Are Companies Against Bareback Porn Hypocrites?

[aaronp]

just a quick touch on your original post, video game violence desensitizes young children to violence. when a study was conducted on a bobo doll (the dolls that you hit and they bounce back towards you) the study showed the effects of violence, children who were exposed to violence often exhibited much more violent natures. (as far as i remember this is correct, Bandura et al., 1961) Observational learning is not just applied to children but adults as well, such as the case when theres heavy media coverage on a violent event, it spurs a sudden increase in similar violent crimes (berkowitz and macaulay, 1971; Phillips 1983, 1986).
Leaving me to believe that a company distributing bareback sex is contributing to unsafe sex, observational learning, as well as contributing to this idea of what composes a "sexy" man and what does not, as i stood by in the "youth are more narcissistic post" i used this very example as a reason that contributed to youth's fixation with good looks and narcissism, the pressures of society and porn being among them.
so my stance would be that:
exposure to violence does increase violent activities.
expose to unsafe sex contributes to unsafe sex.
as well as the imposed idea of what a man should and should not look like.

 

[luminum]

1) Quixote, you CAN get multiple infections. See, this is why sex educationis so important. HIV is a retrovirus, and one of the things thatc omes with that is that the virus changes very rapidly, become a new kind of HIV virus with infection. There isn't just one strain of HIV, there hundreds if not thousands of strains. Having sex with person A and then getting HIV-A, then having sex with person B and also getting HIV-B will only leave you with HIV-A and HIV-B. Not fun, and a hell of a lot riskier for your system. Instead of one virus getting you, you now have two.

2) I think porn companies have the right to do what they want. They may not be making a statement about barebacking as a practice in general, but as a company, I would have a firm stance against barebacking in my videos just so I could limit the amount of STD transmission between my models and actors. Whether or not it's to make a statement is irrelevant, because if youw ant a successful and long lasting porn company, including models, you probably want them to be healthy instead of aimlessly transmitting one disease after another to each other.

So Soil is right, regardless of whether or not barebacking porn is a fantasy, real people still have to do it. Kids on bikes don't have to wear pads and helmets to protect themselves if they don't want to, but as a parent or sibling, I would demand that they do to make sure that they stay safe. I don't care if the other kids or the kid feels that real 'men' don't have to wear all these pads to protect themselves or if it doesn't look like the hardcore punks on TV who don't wear protective gear, I want kids safe and not dead. They have to wear the gear when they're ont he bike. Likewise, as a porn company owner, I'd demand that my models wear protection while on the job.

 

[Hard Luck]

...the study showed the effects of violence, children who were exposed to violence often exhibited much more violent natures. .

I'm all for limited childrens' exposure to bad stuff. And children should probably not watch porn, regardless.

The target audience for pornography, however, is not children ... and so I don't think the industry need be concerned for how it influences adults too stupid to separate real life from the movies.

 

[Chalchalero]

Yes, so why is there such a clamor to eliminate that from non R-Rated films? There's a full page ad in Variety nearly every week about removing all smoking and tobacco references in Hollywood films, and the campaign is picking up steam.

Seems there's a lot of people who put credence in the Monkey See Monkey Do power of the movies. I agree to a point ... but I think tailoring entertainment to that factor of human experience is a slippery slope mistake.


... and so I have to wonder why, since the budgets are no more non-existent than they are enough to spring for effects by ILM ... can't more theatrical measures, make-up arts, and movie-making tricks be used to portray bareback sex without actually having the actors perform it?

Something between, say, stunt sex and prosthetic-tomfoolery sex?



I agree porn is, by its nature, a fantasy of sex ... and I also agree performers should not be compelled or pressured to participate in anything potentially dangerous. But they are movies, and they can use tricks up their sleeves to further the fantasy.




"No Animals Were Harmed and No Real Bareback Fucking Happened During the Production of this Motion Picture" can appear at the tail end of the DVD.

I sincerely believe that there is a culture of vicimisation in this country where everyone is a potential victim of someone's bad influence, everyone is a victim of alcoholism, everyone is a victim of something but no one is responsible for anything themselves.

The idea that smoking, for example, in the movies is somehow going to influence the little kiddies is so ridiculous simply because if a child walks into a movie theatre with his mommy to see a non-smoking Bambi, he is going to leave the theatre with her afterwards and there is at least a 50 percent chance (I'm assuming - don't really know the percentage of smokers in the world) that the first thing Mommy's going to do is light up. 9 times out of ten, Mommy is probably more influential in the kid's life than Bambi is, so he'll probably be tempted at some point to give smoking a try at least.

People use entertainment as a scapegoat for their own poor parenting or their own lack of self control. If watching bareback movies makes you yearn for the real thing, then either don't watch them anymore, or get out there and get your bareback on. Either way, it should be YOUR decision and YOUR responsibility as it will be YOU who has to deal with the consequences, no one else.

 

[Soilwork]

... and so I have to wonder why, since the budgets are no more non-existent than they are enough to spring for effects by ILM ... can't more theatrical measures, make-up arts, and movie-making tricks be used to portray bareback sex without actually having the actors perform it?

actually Raging Stallion is doing that now.

 

[moonrabbit]

This probably one of the most thoughtful and insightful threads to have appeard here in months.

You have raised a variety of very worth while issues with this posting. They all deserve to be discussed in an intelligent and informative manner.

Bravo, Well Done. CONGRATULATIONS ​

​

eM. ​

Thanks. It took a long time for me to put that paragraph together. And I can't even count how many times I proof read it for errors.

 

[luminum]

Well, we're all talking about bareback porn bing eliminated because of its supposed 'influence', but what about general safe health practices from a business/industry standpoint?

 

[aaronp]

I'm all for limited childrens' exposure to bad stuff. And children should probably not watch porn, regardless.

The target audience for pornography, however, is not children ... and so I don't think the industry need be concerned for how it influences adults too stupid to separate real life from the movies.

although i do agree with you that the target is the adult audience, children have access to it nonetheless.
all the children aside, the fact that adults are adults does not take the weight off of bareback companies shoulders. observational learning does not stop at the age of 18, and with hiv/aids being such a pandemic its important to remember these are lives we are talking here.
are bareback companies to blame for all of societies problems? no, but they are a major contributer.

 

[Raven03]

Can bareback porn influence some of its viewers to try it, sure. However if you know what risk that are involved and choose to ignore the warnings that some of these companies who specialize in it then you should be adult enough to handle the consequences if engaged in it. I disagree that the videos are a major(some, yes) influence though because most people who seem to get off it on it are the ones who would rather not risk there own health of trying it out themselves. Porn is made to fullfill a fantasy and while some of them are down right risky and have real people who act them out they made it there choice to involve themselves.

Its understandable why some companies are against it because even with testing of the models the door is still open to get a nasty std without the protection of a condom. There is no way of knowing what some of these models do in there own personal time between testing and actual filming even though it is said that they are not supposed to have sex or masturbate between that time.

 

[moonrabbit]

although i do agree with you that the target is the adult audience, children have access to it nonetheless.
all the children aside, the fact that adults are adults does not take the weight off of bareback companies shoulders. observational learning does not stop at the age of 18, and with hiv/aids being such a pandemic its important to remember these are lives we are talking here.
are bareback companies to blame for all of societies problems? no, but they are a major contributer.

While I strongly disagree with you, I'm not up for writing another paragraph to support my reasons.

But I do want to say that the point I was trying to make in my original post has been completely lost. My purpose was not to debate the morality of bareback porn. Only to point out that there are other problems and issues surrounding the porn industry and how they are swept under the rug.