Scott Bradley comes out of the closet

[buckguy]

I'm not sure how much of a "bravo" this deserves. Scott get nailed for his barebacking career earlier this year by Will Clark (nice dig there, Scott). If he had made any efforts to deal with his poz status as a barebacker (e.g., performing only with poz partners; disclosing status when he barebacked with escort clients), he doesn't say so. In the other forum (Atkol), Sean Storm initially gave the usual "I'm bareabacker and I'm proud and if you don't like it you're a bitter moralist" line. This from a guy who advertises that he's looking for orgies and likes to pnp. If he finally admitted he was positive, it probably came late in the discussion and only fatre a lot of pointed criticism came his way, along with the pointing out of the obvious (i.e., his advertising).

 

Scott has a talent for being a bitter, backstabbing character (he described the posters here as "bitter, old queens" after some rather mild criticisms of him were offered here). On Atkol, he happily makes nasty comments about the kind of guys who patronize "Brushstrokes" (the video, condoms, et al store where he works in Atlanta)--who are probably some of the same people who post on the forum. He's trying to take the high ground in a place where he's beena hypocrite in the past and, tellingly, doesn't address his hypocracy. While we should wish him the best, I don't think we should be readying him for canonization.

[VaHawk]

>In his latest column on vidioview.com, Atlanta escort and

>porn star Scott Bradley admits to being HIV+. In chatting

>with Scott, he indicated that if even one person avoided the

>bug because of Scott coming forward, then whatever

>consequenses come from the revelation will be well worth it.

>

>Bravo, Scott!

 

Well, excuse me if I save the bravos for someone who deserves it. So BIG DEAL, he now admits to being HIV+ after HOW many years of escorting and filming bb videos after receiving that knowledge?

 

Save the BRAVOS for those escorts/porn stars who have been honest about their HIV status from the get go and who in turn, revealed that info to their clients and/or stopped bb in videos. There's even one who is a regular contributor to the mc.

 

Oh, he is indeed the crusading savior via blaming bb videos for the spread of AIDS, when he himself, was a willing participant in such videos, KNOWING that he was HIV+?

 

Kind of convenient to develop a SUDDEN conscience/sense of sacrifice when the old career advantages of remaining silent are gone. Making fun of the condom poster was a real hoot, as to accuse the employer of shenanigans while willing engaging in such, is just a "tad hypocritical".

[BewareofNick]

Doug,

 

I'm not saying that it isn't. As a long time poster here, you know that I had battles with others over "outing" barebacking escorts, particularly with deej. I saw Scott's ad on the former barebackcity.com and called him on it. The ad disappeared shortly thereafter. Did he become poz before or after that? I dunno.

 

My bravo is for finally doing the right thing and at least showing some humility about it. deej always says to assume that every escort is poz and act appropriately. Good advice. I advocate that AND escorts being up front about their HIV status.

 

When and where did Will out Scott?

[buckguy]

Will Clark's disinviting of Scott because of his barebacking vids apparently was a minor cause celebre on the eve of the bad Boys Pool Party. I only caught up on it afterward (I was dealing with family business at the time and not as obsessive a netizen at the time).

 

Who knows when Scott was poz. He skirts that issue and the responsibility that would have gone with it. I'm not pollyanna and I don't assume that anyone is negative. I don't think escorts or porn stars need to make public declarations of these things, although I do think that if you have HIV or some STD, there are responsibilities to follow. I do know that Scott was barebacking even after he took down the ad and not volunteering anything about his HIV status (whatever it was) with clients. My concern here is that Scott's general pattern of behavior is kindof questionable. Scott is very good at talking about being upfront and honest when it's convenient and then being petty and vindictive when he feels slighted. That's bad enough in the "real world", but especially cheesy in a "public" figure.

 

BTW, Sean Storm seemed as pathetic as Matt Sizemore or the crazy Jeff Palmer on Atkol, although I though his defenders were even more ridiculous. At least Matt seems to have gotten some help with his (obvious) drug problem and left the adult biz altogether. I think we have to be skeptical about Scott. It will be interesting to see if he stays in the escorting biz (he seems to be in and out of it, of late).

[+ deej]

I wonder why anyone gives a shit.

 

Mainstream porn companies don't ask models their HIV status because they use condoms.

 

Bareback porn companies don't ask models their status because they don't give a damn.

 

(and that's pretty much the state of today's porn world.)

 

I also wonder why people who DO NOT know what they're talking about attribute opinions to people they don't know.

 

I do know many of those people. I still want to fuck Scott Bradley's brains out. (A condom would be involved, of course!) But my desire to fuck him into next week has nothing to do with whether or not he's poz. I'd assume that when I pull his pants down, whether he admitted it or not.

 

Kneel, you can (and have) done better.

[jackhammer91406]

circles and wheels

 

:-(

[buckguy]

I've had a chance to meet Scott and, frankly, wouldn't consider doing a return engagement. Knowing what else I do about him now, I doubt that I would have been interested in hiring him in the first place. Appropos of one of the other threads, personality does count and this guy seems like a real jerk.

[BewareofNick]

>I wonder why anyone gives a shit.

 

If no one gave a shit, why would Scott make a big deal about coming out? If no one gave a shit, why do mainstream porn companies avoid known HIV+ performers?

 

>I also wonder why people who DO NOT know what they're talking

>about attribute opinions to people they don't know.

 

Scott and I chatted on AIM. The opinion attributed to him is the opinion he expressed. My NOT knowing him has nothing to do with that. A newspaper reporter attributes opinions to those who express them when the subject of the interview expresses the opinion. Same difference.

 

>Kneel, you can (and have) done better.

 

I can done better at what?

[+ deej]

>If no one gave a shit, why would Scott make a big deal about

>coming out? If no one gave a shit, why do mainstream porn

>companies avoid known HIV+ performers?

 

He wants the publicity he knew people like you would give him, of course, and you're doing his bidding just like an obedient puppy.

 

I don't know of a single reputable gay porn company that has a "no HIV+ models" policy. It's sort of assumed they're poz, which is why condoms are used.

 

The bareback companies use a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. They don't want to know.

 

In str8 porn, as you know, that isn't the case. They shut down for two months recently because a model turned up poz. Says a lot for the effectiveness of relying on recent tests, eh? A multi-billion dollar industry closed for two months. (Except companies like Vivid who has always used condoms.)

 

Always assume your partner is poz and, as Chi Chi says, WRAP IT UP!

[BewareofNick]

deej, we have never been in disagreement on that point.

 

My stance has always been the same on this issue: Escorts should be up front about their HIV status so that the client can make an informed decision. Even a condom cannot guarantee that HIV will not be transmitted.

 

I recognize the fact that Scott has not been forthcoming i the past and that he has not ben "real" as he puts it, but shouldn't he get a little credit for doing the right thing now?

 

Seems I can't win for losing. If I expose a bareback escort, I get pounded. If an escort finally does the right thing, i get pounded.

Maybe, you should just pound me in person, deej

[Guest scottbradleyxxx]

One of the numerous reasons I decided to announce my status publicly was because I was tired of reading things about myself that were simply not true. Case in point, this thread.

 

Some of you have facts about me incorrect. I have always been amazed about assertions people make, or information they present taken as truth. No one bothers to ask questions to find out the truth. If they do try they go about it in a sneaky way and yes I will admit someone pumping me for information that I do not feel comfortable with IS gonna get attitude from me. Guys, if you wanna know something just ask.

 

In the past I have been scared to admit to being HIV positive because I was not sure after getting involved in porn how public I wanted that information to be. I was also unsure of what the reaction within the porn industry itself would be. Are any of you guys aware that I was told my my agent after testing positive to keep my status between he and I? No of course you don't. Do any of you know that just last year another agent told me that guys that were HIV + had no place in gay porn? No, again. So don't be so shocked that I didn't want this information out there about me.

 

To address some of the posts made on this thread is really a waste of time because most of you have already made up your minds about me. I would like to note some false statements though so that when you are discussing me, you will have the correct info.

 

First of all I have never been asked my status working for a safer sex studio. The only studios that ever asked me about my status, what meds I was on, and if I had any other STD's were Hot Desert Knights, and Puppy Productions.

 

Secondly Will Clark never disinvited me to anything. He did get upset after he found out I had worked for HDK, but that was a huge misunderstanding. He asked me in April before the pool party if I had done any bareback videos and I told him no. That was the truth. I did not do ANY bareback videos until the day after the pool party. I assume the reference this poster was making was the fact that Gay Chicago magazine pulled me from the Grabby's this year as a trophy stud. They said I could still present at the awards show but could not have me on stage all night.

 

Next, I have never said anything bad or negative about Brushstrokes here in Atlanta. I cannot even think of something I have said about the store that could be misinterpreted. Brushstrokes and the owners and staff there became my second family for a while. I adore those guys, and still talk to most of them. I don't get this one at all, sorry.

 

For those of you who have met me and didn't "like" my personality, Im not sure what to say. Im not going to apologize because I did not act or say the things you wanted me to. I can't help but wonder why you did not say something about it at the time we were together. Why drag it to a message board? Sometimes people don't click, what can I say?

 

Someone on one of these posts said I blame bb videos for spreading HIV. Wrong again. If I said it show me where. People spread HIV not inanimate objects.

 

Another person on here said I made fun of a condom poster. I assume that reference is to Titan's safer sex ad campaign I saw on the bus stop in San Francisco. The point I was trying to make was certainly not making fun of anything, rather questioning how many people were going to think about that poster before engaging in unsafe sex.

 

You missed the point completely and you are the deaf ear I was referring to in my column on VidioView. You would rather belittle what I am trying to do thru admitting to be HIV +, rather than take the time to hear what I have to say? What is your motivation and what are YOU doing to raise awareness? I thought I was pretty clear when I said Im retelling my story with all the details I have left out. I haven't even gotten to the first page yet, and you guys are already jumping on the message boards. Absolutely amazing!

 

No matter what I do some of you guys just have it out for me and thats totally cool. You keep my on my toes for sure. But dont you dare criticize me for trying to be part of a solution when it comes to HIV awareness. I did what I thought was right for me at the time and a lot of that was listening to bad advice. When you attach your face to HIV and get out in the public and start talking instead of hiding behind a screenname on a message board for escorts, then feel free to berate me all you like.

 

Im trying to make things right here and do what I will admit I should have done long ago. If any of you cannot handle it, that is your issue and not mine. I sincerely did not want to get caught up in the message board drama while trying to retell my story and yet here I am defending myself once again just to have room to speak.

 

Oh and for the record, I know of at least one person here that can attest to this, but I agre that I should not be applauded for my admission to being HIV +. Nor do I desire to. I do however deserve the right to retell my story from beginning to end with all the truth and honesty without having to worry that the only thing anyone will hear is the condemnation and criticism from some of you guys.

[Doug69]

>One of the numerous reasons I decided to announce my status

>publicly was because I was tired of reading things about

>myself that were simply not true. Case in point, this thread.

 

Scott - It's really too bad that you felt you had to even bother justifying yourself to the people who said these things about you in this thread. One thing you should know, though: this place tends to be disproportionately filled with lots of old, bitter, hypocritical grandmothers who love to run around sitting in judgment and morally condemning others. They need to do this because they feel ashamed and guilty of who they are and what they do, so they desperately need to find other people - like you - whom they can point to and condemn. It has nothing to do with you; it has everything to do with them. And you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that they or their condemnations matter in the slightest. If anything, their sermons should induce nothing but pity.

 

It's so ironic - I recall in the 1980s that there was great fear in the gay community that HIV was going to be used by straight people to stigmatize gay people, and that those who are HIV+ would become ostacized lepers who would be shunned and scorned.

 

As it turns out, this fear was valid, but it's GAY people who have, by and large, ostracized and shunned HIV+ gay people. Now we have gay porn companies creating McCarthyite blacklists where they refuse to employ HIV+ models or those who have barebacked (even while these same porn companies get rich selling "pre-condom" barebacking videos), and even more disgustingly, we have aging, wrinkled, irrelevant, red-headed whores crossing anyone who barebacks off their little party lists (and then making sure everyone knows that they're doing this so it's known how moral and Good they are).

 

At this point, anyone who is even slightly literate knows the risks of barebacking. I assume that the overwhelming majority of people who bareback in videos are (like you) HIV+, so - other than a self-involved need to sit in judgment of others - I really can't fathom why anyone thinks it's their business if, as an adult, you want to bareback. But the grandmotherly buddinsky homos who want to make it their business are no different than the Christian Right who want to stop them from hiring their gay whores - they all just need to feel better about themselves, and they accomplish this by finding others to condemn. Just pitiful.

 

In any event, I hope that you made the choice to disclose your HIV status becasue it's something YOU chose to do, not because you felt forced by the Gay AIDS Priests into doing it. I also hope that, having done so, you will not be concerned with the Jerry Falwell-like condemnation which you are certain to receive (the most vile strains of which are nicely exemplified in this thread).

 

As I'm sure you know, if you take a bareback video and put it next to the identical safe sex video, the former will outsell the latter by 5-1. There is plenty of work for you if you want to do it, notwithstanding the harping and whining of those who want to stick a big B on your head (for BAREBACKER!!).

 

You have a long life ahead of you with lots of possibilities. The last thing you should do is spend any of it trying to justify yourself to the type of people who demand an accounting from you. They are sad, depraved, and irrelevant, and you owe them nothing.

[Doug69]

>My stance has always been the same on this issue: Escorts

>should be up front about their HIV status so that the client

>can make an informed decision. Even a condom cannot guarantee

>that HIV will not be transmitted.

 

Does this also apply to non-escorts? Meaning - is it also your "stance" that anyone who is HIV-positive (whether an escort or not) and who, say, pursues sex hook-ups on AOL, has the obligation to disclose their HIV status to any prospective partners? And if so, do you also believe that it's right for you to "out" HIV+ non-escorts who are having sex but not disclosing their status?

 

If you think it's ok to "out" HIV+ escorts on the ground that their clients have the right to know, there is no rational line that can be drawn at escorts. Presumably, everyone would have the same right to know their sexual partners' HIV status, which would justify the forcible outing of anyone who is HIV+ and who is sexually active.

 

Amazing - I recall that far right wingers in the 1980s advocated the compulsory public disclosure of everyone who was HIV+. How revealing to see the "principles" underlying that view seeping deep into the increasingly puritanical and rigid gay community.

[Guest ncm2169]

< I really can't fathom why anyone thinks it's their business if, as an adult, you want to bareback

 

In his private life, agreed. :o

 

In his porn life, not so. Because, unlike Scott who says, "People spread HIV not inanimate objects", I fundamentally disagree, as you well know. We can revisit umpteen posts and studies which prove that TV/Videos influence human behavior. x(

 

Quite frankly, it boggles the mind that you fail to grasp that simple concept. :-( Or, as is distinctly possible, you totally grasp the concept but are simply making mischief here.;-)

 

Whichever, I'll refrain from characterizing your motives, unlike you who serves up a veritable buffet of motives for anyone commenting on or criticizing Scott's disclosure. How many ways can you spell "presumptuous" ?? }(

 

All that said, I salute Scott for his disclosure. Like him or not (and I've had no contact with him ever), he hangs himself out there, warts and all. I find him refreshing and quite an interesting study. :+

[+ deej]

>Now we have gay porn companies creating McCarthyite blacklists

>where they refuse to employ HIV+ models or those who have

>barebacked (even while these same porn companies get rich

>selling "pre-condom" barebacking videos),

 

Says who? What's your source?

 

I know of two production companies with a "no barebacker" policy. Neither has a "no HIV+" policy that I know of. And neither has been around long enough to be selling pre-condom videos. They don't have any to sell.

 

>disgustingly, we have aging, wrinkled, irrelevant, red-headed

>whores crossing anyone who barebacks off their little party

>lists (and then making sure everyone knows that they're doing

>this so it's known how moral and Good they are).

 

Everything that aging, wrinkled, irrelevant redhead has written in his 9 years in the industry is still online. It's live and you can read it today. Please cite a source. Give us a link. You're so all-knowing you can do that, I'm sure.

[BewareofNick]

>Does this also apply to non-escorts? Meaning - is it also

>your "stance" that anyone who is HIV-positive (whether

>an escort or not) and who, say, pursues sex hook-ups on AOL,

>has the obligation to disclose their HIV status to any

>prospective partners? And if so, do you also believe that

>it's right for you to "out" HIV+ non-escorts who are having

>sex but not disclosing their status?

 

>If you think it's ok to "out" HIV+ escorts on the ground that

>their clients have the right to know, there is no rational

>line that can be drawn at escorts. Presumably, everyone would

>have the same right to know their sexual partners' HIV status,

>which would justify the forcible outing of anyone who is HIV+

>and who is sexually active.

 

Always nice to hear from Ann Coulter. To answer your questions:

 

1. Yes, I believe that everyone has an obligation to disclose their HIV status to prospective partners.

 

2. Please show me where I said it was right to expose HIV+ escorts? As usual, you apply the "Faux News Spin" to try and make a point about something I didn't say.

 

I have "exposed" escorts who bareback and have not been forthcoming about it. I have also "exposed" escorts who were accused of barebacking and were not guilty. Case 1: Luke Brazil. A client stated in a review that Luke Brazil barebacked. "He loves to bareback which is a requirement for me to hire and enjoys taking and giving loads." In response, Luke stated that he did not. http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/lukebrazil.html

 

So, posing as a client, I asked about barebacking and he this was his response: "BB is cool, though I mentioned on my hooboy site that I won't because of some clients who aren't into that and they don't need to know then" http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/lukebrazil.html

 

It's all about the honesty, folks. Too bad such a simple concept is so difficult for some of you to grasp. You can run and play now, Doug.

[BewareofNick]

>Oh and for the record, I know of at least one person here that

>can attest to this, but I agre that I should not be applauded

>for my admission to being HIV +. Nor do I desire to. I do

>however deserve the right to retell my story from beginning to

>end with all the truth and honesty without having to worry

>that the only thing anyone will hear is the condemnation and

>criticism from some of you guys.

 

I can attest to that.

[BewareofNick]

In his latest column on vidioview.com, Atlanta escort and porn star Scott Bradley admits to being HIV+. In chatting with Scott, he indicated that if even one person avoided the bug because of Scott coming forward, then whatever consequenses come from the revelation will be well worth it.

 

Bravo, Scott!

 

http://www.vidioview.com/SBnote.html

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Nice post Scott. Thanks for taking the time and effort to present your perspective about yourself. Good luck.

[buckguy]

"Secondly Will Clark never disinvited me to anything. He did get upset after he found out I had worked for HDK, but that was a huge misunderstanding. He asked me in April before the pool party if I had done any bareback videos and I told him no. That was the truth. I did not do ANY bareback videos until the day after the pool party."

 

Oh yeah, waiting til the day after the party is really ethical.

 

"Next, I have never said anything bad or negative about Brushstrokes here in Atlanta. I cannot even think of something I have said about the store that could be misinterpreted. Brushstrokes and the owners and staff there became my second family for a while. I adore those guys, and still talk to most of them. I don't get this one at all, sorry."

 

Your comments were about the customers there--I believe it was on Atkol. If I wasn't in the middle of travel I'd track down the link, but it should be easy to find anyway.

 

Scott, I have to say you're good at sounding so sweet and yet someone who has casually followed your posts on the web, I gotta say you're fulla shit. But you're good at getting people to buy it, too.

[Doug69]

>Always nice to hear from Ann Coulter.

 

Since it's YOU who shares her view that it's your business which sex acts people engage in while in the privacy of their own bedrooms, it's really only fair that you apply this title to yourself.

 

>1. Yes, I believe that everyone has an obligation to disclose

>their HIV status to prospective partners.

 

So do you sneak around the Internet trying to get everyone to admit that they bb, or just escorts?

 

>2. Please show me where I said it was right to expose HIV+

>escorts? As usual, you apply the "Faux News Spin" to try and

>make a point about something I didn't say.

 

You proudly detail your extremely sick behavior (you do know how sick it is, right?) of snaking around the Internet trying to expose escorts who bareback on the ground that clients have a right to know this. Are you trying to claim that your forced disclosure of an escort's barebacking has nothing to do with their HIV-status? Isn't that too dishonest, even for you?

 

The only reason to think that clients have a right to know if an escort bb is because that fact may bear on the escort's HIV status. So trying to expose escorts who bb is about nothing other than trying to out HIV+ escorts, and that is truly sick.

 

>I have "exposed" escorts who bareback and have not been

>forthcoming about it.

 

Ladies and Gentleman, a proud member of the Bedroom Sex Police. Sniffing around trying to publicly uncover and expose people's private sexual practices should genuinely scare you. It's a serious sign of something very wrong. Ask someone in that profession if you don't believe me.

 

>It's all about the honesty, folks. Too bad such a simple

>concept is so difficult for some of you to grasp.

 

Replace the word "honesty" with "privacy" and you will have said something. The "rationale" which you are invoking can be - and is - used to justify a whole array of patently invasive and fascist measures similar to the ones in which you engage with regard to barebacking. You sound like a caricature of exactly the Sex Police Tactics which HIV+ gay people feared in the 1980s. How ironic - and revealing - that the most enthusiastic practitioners of those tactics have become a certain easily identifiable strain of gay people.

[Doug69]

>< I really can't fathom why anyone thinks it's their business

>if, as an adult, you want to bareback

>

>In his private life, agreed. :o

 

So you object to the practices of people like BoN who run around the Internet trying to get people to admit that they bareback so that he can announce it to the world?

 

>Quite frankly, it boggles the mind that you fail to grasp that

>simple concept. :-( Or, as is distinctly possible, you

>totally grasp the concept but are simply making mischief

>here.;-)

 

You do realize that you have completely embraced the Dan Quayle View regarding entertainment producers, don't you?

 

QUALYE: "It is immoral for producers of Murphy Brown to broadcast a program which glamorizes the harmful practice of unwed motherhood because young people will see it and go and have children out of wedlock."

 

YOU: "It is immoral for porn producers to broadcast a program which glamorizes the harmful practice of unsafe sex because young people will see it and go and have unsafe sex."

 

It's the same argument used by many in the right-wing now to crusade against films showing sex, and was frequently used in the past to argue that positive depictions of homosexuality are immoral because it will encourage young people to become gay.

 

The mere fact that you think how Quayle (and the Christian Right) thinks doesn't make you wrong. I just want to make sure you acknowledge this.

 

And, as I've asked you before - but which you will never answer - there are MANY activities which which kill far more people than barebacking does - including poor diet, overeating, lack of exercise, violence, etc. How can it be that you so obsessively rail against entertainment products which show barebacking while remaining silent on the far greater (in terms of quanity and impact) entertainment products which glamorize these far more deadly activities?

 

>All that said, I salute Scott for his disclosure. Like him or

>not (and I've had no contact with him ever), he hangs himself

>out there, warts and all. I find him refreshing and quite an

>interesting study.

 

I agree with you about this completely.

[Doug69]

>>Now we have gay porn companies creating McCarthyite

>blacklists

>>where they refuse to employ HIV+ models or those who have

>>barebacked (even while these same porn companies get rich

>>selling "pre-condom" barebacking videos),

>

>Says who? What's your source?

 

When Titan recently announced that they would create a Black list pursuant to which they would refuse to hire any porn actors who have barebacked on video, this is what they said (http://www.vidioview.com/Titan.html): "Titan will, however support the continued to sale and distribution of pre-condom adult films that were produced at a time when sex without condoms was not a life-threatening behavior."

 

Additionally, among the many porn mavens expressing support for this Black List were Falcoln producers who made significant amounts of money making films for Falcoln - which, to this day, sells a huge archive of barebacking films.

 

You can try to parse and quibble with these facts all you want in order to defend your porn friends, but more towering hypocrisy is difficult to imagine.

 

>Everything that aging, wrinkled, irrelevant redhead has

>written in his 9 years in the industry is still online. It's

>live and you can read it today. Please cite a source. Give us

>a link. You're so all-knowing you can do that, I'm sure.

 

Everything he has written may be online, but not everything he has said, nor everything he has done - both of which I was addressing - is online. Nonetheless, the Internet is replete with instances where he runs around screetching about porn actors who bareback and crusading against them. If you really want to deny that your friend does this, go ahead - deny that - and I will be happy to post cites documenting your honesty.

[HooBoy]

Scott,

 

Thank you for stating your point of view.

 

It is sad that people can write any falsehood and the sheep will buy it, no matter how untrue or damaging the lie or innuendo. Most of the Hoo-gang are kind, intelligent and respectful people. I am embarrassed by the venom that a few people here so easily spew. But don't wrestle with the pigs. You both get dirty, only they'll enjoy it.

 

Best wishes to you and let's hope for a cure soon so we can all get back to fucking around with each other again.

[Guest Harry Bitsch]

Bullshit

 

>When Titan recently announced that they would create a Black

>list pursuant to which they would refuse to hire any porn

>actors who have barebacked on video, this is what they said

 

They said "We will not infringe on anyone's right to do business their way. This is our way."

 

Blacklists only work with multiple companies using the list, and that isn't the case here. Titan has a hiring policy. Big deal! Next you'll be saying Rad Video has a blacklist because they only hire twinks. Poor Zak Spears! Forever blacklisted! OH MY! WRING HANDS! GNASH TEETH!

 

>You can try to parse and quibble with these facts

 

As can you, as you're proving.

 

>Nonetheless, the Internet is replete

>with instances where he runs around screetching about porn

>actors who bareback and crusading against them. If you really

>want to deny that your friend does this, go ahead - deny that

>- and I will be happy to post cites documenting your honesty.

 

Go ahead and post. If you could find anything useful to your cause, you would have done so alread.

 

Scott Bradley himself has posted right here in this thread that there was no disinviting as claimed by multiple posters. Go find proof for your assertions. Go ahead! Two of the four people who were involved in that scenario are here telling you you're flat out wrong.