THANK YOU PROBETEAM1 -- for your thoughtful comments -- and
also THANKS to the reveared SOILWORK and KYANIMAL -- for your great input .
Although I'm in the OLD BABY BOOMER generation - I'm thinking some of the attitudes of today - are really generationally "updated" compared to what we thought was "PC" 100 years ago. Our society is changing -- to the point where even Rosie O'D.'s big mouth is heard -- oh,but that's another thread.
Thanks for the praise!
I for one, appreciate any/all of these guys that are making me cum while watching their vids and jacking --whoever they go home to.
I wholeheartedly agree! It's none of my business what porn actors do for fun (though I suppose it's fun to speculate), so long as they're hot on film.
And now on to other things...
no. If you are a gay man, and you have sex with a women, you are not completely gay...no matter if you call yourself gay or not. Having sex with a woman once could be considered "experimenting" but anything more than once means you are not gay. You are bisexual.
How does that work again? I honestly don't see your logic at all.
If he had sex with a woman even once, while "experimenting," then you basically admit that he was capable of having sex with her for a reason other than sexual attraction. If once, why not again? Experimental curiosity is not the only motive, after all. Why can't money perform the same miracle as "experimentation"?
On another note, having sex for money is the definition of prostitution. These 'porn stars' are basically hookers.
I assume this is supposed to mean something?
Well then, since they're so beneath you, I suggest you leave JUB forever and dont' ever watch any more porn.
I tend to agree, assuming one has a problem with prostitution.
If they're not good enough to show a bit of repsect, they sure aren't good enough for you to watch while jacking off, are they?
Again, I agree. And I'm not even sure what to make of the next one...
For god sakes, stop comparing real actors and the acting profession, to porn. Not even in the same category. They are not acting. They are having sex on video for money. Prostitution is not too far off.
Let us not get too full of ourselves here.
I would say that having sex for money is a pretty clear definition of prostitution. Then there's teh opinion that (since you're effectively selling yourself) all labor is prostitution (I forget who said that originally, but I can't claim it as mine.)
But acting in pornography (at least some pornography) is still acting, even if it isn't of great quality ("Are you sure there isn't some other way I could tip you, Mr. Delivery guy?"). And faking the throes of sexual bliss while simulating lovemaking (or just sex) in front of a camera seems like a fair definition of "acting" to me.
You can have your "prostitution" definition if I can have my "acting" defnition. That seems like a fair trade. What'll it be? be?
Considering how many of these supposed "gay for pay" performers I've had sex with for no money, i would say you have to be a little bit bi to even consider doing it. I have a male friend who does straight porn, and he says no amount of money would have him doing gay porn.
Wait.
Are you admitting that you sleep with prostitutes? Also, are you calling your straight friend a whore?
What's more, you don't seem to have a very high opinion of "gay for pay" actors in general, or porn actors in general, from the tone of your post. If that's teh case, why are you having sex with people you seem to hold in contempt?
...
If I may go off on a tangent here, I'd like to comment on these last few posts. The general idea behind them seems to be that calling porn actors prostitutes seems to make some sort of point. So I present these rebuttals to that implied point:
First, there seems to be the implication that because they have sold sex, porn stars/prostitutes are somehow done something teriible. But people trade sex all the time. I have met girls who dated guys for their cars, couples whose relationships seemed sustained by the gifts the one presented to the other, and even cases of some who seemed to sleep with people so they'd have somewhere to sleep at night. Some people withold sex from their boyfriends for boyfriends for misbehavior, and in theory they reward them when they do well. Some couples even exchange sex for sex: "I'm going to do this thing that you really enjoy, and in return you'll do that thing that I really enjoy."
Sex gets traded all the time. I don't see why it suddenly becomes filthy when actual cash is involved.
Second, it is off the topic. The question is not "are porn stars prostitutes?" (which is a matter of definition - if the activities undertaken in porn fall within the definition of "prostitution," then indeed they are). The question is "Are 'gay for pay' performers hypocrites?" Unless "hooker = hypocrite," I fail to see the relevance except as an opportunity to sling mud or get on a soapbox.
Third, it seems to abandon the "they're not really straight" argument in favor of a different attitude altogether. Again, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the disussion. If anything, it
weakens the connection between sexual activity and sexual identity.
...and getting back to the original topic:
I personally have trouble believing that a man would be "open" enough to allow himself to be
filmed having sex with another man, yet closeted enough to deny that he had any same-sex attraction, unless he had
some reason to think it were true.
And even if he had an ulterior motive, that alone doesn't meet the definition of hypocrisy. It might be a
lie, but all acting is pretty much by definition a deception to some degree.
