Sexualities

http://sex.sagepub.com/

It's a question of breeding: Visualizing queer masculinity in bareback

pornography
Byron Lee
Sexualities 2014 17: 100
DOI: 10.1177/1363460713511099

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://sex.sagepub.com/content/17/1-2/100

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Sexualities can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://sex.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://sex.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://sex.sagepub.com/content/17/1-2/100.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 5, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Article
Sexualities
2014, Vol. 17(1/2) 100–120
It’s a question of ! The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
breeding: Visualizing sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1363460713511099
queer masculinity in sex.sagepub.com

bareback pornography
Byron Lee
Temple University, USA

Abstract
Gay bareback pornographic films featuring men engaging in condomless anal intercourse
draw criticism from scholars, public health advocates, and even other pornographic
filmmakers because of concerns that the rates of unprotected sex and STI—namely
HIV—transmission will increase if gay men watch them. This article examines how
bareback pornographic films by Treasure Island Media (TIM) present visual narratives
of gendered pleasure and desire by reframing the cum shot and focusing on ejaculate
rather than ejaculation. TIM films show masculinity as athletic, risky, and sacred. Though
these are recognizable, normative frames of masculinity, TIM films visibly articulate
queer erotics and bodies in queer(ed) activity.

Keywords
Bareback sex, gay men, masculinities, pornography, queer

Introduction
In 2007, controversy struck European adult publication GAYeLINE Magazine’s
David Awards in Berlin when Treasure Island Media, a studio specializing in gay
bareback pornography, was awarded Best US Studio over studios that require
condoms (Adams, 2007). Because of this recognition, Titan Media director
Bruce Cam refused his lifetime achievement award, issuing the following statement:

I cannot in good conscience accept a lifetime achievement award from an organization

that glorifies and promotes bareback content alongside my own . . . Silence is accept-
ance, and I can no longer sit by and watch the industry . . . be destroyed by others

Corresponding author:
Byron Lee, Temple University, 1105 South Street Unit A, Philadelphia, PA 19147, USA.
Email: byron.lee@temple.edu

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 101

seeking financial gain at the expense of performers and the entire gay community.
(quoted in Adams, 2007)

Cam’s statement morally links bareback pornography and the practice of bareback
sex within the gay community. Bareback pornography is a genre of gay pornog-
raphy that features bareback sex—condomless anal intercourse between men.
Bareback pornography has been criticized by many, including industry insiders,
public health activists, the gay community, and queer scholars, for representing
and promoting unsafe sex. Critics argue that bareback pornography’s presence
encourages individuals to practice unprotected anal intercourse with casual sex
partners. Discussions and debates about bareback pornography usually focus on
sexual health and HIV/AIDS prevention.
Bareback pornography specifically refers to films starting in the 1990s, after the
gay pornography industry made condom-use conventional as a response to the
AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s. Despite recent campaigns to legislate
condom-use in pornographic films, such as the 2012 voter-approved legislation
requiring condom-use in films produced and filmed in Los Angeles County
(Gorman and Lin, 2012), bareback pornography continues to be made and
demanded by consumers. There are many US-based gay pornography studios
and producers that only make bareback pornography, and several US-based gay
pornography studios that initially only featured performers using condoms such as
Sean Cody, Corbin Fisher, Chaosmen, and Lucas Entertainment now also produce
bareback, or ‘‘raw,’’ scenes in addition to scenes featuring condoms. A primary
concern in both scholarly and non-scholarly discussions is the relationship between
watching bareback pornography and practising casual bareback sex, and its impact
on gay men and the gay community. Less attention, however, has been spent on
considering bareback pornography’s form and its impact on the pornographic film
genre representing sexual practices, rather than to the pornographic film industry
representing sexual groups.
This reading of bareback pornography explores the coding of masculinity and
sexual arousal in pornographic film. My goal is not to examine if watching bare-
back pornography increases the prevalence of barebacking in the gay community,
nor to focus on the actions and consequences of the performers and viewers.
Instead, I offer this analysis as an exploration of what makes bareback pornog-
raphy so popular. Following the adage that pornography is about viewing male
sexual pleasure (Patton, 1989; Williams, 1989), I will examine how recognizable
forms of masculinity are queerly articulated, presenting sexual pleasure visually
and discursively, and thereby enhancing the viewing experience. Unlike gay porno-
graphic films that feature condoms, bareback pornography makes the non-visible
transfer of bodily fluids, that is, ejaculation while the penis is still inside another
man’s anus, possible. My analysis will highlight the role of ejaculate shown in the
‘‘cum shot’’—the moment of ejaculation, orgasm, and pleasure—in constructing
and representing sexualized and desirable masculinity. In particular, this article
considers all the performers—both tops (insertive) and bottoms (receptive)—as

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

102 Sexualities 17(1/2)

engaged in masculine sexual activities. I will demonstrate three articulations of

masculinity in bareback pornography: first, as athletic and physically active;
second, as sacred and procreative; and third, as silent and risky. This article also
challenges the relationship between queerness and normativity: instead of queered
gender performances, bareback pornography visually articulates queer erotics
through recognizable, normative frames of masculinity.

Analyzing pornography
Treasure Island Media (TIM) is a San Francisco-based pornography studio
founded in the late 1990s by Paul Morris, who continues to head the studio, and
produce and direct films. My analysis is based on 20 TIM films from 1999 to 2009
(see filmography). TIM films are a specific subset of bareback pornography: they
feature condomless anal intercourse and sexual acts involving ejaculate, particu-
larly the visible transmission of ejaculate orally and anally between men. While not
the first, TIM is one of the most recognized bareback pornography studios making
this style of pornography. There are several pornography studios that make bare-
back pornography replicating the cinematic narratives and structures found in
conventional pornography, including an external cum shot, only without condoms.
TIM is also notable because of the amount of scholarly and non-scholarly
attention that it receives. Although bareback pornography was being made in
the 1990s, most of the films were underground films and not well distributed—
including Paul Morris’s earlier work for Bush Creek Media, prior to his founding
TIM. Paul Morris became singled out as a bareback pornography producer for
functions such as pornography symposiums and public health panel discussions
(see Visual AIDS (1999) held at the University of California San Francisco). In the
2000s, TIM films were often excluded from pornography stores (both physical and
online locations), from gay pornography industry events such as award shows, and
sexual fetish events such as San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair and Chicago’s
Mr International Leather. In academia, Tim Dean (2009) wrote about men who
have casual bareback sex, highlighting TIM films in his discussion of representing
the subculture of men who have casual bareback sex. In the popular press, King
(2012) argues that TIM is one of the studios that mainstreamed bareback
pornography.
While it is assumed that viewers of pornography learn from watching pornog-
raphy, it is not always clear what is learned. It is arguable that pornography
informs viewers about technical aspects of sexual intercourse (Jensen, 1996;
Patton, 1991) and about gendered relations and structures of sexuality (Jensen,
1996; Kort, 2002). At both of these levels, however, research has shown that the
messages are not consistent (Hallam, 2004; Patton, 1991). Anti-porn scholars rely
on the argument that pornography is limited to the male gaze, and that male
sexuality is inherently violent, dangerous, and socially unjust (Dworkin, 1981;
Jensen, 1996; Kendall, 2004). This argument ignores the possibility that male sexu-
ality and masculinity are complicated, and that pornography is a social text that

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 103

represents society (Dyer, 1985; Kipnis, 1996; Klein, 2006; Patton, 1989; Segal, 2004;
Williams, 1989).
Returning to the issue of HIV/AIDS, I do not want to dismiss the interest in
pornography and health promotion, but this analysis will not make a pedagogical
link between bareback pornography and sexual health, nor about the regulations of
the pornographic film industry. This analysis of bareback pornography will engage
with the discourse of HIV/AIDS prevention, but it does not begin from the per-
spective that gay male bodies are—on screen and off—potential vectors of disease.
My reading of TIM films focuses on discourses of masculinity as linked to desire,
providing insight into the continued growing popularity of TIM films and the
articulations of pleasure in film.

Recognizing masculinity and queerness

This article questions how we view and understand codes of masculinity in relation
to hegemonic masculinity. Few individuals inhabit hegemonic masculinity; the
concept is ideological, and acts as a pillar against which other forms of masculinity
are measured (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: 832). The hegemonic masculine
ideal is so strong however, that masculinities and male sexualities are in fact dif-
ficult to recognize. Beth Eck (2003) found that when presented with images of nude
men and women, both men and women were willing to examine and reflect upon
the images of women, but expressed discomfort and uneasiness with the images of
men. The range of descriptions for male bodies is more limited than for female
bodies because there are few cultural scripts aside from hegemonic masculinity
upon which to base descriptions of masculinity and male sexuality.
Scholars such as Angus McLaren (1997) counter a singular mode of masculinity
by describing different forms of masculinity – these are usually read as failures, or
lacking proper masculinity. The description of different forms and discourses of
masculinity follows Foucault’s (1978 [1976]) assertion that revealing discourse is an
emancipatory act: power is based in discourse and therefore when discourses are
made intelligible, there is the opportunity to challenge them. A queer perspective
acknowledges categories, but at the same time, resists confinement to categories
such as opposite, failed, or countering forms of masculinity. Non-normative, queer
forms of masculinity may still incorporate aspects of hegemonic masculinity,
making these masculinities partially recognizable despite their altered forms.
Although hegemonic masculinity is defined in contrast to women (Connell and
Messerschmidt, 2005; Walker, 2006), it is often acted out and defended in male-
only spaces (Walker, 2006). In male-only spaces, women are sometimes invoked in
conversation, but one’s masculinity is defined in relation to the other men, with
homosexuality being the failure to achieve hegemonic masculinity (Connell and
Messerschmidt, 2005). Gay pornography presents the possibility of all-male envir-
onments that are not forced—such as prison (Mercer, 2004)—making gender dif-
ferences between the characters based upon character interactions, and not only
upon an absence of women. The purpose of this analysis, however, is not to

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

104 Sexualities 17(1/2)

identify the performances of specific queer masculinities. While queer scholars have
contemplated queer masculinities that seemingly mimic hegemonic masculin-
ity—namely in bear and leather cultures (Hennen, 2008; Kelly and Kane, 2001;
Locke, 1997; McCann, 2001)—these cues are read as dependent upon participation
in the subcultures themselves. Tim Dean’s (2009) work on bareback pornography
also focuses on identification with a subculture of barebacking. These analyses
focus on gender as part of performed, identity-based embodiment, and they main-
tain a suspicion towards queer masculinities that resemble hegemonic masculinity.
I am less invested in the notion of the ‘‘barebacker,’’ because TIM films are not
viewed only by individuals identified with a contemporary subculture of
barebackers.
I am reading how homoerotic acts are gendered visually as normatively mascu-
line, rather than focusing on how the performers do gendered performance.
Effeminate men may perform in TIM films, but this effeminacy is not what
queers these men, nor does effeminate performance necessarily make their repre-
sentation less masculine according to the gendering narratives in TIM films. I argue
that part of what makes TIM films visually pleasurable is their depiction of erotic
masculinities—masculinities that are familiar and conventionally read as ‘‘sexy.’’
Viewing TIM films as pleasurable is not reliant on identification with barebacking,
but on recognition of erotic masculinities highlighted during and by bareback sex.
My reading of TIM films using frames of hegemonic masculinity will demonstrate
that even normative masculinity fails to maintain its distance from queerness. I am
not attempting to minimize the difference between queer and heteronormative in an
effort to normalize or naturalize queer bodies, but rather, I hope to demonstrate
that discourses of normative masculinity actually produce queer bodies and
discourses of queer masculinity.

Recognizing porn as authentic discourse

One feature of pornography that lends itself to discussions of pleasure as well as
discussions of medical safety is that of authenticity. Hansen et al. (1991) argue that
pornography functions similarly to cinematic ethnography: both reveal a form of
reality on screen. ‘‘Ethnography is a kind of legitimated pornography, a pornog-
raphy of knowledge, giving us the pleasure of knowing what had seemed incom-
prehensible. Pornography is a strange, ‘‘unnatural’’ form of ethnography,
salvaging orgasmic bliss from the seclusion of the bedroom’’ (Hansen et al.,
1991: 210). Pornography depicts acts that are part of society, but potentially
unspeakable, indescribable, or inappropriate in public. What are depicted are
not only the acts themselves, but also discourses associated with those acts—in
this case, sexuality, gender, and pleasure. We are compelled to record these acts, to
watch these acts, and perhaps to participate in these acts. Therefore, one of the
main issues is that of representation: how do we visually represent, or signify the
pleasure that is otherwise unknown?

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 105

TIM pornographer Paul Morris (1998) argues that it is the responsibility of the
pornographer not only to create a product that is commercially viable, but also to
point out some form of documentary truth. Citing Hansen et al. (1991), Morris
asserts that part of the excitement of watching pornography is recognizing an
aspect of ‘‘truthful’’ representation and of the complexity of sexuality on the
screen. Morris achieves this stylistically in his films, creating a visual language of
authenticity by borrowing from the genre of subculture documentary film, specif-
ically by comparing his films to skateboarding videos of the 1990s (Morris, 1998),
and by blurring the boundary between professional and amateur pornography
production.
Without denying the possibility of ‘‘realness’’ shown in TIM films, I want to
focus on the cinematic construction of authenticity as a method of enhancing visual
eroticism. Visually, there is an assumption that homemade or underground porn-
ography is more authentic and erotic for it is less likely to be stylized and manu-
factured (Klein, 2006; Visual AIDS, 1999; Waugh, 1996). This supposed
unawareness of the cinematic medium is marked by bad camera angles, poor light-
ing, and extraneous noise. All the films viewed for this article presented
such moments: cameramen are regularly seen on camera; cameramen audibly com-
ment on what is happening; film equipment can be seen, and camera angles
and lighting are compromised by ‘‘impromptu’’ settings. Fucking Crazy (2003)
was the only film analyzed that featured a musical score, although a disclaimer
on the TIM website states that the background music was put on by the performers
themselves.
Most TIM films are presented like documentaries, as if the only direction for the
performers is ‘‘Have sex!’’ or that the sex is spontaneously captured on camera.
In Meat Rack (2005), director Max Sohl sets up a scene on-screen with text:
‘‘20 minutes later, I am called inside to one of the bedrooms. Dawson [performer]
is saying goodbye to a couple of the guys. This was not part of the shoot. We had to
scramble to catch it on videotape.’’ The film then cuts to a dimly lit room with
Dawson and another performer already engaging in anal intercourse on a bed while
other men watch and a second cameraman is seen putting his camera together.
In Deeper (2007), Dawson picks up two men at a convention and they have sex in
a stairwell. In Cumsloppy Buttholes (2004), Dawson and Jesse O’Toole have sex in
the hallway of a hotel. From the camera’s constant swerving back into the hallway,
it is clear that they are making sure that they are not caught by unsuspecting hotel
guests.
Despite these supposed spontaneous encounters, the sex generally follows a well-
established pornographic narrative structure: performers start kissing and undress-
ing, engage in oral intercourse, and then have anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is
still presented as the ultimate sexual act. TIM films use this narrative loosely, but
with less time leading up to anal intercourse. Also, films such as Meat Rack (2005)
and Meat Packing (2006) have performers in several scenes that run together
chronologically, as if the cameras just fail to stop filming, and the same performers
change partners and start new scenes in new locations. When this occurs, the

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

106 Sexualities 17(1/2)

performers sometimes will skip over steps in the pornographic narrative—per-

formers may kiss and then immediately engage in anal intercourse.
Additionally, not all of the performers are ‘‘professional’’ pornography per-
formers. Some of the performers are not named—not even with stage names, but
labeled as ‘‘Don’t Show My Face #1’’ or ‘‘Anonymous Donor #2,’’ and so on—and
some of the faces are obscured by hats, or blurred out. These performers work
alongside named TIM exclusives (e.g. Dawson, Christian, Jesse O’Toole, Brad
McGuire) and mainstream gay pornography performers (e.g. Matt Sizemore,
Michael Brandon, and Billy Wild). The studio also prides itself in not featuring
‘‘gay-for-pay’’ performers: the performers have sex with men on and off screen and
want to participate in the films (Donam, 2008). We are sometimes shown per-
formers preparing for a scene, or the cameraman or director will ask the performers
questions after a scene has completed, such as: ‘‘Do you shower after sex usually?’’
or ‘‘What do you like about cum?’’ Although viewers are aware that these films are
produced by a porn studio, the line between professional and amateur pornog-
raphy is blurred because there are ‘‘authentic’’ elements in the films. Some viewers
consider pornography as a fantasy: what appears on screen is the fantasy of the
acceptance of queer lives and sexual interests (Kipnis, 1996; Mercer, 2004: 155).
The presentation of authenticity in TIM films contributes to this fantasy, making
the sexual encounters on-screen seem possible. Performers’ ‘‘real selves’’ and char-
acters are conflated, giving the impression that what is viewed is not performed
pleasure, but real pleasure.

Refiguring the cum shot

What is at stake in pornography is the representation of authentic sexual pleasure.
The orgasm, or the moment of climax, is understood as the ultimate manifestation
of sexual pleasure. For men, orgasm is conflated with ejaculation, even though one
can occur without the other (Moore, 2007: 5). In practice, orgasm is often indes-
cribable; during orgasm, men’s eyes are often closed and the pleasure is an inward
experience (Lorentzen, 2007: 79). In pornography, orgasm is made visible and
recognizable by the cum shot. The cum shot is easily represented in male mastur-
bation, or solo, pornography, but for intercourse, it requires that the top stop
intercourse and ejaculate for the camera. Because orgasm signals climax, the
cum shot also becomes signified as the closure of the sexual narrative. This move
is evident in both heterosexual and male homosexual pornography, and the cum
shot is widely understood as essential to pornographic films featuring men (Ziplow,
1977: 34).
While the cum shot is understood as the signifier of male sexual pleasure, it is
unclear how viewers understand this pleasure. Linda Williams (1989: 101–102)
argues that the cum shot perverts male sexual pleasure, as it transforms physical
pleasure into visual pleasure. Cindy Patton (1989: 101, 105) notes that with the
advent of queer theory in the 1980s, the desirability of the cum shot becomes

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 107

unclear: is the male viewer identifying with the performer ejaculating, or is he also
turned on by the ejaculating performer? Patton (1988: 74) also argues that because
of the increase in non-pornographic gay cinema, gay pornography, which previ-
ously carried the burden of being the only cinematic representation of gay sexual-
ity, shifted its narrative structure and began following heterosexual pornographic
conventions more closely—in particular, the adoption of the cum shot as a narra-
tive standard. This narrative not only normalizes gay sex by aligning its narrative
to heterosexual sex, but it also creates a hierarchy of sexual acts, with anal pene-
tration marked as the most sexually pleasurable. Even though gay pornography
features solo scenes, solos are often perceived as secondary to scenes featuring anal
intercourse. Part of this hierarchy is tied to the sexual identity of the performers:
any man can masturbate on camera, and it is only the viewing of masturbation by
other men that makes it queer. Engaging in anal intercourse forces the performers
to actually participate in gay behavior.
My examination into masculinities in TIM films is shaped by how ejaculate is
represented in the cum shot. I use the term ‘‘ejaculate’’ in equivalence to ‘‘cum,’’
denoting the emission from the penis that is different from leaky discharges such as
pre-ejaculate or urine, and physically includes sperm and semen. In western dis-
course, informed by science, there are distinctions between sperm, semen, and
ejaculation (Moore, 2007: 5). In pornography, however, we see that these three
are conflated: all of these specific objects are grouped together through the slang
term ‘‘cum.’’
Although the cum shot is a convention of on-screen sexual narratives, not all
pornographic representations of sexual pleasure require it. Some genres of porn-
ography challenge the cum shot by showing pleasure experienced through sexual
acts not involving masturbation or intercourse, such as spanking or piss-play. TIM,
however, maintains the importance of the cum shot, but focuses on the ejaculate,
rather than the moment of ejaculation. TIM films do not rely upon ejaculation as
the marker of a performer’s climactic pleasure. In TIM films, the bottom does not
always ejaculate, but time is spent documenting his pleasure: cues for the bottom’s
climactic pleasure include groaning and facial expressions. Max Holden only bot-
toms during Fucking Crazy (2003) and he does not ejaculate at any point during the
film or the scenes in the DVD special features. In Eat it Hot (2000), one bottom
states that he does not need to ejaculate in order to experience pleasure; part of his
pleasure is derived from receiving ejaculate, that is, having the top ejaculate while
still inside him.
Another form of resistance to the cum shot is what Patton and Morris call the
‘‘anti-cum shot,’’ when the top ejaculates while still penetrating the bottom (Visual
AIDS, 1999). This cum shot is instead marked audibly with groaning and rapid
breathing, or visually with the increased rapidity and intensity of the tops’ thrust-
ing, muscles visibly tensing up, and facial expressions. The ‘‘anti-cum shot’’ is also
marked textually. The top can announce the impending ejaculation, but does not
bother pulling out. The top can also confirm having ejaculated when asked by the
cameraman or another performer. Starting around 2004, TIM films even included

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

108 Sexualities 17(1/2)

captions indicating that ejaculation had occurred: for example, ‘‘Zak shoots a big
load in Sean’’ in Cumsloppy Buttholes (2004).
In TIM films, the cum shot does not necessarily mark the end of a scene, par-
ticularly with group scenes. Tops may ejaculate more than once in a single scene.
Also, the sexual narrative does not end with ejaculation. The scene is not marked
by the emitting of ejaculate from the penis, but rather, from the transfer of ejacu-
late until its ultimate consumption. The bottom may push the ejaculate out of his
anus, but this may be collected in a glass and a performer—usually the bottom who
just pushed out the ejaculate—will drink it. Or, a top may suck the ejaculate out of
the bottom’s anus (aka felching) and either swallow it himself, or kiss the bottom,
passing the ejaculate from mouth to mouth (aka snowballing).
Ejaculate may also have a role later in the film. In Breeding Mike O’Neill
(2002) and Dawson’s 50 Load Weekend Part 1 (2005) and Part 2 (2006), men
masturbate into containers and the ejaculate is saved for scenes later in the films.
In Breeding Mike O’Neill (2002), ejaculate is frozen in a shot-glass, creating a
‘‘devil’s dick,’’ a piece of frozen ejaculate that is used like a dildo and the melted
ejaculate, once inside the bottom’s anus, also serves as lubricant for anal inter-
course. In Dawson’s 50 Load Weekend Part 1 (2005) and Part 2 (2006), ejaculate
collected earlier in the films is inserted into Dawson’s anus using turkey baster (in
Part 1) and a funnel (in Part 2). Viewers may find the cum shot of the earlier
masturbatory acts desirable, but in the films’ narratives, these masturbatory emis-
sions are means to a more erotic end. One exception is 1999’s Breed Me, which is
bookended with a clip of a man pushing ejaculate out of his anus into a measur-
ing cup. Although this scene is not resolved with the ejaculate transferred into a
body, it does highlight the fact that fluid transfer had occurred at some point.
Morris points out that even though the end scene was not a result of the sex
party in the film (Visual AIDS, 1999), this break in linear narrative does not
really matter, for what is more important is the visual evidence that transfer and
pleasure had occurred. The moment of ejaculation is therefore not the climactic
moment, for although it may be a moment of physical climax, it does not mean
the conclusion of the sexual narrative. Again, pleasure is marked by the transfer
of ejaculate from one body to another.

Masculinity as athletic and physical

A focus on ejaculate does not detract from the importance of physical, solid, and
active bodies in bareback pornography. In visual culture, Richard Dyer (1982)
finds that images of men usually feature men in motion. If men are still, they are
often holding props that suggest some form of action—the model simply pauses for
the sake of the camera. Even without props, Dyer argues that the male body is
posed with the promise of action through displays of flexed musculature or an erect
penis (1982: 71). This concern with displaying action, or the ability to quickly
become active, responds to a fear of appearing passive and feminine. Bordo
(1999), however, questions how we understand passivity as feminine: we use

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 109

terms such as inviting, or receiving, or waiting, but these are actually actions.
In other words, we need to reconsider how we read gendered activity.
Gay sex problematizes gender roles because of the assumption that both mas-
culine and feminine roles must be present for sexual intercourse—the bottom, as
receptive partner, is assumed to be passive and feminine. This femininity is also tied
to the sexuality of the performer: Jeffrey Escoffier notes how heterosexual-identified
gay pornography performers who initially only do solo scenes or who are tops, are
pressured to bottom to fulfill the fantasy of a muscular top bottoming, of ‘‘the
potential transgression of the masculine code, which a top, to some degree repre-
sents’’ (2009: 307). Brian Pronger (1990), however, considers the bottom during
anal sex as masculine, because not only does he have his own penis, but he also
receives a second penis, or phallus. He also considers the receptive partner as
athletic: the physical act of receiving the penis is a feat (1990: 139).
The films of TIM feature such an understanding of the performers. The tops are
often referred to as ‘‘studs,’’ and regardless of their physical stature—while many
of the performers are muscled, many do not have ‘‘perfect’’ bodies, nor do they all
have large penises—they are treated as desirable sexual partners. As for the bot-
toms, not only are they expected to ‘‘take it,’’ but much of the sex is also aggressive
in nature. Receiving ejaculate is also introduced as a skill. Many performers
describe the bottom as an active partner, ‘‘milking’’ the top, rather than only
‘‘taking,’’ or being given, the ejaculate from the top. If a top ejaculates into a
bottom’s anus, the bottom can push the ejaculate back out by flexing his anal
muscles. Bottoming is also positioned as an athletic act that requires preparation.
Performers are sometimes shown warming up with dildos before scenes. In ‘‘Max
Holden and His Dildos,’’ a DVD special feature scene of Fucking Crazy (2003),
performer Max Holden cools down after being the bottom in a gang bang
(group sex featuring one or two bottoms with multiple tops)—the content of the
film—using dildos to help him push out all of the ejaculate from his anus, which he
collects in a dish and drinks.
Sex is also made athletic in that it is rationalized through quantification, or
measurement. Pleasure for both tops and bottoms is related to the number of
partners shared, particularly for bottoms who are praised for collecting and con-
taining a high quantity of ejaculate, measured in ‘‘loads,’’ or ejaculate from a single
ejaculation. Films such as Dawson’s 20 Load Weekend (2004), Dawson’s 50 Load
Weekend Parts 1 and 2 (2005; 2006) eroticize the quantity of ejaculate that the
star—the bottom—can take in a fixed amount of time, highlighted by a counter
that appears each time Dawson receives a load, and his talking about wanting more
loads. Being a bottom is measurable and requires a particular form of physical
stamina. The work of the bottom, getting and containing the ejaculate, is a central
theme in all of the films: when there are multiple performers in the room, they often
make comments about wanting to see the bottom take in more ejaculate, and that
they themselves want to feel the ejaculate, functionally as lubricant, when it is their
turn to top. Pleasure is therefore performed and experienced not only by the top,
but also by the bottom. TIM films also alter the sexual narrative from conventional

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

110 Sexualities 17(1/2)

gang-bang scenes: conventional gang bang films highlight group cum shots—albeit
usually one top at a time—onto the bottom’s body or face, with the bottom having
his cum shot last. This suggests that pleasure for the bottom is just one of several
ejaculations, rendering it similar to the cum shots performed by the tops. Most
TIM bottoms do not ejaculate, so the pleasure derived from fluid transfer is not
simply equal to cum shots: the bottoms succeed in achieving the ultimate pleasure
through an act that is not matched by the tops’ actions.
By refiguring the cum shot, I also agree with Morris’s argument that TIM films
do not present hypermasculinity (Visual AIDS, 1999). ‘‘Hyper’’-masculinity sug-
gests a performance that attempts to compensate for what is interpreted as gender
misalignment: the male body performs an exaggerated masculinity in order to
mimic hegemonic masculinity, or to reconcile feminine acts or performances.
In TIM films, however, the performers are not queering masculinity through per-
formance. The athleticism of the bottom is not performed – athleticism is required
of TIM film bottoms. What is queer is the presentation of an alignment of mascu-
linities in a body performing a homoerotic act: what was once an act of effeminacy
is now a masculine act. By challenging the representation of male sexual pleasure,
TIM films male bottoms engage in masculine acts, not performing in a masculine
manner. Discourses of masculinity in TIM films, however, are not limited
to queered acts, but they are also articulated symbolically, through visible and
invisible—or absent—representations.

Procreation, power, and phallus

Men engaging in bareback sex often discuss the exchange of fluids as a moment of
great intimacy (Holmes and Warner, 2005: 13–14; Holmes et al., 2006: 323;
Schilder et al., 2008: 671–672). The pleasure experienced through ejaculate transfer
is not necessarily physically felt, but in pornography, it can be seen. Fluid transfer
is pleasurable because ejaculate is shown and described as sacred and important,
particularly through a metaphor of procreation. This metaphor is also linked
through language to a discourse of HIV/AIDS. TIM films often use terms referring
to procreation such as ‘‘breeding,’’ ‘‘mating,’’ and ‘‘planting seed’’ when describing
the transfer of ejaculate. These terms are part of barebacking lingo: contracting
HIV, or seroconversion, was compared to pregnancy in the 1990s (Visual AIDS,
1999). Even though gay sex does not result in procreation, the sight of sexual
intercourse anchored by the performers using phrases such as ‘‘breed me’’ suggests
that sex is erotic and a special act because the climax (fluid transfer) is powerful and
can result in new life (see Dean (2009) for a further reading of ‘‘breeding,’’ HIV,
and kinship amongst men who have casual bareback sex). The use of this procre-
ation metaphor, however, does not mean that viewers are watching acts of sero-
conversion. Instead, the metaphor provides language through which to understand
and describe barebacking as an erotic discourse. The acts of ‘‘breeding’’ or
‘‘planting seed’’ refer not to sexual intercourse, but to fluid transfer—the focus is
on the ejaculate, which may or may not carry the HIV virus.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 111

Rather than focus on the actual potential of HIV being present, this reading
considers how ejaculate is a symbol of erotic power—its meaning is not limited to a
connection to HIV/AIDS. Just as we cannot separate visually (without a micro-
scope) semen from sperm, we cannot ‘‘see’’ HIV (or any other sexually transmitted
infection) in the ejaculate during a cum shot. Ejaculate has long been understood as
a sacred symbol of power through procreation and fertility in Western society and
science (Moore, 2007; Visual AIDS, 1999; Schilder et al., 2008). Morris claims that
his performers participate in a celebration of the ‘‘sacredness of sperm’’ (Visual
AIDS, 1999). Morris describes each moment of fluid emission as orgasm, even
when ejaculate is pushed out of a performer’s anus: ‘‘his body is literally ejaculat-
ing. His ass, his entire body becomes a phallus and it’s ejaculating the sacred sperm.
That’s what’s going on’’ (Visual AIDS, 1999). In other words, Morris understands
his framing and style of filmmaking as highlighting this act—this celebration of
sperm—because sperm is generally sacred, and not only because the ejaculate could
contain HIV.
The importance of ejaculate is demonstrated through the actions of the TIM
performers: they drink it, pass it between one another—often through kissing, even
lick it up off of surfaces such as the floor, where it may have spilled. When the
bottoms in TIM films tell their tops to ‘‘stick it in,’’ it is often unclear to what ‘‘it’’
refers. Because the sexual narrative in TIM films only concludes with the transfer of
ejaculate, rather than the moment of ejaculation, it is arguable that ‘‘it,’’ when used
ambiguously, can refer to the penis and/or to the ejaculate. Ejaculate is also a
tangible symbol of masculinity (Holmes et al., 2006: 323), but there is some-
thing—perhaps uncomfortably—intimate and normative about this reference: it
reads similarly to the experience of heterosexual couples trying to reproduce
through procreative sex. Ejaculate—not the penis—is the symbol of sexual power.
Simone de Beauvoir theorized that women, symbolized by fluids, are immanent,
and they achieve transcendence by receiving the phallus from men through sex
(1989 [1952]: 391). Luce Irigaray (1985: 113) argues, however, that ejaculate embo-
dies a strange status of solid-fluid, salvaging it from being fluid, or considered
feminine. For Irigaray, the psychoanalyst is interested in the transformation of
fluid to solid, from milk-femaleness to penis-maleness (1985: 113). Julia Kristeva
goes further, arguing that abject (bodily) fluid, such as breasts’ milk causing sep-
aration of the child from mother, is a substance of power—it establishes the
boundaries of the self (1982: 1–3, 10). In the context of gay pornography, the
power and symbol of the phallus is actually located in the fluid—the ejaculate
that can be visually both pleasurable and abject—and not the sperm or the penis.
The penis can never fully be the phallus because it only symbolizes the potential
for power (Aydemir, 2007: 37; Dyer, 1982: 71)—power that is momentary and
leaves its mark. Ejaculate is not only the result of the moment of orgasm, but it
is an articulation of pleasure, a reminder, and a remnant (Hallam, 2004: 72). The
moment of orgasm is still important—it is uncontrollable and is irrational
(Lorentzen, 2007: 74; Scuglia, 2004: 186). Some of the anti-cum shots presented
in TIM films are results of this lack of control over ejaculate; ejaculate cannot be

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

112 Sexualities 17(1/2)

willed into displaying itself. But once ejaculation occurs, Holmes and Warner
(2005: 13–14) argue that fluid exchange provides an opportunity for a connection
beyond orgasmic pleasure. This authority and power of ejaculate is fleeting: it is
elusive for it can leak out of places, it can dry up, and upon oral consumption it is
almost irretrievable.
I do not want to belabor the notion of psychic power and the fluid-as-phallus.
Again, I argue that the cum shot is part of a visual discourse of pleasure. For some
men, ejaculate is simply fun to play with and therefore symbolically, visibly, and
tangibly pleasurable (see quote from informant in Schilder et al., 2008: 671). The
non-visible power attributed to ejaculate, however, is noteworthy. If ejaculate is a
visible and tangible representation of some form of sacred power that is impossible
to pinpoint, then it is no surprise that viewers are drawn to films that explicitly and
playfully display this masculine power literally on screen.

Silent and risky masculinity

In terms of masculinity, thinking about HIV/AIDS provides an interesting dis-
course through which to consider bareback pornography: masculinity as a form
of protest and risk-taking. Eric Rofes (2002) describes how defiant expressions of
masculinity and sexuality are desirable and exciting, particularly with regards to
defying the medicalization and rationalization of gay male sexuality. As mentioned
earlier, bareback pornography has sparked a large debate about the representation
of the effects of HIV/AIDS on bodies and sexual behaviors. The films of TIM make
no mention of sexual health—this active and heated debate occurs outside of the
films themselves: in journalistic accounts, in online message boards and comments
sections, in academic scholarship, and at industry and industry-related events. This
silence can itself be interpreted as masculine, but not because it is queer. Rather,
silence is desirable because it invokes normatively masculine risk. Haig (2006) and
Holmes et al. (2008) argue that silence, particularly silence around the issue of risk,
is a form of masculinity. The masculine person does not need to discuss everything,
especially not one’s feelings, and therefore sexual encounters—particularly those
with anonymous partners—become risky.
If we only see pleasure on screen, however, how can risk be considered part of
the text? Within porn studies, in addition to the three main cinematic gazes of (1)
actor to actor, (2) actor to off-screen object/person, and (3) actor to viewer, there is
a fourth gaze considered: the gaze of society upon the viewer, or the perception of
the gaze from society (Patton, 1988: 73). Contemporary pornography viewers are
likely familiar with HIV/AIDS discourses, the risks involved with bareback sex,
and that studio-made gay pornography made after 1990 conventionally includes
condoms (Patton, 1996; Watney, 1987). Watching TIM films, there is a sense that
pleasure should be derived from the lack of knowing whether HIV/AIDS—or any
other sexually transmitted infection—is present on the screen. The lack of discus-
sion about sexual health from the performers makes them masculine and desirable
because the viewers understand such actions as risky, especially without discussion.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 113

Sexual health risk is acknowledged in Dawson’s 50 Load Weekend Part 2 (2006),

though not by the performers. In the last scene, Antonio Montrez and Jack Forest
put on condoms before having sex with Dawson. As Montez is putting on his
condom, the screen moves to close-up, goes into slow motion, and captions appear:

Ok. We know what you are thinking. Yes, this scene has condoms. It was the only way
we could get these big dicks in Dawson’s hole. Trust us on this one. The ending is
really good. These tops will be unable to resist Dawson’s raw hole.

The scene ends with both men having bareback sex with Dawson to help them
ejaculate since masturbating (for a ‘‘classic’’ cum shot) is taking too long. This text
acknowledges that viewers watch TIM films for the lack of condoms. Even though
ejaculate is first made visible through a conventional cum shot (both Montrez and
Forest finally ejaculate by masturbating onto Dawson), the scene still ends with a
transfer of fluid. The ejaculate is scooped up and pushed into Dawson’s anus and
mouth, and both are counted in the ‘‘load count.’’
Risk in TIM films is established for the viewers because of the unknown health
statuses of the performers on screen—TIM does not publish the HIV-statuses of its
performers or whether it has a testing policy. Although the heterosexual pornog-
raphy industry relies on testing and knowing the HIV-status of performers
(a standard established after the gay pornography industry began its safer sex
campaigns), the gay pornography industry uses condoms, which does not require
testing so viewers do not know the HIV-status of performers (Escoffier, 2009).
While Dean argues that lipodystrophy—a loss of fat that produces scarring—in
the buttocks of some performers presents physical markers of taking HIV medi-
cations (2009: 127), and some TIM film performers have biohazard sign tattoos,
these visual markers are never confirmed. Naı̈ve viewers would not necessarily
catch these markers, whereas the transfer of bodily fluid is conventionally under-
stood as risky behavior. Even if viewers assume that all TIM film performers are
HIV-positive (a common assumption), they are likely aware that there are different
strains of HIV, meaning that bareback sex could still lead to a type of
seroconversion.
Viewers are also assumed to believe that all pornography performers are stran-
gers, and the possibility of intimacy is established through bareback sex and fluid
transfer. This possibility, however, defies the assumption that intimacy is formed
through emotional or intellectual relationships linked to normative and moral
models of kinship and relationship-making—in other words, dating and marriage.
Some non-TIM bareback pornographic films, such as Bacchus Releasing’s
Bareback Riders (2002), advertise ‘‘Real Boyfriends!’’ as a method of informing
the viewers that any moral concern is unnecessary. There is little contestation over
lifetime partners having condomless sex, but performers in pornographic films are
assumed to not be in monogamous relationships with one another off screen. There
is also still the stereotype that a majority of gay men—especially pornographic film
performers—have casual sex partners, even when in relationships (Visual

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

114 Sexualities 17(1/2)

AIDS, 1999). TIM also openly recruits men to become performers in its films,
confirming the assumption that the performers do not know one another.
The blurring between professional and amateur performer is important here—
there is no distinction between character and real life because the sex is real. Again,
TIM does not publicize information about the HIV testing of its performers. Many
message board participants, blog commentators, and pornographic film per-
formers, including former TIM performer Billy Wild, focus on wanting access to
this information about performers from ALL studios featuring bareback sex
scenes, even if performers only perform in a single bareback scene and no longer
perform in bareback pornography (Joeblow69, 2003, 2004; QMN, 2008). The over-
arching assumption is that performers do not have information about one another
and are not practicing any form of sexual safety. Studies, however, demonstrate
that men who have bareback sex negotiate sexual safety to varying degrees and are
aware of the different levels of risk involved when excluding condoms
(Bauermeister et al., 2009; Carballo-Dieguez and Bauermeister, 2004; Holmes
and Warner, 2005), but any form of negotiation or discussion is never shown on
film or in TIM’s public materials such as its website. TIM plays with this lack of
knowledge, and creates pleasurable films that facilitate the translation of silence to
risk and then to transgression.

Conclusion
We must continually ask ourselves what cinematic images mean and what makes
them notable. Regardless of the motivations of TIM performers, what is presented
is a drive for pleasure, including a certain pleasure from performing for others to
see. Gay men’s bodies have been medicalized and demonized, especially since the
HIV/AIDS epidemic, but their bodies and bodily fluids not only matter, they are
also fun. For some men, ejaculate is simply fun to play with and therefore symbol-
ically, tangibly, and visually pleasurable. This pleasure is also nostalgic—bareback-
ing on screen presents both a challenge to contemporary public health
recommendations to gay men as well as a form of sex that invokes pleasure without
concern for HIV/AIDS. Gay pornographic films made in the USA prior to 1990
that did not conventionally feature condom use were initially re-marketed as ‘‘pre-
condom classics,’’ and today are labeled as featuring ‘‘classic bareback sex.’’ In
other words, despite the cinematic structures of past pornographic films, today’s
viewers may watch them with a contemporary gaze that incorporates the concept of
‘‘barebacking,’’ which includes knowledge of HIV/AIDS. Cinematic conventions
are reinterpreted to today’s standards, even with more produced, studio-made
pornography.
Here, I must admit my contribution to the scholarly and non-scholarly over-
emphasis on TIM films. TIM films are not representative of all bareback pornog-
raphy, and we need critical analyses about bareback pornography in general. TIM
films are still important because of their presence in today’s distribution channels.
Pornography today is largely distributed online rather than by home video, and

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 115

while some may still purchase full films, many films are divided and sold/rented as
scenes. The internet also allows individuals to view film clips randomly—people
may not actually seek out bareback pornography, but they may still watch if they
come across it. The use of clips on the internet also means that users may be less
aware of the studios that produce the film clips. This means that TIM films are as
likely to be viewed as other films because different clips may be viewed together in a
single viewing session. It is not enough to simply question how pornography fits
into public health agendas by asking individuals if and how frequently they view
pornography (see Stein et al., 2012). This search for correlation only continues the
dominant discourse that gay citizenship and sexuality, and by extension bareback
pornography, is tied to—even dependent on—public health and HIV/AIDS
prevention.
Haig (2006: 871) notes that in order to address issues of sexual health, we need
to take into account different cultural codes and how different communities under-
stand sex. Pornography provides a method for us to exhibit and reveal ourselves as
well as to find images that turn us on, that answer our questions about who we
(queers) are. Public health and identity-based arguments about bareback pornog-
raphy and sex maintain that queer bodies and queer sexual activities are threaten-
ing to society, but this is not the case. TIM films threaten to co-opt hegemonic
masculinity from hetereosexuals, presenting hegemonic masculinity as hybrid, as
queered. The threat is that the pursuit of pleasure—of happiness—for queers is
through the same acts as those of non-queers. As Cindy Patton reminds us:

There is only one dangerous act, being fucked without a condom, that sole act, not
coincidentally, which is invoked by the national pedagogy as the citizen’s ‘‘free-
dom’’—having the license to fuck without a condom is the new, all-American fantasy
of heterosexuality rescued from queerness. (1996: 155)

In health promotion, ‘‘the appeal is to barebackers to be ‘good gay citizens’ and put
social responsibility ahead of personal preferences, pleasure, or meaning’’ (Rofes,
2002: 134). In other words, there is a push to normalize homosexuality through the
framework of heteronormativity by constructing ‘‘good’’ versus ‘‘bad/deviant’’
sexuality. This dichotomy, however, cannot be easily maintained in pornography,
as these films are supposed to encourage pleasure. Robert Kirsch, a former pro-
ducer and director for Titan Media, described watching TIM films as frustrating,
both cinematically and in terms of safer sex. As a filmmaker, he did not feel that he
could ethically produce bareback pornography, but at the same time, he found
TIM films ‘‘really exciting’’ (Visual AIDS, 1999). Focusing on motivations to have
bareback sex limits the modes in which gay sexuality can be understood.
Bareback pornography challenges our ideas about masculinity, desire, and sexu-
ality. Cindy Patton argues that ‘‘sexuality emerges in action—participation in and
observation of prohibitions and pleasure—and through ‘‘reading’’—other bodies,
medical texts, popular press accounts, how-to books, pornography’’ (1996: 142).
My analysis embraces a model of non-normativity, but at the same time does not

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

116 Sexualities 17(1/2)

reject normative frameworks and discourses for analysis. In fact, I argue that
queerness can be read through normative frameworks, rather than from oppos-
itional readings. Pornography is not transgressive because it shows acts that chal-
lenge public expressions of sexuality—that is its function (Patton, 1996; Paasonen,
2011). TIM films are not only exciting because of their challenge to safer sex
practices, but also because they push the boundaries of cinematic sex and mascu-
linity. This reading of TIM films pays special attention to the bottom as a figure
exhibiting normative masculinity, rather than focusing on the bottom’s individual
ego realized by receiving phallic power (see Dean (2009) and Bersani (2011) for
examples of psychoanalytic readings).
Models of resistance often neglect the complex relationship between queer
bodies and their sexual lives. It is often assumed that queer folks will appear con-
trary to normative sexuality and gender identity, that homoeroticism opposes het-
eronormative eroticism. This analysis of TIM films and their representations of
ejaculate demonstrates that queered masculine bodies involve aspects of normative
masculinity. This is not unusual in gay pornography: Ramakers argues that Tom of
Finland images copied symbols of hegemonic masculinity and ‘‘developed hybrid
signs that could no longer be coupled in any straightforward manner to heterosex-
ual masculinity’’ (2000: 237–238). By examining bareback pornography for hybrid
signs of gender and sexuality, we can better open a dialogue about how gay men
negotiate sexual health safety as well as pleasure, intimacy, and sexual citizenship.
TIM films visually mark homoerotic acts as normatively masculine by presenting
their performers as athletic, risk-taking, and honoring the sacred power of ejacu-
late. Rather than read TIM films as a reintroduction of normative gender in queer
narratives, I argue that these texts destabilize what was thought of as hegemonic,
normalizing, and natural. Queerness should not be read only as a project that
visibly rejects hegemonic normativity because this naturalizes the oppositional
reading. Therefore, queerness may not be so far away from ‘‘normal’’ after all.

References
Adams JC (2007) David awards fight boils over. Gay Porn Times 23 October. Available at:
http://www.gayporntimes.com/hardnews/2007/10/23/david-awards-fight-boils-over/
(accessed 8 September 2009).
Aydemir M (2007) Images of Bliss: Ejaculation, Masculinity, Meaning. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Bauermeister J, Carballo-Dieguez A, et al. (2009) Assessing motivations to engage in inten-
tional condomless anal intercourse in HIV risk contexts (‘bareback sex’) among men who
have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention 21(2): 156–168.
Bersani L (2011) Shame on you. In: Halley J and Parker A (eds) After Sex? Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, pp. 91–109.
Bordo S (1999) The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and Private. New York:
Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Carballo-Dieguez A and Bauermeister J (2004) ‘Barebacking’: Intentional Condomless Anal
sex in HIV-risk contexts: Reasons for and against it. Journal of Homosexuality 47(1):
1–16.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 117

Connell RW and Messerschmidt JW (2005) Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the con-

cept. Gender and Society 19(6): 829–859.
De Beauvoir S (1989 [1952]) The Second Sex (trans HM Parshley). New York: Vintage
Books.
Dean T (2009) Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Donam S (2008) Liam Cole Interviewed by Susan Donam. [The] Evidence. Available at:
http://www.treasureislandblog.com/?p¼1276 (accessed 1 November 2009).
Dworkin A (1981) Pornography: Men Possessing Women. New York: Perigee Trade.
Dyer R (1982) Don’t look now. Screen 23(3–4): 61–73.
Dyer R (1985) Coming to terms. Jump Cut 30: 27–29.
Eck B (2003) Men are much harder: Gendered viewing of nude images. Gender and Sexuality
17(5): 691–710.
Escoffier J (2009) Bigger than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to
Hardcore. Philadelphia, PA: Running Press Book Publishers.
Foucault M (1978 [1976]). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction (trans. R
Hurley). New York: Vintage Books.
Gorman A and Lin R-G II (2012) Condom requirement for porn filming approved
by voters. Los Angeles Times: L.A. Now 7 November. Available at: http://latimesblogs.
latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/condom-requirement-for-porn-filming-approved-by-
voters.html (accessed 3 January 2012).
Haig T (2006) Bareback sex: Masculinity, silence, and the dilemmas of gay health. Canadian
Journal of Communication 31(4): 859–877.
Hallam P (2004) If you look at it long enough . . . . Journal of Homosexuality 47(3/4): 59–74.
Hansen C, Needham C and Nichols B (1991) Pornography, ethnography, and the discourses
of power. In: Nichols B (ed.) Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary.
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 201–228.
Hennen P (2008) Faeries, Bears, and Leathermen: Men in Community Queering the
Masculine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Holmes D and Warner D (2005) The anatomy of a forbidden desire: Men, penetration and
semen exchange. Nursing Inquiry 12(1): 10–20.
Holmes D, O’Byrne P and Gastaldo D (2006) Raw sex as limit experience: A Foucauldian
analysis of unsafe anal sex between men. Social Theory and Health 4(4): 319–333.
Holmes D, Gastaldo D, et al. (2008) Bareback sex: A conflation of risk and masculinity.
International Journal of Men’s Health 7(2): 171–191.
Irigaray L (1985) This Sex Which is Not One (trans. C Porter). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Jensen R (1996) Knowing pornography. Violence Against Women 2(1): 82–102.
Joeblow69 (2003) Joeblow69 Interviews Billy Wild. Gay DVD Review February. Available
at: http://www.gaydvdreview.com/billy_wild.asp (accessed 20 May 2011).
Joeblow69 (2004) Treasure Island Media Responds to Billy Wild. Adult DVD Talk April.
Available at: http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/topic.dlt/topic_id¼36900/forum_id¼
2/cat_id¼1/36900.htm (accessed 20 May 2011).
Kelly EA and Kane K (2001) In Goldilocks’s footsteps: Exploring the discursive construc-
tion of gay masculinity in bear magazines. In: Wright L (ed.) The Bear Book II: Further
Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture. New York: The Haworth
Press, pp. 327–350.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

118 Sexualities 17(1/2)

Kendall CN (2004) Gay Male Pornography: An Issue of Sex Discrimination. Vancouver:

UBC Press.
King M (2012) The most important gay porn film ever made? Huffington Post. 11 July.
Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-s-king/the-most-important-gay-
porn-film-ever-made_b_1658846.html (accessed 30 December 2012).
Kipnis L (1996) Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America.
New York: Grove Press.
Klein M (2006) Pornography: What men see when they watch. In: Lehman P (ed.)
Pornography: Film and Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,
pp. 245–257.
Kort J (2002) The men in the mirror: Understanding gay men and their porn. In the Family
8(1): 8–12.
Kristeva J (1982) Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (trans. LS Roudiez). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Locke P (1997) Male images in the gay mass media and bear-oriented magazines:
Analysis and contrast. In: Wright L (ed.) The Bear Book: Readings in the History
and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture. New York: The Haworth Press,
pp. 103–140.
Lorentzen J (2007) Masculinities and the phenomenology of men’s orgasms. Men and
Masculinities 10(1): 71–84.
McCann T (2001) Laid bear: Masculinity with all the trappings. In: Wright L (ed.) The Bear
Book II: Further Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture.
New York: The Haworth Press, pp. 305–326.
McLaren A (1997) The Trials of Masculinity: Policing Sexual Boundaries, 1870–1930.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mercer J (2004) In the slammer: The myth of the prison in American gay pornographic
video. Journal of Homosexuality 47(3/4): 151–166.
Moore LJ (2007) Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man’s Most Precious Fluid. New York:
New York University Press.
Morris P (1998) No limits: Necessary danger in male porn. In: The World Pornography
Conference, Los Angeles USA.
Paasonen S (2011) Carnal Resonance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Patton C (1988) The cum shot: Three takes on lesbian and gay sexuality. Outlook. 1(Fall):
72–77.
Patton C (1989) Hegemony and orgasm – or the instability of heterosexual pornography.
Screen 30(1/2): 100–113.
Patton C (1991) Safe sex and the pornographic vernacular. In Bad Object Choices (eds.)
How Do I Look? Queer Film and Video. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, pp. 31–63.
Patton C (1996) Fatal Advice: How Safe-Sex Education Went Wrong. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Pronger B (1990) The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality, and the Meaning of Sex.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
QMN (2008) About barebacking: From Leo Giamani and Vince Ferelli to Fans. Queer Me
Now 30 December. Available at: http://queermenow.net/blog/about-barebacking-from-
leo-giamani-vince-ferelli-to-fans/ (accessed 20 May 2011).
Ramakers M (2000) Dirty Pictures: Tom of Finland, Masculinity, and Homosexuality.
New York: St Martin’s Press.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

Lee 119

Rofes E (2002) Desires as defiance: Gay male sexual subjectivities and resistance to sexual
health promotion. Health Education Journal 61(2): 125–137.
Schilder A, Orchard T, Buchner C, et al. (2008) ‘It’s like the treasure’: Beliefs associated with
semen among young HIV-positive and HIV-negative men. Culture, Health and Sexuality
10(7): 667–679.
Scuglia B (2004) Sex pigs: Why porn is like sausage, or the truth is that—behind the
scenes—porn is not very sexy. Journal of Homosexuality 47(3/4): 185–188.
Segal L (2004) Only the literal: The contradictions of anti-pornography feminism.
In: Gibson PC (ed.) More Dirty Looks: Gender, Pornography and Power. London:
British Film Institute, pp. 59–70.
Stein D, Silvera R, et al. (2012) Viewing pornography depicting unprotected anal inter-
course: Are there implications for HIV prevention among men who have sex with
men? Archives of Sexual Behavior 41(2): 411–419.
Visual AIDS (1999) Visual AIDS: Gay male porn and safer sex pedagogy. HIV InSite Round
Table Discussion, Discussion featuring Robert Kirsch, Paul Morris, Cindy Patton,
Michael Scarce and Nicolas Sheon (Organizer) 28 May 1999. Available at: http://
hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page¼pa–2098–4218 (transcript accessed 15 November 2007).
Walker GW (2006) Disciplining protest masculinity. Men and Masculinities 9(1): 5–22.
Watney S (1987) Policing Desire: Pornography AIDS, and the Media. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Waugh T (1996) Hard to Imagine: Gay Male Eroticism in Photography and Film from Their
Beginnings to Stonewall. New York: Columbia University Press.
Williams L (1989) Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the ‘Frenzy of the Visible’. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ziplow S (1977) The Film Maker’s Guide to Pornography. New York: Drake Publishers.

Filmography
Bad Influence, 2008. Dir. Liam Cole. Treasure Island Media.
Bareback Riders. 2002. Dir. Edward James. Bacchus Releasing.
Bone Deep, 2009. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Brad McGuire’s 20 Hole Weekend, 2007. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Breed Me, 1999. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Breeding Ian Jay, 2008. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Breeding Mike O’Neill, 2002. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Cumsloppy Buttholes, 2004. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Dawson’s 20 Load Weekend, 2004. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Dawson’s 50 Load Weekend Part 1, 2005. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Dawson’s 50 Load Weekend Part 2, 2006. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Deeper, 2007. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Eat It Hot, 2000. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Fuck Holes 2, 2009. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Fucking Crazy, 2003. Dir. Erich Lange. Treasure Island Media.
Loaded, 2007. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Meat Packing, 2006. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Meat Rack, 2005. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.
Plantin’ Seed, 2004. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014

120 Sexualities 17(1/2)

Riding Billy Wild, 2003. Dir. Paul Morris. Treasure Island Media.
Sperm Bank, 2007. Dir. Max Sohl. Treasure Island Media.

Byron Lee is a doctoral candidate in Mass Media and Communication at Temple

University. He holds an MA in Women’s Studies and a BA in Sociology from
Simon Fraser University. His research and teaching interests include media repre-
sentations of identity, gender and sexuality, human geography, and critical and
cultural studies.

Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on June 25, 2014