Should Treasure Island Media Be Shut Down?

[instudiocity]

I would further add that I expect we will see the transmission rates amongst gay men to increase in the next 5 years versus their heterosexual peers. I attribute this to my perception that, in the last 5 years, many gay males have let down their guard and started engaging more and more in un-protected sex. Due to the time lag between infection and exhibiting symptoms, I would fully expect the gay male infection rate to rise as time goes by.

I tend to agree with your hypothesis. Let's not forget that with the advances in HIV medical research and retrovirals, there also appears to be a more relaxed attitude about catching the bug. Today, HIV isn't the death sentence it was in the 1980's. Many people, with proper medical treatment live years longer than those diagnosed in the 1980's and 1990's.

 

I even seem to remember there is a sub-group of gay males who want to be infected. They're called something like bug-catchers or something.

[maninsoma]

And that's fine Epigonos, that's probably a good thing, quite frankly. If everyone agreed with one another we'd have no issues to debate!

 

 

 

The difference here, for me, is that I can't catch your (not yours) obesity. I can't catch your heart attack lying in wait, I can't catch your drug habit and I can't catch your alcoholism either. Yes, they all cost society plenty in and of themselves. But they are not transmitted from one partner to another with a potentially fatal outcome.

 

Ah, but you can't catch someone's HIV infection, either, without choosing to expose yourself to it. Just like the kid sitting next to you eating a triple Whopper isn't putting that sandwich in your stomach, the guy sitting next to you at the cafe who took 10 loads in his ass the night before isn't putting anything in your body unless you invite him to.

[maninsoma]

The tube sites only exist because they are pirating porn from the actual producers of that porn.

 

Guess you've never watched any of the thousands and thousands of truly amateur porn videos on XTube. It's definitely not all just stuff ripped from dvds or copied from paid streaming/download sites. There are lots of guys making brief (and sometimes not so brief) videos of themselves having sex with lovers and/or strangers.

[maninsoma]

I don't think TIM should be shut down, primarily because I just don't think doing so would accomplish anything anyway. Not that I want to see the following happen, either, since it seems too big brotherish, but perhaps far more effective would be a stronger public health campaign like what has been done with respect to cigarette smoking: Require warning labels on the product that have to be viewed, and have the government air advertisements about the risks involved when engaging in various types of sexual behavior.

 

As someone else wrote, requiring condom use by porn studios is only going to cause them to shoot their videos elsewhere. Unless you want the Supreme Court to uphold a law saying that no bareback sex of any kind can be recorded or played back in the United States, it seems rather pointless to go after a single studio.

[desertguy1954]

Should they be shut down, no. They receive the number of hits on their videos because that is what people want to see. As someone who was around before the 80's, sex without a condom was it, plus it felt wonderful to have a nice uncovered cock going up your ass. That all changed for many people including myself in the 80's.

Some did not change and that is their choice. To say close them down, you are stating an opinion that to me is censership. No one has the right to say what can or should exist. The best way to counter is education. In the old days, there were jars of condoms in the bars. Again your choice or not. One cannot dictate a persons sexual behavior, just as one cannot dictate ones sexual preference and desires. At least thats what I think.

[Steven_Draker]

If your chart is a global view of the current infection rate ...

 

The chart reflects the number of infections in the UK.

 

Yes - the number of homosexual transmissions are about the same as the number of heterosexual transmissions (and the number of homosexual transmissions has come down a lot over the last few years) - but if you take into account the proportion of homosexual males in the population (often quoted as 10%), this still represents a 10x risk factor. Male gay sex is still much higher risk - sad, but true.

[Steven_Draker]

As a reminder, International Mr. Leather in Chicago did ban material promoting unsafe sex in 2010 (and all future events) ...

 

 

"IML's (International Mr. Leather) executive committee has banned vendors at the group's annual convention from displaying or selling any pornographic photos and videos which portray or promote unprotected sex, also known as barebacking.

 

A statement released on International Mr. Leather, Inc. letterhead and signed by Chuck Renslow, President of IML, reads as follows:

 

"Dear Vendors:

 

On behalf of International Mr. Leather, Inc., I would like to thank you for your past support and in particular for your participation as a vendor in our annual Leather Market. We are writing you today to inform you of a policy change affecting next year (2010) and all future markets.

 

Though we are now three decades into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, no cure has been found. The CDC and local health officials inform us that new infections are on the rise. And, while we have had some success developing medications that might make infection more manageable, that accomplishment comes at a price. Not having experienced the deaths - the loss of loved ones -- which preceded these medications, we have an entire generation who may not fully appreciate or comprehend the severity of the situation.

 

Too many in our community believe HIV/AIDS is curable or manageable. Too few understand that HIV/AIDS infections dominate life. We believe that it is our duty to inform and educate. Several years ago when "Meth" was the scourge of our community, IML drew a line in the sand and raised awareness and used all our influence to try and stop this addictive madness. As is the case with HIV/AIDS, we believe it is our further obligation to do everything in our power to prevent future infections.

 

To that end, after considerable discussion, the Executive Committee of International Mr. Leather has decided that it will no longer allow participation in the IML Leather Market by any entity which promotes barebacking or distributes/sells any merchandise tending to promote or advocate barebacking. This restriction will also apply to distribution of gifts, post cards or any other information via our facilities.

This policy takes effect immediately."

 

Jim Pickett, gay men's health advocate, offered the following to ChicagoPride.com:

 

"IML's decision to ban booths, merchandise, or paraphernalia from companies that focus on selling or promoting bareback sex has created an enormous amount of discussion and debate. That's a great thing, and I'm delighted with the community-wide conversation that Chuck Renslow's letter has encouraged. Gay men SHOULD be critically engaged in our collective health and wellness, and that includes being mindful of everything we consume, including porn.

 

While I appreciate the consciousness raising aspects of the IML ban, I would ask sexually active gay/bi/trans me to keep a few things in mind. First, not all "bareback" sex, or anal intercourse without a condom, is a risk for HIV transmission. For instance, two men may make a mindful, informed decision to have intercourse without a condom and not worry about transmitting or acquiring HIV if they each have the same HIV status.

 

Secondly, most of the behavioral research shows that around 50% of gay men engage in anal intercourse without a condom. We need to step up our efforts around NEW ways to protect ourselves and our partners from HIV, beyond latex. Ongoing promotion of condoms is important, for sure, but we also need new tools, like rectal microbicides, vaccines and oral prevention, to add to the safer sex "buffet."

 

Many people don't like using condoms all the time, or at all, and demanding they use a condom every time they have intercourse won't make it so.

 

We also need more research into risk-reduction behaviors like sero-sorting and sero-adaption - where men make decisions about the kinds of sex they will have depending on their own serostatus and that of their partners. We don't know enough about things like "strategic positioning" and "dipping" and the withdrawal method - and it's high time we started finding out how well these strategies work for reducing HIV risk.

 

Finally, if gay porn was so powerful, most of us would be using condoms all the time. Most porn, after all, involves men using condoms with each other. This is not to minimize the possible effects of bareback porn, but to put it into context."

 

source: http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/7762900

[EZEtoGRU]

The chart reflects the number of infections in the UK.

 

Yes - the number of homosexual transmissions are about the same as the number of heterosexual transmissions (and the number of homosexual transmissions has come down a lot over the last few years) - but if you take into account the proportion of homosexual males in the population (often quoted as 10%), this still represents a 10x risk factor. Male gay sex is still much higher risk - sad, but true.

 

The attached UK study supports your numbers for the UK. It also mentions that male to male transmission in the UK has been on a steady rise since 2007 (which supports my general theory). It also highlights that the UK heterosexual transmission numbers are influenced by the high number of African immigrants as well as local born black population. Click on the link to "download full publication" to see informative charts.

 

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/InfectiousDiseases/HIVAndSTIs/1211HIVintheUK2012/

 

We can slice and dice the data until we are blue in the face. For me, the bottom line is that far too many people are having unprotected sex out of monogamous relationships. Gay people are especially putting themselves and others at risk.......but straight people too.

 

BTW, I'd be interested to see Europe-wide data. I would think that would more closely mirror the US infection rates.......but maybe not.

[JoshChgo]

As a reminder, International Mr. Leather in Chicago did ban material promoting unsafe sex in 2010 (and all future events) ...

 

Yes, and they were the very last awards program to do so. 2010 - really? Chuck Renslow should have done so much more so much sooner; especially in light of the fact that so much of the activity in the leather community stretches the boundaries of safer sex. I do hope that they stand their ground while the industry around them caves into profit over responsibility and returns to honoring and promoting bareback porn. The Cybersocket awards has just elected to begin recognition and awards to bareback studios, their videos, and their actors.

 

What will be interesting, and decisive for me; will be if Chi Chi LaRue lifts her self-imposed ban on any awards show that recognizes, celebrates or awards bareback productions. Whatever one might think of LaRue, she is still a powerhouse in the industry when it comes to young talent wanting to gain her attention, and her presence at the Cybersockets this time around would be a silent green light to unsafe sex which I'm certain many newcomers would be influenced by.

 

This cannot, in my opinion, just be about personal responsibility any longer; although it's where everything must begin. It's about powerful influences which we, and more importantly, our youth, now have to hopefully defend themselves against, all the while making the often difficult and awkward decisions and choices which are a part of being young and often times stupid.

 

Media sends powerful messages to us all everyday. Those messages influence us all in some manner, and for some, more than one might prefer. The porn media and their message is no different. The argument, that it's just a fantasy, is a deception and an easy and mindless reason for you to dismiss what is really going on. If watching people possibly becoming infected with HIV is a part of anyone's fantasy, then have at it. Because that's exactly what it has to reflect today to help stop the infections.

 

This doesn't begin nor end with porn. But it's an important and critical influence.

[JoshChgo]

I'll add just this because it is true and be done. It's a weekend boner killer I know.

 

HIV/AIDS was the gay community's 9/11/2001. Except for the fact that more people died because of it worldwide and are still living (and dying) with it's presence and impact. The difference being that, we did not have an army of people willing to go to war on our behalf to fight this silent and unprovoked killer upon us. We were just queers and many offered their good-riddance's to us all.

 

So many selfless people rallied together, just as they did on that day in September to fight back. Many chose ACT-UP to fight for what nobody else really cared about and put themselves in harms way, better known as arrest and criminal record for bringing this killer to the fore-front of the country's attention in highly public and often times personally offensive expressions of higher education.

 

The rest is history and you all know it. Some, today, want you to forget it.

 

To allow porn studios to change the narrative, now, when the prevention and the disease is the same, is something not one of us should ever allow to happen. The advancement of pharmaceuticals to suppress this relentless killer is where the money once was. It still is. But now, it seems to be changing somewhat to the hands of reckless porn studios who suggest this just isn't what it once was because of the pharmaceutical advances we now have to offer those infected.

 

It will always be what it once was, and that's the only message that anyone needs to take away from this post.

 

Everything else is just simply justification for one's own behavior, influence and greed

 

Know your status. Know your history. Live and practice it like you were it.

[TruHart1]

Know your status. Know your history. Live and practice it like you were it.

 

This would seem to be a topic that is more than likely to be brought up again and again in discussions as demand grows for people who want to see or experience bareback sex! Should Treasure Island Media be shut down? I don’t believe that regulation of what people desire will, in any way, stop those who want to see these videos. Laws in the US were passed to stop sales of alcohol in the 1930’s. That created a criminal black market (with violent infighting between rivals) in major cities and quite a few homebrew stills. The Surgeon General in 1984, C. Everett Koop, stated that smoking could cause lung cancer and death and asked for a smoke-free United States by the year 2000. All cartons/packs of cigarettes sold in the U.S. have a warning printed on them that has been there for almost 30 years! Has smoking stopped?

 

There have actually been a few murder/attempted murder cases won when it was proven that an HIV infected individual had “purposefully and with intent” infected another person but more or less as many cases where intent was not able to be proven. …and it goes on… Trying to use law in an attempt to regulate desires/addictions just never works. Hell, if you read this forum and reviews, you know how well the escort business has been completely stopped in the U.S. by outlawing sexual acts for remuneration! In the end, YOU must be responsible in your sexual interactions with porn performers, escorts and hook-ups by realizing that any unprotected sex with exchange of bodily fluids may lead to possible HIV infections and/or other STD’s. Regulating these things just never works.

 

TruHart1:cool:

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

The difference here, for me, is that I can't catch your (not yours) obesity. I can't catch your heart attack lying in wait, I can't catch your drug habit and I can't catch your alcoholism either. Yes, they all cost society plenty in and of themselves. But they are not transmitted from one partner to another with a potentially fatal outcome.

 

MADD would strongly disagree with you here. While I can't catch your alcoholism, I can be killed when you drive through the red light because you are too drunk to know it. And I didn't catch your alcoholism while I watched you beat Mom because dinner wasn't on the table when you came home at midnight after you stopped at the bar before coming home.

[Nvr2Thick]

Should Treasure Island Media Be Shut Down?

Treasure Island Media, aka, TIM, has been filming unsafe bareback porn from the day it began filming. Now, since the rise and spread of HIV amongst a generation who never lived through the worst days of this horrific killer is increasing more than it ever has before; should Treasure Island Media Be Shut Down?

 

Filming safer sex porn is now becoming the exception, not the rule.

Steven Daigle has now become the latest porn actor to not only film bareback with TIM, but to take recklessness and irresponsibility to a higher level.

 

It's my feeling that porn actors are quickly becoming the new ground-zero for the spread of HIV. Given time, they’ll be the main source and carrier of the virus.

 

Should bareback porn companies be forced to shut down? Should all porn companies be required to use condoms?

 

Should porn actors who participate in reckless and irresponsible bareback sex for profit be denied federal aid when they test positive and are in need of Antiretroviral drugs to suppress their HIV?

 

As long as companies such as Rawstrokes and Machofucker can continue to do business I'm good with it. TIM's leanings toward kink are not to my liking, and the men are often more rangy and grizzled than I prefer. I love to watch naked dicks breach and stroke deep inside male ass though. If there are men that like to watch that type of sex with TIM's types of men we should probably keep that company around -- otherwise a lot of guys into watching raw porn will be disappointed, and we wouldn't want that.

 

You seem to be making baseless assumptions to support your beliefs. I have no idea how you've leapt to the idea that porn actors are or will be the main source of HIV. Log onto GRINDR or A4A and you'll see that there are thousands of men out there who are upfront about being into BB sex. Extrapolate that to the guys who are lying about being safe, and to the guys who hook up for raw sex through other means and you can come up with far more guys fucking raw than this relatively tiny segment of our population fucking in porn movies.

 

I don't believe that stopping BB porn will reduce BB behavior in society any more than I think that removing cigarettes from TV and movies will discourage smoking in a meaningful way.

 

All sex comes with risk. Where would you draw the line? I love how Michael Lucas's porn often has cumeating scenes. Would you legislate that away from us? Hell -- naked dick blowjobs could lead to infection. Should condoms be required in porn for blowjobs? Maybe all gay porn should consist of guys boiling their Fleshlites in bleach before jacking each other off. Condoms break.

 

At this point everyone knows the risk. On or off camera men are going to fuck bareback because they don't care or choose to live irresponsibly. I don't believe it is your job or mine to regulate their choices.

 

If we shut down bareback porn studios I will never again get to see Mr. Marky's long, curved, thick naked black dick breach some hot bottom's hole, and I will never again get to hear him howl with his dick up in a well-worn ass and watch a copious load spill out of said ass.

 

That makes me sad.

[Steven_Draker]

That makes me sad.

 

What makes me sad is the rising number in HIV infections.

 

The CDC has launched a new strategy for HIV prevention called the Serostatus Approach to Fighting the Epidemic (SAFE)

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/images/web/prevention_serostatus_figure1_700x253.gif

 

 

Population HIV Prevention Interventions

 

Unaware of serostatus; behavioral risk of infection Provide current, essential HIV-related information

Encourage voluntary HIV counseling and testing among those at increased risk, including anonymous testing

Reduce stigma of HIV disease and services

 

Recently tested HIV negative; no apparent behavioral risk of infection Educate to provide HIV prevention messages to family, friends, partners

 

Recently tested HIV negative; behavioral risk of infection Offer intensive individual or small-group counseling

Develop community-level interventions

Establish linkages to STD, substance abuse, mental health, hepatitis, and social services as needed

Provide prevention case management for those at highest risk

Develop structural interventions (e.g., sterile syringe access)

 

Tested HIV positive Provide intensive prevention services

Offer partner counseling and referral services

Establish linkages to STD, substance abuse, mental health, hepatitis, and social services as needed

Provide prevention case management

Develop structural interventions (e.g., decrease discrimination)

[Bart]

I don't think more government intervention is the right thing to do. Under the guise of National Security, Homeland Security department of the government is already monitoring much of what we are doing. When do people start being responsible for the their own behavior. I don't want the government dictating moral compass. All this conversation about the government stepping in just exasperates the notion that we as gays can only think about sex whoever, whenever and no care about health risks. So what should be discussed is how to handle bareback sites in the market place. The simplest notion is to advocate a boycott of those sites that offer it. The only logical step forward is to hurt the companies in the pocket book. I agree on the point of stopping bareback porn sites, I just don't agree on the methodology you have suggested.

[Guest]

Closing down a bareback site or forcing porn actors to wear condoms sounds great in the abstract but unfortunately rapidly becomes a nightmare in the application. California is about to pass a law requiring the use of condoms in the porn industry. So what do the bareback porn producers do, they move to another state or if necessary another country.

 

Following the logic that unsafe behavior should be outlawed or regulated opens a Pandora’s Box. Should the ban on marijuana be rigorously enforced because “most” heroin addicts started their drug addiction with marijuana? Should alcohol be banned because “all” alcoholics take a first drink? Should sugary soft drinks be banned or regulated (as Bloomberg tried to do in New York City) because they “might” lead to obesity? Should school children NOT be allowed to bring lunches from home because parents “might” send them to school with unhealthy items in those lunches (this was tried in a Los Angeles School District elementary school)?

 

Unfortunately, these are behaviors which some people enjoy, but everyone else ends up paying for, unless we regulate them somehow. The costs to society of HIV and obesity are astronomical. The costs of caring for HIV alone certainly runs over five-figures annually, and obesity/diabetes is even worse. There are probably some super-athletic people who can drink large sugary drinks and/or smoke pot and not get really fat, but they're a small minority. I'm not sure we can ban these things, but I'm certainly all for making people who choose to indulge in unhealthful behaviors contribute towards the health care costs incurred by society as a result of these behaviors. While these costs can be difficult to calculate (and, of course, some people are more at risk than others), my understanding is, for example, that smokers tend to pay somewhat fairly in taxes what they cost to society. This is apparently especially true because smokers tend to die soon after they're eligible for social security, which offers its own savings. I haven't seen the calculations for alcohol taxes, but that should be fixed as well. Either the ban on marijuana should be enforced, or it should be taxed heavily. Marijuana is rarely the best solution for most medical problems (except weight loss and wasting). When marijuana gets approved and the FDA monitors the prescriptions, that's fine. All other uses should be taxed to cover the costs incurred by the weed.

Obviously we can't ban sugary drinks, but we should make those who choose regular over diet sodas pay a tax to defray costs associated with obesity (including diabetes, knee replacement surgery, disability due to back pain and all sorts of other ailments, liver transplants for those with fatty liver, and so on). The law would obviously have to be very carefully worded to make it impossible for soda manufacturers (or retailers) to pass on the tax to those who drink diet sodas.

Barebacking is a more difficult problem, because the problem behavior is NOT doing something (wearing a condom). I certainly feel that forbidding its use in the porn industry is a bona fide public health interest, and does not limit freedom of expression. Banning it in California would be an important step, because the lion's share of the porn industry is in California. It would also be good, of course, to ban it in other states. Another solution would be to put a prohibitively high tax on the production, sale, and distribution of bareback porn--not that this could recoup the high costs of lifelong HIV care.

Our society pays a heavy price when people act like Eric Cartman, doing whatever they want, then getting everyone else to pay for the consequences. When the behavior can't be banned, we need to put very high "asshole taxes" on the behavior to make sure that those who engage in risky behavior actually contribute to these consequences.

[seeker630]

Unfortunately, these are behaviors which some people enjoy, but everyone else ends up paying for, unless we regulate them somehow. The costs to society of HIV and obesity are astronomical. The costs of caring for HIV alone certainly runs over five-figures annually, and obesity/diabetes is even worse. There are probably some super-athletic people who can drink large sugary drinks and/or smoke pot and not get really fat, but they're a small minority. I'm not sure we can ban these things, but I'm certainly all for making people who choose to indulge in unhealthful behaviors contribute towards the health care costs incurred by society as a result of these behaviors. While these costs can be difficult to calculate (and, of course, some people are more at risk than others), my understanding is, for example, that smokers tend to pay somewhat fairly in taxes what they cost to society. This is apparently especially true because smokers tend to die soon after they're eligible for social security, which offers its own savings. I haven't seen the calculations for alcohol taxes, but that should be fixed as well. Either the ban on marijuana should be enforced, or it should be taxed heavily. Marijuana is rarely the best solution for most medical problems (except weight loss and wasting). When marijuana gets approved and the FDA monitors the prescriptions, that's fine. All other uses should be taxed to cover the costs incurred by the weed.

Obviously we can't ban sugary drinks, but we should make those who choose regular over diet sodas pay a tax to defray costs associated with obesity (including diabetes, knee replacement surgery, disability due to back pain and all sorts of other ailments, liver transplants for those with fatty liver, and so on). The law would obviously have to be very carefully worded to make it impossible for soda manufacturers (or retailers) to pass on the tax to those who drink diet sodas.

Barebacking is a more difficult problem, because the problem behavior is NOT doing something (wearing a condom). I certainly feel that forbidding its use in the porn industry is a bona fide public health interest, and does not limit freedom of expression. Banning it in California would be an important step, because the lion's share of the porn industry is in California. It would also be good, of course, to ban it in other states. Another solution would be to put a prohibitively high tax on the production, sale, and distribution of bareback porn--not that this could recoup the high costs of lifelong HIV care.

Our society pays a heavy price when people act like Eric Cartman, doing whatever they want, then getting everyone else to pay for the consequences. When the behavior can't be banned, we need to put very high "asshole taxes" on the behavior to make sure that those who engage in risky behavior actually contribute to these consequences.

 

How about a firearms tax to cover the costs of the murders and other crimes committed with some of them?

[Guest]

How about a firearms tax to cover the costs of the murders and other crimes committed with some of them?

 

Obviously, one can incarcerate people who commit crimes. One cannot incarcerate or otherwise "punish" people who merely make poor lifestyle (diet, sex) choices. The idea of making those who are incarcerated work for the cost of their incarceration is intriguing, but probably couldn't pass Constitutional muster.

[rvwnsd]

Obviously, one can incarcerate people who commit crimes. One cannot incarcerate or otherwise "punish" people who merely make poor lifestyle (diet, sex) choices. The idea of making those who are incarcerated work for the cost of their incarceration is intriguing, but probably couldn't pass Constitutional muster.

 

I didn't see any mention of the cost to treat the asthma, CPOD, and other illnesses that result from taxpayer-subsidized car and truck air pollution and petroleum refining and petrochemical production.

[Epigonos]

No matter how much one wants to, no matter how much one tries to, it is virtually impossible to legislate social mores.

 

Unfortunately we live in a society today in which many individuals REFUSE to accept responsibility for their own choices and actions. It is always the fault of somebody or something else that has cause them to be an alcoholic, a drug addict, a smoker, obese, etc., etc. And if it isn't the fault of somebody or something else then they claim that they didn't make a poor choice or poor choices but rather they have a disease. Thus drug addiction, obesity, alcoholism, etc. are not the results of personal life style choices they are diseases and therefore society should bear the responsibility for curing them. I for one certainly DO NOT buy into this line of thinking but many today do.

[Guest countryboywny]

No matter how much one wants to, no matter how much one tries to, it is virtually impossible to legislate social mores.

 

Unfortunately we live in a society today in which many individuals REFUSE to accept responsibility for their own choices and actions. It is always the fault of somebody or something else that has cause them to be an alcoholic, a drug addict, a smoker, obese, etc., etc. And if it isn't the fault of somebody or something else then they claim that they didn't make a poor choice or poor choices but rather they have a disease. Thus drug addiction, obesity, alcoholism, etc. are not the results of personal life style choices they are diseases and therefore society should bear the responsibility for curing them. I for one certainly DO NOT buy into this line of thinking but many today do.

 

+++++++++++++++++++1!

[+ dupontversDC]

I hope all of you who want to start regulating all sorts of behavior you don't approve of don't engage in anything others may want to regulate.

 

I hope all of you who want to impose your narrow views on others don't engage in activities others may want to make illegal.

 

Seems odd that people who engage in a minority sexual practice (gays) and a minority of a minority (prostitutes) want to start throwing around their moral high ground.

 

What exactly is the difference between what you guys want to do to TIM and what right-wing Christian nuts want to do to all gays and especially those dirty gays who hire hookers?

 

Would seem a charge of "hypocrisy" could be thrown back at many of you, because I'm sure on many other issues your view is, "don't impose your bigoted, narrow-minded views on me."

[Epigonos]

DupontversDC I might NOT have said it that harshly or that bluntly BUT I certainly can't argue with the logic of your point of view.

[rvwnsd]

I hope all of you who want to start regulating all sorts of behavior you don't approve of don't engage in anything others may want to regulate.

 

I hope all of you who want to impose your narrow views on others don't engage in activities others may want to make illegal.

 

Seems odd that people who engage in a minority sexual practice (gays) and a minority of a minority (prostitutes) want to start throwing around their moral high ground.

 

What exactly is the difference between what you guys want to do to TIM and what right-wing Christian nuts want to do to all gays and especially those dirty gays who hire hookers?

 

Would seem a charge of "hypocrisy" could be thrown back at many of you, because I'm sure on many other issues your view is, "don't impose your bigoted, narrow-minded views on me."

 

DupontversDC I might NOT have said it that harshly or that bluntly BUT I certainly can't argue with the logic of your point of view.

 

DupontversDC, I do not find your statements harsh at all. I agree with all you said as well as how you said it. Sometimes, you have to slap sense into people. This is one of those times.

[Guest]

I hope all of you who want to start regulating all sorts of behavior you don't approve of don't engage in anything others may want to regulate.

 

I hope all of you who want to impose your narrow views on others don't engage in activities others may want to make illegal.

 

Seems odd that people who engage in a minority sexual practice (gays) and a minority of a minority (prostitutes) want to start throwing around their moral high ground.

 

What exactly is the difference between what you guys want to do to TIM and what right-wing Christian nuts want to do to all gays and especially those dirty gays who hire hookers?

 

Would seem a charge of "hypocrisy" could be thrown back at many of you, because I'm sure on many other issues your view is, "don't impose your bigoted, narrow-minded views on me."

 

I don't think you get it. It's not about "morals"; it's about taking responsibility for one's own behavior. As long as I have sex responsibly, my hiring escorts doesn't impose costs on other people. I'm not asking other people to pay thousands of dollars per month in medical costs, social security costs, dialysis, cancer treatment, disability payments, and so on, just so that I can enjoy escorts. What I believe is that people who choose to engage in risky behaviors should pay taxes in order to defray the costs their behaviors engender. It is not about either religious or self-imposed moral values--it's about personal responsibility. Anything I do which does not incur a cost to society--well, everyone can shut up about it. If someone does things which make it likely for them to become burdens to society, however, society has a right, and probably an obligation to make that person pay for that risk. It's not too complicated a concept.