The future is now! Falcon Studios has produced the first (?) virtually bareback gay porn film, in which condoms are digitally removed to provide the illusion that performers are fucking raw. According to Gay Porn Blog—or the press release that nobody bothered sending to me—Falcon/Raging Stallion president Chris Ward believes this “will go down as a defining moment in the production of safe, top-quality male erotica.”
He went on to state that “the innovation and use of technology to make condoms less ‘in your face’ is something that allows us to appeal to all porn fans while protecting our actors’ health.” Okay, cool quote, bro… But, um, will something like this actually appeal to all porn fans? It’s a little implausible that someone who’s been in the business as long as Ward would be naive enough to believe this.
Don’t get me wrong! I commend Falcon‘s commitment to their actors’ health, and with every studio under the sun going bareback for the sake of cash flow, it’s an incredible move for them to maintain their commitment to videos with condoms. (Whereas folks like this and this have jumped the boat on that regard, utilizing bullshit excuses to justify their hypocritical actions.)
Some safer sex advocates might be appeased by this compromise, but at the end of the day, it could be argued that Falcon is still promoting sex without a condom as the hotter alternative. One could interpret this as the studio saying, “This is what all men REALLY want, and since we can’t give it to you, we’ll fake it to our best ability!”
That, of course, leads me to the other side of this debate. How will rabid bareback fans respond to the artificial nature of this production? I’m aware the mere presence of a condom can be a turn-off for some, but it’s my understanding that the grittier aspects are what really draw a crowd. Most bareback fans I’ve talked to love visuals like cum dripping back into a stretched-open hole, tops fucking the cum back into their partners or the oft-glorified internal cum shot.
No matter how hard Falcon tries, they can’t recreate those visuals without violating one side of the condom debate with the blatant fabrication or upsetting the other side with the message it sends out about using (or not using) rubbers. I guess, at the end of the day, I’m failing to see what they hope to accomplish with this well-intentioned but, perhaps, not well-thought-out move. It could be a publicity stunt to get some attention or the game-changer that will revolutionize our masturbational material for years to come.
But I’ve gone on with my ambivalence long enough—where do you stand?
No comments:
Post a Comment