Barebacking, Porn & Role Models

[TotallyOz]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

So he is actually making money from others unsafe

>behavior. Behavior they might not engage in but for financial

>need. This is indeed unsavory in my opinion.

 

While I respect your opinion Lucky, I have to wonder if the boys and men that we both hire would engage us in sexual activity without having a need for financial gain themselves. Afterall, it is a tranaction that they get money for. True, it may not be bareback, but with every sexual encounter, there are a wide possibilty of other problems and diseases that can dangerous to both parties. I would think that if you belive Aaron's hiring of the boys is exploiting them and unsavory, that you would have to conclude the same for you and I. Is this the case?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

No. Escorts in the US rarely have the financial need of those in Eastern Europe, where monthly incomes often pale in comparison to even Western Europe. However, I have no information on how much Aaron pays his models versus how much he makes from them. That to me would help determine the exploitation question.

My point is that these guys, having a greater financial need, are more likely to do barebacking simply because they need the money. Since producers can readily provide condoms if they want to, the failure to do so in my opinion thus becomes the exploitation of the model's need for money. You would admit,I think, that these guys would not otherwise bareback and risk their health but for the money?

 

Incidentally, once we were in OZ, I surmise that you and I would get along just fine.

[TotallyOz]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Lucky, I am sure we would get along just fine in Oz. Until, we got to the poppy fields. Then, things just might get a little silly.

 

But, I also think the perhaps Aaron would not offer a certain fee to someone for bareback and a certain fee to to others who wanted it safe. I know in this country that producers of videos pay fees that I believe to be crazy for boys to take. Most really good escorts can make that money in a few short hours. But, still we have guys making videos all over the place.

 

Last week, a good friend of mine, 18 years old, good student at NYU decided to do a porn video. Even though I tried to talk him out of it or thinking about it for a few weeks, he went ahead and did it. The reason was not so much the money but he wanted to see himself on video and it made him feel better.

 

Video companies like Cobra who make bareback videos do not pay their boys more than other companies of similar size who refuse to do bareback. How do I know? I know many of the Cobra guys personally and have been told how much they make. I also know many "stars" from other videos and know how much they make. There is no wide discrepancy here. So, if there are so many choice out there, why choose a bareback video over another one? I am sure the guys have many reasons for this.

 

BTW: FYI - The largest manufacturer of bareback in the USA, Hot Desert Knights just created a new company called Hot Desert Knights International. Their videos are all bareback and the new company will be producing videos in the countries you are referring to.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Re the 18 year old...does he escort?

[Doug69]

>Doug are you brain dead? Are you lacking quality air? Can you

>fucking read a sentence and understand what it means?

 

Sentences written by people such as BoN are hardly difficult to understand. I read this sentence by BoN, for example (which you apparently missed) - "Perhaps Aaron and Stephan will do a bareback video together," a statement made in the context of all the little ladies buzzing around attacking Aaron for barebacking and speculating that he must have HIV - and recognized it for exactly what it is: a baselss, despicable accusation that Stephan barebacks.

 

You also must have missed BoN accusing Stephan of - to use his words - "promoting unsafe sex."

 

If you can read what BoN has written and claim - as you have - that "BoN never accused Stephan of anything," then you are either: (a) extremely stupid or (b) so emotionally vested in your desire to demean and attack escorts because of the hostility you feel towards them (probably because they won't have sex with you unless you pay them) that you are willing to defend any attack against them no matter how sleazy, baseless and vile.

 

Based on your postings here, I think explanation (b) is clearly the predominant one, with a healthy dose of (a) mixed in.

 

>I never accused lord Stephan of anything nor did BoN. You

>continue to select words and make your own sentences.

 

I just quoted the sentences verbatim - no need to select anything. The only thing selective is your reading skills, which apparently delete anything that is contrary to your desired result, allowing you to pretend that it doesn't exist.

[BewareofNick]

>If proposing to him that he next made a bareback video

>together with Aaron isn't accusing him of engaging in

>barebacking, then nothing is. I don't blame you for trying to

>conceal the fact that you made this accusation - perhaps you

>are beginning to realize how despicable it is and are trying

>now to pretend you didn't do it. That, in a perverse way,

>would be progress.

 

How can anyone conceal anything that was posted here unless they are a moderator? None of us can edit our posts or remove them. Do you even consider these things before you post more gibberish?

 

>I never claimed to know one way or the other. It's for

>exactly that reason that I have refrained from speculating; I

>have no evidence if he has or hasn't (nor am I interested in

>any such evidence, because it's none of my fucking business,

>just like it's none of yours!), and therefore, unlike you, I

>will not pretend to know.

 

>You, by sick contrast, despite having no evidence as well,

>repeatedly insinuated and suggested, and then outright said,

>that Stephan engaeges in barebacking. The difference between

>us is so fundamental (thank God) that it shouldn't escape even

>you: I don't make statements without having any evidence on

>which to base them. You, quite clearly, have no such qualms.

 

Obviously, you have been taking your cues from the fundamentalist leaders of the Reborglican collective. It doesn't matter how irrational your position is. If you believe it, it MUST be right, and you certainly won't let logic or reality get in your way. I at no point said that Stephan engages in barebacking. What he does in his personal life is his business and not my place to judge. However, what he does in a video is eveyone's business because: guess what? Stephan put it out there for everyone to see. The fact that you cannot make that simple distinction is mind boggling.

[BewareofNick]

Yes, I did accuse Stephan of promoting unsafe sex, just as ncm did Aaron. Both statements are true and are not refutable. What Utopia was responding to was your continued bizarre behavior of seeing things posted that no one ever posted (ie I accused Stephan of barebacking.) Do try to keep up.

[Doug69]

>Yes, I did accuse Stephan of promoting unsafe sex, just as

>ncm did Aaron.

 

Therefore, when Utopia said: "I never accused lord Stephan of anything nor did BoN," he stated the opposite of the truth.

 

<Both statements are true and are not

>refutable.

 

Whether or not producing a video where two consenting adults engage in barebacking constitues "promoting unsafe sex" is, to put it mildly, a highly questionable proposition. That, in my view, is a percfectly legitimate topic for debate.

 

But I'm not going to engage you in that debate, because it only accomplishes to distract from how repulsive and destructive (but, for this place, quite common) are these sorts of baseless, self-rigtheous attacks on other people's sexual practices which have no purpose other than to destroy someone's reputation in order to make you feel better about your own sexual practices.

 

>What Utopia was responding to was your continued

>bizarre behavior of seeing things posted that no one ever

>posted (ie I accused Stephan of barebacking.) Do try to keep

>up.

 

Given that you suggested to Stephan that he and Aaron next go make a bareback video together - and did so in a thread that not only publicized and attacked Aaron's barebacking but also speculated that he has HIV - the very notion that you did not accuse Stephan of barebacking is really too inane to even bother with - just like you.

[TotallyOz]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>No. Escorts in the US rarely have the financial need of those

>in Eastern Europe, where monthly incomes often pale in

>comparison to even Western Europe.

 

One quick note on this: Have you been to NYC lately and seen the prices of apartments? Damm, I would have had to escort if I came here in my early 20's.

[TotallyOz]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Well, actually he just started doing that as well. I met him when he didn't escort per se. But, yes he is now escorting and the porn he did was like a 2 hour call for him but took most of the day.

[BewareofNick]

>Whether or not producing a video where two consenting adults

>engage in barebacking constitues "promoting unsafe sex" is, to

>put it mildly, a highly questionable proposition. That, in my

>view, is a percfectly legitimate topic for debate.

 

Yes, much like the fact that it was shown there never was a link between Iraq and AlQaeda, or that Saddam never had a nuclear program, or any of the other legitimate topics that are posted in the politics forum that you avoid since you cannot debate them.

 

>But I'm not going to engage you in that debate, because it

>only accomplishes to distract from how repulsive and

>destructive (but, for this place, quite common) are these

>sorts of baseless, self-rigtheous attacks on other people's

>sexual practices which have no purpose other than to destroy

>someone's reputation in order to make you feel better about

>your own sexual practices.

 

You like to throw around the word baseless, and yet both here an in the politics forum, it is very obvious to everyone with an IQ higher than Shrub (ie most Americans, excpet conservative Christian Republicans) that there is a basis, you are just unwilling to admit to it.

 

>Given that you suggested to Stephan that he and Aaron next go

>make a bareback video together - and did so in a thread that

>not only publicized and attacked Aaron's barebacking but also

>speculated that he has HIV - the very notion that you did not

>accuse Stephan of barebacking is really too inane to even

>bother with - just like you.

 

Again, point me to the post where I said those words. You cannot. Inanity indeed.

[Doug69]

>Obviously, you have been taking your cues from the

>fundamentalist leaders of the Reborglican collective.

 

Yes, you uncovered this. Over the weekend, Karl Rove called me, angry as hell that you had attack Stephen's character on Hooboy and even angrier that you accused him of barebacking, and he directed me to defend Stephan.

 

After all, Karl vehemently believes, just as Rev. Robertson and Rev. Falwell do, that Stephan has the absolute right to do what he wants with his sexual life, and they are outraged that you would purport to sit in moral judgment of him. They sent me to defend the rights of gay people, and all adults, to engage in sexual behavior that they choose, and not to have their reputations smeared as a result of those choices. You uncovered the plot.

 

It is so fucking ironic that what you and your little moralizing comrades do here with regard to barebacking (or with regard to certain escort practices, or whatever the Moral Outrage de Jour here happens to be) is exactly what the right-wing moralists try to do to gay people: you crawl around looking for "sexually immoral" behavior engaged in by adults, morally stigmatize it, and then try to use it to smear people's reputations.

 

Remarkably, the rhetoric justifying these attacks is also identical to the right-wing's moralizing crusades. Hilariously, it's argued here that these barebacking practices on video are immoral and must be met with outrage and attack because they could <said with whispererd reverence>[/i} "influence the gay youth." Impressionable young gay men might see these videos and then bareback themselves; therefore, they must be stomped out.

 

So true. And impressionable American youths may watch mainstream gay videos, or for that matter, may watch "Queer as Folk", and then think it's ok to engage in homosexuality, so we better stomp those things out, too.

 

Apparently, right-wing moralizing attacks only seem to bother you when you are the target. When you're not, they not only don't bother you; you use them with great viciousness and glee.

[TotallyOz]

Doug,

 

I am appalled by your statements. I am truly insulted. Pat and Jerry told me that I was the only one sent in to infiltrate this group of deviant homosexuals. Now, you are here at their request? I can't believe it. I will have to turn in my resignation.

 

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Re the 18 year old...does he escort?

 

LOL - that's my favorite thing about this site.

 

It's filled with middle-aged and old men sitting around waiting to get their hands on 18 year-old boys in order to pay them to have sex, and to take advantage of their need for money by paying these young men to get naked with them and to pretend to be intimiate with them.

 

And yet. . . many of these same individuals are the ones who froth at the mouth with moral outrage over other people's sexual choices, and even have the unbelievable audacity to justify their outrage on the ground that such practices of other people will corrupt gay youth!

 

Is it possible that there's anyone who really doesn't recognize this most extreme form of hypocrisy and self-delusion? Hello?

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>>Re the 18 year old...does he escort?

>

>LOL - that's my favorite thing about this site.

>

>It's filled with middle-aged and old men sitting around

>waiting to get their hands on 18 year-old boys in order to pay

>them to have sex, and to take advantage of their need for

>money by paying these young men to get naked with them and to

>pretend to be intimiate with them.

 

What about the hungry 18 year old who wants money to get ahead in life, so he uses his youth and beauty to take advantage of the desires of middle aged men to fleece them of their hard earned money? Or what about the possibility that both sides are consenting adults using their mutual desires to satisy the other's need?

 

>Is it possible that there's anyone who really doesn't

>recognize this most extreme form of hypocrisy and

>self-delusion? Hello?

 

We all recognize you Doug. Some of us even know the other name you post under.

[woodlawn]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Is it possible that there's anyone who really doesn't

>recognize this most extreme form of hypocrisy and

>self-delusion? Hello?

 

I think most of us recognize it. And I think we also recognize the extreme hyprocrisy and self-delusion that is occurring when you accuse others of coming to this site to vent their anger and bitterness.

[TotallyOz]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>What about the hungry 18 year old who wants money to get ahead

>in life, so he uses his youth and beauty to take advantage of

>the desires of middle aged men to fleece them of their hard

>earned money? Or what about the possibility that both sides

>are consenting adults using their mutual desires to satisy the

>other's need?

 

Finally, back to the topic at hand. I agree with you BoN. Any two consenting adults should be able to agree to whatever they desire to do. Escort, bareback, fist, dress in diapers or even attend the Republican Convention. Personally, I look horrible in diapers but would prefer that to attending the Republican Convention. But, I would be willing to dress in drag on occasion. And, if I don't say so, "I am Beautiful in every single way". Even though when in drag I get some guys yelling on the streets of NYC saying something totally different. I am sure they are just kidding.

[BewareofNick]

>After all, Karl vehemently believes, just as Rev. Robertson

>and Rev. Falwell do, that Stephan has the absolute right to do

>what he wants with his sexual life, and they are outraged that

>you would purport to sit in moral judgment of him. They sent

>me to defend the rights of gay people, and all adults, to

>engage in sexual behavior that they choose, and not to have

>their reputations smeared as a result of those choices. You

>uncovered the plot.

 

Three words: Log Cabin Republicans

 

>It is so fucking ironic that what you and your little

>moralizing comrades do here with regard to barebacking (or

>with regard to certain escort practices, or whatever the Moral

>Outrage de Jour here happens to be) is exactly what the

>right-wing moralists try to do to gay people: you crawl

>around looking for "sexually immoral" behavior engaged in by

>adults, morally stigmatize it, and then try to use it to smear

>people's reputations.

 

Again, we are discussing public vs private here. Do try to pay attention once ans a while. Once again, thank you for not passing judgement on anyone since you abhor it so much.

 

>Remarkably, the rhetoric justifying these attacks is also

>identical to the right-wing's moralizing crusades.

>Hilariously, it's argued here that these barebacking practices

>on video are immoral and must be met with outrage and attack

>because they could <said with whispererd reverence>[/i}

>"influence the gay youth." Impressionable young gay men might

>see these videos and then bareback themselves; therefore, they

>must be stomped out.

 

>So true. And impressionable American youths may watch

>mainstream gay videos, or for that matter, may watch "Queer as

>Folk", and then think it's ok to engage in homosexuality, so

>we better stomp those things out, too.

 

Being gay isn't a choice. Barebacking is.

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>What about the hungry 18 year old who wants money to get ahead

>in life, so he uses his youth and beauty to take advantage of

>the desires of middle aged men to fleece them of their hard

>earned money? Or what about the possibility that both sides

>are consenting adults using their mutual desires to satisy the

>other's need?

 

Right - you mean just as is the case for bareback videos? Just as you describe escorting, bareback videos involve adults making their own choices about the sexual behavior they want to engage in because they can use their sexual appeal to make money? Or consenting adults in the video "use their mutal desires to satisfy other's needs"?

 

You made my point perfectly (as you so often do, albeit unwittingly). Both escorting and bareback videos involve nothing other than consenting adults engaging in the sexual activities they choose to engage in. There is absolutely no moral distinction between the two.

 

That is why it is so astounding - and hypocrital - and nauseating - to watch prolific practitioners of escort transactions morally condemn those who engage in bareback videos with such viciousness and self-righteous zeal. One would have to engage in all sorts of self-justifying cotortions and delusions in order argue that one is perfectly acceptable but the other is a great moral sin. And yet, that's exactly what you and others are doing.

 

>We all recognize you Doug. Some of us even know the other name

>you post under.

 

Oh, how frightening. What a thorough researcher you are. Were you hoping for some sort of award for thinking that you have uncovered this information? Or are you just trying to deflect attention from the repulsive sexual McCartyism in which you and so many others here routinely traffic?

[TotallyOz]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Doug and BoN,

 

Thank you both for all your comments. I really do appreciate both points of view. I personally agree with one over the other. However, you have now caused me to unsubscribe from my word for the day e-mail. You two have given me many new words to learn and I love watching you use them in sentences. If my language was as colorful and my vocabulary was a good, I think I would rite a book.

[Doug69]

>Three words: Log Cabin Republicans

 

LOL!!!! I know it drives you completely insane with rage that other individuals have the temerity to be both openly and proudly gay and, at the same time, to have political views which are different than yours. After all, gay people aren't actually individuals - rather, we are all part of a superceding group with numerous requirements with which we must comply. One of those is that we must spew liberal dogma or else stand accused of betraying our obligations to our group identity.

 

Unforunately for you, that little effort to tryanically maintain compliance with your political orthodoxies has been exposed for what it is, and its invocation now has no effect other than to make you look like a little gay Nazi trying to force other people to think the way you want.

 

>Again, we are discussing public vs private here. Do try to

>pay attention once ans a while. Once again, thank you for not

>passing judgement on anyone since you abhor it so much.

 

LOL again!!!! You are sounding more and more like Jerry Falwell with every post - it's like you are channeling him or something!!

 

The new Right-Wing approach against gay people is not to focus on "what they do in their own bedrooms." The Right-Wing often pays lip service, with great disgust, to the notion that if homosexuals want to do disgusting acts in their own home, that's their problem (just as you and the others say about barebacking).

 

But the Right-wing's current stategy for punishing and stomping out homosexuality is the same as the one you use for barebacking. You attack it to the extent that you can argue that "youth" will become exposed to it, and therefore corrupted by it. As in:

 

"I don't care what these dirty, depraved homosexuals do in their own bedroom, but when it comes to exposing our youth to it, that's when I have a problem" OR

 

"I don't care what these dirty, depraved barebackers do in their own bedroom, but when it comes to exposing gay youth to it, that's when I have a problem."

 

You are learning from them quite well! Keep up the good work.

 

>Being gay isn't a choice. Barebacking is.

 

Oh, my - what do we have here? Another example of right-wing moralizing dogma. What a shock.

 

"Being gay" may or may not be a choice, but having gay sex is definitely a choice.

 

The reason that it is wrong to stigmatize and punish gay sex isn't because it's not a choice. To say that is to say: "it's wrong to punish gay people for having gay sex because they can't help themselves."

 

The reason it is wrong to stigmatize and punish gay sex is becasue it is nobody's business what adult citizens to do with their sexual lives as long as they do it with other consenting adults - regardless of whether it's a genetic predisposition, a choice, or anything else.

 

It should come as no surprise that what you say about barebacking is exactly what Jerry Falwell says about gay sex: "It's not wrong to expect them to stop, since engaging in that behavior is a choice."

 

Maybe you and your fellow crusdaders against Aaron's Videos can call yourself the "Gay Moral Majority." You have the rest of it all down pat.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Right - you mean just as is the case for bareback videos?

>Just as you describe escorting, bareback videos involve adults

>making their own choices about the sexual behavior they want

>to engage in because they can use their sexual appeal to make

>money? Or consenting adults in the video "use their mutal

>desires to satisfy other's needs"?

 

You remind me of a friend of mine who think she can win an arguement by just simply talking voer people. Doesn't amtter that he's wrong, or that he doesn't pay attention, by virtue of that fact that he's loder, he feels he wins.

 

>You made my point perfectly (as you so often do, albeit

>unwittingly). Both escorting and bareback videos involve

>nothing other than consenting adults engaging in the sexual

>activities they choose to engage in. There is absolutely no

>moral distinction between the two.

 

WRONG!!! Escorting is private between two consulting adults. But videos, BAREBACK OR NOT, involve a public display between two consenting adults. Their consent is not the issue. It is that fact that Aaron Lawrence and Stephan LaCoste are promoting bareback sex by participating in a video promoted as bareback. HIV is passed on through sexual contact primarily, and barebacking increases the risk of contracting it. You or I may not engage in bareback sex as a result of watching a bareback video, but others may. We've got people out there like Aaron, Stephan, Scott Bradley, Matt Sizemore, jackson price and most notably Jeff Palmer out there promoting unsafe sex through example. Instead of treating it as a health issue, they are spinning it into a privacy issue, and in terms of PUBLIC displays, it is irresponsible and unconscionable for them to continue doing so when HIV still runs rampant. For personal, not on display conduct, I agree that it is not any of my business. When done in public, it most certainly is. It is EVERYONE's business. Leaving the moral issue aside for a moment, the increasing cost of health care because of this consensual irrepsonsible behavior should be enough reason for anyone to get out there and say it is irresponisble.

 

>That is why it is so astounding - and hypocrital - and

>nauseating - to watch prolific practitioners of escort

>transactions morally condemn those who engage in bareback

>videos with such viciousness and self-righteous zeal. One

>would have to engage in all sorts of self-justifying

>cotortions and delusions in order argue that one is perfectly

>acceptable but the other is a great moral sin. And yet,

>that's exactly what you and others are doing.

 

No, there's only on contortionist here and you're very good at it.

 

>>We all recognize you Doug. Some of us even know the other

>name

>>you post under.

>

>Oh, how frightening. What a thorough researcher you are.

>Were you hoping for some sort of award for thinking that you

>have uncovered this information? Or are you just trying to

>deflect attention from the repulsive sexual McCartyism in

>which you and so many others here routinely traffic?

 

The only way deflecting and ignoring here is you. And thank you for acknowledging my research prowess. At least sometimes you pay attention.

[BewareofNick]

>>Three words: Log Cabin Republicans

>

>LOL!!!! I know it drives you completely insane with rage that

>other individuals have the temerity to be both openly and

>proudly gay and, at the same time, to have political views

>which are different than yours. After all, gay people aren't

>actually individuals - rather, we are all part of a

>superceding group with numerous requirements with which we

>must comply. One of those is that we must spew liberal dogma

>or else stand accused of betraying our obligations to our

>group identity.

 

Once again, the point sails right past you. In your prior post, you were making fun of the notion that Jerry Falwell or pat Robertson or karl Rove would get involved in this debate. I simply pointed out that the LCR belongs to a group (Repiglicans) of whom the leadership (Falwell, Robertson and Rove) have disdain for the very existence of the LRC. As for Liberal Dogma, is that a sequel to kevin Smith's movie?

 

>"I don't care what these dirty, depraved homosexuals do in

>their own bedroom, but when it comes to exposing our youth to

>it, that's when I have a problem" OR

>

>"I don't care what these dirty, depraved barebackers do in

>their own bedroom, but when it comes to exposing gay youth to

>it, that's when I have a problem."

>

>You are learning from them quite well! Keep up the good work.

 

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to what the rest of your Repiglican brethern are doing. They are no content to let this issue go. They are praying that the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court die so that George W. Christ can appoint their replacements and overturn issues they don't like.

 

>It should come as no surprise that what you say about

>barebacking is exactly what Jerry Falwell says about gay sex:

>"It's not wrong to expect them to stop, since engaging in that

>behavior is a choice."

 

That would presuppose the idea that there was something inherently immoral about gay sex. Since you seem to think there is, I can't help but wonder why you hate yourself so much?

 

>Maybe you and your fellow crusdaders against Aaron's Videos

>can call yourself the "Gay Moral Majority." You have the rest

>of it all down pat.

 

Maybe you could form a group of self loathing gays who feel the need to subjugate themselves to the great BushGod and..oh, wait..that's the LRC. Never mind.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Oh, how frightening. What a thorough researcher you are.

>Were you hoping for some sort of award for thinking that you

>have uncovered this information? Or are you just trying to

>deflect attention from the repulsive sexual McCartyism in

>which you and so many others here routinely traffic?

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug 69 is obviously Ann Coulter. Take a bow, Ann.

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug 69 is obviously Ann Coulter. Take

>a bow, Ann.

 

Funny that you say that, given that it's 100% clear whose side she would be on with regard to the feeding frenzy you started - YOURS.

 

She LOVES to use people's private sexual behavior to publicy attack and smear their ideas. She does it all the time - just like you do.