This is the film that was at the centre of a bareback porn controversy a few years back, and featured in a Newsnight item which included an interview with one of the performers. According to the BBC item, 8 gay males were taken to France for a week to have bareback sex on camera in multiple combinations. One of the models who was HIV negative positive before the shoot was HIV positive at his next regular check-up after the shoot. As a result, 3 performers took 'emergency tests'. You see "Craig" describe the moment he was told he was positive in the Newsnight video. Both of the other performers were also diagnosed as HIV positive. "Craig" believes the film, British Bareback Vacation includes scenes which feature him becoming infected. You'll note in the item that LoadXXX promised to pull the DVD (this was back in 2008).
You can read my original 2008 discussion and see a link to the Newsnight item here. In light of the continued selling of this film, you might conclude that GT will offer gushing praise of barebacking on it's pages, and break from the usual 'bareback is bad' lecture stance. You'd be wrong. Although there is a major break from the general GT stance in including the openly HIV positive, and proud barebacker, Mason Wyler in it's gay porn performer twitter section, he does come last (reformed barebacker, Brent Corrigan comes first).
On the pages following the twitter feature there's a long interview with Michael Lucas - head honcho at Lucas Entertainment - who the magazine calls 'the king of porn'. On page 48 he repeats his well known anti-bareback views when he states 'bareback porn is essentially pushing young men to suicide'. Bareback is also touched upon later in the magazine with a piece on 'the dark side' of porn.
Bareback porn is also advertised by Homoactive in the adverts section towards the end of the magazine. So, we have an exclusively 'bareback is bad' content approach underpinned with a 'buy bareback, watch bareback' commercial approach. It does rather prompt the question, if it's so bad, why are you selling it? Particularly a film as controversial as British Bareback Vacation, allegedly featuring someone becoming HIV positive.
My frustration at this hypocrisy is furthered by the lack of any pro-bareback substantive content in this porn issue. Where is the piece by someone saying, this is why I do bareback porn, or someone who says, I watch bareback porn, I love bareback and that's part of my life. Of course, GT could still have an editorial saying "we hate bareback", but they would be providing a magazine that engaged with the issues and didn't feel so painfully hypocritical as this issue does.
Don't do as I do, do as I say.
That's what my parents always taught me!
QRG
www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com
lol. Did it work?
Yes, GT is hypocritical (and also silly, youth-obsessed and body fascist on top of that). But I'm glad it didn't have any articles giving a pro-bareback point of view - I'm sick of bareback fascists trying to persuade others to risk their lives, just so their own irresponsibility feels validated. Oh, and I'm an anti-bareback fascist and proud of it. I'd shut them all down. I don't want a "debate" or to "respect their point of view". They're wrong. I'm right. End of story.
Post a Comment