I said "Вон отсюда, обратно в Россию!" for the first time in my life...

It was in a thread on an American LGBT news site about Russian-born порнограф Michael Lucas, explaining his decision to begin making gay porn videos without condoms:

Quote:

---

Allow me to be the first to say, in language that would be perfectly clear to Lucas: _Bljad’, von otsjuda, jobannyi pidor, obratno v Rossiju, bljad’, mudak ty!_

Wait, what am I saying? Russian gays need Lucas like a bicycle-riding fish needs a hole in the head. Better for them, I suppose, that this complete loser is here.

P.S. To any Russian-speakers reading this: of course I mean _pidor_ strictly in the Southparkian sense of “incredibly annoying person on a loud Harley.” ;-) I love being a gay man, and I generally like Russians very much.

P.P.S. The very concept of recommending $1000/month PrEP as a good strategy to prevent HIV among gay men who think $1 condoms are “too unsexy” is the best possible propaganda gift one could give to Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.

---

In the past, I had sometimes admired Mr. Lucas for his interesting articles about his life as a gay man who emigrated from Russia to the States. Now there are hardly words in English or Russian for what a подлец-loser I think he is. :evil:

And the reason for it was porn. What a coincidence.

Either way, what does gay porn have to do with the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin?

LMAO. I think he'd better stay where he is now. A free man in a free country! More freedoms to America! :lol::lol::lol:

Gays should be granted the liberty of crossing streets on the red traffic signal too, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Allow me to be the first to say, in language that would be perfectly clear to Lucas: _Bljad’, von otsjuda, jobannyi pidor, obratno v Rossiju, bljad’, mudak ty!_

---

Что-то стало стыдно за великий и могучий.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

...Gays should be granted the liberty of crossing streets on the red traffic signal too, I think.

---

Да, конечно. Все остальные свободы и права им уже предоставлены. Их никто не терроризирует, никто не преследует и не убивает. Легко тебе шутить.
And in reality Gays Are Us, you know it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lampada

Да, конечно. Все остальные свободы и права им уже предоставлены. Их никто не терроризирует, никто не преследует и не убивает. Легко тебе шутить.

---

I'm sure, gays are not in safety in the US, that's true. At any time they could be arrested or even killed. Although I don't understand what's all this about Russia? No one kills gays in Russia or terrorizes them like it happens in the US.
Yes, I think we should give them more rights. Especially the right to lob Molotov cocktails at cops without serious consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedFox

Что-то стало стыдно за великий и могучий.

---

Почему? Для человека, который учит русский, совсем неплохо.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexsms

Почему? Для человека, который учит русский, совсем неплохо.

---

Я не об том.
Многовато у нас бранных корней в лексике. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedFox

Я не об том.
Многовато у нас бранных корней в лексике. :oops:

---

А мне печально, что учат великий и могучий, учат, а применение находят для бранных корней. Как будто других мало :(

Это частный случай.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBaldhead

And the reason for it was porn. What a coincidence.

Either way, what does gay porn have to do with the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin?

---

Aha, I should perhaps explain what I meant by "the very concept of recommending $1000/month PrEP as a good strategy to prevent HIV among gay men..."

The acronym PrEP stands for "pre-exposure prophylaxis" -- it can include giving a person anti-malaria drugs before he or she visits a region where there is a high chance of being bitten by a malaria-carrying mosquito.

In the context of HIV/AIDS, the term PrEP is understood to mean that HIV-negative people with a high risk of HIV exposure should be given a special formulation of the same anti-retroviral drugs that are used to treat patients who are already HIV-positive -- these drugs can reduce the risk that the HIV- person will become HIV+ in the event that HIV gets into his or her blood.

PrEP is distinguished from PEP, "post-exposure prophylaxis" -- PEP antiretroviral regimens have been used with great success for years now, in cases where a surgeon, doctor, or nurse is accidentally contaminated by the blood from an HIV+ patient, and also to increase the chances that a pregnant HIV+ woman will not pass the virus to her unborn child.

Now, a growing number of gay activists here in the US are saying that PrEP antiretroviral drugs (which cost about $1400 per month under the brand name "Truvada", and which would probably cost at least $700-$800 per month even in "generic" forms) ought to be prescribed routinely for HIV- gay men who want the "freedom" to have anal sex without condoms, and that private insurers or "Obamacare" should be required to cover the drug, which means that other insurance customers or taxpayers would subsidize the high cost.

If a gay man taking "Truvada" as an anti-HIV PrEP drug has anal sex 10 times in a month, that works out to about $140 per f*ck. (This is in comparison to about $1.50 per f*ck if you look at the average cost of condoms and lubricant.)

And, naturally, very few people can afford to pay $140 per безгондоный f*ck, except perhaps for wealthy pornographers like Michael Lucas, so of course the price should be subsidized by everyone else, including gays who are always responsible and use condoms for anal sex, and gays like me who think that anal sex is "definitely not my cuppa tea", and the heterosexual majority who don't think that anal sex between men should be a crime, but otherwise find the practice extremely uninteresting.

But this is what some gay activists in the US have begun to quietly demand, and I fear that in a year or two, they will be screaming for it as though it were a God-given birthright to enjoy their $1400/month no-condom fucking at almost no cost to their own pockets, because millions of other people will instead pay a few dollars more for healthcare.

And this development, I think, will be watched by Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church with great interest, as proof that they were right to put certain legal restrictions on Russian LGBT people: дай палец – руку по локоть откусят!

And Michael Lucas -- a Russian-American who in the past condemned "bareback" gay pornography -- doesn't care. He's happy to become the worst possible example of a homosexual man (although a rich and handsome one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBaldhead

А мне печально, что учат великий и могучий, учат, а применение находят для бранных корней. Как будто других мало :(

---

I am the son of a military father who never ever used бранные корни -- at least not in my hearing, even after I was a grown man! -- but I am also a любитель-филолог who takes great interest in learning about the word-histories of "f--k" and "п----ц", and I consider the "cussing" of R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket to be great art!

But I also appreciate gentle and poetic language, and would suggest that мат in Russian or in English should be treated as a strong flavoring like nuoc mam or habanero peppers -- they add great interest to the dish, but too much will ruin it.

Also, there are certain occasions when бранные корни are absolutely necessary. This Michael Lucas business reminded of two "punchlines" from Russian jokes:

"Тогда вы не гей. Вы обыкновенный п*дор!"

"Конь поворачивает голову к нему и говорит -- Ну и п*дор же ты, Ильюша!"


Of course, South Park has given us a more polite alternative to the бранное слово above. Perhaps I should simply say of Mr. Lucas: Слезай с мотоцикла «Харли Дэвидсон», блин! (Or, in English: "Just be gay, and stop being such a Harley-Davidson rider...")

Quote:

---

Condomless scenes are far more popular with consumers than scenes with condoms

---

I wonder why is he so sure about that?

Recently I found a large community inside of one russian social network for those who have got AIDS\HIV or are interested in protecting themselves\ expanding their knowledge about the issue. (Don`t want to post a direct link - who wants - will find.)

Me like many others were shocked how public image of "positive" differs from the reality. While the majority is pretty sure that marginal humans like
-drugs addicted
-gay males
-hookers
-silly young people

are in the main "danger" zone, the reality is that someone who is a)female over 25 b) has got college education c) stable income d)husband e)children f)pretty\healthy looks, doing sports\ g) is happy in her marriage and is not cheating etc etc - can possess the infection pretty often.

(last month I actually did a test and - later - the result was written on some old Soviet-Union blank from 80-s, where such "useful" information about "risky strangers" was provided on the back side...)

That`s why while watching "adult videos" from time to time, my first thought is usually like "WTF? They just met and are already doing not protected stuff... Stupid kamikaze sht" Can`t believe it = cant get it up, ha-ha :).

n.b. I`m 100% heterosexual and what is said should be regarded concerning "ordinary" female\w\male porn. :)

Normally, I don't watch porn (I'm lying, of course) :D

But the last movie I watched (purely by accident) depicted unprotected sex scenes. I wonder, if unprotected sex is ok for 'straight' porn why should it be 'not ok' for gay porn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Normally, I don't watch porn (I'm lying, of course) :D

But the last movie I watched (purely by accident) depicted unprotected sex scenes. I wonder, if unprotected sex is ok for 'straight' porn why should it be 'not ok' for gay porn?

---

:lol2: :good:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Normally, I don't watch porn (I'm lying, of course) :D

But the last movie I watched (purely by accident) depicted unprotected sex scenes. I wonder, if unprotected sex is ok for 'straight' porn why should it be 'not ok' for gay porn?

---

Не понимаю, для чего здесь развивать тему порна и секса, потому что и так все знают, что незащищённый секс - это плохо для всех неженатых.

As some people say, ingoring the safety measures can cause not only someone's death, but someone's birth as well :)
---
Как говорится, от несоблюдения техники безопасности человек может не только умереть, но и родиться :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBaldhead

As some people say, ingoring the safety measures can cause not only someone's death, but someone's birth as well :)
---
Как говорится, от несоблюдения техники безопасности человек может не только умереть, но и родиться :)

---

Not in this particular case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

LMAO. I think he'd better stay where he is now. A free man in a free country! More freedoms to America! :lol::lol::lol:

Gays should be granted the liberty of crossing streets on the red traffic signal too, I think.

---

I object. It is discriminative for drivers, unless of course they give the liberty for drivers to run over them without any penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

But the last movie I watched (purely by accident) depicted unprotected sex scenes. I wonder, if unprotected sex is ok for 'straight' porn why should it be 'not ok' for gay porn?

---

Всё зависит от КАКОГО секса имеется в виду. Or to more blunt about it, the question is: Куда входит член? (And I mean куда in the sense of "в КАКОЕ отверстие?", and not "в ЧЬЁ отверстие?" (мужчина или женщина).

According to the American Center for Disease Control (CDC), the HIV risk for unprotected anal sex is about 5 times higher than the risk of unprotected "traditional" sex (член/владище). And the risk of unprotected traditional sex is about 10 times higher than the risk of unprotected oral sex. Which means that anal sex without a condom is about 50x more risky than oral sex without a condom. In more general terms, we can compare the risk levels as follows:

Anal sex = HIGH risk
Traditional sex = MEDIUM risk
Oral sex = LOW risk
Mutual masturbation = "STATISTICALLY ZERO" risk

Also, HIV can easily be passed from a man to a woman, but much less easily from a woman to a man. In the case of anal sex between two men, HIV most often passes from the "Top" (активный) guy to the "Bottom" (пассивный) guy, and much less often from the "Bottom" to the "Top."

So, in the event that a female porn actress has HIV, it's relatively unlikely that she will pass the virus to a male actor, who might then pass it to other females. (Female-to-female transmission is EXTREMELY rare.) And if the males in straight porn are strictly heterosexual and don't use heroin by needle, then it's unlikely that they will catch HIV and pass it to their female co-stars. It's true that some "heterosexual" porn actors will take "gay for pay" roles in gay porn, but they nearly always take the role of "Top," so again, the chances that they will catch HIV are low.

So for all these reasons, unprotected sex in straight porn is not quite as dangerous as unprotected sex in gay porn.

By the way, I understand that Lampada decided to close the other thread, but I did have a comment about RedFox's OP:

Quote:

---

«Бренден Айк был вынужден покинуть пост руководителя (CEO) компании Mozilla. ... Травля дошла до того, что некоторые подконтрольные ЛГБТ сайты, в том числе один из крупнейших сайтов знакомств (OKCupid), стали блокировать доступ пользователей Firefox, предлагая сменить браузер, так как Бренден Айк шесть лет назад пожертвовал тысячу долларов на продвижение поправки в конституцию штата Калифорнии, определяющей брак только как союз между мужчиной и женщиной.

---

Статья, цитированная здесь РедФоксом, пропущает одну важную деталь: калифорнский закон(-опроект), так называемый "Proposition 8" или "Prop 8", определяющий слово «БРАК» только как союз между мужчиной и женщиной, ничем и никак не запретил (и не повредил) "легально зарегистрированние домашние партнерства" или "гражданские союзы" однополовых пар в Калифорнии.

In case my Russian wasn't clear: Brenden Ike was attacked by some LGBT activists *not* because he hates LGBT people -- like many tech companies, Mozilla/Firefox banned anti-gay discrimination and offered "spouse/partner" benefits to same-sex pairs before a lot of other corporations did.

Nor was he attacked because he wanted to ban "domestic partner" or "civil union" laws that provide legal protections for same-sex couples in long-term relationships. (California's "domestic partnership" law was so broad, and provided so many protections, that many described it as "legal marriage without using the actual word marriage". And "Prop 8" did not change the "domestic partnership" law; it only banned the state of California from using the word "marriage" on legal documents describing same-sex couples).

Brendan Ike was called a HOMOPHOBE simply because he believed (as I also do!!) that the word "marriage" is essentially heterosexual; that for thousands of years "marriage" has described the union of yin + yang or Mars + Venus, (but not, however, yin + yin or Mars + Mars); and that some other word should properly be used to describe same-sex unions.

Also, Ramil suggested a difference between гей and п*дор, and Lampada objected that the second word is too insulting for general use.

I partly agree with both of them, but I was reminded of a brilliant and famous performance by comedian Chris Rock, on the general theme "I love black people, but I hate n*ggers":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Key quote: "Every time black people want to have a good time, ignorant-ass n*ggers gotta fuck it up."

(My translation: "Когда порядочные негры хотят просто веселиться, всегда придут «некултурные-чёрные-м*даки» и всё испортят, бля!"

It's filled with rude language and the English will be difficult for some to follow, but it's hilarious and full of wisdom. (Nevertheless, as a white person I would never use the word "n*gger"!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Brendan Ike was called a HOMOPHOBE simply because he believed that the word "marriage" is essentially heterosexual

---

Не знал этой детали. Это уточнение делает всю эту историю еще более анекдотичной.

Этот эпизод служит хорошей иллюстрацией к мысли, которую я высказывал ранее: пытаться бороться против любого "зла" при помощи идеологии — всё равно что тушить пожар бензином.

Независимо от того, насколько хороша или плоха была идея, выйдя на общественный уровень, она становится просто еще одной машиной подавления свободной воли.

Какое дело машине до того, каких именно взглядов придерживается человек во всех деталях и нюансах? Никакого. Машина ставит штамп и прокручивает "клиента" через конвеер. А уж черный он там, белый, либерал, коммунист, гей, гомофоб... был бы человек, а штамп найдётся.

Именно так демократия прекращается во "власть демократов", а толерантность — во "власть толерастов".

Идеи хороши лишь тогда, когда они являются продуктом собственного размышления.

Quote:

---

Именно так демократия прекращается во "власть демократов", а толерантность — во "власть толерастов".

---

Хотя нас учили, что настоящие демократы у власти как-то даже прислушиваются к чаяниям людей. Если не референдумы, то ну хотя бы опросы общественного мнения и всё такое.