Barebacking, Porn & Role Models

[taylorky]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

>I also reserve the right to think that you're a twisted

>thinking scumbag, and I mean that equally sincerely. :o

 

 

 

LOL good one ncm. but i think pity is called for here.....this guy is NUTZOID......>>>>>>in soft whispering tones*****the previous is not and should not be construed as an offical medical diagnosis*****

 

i just think he's nuts

 

 

 

}(

[Doug69]

The PIMP crusades for gay youth

 

>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.

 

When you talk about "IMPRESSIONABLE youngsters here" and your concern about their welfare, are you talking about people like Jason Mpl, a 20-year old kid who you seem to have a pretty intense interest in promoting as an "escort"? (See the discussion of Jason in the Deli thread, where ncm repeatedly promotes Jason's 20 year-old attributes to potential clients).

 

Apparently, Jason is someone you are close to - you have, on more than one occasion, acknowledged that you accidentally posted under his name because he left himself signed in on your computer. And you are very energetic and seem quite vested in successfully promoting this young man as an "escort" - meaning that you are doing a great deal to enable him to make lots of money by selling his body, mind, emotions and intimacy to man after man who is decades older than he is.

 

Surely, no objective person could fail to see the truly throbbing incoherence of your so self-righteously pretending to be agahast by people who make money at the expense of "gay youth," while you simultaneously promote a boy barely an adult to be a prostitute.

 

Nor could an objective person help but wonder whether your "moral outrage" at some of those who make money off of the sexual arousal generated by young gay men is nothing more than an effort by you to make yourself feel better by providing such material assistance to a very young man seeking to make his way in the world as a hooker.

 

The plot thickens . . . the moralizing imbecile who began this whole feeding frenzy based upon his claimed concern for "gay youth" turns out (as I just read for the first time) to be simultaneously generating a running commercial here for a 20 year-old boy looking for 60 year-old men to pay him to get naked.

 

Please, someone . . . tell me this is all a dream that I am going to wake up from shortly.

[VaHawk]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

Really, what is the point of negating a perfectly valid opinion by degenerating to the name calling stage? Doug69 goes way off base trying to validate his opinion about barebacking films by comparing it to escorting and accusing all clients of being fat old trolls corrupting teenage prostitutes and others go way off base by implying that all youths are mindless robots that reenact every thing they see in a film as if it must be okay as "I saw it on tv!". Why is one a nutzoid and the other not?

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Doug, why are you even here? If this site disgusts you so much then leave.

 

>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.

 

As a participant on this site, I would assuem that you include yourself in the above description. Can you please cite and document the great harm? A particular escort or circumstance would be helpful. I think we'd all like to know upon what evidence your claim is based (and don't say because I know Saddam has WMD)

 

>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.

 

How about the rising cost of health care which you have yet to address? How is escorting harmful to gay youth? Where's your evidence?

 

>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).

 

Apparently, you have not perused Jeff palmer's site where he states rather categorically that HIV does not exist.

 

>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.

 

The statement in bold above is one we both agree on. However, to suggest that everyone exists in a vacuum where there are no outside influences is ludicrous at best. Witness MTV's JACKASS. It is a funny and stupid show, and it even states that Viewers Should Not Try This at Home, yet impressionable youth have done exactly that, sometimes to the point of personal harm to them and others. Ultiamtely, they are responsible for what they do, but as kids, they may not be mature enough to make the right choice.

 

>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.

 

The above paragraph is filled with so much self loathing that my heart (yes, still bleeding) ALMOST goes out to you. In one sentence, Doug manages to imply pedophilia and exploitation, while at the same time loathing his own fat, middle aged and bald body. Once again, he cannot see the flip side to the coin: the level headed youth who takes advantage of the middle aged man and uses his charm and beauty to seaparte the vulnerable, needy, lonely older man from his money on the pretense of love and interest. Or that it could be two consenting adults on a level playing field satisfying mutual need.

 

>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.

 

In a few cases, yes, but not the majority. Please cite chapter and verse where you can prove this assertion.

[taylorky]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

hey hawk how y'all doing?

 

oh that comment has nothing to do with barebacking......i just think he's nuts.

 

and i agree with you in that i don't think many people look at escorts or people having sex for money in front of cameras as "role models" to be emulated.

 

no offense intended to anyone earning a living in that manner;but my role models and those of people we know are a bit more conventional in there chosen fields.

 

porno is for entertainment,guys get togeather and laugh and joke about the silly shit they do on screen.

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Doug, why are you even here? If this site disgusts you so

>much then leave.

 

Things can be disgusting but still worth looking at, picking at, discussing, analyzing - like a dead frog in a lab, or a bleeding tumor, or a car crash. But don't worry - unlike you, a lifer, my stay here is temporary. I will leave when my work is done - to quote a favorite President of mine, "at a time and place of my choosing." And then you can go back to spewing iiberal rhymes and fingering the Sexually Immoral among us who must be exposed.

 

>As a participant on this site, I would assuem that you include

>yourself in the above description.

 

I already made clear that I see nothing wrong with this site, or with those who engage in prostitution from either side.

 

But the point is that there is no basis on which to criticize those who make bareback videos without having the criticism apply equally to those who promote prostitution. I am consistent - I think neither is wrong. You think that one is ok (the one you engage in - SUPRRISE!), but that one is horrible (the one you choose not to engage in). That is what makes you a self-centered, grotesque hypocrite.

 

Can you please cite and

>document the great harm? A particular escort or circumstance

>would be helpful. I think we'd all like to know upon what

>evidence your claim is based (and don't say because I know

>Saddam has WMD)

 

You acknowledged below that prostitution can harm young people who engage in it. There are plenty of studies published which prove this.

 

You are sitting here mouthing off about how selling bareback videos causes more people to engage in barebacking without having cited a single piece of evidence to support this. You have also implied Stephan is a barebacker even though you no basis for this, and the video you reference strongly suggests he did no such thing. You are in no position to demand citations.

 

>How about the rising cost of health care which you have yet to

>address?

 

I do not believe in infringing other people's choices or trying to tell them how to live based on this "health insurance" red herring. If you really believed this, you would favor a law requiring people to exercise every day and to avoid junk food. Do you favor such a law on the ground that a sedentary lifestyle and lots of junk food cause heart disease and strokes, which dramatically increase health costs? If not, why do you think that "health insurance" costs justifies your telling other adults how to have sex?

 

>The statement in bold above is one we both agree on. However,

>to suggest that everyone exists in a vacuum where there are no

>outside influences is ludicrous at best. Witness MTV's

>JACKASS. It is a funny and stupid show, and it even states

>that Viewers Should Not Try This at Home, yet impressionable

>youth have done exactly that, sometimes to the point of

>personal harm to them and others. Ultiamtely, they are

>responsible for what they do, but as kids, they may not be

>mature enough to make the right choice.

 

So fucking what - you want to turn every piece of porn into a Public Service Annoucnemnt. Why should porn producers show any sex between anyone other than monogomous couples? How can they be so immoral as to encourage gay youths to be promiscuous?

 

Your attempt to purge porn of anything that is not Politically Correct and to depict a false reality is not suprirsing, giving that your political views are devoted to these goals as well.

 

>The above paragraph is filled with so much self loathing that

>my heart (yes, still bleeding) ALMOST goes out to you. In one

>sentence, Doug manages to imply pedophilia and exploitation,

>while at the same time loathing his own fat, middle aged and

>bald body.

 

Actually, I'm neither fat, bald or middle aged. But if you ask any escort, they will tell you that the vast majority of their clientele is. Just look at the content on this site - anytime any escort between 18-21 years old appears, men 3 times their age (at least) come running, waving dollar bills around to try to lure these youngsters into taking their clothes off.

 

>Once again, he cannot see the flip side to the

>coin: the level headed youth who takes advantage of the

>middle aged man and uses his charm and beauty to seaparte the

>vulnerable, needy, lonely older man from his money on the

>pretense of love and interest. Or that it could be two

>consenting adults on a level playing field satisfying mutual

>need.

 

I have already made clear that there are many escorts who go into escorting and prosper with no harm being done to them at all. Similarly, there are lots of guys who bareback but suffer no consequences from it.

 

But anyone who would recommend to an 18 year-old or 20 year-old boy that he become a prostitute in order to make money (such as NCM, the initiator of this thread, does with Jason MPL) is seriously fucked in the head. Certain escorts undoubtedly come out of this Deal with the Devil unscathed, but just listen to former escorts - or read studies on the effects of prostitution on prostitutes - and you will have no choice but to agree that prostitution is hamrful to many young people (even if it's not "most") who escort.

 

That is why it is so laughable to watch someone who promotes such damaging activities hold themselves out as a Crusader for Gay Youth. It's like fondling a rifle while you march for gun control.

[Doug69]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

>no offense intended to anyone earning a living in that

>manner;but my role models and those of people we know are a

>bit more conventional in there chosen fields.

 

You, taylor, are literally one of the most illiterate and mentally retarded individuals I have ever encountered on the Internet.

 

The function you perform here is like a cheerleader with cerebral palsy - you stand on the sidelines drooling and lost - and, every now and then, you waive your pom-poms and sputter out something totally incoherent and dumb in support of the team you are rooting for.

 

Even the people whom you cheer on respond to you as condescendingly and simplistically as if they were talking to a 3 year-old, because they know it's the only chance that you will comprehend what is being said to you.

 

If you didn't react to what I wrote here by thinking I was "nutzoid," I would seriously be concerned.

[VaHawk]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

>You, taylor, are literally one of the most illiterate and

>mentally retarded individuals I have ever encountered on the

>Internet.

 

How could a 20 yo guy in college be branded as illiterate and mentally retarded?

>

>The function you perform here is like a cheerleader with

>cerebral palsy - you stand on the sidelines drooling and lost

>- and, every now and then, you waive your pom-poms and sputter

>out something totally incoherent and dumb in support of the

>team you are rooting for.

 

Now you are insulting the physically inflicted? Is there no one you won't spew your invective upon? If he does sputter out something incoherent every now and then, and not that he does, that is better than your totally incoherent and dumb posts 100% of the time!

>

>Even the people whom you cheer on respond to you as

>condescendingly and simplistically as if they were talking to

>a 3 year-old, because they know it's the only chance that you

>will comprehend what is being said to you.

 

You have the audacity to talk about comprehension as often as you've bee chided as not understanding the posts of others?

>

>If you didn't react to what I wrote here by thinking I was

>"nutzoid," I would seriously be concerned.

 

Well you definitely come across as a nutzoid in many of your posts, so give the guy a break. Just like your postings under your many other handles here, they start out sane and reasonable, until your self-hatred kicks in and then you get more and more bizarre and nasty. We all know your signature dude and your predictable spiral downward.

 

Want to take a poll of who is more liked and appreciated and well thought of here, you or taylor? Want to bet on the results? Isn't it about time you crawled back under your rock until new medication gets you perky and sane again? Then you can enter under yet another id and repeat your pathetic, sick cycle.

>

[Doug69]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

>How could a 20 yo guy in college be branded as illiterate and

>mentally retarded?

 

It's amazing that you blindly believe the representations that someone makes about themselves on the Internet. But to make the comment you just made - implying that becuase he's in "college," he can't be illiterate - you must be quite unfamiliar with the state of our educational system.

 

There are numerous so-called "colleges" which are extended nursery schools for the illiterate. Countless people graduate high school and receive high school diplomas and can't read.

 

Taylor's posts here routinely consist of nothing other than illiterate phrases incoherently strung together with psychotic ellipses, which - in the rare instances when they can be understood at all - express the most cliched giggles that one finds on a elementary school playground ("LOL!! good one . . . . . . this freak wants to be shit on . . . LOL . . . . right on . . .taylor").

 

If he really is 20, then my diagnosis of him as mentally retarded is unquestionably correct.

 

>Now you are insulting the physically inflicted?

 

Actually, you are quite right - comparing taylor to those with cerebral palsy is an insult to those who have that disease, and for that, I apologize to them. Those with CP shouldn't have been grouped in with someone as defective and mentally stfiled as taylor is.

 

>If he does sputter

>out something incoherent every now and then, and not that he

>does, that is better than your totally incoherent and dumb

>posts 100% of the time!

 

Funny - I can find posts where you were saying you agreed with my views. Now, in your girlish hysteria to say you don't like me, you say my posts are incoherent and dumb "100% of the time." What does that say about you, then, who agrees with many of them?

 

>You have the audacity to talk about comprehension as often as

>you've bee chided as not understanding the posts of others?

 

When one is in a forum expressing views that most others disagree with, and is doing so in a manner that makes clear that there is a total indifference to where one stands in the "popularity contest" that is quite pathetically of such imporatnce to you (see below, where you analyze this popularity contest), the fact that others express criticism of those ideas and the style in which they are advanced is hardly surpising - nor are those criticisms particularly informative or relevant.

 

>Well you definitely come across as a nutzoid in many of your

>posts, so give the guy a break.

 

As I said, if people like you and "taylor" didn't think this, I would be very, very concerned. After all, you are someone who vigorously defended Small Town John's policy of excluding a certain race of people from his clientele (i.e., you defended an exclusionary policy that did NOT exclude you), but - insanely and hypocritcally - you viciously attacked Mr. Mountain for excluding old and fat people from his clientele (i.e., a policy that DID exclude you).

 

So, given that you are a person who engages in the supremely mentally ill act of vigorously defending STJ's exclusionary policies while vigorously attacking Mr. Mountain's - even though they are exactly the same policy substantively, with the only difference being that one affects you and one doesn't - your standards of "sanity" are not exactly compelling for me.

 

>Want to take a poll of who is more liked and appreciated and

>well thought of here, you or taylor? Want to bet on the

>results?

 

People always feel a sense of sympathy and affection for the drooling dumb kid in the corner. He makes everyone feel a little better: "no matter how much I might struggle, at least I'm not as dumb as taylor". I have no doubt that taylor plays a role here that many people appreciate - he's the cheerleading dunce who makes everyone feel a little smarter when he chimes in with his illiterate spittle.

 

>Isn't it about time you crawled back under your

>rock until new medication gets you perky and sane again?

 

Cliche Number 43 in the "Best 101 Internet Insults": "isn't is time for you to get back on your medication?" Aren't you ever going to put that book away?

[Guest ncm2169]

Well, first, since Doug had nothing to say as usual, I have nothing to say in response. :*

 

VA, you said:

 

< 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. >

 

Wrong. In my admitted search for new young local talent, I've had occasion to have many many conversations with guys 18-23. It's as simple as this: the 18 or 19 y/o rents the vid/buys streaming vid time with the credit card Daddy gave him, and do you think all his buddies are over 18?? Anyone who thinks this shit isn't available to underage kids all over the net is deluding him/herself.

 

Don't believe me? Go to any of the pay-per-view streaming vid porn sites. They don't require an Adult Check, just "check here to certify that you've read and understand the terms...", enter your credit card info, and, PRESTO! Instant access to all the bareback porn you want -- Cobra Video, Aaron Lawrence Productions, ad nauseum.

 

So, yeah, underage kids DO view this stuff, and even if they don't, it's rather likely that an 18 y/o might just have a 17 y/o or 16 y/o for a BF, right?? Do you suppose that the "of age" kid might just talk to the underage kid about "certain things?" x(

[Doug69]

>Wrong. In my admitted search for new young local talent, I've

>had occasion to have many many conversations with guys 18-23.

 

I bet you have - you are someone who, by your own admission, recruits barely legal kids to whore themselves out for your profit and . . .

 

at the same time, you hold yourself as this profoundly concerned, highly moralistic protector of gay youth, who opposes the "promotion" of sexual activities which may damage them.

 

You lure kids into prostitution, profit off their destruction, and then run around a message board proclaiming yourself to be the Moral Guardian of Young Gay Men.

 

After you're done pimping out the 18 year-olds you find and they bring you the cash they got from the liasons you arrange where they get naked for old men, do you then call your friends and lecture them about how concerned you are for the well-being of young gay people?

 

When you are writing your protest letters to Aaron Lawerence and the other purveyors of the porn which you find so immoral and damaging to our gay youth, make sure to tell them that you got the money to pay for the computer you are using to send these missives by taking your cut of the monies you generate by whoring out young boys whom you recruit and lure into a life of prostitution.

 

That will put your "protests" into their proper perspective.

[Guest ncm2169]

Hmmm. I seem to hear a faint voice -- almost like from outer space, but I just can't make out what it's saying. Is anyone else having the same problem? :+

[Flower]

RE: Good Advice

 

I think the real point, is not that he BB's, but that he is joining the few rogue operators that are SO exploitive, that they put a $ before saving lives--akin to the Cigarette industry, but HIV doesn't take as long to become infected

 

I met Aaron about 5 years ago--he used to preach about safe sex in his "advice" column and in person and was a real advocate of it while he was escorting--maybe cause he had Jeff-- IMO, when Jeff left him, I think he went off the deep end maybe even developed a death wish--or maybe not ........maybe he's just exploitive and greedy:+

[Flower]

RE: Good Advice

 

>>He was always pretty careful about

>>unsafe sex while

>>escorting. Obviously, something has happened to change that.

>

>Isn't the thing that usually happens is to be diagnosed

>HIV+?????

Hmmm--I was going to suggest that in my post above but decided not too--however, I have been truly amazed at the number of people that I know that did exactly that kind of about face after getting the poz Dx--although maybe the "about face' occurred earlier than I was aware and that is why they got the poz Dx

[Flower]

> But truly a nicer

>person you will not meet. He may be on the cover but doesnt

>mean that he does it. HUGS Chuck

Chuck, he has always struck me as a decent guy also, and I've read your many other comments on here about him in the past and know you are more than a little taken with Steff, but it is obvious from his posts here, that he hasn't a clue -- nor does Doug69--both totally oblivious as to what the real issues are here, let alone, the responsibility that goes with celebrity and status. :-(

 

Although not in response to your post, Chuck, but to save time I'll post it here in response to Steff''s and Doug69's comments above---Where is it written that because one is an escort or enjoys the company of escorts, he can't comment or form and express opinions regarding the morals, ethics or others' good or bad conduct? Steff's and Doug69's conclusions to the contrary are again, clueless.x(

[Doug69]

Does Flower have AIDS?

 

>>Isn't the thing that usually happens is to be diagnosed

>>HIV+?????

> Hmmm--I was going to suggest that in my

>post above but decided not too--however, I have been truly

>amazed at the number of people that I know that did exactly

>that kind of about face after getting the poz Dx--although

>maybe the "about face' occurred earlier than I was aware and

>that is why they got the poz Dx

 

Oh, look what we have here - another lip-smacking church lady gossip repugnantly willing to speculate publicly about Aaron's HIV status, all but publicly accusing him of having HIV. There are seriously no limits to the sickness that goes on here.

 

Funny - I always suspected that this Flower person had AIDS, along with a whole host of other sexually transmitted diseases, including anal warts. He has often displayed an unusually in-depth knowledge about pharmaceutical products and medical issues relating to AIDS, and I think it's quite likley that he developed that understanding based upon his own experiences as an AIDS patient.

 

Now, I am convinced. That he would come forward and try to publicly "out" someone as having HIV, even though the person in question has never said any such thing, and even though Flower has no basis whatsoever for this grotesque speculation, definitely means that Flower must have AIDS. It seems clear that he desires to finger others as having this disease so he doesn't feel so lonely going through his cocktail regimen.

 

Wow - this game is fun - who's next? Whose HIV status are we going to speculate about next?

[Doug69]

Does Flower have AIDS?

 

>>Isn't the thing that usually happens is to be diagnosed

>>HIV+?????

> Hmmm--I was going to suggest that in my

>post above but decided not too--however, I have been truly

>amazed at the number of people that I know that did exactly

>that kind of about face after getting the poz Dx--although

>maybe the "about face' occurred earlier than I was aware and

>that is why they got the poz Dx

 

Oh, look what we have here - another lip-smacking church lady gossip repugnantly willing to speculate publicly about Aaron's HIV status, all but publicly accusing him of having HIV. There are seriously no limits to the sickness that goes on here.

 

Funny - I always suspected that this Flower person had AIDS, along with a whole host of other sexually transmitted diseases, including anal warts. He has often displayed an unusually in-depth knowledge about pharmaceutical products and medical issues relating to AIDS, and I think it's quite likley that he developed that understanding based upon his own experiences as an AIDS patient.

 

Now, I am convinced. That he would come forward and try to publicly "out" someone as having HIV, even though the person in question has never said any such thing, and even though Flower has no basis whatsoever for this grotesque speculation, definitely means that Flower must have AIDS. It seems clear that he desires to finger others as having this disease so he doesn't feel so lonely going through his cocktail regimen.

 

Wow - this game is fun - who's next? Whose HIV status are we going to speculate about next?

[woodlawn]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>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.

 

I have checked out this thread and I have not seen anyone deny that he is paying younger men to have sex with him. If you can point to any post that contains such a denial, go ahead.

 

If the denial you are referring to is a denial by clients that what they are doing is harmful to the escorts they hire, it seems to me that you are participating in that denial as well. In one of your posts addressed to BON, you state that you have no problem with this site or with prostitution. Elsewhere you call prostitution "this Deal with the Devil" and insist that "scores" of young men have been harmed by their involvement in it. You seem very, very confused.

 

 

>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.

 

I find that very difficult to believe since I, like Lucky and several other posters, have noticed that this is very far from being your first "visit" to this site.

 

>And while the disgust that I feel for it

 

Since you have gotten into some rather vicious name-calling bouts in almost every thread on every subject in which you have participated, whether the subject is bareback videos, Howard Dean, Iraq or "Queer Eye," it's easy to see that you have lots and lots of disgust for anyone who disagrees with you on anything. If any opinions contrary to yours make you apoplectic, why not just talk to yourself?

 

I happen to agree with you that there is a certain hypocrisy at work when people who support prostitution rail against those who produce bareback videos. Prostitution does encourage the spread of STD's, so when those who support it campaign against bareback videos it's a bit like tobacco companies funding a campaign against teenage smoking. The best thing the companies can do to combat teenage smoking is to stop producing tobacco products, and the best thing supporters of prostitution can do to combat the spread of STD's is to cease their support.

 

Of course it's nonsense to suggest that producing bareback videos doesn't encourage barebacking. It's a fact that dramatizing an activity in a way that makes it seem fun and exciting causes people to have a more positive opinion of that activity. That fact is the basis for most television advertising, and it's the reason Congress banned tv advertising of cigarettes. People who create videos that make barebacking seem like a fun thing to do are in effect creating a countervailing influence to all of the public service messages warning about the dangers of unprotected sex. They know what they are doing and they should take responsibility for it.

 

And yes, the community does have an interest in private behavior that spreads serious illnesses, especially when many of the people affected by such illnesses require expensive treatment that they can't afford and that the community must provide. That concept is the basis for the tobacco litigation and settlements under which the tobacco industry is committed to pay state governments scores of billions of dollars. I don't know whether the tobacco companies were silly enough to try your argument that if the state is going to intervene in any private behavior that poses a public health problem it will have to require everyone to diet and exercise. If they did try it, it obviously didn't work. If you aren't aware that the rising cost of Medicaid is one of the primary reasons behind the budget deficits currently plaguing many states, it can only be because you have been living in a cave.

 

It's no answer to say that people who watch barebacking videos are aware of the dangers of that activity. When the film "The Program" was released a number of teenagers tried to duplicate the scene in which several of the characters lie down on the white line of a highway at night for a thrill. Could the kids have been unaware that one can be hurt by being struck by a car going 60 mph? I doubt it. The film made this activity seem cool and exciting, so they tried it anyway. Advertising does influence behavior. That's why so many corporations spend such a huge amount of money on it.

 

So bareback videos certainly do encourage behavior that poses a major public health problem. But people who support prostitution are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>I have checked out this thread and I have not seen anyone deny

>that he is paying younger men to have sex with him. If you

>can point to any post that contains such a denial, go ahead.

 

That wasn't the denial I was talking about. What I was talking abouit is that many people here deny the gross hypocrisy of people who promote prostitution of young men (barely adults) simultaneously holding themselves out as protectors of gay youth by crusading against videos which they claim corrupts the youth.

 

Denial of that is rampant in this thread.

 

>If the denial you are referring to is a denial by clients that

>what they are doing is harmful to the escorts they hire, it

>seems to me that you are participating in that denial as well.

> In one of your posts addressed to BON, you state that you

>have no problem with this site or with prostitution.

>Elsewhere you call prostitution "this Deal with the Devil" and

>insist that "scores" of young men have been harmed by their

>involvement in it. You seem very, very confused.

 

No, you're the one who is confused. Believing that an activity can be dangerous is not the same as crusading to stop it or thinking that it is morally wrong.

 

There are lots of activities which I think have the potential to harm those who engage in them - eating junk food, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, going hang gliding, etc. That does not mean I think there is anything "wrong" with these activities or that I want to stop others who choose to engage in them, nor does it mean that those who promote such activities are doing anything wrong.

 

Although I recognize that such activities may very well harm the adults who choose to engage in them, I do not see anything wrong with another adult making the choice that the pleasure or value they derive from the activity is worth the risk, nor do I favor efforts to prevent these adults from making this choice. Being an adult means nothing if it doesn't mean being able to freely make those choices.

 

I may not make the same choice for my life, but I believe I should and do have the absolute right to do so, just as I believe that other adults should.

 

So, too, with escorting. I believe that it greatly harms many of the young men who engage in it, but I also believe that, as long as they are adults, that is their choice to make, and if adults choose to come to a website where they talk about and promote and faciliate escorting transactions, so be it - the same thing I feel about bareback videos.

 

None of that is inconsistent with the view that I think escorting can be, and often is, harmful. Unlike most of the posters on this site - and unlike you - I do not consider myself to be the parent of other adults whose responsibility it is to keep them from harming themselves, nor - unlike you - do I consider myself to be some busybody buzzing around supervising what choices they make with the goal to stop them from engaging in behavior that I think is harmful.

 

Thus, I think escorting can harm young people who engage in it, but I do not think there's anything "wrong" with those who want to do it. I hope this clarifies the confusion which was burdening you.

 

>I find that very difficult to believe since I, like Lucky and

>several other posters, have noticed that this is very far from

>being your first "visit" to this site.

 

Even if true, so what? One can visit a place nunmerous times but still be surprised by what one finds there if what one finds was not there on the first visits. I've been to Brazil many times, but the last time I was there I was surprised by what I found with respect to the anger of the middle-class citizens whom I know.

 

Thus, even I have visited this site before, it hardly precludes me from being surprised by what I see here this time. Did you really need me to point that out to you?

 

>Since you have gotten into some rather vicious name-calling

>bouts in almost every thread on every subject in which you

>have participated, whether the subject is bareback videos,

>Howard Dean, Iraq or "Queer Eye," it's easy to see that you

>have lots and lots of disgust for anyone who disagrees with

>you on anything.

 

First of all, the fact that it is you, of all people, claiming that I have contentious discussions is rather rich in irony. I have never seen a person in any Internet forum so regularly and continuously accused of being excessively contentious as the comments and compliants about you that are routinely made by other participants in this forum.

 

Second, the idea that I engage in "rather vicious name-calling bouts" with anyone who disagrees with me is demonstrably false. I have had numerous disagreements here with lots and lots of posters without resort to a single name being called. I am quite confident that if you review those threads [as apparently and flatteringly you have done quite studiously), you will find that most of the name-calling has been directed at me, rather than by me. But I don't pretend to be innocent. I don't think there's anything wrong with using derogatory terms to describe someone else's contributions - nor, based upon your sordid posting history here, do you.

 

>I happen to agree with you that there is a certain hypocrisy

>at work when people who support prostitution rail against

>those who produce bareback videos. Prostitution does

>encourage the spread of STD's, so when those who support it

>campaign against bareback videos it's a bit like tobacco

>companies funding a campaign against teenage smoking.

 

The hypcorisy is particularly grand with regard to the initiator of this thread, who began by claiming to be so upset about the effect that such videos have on "gay youth," and yet, at the same time, he is a pimp who admittedly lures and recruits 18-21 year old gay men into a life of prostitution.

 

>Of course it's nonsense to suggest that producing bareback

>videos doesn't encourage barebacking. It's a fact that

>dramatizing an activity in a way that makes it seem fun and

>exciting causes people to have a more positive opinion of that

>activity.

 

Does this mean that you are against the depiction of violence in movies? Or anti-Semitism? Or drug usage? Or any other harmful activity? Videos are a reflection of the world - they depict what people do. They are not, nor are they intended to be, sermons designed to urge others to do the same thing.

 

>And yes, the community does have an interest in private

>behavior that spreads serious illnesses, especially when many

>of the people affected by such illnesses require expensive

>treatment that they can't afford and that the community must

>provide. That concept is the basis for the tobacco litigation

>and settlements under which the tobacco industry is committed

>to pay state governments scores of billions of dollars.

 

No - this is totally false. The basis for liability against tobacco companies is not that they sold a product that harmed people's health. Many, many companies do that and aren't and can't be held liable.

 

The only basis for liability against the tobacco companies is that they sold a product to consumers and concealed what they knew to be the hamrful effects of that product. It was a theory of consumer fraud and products liability. Now that these comapnies are fully disclosing the risks of cigarettes, there is no basis for such liability.

 

To believe that sellers of dangerous products should pay for any harm that comes from their products - regardless of how widely known the risks are - is to absolve adults of all responsibility for their choices.

 

The notion that my "ban on junk food" proposal is far from this mindset is just not the case. Indeed, what you are advocating is exactly the same as the core theory in the McDonald's lawsuit: that companies which sell products that harm its users should pay for the harm that results, even if the user is fully aware of the risks of using the product.

 

Bareabacking is no different than eating a bacon cheeseburger. To be sure, they can both kill you (and eating junk food kills way more people than barebacking ever did). But everyone knows this, so McDonald's is no more guilty for an adult who eats their hamburgers and drops dead of a heart attack than Aaron Lawrence is guilty for some adult choosing to bareback and getting HIV.

 

>So bareback videos certainly do encourage behavior that poses

>a major public health problem. But people who support

>prostitution are part of the problem, not part of the

>solution.

 

Yes, on that I agree - one cannot possibly advocate and promote prostitution, particularly prostitution among gay youth, and simultaneously protest the "promotion" by videos of activities which harm gay youth.

[woodlawn]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>No, you're the one who is confused. Believing that an

>activity can be dangerous is not the same as crusading to stop

>it or thinking that it is morally wrong.

 

It's not that I'm confused, it's that you are confusing. When you label prostitution "this Deal with the Devil" you can hardly be surprised if readers believe that you are saying you find it morally repugnant. Communicating your ideas clearly is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your readers.

 

>Being an adult means nothing if it doesn't mean being

>able to freely make those choices.

 

Exactly the opposite is true. It is children, not adults, who demand that whatever desire they have at the moment, no matter its effect on themselves or others, must be gratified. Being an adult means putting aside desire when experience shows that gratifying it will harm oneself or one's fellow citizens.

 

>None of that is inconsistent with the view that I think

>escorting can be, and often is, harmful. Unlike most of the

>posters on this site - and unlike you - I do not consider

>myself to be the parent of other adults whose responsibility

>it is to keep them from harming themselves, nor - unlike you -

>do I consider myself to be some busybody buzzing around

>supervising what choices they make with the goal to stop them

>from engaging in behavior that I think is harmful.

 

 

You miss -- or ignore -- the point. As I said quite clearly, the community has an interest in private behavior that poses a PUBLIC HEALTH problem. Serious illnesses that require the community to provide treatment and to fill the economic gaps left by people who are disabled or killed by those illnesses are a problem for the commuity, not merely for the people who are ill. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Would you be stupid enough to pretend that SARS affected only the people who actually came down with it? Ask any merchant in Toronto. Would you oppose China's decision to ban the sale of civets for cooking when their epidemiologists announced that this practice was the probable source of the disease? Would you insist that any adult had the right to go ahead and cook one regardless?

 

>>I find that very difficult to believe since I, like Lucky

>and

>>several other posters, have noticed that this is very far

>from

>>being your first "visit" to this site.

>

>Even if true, so what? One can visit a place nunmerous times

>but still be surprised by what one finds there

 

No one who has more than a passing familiarity with this site could be surprised by the fact that posters here are constantly drawing moral lines in such a way that the things they like to do are on the "right" side of the line while the things they don't care to do are on the "wrong" side. It happens every day. The only way you could be surprised by it is if you have amnesia.

 

>First of all, the fact that it is you, of all people,

>claiming that I have contentious discussions is rather rich in

>irony.

 

There's nothing ironic about it. To be a contrarian hardly precludes one from recognizing others of the same ilk.

 

> I have never seen a person in any Internet forum so

>regularly and continuously accused of being excessively

>contentious as the comments and compliants about you that are

>routinely made by other participants in this forum.

 

These would be the same participants whom you are constantly accusing of stupidity and hypocrisy? Uh huh.

 

>Second, the idea that I engage in "rather vicious name-calling

>bouts" with anyone who disagrees with me is demonstrably

>false. I have had numerous disagreements here with lots and

>lots of posters without resort to a single name being called.

 

My statement is true of almost every thread I have read in which you are a participant, including all of the threads I specifically mentioned in my previous post.

 

 

>But I don't pretend to be innocent.

> I don't think there's anything wrong with using derogatory

>terms to describe someone else's contributions - nor, based

>upon your sordid posting history here, do you.

 

I see. So when you accuse me and several others of "escort-hostile" posts you don't really think there is anything wrong with that, according to the above. You're just making a neutral observation. Right.

 

>The hypcorisy is particularly grand with regard to the

>initiator of this thread, who began by claiming to be so upset

>about the effect that such videos have on "gay youth," and

>yet, at the same time, he is a pimp who admittedly lures and

>recruits 18-21 year old gay men into a life of prostitution.

 

Excuse me, but weren't you just complaining earlier in this thread about rumor-mongering and the making of unsubstantiated accusations against people? Yes, you were. And here you are doing the very same thing you complained about. How odd!

 

>Does this mean that you are against the depiction of violence

>in movies? Or anti-Semitism? Or drug usage? Or any other

>harmful activity? Videos are a reflection of the world - they

>depict what people do. They are not, nor are they intended to

>be, sermons designed to urge others to do the same thing.

 

 

That is a huge cop-out. The fact is that an artist who depicts dangerous or antisocial behavior in a way that glamorizes it is taking the risk that his work will influence others in harmful ways. Films like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Three Kings," to give but a few examples, show that even violence on a huge scale can be depicted on the screen without glamorizing it -- if the filmmaker has any talent, that is.

 

>No - this is totally false. The basis for liability against

>tobacco companies is not that they sold a product that

>harmed people's health. Many, many companies do that and

>aren't and can't be held liable.

 

You obviously have never heard of strict liability in product liability cases. It is quite common, actually.

 

>The only basis for liability against the tobacco companies is

>that they sold a product to consumers and concealed

>what they knew to be the hamrful effects of that product. It

>was a theory of consumer fraud and products liability. Now

>that these comapnies are fully disclosing the risks of

>cigarettes, there is no basis for such liability.

 

That is false. You are naming only one of the multiple alternative theories of liability on which the class-action suits in question were brought and ignoring the others. That's what happens when you read a magazine article about a case instead of reading the case.

 

>Bareabacking is no different than eating a bacon cheeseburger.

> To be sure, they can both kill you (and eating junk food

>kills way more people than barebacking ever did). But

>everyone knows this, so McDonald's is no more guilty for an

>adult who eats their hamburgers and drops dead of a heart

>attack than Aaron Lawrence is guilty for some adult choosing

>to bareback and getting HIV.

 

Funny you should mention that. The multi-billion-dollar tobacco settlements started with individual suits decades ago which were derided by their critics in much the same terms you are using to describe the suits against purveyors of unhealthy foods. And it is highly likely that the eventual result will be similar. Kraft certainly seems to think so.

[MiamiLooker]

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.

 

 

As a participant (such as yourself) on this site, this must pose a serious moral dilemma to you that by continuing to post on the message center you "are supporting and facilitating...yadayadyada."

 

 

>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.

 

Show me where I've spewed.

 

 

>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.

 

Yeah, I agree with you; it's probably not "lots" of people....probably just a handful....and of those probably only a few actually get infected....so it's really no big deal.

 

 

>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).

 

I'd like to read a few of these studies. Can you provide me with five to check out? Thanks

 

 

>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.

 

I agree with you again....since the overwhelming majority are already aware of the risks of barebacking, we should probably cut AIDS funding. Just think of all the money that could be saved that's being wasted on AIDS education.

 

 

>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.

 

 

I never stated videos were to blame. Where'd you come up with that one?

 

 

>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.

 

When you use the word "harm" do you mean something equivalent to an incurable disease?

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>As a participant (such as yourself) on this site, this must

>pose a serious moral dilemma to you that by continuing to post

>on the message center you "are supporting and

>facilitating...yadayadyada."

 

No, actually it poses no dilemma at all. Unlike you, I don't see myself as everyone's mother, running around trying to convince them not to do things that are bad for them. As adults, they have the right to choose to do whatever they want, regardless of whether it bring them harm.

 

That's true whether the harmful activity is eating junk food, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, over-eating, escorting, hang-gliding, or barebacking - all of these activities, and many more, may result in serious harm to them, but since they are adults who are making choices for what they want in their lives, I don't think it's any business of mine to try to get them to stop.

 

Why do you? And why, given all the very harmful things that people do to themselves, are you so uniquely concerned about barebacking.

 

Poor diets and lack of exercise kill way more people than barebacking does. Arent' you angry about films showing characters eating candy bars?

 

>Show me where I've spewed.

 

Accusing people who don't agree with you about bareback videos of thinking that AIDS is like "an outbreak of acne" is quite a spew.

 

>Yeah, I agree with you; it's probably not "lots" of

>people....probably just a handful....and of those probably

>only a few actually get infected....so it's really no big

>deal.

 

Oh, you are such a caring and sensitive soul. Given that these are adults who are making this choice, what the fuck business is it of yours?

 

Why aren't you equally upset about their poor diets and lack of exercise and cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking and drug usage and motorcycle riding and . . .

 

All of those things can and too kill, too - some way more often than barebacking - what are you doing to stop these things? what are you doing to stop their represntations in films? Don't you care about the people who are dying in droves as a result of their doing these things? Or don't you care?

 

>I'd like to read a few of these studies. Can you provide me

>with five to check out? Thanks

 

Sorry - I'm not here to do research for you. Go to google, do a search on the studies reporting on the effects of pornography, and I will have no doubt that you will find them. If you're interested enough, you'll do that. If you're not interested enough, I'm not going to spend my time findnig them for you.

 

>I never stated videos were to blame. Where'd you come up with

>that one?

 

Well, you may not have noticed, but this is a discussion about whether bareback videos are destructive and wrong and evil. You responded to my post where I was arguging there is nothing per se wrong with them - and you responded with a melodramatic show about how great a plague AIDS is.

 

If your point wasn't that bareback videos are to blame, what is your point? Do you have one - other than trying to strut around showing how much compassion you have for sick people?

 

>When you use the word "harm" do you mean something equivalent

>to an incurable disease?

 

Because human beings have the fucking right to take the risks that they want to take with their own life and their own bodies!!!!! People weigh risks and benefits all the time, and in my view, often do so stupidly, but as long as they are not direclty harming others, it is their choice.

 

I think people who hang glide, or fly light-weight airplanes, are seriously fucking insane, because the death rate is quite high for those activities for what is, in my view, very little gain. But other adults think differently - they think that the thrill you get from doing those things opens up their minds, makes life worth living, and that it's worth the risk of death to do it.

 

Same with barebacking - these adults are engage in it are obviously making the assessment that they are willing to take the risk in order to derive the benefit.

 

What makes you think that you know better for them what choices they should be making?? And why don't you have the same attitude towards those who eat poorly, are who are overweight, or who hang-glide? Or do you?

[MiamiLooker]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Sorry - I'm not here to do research for you. Go to google, do

>a search on the studies reporting on the effects of

>pornography, and I will have no doubt that you will find them.

> If you're interested enough, you'll do that. If you're not

>interested enough, I'm not going to spend my time findnig them

>for you.

 

I accept your apology

[woodlawn]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>>Sorry - I'm not here to do research for you. Go to google,

>do

>>a search on the studies reporting on the effects of

>>pornography, and I will have no doubt that you will find

>them.

>> If you're interested enough, you'll do that. If you're not

>>interested enough, I'm not going to spend my time findnig

>them

>>for you.

>

 

Gosh, that sounds exactly like what Ad rian used to say to me whenever I asked him to specify the source of some position for which he had claimed there were many sources. Quite a coincidence, isn't it?

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>>Being an adult means nothing if it doesn't mean being

>>able to freely make those choices.

>

>Exactly the opposite is true. It is children, not adults, who

>demand that whatever desire they have at the moment, no matter

>its effect on themselves or others, must be gratified. Being

>an adult means putting aside desire when experience shows that

>gratifying it will harm oneself or one's fellow citizens.

 

You've misleadingly mixed two compeltely distinct concepts here.

 

There are certain acts that harm the person engaging in them but which do not directly harm anyone else (such as, say, drinking alcohol, or eating junk food, or hang-gliding, or over-eating, or filing to exercise, or flying light-weight airplanes, or barebacking, or escorting).

 

Then there are acts which harm not just that person but others as well (murder, assault, robbery, fraud, etc.).

 

What it means to be an adult is that one has the absolute right to choose to engage in whatever activities one wants as long as it does not directly result in harm to others, i.e., the first category I described.

 

If you do not agree, then please let me know if you favor laws making it illegal to engage in any or all of the activities I described in the first category. Most of them kill way more people than barebacking does, and all of them have at least an equal chance of resulting in serious injury to the person's health.

 

>You miss -- or ignore -- the point. As I said quite clearly,

>the community has an interest in private behavior that poses a

>PUBLIC HEALTH problem. Serious illnesses that require the

>community to provide treatment and to fill the economic gaps

>left by people who are disabled or killed by those illnesses

>are a problem for the commuity, not merely for the people who

>are ill.

 

The problem with this thinking is that there is no end to it and to the severe infringements on privacy and liberty which it will necessarily entail.

 

How do you justify limitations against barebacking but not favor limitations on eating Doritos and Cheeseburgers which cause stroke, heart attacks, premature deaths . . . all of the economic evils you described which occur from a person not taking care of their health. Such activities result in way more deaths than barebacking does.

 

How do we allow people to hang glide or sky dive or scuba dive - all of which contain serious risk of injury and death - and how do we allow movies which "glamorize" and "promote" such activities?

 

I agree that a liberaterian view whereby adults are free to choose what they want to do as long as they don't directly harm others is less problematic if we don't have a whole system of government-provided social programs to take care of people. One can argue that if we are going to have a Government be our daddy when it comes to taking care of us, then it must be our daddy when it comes to telling us what we can and can't do.

 

But I don't think that adults should have daddies. That's what it means to be an adult. When it comes to activities that don't directly harm others, the defining characteristic of being an adult means not having other people make choices for how you live your life.

 

>No one who has more than a passing familiarity with this site

>could be surprised by the fact that posters here are

>constantly drawing moral lines in such a way that the things

>they like to do are on the "right" side of the line while the

>things they don't care to do are on the "wrong" side. It

>happens every day. The only way you could be surprised by it

>is if you have amnesia.

 

Yes, I know this, but there are degrees of it. The whole "protector of gay youth" veneer was particularly shocking to me, but perhaps you're right that it's nothing extraordinary for this place, and your immunity level is higher than mine is, given your daily, uninterrupted visits here.

 

>>The hypcorisy is particularly grand with regard to the

>>initiator of this thread, who began by claiming to be so

>upset

>>about the effect that such videos have on "gay youth," and

>>yet, at the same time, he is a pimp who admittedly lures and

>>recruits 18-21 year old gay men into a life of prostitution.

>

>Excuse me, but weren't you just complaining earlier in this

>thread about rumor-mongering and the making of unsubstantiated

>accusations against people? Yes, you were. And here you are

>doing the very same thing you complained about. How odd!

 

Sometimes I think you choose to overlook things on purpose. My information about this NCM pimp is not based upon rumor-mongering or speculation or fiction, the way that, say BoN's vile suggestion that Stephan barebacks was based upon absolutely nothing.

 

By extreme and painfully obvious contrast, what I said about the NCM pimp was based exclusively on what NCM said about his pimping activities - both generally with regard to 18-21 year old boys and specifically with regard to this 20 year-old he is promoting as a prostitute. My comments about the Great Youth Protector NCM's attempt to whore out 18 year-old boys, then, was based not on any speculation or rumor-mongering but only upon the statements he himself made about what he does.

 

Surely you see the fundamental difference without my having to explain it further?

 

>The fact is that an artist who

>depicts dangerous or antisocial behavior in a way that

>glamorizes it is taking the risk that his work will influence

>others in harmful ways.

 

So what? We are not our brothers' keepers. As far as I am concerned, whenever an adult makes a choice to do something, the only party responsible for that choice is that adult - not someone who said something that "influenced" that adult.

 

This idea that other people besides the individual actor are responsible for the chosen acts is what has destroyed the notion of personal responsibility in our society - a trend infinitely more damaging than all the bareback vidoes in the world could ever be.

 

>You obviously have never heard of strict liability in product

>liability cases. It is quite common, actually.

 

Actually, it not very common. The notion of "strict liabilty" is the exception and not the rule, and is usually applied to products which are inherently and uniquely dangerous (such as, say, gasoline trucks).

 

Cigarette manufacturers have never been held to be strictly liable for the damages caused by their product. Their only liability arises from their failure to warn users about the harmful effects of their smoking.

 

Adults who choose to smoke knowing the risks are the only ones who bear responsibility for their lung cancer. Do you actually disgaree with that?

 

>Funny you should mention that. The multi-billion-dollar

>tobacco settlements started with individual suits decades ago

>which were derided by their critics in much the same terms you

>are using to describe the suits against purveyors of unhealthy

>foods. And it is highly likely that the eventual result will

>be similar. Kraft certainly seems to think so.

 

Oh, what a great trend this is. Let's bankrupt all of our food industries because adults can't refrain from eating junk food in excess and shoving it down their children's throats and causing them to get heart disease.

 

Personally, I know that if I see a fat woman shoving french fries in her fat kids' mouth, I definitely think it's the fault of the McDonald's executives who sell the food, not the irresponsible mother's fault.

 

Same thing here with barebacking - if some guy watches Aaron's video and then goes out and chooses to bareback and gets AIDS, it's obviously Aaron's fault. The guy who chose to bareback is the victim.

 

It must be great to have a world view where every bad, hamrful choice you make, you get to blame someone else for it -anyone else but you. "Yeah, I jumped off a 5 story house and shattered my legs, but don't blame me; blame the producer of that film I saw a year ago where the guy did the same thing."

 

"Yeah, I let some guy cum in my ass without a condom even though I know that doing that may give me AIDS. But don't blame me for making that choice; blame Aaron Lawrence, because he also did it on video and I saw it."

 

That's the hell to which this road leads.