OA_show('Wallpaper');
OA_show('Leaderboard - Xx90');
Choose your edition:

Search form

Sean Cody's flip-flop fucking

Sean Cody's flip-flop fucking

IMAGE 1 OF 1
There’s a reason bare- backing has never found its way into Porndoggy columns. Generally speaking, it’s not something I — or anyone who’s written this column before me — approve of. I consider barebacking to be the sexual equivalent of Crocs: not something I’m into, but I realize not everyone is in the same situation as I am, so I can’t, and won’t, force my opinion on others.

That being said, you can’t walk around in Crocs while simultaneously denouncing their weird, plastic existence, because that would just be hypocritical. And for the same reason, you can’t produce a bareback scene and then tell everyone you don’t endorse condom-free porn.

So you can probably understand why the folks at Sean Cody found themselves under fire after launching their very first bareback scene. Despite being a strictly safer-sex website for years, Sean Cody kicked off the new year by announcing a three-way that would, for the first time since Sean Cody’s inception, not include any condoms.

The part that raised my eyebrows was the notice used to preface the scene:

“In order to create this film our models underwent strict screening for HIV and other STDs. Our studio used the RNA by PCR test, which is the most effective test available.

“Unprotected sex is not something we recommend or endorse, even if you’re in a relationship.”

Huh?

Look, it’s good to see they meticulously tested their models before they shot the scene, but I think technically speaking, producing, filming and distributing a porn scene involving unprotected sex is probably as blatant an endorsement as you can give.

I don’t take offence so much to the fact it’s a bareback scene. Once again, not really something I advocate for health reasons, but I don’t resent anyone who does it. Let’s face it: those in the adult industry are adults, and I have met some performers who are well aware of the risks and do as much as they can to counteract them (aside from condom use). The ability to have the sex life you want without others imposing judgment is a two-way street. I’ll take my condoms; they take bareback. I do my thing; they do theirs.

What irks me here is that Sean Cody’s people are trying to have their cake and dump a load in it, too. I couldn’t say I don’t endorse unprotected sex and then perform in a barebacking scene or get raw-dogged to kingdom cum in my personal life. You can’t play both sides of the field, because that’s not how the game works. It’s a pretty transparent cop-out, to say the least. But mostly, it’s just disappointing to watch people try to talk out of both sides of their asses.

OA_show('Text Ad - #1');
OA_show('Text Ad - #2');

Comments

For some performers barebacking porn only option
Here is a really interesting piece on condoms and porn from an HIV educator who works in porn and sex work: http://www.prettyqueer.com/2011/07/21/on-covering-the-landscape-in-latex/
“TRANSMISSION RISKS” based on misinformation
@Anonymous “people who have opted in favour of unprotected sex and seek out only “BB” partners are in fact some of the most knowledgeable about transmission risks.” NO !!! There is gross misinformation going around about “TRANSMISSION RISKS.” Based on some African studies of Hetero couples (vaginal sex) who were taking Anti-Retrovirals; some HIV+POZ people are now saying that “Zero detectable is uninfectable.” NOT TRUE. In the African studies: in one study 29 people became infected, in another study 13 people became infected. Zero detectable is NOT ACTUAL ZERO, because then the person would be cured of HIV. There is a 96percent reduction in infection rate, NOT 100percent. INFECTION IS STILL POSSIBLE. As well with antiretrovirals there occur “blips” where the viral count rises temporarily. As well not every HIV+POZ person is on antiretrovirals. BareBack anal sex is the most probable way of acquiring and spreading HIV infection. That is why the latest HIV infection rate shows Gays in Canada making up 65percent of all new infections. Can't handle the truth? Too bad... STOP THE BULLSHIT. STOP BAREBACKING. STOP THE INFECTIONS.
On Unprotectedness
Hey Jeremy, thanks for the additional note. I understand what you are saying!

As for the other commenters above, I think the bile from this "not Tim" person and some of the others really indicates why so many poz folks don't feel safe being out, because the feedback in the community is so toxic. It's great that these people have turned an only-slightly-informed opinion into a venomous soapbox. One of the ironies is that some of the people who have opted in favour of unprotected sex and seek out only "BB" partners are in fact some of the most knowledgeable about transmission risks.

Anyway, thanks for providing a forum for some conversation here. The PositiveLite link from Tim is an interesting conversation piece as well.
Anonymous
Hey Anonymous,

I understand if the first lines came off as weirdly uppity. I honestly have the worst time coming up with intros, so usually I like to start off with jokey bullshit. More often than not, you can usually write off my openers as me just throwing a dick joke out there to catch my footing.

Cheers,

Jeremy
HIV+POS barebacking HIV-NEG --that is unethical
“if HIV-positive people have unprotected sex with other HIV-positive people, then what's the harm?” NO HARM --unless they have different strains of HIV and they are re-infecting each other; making each other sicker... The greatest harm is when an HIV+POS person is having bareback sex with an HIV-NEG person who he did not advise beforehand that he may become infected with HIV. That is unethical and worthy of legal action against the HIV+POS person especially is the HIV-NEG becomes infected. If that happened to me, I would not kill the guy, but I would be tempted to cut off his dick so he could not infect anyone else. The courts take too long to act. And often the convicted ones re-offend. Sometimes you have to take drastic action to safe others from unethical bastards who should be rotting in jail for ruining the lives of others. If you are HIV+POS, not telling someone HIV-NEG with whom you have unprotected bareback sex is criminal. This type of silence is not golden --it is ugly.
What's the harm?
"Not Tim", if HIV-positive people have unprotected sex with other HIV-positive people, then what's the harm? They are both already infected with HIV and will have to take anti-viral drugs for the rest of their lives (until a cure is discovered). This is the belief of most AIDS activists today.
HIV BAREBACK IS DISGUSTING
“Of course, many of these performers were HIV-positive at the time they decided to make bareback films.” DISGUSTING. When I see an obviously HIV+ person barebacking in porn I turn it off; I can't watch; it makes me sick. BAREBACKING IS THE PRIMARY WAY OF SPREADING HIV. WHEN I SEE PEOPLE BAREBACKING AT THE BATHS I YELL AT THEM TO STOP. In a the dark atmosphere of required silence, yelling makes them scurry away like cockroaches from light. If idiots who are probably drunk and drugged do not have the morality to NOT engage in dangerous bareback sex at the baths, then OTHERS HAVE TO STOP THEM. We have to stop the HIV epidemic any way possible: intimidation or incarceration, etc... It has to stop.
Extending their porn career
Many gay porn stars who did condom films in their early 20s (or 20s) end up doing bareback films in their late 20s, 30s and 40s. It’s as though bareback films give them a chance to extend their porn career when the condom film producers are no longer willing to hire them as they age. These cross-over performers include Jeff Palmer (the first cross-over that received media attention), Aaron Lawrence, Antonio Biaggi. Carlos Morales, Jarod Steel, Johnny Hanson, Johnny Rahm, Josh Weston, Mason Wyler, Sean Storm and Thom Barron. Of course, many of these performers were HIV-positive at the time they decided to make bareback films.
OK
Fair enough, Jeremy; thanks. I think I was reacting specifically to the first 2 sentences where you talk about "barebacking" itself as "something [you]... don't approve of." I do get your point about the notion of hypocrisy, certainly. The fact porn is a for-profit enterprise definitely comes into play in these decisions, I think. Cheers
Re: Anonymous
let's just put gay men on an island. they all end up with AIDS anyway. geez. stories like these show the glorification of filth and spreading disease. oh, right. technical blood tests. LOL

Pages

Sign in or Register to post comments