Gay Porn Star Kurt Wilder Discusses Being 'Gay for Pay'

[Buffalo Souljah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQensCD7xcE
Does this seem like flagrant opportunism? Does this count as commodity fetishism:D?

[Edit: rectraction]

[Buffalo Souljah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c642dSeSm8A&NR=1

this one is more interesting. haha, tyra: "it's just like Chippendale's: uh...uh...uh.."

his mom comes on the show!

[Buffalo Souljah]

Comment by a Youtuber:


a566626 (http://www.youtube.com/user/a566626) @ESei173 (http://www.youtube.com/comment_search?username=esei173) I'm not sure how having sex for money is hard work. They clearly state that they took the job because it was easy money...so they apparently agree with me. What I really meant was, it is unfortunate that instead of building a skill they chose to sell their bodies for money. I think it's sad, but that is fine if you disagree.

[#FF0000]

Is he just a fag (in the non-chauvenist, non-homophobic sense of the word--like Ms. Garrison says it)?

You mean the non-existent sense of the word. Have an infraction

[Buffalo Souljah]

You mean the non-existent sense of the word. Have an infraction


I'm sorry, but I don't think that's warranted. It was meant in jest. Lighten up.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's warranted. It was meant in jest. Lighten up.

Can you use the word "nigger" in jest?


This is definitely an interesting case study though. Not sure what to think of it.

[Hit The North]

Can you use the word "nigger" in jest?


Of course you can. The question is whether you should.

[Guerrilla22]

He found a good way to earn money, good for him.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Is this "opportunism"?
Yes. That's fine too.

Is it "commodity fetishism"?
No 0_o
What commodity are they fetishising? Homosexuality certainly isn't a commodity.


... kind of what I'm reading in his body language and demeanor. Gaydar?

You don't have gaydar, nobody does, it doesn't exist. What you're noticing are traits associated with homosexuality, his high pitched voice, his bright eyes etc. But that doesn't make him gay.

It is perfectly possible he is exclusively heterosexual in his personal relationships, who he has sex with for money is none of our business really.

[Revy]

this is totally uncalled for and offensive.

the thread should be trashed (or at least the word edited out of the post). the infraction is totally deserved. asking if someone is a fag, with complete disregard to the offense that term would cause for the gay, bisexual, transgender members of this site as well as everyone else on here. "non-homophobic form of the word"? there are plenty of non-homophobic alternatives for you to use that don't require an explanation in parentheses.

[Sam_b]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's warranted. It was meant in jest. Lighten up.

Please leave this forum and never return. You seriously call yourself leftist after this stereotypical and prejudiced bullshit?

[KC]

Is it "commodity fetishism"?
No 0_o
What commodity are they fetishising? Homosexuality certainly isn't a commodity.

Commodity fetishism isn't about a single commodity; it is a systematic process regarding the relation of commodities in general to man.

[al8]

Tyra is so disgusting and annoying. She is taunting and bullying these porn actors and making money by doing a moralizing exposé about their predicament.

[Dimentio]

Thanks for stealing 6 minutes and 20 seconds of my life. The only thing certain out of this debacle is that Tyra is slightly homophobic. I don't understand why they have to scream so much in talk shows like these.

[Angry Young Man]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's warranted. It was meant in jest. Lighten up.

Yea, it really was. What made you think it was ok to say that?

[Tyrlop]

a fag is a cigar or a pipe or a drain pipe i think:thumbup1:

[Robocommie]

You don't have gaydar, nobody does, it doesn't exist. What you're noticing are traits associated with homosexuality, his high pitched voice, his bright eyes etc. But that doesn't make him gay.


Are some of those traits, as you call them, affectations from gay subcultures? Is it sometimes a subconscious thing or maybe even just a genetic thing? I'm sorry if I sound rude, I'm not trying to be, I'm just curious.

[praxis1966]

I think the real problem here is why he gave a slippery shit about what was on Tyra Banks's show in the first place. Kinda instructive about where his head's at.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I really dislike Tyra Bank's show. According to Sasha Grey (a pornstar), her dress was deemed inappropriate and changed. Furthermore, they edited things out to make her look bad. On this same show, Tyra had a doctor claim anal sex would leave her incontinent in old age. This is simply false and has homophobic implications. I watched a few minutes yesterday where she judged teenagers for their sex lives. One teen had sex with two guys in the same night. Who cares? Basically, all kinds of stupid criticisms of teens for being sexual beings.

Of Oprah, Dr. Phil, The Doctors, Dr. Oz, and the Tyra Banks show, the latter is bar far the worst. I might be forgetting some other shows in that category, but I doubt they are worse than Tyra Banks. Dr. Oz is next in line as he did a show on depression without mentioning medication, claimed depression can be cured without medication, and seems to have a problem with medicating depression in general. Dr. Phil is an idiot because he expected a post-op transsexual to keep their sexual identity to themselves to appease their father because "sexual identity isn't essential to who you are." It's up to them whether it is.

Let's see. The Doctors don't confront pseudo-scientific methods of improving health. In fact, they've shown practices that have no basis for working. And Oprah is judgmental whenever she can get away with it. Sex, public behavior, etc. She's always playing off the crowd and bringing people down.

I watch some of those shows occasionally because they often have 5 minutes that seems interesting, I'm bored, nothing is on, or I am fastforwarding through it. They are generally pretty low quality.

I have to admit that views on homosexuality are incredibly ingrained in most members of society, even in more liberal areas. If you had asked me a few years ago whether someone who has sex with men could be hetereosexual, I would've said now. Obviously, I have changed my mind on that issue.

Prejudice based on porn is ridiculous. If someone has a gay orgy on the internet, that is their business. There is no justification for firing them. I don't care if it's a public relations position, working with children, or anything else.

Also, if someone has sex with twenty men a day, they should be able to call themselves straight as long as they don't use that title to harm others. It doesn't matter, after all. If they can't psychologically accept an identity (assuming they are gay), that's something they need to deal with on their own.

[cb9's_unity]

Its interesting how if a straight guy does anything sexual with another man they're immediately considered gay. It's not the same when a gay guy hooks up with a girl, actually a gay guy could hook up with as many girls as he wanted to and if he still called himself gay that's what everyone would consider him. I'm not sure what conclusions that draws, but its an observation I've made before that the two clips I just watched reinforced.

Its also because I was pretty much appalled by Tyra during both of those clips but I know on her modeling show there are quite a few openly gay guys and she actually confronted a model who had homophobic beliefs.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Firstly: I'm sorry to those of you I offended. One can forget how engrained our predominant chauvenist, racist, homophobic worldview can be in everyday language. I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. One almost doesn't notice one is doing it.But that doesn't mean that one day it couldn't be different:

I think human beings express themselves in nearly unlimited ways, and, although I believe there are 'correct' and 'incorrect practices (ie. the dichotomy between bourgeousie and proletarian consciousness), I do not believe a person's right to free association should be anything but a fundamental goal of society, which is, I think historically defined as just that by men like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.



Is it "commodity fetishism"?
No 0_o
What commodity are they fetishising? Homosexuality certainly isn't a commodity.Commodity fetishism, as Benjamin, Lukacs, Marx and Debord talk of them is a paradoxical notion that consists in a reversal of roles, in which a commodity (ie. gold, money) takes on a special role and loses that of the abstract commodity, becoming instead a 'thing in itself':


material relations between persons and social relations between things. (Marx, Capitl, Vol I, Sec II)
Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. The recent scientific discovery, that the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production, marks, indeed, an epoch in the history of the development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves. The fact, that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes in the product the form of value – this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to, to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered. .
The character of having value, when once impressed upon products, obtains fixity only by reason of their acting and re-acting upon each other as quantities of value. These quantities vary continually, independently of the will, foresight and action of the producers. To them, their own social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the producers instead of being ruled by them. It requires a fully developed production of commodities before, from accumulated experience alone, the scientific conviction springs up, that all the different kinds of private labour, which are carried on independently of each other, and yet as spontaneously developed branches of the social division of labour, are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. And why? Because, in the midst of all the accidental and ever fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labour time socially necessary for their production forcibly asserts itself like an over-riding law of Nature. The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about our ears.[29] The determination of the magnitude of value by labour time is therefore a secret, hidden under the apparent fluctuations in the relative values of commodities. Its discovery, while removing all appearance of mere accidentality from the determination of the magnitude of the values of products, yet in no way alters the mode in which that determination takes place.
The proportions in which [commodities] are exchangeable are at first quite a matter of chance. What makes them exchangeable is the mutual desire of their owners to alienate them. Meantime the need for foreign objects of utility gradually establishes itself. The constant repetition of exchange makes it a normal social act. In the course of time, therefore, some portion at least of the products of labour must be produced with a special view to exchange. From that moment the distinction becomes firmly established between the utility of an object for the purposes of consumption, and its utility for the purposes of exchange. Its use-value becomes distinguished from its exchange-value. On the other hand, the quantitative proportion in which the articles are exchangeable, becomes dependent on their production itself. Custom stamps them as values with definite magnitudes.
The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable. It thus serves as a universal measure of value. And only by virtue of this function does gold, the equivalent commodity par excellence, become money...But money itself has no price. In order to put it on an equal footing with all other commodities in this respect, we should be obliged to equate it to itself as its own equivalent. The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form....A price therefore implies both that a commodity is exchangeable for money, and also that it must be so exchanged. On the other hand, gold serves as an ideal measure of value, only because it has already, in the process of exchange, established itself as the money-commodity. Under the ideal measure of values there lurks the hard cash.

A commodity, in its capacity of a use-value, satisfies a particular want, and is a particular element of material wealth. But the value of a commodity measures the degree of its attraction for all other elements of material wealth, and therefore measures the social wealth of its owner. To a barbarian owner of commodities, and even to a West-European peasant, value is the same as value-form, and therefore. to him the increase in his hoard of gold and silver is an increase in value. It is true that the value of money varies, at one time in consequence of a variation in its own value, at another, in consequence of a change in the values of commodities. But this, on the one hand, does not prevent 200 ounces of gold from still containing more value than 100 ounces, nor, on the other hand, does it hinder the actual metallic form of this article from continuing to be the universal equivalent form of all other commodities, and the immediate social incarnation of all human labour. The desire after hoarding is in its very nature unsatiable. In its qualitative aspect, or formally considered, money has no bounds to its efficacy, i.e., it is the universal representative of material wealth, because it is directly convertible into any other commodity. But, at the same time, every actual sum of money is limited in amount, and, therefore, as a means of purchasing, has only a limited efficacy. This antagonism between the quantitative limits of money and its qualitative boundlessness, continually acts as a spur to the hoarder in his Sisyphus-like labour of accumulating. is with him as it is with a conqueror who sees in every new country annexed, only a new boundary. In order that gold may be held as money, and made to form a hoard, it must be prevented from circulating, or from transforming itself into a means of enjoyment. The hoarder, therefore, makes a sacrifice of the lusts of the flesh to his gold fetish. He acts in earnest up to the Gospel of abstention. On the other hand, he can withdraw from circulation no more than what he has thrown into it in the shape of commodities. The more he produces, the more he is able to sell. Hard work, saving, and avarice are, therefore, his three cardinal virtues, and to sell much and buy little the sum of his political economy. [45]

[Dimentio]

Its interesting how if a straight guy does anything sexual with another man they're immediately considered gay. It's not the same when a gay guy hooks up with a girl, actually a gay guy could hook up with as many girls as he wanted to and if he still called himself gay that's what everyone would consider him. I'm not sure what conclusions that draws, but its an observation I've made before that the two clips I just watched reinforced.

Its also because I was pretty much appalled by Tyra during both of those clips but I know on her modeling show there are quite a few openly gay guys and she actually confronted a model who had homophobic beliefs.

There are two different kinds of homophobia I think. One which is "Uhhh, God hates Gayyyys", and the other is the more insidious variation which demands that people are sorted in categories, that gays for example should be feminine and obsessed by fashion, furniture and stuff like that. The first variation is condemned by liberal media, while the other variation is exalted.

[Buffalo Souljah]

above

It is worth noting that my name is George Bush, so you should not take anything I say very seriously!:p

[black magick hustla]

if they can get money for a job they consider easy, good for them. Some people think that it is impossible for someone to consider sex so trivial to not mind prostitution. I think there are a few people that can.

[RedAnarchist]

a fag is a cigar or a pipe or a drain pipe i think:thumbup1:

In the US, it's an homophobic term, one which is well known for being so throughout the Anglophone nations.

[RedAnarchist]

Closed.