Write a Comment
7 Comments
What a crock of sh*t! How many more millions of dollars are we going to waste trying to convince people that "condoms are sexy"? Why not spend that money into actually finding a cure for HIV? People are having bareback sex because it feels better, not because they don't know about "safe sex". Anyone who tells you that they prefer sex with condoms is simply lying or otherwise simply afraid. I'm not advocating one or the other but let's be honest; campaigns to promote safe sex do nothing but promote fear. We are all adults and we have the right to choose whether to use condoms or not; and the fact you do not agree with someone's choice does not give you the right to bully them to see things your way. The big caveat, of course, is the use of force and/or deception when engaging in sex. The reality here is that HIV- people are simply angry that they cannot engage in bareback sex and blame HIV+ people for that.
The entertaining test of skill with the French condom lady is just that, I'm afraid: entertainment, not rooted in the reality of gay male sexuality as I have experienced it. Gay men rejected the "use a condom every time" dictate years ago, for reasons that should not be ignored, including a) HIV disease is not the mortal fear it once was, b) there are other risk reduction options such as sero-sorting among those who are positive, and c) any man who has experienced unprotected intercourse knows it feels better and, with the right partner, is a more intimate, emotional and yes, even spiritual experience. This piece acknowledges that few men want to "don a dorky condom," and then brands condoms "an absolute must, 100% of the time." Clearly, there are no absolutes in human sexuality. Poz strangers are often barebacking and consider an STD the least of their worries. Monogamous poz lovers are throwing out condoms altogether. Negative boyfriends are choosing trust over suspicion and tossing condoms when they commit. Yes, people lie or don't get tested regularly. But I don't care to live in a world where I forgo the intimacy and intensity of unprotected sex because my boyfriend just might be a sociopath. Gay men in the USA have carved out our own risk reduction techniques in the absence of any clarity from prevention leaders. "Use a condom or you could die" vs. "You can live a healthy life with HIV" are comically competing messages that even the likes of Poz Magazine can't seem to reconcile. "Put the condom on the dildo" sounds like a fun game. Evaluating risk and negotiating real life sexual behavior is not. Mark S. King MyFabulousDisease.com
First, as blogs go, this one is just too long and tries to make a variety of points that don't necessarily relate to one another much at all. It starts out about condoms in the porn industry - a worthy topic of discussion - but then wanders off in several directions. Second... I have a problem with this statement: "The World Health Organization released a controversial statement in 2008 that alleged that people who have an undetectable viral load for more than six months and who have no other sexually transmitted infections may be considered less sexually infectious." What, exactly, is controversial about the WHO statement? They didn't just make that up out of thin air - research and studies exist to support the statement. Further, there is anecdotal evidence out there. And using a word like "alleged" is dismissive of the people doing good research and scientific studies. People need more than one prevention strategy, like "wear a condom every time." But that's basically all this blog is saying.
this editorial and the last comment r whistling in the dark. the idea that condoms can be made significantly more appealing via dramatization in pornography is simply fanciful, especially in late 2010. to be blunt: i considered and mildly advocated for every "condom-porn" idea Ms. Hoffman mentions...back when i was a 20-something bottom who had used condoms a few times to masturbate with. I never used condoms as a teenaged top, and when i returned to topping in my 30's i rediscovered why: the loss of sensation is drastic and crippling. it is not minor, it is not a small sacrifice, it is not something that could be alleviated by faster application, external flavoring, oral-application or "staring into ur partners eyes". it's often said that "if everyone used condoms every time, HIV would be history in 10/25/50 years". if HIV-prevention advocates really hope to make condom-usage more widespread for decades to come, far more pleasurable condoms will need to be developed. that is a gap in the market that no amount of harangue or activism will fill, and no accusation or indignation can remedy. the reason there is a market for BB porn is specifically because growing numbers of men find the sight of condoms a complete turnoff...due to an overabundance of poor experiences with those devices. WHAT is so very daunting about advocating for more pleasurable condoms and functional anal/vaginal microbicides? WHY is such advocacy so much rarer and more half-hearted than the near-ubiquitous attempts to demonize the basic, natural and often inexorable human desire to bareback? Are condom manufacturers really that intimidating and unapproachable? I ask only on behalf of others, as HIV is a disease no one should have. My own "condom fatigue" is complete, as is my disregard of rebuke for it. I now notice similar fatigue among many others of any given serostatus...troublingly, there seems to be little actual communication between this population and prevention activists. a rethink of long-term prevention strategies is in order.
I know of research underway, federally funded no less, looking at how to use porn to teach safer sex. Might make an interesting POZ article (I know someone who might like to write it!). Actually as early as the 80s, Boston's AIDS Action Committee was looking at using porn to educate gay men about safer sex. GMHC also used porn, early on. And as I wrote about in my own book Victory Deferred, by the mid-80s no self-respecting gay porn film company would make films depicting unprotected anal sex. Now such films are everywhere and we read justifications such as the first comment posted here. Clearly the makers of porn movies that depict unprotected anal intercourse are putting the lives of their actors on the line for the sake of making money. Period. It's not gay pride of any recognizable sort to promote the spectacle of a man's potentially being infected with a deadly virus before our very eyes for the sake of vicarious pleasure. Falcon Studios founder Chuck Holmes would have been the first to say so--and did when I interviewed him. Many gay men still agree, regardless of whatever 'free speech' and 'free choice' rationalizations the profiteers may use to justify their irresponsibility.
Ok I have real problems with this article. It conflates a political issue - the lawsuit of AHF and Cal-Osha against the LA porn industry with a discussion of 'making condoms sexy'. Theoretically this whole issue is about sex worker health and safety but you will find very few porn workers advocating for this change because it actually does not make sense. AIM does 1,200 HIV tests a month. In 6 years, 25 of those were positive - 8 of those people who are porn actors??? Exactly how this is rational for creating an idea that there is an epidemic of HIV in the porn industry? There are hetero and straight porn companies that do specifically condom only porn and actors who prefer to work in those conditions can. For condomless companies - there is always going to be a market for bb porn. The porn industry cannot be regulated like the construction industry, and a hardhat does not make your company less likely to get work. Forcing mainstream porn companies to use condoms will make condomless porn go underground to studios/situations were people are not doing mandatory testing, so more work will end up being done in less professional situations. Also, as someone who is poz, I would think that the author would understand that bb porn is an important source of work for some sex workers. Often the prejudice against poz actor/esses goes beyond, well - if everyone is wearing a condom than it's fine - rather known HIV+ people are only allowed to do bb porn with other poz people. A choice that adults should be allowed to make. Adults should actually be allowed to make whatever choices they want about their safety in sex, including in sex work. And yes, I do think porn companies should be encouraged to incorporate condom usage, I think that actor/esses should be given the choice about whether they want to use condoms on set and not be economically penalized, but as a sex worker and health care worker I do not think that this is the way to do it.
Michael Bruce
Great article. Many excellent points made. My comments are directed at the writers who claim <> Bullshit. I've been HIV+ for 29 years and that's not because I believed assholes like that. I learned how to eroticize condoms in my early 20s and have been having great, safer sex ever since. If I'd absorbed the mentality of the "condoms don't feel good" few, I'd have exposed myself to countless number of strains of HIV repeatedly and no doubt be dead. Condoms are sexy. See one and know, you're about to get lucky! What could be sexier than that? Honestly, there's so little difference between anal intercourse with and without a condom, it's certainly not worth risking STDs over. Stop the misinformation and the power of suggestion by lying about how awful condoms feel. Get the right size, put in on properly, use lubrication (a little inside, a lot outside), and enjoy pleasing and keeping safe, your partner.
October 20, 2010