, this is what they said

>

>They said "We will not infringe on anyone's right to do

>business their way. This is our way."

 

Oh, I see - so if a company announces tomorrow that they won't hire any gay people, or black people, or Muslims, or anyone who is HIV-positive - and then says: "We will not infringe on anyone's right to do business their way. This is our way" - I guess you believe there's no ground for criticizing that company since, after all, that's just their own hiring policies, so what's the big deal?

 

I guess you can take that view. But I think that view is despicable.

 

>Blacklists only work with multiple companies using the list,

>and that isn't the case here. Titan has a hiring policy. Big

>deal! Next you'll be saying Rad Video has a blacklist because

>they only hire twinks. Poor Zak Spears! Forever blacklisted!

>OH MY! WRING HANDS! GNASH TEETH!

 

Blacklists begin with one or two companies and then grow. That's how McCarthyism worked. Titan's "NO BAREBACKERS ALLOWED" policy has already been adopted by others, and is supported by a lot more, including some of the most admired names in porn among those, like you, who actually devote part of your "career" to writing about the "industry."

 

And the difference between, on the one hand, refusing to hire an actor who is a certain physical type, and refusing, on the other hand, to hire an actor with a particular disease or who engages in sexual acts which suggest the presence of that disease, is so fundamental and self-evident that I won't waste time from my life articulating it.

 

Suffice to say, there would be nothing wrong with a company which refuses to hire someone with unkepmt hair, or who is perpetually late, or who smells. There would be something quite wrong, however, with the same company refusing to hire blacks, or gay people, or those who are HIV-positive. You have my condolensces if you really can't see that difference.

 

>Go ahead and post. If you could find anything useful to your

>cause, you would have done so alread.

 

If I did anything to suggest that I'm interested in debating the finer points of petty porn gossip with petty porn mavens who actually try to earn a "living" writing about porn people, then I wrote hastily. I don't give a fuck whether your old red-headed prostitute friend actually disinvited someone from his pool party as opposed to merely demanded that invited guests provide assurances that they don't bareback and then publicly screamed at the invitees when he found at they did. The point is the same: dried-out, aging prostitutes and "porn stars" try to parade themselves around as being moral and Good by taking on the role of Inquisitor and Prosecutor of anyone who barebacks. That behavior is corrupt, hypocritical and rotten, and the fact that you're trying to create a "name" for yourself as some "porn reporter" and therefore need to kiss the aging ass of such individuals doesn't impress me at all. Quite the contrary.

 

Oh, and one last thing while I have you - after all, it's not everyday that one gets to talk to such an important and knowledgeable porn journalist:

 

Very few people deny that the prevalence of drug-taking generally, and crystal meth in particular, is a far more significant factor in the seroconversion crises among gay youth than barebacking videos could ever be. Do you know if the ex-prostitute and ex-porn star we are discussing has a policy and/or personal practices with regard to THAT?

[Guest Harry Bitsch]

RE: Bullshit

 

>If I did anything to suggest that I'm interested in debating

>the finer points of petty porn gossip with petty porn mavens

 

And yet you'll invest a lot of unsubstantiated and judgemental words in doing just that, even when two people with personal involvement in the events you're nattering about tell you you're wrong.

 

WHAT EVER.

[Doug69]

RE: Bullshit

 

>And yet you'll invest a lot of unsubstantiated and judgemental

>words in doing just that, even when two people with personal

>involvement in the events you're nattering about tell you

>you're wrong.

 

Oh, and one last thing while I have you - after all, it's not everyday that one gets to talk to such an important and knowledgeable porn journalist:

 

Very few people deny that the prevalence of drug-taking generally, and crystal meth in particular, is a far more significant factor in the seroconversion crises among gay youth than barebacking videos could ever be. Do you know if the ex-prostitute and ex-porn star we are discussing has a policy and/or personal practices with regard to THAT?

[Guest Harry Bitsch]

RE: Bullshit

 

Yes, I do know.

 

You're welcome.

[Doug69]

RE: Bullshit

 

>Yes, I do know.

>

>You're welcome.

 

Yes, I've noticed that, too: the loudest, most puritanical anti-barebacking "AIDS activists" do seem to go so very quiet when the issue becomes the use of illegal drugs and, specifically, crystal meth. That's particularly notable given that the activity about which they're so mysteriously silent (crystal meth) is a much more significant factor in contracting HIV than the activity about which they won't shut up (barebacking videos). Gee, I wonder why that is.

[bigguyinpasadena]

'"old, bitter, hypocritical grandmothers who love to run around sitting in judgment and morally condemning others. They need to do this because they feel ashamed and guilty of who they are and what they do, so they desperately need to find other people - like you - whom they can point to and condemn''POT MEET KETTLE

[woodlawn]

>The only reason to think that clients have a right to know if

>an escort bb is because that fact may bear on the escort's HIV

>status. So trying to expose escorts who bb is about nothing

>other than trying to out HIV+ escorts, and that is truly

>sick.

 

What's "sick" about insisting that people who sell goods or services to the public provide information to prospective customers that is highly relevant to the decision whether to purchase?

 

>Ladies and Gentleman, a proud member of the Bedroom Sex

>Police. Sniffing around trying to publicly uncover and expose

>people's private sexual practices should genuinely scare you.

>It's a serious sign of something very wrong. Ask someone in

>that profession if you don't believe me.

 

I don't believe you. I don't believe there's anything about wanting people to be aware of the risk they're taking when they hire a prostitute that is a sign of mental illness. People who advertise their services for sale to the public are not engaged in "private sexual practices." They're running a business. There's no logical reason why their customers shouldn't have the same sort of information that customers of any other business want and expect about what they are buying.

 

BON has "outed" several escorts who for some strange reason have gone to great lengths to conceal from most clients that they also bareback. There's no way anyone can argue that it doesn't benefit consumers to have that kind of information about escorts they're considering. So people who want escorts to be able to hide that sort of thing don't make that argument. Instead, they engage in the kind of hysterical namecalling we see in your post.

 

What your argument amounts to is that escorts should be able to conceal from prospective customers information that most customers would want to know before making a decision. No point in dissembling what is obvious to everyone.

[BewareofNick]

>So do you sneak around the Internet trying to get everyone to

>admit that they bb, or just escorts?

 

Why do you pose a question when you are already well aware of the answer? Are you actually that thick? The only time I have ever "run around" the internet searching for dishonet bb escorts is when they state publicly, as Luke Brazil did, that they do not bareback. Occasionally, in the pursuit of that escort, I come across a pic I recognize. This happened a few years back with Scott Bradley himself on barebackcity.com. It also happened with Sean Storm. In both cases, the escort admitted to me that it was them. Scott pulled the bbcity ad almost immediately. Sean was not using the Sean Storm name and did not do anything about the ad.

 

But here's the flip side (kind of like your pretendident, Flip Flop Bushwacker), a very well known and respected escort here, Jason Reardone, was accused of being a covert bb escort. I spent some time investigating and discovered that he was not guilty of what he had been accussed of and it ended the debate and cleared his rep. I suppose you'll call that behavior sick and disgusting as well.

 

Another popular escort here, JJDaulton, had the same problem. Someone used his picture on one of the bb sites. After a little investigation, it was determined that it was not JJ, just someone using his picture illegally. Would you again like to accuse me of sexual McCarthyism?

 

This has nothing to do with the right of privacy and everything to do with honesty and ethics in conducting business. In fairness though, being that you are a Repiglican, I can undestand why those two concepts are anathama to you.

 

>>2. Please show me where I said it was right to expose HIV+

>>escorts? As usual, you apply the "Faux News Spin" to try

>and

>>make a point about something I didn't say.

 

Still waiting on the answer to #2.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Bullshit

 

Don't feel bad, Hairy. Doug never lets the facts get in his way.

[Doug69]

>What's "sick" about insisting that people who sell goods or

>services to the public provide information to prospective

>customers that is highly relevant to the decision whether to

>purchase?

 

I happen not to think that merely because someone is an escort, he cedes all right to privacy - sexual and medical - and that it somehow becomes permissible for people to trick them into disclosing private sexual and medical information and then spray it all over the Internet against their will.

 

But since you do think such behavior is justifiable, why stop at escorts? I'm sure you would agree that many clients would consider it very relevant to know that their lawyer engages in illegal behavior by hiring prostitutes and even spends lots of time on a site devoted to gay escorts. Shouldn't BoN be doing everything possible to find out who you are and where you are - using your IP address, tricking you into disclosing information - so that he can warn your clients what you do? What right do you have to keep this information from your clients? Surely they have the right to know about the illegal behavior engaged in by someone whom they retain to represent their legal interests.

 

If BoN went to your city and took out ads exposing you and warning everyone in your community about your whoremongering, you'd really have no cause for complaint, would you? I mean, if it's OK to expose the private sexual and medical secrets of escorts on the ground that their clients and prospective clients would want to know about this, surely that applies to you - and lots and lots of other people who aren't escorts - as well, right?

 

>I don't believe you. I don't believe there's anything about

>wanting people to be aware of the risk they're taking when

>they hire a prostitute that is a sign of mental illness.

>People who advertise their services for sale to the public are

>not engaged in "private sexual practices." They're running a

>business. There's no logical reason why their customers

>shouldn't have the same sort of information that customers of

>any other business want and expect about what they are buying.

 

Isn't the issue for people like you NOT whether someone barebacks, but whether they are HIV-positive? There are lots of escorts who are HIV-positive who don't bareback. Conversely, there are escorts who bareback but who are HIV-negative - perhaps because they only top, or because they have been lucky, or whatever. But isn't this really about trying to find out which escorts have HIV? Isn't that the point of this whole exercise?

 

And why stop at HIV? Shouldn't we be tricking escorts into admitting what other STDs they have. Shouldn't BoN be spending his nights covertly questioning escorts about which ones engage in fist fucking and piss drinking and ass licking and then publicizing this, too? In fact, shouldn't he be finding out which doctors these escorts see and then breaking into their offices and taking the escorts' medical files and then publishing them on the Internet? I mean, according to you, what right do escorts have to keep this information secret from you?

 

>BON has "outed" several escorts who for some strange reason

>have gone to great lengths to conceal from most clients that

>they also bareback. There's no way anyone can argue that it

>doesn't benefit consumers to have that kind of information

>about escorts they're considering. So people who want escorts

>to be able to hide that sort of thing don't make that

>argument.

 

I'd say that anyone who thinks they can gather information about an escort's HIV status prior to hiring one is incredibly dumb. There is no way whatsoever to assure yourself that an escort you hire - or anyone you have sex with - is HIV-negative. If you're someone who thinks it's important to avoid HIV-positive escorts or to avoid HIV-postiive sex partners, then the only way you can do that is to not have sex at all. But once you commit to having sex and/or hiring escorts, then the only sane and healthy thing to do is to assume that everyone you have sex with is HIV-positive.

 

Trying to figure out who is HIV-positive and who isn't is a fool's game. It's as futile as it is irrational, and for that reason, it's perfectly legitimate to question the motives of anyone who is spending as much time as BoN does trying to figure it out.

[Doug69]

RE: Bullshit

 

>Don't feel bad, Hairy. Doug never lets the facts get in his

>way.

 

You mean like these facts - from an interview with that great role model - that Concerned Crusader for the Well-being of Gay Youth:

 

__________

 

http://www.hookonline.org/articles/05_I_01.htm

 

<<This took us to these remnants and the opportunity to speak in private about how Will Clark handles being Will Clark. With or without the internet, the huge porn following, the late night sexual adventures that everyone expects him to have. And then there are his responses to clients, like the ones that offer to pay in narcotics...

 

Will Clark: I’d be more than happy to take drugs from you, but money is what Mastercard will take. And that’s what my landlord will take. So, I would love to pay my Visa bill with cocaine, but you know, strangely, they don’t take that.

 

HOOK: So what about drugs?

 

WC: I don’t think I really did many drugs before. I don’t really drink alcohol, although I like a good bourbon once in a while. And a good Budweiser. How is that for Southern? So, totally not where I am from, but that’s what I really like. For clients calling you at 3 in the morning, they are clearly on something. It was always great for me, because as a cheapskate and somebody who generally never knows where to find stuff. I guess I could have but I always feel embarrassed asking people. It’s great when a client would call up and I would think, “Oooh, great, I get to do drugs tonight. “ And then I have to think it out. What do I have to do tomorrow. What do I have to do the next day, and then I gotta plan it out. What I can do, what I can’t do, How much and whatever. When your with a client and you are there for five hours you kinda forget that you have a meeting to go to at noon tomorrow. Life wasn’t all that planned at that time in New York. It was all about escorting. And planning for the next movie I would do. I would be home for a couple months and plan my next trip to LA for two weeks. Oh, I need to plan for this movie. Oh, I gotta coordinate with the porno awards. And for escort gigs. So I can pay for the tip and where am I gona stay. It was always a leapfrog existence. And taking care of ads for that city.

 

_______________

 

So here's someone who runs around screaming at porn actors who bareback and screetching endlessly about how bad barebacking videos are because they serve as a bad influence on gay youth - but he proudly boasts of his late-night drug usage with his prostitution clients. That's a real great role model for gay youth - publicly boasting about the single worst factor in the crises of gay youth contracting HIV - drug use during sex.

 

That's the kind of person who makes persecuting barebackers their life work. Lovely.

[Doug69]

>But here's the flip side (kind of like your pretendident, Flip

>Flop Bushwacker), a very well known and respected escort here,

>Jason Reardone, was accused of being a covert bb escort. I

>spent some time investigating and discovered that he was not

>guilty of what he had been accussed of and it ended the debate

>and cleared his rep. I suppose you'll call that behavior sick

>and disgusting as well.

 

How can you possibly prove that he - or any other escort - didn't bareback? All you can do is ask him - and if he suspects that you're digging or he just isn't in the mood for barebacking or a million other reasons, he will say no to you. This hardly proves he doesn't bareback. Lots of guys bareback in the heat of the moment - because of drugs or psychological issues or any number of other reasons. What makes you think you can ever prove that they don't?

 

>>>2. Please show me where I said it was right to expose HIV+

>>>escorts? As usual, you apply the "Faux News Spin" to try

>>and

>>>make a point about something I didn't say.

>

>Still waiting on the answer to #2.

 

I answered you. Go read it.

[buckguy]

RE: Bullshit

 

"And then I have to think it out. What do I have to do tomorrow. What do I have to do the next day, and then I gotta plan it out. What I can do, what I can’t do, How much and whatever. When your with a client and you are there for five hours you kinda forget that you have a meeting to go to at noon tomorrow. Life wasn’t all that planned at that time in New York."

 

Notice he's talking in the past tense (about the last time he lived in NYC, which was "years ago" and rather than moralizing he makes note of the practical---you gotta think it out and you can't pay the rent with cocaine. I'm afariad you're the one who's gotten puritanical here, about drugs.

 

Dougie--I said my peace re: Scott's "good little boy" act and was clear about what I meant. Your endless ramblings make me think you should keep the computer tuned off and go back to reading Ayn Rand. She obviously had no morals about sex or proessional relationshsips and that should come as a comfort to you.

[VaHawk]

"How can you possibly prove that he - or any other escort - didn't bareback? All you can do is ask him - and if he suspects that you're digging or he just isn't in the mood for barebacking or a million other reasons, he will say no to you. This hardly proves he doesn't bareback. Lots of guys bareback in the heat of the moment - because of drugs or psychological issues or any number of other reasons. What makes you think you can ever prove that they don't?"

 

Good point, but as we all should know, engaging in risky behavior is the responsibility of the individual, so that individual has no right to complain afterwards.

 

However, for an escort to EXPLICITY advertise that he is HIV- and doesn't engage in risky barebacked behavior, is out and out fraud, and a disservice to those hiring him. The Only reason, anyone could fathom for doing so, is that the escort would believe it would interfere with his business.

 

Why such an individual should be praised, way after the fact, to admitting HIV+ status, after KNOWINGLY engaging in unsafe sexual practices prior to such admission, is TOTALLY inexcusable and HARDLY worthy of praise.

 

The WHOLE purpose of this site is to provide feedback on an escort, and anyone who can provide evidence that the escort is not as advertised, should be praised not vilified.

[HooBoy]

As far as I am concerned EVERYONE is HIV positive.

 

So I do not care what a sexual partner tells me.

 

The only true prevention is abstinence anyway, something many people in this thread apparently have had way too much of. :*

[woodlawn]

>I happen not to think that merely because someone is an

>escort, he cedes all right to privacy - sexual and medical -

>and that it somehow becomes permissible for people to trick

>them into disclosing private sexual and medical information

>and then spray it all over the Internet against their will.

 

And I happen to think that when someone takes out ads asking members of the public to hire him to have sex with them for money, as is the case with the people we are discussing, it's pretty goddamn ridiculous to claim that his HIV status remains a "private" matter.

 

> I'm sure you would agree that many clients would

>consider it very relevant to know that their lawyer engages in

>illegal behavior by hiring prostitutes and even spends lots of

>time on a site devoted to gay escorts. Shouldn't BoN be doing

>everything possible to find out who you are and where you are

 

Who said I was a lawyer or that I represent any clients? I never did. That comes from inside your head, not from me.

 

>if it's OK to expose the private sexual and medical secrets of

>escorts on the ground that their clients and prospective

>clients would want to know about this, surely that applies to

>you - and lots and lots of other people who aren't escorts -

>as well, right?

 

Once again, if people offer to sell something to the public, they can't claim that information relevant to what they are selling is "private." Restaurateurs can't claim that the cleanliness of their kitchens is a "private" matter. Daycare centers can't claim that whether staff members have a history of arrests for child abuse is a "private" matter. And lawyers can't claim that their disciplinary records are a "private" matter.

 

>Isn't the issue for people like you NOT whether someone

>barebacks, but whether they are HIV-positive?

 

Instead of asking "people like me," why don't you ask that question of the escorts BON has found who have lied or in other ways concealed from most clients the fact that they bareback? Why did they feel it necessary to conceal that? Unless of course they believe that most clients would consider that information relevant in deciding whether to hire?

 

>And why stop at HIV? Shouldn't we be tricking escorts into

>admitting what other STDs they have.

 

I don't know about "stopping" at HIV, but I feel pretty confident that the fact it is an incurable and frequently fatal disease moves it to the head of the list for any client who is concerned about catching STD's from escorts.

 

> Shouldn't BoN be

>spending his nights covertly questioning escorts

 

It's really up to him how he spends his nights -- he isn't a public health official, so far as I know. I will note that people who have proposed legalizing prostitution usually propose a regime that detects whether prostitutes have any STD's and bans them from working if they do. I doubt you'll find many people on this board or elsewhere who think it's a good idea for prostitutes to work if they have any disease that is communicable through intimate contact.

 

>I'd say that anyone who thinks they can gather information

>about an escort's HIV status prior to hiring one is incredibly

>dumb. There is no way whatsoever to assure yourself that an

>escort you hire - or anyone you have sex with - is

>HIV-negative.

 

But there are ways to find out if an escort is HIV positive. Some escorts disclose that fact in their ads. And thanks to BON and other sources there are ways to find out if other escorts engage in practices that increase their chances of being positive. Doesn't sound "dumb" to me.

 

> If you're someone who thinks it's important to

>avoid HIV-positive escorts or to avoid HIV-postiive sex

>partners, then the only way you can do that is to not have sex

>at all.

 

> It's as futile as it is irrational, and for that

>reason, it's perfectly legitimate to question the motives of

>anyone who is spending as much time as BoN does trying to

>figure it out.

 

And what if you are someone who just wants to have as much information as possible about the risk you are taking in seeing a particular escort? If you are, does that mean you're "sick"? Like many of the silly old duffers here, you're very free with words that connote mental illness, even though you're far from qualified to use them.

[buckguy]

Scott was barebacking as an escort (yes I know 1st hand). It's unclear when he knew he was HIV+ (one of seveal elipses and evasions in his post). It's entirely plausible he knew when he was barebacking.

 

BTW, Scott made a bareback video last summer (with VidKid Timo), well before this year's Bad Boys Pool Party. Somewhat contradicts his making his first BB video teh day after Will Clark's event.

 

The guy's a liar. Dougie will never get over it, but the rest of us should.