Is Barebacking Becoming the Norm???

[Guest ncm2169]

< Just because an adult sees an act depicted in film or on stage, does not imply that the person is going to go out and engage in such acts >

 

Sorry VA, I couldn't disagree more. As was noted (by others) the last time this subject was discussed at length here, pay some attention to the bizarre and very risky behavior of teenagers and early 20-somethings who watch certain TV shows depicting such behavior. IMHO, anyone who believes there's no cause and effect between what's depicted on the screen and what happens in real life is ignoring reality.

 

Beyond that, I assure you I'm not obsessed with Aaron Lawrence. He's just a convenient example to use here, because of his connection to escorting. I have the same views about other porn producers who depict barebacking, and I said so in the last thread.

 

I am, however, very alarmed about the increase in barebacking among teens and 20-somethings, which is a pretty well-established fact, reversing a trend away from barebacking when AIDS education began to take hold. I'm alarmed for those who put themselves at risk and I'm alarmed for the costs to society at large.

 

Of course Aaron and his ilk are depicting barebacking legally. As a civil libertarian, I would never deprive them of that right, and I would never condone censorship. But it's also true (IMHO) that we expect and deserve corporate responsiblity in this society - which often is a higher standard than what is merely legal, i.e, morals and ethics come into play (witness the corporate scandals over the past year). As a businessman myself, I regularly confront situations where I can do something which I have no doubt is legal, but I always ask myself whether I think it's moral and ethical as well.

 

Yes, people who are 18 or over are adults and if they bareback they are responsible for their actions. Porn producers are corporate citizens, and they are responsible for their actions as

well. Where these neat lines get quickly blurred however, is that if I'm 18, I can rent a video or, even more convenient, I can view a video online which depicts barebacking. If I'm 18, what are the chances that I have buddies who are under 18? Yes, if I let them view the barebacking porn I'm violating the law, but that's a distinction without a difference in the real world. It happens.

 

I'm truly sorry if I sound like I'm moralizing. I'm actually trying to be a scold, but if that's tantamount to moralizing then I'll have to plead guilty (although your remark comparing me to Flower does cut deep). x(

 

I make no apologies, however, for caring about the health and welfare of young people and for the health and welfare of our society, more than I care about the profits (albeit legal profits) of porn producers who depict barebacking.

 

Finally, forget for a minute whether depicting barebacking causes barebacking. Ponder instead how depicting barebacking gives an opening to the Nazis in residence at the Justice Department, who recently declared war on porn. Sure, they focused initially on the most egregious examples (forcible rape scenes, etc.), but how long will it be before they seize on barebacking scenes as an excuse to attack gay porn in general -- or str8 porn, for that matter? Again, as a civil libertarian, I have no confidence in the current Congress/Administration to protect porn, and not much more confidence in the courts to strike down new laws restricting porn.

 

Bottom line? }( Depicting barebacking, whether gay or str8, simply isn't worth it.

 

Those are my views. Many here will disagree, and I can respect opposing views, and respect the right of others to hold opposing views. Well, with one notable exception. :+

[Doug69]

>I really don't understand ncm's obsession and outrage about

>Aaron Lawrence making barebacking porn flicks.

 

It's actually quite simple to undertand, Hawk. If you notice, NCM never addressed the fact that he pays 18 year-old boys to get naked for him, nor does he address the fact that he promotes the services of a 19 year-old boy named JasoninMpls to be a prostitute for 60 year-old men.

 

What he does do - in EVERY FUCKING POST - is go on and on and on about how concerned he is for the health and well-being of young gay men. He has this desperate urge to prove how concerned he is about this, and ranting and raving against Aaron Lawrence allows him to point to someone and say: "THAT PERSON THERE IS AN EVIL YOUTH-CORRUPTER - I'M OUTRAGED, BECAUSE I CARE SO MUCH FOR GAY YOUTH, AND THAT EVIL YOUTH-CORRUPTER DOESN'T."

 

People who know they are weak are desperate to prove they are strong. People who are poor are desperate to convince others they are rich. People who are gay and don't want anyone to know go out of their way to convince others how homophobic and macho they are.

 

The same trite scenario is at play with ncm. He feels deep down that he dirties and corrupts 18 year-old boys by paying them to have sex with him and by urging old men to hire these boys. He feels ashamed and dirty for doing that, and so feeling this about himself, he is eager, despreate really, to connvice others and himself that he is actually a Protector - rather than a Corruptor - of Gay Youth.

 

Hence, his shrill, never-ending Crusades and Sermons against those Evil Bareback Video Producers Who Seek Profits at the Expense of the Purty if Gay Youth. Unlike ncm himself, who merely seeks hard-ons at the expense of 18 year-old boys.

 

It's the same thing that motivates these three-times-divorced Right Wing moralizers to preach against homosexuals so relentlessly. They look at their third wife, the little pretty young blond thing they got when they dumped their second wife, and the FEEL that they are immoral and selfish. So they NEED someone else they can scream "IMMORAL" at, so they feel better and more moral - that's the value of gay people for them. No matter how immoral they are, at least they're not like those perverted homos.

 

Same with NCM - no matter how youth-corrupting he is, at least he's not as immoral as Aaron Lawrenece. It's as pitiful as it is transparent.

 

I hope that clarifies things.

 

>All of this moralizing on a board dedicated to the hiring of

>young men for the purpose of sex by men, mostly decades older

>than the escorts being hired is truly incomprehensible.

>Prostitution is illegal and immoral in most societies so why

>the morally superior attitude?

 

Indeed. The great mystery of this forum, eloquently summarized you by here - no matter how much I see it here, I still find it unfathomable and awesome. And even when you point it out to them, it has no effect. Truly awesome.

[woodlawn]

>Beyond that, I assure you I'm not obsessed with Aaron

>Lawrence. He's just a convenient example to use here, because

>of his connection to escorting.

 

He probably thinks of you in terms similar to ones you used to describe someone else in another post here: a "bitchy old queen poster who has no life beyond his angry outbursts." What do you want to bet?

 

>Of course Aaron and his ilk are depicting barebacking legally.

> As a civil libertarian, I would never deprive them of that

>right, and I would never condone censorship. But it's also

>true (IMHO) that we expect and deserve corporate responsiblity

>in this society - which often is a higher standard than what

>is merely legal, i.e, morals and ethics come into play

>(witness the corporate scandals over the past year). As a

>businessman myself, I regularly confront situations where I

>can do something which I have no doubt is legal, but I always

>ask myself whether I think it's moral and ethical as well.

 

I notice you don't address the fact that what Aaron is doing is legal, while what you are doing in patronizing and encouraging prostitutes is not. With regard to ethics, you must be aware of the fact that to most of our fellow citizens there is very little difference between the moral position of a pornographer like Aaron and a john like yourself.

 

One reason prostitution is so disfavored by our society is its historical role in spreading STD's. I think many people could find it hard to understand how someone who supports prostitution can also condemn a porn producer because the films he makes could encourage the spread of STD's.

 

The position of those who support prostitution but condemn barebacking is that asking barebackers to give up something they enjoy for the sake of their own health and the public health is reasonable, while asking them to give up what they enjoy for the same reason is not. I doubt that many people not involved in prostitution would find that position terribly convincing, as it seems to be completely self-serving rather than based on any moral or ethical principle.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>People who know they are weak are desperate to prove they are

>strong. People who are poor are desperate to convince others

>they are rich. People who are gay and don't want anyone to

>know go out of their way to convince others how homophobic and

>macho they are.

 

Well, I'll give you this for starters: you sure do say a mouthful here. Sounds exactly like you're describing yourself. Weak and desperate pretty much spells it out.

 

>It's the same thing that motivates these three-times-divorced

>Right Wing moralizers to preach against homosexuals so

>relentlessly. They look at their third wife, the little

>pretty young blond thing they got when they dumped their

>second wife, and the FEEL that they are immoral and selfish.

>So they NEED someone else they can scream "IMMORAL" at, so

>they feel better and more moral - that's the value of gay

>people for them. No matter how immoral they are, at least

>they're not like those perverted homos.

 

This, of course, is a major factor in this sickies disease. In another thread, he jumps on me for implying we don't all live in one big happy world yet. However, here he has to take a different stance since his sole purpose for being here is to make himself feel strong because he knows he's such a weak failure. Can you imagine this imbecile sitting around conceiving of ways to make other's look stupid so he can feel good about himself? Reminds me of that other sicko, woodlawn, who memorizes every word spoken by other posters so he can use them in later attacks. What an oinker!

 

The great mystery of this forum, eloquently

>summarized you by here - no matter how much I see it here, I

>still find it unfathomable and awesome. And even when you

>point it out to them, it has no effect. Truly awesome.

 

What's truly awesome is that anyone who reads your shit should feel affected by it. You have no real opinions about anything.

[Doug69]

>I notice you don't address the fact that what Aaron is doing

>is legal, while what you are doing in patronizing and

>encouraging prostitutes is not. With regard to ethics, you

>must be aware of the fact that to most of our fellow citizens

>there is very little difference between the moral position of

>a pornographer like Aaron and a john like yourself.

 

I would just add to your indisputable point the fact that it's not merely illegal prostitution he and those like him are engaging in, but a specific type: one that involves much older men paying very young boys (18, 19 years old, who, if they get their preference, look even younger than that) for sex.

 

While prostitution generally definitely does provoke the moral condemnation which you suggest, I think that this particular strain or style of prostitution does so even more, since in many people's minds (rightly or wrongly), it smacks of pedophila, or at the very least, exploitation by old men with money of young boys who, though technically adults, are so just barely.

 

All of the rationales which the Moralizers Against Bareback Videos invoke -- e.g., corruption of the youth, spreading of disease, etc. -- are, in most citizens' views, implicated at least as much by the production of bareback videos as they are implicated by 60 year-olds paying 18 year-old "twinks" who look like they're 14 to have sex.

 

And, as you point out, the fact that Aaron's activities are legal, while their activities are decisively illegal, makes these sermons all the more freakish and absurd.

 

In terms of which activity hurts children more, just ask any parent: Would you rather have your 18 year-old son watch a bareback video, or be whored out to 60 year-old men through the Internet? While most parents would want neither for their children, I think the answer will be pretty clear.

[Doug69]

>This, of course, is a major factor in this sickies disease.

>In another thread, he jumps on me for implying we don't all

>live in one big happy world yet. However, here he has to take

>a different stance since his sole purpose for being here is to

>make himself feel strong because he knows he's such a weak

>failure.

 

In the other thread to which you are referring, I pointed out that most trends suggest quite strongly that gay people are becoming increasingly successful in their efforts to be treated equally in our society. Nothing I've said here even remotely contradicts that.

 

If my recollection serves me well, I believe that you have discussed quite publicly on this Board some pretty severe personal problems you have had and are having in your life. It appears that the trauma from these problems is causing you to hallucinate, because nothing I said is even arguably inconsistent on that issue.

 

>Can you imagine this imbecile sitting around

>conceiving of ways to make other's look stupid so he can feel

>good about himself? Reminds me of that other sicko, woodlawn,

>who memorizes every word spoken by other posters so he can use

>them in later attacks. What an oinker!

 

The fact that you end up feeling stupid as a result of what someone else writes doesn't mean that they wrote it with the intent to make you look stupid. It's just what inevitably occurs when someone points out the vacuousness of what you say.

 

>You have no real opinions about anything.

 

Funny - in some threads I'm being accused of being so ideologically convicted that I'm not open to reason because I'm so brainwashed by "neo-conservative" dogma, whatever that is. Here, by contrast, I'm being told that I "have no real opinions about anything." I guess that's what happens when you submerge yourself in the incoherent babble of morons. How interesting.

[woodlawn]

>Reminds me of that other sicko, woodlawn,

>who memorizes every word spoken by other posters so he can use

>them in later attacks. What an oinker!

 

Hey, Jake, it sounds like you're still angry about our last couple of encounters. And what do you have to be angry about? The fact that I don't express gratitude for getting a lecture on how to behave from you, a man who has admitted deceiving and betraying both his wife and his male lover? It beats me how someone with your history could ever imagine he is fit to tell other people how to act. Instead of wagging your finger at others, I'd think you would be grateful that your own rotten behavior hasn't prompted one of the people you've hurt to blow your head off long before now.

 

Maybe it seems odd to you that I have no problem remembering some of the lurid stories about your life that you've posted on this board. There's no mystery about that. I have no trouble remembering them because I encounter very few people who volunteer such shameful secrets about themselves. Among the people I meet, you really stand out.

[VaHawk]

To begin with, my comments are not directed to you per se, as I really don't recall anything you've posted that has either rankled or rattled.

>

>Weak and desperate pretty much spells it out.

 

Unlike others who post here? Those who have no social or sexual intercourse outside of hookers and fellow posters on this board? How weak and desperate is it to define oneself only via rent boys Especially those who are so desperate that they let any hooker boy use them as the hooker sees fit, because they possess such low self-esteem, that any kind of attention from a boy who "rents by the hour" is better than no attention at all?

 

>This, of course, is a major factor in this sickies disease.

 

What is a sickies disease? Is that something like scabies?

 

>Can you imagine this imbecile sitting around

>conceiving of ways to make other's look stupid so he can feel

>good about himself?

 

Doug69, imo, is the furthest thing from an imbecile. The problem once again, imo, are people who can't deal with the blunt reality of the truth, and when others point out this flaw to them, they retaliate by calling names, like this very example from you. If his honesty and bluntness makes you or anyone else look stupid, then you should look in the mirror and do an in depth analysis of yourself, as those accusing him of being an imbecile only makes them look even more stupid.

 

>Reminds me of that other sicko, woodlawn,

>who memorizes every word spoken by other posters so he can use

>them in later attacks. What an oinker!

 

And there you go yet again with the slurs. Are you feeling all "good inside"? feeling "morally superior yet"? Keep opining, as it only reinforces their observations.

>

>What's truly awesome is that anyone who reads your shit should

>feel affected by it. You have no real opinions about

>anything.

 

LOL!!! If you don't feel affected then why do you bother to reply with such tripe? IMO, so many people who post here have no opinions other than the ones that their dick heads tell them to express so most of the time that amounts to a stream of piss or a few dribbles of viagara induced cum. I can't say that about either Doug69 or woodlawn.

[Guest ncm2169]

Woodlawn, first you copied my words in my post wherein I CLEARLY said that what Aaron and his ilk are doing is legal, and then you go on to accuse me of not addressing that fact.

 

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn, first you copied my words in my post wherein I

>CLEARLY said that what Aaron and his ilk are doing is legal,

>and then you go on to accuse me of not addressing that fact.

 

That is not true. The fact I accuse of you failing to address is NOT that what Aaron is doing is legal. The fact I accuse you of failing to address is that what Aaron is doing is legal while what you are doing is not legal. Why did you leave out the second half of the sentence? Did you think no one would notice?

 

I don't think you can deny there is a certain irony in your accusation that Aaron and other producers are not being good corporate citizens, when the accusation is coming from someone who patronizes this website because he is involved in crime.

 

>Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

Something else you failed to address is the fact that you want Aaron and others to stop doing something they want to do because it could exacerbate a public health problem, while you are clearly not willing to stop doing what you want to do even though it could also exacerbate a public health problem. Why the double standard? How can you urge others to make sacrifices when you are not willing to make any?

[Guest ncm2169]

< The fact I accuse you of failing to address is that what Aaron is doing is legal while what you are doing is not legal >

 

I'm sorry for overlooking the second half of your sentence.

 

I fully acknowledge that, by hiring an escort, I am engaging in an illegal activity. I have absolutely no regrets about that. I take complete responsibility for my actions. IMHO, what I do causes harm to no one. If, however, I did cause harm to someone, I would again take responsibility and try to make it right.

 

By contrast, what Aaron does puts tens of thousands of young people at risk. That's my view. You and others are free to disagree.

 

In this thread I have been accused of (a) being a pimp and of (b) recruiting young people into escorting. It appears the first canard has been put to rest, since it hasn't been repeated since I last denied it. It's time to put the second canard to bed as well, because, for the record, I have never recruited anyone into escorting.

 

Have a nice day! :+

[KY_TOP]

>In this thread I have been accused of (a) being a pimp and of

>(b) recruiting young people into escorting. It appears the

>first canard has been put to rest, since it hasn't been

>repeated since I last denied it. It's time to put the second

>canard to bed as well, because, for the record, I have never

>recruited anyone into escorting.

>

>Have a nice day! :+

 

I have had the Great pleasure to meet ncm and also Jason/Mpls. They are truly enjoyable people to talk with or just share a meal with. Since I know both of these guys I feel the continuous remarks of "pimping" and "recruiting" to be totally unjustified. First, Jason is 20 (may actually be 21 by now) not 18 or 19 as someone here keeps on saying. Second, ncm did not recruit him to Escort. ncm was one of his first clients and Jason was unaware of this site and others that have Escorts as their main topic. Just because Jason felt comfortable enough to ask for help from ncm with these sites does not make him a pimp. You don't have to go through ncm to schedule time with Jason, I know I have hired him (twice) and BTW I am no where near 60. Has ncm helped him out? Sure he has and several other posters here have told of helping and advising Escorts over the years. Has ncm and Jason become friends? Sure and so have many other posters here become friends with different Escorts. What's wrong with that, some have even told of letting them live in their homes, lending them money, etc...

 

As far as promoting Jason, everyone knows there are multiple Escorts promoted here daily by Clients and even by Escorts themselves. Just mention a few Escorts names, like a certain Escort from South America, and the frigging thread gets so long it gets boring after awhile. Everytime certain Escorts are even mentioned in the Escort Travel section, certain posters will have to make a post just to promote them a long. So what, I've done it too. At least most of the time they are promoting someone they have actually met.If an Escort is a great guy why not tell everyone else. I guess it also goes both ways, if the Escort is a jerk why not mention that too. This site exist because of Male 4 Male Escorts. If someone finds that offensive, Escorts or those that hire them offensive, illegal, or immoral then why be here of all places?

 

We all have our "Pet Peeves", something that really sticks in our gut, and obviously Barebacking is one of ncm's "Pet Peeves". You know maybe, just maybe, that is not such a bad "Peeve" to have. Many other posters have other or in many cases MULTIPLE Pet Peeves, like certain political things or persons, drug use, SMOKING, certain Gay or Escort websites, lawyers have been bashed a few times, Str8 Escorts, etc... The list is endless. When discussing these Peeves in a a civil manner and looking at both sides one can actually learn a few things sometime. But the constant name calling because we have differing opinions just makes the argument childish and stupid (Yes one of my Pet Peeves).

 

NOTE: I never have understood how calling someone an Asshole on this site could be taken as offensive. I have had the pleasure of meeting a lot of Assholes, especially several in the Escort Review Section, and them are some mighty fine Assholes.:+

 

Lastly, having met several Posters and Escorts here I am Proud to call many my friends, including ncm.

[woodlawn]

>< The fact I accuse you of failing to address is that what

>Aaron is doing is legal while what you are doing is not legal

>>

>

>I'm sorry for overlooking the second half of your sentence.

 

Think nothing of it. I can't even count the number of times another poster has misrepresented something I've said here because he can't think of any way to reply to what I actually said. In your case I'm perfectly willing to believe it was a careless mistake rather than a malicious gesture.

 

>I fully acknowledge that, by hiring an escort, I am engaging

>in an illegal activity. I have absolutely no regrets about

>that. I take complete responsibility for my actions. IMHO,

>what I do causes harm to no one. If, however, I did cause

>harm to someone, I would again take responsibility and try to

>make it right.

>

>By contrast, what Aaron does puts tens of thousands of young

>people at risk. That's my view. You and others are free to

>disagree.

 

I really don't see how you can deny that prostitution plays a role in the spread of STD's, including HIV. Although people here like to pretend that there is no reason to ban prostitution other than the puritanical beliefs of religious fanatics, the truth is that there are valid public health concerns about prostitution that most simply don't want to acknowledge or address.

 

In another recent thread someone offered the opinion that gay escorts are less likely to spread STD's than other gay men because their occupation makes them more sensitive to the risks of STD's and therefore more likely to take precautions. That is an interesting theory, but you and I are both aware of many posts here about escorts who are quite willing to bareback. I regard it as beyond debate that those who support prostitution are supporting an industry that has played a role in the spread of HIV. So I fail to see how you can say that what you do "causes harm to no one." And if it does play a role in the spread of HIV I fail to see how you can "make it right." Do you know how to cure HIV infection?

 

>In this thread I have been accused of (a) being a pimp and of

>(b) recruiting young people into escorting.

 

I haven't made either accusation and I know of no evidence for either one. But I do know that just as people who buy cocaine and heroin are helping to support an industry that causes a huge amount of mayhem and destruction here and abroad, people who support prostitution are helping to support an industry that spreads disease. I really don't see how anyone who does that can have any credibility when he accuses others of failing to be "good citizens" or showing disregard for the public health. You have made such accusations, so I think it's only fair to ask whether your own behavior meets the standard that you are setting for others. Clearly it does not.

[Doug69]

>I have had the Great pleasure to meet ncm and also Jason/Mpls.

>They are truly enjoyable people to talk with or just share a

>meal with.

 

Your tribute to the Goodness of NCM and the nice way he treats young prostitutes was moving, really, but it had nothing to do with what anyone has said. I am sure lots of producers of bareback videos are really great company as well, are nice to their friends, just lovely people. But that doesn't seem to stop NCM from sermonizing and railing against them generally, and certain ones specifically (such as Aaron Lawrence), every friggin' chance that he gets.

 

The question is not who is "nice" and who isn't. It is whether those who solicit and promote very young prostitutes to have sex for money with 60 year-old men are in any position to moralize (on health or youth-protection grounds) against those who produce videos that depict consenting adults engaging in bareback sex.

 

You may think that NCM is fabulous to be around and that he's really nice to the very young hookers he attracts, but I wonder how the parents of those boys would respond to the question of whether NCM is a good influence on gay youth. In light of his activities, many, many citizens would find NCM to be a grotesquely immoral, disease-spreading Youth Corrupter, and would find it unfathomable that he thinks he is in a position to preach against others who are supposedly "corrupting our gay youth."

 

As I pointed out, if you ask any parent if they would rather their 18 year-old boy watch a bareback video or be whored out to the likes of NCM on the Internet, is there any doubt that the overwhelming majority, if not all, would choose having them watch a bareback video? I'm sure they would find it quite ironic that someone like NCM, who facilitates, supports and seeks the services of barely post-adolescent males, would posit himself as one who is here to sermonize on behalf of the well-being of gay youth.

 

So the fuck what if he's nice to you and to his young boys? That's wonderful. But here, he is viciously and endlessly preaching against the immorality of those who shoot bareback videos, and his oozing hypocrisy and self-serving justifications are really something to behold.

 

>Since I know both of these guys I feel the

>continuous remarks of "pimping" and "recruiting" to be totally

>unjustified. First, Jason is 20 (may actually be 21 by now)

>not 18 or 19 as someone here keeps on saying.

 

First of all, the notion that he "recruits" hookers came from a post that he wrote talking about his recruitment efforts for the latest, hot young hookers. It may have been just his inartful phraseolgy, which I'm willing to accept, but it certain suggested that he pimps them out.

 

More importantly, whether he is a pimp - or just someone who promotes the prostitution services of young men in order to help them -- is irrelevant. The fact is that, as you acknowledge, he pays young boys to have sex, and promotes their services over the Internet and encourages their prostitution activities, means that he supports and encourages such transactions.

 

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that per se because that's not the point. The point is that it's amazing that someone who does that would simultaneously sermonize against bareback videos on the ground that they harm gay youth. Isn't it so fucking obvious that NCM is doing this because he feels ashamed of his activities and wants to cry out to their world that, despite his activities, HE CARES ABOUT GAY YOUTH!!

 

Finally, I am absolutely sure that Jason claimed, perhaps even in his profile but certainly in his postings, that he is 19. Nobody is suggesting that 19 isn't of legal age; it is. But I would think that one could obtain a consensus that promoting 19 year-old boys over the Internet to 60 year-old men, or helping them decide to devote themselves to prostitution by encouraging them, are not things that are particularly good for the 19 year-old boy. At the very least, one who does it ought not to be holding themselves out as one who can moralize on behalf of gay youth.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>In another recent thread someone offered the opinion that gay

>escorts are less likely to spread STD's than other gay men

>because their occupation makes them more sensitive to the

>risks of STD's and therefore more likely to take precautions.

>That is an interesting theory, but you and I are both aware of

>many posts here about escorts who are quite willing to

>bareback.

 

And it's the barebacking that spreads the diseases, not the question of whether or not money changed hands. Which means that escorts who are quite UNwilling to bareback represent far less of a public health concern than non-escorts who are quite willing to bareback. The relevant distinction is whether or not barebacking occurs in a given encounter, not the occupations of the people involved.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>In light of his activities, many, many citizens would find NCM to

>be a grotesquely immoral, disease-spreading Youth Corrupter,

>and would find it unfathomable that he thinks he is in a

>position to preach against others who are supposedly

>"corrupting our gay youth."

 

Why appeal to the beliefs of other citizens? NCM (presumably, though I can't prove it) isn't posting on a Baptist ladies' message board; he's posting on a website where the overwhelming majority of viewers either don't have a problem with escorting or are willing to overlook whatever problems they have with it.

 

>As I pointed out, if you ask any parent if they would rather

>their 18 year-old boy watch a bareback video or be whored out

>to the likes of NCM on the Internet, is there any doubt that

>the overwhelming majority, if not all, would choose having

>them watch a bareback video? I'm sure they would find it

>quite ironic that someone like NCM, who facilitates, supports

>and seeks the services of barely post-adolescent males, would

>posit himself as one who is here to sermonize on behalf of the

>well-being of gay youth.

 

Well, it's not as though the 18-year-old's parents get a deciding vote in the matter. If he's 18, it's up to him what he does. And why should NCM worry about what somebody's parents think is ironic?

 

I have a different reservation about NCM's argument, which is that I don't think barebacking videos are necessarily high on the list of what influences people's decisions to bareback. Maybe it's a chicken/egg question, but I think the barebacking videos have emerged in response to the rise in barebacking, not the other way round. I also don't get why Aaron Lawrence is a special case because of his "connection to escorting" -- I mean, it's not as though there's very little overlap between the two industries.

 

But more so I don't believe in infantilizing 18-year-olds, who are adults and can make their own decisions, including unfortunate ones. The age of consent is LOWER in many countries, yet people often tend to speak as though the right of 18-year-olds to make their own sexual choices was some kind of technicality.

 

>I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that per se because

>that's not the point. The point is that it's amazing that

>someone who does that would simultaneously sermonize against

>bareback videos on the ground that they harm gay youth.

 

But in order for it to be amazing, you'd have to take the position that escorting is an inherently harmful choice for an 18-year-old to make (which is a different thing from saying his parents wouldn't approve). Sure, it might be a bad choice for some 18-year-olds, but it's a bad choice for a lot of 25-year-olds, and 35-year-olds, too. But I've met too many people who put themselves through college escorting, who look back fondly on the experience, and who seem perfectly well adjusted now, to believe that escorting is inherently harmful to 18-year-olds in the way that barebacking is. (I just draw a sharper distinction between images and behavior than NCM does.)

[KY_TOP]

>First of all, the notion that he "recruits" hookers came from

>a post that he wrote talking about his recruitment efforts for

>the latest, hot young hookers. It may have been just his

>inartful phraseolgy, which I'm willing to accept, but it

>certain suggested that he pimps them out.

 

The thread mentioning "Recruits" was a JOKE made by me and a few others since all of a sudden there were several new Escorts in Mpls and ncm is the only Mpls poster we knew on the Board. I think a pink Cadillac was even mentioned as part of the "Joke".

 

>Finally, I am absolutely sure that Jason claimed, perhaps even

>in his profile but certainly in his postings, that he is 19.

 

Jason's thread of introduction Dated July 10,2003 from his own words state he is 20, 5'10" and 150 pounds. I looked the thread up. And why do you keep on mentioning BOYS. A 20 year old is NOT a BOY and only ONE Young MAN has been mentioned so how come you are trying to make it seem there are multiple Guys.

 

If you can't get your facts straight how can anyone take you seriously? So here you are defending Barebacking Videos (your opinion, nothing wrong with that) while slamming ncm and everyone else here that has ever hired an Escort BECAUSE we hire Escorts.

 

Again I ask you what do you think this site is about? Ding...Ding...Ding... Times up,,,Answer since you can't seem to figure it out yourself: Hiring Escorts!!!

 

If you want to come here and lecture a bunch of grown men about how wrong we are to hire Escorts that are also Grown men, I guess that is your right. But I can't figure out WHY you would want to hang out on a Message Board that is dedicated to that very thing, Hiring Escorts.

 

Can we expect you to start quoting "select parts" of a Bible next to tell us how evil we are?

[Doug69]

It is seriously hard to believe that your inability to grasp the point here (or even to understand what the point is) is anything other than deliberate. But I'll try one more time and will speak a little more slowly this time:

 

>So here you are defending Barebacking Videos (your

>opinion, nothing wrong with that) while slamming ncm and

>everyone else here that has ever hired an Escort BECAUSE we

>hire Escorts.

 

I believe I made quite clear that I was not arguing or suggesting that there is anything wrong with engaging in an escort transaction, because that's not the point. The point is that there is no accusation that one can make about producing bareback videos that isn't at least as applicable to hiring and encouraging very young prostitutes. Therefore, to rail against the former even as one engages vigorously in the latter is the depth of hypocrisy and incoherence.

 

Do you get the point yet?

 

>If you want to come here and lecture a bunch of grown men

>about how wrong we are to hire Escorts that are also Grown

>men, I guess that is your right. But I can't figure out WHY

>you would want to hang out on a Message Board that is

>dedicated to that very thing, Hiring Escorts.

 

You're quite confused. The one issuing lectures about how wrong and immoral other people are is NCM and his ilk - railing against barebackers like a Southern Evangalist rails against homosexuals.

 

I'm pointing out that he is no position to do this not in order to "judge" him or moralize against what he does, but precisely because his sermons are revolting when coming from someone that does what he does. Do you see this now? Concentrate.

 

>Can we expect you to start quoting "select parts" of a Bible

>next to tell us how evil we are?

 

This sentence illustrates perfectly the hilarity and sickness of this Forum. You are holding yourself out to be an opponent of Right-Wing Moralizing when it comes to your friend NCM and his prostitution behavior, but then, somehow in the same post, you are defending these precise same Moralizing Sermons when they come from NCM against those Evil, Sinful Bareback Video Producers.

 

If nothing else, it would be quite helpful for you to understand this: you are not a person who hates Right-Wing moralizing sermons. You only hate the ones that are directed at you and what you do. Otherwise, not only don't you mind them, you defend those, such as NCM, who are prolific practitioners of them. How bizarre.

[Doug69]

>Why appeal to the beliefs of other citizens?

 

Because when one is trying to understand whether or not something is true - particularly with regard to the topic of prostitution - I think it's helpful to examine more views than just those of hookers and their johns, don't you?

 

There is an extreme irony that NCM's sermons about Bareback Video Producers are couched in exactly the same language that many, if not most, of his fellow citizens would use to condemn NCM and his activities. It's revealing that he uses the exact same tactics and rhetoric to finger the Sinful, Evil Bareback Video Producers as prostitution opponents or Anti-gay adocates would use to strongly condemn NCM's behavior.

 

You may think that people in a forum filled with hookers and johns are the Ultimate Authority on questions of ethics, morality, and similar topics - and that the thoughts and beliefs of our fellow citizens don't matter -- but unlike you, I think the the world outside this Forum can be instructive in understanding an issue.

 

>NCM (presumably,

>though I can't prove it) isn't posting on a Baptist ladies'

>message board; he's posting on a website where the

>overwhelming majority of viewers either don't have a problem

>with escorting or are willing to overlook whatever problems

>they have with it.

 

What difference does that make? I'm sure there are many people on this Board who have no problem with bareback vidoes. From the looks of it, lots and lots of people are buying them, and I would find it quite improbable and surprising, to put it mildly, if there were no one here among those purchasers. None of this stops NCM from coming here and regularly sermonizing against these videos. So why would the fact that this Forum is devoted to escorting preclude one's saying things about escorting that are true, even if unpleasant?

 

>But more so I don't believe in infantilizing 18-year-olds, who

>are adults and can make their own decisions, including

>unfortunate ones. The age of consent is LOWER in many

>countries, yet people often tend to speak as though the right

>of 18-year-olds to make their own sexual choices was some kind

>of technicality.

 

The one infantalizing 18 year-olds is NCM and all of these mother hens who cluck around with contrived, hypocritical worry that Bad Aaron Lawrence's videos are going to "influence" these young men and lead them astray. They depict "gay youth" as being so easily lead and brainwashed that these Videos will somehow cause them to take cum in their ass when, in the absence of the Video, they would not have.

 

Again, the point is not that 18 year-olds are too young to make their own decisions about escorting. The point is that you can't take this view of 18 year-olds as Vulnerable, Easily Manipulated Deer when it comes to railing against bareback videos, but then simultaneously claim that there's nothing wrong with "encouraging" them to escort because they're old enough to make their own choice.

 

>But in order for it to be amazing, you'd have to take the

>position that escorting is an inherently harmful choice for an

>18-year-old to make (which is a different thing from saying

>his parents wouldn't approve). Sure, it might be a bad choice

>for some 18-year-olds, but it's a bad choice for a lot of

>25-year-olds, and 35-year-olds, too. But I've met too many

>people who put themselves through college escorting, who look

>back fondly on the experience, and who seem perfectly well

>adjusted now, to believe that escorting is inherently harmful

>to 18-year-olds in the way that barebacking is.

 

Nobody is saying that prostitution is always, and in every case, hamrful to those who engage in it. And I know that you - given that you do engage in escorting -- have a rather strong personal interest in believing that "escorting" can actually be good for you.

 

As I said, I don't dispute that prostitution, in some cases, can be good for someone's life, But I can't imagine any sane adult counselling a 19 year-old male to earn his livelihood as a prostitute, given the great likelihood that his doing so will not be a healthy or favorable event for him, but will be the opposite.

 

One can reasonably argue the relative degrees to which prostitution harms an 18 year-old male versus the degree to which bareback videos do. But the one thing one can't reasonably do is sermonize against the latter while vigorously engaging in the former.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Why appeal to the beliefs of other citizens?

>

>Because when one is trying to understand whether or not

>something is true - particularly with regard to the topic of

>prostitution - I think it's helpful to examine more views than

>just those of hookers and their johns, don't you?

 

Sure, but I must have missed the part where you actually examined the views you were citing. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that because the parents of 18-year-olds would disapprove of their sons becoming escorts that NCM was under some obligation to concern himself with that -- or that, at the very least, because he doesn't worry about what their parents might think, that he therefore shouldn't have an opinion about barebacking videos. I just don't see the connection. One topic involves appropriate professions for young adults and the other involves the impact of images on behavior.

 

>There is an extreme irony that NCM's sermons about Bareback

>Video Producers are couched in exactly the same language that

>many, if not most, of his fellow citizens would use to condemn

>NCM and his activities. It's revealing that he uses the exact

>same tactics and rhetoric to finger the Sinful, Evil Bareback

>Video Producers as prostitution opponents or Anti-gay adocates

>would use to strongly condemn NCM's behavior.

 

Well, that's interesting up to a point, and maybe even mildly ironic, but I'm sure parallel language can be used to condemn or praise all sorts of unrelated topics. That the language is similar doesn't really mean the two topics have much to bear upon one another.

 

>You may think that people in a forum filled with hookers and

>johns are the Ultimate Authority on questions of ethics,

>morality, and similar topics - and that the thoughts and

>beliefs of our fellow citizens don't matter -- but unlike you,

>I think the the world outside this Forum can be instructive in

>understanding an issue.

 

I think it can too. But on this issue -- barebacking videos -- if you want to bring in a topic from outside this forum, wouldn't it make more sense to bring up something like violence in the movies (and whether it causes youth violence)? That's a topic that has parallels not only in language, but in substance.

 

>So why would the

>fact that this Forum is devoted to escorting preclude one's

>saying things about escorting that are true, even if

>unpleasant?

 

It wouldn't, but I thought you said you weren't actually saying that the views you were citing were true.

 

>As I said, I don't dispute that prostitution, in some cases,

>can be good for someone's life, But I can't imagine any sane

>adult counselling a 19 year-old male to earn his livelihood as

>a prostitute, given the great likelihood that his doing so

>will not be a healthy or favorable event for him, but will be

>the opposite.

 

Well, I think whether there's a great likelihood of it being unhealthy or unfavorable depends on the individual 19-year-old (who is, of course, also an adult) and what kinds of other choices he pairs up with his decision to escort. One can reasonably much more sweeping with regard to the subject of, say, barebacking videos, IF one takes the view that they inevitably CAUSE young people to bareback. I don't agree that they do, but I can still see that that's a very different proposition from suggesting that escorting is bad for young people.

[woodlawn]

>>In another recent thread someone offered the opinion that

>gay

>>escorts are less likely to spread STD's than other gay men

>>because their occupation makes them more sensitive to the

>>risks of STD's and therefore more likely to take precautions.

>

>>That is an interesting theory, but you and I are both aware

>of

>>many posts here about escorts who are quite willing to

>>bareback.

 

 

>And it's the barebacking that spreads the diseases,

 

That is not true. I realize that many who post here like to pretend that using a condom during intercourse eliminates the risk of exposing either party to HIV, but we all know that is false.

 

 

>Which means

>that escorts who are quite UNwilling to bareback represent far

>less of a public health concern than non-escorts who are quite

>willing to bareback. The relevant distinction is whether or

>not barebacking occurs in a given encounter, not the

>occupations of the people involved.

 

Neither of the above statements is true because both proceed from a false premise -- that HIV spreads only through barebacking.

 

What makes prostitution a public health concern is not only the propensity of some prostitutes to engage in barebacking but also the fact that their occupation requires them to have a large number of sex partners. Condoms do have a failure rate, so even prostitutes who never bareback are a public health concern if they engage in intercourse with a large number of partners selected from a group that is at high risk for infection.

[Doug69]

>And it's the barebacking that spreads the diseases, not the

>question of whether or not money changed hands.

 

The same thing could be said of all the bathhouses that were closed in the 1980s and which, for the most part, remain closed today: "It's barebacking that spreads the disesaes, not the question of where the sex is had."

 

That is true as far as it goes, but the fact is that the existence of bathouses unquestionably facilitated and fuelled the quantity of HIV-spreading bareback sex and other STDs, such as Hepatitis. The same is true for prostitution. While it is true that the payment of money does not itself cause the transmission of STDs, it certainly facilitates such transmission by enabling men to have easily arranged anonymous sex hook-ups with guys who, by definition, have anonymous sex with large numbers of people.

 

Again, the point isn't that prostitution should therefore be banned. It's that prostitution unquestionably contributes to the spreading of MANY STDs (and wearing a condom not only fails to provide absolute protect against HIV, but it also doesn't have any effect on numerous other STDs) at least as much as the making of bareback videos does.

 

Thus, it is impossible to understand how someone who facilitates and encourages one form of STD-spreading activity (prostitution) and who refuses to give it up, can simultaneously demand that other people give up their preferred activitiy (bareback videos) on the ground that such activities spread STDs.

[MiamiLooker]

"I realize that many who post here like to pretend that using a condom during intercourse eliminates the risk of exposing either party to HIV..."

 

Can you be specific and identify the posters and their posts that cause you to come to this realization? I don't believe that even most AIDS educators go so far as to say that condom use completely eliminates the risk of exposure. But I do believe that most would still advise that they be used.

 

 

AARFD

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Neither of the above statements is true because both proceed

>from a false premise -- that HIV spreads only through

>barebacking.

 

No, they proceed from a true premise, which is that HIV is spread PRIMARILY through barebacking. Do you seriously believe that condom failure, or oral sex, are even remotely as efficient as barebacking in the spread of HIV?

 

>What makes prostitution a public health concern is not only

>the propensity of some prostitutes to engage in barebacking

>but also the fact that their occupation requires them to have

>a large number of sex partners.

 

Don't look now, but there are plenty of gay men who aren't prostitutes who have a large number of sex partners. In an age of chat rooms and websites devoted to sexual hookups, just about anyone who wants to can be promiscuous. And if anything the "risk group" that escorts are coming into contact is lower than the risk group people who hook up online for free comes into contact with, since a greater percentage of the former group are people who don't get laid much. Now which phenomenon do you think public health officials are more worried about -- barebacking chat rooms or non-barebacking escorts?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>And it's the barebacking that spreads the diseases, not the

>>question of whether or not money changed hands.

>

>The same thing could be said of all the bathhouses that were

>closed in the 1980s and which, for the most part, remain

>closed today: "It's barebacking that spreads the disesaes,

>not the question of where the sex is had."

 

And yet, mysteriously, some of those cities -- San Francisco, for example -- that banned bathhouses still have HIV rates which are higher than those in cities that didn't ban their bathhouses. Kind of makes you wonder how effective banning bathhouses was.