October 30, 2007 | The Biz

David Awards controversy: round two

Jason Seachrest has something to say about the recent controversy surrounding the 2nd annual David Awards. As we told you last week, Titan Media and Chi Chi LaRue criticized the awards show because it recognized bareback videos and the studios that made them. Seachrest, however, thinks it's much ado about nothing. His advice: "Let's all take a breath."

America, Seachrest argues, is simply out of step with the rest of the world. Only in the US is there a puritanical obsession to what should, and should not, be filmed for gay porn.

Perhaps the reason The David Awards didn't feel the need to warn anyone about bareback pornography being nominated was because in Berlin, it is considered no more controversial than any other kind of pornography. ...Because it's pornography! Not a sex educational video. The United States is the only country out there that sees fuck films as having some sort of moral responsibility -- namely because we're the only country that believes our citizens are stupid enough to not already know the difference between what is safe and unsafe, right or wrong, and that they're going to emulate what they see on a tape they grabbed wearing sunglasses and put into a paper (bag) that was hidden in the back of a video store.

He even points to his own polls that indicate people, when given an option, are more likely to choose barebacking videos over those showcasing safer sex.

Then why would American companies avoid shooting videos that were pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit?

Chi Chi argues it is a sense of responsibility that keeps condoms in her movies. "I feel it's my job to protect people. That's why I don't shoot barebacking."

Seachrest thinks it's more about the bottom line. "If it is no surprise that bareback movies are now outselling condom films, you can only imagine what kind of fear this has put into the people who run companies who a few years back said, "We will never! ...Ever!""

Is he right?

Well, it depends on which side of the barebacking debate you subscribe to. But even if we ignore the argument that bareback videos eroticize unsafe sex, should we not consider the health of the actual actors taking part in these films? Look at a mainstream movie set... a performer may choose to snort cocaine at home, but a director would never have him do real drugs on film. Stuntmen leap from buildings into safety nets. Guns shoot blanks. Why? Because no one wants to see another person get hurt. 

Yet producers in the adult video world who want to extend the same protection to young gay men are criticized for doing so. That doesn't make any sense, does it? How easy it is to forget about the three young men infected with HIV during a bareback porn shoot in England. Is this just part of our community's own inconvenient truth?