IML MAKES HISTORY

Today the International Mr. Leather (IML) group out of Chicago made history by stopping the sale of bareback porn at their event. This is truly phenomenal.

IML has been around for over 30 years starting out as a little gimmick by bar owner Chuck Renslow as a way to get more people into his bar. It blossomed into a successful annual event which has become (so I've heard over the years) one of the biggest conventions in the city of Chicago.

Anyway, the interesting part of this is that the leather community was very Safer Sex oriented at the start of the AIDS epidemic (and I don't call that 'language of fear', I know that's what we called it then because I was around .. just coming out but I was around) but by the late 90s because of The Cocktail and hardon-inducing drugs (Viagra!) not to mention the popularization and virtual decriminalization (at least from a social point of view) of crystal meth (which allows guys to fuck all night long), Safer Sex went out the window and barebacking became the new fetish.

In 2003 Renslow gave a stirring speech at the contest decrying the unsafe sex that was going on at his own event .. but it rang a little hollow to activists such as myself who didn't see his words reflected in his actions as far as what the leather mart was intent on selling: and that would be lots of toys, clothes but also, a growing number of bareback videos.

But although six years later, it's good news that IML is taking a healthier/active approach to this situation. You can call it censorship and that's your perogative but whatever. I don't care. If you want to blow your brains out, I don't have to be the one to hand you the gun. I got WILDLY (an understatement if ever there was one) criticized 9 years ago when I would not promote bareback porn or bareback porn stars at my events (Cocktails with the Stars and Bad Boys Pool Party). One magazine and I had it OUT because I would not even accept a free media ad from them because they ran ads for the bareback companies. Everyone thought I was nuts.. maybe I am, but now, I'm in good company... thanks Chuck for deciding on a policy that helps us all make better choices rather than keeping on with the quick buck.

Anyway, here's the letter and please feel free to write very nice letters to the IML people expressing your gratitude for making this decision: info at imrl dot com

Dear Vendors:

On behalf of International Mr. Leather, Inc., I would like to thank you for
your past support and in particular for your participation as a vendor in
our annual Leather Market.  We are writing you today to inform you of
a policy change affecting next year (2010) and all future markets.


Though we are now three decades into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, no cure has been
found.  The CDC and local health officials inform us that new infections are on
the rise.  And, while we have had some success developing medications that
might make infection more manageable, that accomplishment comes at a price.
Not having experienced the deaths - the loss of loved ones -- which preceded
these medications, we have an entire generation who may not fully appreciate or comprehend the severity of the situation.


Too many in our community believe HIV/AIDS is curable or manageable.  Too
few understand that HIV/AIDS infections dominate life.  We believe that it
is our duty to inform and educate.  Several years ago when “Meth” was the scourge of our community, IML drew a line in the sand and raised awareness and used all our influence to try and stop this addictive madness.  As is the case with HIV/AIDS, we believe it is our further obligation to do everything in our power to prevent future infections.


To that end, after considerable discussion, the Executive Committee of International Mr. Leather has decided that it will no longer allow participation in the IML Leather Market by any entity which promotes barebacking or distributes/sells any merchandise tending to
promote or advocate barebacking.  This restriction will also apply to distribution of gifts, post cards or any other information via our facilities. 

This policy takes effect immediately.


Sincerely,

Chuck Renslow, President
International Mr. Leather

 

Comments

[Christian]

How outraged are we when conservative Christians attempt to ban books with "gay themes" in order to protect their children from making what they believe is an unhealthy choice?

The situation is somewhat different with STIs and HIV, of course, as the consequences of the choice to bareback are more scientifically concrete and less about culture. But the idea behind the comparison is the same--one group is deciding what is best for others to read, see, or know.

This edict is an admission of defeat: the powers that be cannot educate the community at large into making the healthier choice. Having failed to persuade, the choice is now removed. This action is not progressive or liberal, it is the essence of conservatism. It may be for the best, but it should not be lauded. This decision should be mourned as the sad last resort.

[Colin]

I actually think this is great, even if part of me ideologically disagrees with it and is with Christian above.

When I think about my own experience, I learned about gay sex (what to do, how we do it, ect) from pornography, predominantly on the internet at the time. This was in the early to mid 90s when we had HIV positive activists like Pedro all over popular media. If I hadn't been bombarded with the importance of condoms and seen it in practice, I might have very different practices today.

Until we actually have proper education about gay sex in schools and a more sex positive culture, I worry that a lot of younger men these days are taking their sex education from bareback porn, the same way I used to from studio porn that used condoms. I think we need to realize that lots of 15 and 16 year olds are getting some of their first exposure to actual gay sex by watching bareback porn, and this could easily affect future decisions when they are sexually active.

[Lauren]

Well, this is a circumstance that riles up my jaded heart. Comparing this to what the christian right is doing, shows the same lack of understanding that is causing HIV rates to continually climb.
When AIDS first hit, I for one, worked tirelessly to help spread the word about safe-sex and how it alone, provided the only escape from getting HIV. I lost many of my dearest friends and I still am as mad as hell that they were taken from me and I get to enter the "Golden Years" without their love, laughter and support. The community at large, at THAT time, realized the importance of safe-sex and followed that edict as best as they could. "Play safe or not at all" was our mantra. We all thought that eventually the HIV virus would be contained and/or eliminated by our diligent efforts. How wrong we were.
Then comes the miraculous cocktails. With the advertising of drug companies, the lack of focus on prevention and more on treatment by the AIDS health groups, our lowered numbers started to rise substantially. Does anyone really think the drug companies are altruistic in their approach to AIDs drugs? They are making money by the boatloads, hence the wonderful several page ads that appear in gay magazines. They show gorgeous men who supposedly have HIV and they look GREAT! It plays to our basic instincts, just as cigarette advertising did in the past, and we lap it up like malnourished dogs. Go figure!
I, for one, applaud any efforts by ANYONE who brings the focus back to PREVENTION. I am sickened when I have to help a young person start to deal with their new found illness. I decry the blatant, disgusting groups such as "bug chasers" and "gift givers". That is one "gift" nobody should have to deal with. I think that the Ryan White law has destroyed the only true thing we have to deal with HIV - safe-sex. What started out as a great law to help people get much needed medicines has turned into a money making racket that supports not only greedy drug companies but the supposed AIDS health organizations. Things are way different than they were 20 years ago, and I blame that on the easy, free access to HIV drugs and total lack of emphasis on prevention. People want to protect their cushy jobs and now we can continue to support HIV positive people for decades. The HORROR of AIDS has all but been forgotten. Nobody gets to see what we saw in the 80's. Nobody gets to see their loves, their friends, their neighbors die a horrible death. Now HIV makes you young, muscular and gorgeous...or so we think. Eventually, the piper will have to be paid. All those miraculous drugs will wear out and there may be nothing to replace them. Then, and only then, will Death take off its mask and his true face be shown, far too late for many to be saved.
I do not see this powerful stand on prevention as admitting defeat; instead I see it as a return to the basics, a shift back in the paradigm. I truly hope that others hop on this bandwagon and prevent more people from becoming infected.
As it was in the 80's is still very true now. The ONLY way still to escape HIV is to continue to practice safe-sex.

[Art]

Regarding Christian's comment - we should be outraged when conservative Christians try to ban books - but I think it is within their rights to not have gay books at their events.

IML is not telling others not to watch/participate in unsafe sex - they just do not want it at their events.

And I feel I must add - we are all the "powers that be" - IML included. I believe this is a noble attempt to change the gay culture into a healthier place! Fight the good fight everywhere

[Mike]

Read this - by Dan Savage - who says it much better than I ever could:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/bareback_porn_child_porn

[Jerry]

Will,

I think that censorship is a fine term to use, but it seems to suggest that what Renslow is doing is wrong or illegal or immoral or some shit like that, and it's just not (as others upthread have mentioned). Renslow has the right to do business (or not) with anyone he sees fit, and on whatever basis. Ill-informed people might try to invoke the First Amendment as though "censorship" is somehow illegal, and they really need to go back and (re-)read the constitution. Renslow is a private businessman, not an agent of the government, so he's free to stifle whatever kind of expression he disagrees with in the context of the business he does.

My two cents. Another penny, if you will: I am pretty indifferent to other people's conduct in and of itself (kind of Golden Rule-ish), so what I admire most about the stand that Renslow has taken is how carefully he's worded it. He's not out-and-out condeming other people's consensual behavior so much as he's saying -- very respectfully -- that he's not going to promote that with which he does not personally agree. I appreciate that, as much as it may still piss other people off.

[Christian]

Lauren, I hear your passion, but nothing you've said really addresses the issue for me. I approve and encourage any and all ways of educating the public and persuading people to have safer sex, but I draw the line at subverting our most basic freedom of speech and expression in order to accomplish it. That's not persuasion, that's deciding you know what is best and laying down the law. I wouldn't let me fundamentalist family do that for me when I came out as queer and I don't like anyone else doing it now.

Jerry and Art, of course it is not censorship in the legal sense of the word. I know my Constitution. It is more than simply a private decision, however. IML is more than a private party in someone's back yard. About 30,000 people go through the vendor mart and events during the weekend. There are waivers and arm bands used to keep cover the corporation's butt on the legal technicalities. But as one of the largest leather events and markets in the country, and as an organization that has decided to take a very public stand on an issue, IML is open to criticism and scrutiny because of their huge influence and the public goodwill they're trying to garner through this action.

As an example, Amazon.com recently curtailed the ability for people to search for gay themed books. Were they within their rights to do so? Yes. But the LGBT community hit the roof and protested loud and long that this was censorship and wrong, because of Amazon's size and influence. We were right and the policy was changed.

Mr. Renslow may have the right to do business with whomever he pleases. But he wants to be taken as an example of healthy living, and so he must also own up to the fact that he is also demonstrating the example of censorship. He can't have his cake and eat it, too, and the simple fact that he has a right to take this action does not make this action right. It violates the spirit of our country's principles, if not the letter of the law. It violates the exploratory, liberal, and progressive spirit of BDSM and leathersex as well, things which IML otherwise spectacularly glorifies!

Finally, Colin, your ideas have done the most to sway my opinion on this. I came to my sexual maturity in the early to mid-90s, and I certainly suffered from the lack of sex education. It's hard to expect kids to do right when the only thing they see is wrong. Still, the principle of freedom of speech is also critical, and untold thousands of people have died to protect our American right to choose. The answer to this is to advocate for better education and find more effective ways to encourage safer sex--not to violate the fundamental principle of personal responsibility.

[Kevin]

Yes because politicizing a sex act will stop HIV. I have been listening to preaching/lecturing from both the pious and the hypocritical about safe sex for almost 30 years. I cant say its helped much.

[Donald]

Being a gay man of "a certain age," I, too, lived through the heady, hedonistic 70's when easy and frequent sex became part of our communal identity - the hot sweaty tea dances and dance clubs, the hotter and sweatier bathhouses. I also lived through the aftermath. The funerals and memorials, the impromptu fundraisers to help a friend meet his rent, to pay his doctor bills or buy his meds. I also lived through the Reagan era genocide, SILENCE=DEATH, becoming a news junkie to get that most recent scrap of information and the committee meetings. The committee meetings that went on for hours and always the arguments boiled down to how much of our communal sexual identity we would compromise for the cause. Should we close the bathhouses and sex clubs or protest when the health departments wanted to take action. Should we force the businesses that promoted sexual behavior to provide condoms, turn up the lights and post warnings of the potential dangers.

It always came down to sex. No matter that it was (and still is) killing us. Granted the climate has changed, both medically and culturally, but the bottom line is, AIDS IS FATAL. Bare backing is not new. There has always been a part of our society that has refused (denied?) the reality of sexual transmission or just refused to change their behavior.

We each need to make our choices, make them public and then take responsibility for them. If it costs you business, friendship or sexual adventures, it's your responsibility. By publishing the letter sent to vendors, IML has made a choice and is taking responsibility for it. To call it censorship is a misguided response. If you don't agree, don't go to Chicago.

[Timothy H]

Hmm does that mean there's no barebacking allowed at Mans Country, the bathhouse he owns in Chicago? Didn't seem that way when I visited last month. Seems like a different standard for different venues.

[Jerry]

Not to disagree (entirely) with your point about Amazon, but what happened there does not rise to the level of, say, what happened with the eHarmony lawsuit, because it was ruled in that case that eHarmony was breaking the law, and it was not on the grounds of constitutional free expression, but on a very specific state law banning gender discrimination. Amazon was basically cowed into (partially) correcting its mistake (or whatever they were calling it) after the whole thing went viral and turned into a very bad public relations event for them.

Your primary argument seems predicated on the notion that a bareback porn distributor has an inalienable right to sell its wares through any and all avenues, and they just don't. For example, they can't sell their stuff in Wal-Mart, right? Wal-Mart would refuse to carry the stuff even if it weren't illegal for them to do so; Wal-Mart has a policy that they won't even carry music that's been slapped with a PMRC label. My argument with that is that Wal-Mart (and by parallel extension, IML) is not in any way PREVENTING the bareback porn vendors from distributing their product, they are simply refusing to provide shelf space for it in their stores. Again, back to that whole constitutional point (since that buggaboo of FREE EXPRESSION is still in play with your assertions), free speech is only protected from acts of CONGRESS, and not from anyone in the private sector. A vendor can't come into my house and sell bareback porn unless I choose to grant them permission. In not granting that permission, I am NOT infringing upon anyone's self-expression in any way, because vendors are still free to sell their products elsewhere.

Your argument would seem to suggest, taken out a couple of logical steps, that, for example, zoning laws dictating where adult-oriented business may operate -- a pre-determined distance away from homes, schools, playgrounds, and churches -- are somehow stifling free expression unfairly, which is simply not the case. Is it less convenient because people have to drive a greater distance to buy porn or sex toys? Yes. Is that somehow unfair? Not really.

Conflating lack of convenience with abridgment of a fundamental right is a specious argument at best.

[Jerry]

Is indiscriminate sexual activity of any kind allowed on the streetcorners of Chicago?

No.

So yeah, there's a different standard for different venues. What kind of conduct is permitted in various locations is a completely tangential argument to the issue at hand, though.

[Jeff]

The contrary IML feels the need to educate ...Quote-We believe that it
is our duty to inform and educate.As is the case with HIV/AIDS, we believe it is our further obligation to do everything in our power to prevent future infections.
They believe by pulling .entalities and ones wants to but BB porn......In a world of Disney...Im not impressed by their decision .

[Exu]

I whole heartedly agree with this point. IML is free to dictate what can and can't be sold at their events. If a right wing, "ex gay" ministry wanted to setup shop in the vendor mart is it censorship on the part of IML to decline to have them there? By Christian's argument, that would be censorship as well.

People will get their hands on anything they want if they go to all measures available to them. When someone takes a stand like this they of course open themselves up to criticism and it is everyone's right to freely express their dissent...hell the SCOTUS justices even write their own dissent to highly divisive rulings. It still doesn't change the fact that IML and its organizers have their right to deny vending space to companies that are profiting off products that they disagree with.

I support their decision and applaud Will Clark's integrity not to promote BB porn at his events. Education is in understanding how decisions made will have consequences, good or bad, and everyone must hold themselves to be responsible for the choices they make. That said, I think Chi Chi LaRue covers my sentiments on the topic of BB porn very well at his site: http://www.safesexishotsex.com/. Sure, watch all the BB porn you like, but don't just consider the amusement you're getting from it, consider the significant risks to the models involved in it.

Yes, many people have died to protect our freedom of choice, but how many people have to be infected making BB porn for us to get our rocks off? Yes, the "models" had a choice in making the movie just as a child can choose to stick a paper clip into an electrical outlet. Is it censorship for a parent to get plastic covers for unused outlets to prevent the kid from doing that? Does that violate the kid's right to find out what happens when you stick a metal object into the outlet? C'mon!

[handtrix]

No one's taking away the right to act in, make, sell or buy bareback porn. It's just IML is saying we choose not to promote it. It's like restaurants getting rid of trans fats. You can still get them, just not at certain restaurants.

[David K]

Christian said...

"This edict is an admission of defeat: the powers that be cannot educate the community at large into making the healthier choice. Having failed to persuade..."

As a gay man who has been doing HIV work for about 7.5 years who I *think* is being referred to as a part of the powers that be...

We as service providers and educators are not here to physically put condoms on your wangs.

We provide ample opportunities for you to find out about your HIV status for free, offer free HIV education in environments that are confidential and affirming, and total access to free condoms and lube that we are practically throwing at you guys.

The United States in 2008 spent $753 million dollars on HIV prevention activities in 2008 for a disease that still disproportionately impacts gay men.

The CDC is advocating for an increase more than double that for HIV prevention: $1.6 billion dollars...)

With all this money, all this work the powers that be have failed? I concede maybe yes...and maybe no.

The burden of accountability doesn't soley lay with "the powers that be" because with so many opportunities available to enable everyone to do the right thing it is still your personal choice, your body at the end of the day.

We as service providers and educators are not here to physically put condoms on your wangs.

As a gay man who has been doing HIV work for about 7.5 years all I have to say is, "Screw you, Christian."

[topfister1]

Chuck Renslow and IML didn't go far enough. Instead of just banning vendors, part of the qualifications for participants in the contest should be they affirm, under oath, that they do not currently or ever have participated in BareBack sex.

[Matt L.]

Soo.....they're promoting the limitation of free speech and at the same time saying that gays are idiots because we don't know that bb=unsafe. While on the road to "equality" we're banning what we can't control and forfeiting our right of free speech? It seems we're more efficient that ex-gay camps ever could be--we're turning ourselves straight. I've lost all respect for IML and quickly losing respect for other gay "organizations".

[Larry]

Funny how some people have to turn their disagreement personal with an less than mature "Screw you..." Is that with or without a condom, Mr 7.5 years?

Bottom line, it's Mr. Renlow's decision and right to censor as he deems best....Just as it will be my decision not to frequent his events. Bravo for your service to the community, but is it really service when you seem to need to blow your own horn about it?

Wow! I sound as bitchy as you do!

[Jon Royce]

A giant step in the right direction. I support Safe Sex Decisions (I think Will Clark coined that term some years ago) in video and life.