Belami interview insulting to the gay consumer

[SilverWolf]

If all the straight guys stopped doing gay porn, I suspect that a lot of companies would barely have a dozen models.

Besides, a lot of people label themselves as straight but enjoy gay sex based on a number of conditions like they don't bottom and they don't want relationships with men. So how they label themselves can be misleading.

But in my opinion, as I said before...As long as the guy does a good job convincing me he is enjoying that dick in his ass and he respects gay people on and off camera, and he leaves the straight porn or "pussy" talk off camera, the company has my support. One or two jerks do not ruin the entire company for me.

There are companies who have an almost exclusive gay porn actors and if you want to see gay people having sex on camera, then those companies are for you. If you want pieces of eye candy regardless of sexual orientation and their orientation is not explicitly stated in the videos, then Bel Ami is for you. If you want "straight" guys who are marketed as straight, then corbin fisher or Sean Cody are for you. Thankfully there are small areas in the gay porn market for each of us and we can all get along.

 

[HalienFntb]

I know personally a lot of porn actors, but only one of them is a gay guy.

 

[MercuryJones]

But the bottom line is statements like "I'm not gay, I only have sex with other men" are just out of touch. People can try different situations and decide what they like enough to try again, but they don't get to pick whatever word they feel like to describe themselves and redefine its meaning - for the same reason that I can't just start calling myself a piece of broccoli: It's insane.

But you'd have to have a standard definition to begin with. You can't call yourself a piece of broccoli because you don't meet the standard definition. But other things aren't so clearly defined - do they refer to habit, intent, desire or something else.

I personally stick with orientation, in discussing sexuality - what you are attracted to, rather than what you do.

If you say you're straight but have sex with men because you like it, I'm not going to consider you straight, regardless of what you say.

On the other hand, if you say you are straight, and have sex with women when it's a matter of desire, but sometimes have sex with men for money, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[easyroad]

Didn't really care about that part of the interview. I don't think that he "prefers" straight guys over gay guys, it's probably a case of "the more [men], the merrier".

The thing that amused me, however, is Duroy suggesting that people are saying Bel Ami is vanilla and boring because their models use condoms. Oh dear, talk about missing the point...

 

[SilverWolf]

But that is just it--a lot of frustration comes from the fact that the studios AND some of the actor feel the need to emphasize their heterosexuality. There is a genre called: gay-4-pay... and men frequently fantasize about it. I think that is what the original poster was upset about. Bel Ami was just the target of choice.

This.

Most of the frustration with gay for pay comes from this.

 

[bankside]

Good definitions help clarify some of this discussion. I also agree that sexual orientation is distinct from sexual identity, but I think what you have defined is “sexual behavior” not “sexual orientation”. I looked at the Wiki entry for "sexual orientation" for some help and they define three terms relevant to “sexual orientation” (the stuff in italics is from wiki):

• Sexual behavior: referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual
• Sexual identity: referring to an individual's conception of themselves
• Sexual orientation: an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others.

That's all okay. A lot of those terms are recently made-up and redefined, which I'm not too worried about because the field of sexology has advanced only slowly and recently.

• I'm good with "sexual behaviour" as defined.
• I would probably just eliminate "sexual identity" or at least rename it "sexual charade," "sexual self-delusion" or "sexual PR" or something which makes clear it can easily be an illusion for the consumption of others. It is in any form, I think, the most trivial of these terms.
• And "sexual orientation" I would define as the potential for "sexual behaviour" including all of its emotional, romantic, affectional, or physical aspects.

As far as concordant or discordant varieties of these terms, I don't quite see the point of that. Most of this talk of "concordant" or "discordant" seems about allowing people to pick a sexual identity that doesn't match their sexual reality. I don't know why we should humour people who don't know how to label what they enjoy or what they do.

And as far as decoupling romance, affection, or emotion from sexuality, I just think that is some kind of pathology that has nothing to do with orientation.

 

[MercuryJones]

But I'm more concerned with those 'gays' who consume the product then those men who produce it--to me this isn't 'pride'. This type of behavior doesn't represent pride, it represents shame--which is another thing rampant about gays.

Would it be better if the straight guy bottomed under a rainbow flag, while signing a petition to overturn DADT?

Sexual fantasy is personal, complex and not a good indicator about almost anything else about the person with the fantasies.

And policing other people's personal sex interests is a most appalling sort of authoritarianism. It's no less ridiculous than those who say we're gay because our fathers were too distant.

 

[MercuryJones]

Looks like I hit a nerve for someone.

In that i don't like authoritarians, somewhat.

No. 'Policing' would be me taking you infront of a crowded stadium and publibly behead you.

Let's be honest and just call it like it is. Habitual veiwers, and performers of G4P are lousy queers.

And that's another form of policing other people's sexual lives.

I've lived long enough with people's crazy ideas about what motivates some of us to be gay to not notice the same authoritarianism when it comes to these more nuanced elements. What next - do bottoms hate themselves?

If other people's consensual sex lives bother you, its because you're thinking about them too much.

 

[MercuryJones]

Well, if that is the logic then: If other people's opinions on other peoples sex lives bother you, its because you are thinking about them too much.

I only think about it when people make accusations about what other people think and feel, as if they had windows into the souls of their fellow men and women.

 

[954dude]

There's no such thing as gay-for-pay....if you're having sex with another man, you're either gay or bi. I know that none of my straight friends would do anything with another guy. I know for me, just the thought of the naked female body has a gross-out factor off the charts lol, which I assume is the same for straight guys.

They aren't getting paid.

 

[MercuryJones]

That statement cuts both ways--you are not capable of this either. And cannot come to their defense without looking blindly stupid.

I never said I knew what other think or feel. I can't - and neither can you.

But you've decided you can tell by some personal sexual matter whether a person has pride or not. That's very presumptuous and silly, just like people who say men are gay because they had distant fathers.

 

[MercuryJones]

Well Women marry men for convenience and money all the time , even if they aren't sexually attracted to those partners-- and it doesn't stop people or themselves identifying them as straight.

Because - duh - they may actually be straight, even if they have straight sex for money.

Behaviors are a larger indicator of who you really are. IF you're gay you primarily desire men, and seek them out as sexual partners--despite the context of money, arousal cannot be forced.

Arousal can't be forced but the appearance of it can be. I'm not at all attracted to women, but I could make myself have sex with one. And I know I've had sex with a man or two I wasn't at all attracted to.

Look at the accounts of gay men who made the mistake of marrying women. They talk about imagining men while having sex with a woman. Or look to the porn business, with its fluffers and other practices to keep guys hard who aren't aroused.

People have been faking arousal for a long time.

 

[MercuryJones]

I'm saying homosexuals feel shame on a fundamental level because they don't confirm to the stereotype of what is masculine or manly. And so it becomes the fixation or desire to 'chase' after a 'straight' guy-- because a lot of them just want to be 'one of the boys' and want acceptance by them.

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement "Let's be honest and just call it like it is. Habitual veiwers, and performers of G4P are lousy queers."

But in any event, you continue to believe you know what other people feel ("homosexuals feel shame on a fundamental level because they don't confirm to the stereotype").

But you don't know what other people feel. You're projecting something onto them based on their sexual interests.

Also, as this article stipulates, eastern Europeans don't have real mores on sex. Its not even considered homosexual sex if its between two male partners. So what is? What is the definition of a homosexuality? Again, most people don't seem to agree on what gay is.

That's a rather silly description of Eastern Europe. But, homosexuality is the attraction to persons of the same sex.

Just as its silly to say distant parents make gay babies--it is just as silly to obsess over someone 'hetero-ness' like a lot of gay men do... hence the g-4-p phenomenon.

All sexual interests and fantasies are silly, but mostly to the people who don't have them. I personally find foot fetishism remarkably silly. And I'm sure others would find my interests silly. But you can't reliably draw any conclusions about people based on just their sexual likes and dislikes.

On a side note: the amount of money models make is determine by their stats; sometimes there hetero stats is a negotiation ploy for more money.

Yes, I'm certain that is sometimes the case.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

If I could borrow a few words from Monique's Oscar acceptance speech:

"It's about the performance, not the politics."

So long as the "gay for pay" boys are giving a good performance and giving it they're all, I'm a satisfied consumer. I just don't like models, gay or straight, who think they can just be there and look good, while not giving a good performance.

If we can just get that point "straight," we'll all get along; even with those of us into broads.

 

[MercuryJones]

Thank you BabiGayPimp. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[MercuryJones]

Right. They just take a dick splint and place on the performers penis before shooting.

No, they jerk off, fantasize, have fluffers and refresh with porn.

And make as many different camera angles--for which take HOURS! you cannot maintain an erection that long with out some interest in the sex with a guy.

See above. Fluffers, refresh. And Viagra.

There is no amount of money, Viagra, or straight porn that could provide typical men to sexually function with other guys

Of course typical men aren't in porn. This isn't about typical men - it's men who are willing to have sex with other men for money.

I've read your posts. They're just very naive and uninformed.

 

[MercuryJones]

Yes you can. Just ask the psychologist I know treating a patient who has the desire to dress up like a baby and be pampered. He is being treated to understand this compulsion and desire to fulfill this fantasy.

A psychologist may build a case based on the information provided by the patient , but that's based on a lot more than just knowing the fantasy. And even then, the psychologist doesn't KNOW but is postulating.

Also, your friend may not be much of a psychologist. He or she shouldn't be discussing a client in that way with a third party.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

I think some preferences can be destructive, pedophilia is an extreme example. Wanting somebody by a virtue of them not wanting you could also be destructive. I think most fetishes, maybe even this one, are fine. It's like emotions, it's what you do with them. Though you've gotta admit, we're kind of superficial and a lot of our judgments are made based on sexual evaluations. Even in the workplace... studies confirm it. If you have that kind of preference, regardless of its pathogenesis, it could lead to those kinds of actions. I wish sexual and personal preference could be more isolated, but they are clearly not, we should adjust accordingly.
I'd have less problem if the fetish were with straight looking, not straight, but too many people want what they cannot have.
However, I'm in the middle of you guys on this one.
I think there are "str8" performers who somehow manage to get the job done, but gays need the jobs more and it seems they're being given disproportionately to straights.
It seems that neither of you are fully reading/respecting the other's posts, ah well.
I think the have-nots tend to understand the value in compensation more because they are the ones receiving it. I don't think straights should be eliminated, but I think gays should be targeted/selected more in the process.
Can we at least agree that discrimination in FAVOR of str8's needs to stop, especially in services frequented by US?
I hate Freud, and reading to deep into preference origin. But it's not the origin I'm worried about, it's the destination. (Self-hate for some).
Also, what about str8's that think we're out to convert them, does it help to have str8 actors in porn about that fear? I think we all know this fear puts a lot of the "phobia" into "homophobia".
I'm out of gas on this one. Nobody's viewpoint's gonna change anyways. Mine has a little... juuuuust a little.

 

[SilverWolf]

I think some preferences can be destructive, pedophilia is an extreme example. Wanting somebody by a virtue of them not wanting you could also be destructive. I think most fetishes, maybe even this one, are fine. It's like emotions, it's what you do with them. Though you've gotta admit, we're kind of superficial and a lot of our judgments are made based on sexual evaluations. Even in the workplace... studies confirm it. If you have that kind of preference, regardless of its pathogenesis, it could lead to those kinds of actions. I wish sexual and personal preference could be more isolated, but they are clearly not, we should adjust accordingly.
I'd have less problem if the fetish were with straight looking, not straight, but too many people want what they cannot have.
However, I'm in the middle of you guys on this one.
I think there are "str8" performers who somehow manage to get the job done, but gays need the jobs more and it seems they're being given disproportionately to straights.
It seems that neither of you are fully reading/respecting the other's posts, ah well.
I think the have-nots tend to understand the value in compensation more because they are the ones receiving it. I don't think straights should be eliminated, but I think gays should be targeted/selected more in the process.
Can we at least agree that discrimination in FAVOR of str8's needs to stop, especially in services frequented by US?
I hate Freud, and reading to deep into preference origin. But it's not the origin I'm worried about, it's the destination. (Self-hate for some).
Also, what about str8's that think we're out to convert them, does it help to have str8 actors in porn about that fear? I think we all know this fear puts a lot of the "phobia" into "homophobia".
I'm out of gas on this one. Nobody's viewpoint's gonna change anyways. Mine has a little... juuuuust a little.

I agree. Discrimination in favor of straight guys and them being treated better than gay models needs to stop.

 

[bankside]

If I could borrow a few words from Monique's Oscar acceptance speech:

"It's about the performance, not the politics."

So long as the "gay for pay" boys are giving a good performance and giving it they're all, I'm a satisfied consumer. I just don't like models, gay or straight, who think they can just be there and look good, while not giving a good performance.

If we can just get that point "straight," we'll all get along; even with those of us into broads.

Harrison Ford actually was president, you know that right? Air Force One was a movie, but they only casted Harrison Ford as president in that movie because he really was. Same reason Keanu Reeves always gets cast as a stoner doofus - he really is!