As I was telling some acquaintances about the Porn-A-Thon being held at Faultline (4216 Melrose) on today (proceeds to benefit Being Alive Los Angeles an organization on whose Board of Directors, I serve) from 1-7 pm an interesting question was asked: "Will they have barebacking porn there?" The tone was disapproving, and it made me stop and think. As a Board Member, should I know the answer to this question? But there were even more interesting underlying philosophical questions....
The question is, does images of men having "bareback" (unsafe, no condoms) sex with each other cause people to fetishize and long to also engage in such behavior, or is it a safe sexual outlet to watch sexual behavior that the viewer (or voyeur) will not engage in, but is still aroused by? Does it matter if the people on screen are now dead, or that the unsafe activity happened before AIDS, say circa 1975-80? What if the "performers" are HIV+ and have agreed to engage in bareback sex with other HIV+ men? (Of course there are other STDs which could be transmitted through the unsafe sex besides HIV.)
The person who asked the question thought that all barebacking porn should be banned, except perhaps for porn which is clearly dated prior to the AIDS epidemic. To, me the question is analogous to the violence on television question. Does seeing images of violence on television and in video games make people more violent? How suggestible are humans to moving images? The cliché is that "a picture is worth a thousand words," of course. So, is a moving picture worth a thousand thousand words?
Last night I saw Brian Graden, openly gay President of MTV Networks recieve a 2005 Equality Award from the founders of South Park. During his acceptance speech, Graden extolled the impact of the media. For example, he cited the polling result from MTV research that people in high school are much more supportive of equal rights for same sex couples, particularly the legalization of same-sex marriage, than their older peers. This he said, is a result of MTV's pioneering and inclusive programming.
So, if one accepts the premise that viewers are influenced by the images they see, then it seems like one should promote the idea that barebacking porn is dangerous. However, for me, there's still a distinction on defining exactly what kind of influence images of unsafe sex between men will have on other men who have sex with men. Why make the assumption that the primary effect will be to encourage the production of similar images, in real life with the viewer in the "star" role?
I do not think that a HIV/AIDS social service organization should promote unsafe sex at their fund raisers. It is completely hypocritical in my opinion. It doesn't matter to me if the video was shot prior to the "AIDS Crisis".
ReplyDeleteI think that it would be really neat to see The Mad Professah star in a porn flick.