As we talked about last month, Falcon’s latest release, California Dreamin’ Part 1, has the condoms all digitally erased in post-production creating a virtually bareback throwback to Falcon classics of the 70s and 80s. Here we’ve got Scene 2, possibly the last scene anyone has in the can featuring recently retired power top Liam Magnuson.
It’s not the hottest thing I’ve ever seen, but nevertheless it’s a sun-drenched, hard-bodied, poolside fuckfest in the style of Falcon, now with magically disappearing condoms.
Can you see that condom? The Liam’s cock might have a little latex sheen to it, but otherwise no! Just like magic.
Actually, in some shots you can still pretty much see it.
I still don’t get why people think bareback is so much hotter. But hey, maybe if everybody can do this clever editing, everyone can go back to using condoms and no one will know the difference. Then studios can just lie about whether the condoms were there, and “bareback” will become just as unreliably true as “100% straight.”
[Falcon Studios: California Dreamin’ 1, Scene 2]
Previously: FALCON FAKE-OUT: NEW RELEASE ‘CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’ HAS CONDOMS DIGITALLY REMOVED
If only they could digitally make this scene more exciting or something.
and donnie dean is in the + tribe on his grinder profile
I was surprised also, I thought Liam was gay. So he fooled us all again.
I get why people like the bareback thing- it’s visual. But my mind doesn’t shut off when I see it. All I can think is “seroconverting right now”, while I”m trying to beat off. It’s just sad to me. HIV isn’t gone. There’s medicine but it’s blindingly expensive, it’s risky combined with all the other ailments we’ll eventually get.. cancer, heart disease, I just hope all the young pretty kids doing bareback know what they’re getting into. Was the activism of the 90’s just a waste?
The condoms in porn issue seems to be primarily a ‘guy thing’, which makes sense since men ARE more visually oriented when it comes to sex. But I am curious…what is it about the condom that “ruins” the fantasy? It’s not like they are all THAT obvious and in-your-face. If you look for them you’ll see them, but it’s not like they are neon colored with clown faces on them. (At least, I haven’t SEEN anything like that yet..)
I have read comments on blogs about barebacking, and too many of those comments seem very mean-spirited, they go WAY beyond any issue of fantasizing. Many seem to just not give a damn about the risks to the performers, some even come across like they think the performers deserve whatever they get…I don’t understand this at all. To me, it seems as if there is something more to it than just fantasy for these individuals…they seem to despise the performers even as they demand more from them.
I wonder if there isn’t some element of self-loathing at work in these folks? Maybe they are so hung-up about their own sexuality that they get a feeling of satisfaction at the idea of a performer ‘suffering’ somehow for enjoying something that they themselves are unable to…like they WANT to see the sex, but feel guilty or conflicted about it. Maybe they resent the performers for being able to enjoy sex so freely and WANT them to suffer the consequences THEY are so afraid of. A sort of ‘porn schadenfreude”…
Now before anyone gets their shorts in a knot, I am NOT referring to all porn fans, or even all bareback porn fans. Just a small but very vocal group that is out there. If you read those blogs, you’ve seen those types of comments. Surely I’m not the only one who is disturbed by the attitudes?
You almost hate to complain about this, because too many people are ready to jump you for it, poke at you for being prudish or not understanding their view, or of wanting to be a ‘nanny’…but I’m saying it anyway.
Why many of us prefer bareback? Because porn is fantasy. It’s an illusion. Having sex with a condom on certainly feels good, but when you watch it on film it’s distracting to us and breaks the illusion. We understand that many of you don’t feel the same way, and that’s fine (I say “we” because we pro-bareback must be a sizeable number, judging by the popularity of sites like SC and CF) I’m not saying that to try to convince you pro-condom people, so don’t preach. I am saying it to try to make you understand why we pro-bareback people prefer not to see the condoms.
If you don’t understand why someone feels a certain way about something, and it’s baffling to you, ask them to explain it and do so without giving them a preachy lecture. That’s no different than what the homophobes do, when they say they don’t get why we like same-sex relationships, and instead of listening to the explanation objectively they jump to a lecture and value judgment.
Then you are ok with the digital removal? Because if it is about fantasy, and the illusion, then I would think this idea is pretty good. It gives those who prefer not to see them the illusion they seek, without putting the performers at unnecessary risk.
And I’m sure they will improve their techniques as well, so there won’t be ‘latex sheen’ or wrinklage visible. I’m glad they decided to do this, and hope it catches on. I understand wanting the fantasy to be perfect, but that must be weighed against the risk to the people performing. Once it becomes nearly impossible to tell, the issue will go away, at least for all but the most hard-core.
And studios whose selling point is ‘no condoms’ will lose that distinction, and it will be a pleasure to see them go away. They play to an attitude that everyone would be better off without.
It isn’t a fantasy or an illusion for the people working on set…so I’m not sure what you mean by the act of bareback is okay based on YOUR perception of the scene.
I think having a shoot with a condom and digitally removing it is okay…I’m fine with that, because no performer is at risk if they do this.