As you can see from the poll in OUT magazine, the public has spoken.Many comments were also left on the website in corroboration of the poll's results, however, they are now off the website.
Maybe it is because they clashed with the writer's viewpoint in his article "Baring The Truth" or the as the headline on the cover of this month's issue states: "Deadly NOT Edgy, the Rise of Bareback Porn."
I commend OUT magazine for taking on the timely subject of bareback porn. The writer, James Gavin, gives an in depth look at the rise in bareback porn and his conviction that it correlates directly with "a corresponding rise in HIV infections." It would be interesting to, let's say, do a survey at testing centers or clinics around the world to see if we can once and for all pinpoint just how much of an influence watching bareback porn has on the final decision one makes in their sexual encounters to have safe sex or not.
Let's go a step further and try to picture a world without bareback pornography in this day and age. Would the spread of HIV be brought to a halt?? Could AIDS possibly be wiped out once the last infected person dies off years from now, only if bareback porn was eradicated??? One could say, take away the influence = bareback porn, then you take away the desire for people to perform it. Hmmm, makes sense.
SO....following those same ideals, we can also say - take away the promotion of alcohol = people won't want to drink....take away the lure of drugs = everyone clean...take away cigarettes = people won't want to smoke...take away McDonalds & all the fast food chains = no more obesity. Woo Hoo! A bareback-free, smoke-free, sober, HIV-, skinny world!!! Wait a minute...most all of my friends smoke & drink. I don't. I've constantly been around drug use and I don't have a drug problem. There are lots of fast food places by my house and on my way to work, yet I manage to eat healthy. It must JUST be bareback porn that has the greatest influence then.
The author of the article in OUT magazine is even quoted as saying, "I wonder if all the bareback porn I'd watched had somehow weakened my determination to always play safe." Well, it MUST have if we follow this logical thought process!
What we have here people is called "scapegoating." BLAMING an influence as the reason you act a certain way and not taking responsibility for your own actions. (And I'm not just saying that as an excuse so I can "sleep at night" as it is inferred in the article ;-)
The next issue I'd like to address is "hypocrisy." Regarding barebacking, there are a couple cases in particular. 1- Those who are publicly against the promotion of barebacking in the media, yet never use condoms in their own personal life, and 2- Those companies who say they will never promote barebacking or use models who have barebacked, yet make available on their websites (either for sale or VOD) "Pre-condom Classics" and/or feature models who have previously been in bareback movies because they are "marketable."
Issue 1- If you bareback in real life you may not think you are "promoting" it simply because you have never filmed it. WRONG. If you never use a condom in your private life, you ARE promoting barebacking. You are promoting it to the people you are fucking and all the people they tell that they had sex with you. What I'm trying to say here is that I've heard arguments from people saying "Well, they're watching you have sex w/out a condom, therefore, they will want to have sex w/out a condom. You're influencing them." My answer to them is "Well, wouldn't I be influencing them even if I didn't film it? What if they just knew I barebacked in real life, either with a lover or otherwise? Would just knowing I barebacked influence them any less than actually watching me do it??" Moving on...
Let me offer this analogy to ponder: a priest who preaches against homosexuality yet has gay sex in his personal life. If you publicly criticize (or condemn) promoting an act in which you practice yourself in your own private life, then you are like this priest - or a mother who drives home drunk from a M.A.D.D. meeting. Think about it. Practice what you preach people!
Issue 2- I can totally understand companies who will use models that have barebacked before because, hey...business is business. Everyone's ruled by the all mighty dollar. What I'm not getting is their justification in releasing their "Pre-condom Classics" as a non-promotional form of barebacking simply because these films were made "Pre-"AIDS scare. This just makes NO sense to me. Barebacking is barebacking no matter if it was done in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, or today. A close-up shot of a cock going up someone's ass w/out a condom in 1970 looks no different then one going up someone's ass today. (Well, maybe as far as film quality goes it's different) but people really aren't going to be that concerned with that technical aspect while they're jacking off .
I can understand people thinking bareback porn is "Deadly" and/or "Edgy." I did not get into this side of the business to be deadly or edgy and I think the majority of people out there can understand that. I don't think bareback porn is edgy. There is so much of it out there now. It's becoming more and more the "norm." I think the trend will only continue in that direction.
Bareback porn (ALL porn for that matter) is as much of an influence on today's society as drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. How we choose to allow these influences to affect our lives is really the issue at hand. As far as bareback porn goes, I think more than not, people realize and happily accept it for what it is - FANTASY - not reality, not deadly, not even edgy anymore.
