Barebacking, Porn & Role Models

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>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.

 

We'll try this one more time. This is about their PUBLIC sexual behavior, not private. PAY ATTENTION!!!

[Doug69]

>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.

 

WRONG - They would LOVE to be involved in this debate - and they would be squarely on your side.

 

Just like you and your little Victoria sisters, they LOVE to dig into other people's sexual behavior, condmen it, and then use it to smear their reputations and ideas. I'm sure they would echo your sentiments that what Aaron has done is reprehensible and should be snactioned and stopped, and that smearing Stephan with innuendo is perfectly acceptable given the videos he chose to make. Your in great company.

 

>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?

 

If Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the "leaders" of the Republican Party - a proposition so stupid that it requires no response - then I guess Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand, and all of the socialist-freak-activists in your party are your "leaders" - not to mention the whole cadre of extremely anti-gay Southern Democratic politicians - and that all of their views can fairly be attribtued to you and to every Democrat.

 

>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.

 

The author of the most significant and important judicial opinion for gay people and gay equality in the history of this country is Justice Anthony Kennedy, a lifelong conservative Republican appointed by Ronald Reagan. Half of the majority on the Court invalidating anti-gay sodomy laws were appointed by Republican Presidents. Most Republicans have denounced anti-sodomy laws as stupid, offensive, and an illegitmate incursion into people' privacy, which is why most states have repealed them.

 

In contrast, there are numerous Democrats who have made anti-gay bigotry a centerpiece of their campaigns, and the most odious piece of legislation for gay people ever - the Defense of Marriage Act - was signed by a Democratic President and supported by the vast majority of Democratic Senators.

 

So, if you want to find people who are seeking to impose their own moral views on other people's sexual choices, you really should look in the mirror.

 

>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?

 

What a stupid distortion of my view. Gay sex is inherently morally neutral - regardless of whether it's a choice or a genetic predisposition.

 

Unlike you, I don't believe that securing legal protections for gay sex depends or should depend on being able to prove that it's not a "choice". It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not, the Government has no business stigmatizing people or limiting their rights based upon their sexual activities, as long as they occur with consensual adults. Get it now?

 

>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.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that people like you believe that unless a gay person spouts all of your political views on issues ranging from taxes to foreign policy to gun control, then it must somehow mean that the gay person is "self-hating."

 

It's remarkable how the ones who try most relentlessly to destroy the right of gay people to choose as individuals how they want to live and think - and not be bound by some "gay thought" decreed by gay know-it-alls - are gay people like BoN.

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

It is seriously disturbing to me the lengths you - and others here - are able to go to block out what you are actually doing on this public escorting site - in order to perpetuate your ability to sit in moral judgment of other people's sexual choices.

 

>WRONG!!! Escorting is private between two consulting adults.

>But videos, BAREBACK OR NOT, involve a public display between

>two consenting adults.

 

Don't you fucking realize WHERE YOU ARE????? You are a very active member of a website that is devoted to public discussions and promotion of escorting. This site has no function other than to promote escorts and to facilitate escorting transactions. This site - which is quite public, and even accessible to minors - is filled with all sorts of images, discussions, and advertisements whereby very young men (18, 19, 20, etc.) are selling themselves to middle-aged and old men and are being intimate and naked with them in exchange for being paid money that they want and need.

 

Do you really not see this? Are your powers of self-delusion so great that you are seriously able to block this out?

 

You support, perpetuate, and are a part of a fucking website that [bpublicly promotes[/b] the selling by 18 year-old boys of their sexuality, intimacy and emotions to much older men who they don't actually want to be intimate with, but do so for the money.

 

And yet, on the very site that publicly promotes these transactions, you have the fucking nerve to sit in judgment of those who make bareaback videos on the ground that they are immoral and are publicly promoting immoral things that harm gay youth.

 

Now, I see nothing wrong with this site, just as I see nothing wrong with bareback videos. But to viciously and self-righteously condemn one while being an active, enthusiastic participant in the other bring hypocrisy to a new level.

 

Please tell me that you are not so dense, so self-delusional, so blind to your own conduct, that you really don't see the grand hypocrisy and sickness in what you are doing??????

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>We'll try this one more time. This is about their PUBLIC

>sexual behavior, not private. PAY ATTENTION!!!

 

As I just pointed out (see above), this distinction is illusory, since you are an active, prolific participant on a website that publicly promotes escorting transactions whereby young men sell their sexuality and intimiacy to much older men who pay them money to do so.

 

You are in no position, to put in mildly, to crusade against public displays of sexuality among consenting adults which may corrupt gay youth.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>As I just pointed out (see above), this distinction is

>illusory, since you are an active, prolific participant on a

>website that publicly promotes escorting transactions

>whereby young men sell their sexuality and intimiacy to much

>older men who pay them money to do so.

 

Which is a PRIVATE transaction as it occurs behind closed doors. Once again, for the Republicanally impaired, we are discussing public sexual behavior. Try to at least pretend to pay attention.

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Which is a PRIVATE transaction as it occurs behind closed

>doors. Once again, for the Republicanally impaired, we are

>discussing public sexual behavior. Try to at least pretend to

>pay attention.

 

The issue you and your Victorian cohorts raised is whether Aaron's bareabck videos harm gay youth by publicly promoting bareabacking.

 

The site you love, support and are an integral part of (this one) unquestionably does the same thing with regard to escorting transactions.

 

Where the sexual activity occurs is irrelevant. What matters is whether immoral, youth-destructive acts are being publicly promoted.

 

And, as someone who publicly promotes escorting though your conduct, you can self-righteously condemn the public promotion of barebacking only through a mixture of grotesque hypocrisy and pathological self-delusion.

[MiamiLooker]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>The issue you and your Victorian cohorts raised is whether

>Aaron's bareabck videos harm gay youth by publicly promoting

>bareabacking.

 

Over twenty years of AIDS and some seem to think it's about as serious as an outbreak of acne....

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Over twenty years of AIDS and some seem to think it's about as

>serious as an outbreak of acne....

 

Lots of people say this about gay videos, and homosexuality, generally.

 

Lots of people also say: "Thousands of years of young people's lives being ruined by prostitution, and some think it's as serious as a case of acne."

 

But I know - one shouldn't point this out here, since doing so would be to point out the morally questionable nature of what people here do, and we can't have that, now can we?

 

The only type of moralizing allowed is that directed at others.

[BewareofNick]

>If Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the "leaders" of the

>Republican Party - a proposition so stupid that it requires no

>response - then I guess Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Jane

>Fonda, Barbra Streisand, and all of the

>socialist-freak-activists in your party are your "leaders" -

>not to mention the whole cadre of extremely anti-gay Southern

>Democratic politicians - and that all of their views can

>fairly be attribtued to you and to every Democrat.

 

Which anti-gay Southern Democratic politicians would you be referring to? Can you specify and provide back-up?

 

>The author of the most significant and important judicial

>opinion for gay people and gay equality in the history of this

>country is Justice Anthony Kennedy, a lifelong conservative

>Republican appointed by Ronald Reagan. Half of the majority

>on the Court invalidating anti-gay sodomy laws were appointed

>by Republican Presidents. Most Republicans have denounced

>anti-sodomy laws as stupid, offensive, and an illegitmate

>incursion into people' privacy, which is why most states have

>repealed them.

 

WASHINGTON, April 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Referring to the pending

Supreme Court case on Texas' so-called "Homosexual Conduct" law,

Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum said in an Associated

Press interview, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right

to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right

to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to

incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to

anything." Later in the interview, Santorum said, "It all comes

from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in

my opinion, in the United States Constitution...Whether it's

polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those

things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

 

Alabama Attorney General William Pryor -- who is one of

President Bush's troubling federal appeals court nominees -- in his

state's amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in the Texas case

equated the right of gay Americans to engage in consensual sex

within their own homes to 'activities like prostitution, adultery,

necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even

incest and pedophilia...'

 

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qtr2_2003/0423-109.html

 

There's more compassionately conservative quotes if you need them...

[Doug69]

>There's more compassionately conservative quotes if you need

>them...

 

How about this - from the Guardian, one of the world's most liberal newspapers, dated 12/12/02 (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,838627,00.html):

 

<<Many voters were put off by what was seen as a new low in election campaigning that saw the Republican party complain of "homosexual slurs" against two candidates.

 

Mike Taylor, the Republican Senate candidate in Montana, briefly withdrew after claiming an advertisement portrayed him as gay.

 

The commercial, ostensibly about his mishandling of student loan money, used 20-year-old footage of him massaging the head of a man with a moustache while demonstrating a facial at the beauty school he once owned.

 

Congressman Lindsey Graham, a single man who was favourite to win a Senate seat in South Carolina, suffered a similar fate at the hands of his Democratic opponent, Alex Sanders.

 

Mr Sanders was shown criticising former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who endorsed his rival, saying; "He's an ultra-liberal. His wife kicked him out and he moved in with two gay men and a shih-tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so.">>

 

Then, there's the lovely Pete Stark, well-known Democratic liberal Congressman from California, who last week tried to question a Republican Congressman's manhood during a Committee disgareement by repeatedly callilng him a "fruitcacke" and "cocksucker."

 

And, if you are interested in any of the other scads of anti-gay Democrats, just check the Roll Call vote on the Defense of Marriage Act, where you will see enormous numbers of Democrats voting in favor of institutionalizing what they believe is the intrinsic inferiority of our relationships.

[MiamiLooker]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>>Over twenty years of AIDS and some seem to think it's about

>as

>>serious as an outbreak of acne....

>

>Lots of people say this about gay videos, and homosexuality,

>generally.

>

>Lots of people also say: "Thousands of years of young

>people's lives being ruined by prostitution, and some think

>it's as serious as a case of acne."

>

>But I know - one shouldn't point this out here, since doing so

>would be to point out the morally questionable nature of what

>people here do, and we can't have that, now can we?

>

>The only type of moralizing allowed is that directed at

>others.

>

 

So if I understand you, you're not pointing out that barebacking isn't the primary means of HIV transmission among gay men, and you're not pointing out that videos of barebacking might not be promoting barebacking among gay men. What you are pointing out is that hiring escorts and making/selling videos of barebacking are moral equivalents, and therefore, anyone hiring escorts shouldn't cast stones. Is that correct?

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>So if I understand you, you're not pointing out that

>barebacking isn't the primary means of HIV transmission among

>gay men, and you're not pointing out that videos of

>barebacking might not be promoting barebacking among gay men.

>What you are pointing out is that hiring escorts and

>making/selling videos of barebacking are moral equivalents,

>and therefore, anyone hiring escorts shouldn't cast stones. Is

>that correct?

 

I would put it a little differently. The people who participate on this site (such as yourself) are supporting and facilitating the public promotion of what is euphamistically referred to as "escorting" - a practice which results in great harm to large numbers of young gay people (but not all) who participate in these activities.

 

Thus, these individuals (such as yourself) have no business spewing moral condemnation at those who make or sell bareback videos on the ground that they are promoting activities harmful to gay youth, since the people on this site (such as yourself) are doing exactly the same thing.

 

I would also seriously question whether the production of bareback videos "promotes" barebacking in the sense that lots of people end up taking cum in their ass after seeing the videos who, absent the videos, would refrain from such activities.

 

There are large numbers of studies regarding pornography which actually prove the opposite - namely, that being able to see certain sexually desired activities on video actually provides an outlet for the desire, which thereby reduces the desire to actually engage in such conduct (as opposed to sitting at home watching videos and fantasizing about it).

 

The overwhelming majority of gay men are fully aware of the risks of barebacking. Those who chose to do so have responsibility for their choices. To blame their choices on video producers for depicting such acts is no different than blaming producers of gay-themed films for turning teenagers gay, or blaming producers of films showing drug usage for drug overdoses, or blaming anyone else other than the actor for the choices they make.

 

If you are really as concerned about the health of gay men as you hold yourself out as being, I strongly urge you to cease supporting a site which encourages, promotes and facilitates the sale of (sometimes very) young men to middle-aged and old fat sexual predators who exploit the young men's need for money by paying them to expose themselves, have sex, and immerse themselves in false intimacy.

 

No reasonable person could deny that such activities have caused harm to scores of young people, and that there is a serious risk that such activities would harm anyone engaging in such transactions.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Doug, when are you going to tell us the other handle(s) that you use here? Why are you trying to pretend to be a newcomer to this site?

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

Actually it is on my "to see" list. :9

 

FWIW -- and in the interests of full disclosure here, what I'm about to say is pure speculation based on my perusing the descriptions of vids that include barebacking scenes -- my guess is that Stephan did not bareback in this vid. :*

 

Why do I guess that? Because you can bet your absolute last bottom dollar that if he had barebacked, the vid description would say so. x(

 

That said, while I have the floor so to speak, earlier I framed this debate as one where you either line up on the side of concern and compassion for a generation of impressionable sexually active young gay/bi kids, or you don't. IMHO, the choice really is that clear. :o

 

Thanks for the conversation.

[Doug69]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

>That said, while I have the floor so to speak, earlier I

>framed this debate as one where you either line up on the side

>of concern and compassion for a generation of impressionable

>sexually active young gay/bi kids, or you don't.

 

Take out "gay/bi" from what you said and you have perfectly expressed the identical argument which the Religious Right makes in every one of their campaigns to censor and suppress material which they consider "immoral" - material which is often gay-themed:

 

YOU AND THEM: "We have to protect the children from this corrupt and immoral material, and if you oppose our censorship campaign, it means that you are against protecting the kids."

 

Really fucking unbelievable to see this tactic used again and again on this site.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Hole Models

 

I M Sure that that is not what ncm meant and you are too.

I M Sure as well that as you sit out on your lawn looking at the woods, you are aware that unsafe sex is epidemic among young people of whatever orientation. The point being made here is that we as a community can act responsibly, and promoting this behavior for commercial gain is not responsible.

[Doug69]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Hole Models

 

>I M Sure that that is not what ncm meant and you are too.

>I M Sure as well that as you sit out on your lawn looking at

>the woods, you are aware that unsafe sex is epidemic among

>young people of whatever orientation. The point being made

>here is that we as a community can act responsibly, and

>promoting this behavior for commercial gain is not

>responsible.

 

How can you not say the same exact thing for escorting?

 

Do you really not know that prostitution causes huge damage to many, many young people who are lured into it for the money?? Or do you not care, because you are beneficiary of it?

 

That is what is making me so sick about this discussion - old pigs like you who prey on 18 year-old boys by hoping to lure them into taking their clothes off for you and pretending to feel intimacy and affection for you all for because they need the $150 you are going to give them - SIMULTANEOUSLY holding themselves out as Protectors and Defenders of Gay Youth who self-righteously condemn those who lure them into damaging situations for their own personal gain.

 

If I hadn't seen this for myself, I definitely would not have believed it.

[Doug69]

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.

 

I think some of the participants here recognize it. But I think many of them are so eager to avoid seeing what they really do - to pretend that they are not buying the intimicay and sex of young men - and are so eager to preserve their right to be the High Vicious Priest of Gay Morality - that they block it out and rely upon any number of self-delusional tricks to conceal what they are doing here. Just check out this thread if you have doubts about that.

 

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.

 

I will readily confess that I have been shocked and amazed at what I have seen on my little visit here - far beyond what I anticipated. And while the disgust that I feel for it is no match whatever for the levels of rage and bitterness you so often spew, I must concede that there has been some venting component to my contributions here. If there hadn't been, I think my head would have exploded!!

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

First, if you had any clue as to my political leanings, you wouldn't mistake me for anyone to the right of, say, Paul Wellstone, for example. But, really, who cares?

 

Doug, if you don't like the way I framed the divide on this issue, let me try this: either you're concerned about an explosion of HIV + status among the younger generation, or you frankly don't give a shit.

 

It appears that you fall into the latter category, which is a right that I would never to presume to take away from you. I will always respect your right to hold and to express your views, and I mean that sincerely.

 

I also reserve the right to think that you're a twisted thinking scumbag, and I mean that equally sincerely. :o

[Doug69]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

>First, if you had any clue as to my political leanings, you

>wouldn't mistake me for anyone to the right of, say, Paul

>Wellstone, for example. But, really, who cares?

 

That makes your self-rigtehous moralizing about other people's sexual behavior - justified with smarmy, disingenuous references to the "welfare of the children" - all the more hypocritical and disgusting.

 

One wonders, though, why your concern with gay youth gets checked at the door when you enter this prostitution site. Acutally, one doesn't wonder; one knows: it's because gettting your rocks off is infinitely more important than the lofty principles you pretend to care about in order to make yourself feel better and look moral to others.

 

Actions speak louder than sermons.

 

Now that you've spewed your pro-gay-youth moralizing for the day, don't you have some 19 year-old "escort" you need to go find to pay in order to get naked for you, the Great Crusader for Gay Youth that you are?

[TotallyOz]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

Doug, were you talking to me? How did you know I had a 19 year old coming over? Are my phones tapped? Is this another Watergate? Did Hoo put you up to this?

 

Anyway, I will have my 19 year old report for you guys tomorrow.

 

Just trying to lighten things up a bit. Hugs and kisses to everyone. Especially the 19 year old on the way here. His will be wet and sloppy.

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

Like I said, Doug, you've chosen your side here. I've chosen mine.

 

Now, I have a life and I'm outta here. You should, of course, feel free to engage in your particular kind of mental masturbation here for as long as you wish. :+

[VaHawk]

Wow, talk about a thread that has spun in many directions! I agree with points from many of the posters, including some from Doug69.

 

This is a point that has been debated many times in other arenas especially the area of violence in entertainment from tv to movies to video games and how that violence influences and affects youth.

 

Is there some influence, most definitely, imo, but at what point does suppressing such portrayals, whether that portrayal is drug usage, violence or bareback sex become suppression of the first amendment and censorship? Since portrayals of these are not illegal I see the argument as one of morality but everyone's morality is not the same and the depiction of these should be allowed.

 

To imply that everyone who watches a barebacking movie is going to go out and engage in such activities is equivalent to saying everyone watching the plethora of violence in the entertainment field is going to go out and gun down a bunch of people in a restaurant. Everyone grows up watching this, but how many people go out and commit such violence? Those who do so make the choice to do so as an individual and are responsible for their own actions, just as anyone who goes out and engages in barebacking sex.

 

To blame movies for the actions of an individual is equivalent to shooting the messenger, imo.

[Guest ncm2169]

< To blame movies for the actions of an individual is equivalent to shooting the messenger, imo. >

 

VA, refer to Deej's post about teens who watch MTV and who do DUMB things. x(

 

Somehow, it seems to have been forgotten by many who've posted in this thread that I am talking about IMPRESSIONABLE youngsters here, not mature or even adults yet.

 

Maybe some (many?) here don't or can't relate to that syndrome, but I assure you it's real.

 

If Madison Avenue can create nearly a generation of sugar-holics advertising cereal, is it really that incomprehensible that porn studios can influence sexual behavior among kids that age? x(

 

Why, WHY, pray tell, is that just so incomprehensible?

[VaHawk]

I was not implying that they had no influence on "impressionable" youth, as I stated that it did imo. However, most guys watching such porn are going to be of legal age to rent/buy/view such films, they are not going to be viewing them while kids growing up, like they do on films about violence or drug usage.

 

I also don't believe that comparing these films to a bombardment of ads by Madison Avenue to underage kids is really a legitimate analogy due to the nature of the product and the availability of the product to underage kids. Don't you think there is a lot more bombardment of safe sex ads from Madison Avenue aimed at kids while there are none about barebacking films?

 

I really don't see how a film depicting an activity that is engaged in by others is an advocation to engage in such activity. Plenty of guys who have never seen barebacking films still engage in barebacking sex, don't they and likewise plenty of guys who watch barebacking films don't engage in barebacking sex. To pretend that such activity does not exist and thus should not be shown in a film is to deny reality itself, and is analgous to the old image of the ostrich with his head in the sand.

 

Engaging in barebacking sex, whether with consenting adult porn actors in a film or in private among individuals is the decision of the individuals and I doubt that many decide do so based on what is portrayed in a film.