Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Editing / Censoring / Etc

Dear Friends and Fellow Pilgrims:  ;-)
Recently someone posted a comment about "Gay for Pay" - the sitz where "straight" men engage in gay sex for salaries. . in and out of the porn business.

This post had an url to a clip on this topic from the TYRA BANKS morning TV talk show, the audience being primarily women. Ms Banks had two straight men who work regularly-part-time performing sex acts together. . .man-man sex.  Tyra's "style" is purient, juvenile and I think geared toward voyerism and salacious talk/imaginings,  while posing as mature, intelligent conversation.  I think Ms Tyra's segment is cheap and degrading of gay people in general, gay men in particular.

It would appear, from their point of view, being gay is solely about having sex, anyway and anyhow you can.  It is pornography, pure and simple, as it were. ;-)

I decided not to post this contribution not in criticism of the commentor in any way.  I believe his motives and in him as a good and valued member of our blog "community".  I just prefer not to publish, on my blog, that kind of material.  I do not want the reputation or responsibility of even hinting I favor such material. I do not.  I do not want this kind of article/video on my bog site because it does nothing to honor gay men or build up our own image and our collective image as gay men.  I feel this kind of stuff cheapens us.

I hope my friend, if he wishes to, will contact me privately using this email addy:  jstn_oshea@yahoo.com. If I had another way of explaining my omission of his comment I would have used it, because I respect and enjoy him very much.

For any future personal contact any may wish to make, my email addy is given at the end of the "About me" in the sidebar.

Thanks.  Ciao ciao, bambini. . . .


J said...

Actually, about 99 per cent of what you see on the internet about gay people contains sexual content, perhaps because the hallmark of gayness is same sex sexual preference.
I agree that what Banks runs is degrading, but, then, isn't the content of shows like hers degrading in general? Outside of the news channels and public TV, much of television content is mindless trash, and the people involved, like Snookie of Jersey Shore, are glorified trash. So don't think they are singling gays out for degradation.
What is more interesting, perhaps, is how we perceive individual roles in the gay sex industries. I really think the gay porn industry debases the young people that get caught up in it, and has the power to destroy their lives. (Witness the HIV status of "stars" Mason Wyler, Kameron Scott, and Sammy Case.) Very few last more than 2 or 3 years in the industry. The diseased survive on pills, but I suspect even the clean ones haven't any lives outside the gay community. After all, their bodies remain on the internet forever. I always wonder what will happen to people like this if they reach middle or old age. Although prostitution presents many of the same problems, I honestly don't think it is as destructive as porn provided the sex worker is careful and mature enough to manage his business. It is surprising how many of these people describe themselves as students, and I think the best of them are indeed "working" their way through school. A lot depends on their residual support systems and their goals.
Maybe you know, Justin, if there have been any sociological or psychological studies made of the lives and occupations of ex porn actors and hookers. I was disappointed to find out that my nominee for the most attractive porn star ever, the Bel Ami model Josh Elliot (real name Tomas Lachs), who has a masters degree, feels the need to supplement his current income by charging his loyal old fans to have dinner with him, and it appears he was either gay for pay or a switch hitter.

Gary Kelly said...

Interesting comments. I don't have a problem by the way with anyone knowing I was the one who sent JustinO the link to the Gay for Pay vid on Youtube. I also don't have a problem with JustinO's decision to reject it. Fair enough. I reserve the right to reject certain stuff on my blog too.

I found the content of the vids fascinating, and posted the links on my blog. If it's trash, to me it's interesting trash. Why shouldn't trash be interesting? I found the horrified expressions on the faces of the audience curious because I couldn't find anything particularly horrifying about what the young men were saying. Maybe I've been around too long.

However, I was suddenly struck by something JustinO wrote: "I feel that this kind of stuff cheapens us." That comment made me realize that I don't see myself as "us". There's me, and about 6.5 billion others called "them". :-)

So when I see stuff like the Gay for Pay vid, I'm watching "them" as an observer. I don't relate to those people at all. In fact, I think it's fair to say I don't relate to any group. I'm just here on earth as a spectator, and I'm the only one in the audience.

If I'm surprised by anything it's Justin's failure to see the vid as I saw it. Justin saw it as an insult to "us", whereas that didn't occur to me because I don't see myself that way. So there's something I've learned... or at least been made more aware of.

Anyway, no harm done. It's stimulated a bit of interesting chat, which is good.

JustinO'Shea said...

Thanks, GARY, for sharing your perspective. Your attitude and comments have made this decision easier for me. ;-)

Your attitude is another of the reasons why I appreciate you. You're a good man, duuude. ;-)


JustinO'Shea said...

J. . . I am looking but so far I have not found a source(s)"if there have been any sociological or psychological studies made of the lives and occupations of ex porn actors and hookers."

This would be an interesting study but the amount of work and time required would take a goods sized team of specialists to cover all the areas needed to have some sort of a valid picture of the scene.

Now.. I have another back-burner project for spare moments. . ;-)


Anonymous said...

Hmmm....Gary, what you say strikes a chord in me too....and I mean the bit about feeling part of the group "us".

I too think of me as me and not "us". Even when I am thinking of myself in my sexual orientation "category" of homosexual, I don't think of myself as belinging to a group and certainly not a group called "us".
I wonder why that is?

I've never felt the need to belong, to be part of a group. I've never felt that my orientation puts me particularly at odds with the world so that I need to hide or find refuge in a group of any sort.....in a category or a stereotypical gay cloak.

I am me, I am an individual and have no need to find myself a comforting crutch.

Now, in case my comments may be taken the wrong way, I am NOT criticising or denegrating or feeling superior to those that do feel part of "us".

In fact, by being part of Justin's blog I am now in a group, I am now in something that is I guess "us". But I still feel myself as being me...but on the other hand I have felt a kind of satisfaction and warmth from being part of this "us blog" .....hmmm...new thoughts and feeling for me to ponder. Interesting.

Thanks again Justin.
(and see, there is someone who logged on and commented today, hee hee!)

Loveya mate,
Greg in Adelaide

Coop said...

I'm not into pornography; really.
There are other ways to see "those" parts.

(Too) Many people have warped ideas about what being Gay is --> that being "Gay" is all about perversions and sex with so many guys.
I recognize the damage that Tyra's clip can cause... that it can cheapen the Gay community. Unaware people will believe those portrayals. And they do.

Why WASTE MY TIME watching Tyra... or Jersey shore??

Gary Kelly said...

Coop's comment is interesting. But if too many people have warped ideas about what being gay means because of gay pornography, why don't people have warped ideas about what being straight means because of straight pornography?

Just wondering. :-)

As to the word 'gay', way back in the 1600s, it had connotations of immorality. So there ya go... Do a Wikipedia search of the origin of the word 'gay'. It's interesting.

I should stop using the word interesting. Maybe I have a problem with finding too many things interesting. Hehe.

JustinO'Shea said...

Hmmm. . . .since when is the seeking of wisdom a problem? I'd think intellectual laziness and somnolescence is more of a problem. .but then the latter persons find any seeking a problem.


So. . .even in the 1600s 'gay' was considered immoral. . . hmmmm. . .


JustinO'Shea said...

WoWzzer! ;-)
Who'd-a-thunk?! lol

I followed Gary's suggestion, do a Wikipedia search. . .I did it!

Lots of "interesting" and even "amzing" info there. Thanks Gary. You have contributed a section to my gay studies section of Intro Psych.
Daaaaaduuuh! Behold, the Gary Kelly Wikipedia Search of the Etymology of the Word and Concept GAY in Society since the early 1600s.

Here it is. Do a search. Broaden your concepts. So "interesting" as to be almost "so gay".

justin o'shea

Coop said...

Watch it with Wikipedia, Justin. It's gotten more... errr... reliable; but there's still plenty of wrong information.
I trust them for trivia--- but not much else.

JustinO'Shea said...

Really? hmmm. . . .what's not to be credible here? As in most things, it is someone's credible comments and observations about a rather inoccuous topic as the meaning and usage of the word GAY.

It would seem the etymology and usage of a word can be rather accurately checked from period writings.

The only total and absolute authority, in my credal opinion, is God. The rest we have to take a calculated risk. . it would seem. ;-)

And if I waited for total and absolute authority on anything or everything I would never act at all and never get around to living and loving. . . and thus miss out on love and life.

What a drag!

Be brave. Take the risk, baby. . it's worth it.


Coop said...

I didn't know we were having a conversation about taking risks :b I thought we were talking about research. You've obviously forgotten what I do for work. heehee.

P.S. (Point) THE BOSS hasn't exactly told us that 2+2 = 7. So... as far as I know... 2+2 = 4.