[Update 5:38pm, 02/14 5:43pm.] Check out the nominees list for the 10th Annual GAYVN Awards (winners to be revealed this Saturday in San Francisco); they’re a little different from the ones announced last month. VON FISTENBERG’S 8 1/2 originally counted for three of Dark Alley Media’s 11 nominations — Best All-Sex Video, Best Music (Tony Bare) and Best Oral Scene (for Adam Faust and Aaron King). But they’re not listed anymore. Why? Although most of the sex is condom-clad, it appears there are a few minutes of bareback sex included in the current edit. (Check it out for yourself.) Current rules state that films containing condomless sex are ineligible for awards consideration. Update: I spoke with a GAYVN rep who confirmed the disqualification. And today (02/14) I had a long off-the-record chat about the whole deal with Dark Alley’s Owen Hawk. The company’s official response? “It’s all about the after-parties anyway.” Click here for a few more details…

Tony Bare’s only nod was for this movie, but at least Mr. Faust and Mr. King are also nommed for Best Group Scene for Dark Alley’s FISTING UNDERGROUND 3. My colleagues at Fleshbot have also noticed the discrepancy. “Some are speculating that GAYVN will have no choice but to accommodate their bareback advertisers and will allow them be included in next year’s show,” they write, “though after all the anti-bareback campaigning that’s gone on over the years, it’s unlikely that major studios like Titan and Channel 1 will be willing to share the stage with them. If any single factor threatens to cause a split big enough to end the GAYVN Awards in their current incarnation, it’s this one.”


No Comment

  1. Anonymous on February 13, 2008 5:56 pm

    Until the day that the GAYVN awards encompass ALL gay pornography then they cannot claim to be a representation of Gay Video. If the current rules stand, then they need to change their name to the Gay Safe Sex Video Awards. Otherwise they are nothing more than a advertising mouthpiece for the big mainstream 3:
    Chi Chi, Titan and Lucas.

  2. Matt on February 13, 2008 5:56 pm

    Yeah, right. The votes are already in, and 8 1/2 didn’t win anyway, so it’s really brave and honorable of the GAYVNs to withdraw the nominations.

    The real story here is that no one on the GAYVN nominating committee actually watched the movie all the way through to begin with, or else it wouldn’t ever have been nominated. How glad I am to know that someone finally watched it. Maybe someone will get around to watching La Dolce Vita one of these days.

    Which makes one wonder how, exactly, nominees are chosen. Anyone who takes the GAYVNs seriously is in need of help.

  3. Peter Z on February 13, 2008 7:44 pm

    You know, I hate people in the industry who post anonymously because they don’t have the balls to stand behind what they say.

    The first comment is so ludicrous that I don’t even know where to begin. “…an advertising mouthpiece for the mainstream 3…” LOL! What bitter bareback producer are you?! Wow!

    My shit is not mainstream; yet I don’t find GayVN treats me unfairly — even though I’ve never ever advertised with them.

    The bottom line is that BAREBACK is unacceptable in a civilized socity. Boys should not have to risk their lives for porn! End of story! That’s not acceptable!!!

    Stop trying to be accepted into the mainstream, and be proud to be a pariah in the Gay community. So what?! You’re making a fortune on DVD sales. That should be enough for you. What do you care about what other people think of you, or about awards? But don’t you dare demand to be accepted for your unconscionable acts!

    I’m Peter Z from PZP Productions, and I approved this post.

  4. Anonymous on February 13, 2008 8:46 pm

    Isn’t there is a BAREBACK sex scene in Endless Crush between the two boyfriends? Why wasn’t that movie pulled?

  5. Lee on February 13, 2008 11:07 pm

    “The bottom line is that BAREBACK is unacceptable in a civilized socity”

    Fucking hyperbole if there ever was any! Who are you trying to sell this horeshit to? In a “civilized” society, people modify their BEHAVIOR to avoid disease, they don’t apply a band-aid (condoms) to mask the problem.

  6. ricci on February 14, 2008 2:44 am

    Matt ur 100% right

  7. EdWoody on February 14, 2008 5:30 am

    No, Matt is 100% wrong. I am a GayVN judge, and I know and can prove that I was told about 8 1/2’s disqualification long before the voting closed. There is no way the number of votes cast affected that, and any votes that had already been cast were discounted.

    The same goes for the scene in “El Rancho” by Kristen Bjorn, the scene Anonymous at 8.46 is thinking of. That too has been disqualified. The Jarics’ scene in “Endless Crush” is not bareback.

    To Lee at 11.07, what about when people are too stupid, selfish or soulless to modify their behaviour? Are you suggesting condoms have no use at all?

    I am with Peter Z, Chi Chi and GayVN all the way on this one. I will grant that GayVN should have caught this long before the film was nominated, but at least it was caught eventually, and they took the appropriate action.

  8. Keith Webb on February 14, 2008 10:49 am

    Lee- You are confusing what people chose to do in their personal and private lives versus the commercial exploitation of unsafe sex for profit.

    In a civilized society we do not risk the lives and well being of others just to make a quick buck…even if the person is willing to do so for money. At the very least we must do whatever we can to mitigate the dangers when we are paying people to perform potentially dangerous sex acts.

    We require drivers to wear seat belts. We require miners to wear helmets and other safety equipement. There are plenty of people desperate enough for money or too stupid for their own good that would work without a helmet or safety equipment. But, in a civilized society we do not allow them to risk their health/lives for our profit and entertainment.

    The entire equation changes when you are paying people to perform dangerous sex acts and your are commericlaly expoliting those acts for profit.

  9. Keith Webb on February 14, 2008 10:52 am

    Sorry, the last line should read….

    The entire equation changes when you are paying people to perform dangerous sex acts and you are commercially exploiting those acts for profit.

  10. Patrick on February 14, 2008 1:57 pm

    What’s the point of these stupid ass awards anyways?..It’s not like they make tons more money like the oscars!..lol

  11. Lee on February 14, 2008 2:11 pm

    To Lee at 11.07, what about when people are too stupid, selfish or soulless to modify their behaviour? Are you suggesting condoms have no use at all?

    None! I seriously don’t know what makes condom mafia think that people who don’t accept the best tools out there of avoiding disease – abstinence, monogamy preceded by disclosure and testing, and if need be, (relationships where one or both parties has a disease) alternative sex practices, think people are going to follow their advise to wear a condom. It’s insane logic. Stop making excuses for people who don’t change their behavior and acting as if some artificial barrier is going to provide a permanent fix to a serious problem.

  12. Lee on February 14, 2008 2:17 pm

    Keith, what are you talking about? You are insane if you think condomless sex is inherently “unsafe”. MOST people do not use condoms and are entirely safe from diseases, and unless some facts about human biology changes, (e.g. spontaneous germination) they will always be because their behavior and lifestyles allow that.

    In a “civilized” society, cars or motorcycles would not exist because of their negative effects of the environment among other factors.

  13. desslock on February 14, 2008 3:37 pm

    I think the egg is on the event sponsor’s face for listing the films originally. This gives the impression no one there knows what is going on. Rather than debating condom policy, why not discuss credibility?

    El Rancho contains marketing notes and even a disclaimer at the movie’s beginning stating that one scene is bareback. There’s nothing sneaky about it, except that it is a fabulous movie.

    But then going through the GayVN nomination list that I printed out off their website several weeks ago includes movies that were released in 2006 and 2005 — plus under Best Oral Scene, Raging Stallion’s GRUNTS is listed followed by a cast of Titan models.

  14. alan on February 14, 2008 4:42 pm

    Here we have the beginning of the death of porn as a fantasy. Not like I pay attention to these stupid awards, anyway, but now that they’re openly admitting that they only want to talk about films that tow the propaganda line, there’s even less of a reason to take them seriously. What’s next? Oscar refusing to nominate movies in which someone smokes a cigarette? This bareback “controversy” assumes that viewers of these films are stupid. They assume the worst about people.

  15. Peter Z on February 14, 2008 6:41 pm

    Well, Allan, if you’re seriously comparing smoking a cigarette on film to having bareback sex on film, then their supposed assumption is right — you ARE stupid. But you are, Blanche, you are!

  16. jim on February 15, 2008 10:49 am

    You know, since hitting elderly folks over the head with a hammer is not exactly setting a good public health example either…I am sitting here wondering why Nikolay Petrov is still a nominee, while Dark Alley is not?

  17. Ricci on February 15, 2008 12:12 pm

    u di have a point vis-a-vis Petrov, but as long as one isn’t convicted one isn’t guilty i suppose?

  18. jim on February 15, 2008 12:56 pm

    If making bareback porn were a crime, Dark Alley would be awaiting trial too.

    So, it’s hard to justify a real distinction there IMO; the fact of a bad act being a crime gives it a pre-trial window of opportunity for getting a GAYVN award.

  19. Peter Z on February 15, 2008 3:44 pm

    Jim, regarding Nikolay: I believe — and correct me if I’m wrong — that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

  20. jim on February 15, 2008 4:28 pm

    Yeah, but last I checked there is no constitutional right to a GAYVN award. Or even a nomination.

  21. DeWayne on February 16, 2008 12:35 am

    I wonder Jim if an Oscar nominee was facing such serious charges if they would withdraw the nomination? It will be a HUGE embarrassment if he wins an award!

    My problem with GayVN they only represent about 40% of Gay Porn! Bareback I understand the exclusion but what about the Online Sites (Sean Cody,Corbin,Chaosmen etc)

    GayVN should be known as the Safe Sex DVD producers Awards that is all they represent!

  22. Peter Z on February 16, 2008 4:19 am

    So, DeWayne, are you proposing that someone should hold the “Deadly Sex DVD Producers Awards”?

    Gee, what would some of those categories be?…The Best HIV Carrier Award; or the best Three-way Infection Award; or perhaps even, the Best Anal Warts Award?

    And no need for a Lifetime Achievement Award, because most bareback actors don’t live too long anyway.

    That wasn’t meant to be funny or in bad taste. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that the GayVNs should be known as the Safe Sex DVD Producers Awards.

  23. Alan on February 16, 2008 3:36 pm

    The people whining about bareback porn are making some mighty big assumptions. Mostly, those assumptions are the kind that a fearful HIV-negative person would make. Of course there are circumstances in which two men should be allowed to fuck raw if they choose. Faithful/monogamous boyfriends, for one. I also think that if two HIV-positive dudes want to screw raw, more power to them. Being HIV-positive has almost no benefits otherwise–why not have sex the way sex was meant to be, if that’s what you want?

  24. DeWayne on February 18, 2008 4:05 am

    But Peter that is all GayVN is
    Safe Sex DVD producers Awards!

    Don’t get me wrong I don’t want them to include Bareback( I have predicted that this biz will be mostly BB by 2009)

    I want them to be inclusive and invite the Online World to the GayVN table!

  25. Alex S on February 18, 2008 1:08 pm

    What about the fact that porn stars in both genres are not tested for HIV and many are believed to HIV+ already?

    Also, many porn stars escort and there are numerous rumors that for the right price they will bareback?

    We know nothing about their personal lives, so how do we know they don’t bareback when they are not in front of the cameras?

    Many porn stars have blogs. There have been many instances where they have mentioned people having bareback sex on sets. They have also mentioned being at parties/clubs having bareback sex with numerous people.

    No matter what you producers say your performers are doing what they want when they are not being filmed. You can preach about the evils of bareback sex and the companies that produce it, but people are going to do what they want…including the guys you are hiring to perform in your condom only movies.

    Answer me this. How do major stars like Carlos Morales, Eric York, and Josh Weston end up working for bareback companies when they were still getting work with condom companies if they aren’t already HIV+ and if they are already HIV+, how did they become HIV+ while working in the industry?

  26. V.J. on February 22, 2008 11:57 pm

    Alex S.- Last paragraph-
    very good question.

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind