ChaosMen: Micah & Nash (Raw Flip-Flop)

@ashbry I can!

If he would talk (which he won’t, because obviously fumes at his bizarro rules being questioned), “Corbin Fu***r” would probably say something along these lines:

Even though targeted at gay (and bi) men, ACS action is primarily heterosexual, and thus its policy must be to use the customary “straight-style” approach to porn fucking– namely bareback (just as Jake Cruise’s “Straight Guys For Day Eyes” does.) Keeping it that way when a second man is added into the sex every other week is consistent with the “straight style fucking” policy of ACS.

Of course that is trumped-up TOTAL BS, and is passively insulting and derogatory to viewers who pay just as much but are told they are NEVER allowed to see the *same guys* fucking raw without a vagina mixed in.

It’s a remarkably disgusting attitude and reflection of customer-disdain. I was spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on ACM until I realized what was going on. For the last five months, it’s been zero, with all that going to competitors instead. And I’m not going to buy a friggin DVD for the “privilege” (OH, THANK YOU, KING CORBIN) of seeing a few highly-overpriced all-male bareback scenes. I can do that on Chaos and BelAmiOnline right now.

I note that Corbin Fisher and Rush Limbaugh both use stylized script signatures as their logos, and they are both in Florida…and they are both insanely stubborn about how things must be “their way or the highway.” Coincidence? Maybe he’s Rush’s secret son?

@ elmtree: There are plenty of guys who LIKE seeing straight porn “with the emphasis on the guy,” so it makes no sense to assume that ACS must depend on the lure of two (or sometimes one) bareback male-male plugging a month (with pussy mixed in) to get subscribers.

Look at Jake Cruise (well, his business model, anyway :)) — he does strictly bareback on his “hetero with emphasis on the guys” site (Straight Guys for Gay Eyes), but he still does occasional bareback on his strictly-male site (Cocksure Men). Corbin Fisher certainly could do the same.

And even if Corbin Fisher *did* lure some ACM subscribers to also subscribe to ACS because of the occasional male-on-male (with pussy in the mix) barebacking, realize that
(1) Business 101: He could make a lot more money by expanding the allure and thus membership of ACM with barebacking instead, as it’s a significantly more expensive site; and

(2) Business 101: Some of those guys “lured” by ACS obviously give up their ACM subscriptions when they subscribe to ACS, either because of personal budget restraints; or because they are among the subset that doesn’t mind seeing the chick involved, and thus doesn’t feel any need to subscribe to ACM at all if they prefer barebacking; and

(3) Business 101: There will be others who would rather just take their money from ACM and move it over to Chaosmen where they can see male-only BB 4-8 times a month; or even BelAmiOnline which now has some all-male barebacking.

In other words, there is more than one strategy to add revenue (Business 101). Corbin Fisher has plenty of options besides the weird and yes, INSULTING strategy he picked. (Avoid ticking off your clientele — Business 101). I’m having a hard time understanding why some people seem to think there’s something magical — or natural — about his decidedly bizarre approach.

And BTW, we don’t know for sure that pumping up subscriptions to ACS is necessarily the reason for the difference between sites. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But don’t assume too much. It’s likely that Corbin Fisher is responding to subscription-stealing pressure from Chaos (and/or subscriber pleas) with some of the recent edgier moments on ACM, including some brief “early in the session” bareback insertion. Why isn’t he taking it all the way? I’m NOT so sure it’s just economics. Or do you work for Corbin Fisher and have the inside scoop?

In summary, there is no sensible reason for full-bareback scenes to be 100% absent on ACM as long as barebacking continues to be practiced by the same guys — as long as pussy is nearby — in ACS 1-2 times a month. It’s not Business 101, it’s weird and passively derogatory to customers.

elmtree, I agree we’re not going to see eye to eye here.

“You assume there are pleanty of guys who enjoy straight porn with emphasis on the guys. Says who?”

I have personally known quite a few fully-gay guys who like straight porn, including some who strongly prefer it over gay porn. Besides, how many straight men do you think are going to join a site called “Straight Guys For Gay Eyes?” Also, look at the positive (along with negative) comments posted here for the het episodes of ACS (on a blog called WAYBIG!). ACS is positioned on CF’s site as showing Straight Guys in ther “natural habitat.”

“And if you don’t think these infrequent man on man bb scenes increase interest in the ACM site, you aren’t reading the comments posted on this blog.”

If you meant ACS: Remember, I didn’t say that BB wouldn’t expand ACS revenue. I said that that amount would be dwarfed by the expansion in ACM revenue were it to go BB.

If you actually did mean ACM: It’s called bait ‘n switch, an ugly business practice. In fact, the first time I joined ACS, I was coming from another blog where Corbin Fisher managed to provide strictly shots of the male action. I clicked through, and ended up on a page that showed only men. Joined, and got pussy. Games and disrespect…what that site’s all about. (At least since then the blogs always show the women — maybe my complaint to Corbin Fisher about that registered even though there was no reply and of course I was never offered a refund.) Or, if you meant someone sees blogged photos of “Corbin Fisher” guys doing bi-barebacking and then join ACM because they want to see “the same kind of stuff” but only with men — well, they’re in for a rude awakening. That’s even *worse* bait ‘n switch. It’s almost as if the site is designed to confuse and trick people…I could go on and on about that…

“Sure Corbin Fisher could do like JC but if they did have occasional bb on ACM, there would truly be no reason for some of us to subscribe to ACS, thus defeating my original business 101 argument.”

…an argument which, as I just explained again, is based on what is likely a flawed assumption. And BTW, did SG4GE lose customers when Cocksure had some barebacking?

“And is the decision Corbin Fisher bizarre, insulting and derogatory (really??) because you don’t agree with it?”

As I’ve said before, it’s derogatory because it sends a loud ‘n clear message that barebacking shall only be viewable on Corbin Fisher by guys who are “straight enough” to be cool with pussy in the mix. I.e., bi or “more-manly-gay”…in other words, more-worthy, superior beings.

“Instead of doing it just to irritate or insult you maybe Corbin Fisher chose not to have bb scenes on ACM to avoid insulting or offending current ACM customers who are offended by bb scenes and don’t want to support a site that has bb.”

Bingo! You’ve finally admitted what I keep saying — that we can’t be sure economics are driving this. But even if it’s what you suggest here, won’t these sensitive guys still be angered by knowing that what’s going on with their favorite models while they’re over at ACM? Why are the sensitive guys OK with the bareback-male DVD’s being sold (once in a blue moon, at an unconsciably high price for today’s market)? Why are the ACM members giving some of the highest ratings to scenes where there’s a minute or two of “insertion-barebacking” and even one or two post-orgasm raw re-insertions (but still, super-bizarrely, condom scenes)? If Corbin Fisher is still reeling over negative reaction to the full-on barebacking ACM episode a few years ago (feedback he indignantly savaged, BTW), why is doing these strange “teases” within ACM and between sites (and no, I don’t mean “tease” as in the “Teasing Cassie” BS, etc.)?

“Did you ever consider that as a possibility. Perhaps this is the “sensible reason” you are looking for.”

Yes. I’ve mentioned the possibility in previous posts. That’s why my position hasn’t been “ACM must go BB,” it’s been “ACM and ACS should have the same condom policy.” All of these other oddball between-subsite and within-subsite rituals and rules are a sham, *especially* if there is supposed to be some “responsibility” mantra attached. The only exception I can possibly see is if for some reason, at some point, Corbin Fisher vowed to someone that there will always be a condom present in every ACM scene. And even then — well, promises aren’t forever, especially in an industry like this. And he *could* speak to the subject, say on “Pete’s Attic”…though I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for info. It would be too courteous and respectful of the fans who pay his bills.

“If this is the case, which is very possible, it makes perfect business sense to only have these bb scenes on ACS.”

No, again, it makes even LESS sense. If you’re taking a responsibility-type stand that condoms must be used consistently, it must be across sites. Having a female present doesn’t change any responsibility vow; if anything, a resposibility-driven policy would dictate the need to be even *more* consistent with a condom policy when the scene becomes more promiscuous. Guys who might be outraged by barebacking on ACM certainly know about the barebacking the same models do on ACS and DVDs. Is it OK to rob a bank one town over, as long as you don’t rob one in my town? If there were a once-a-month BB ACM scene, the site could slap on a warning just as it does on the DVD sales page.

HEY, TO AN ACM MEMBER WHO DOESN’T BELONG TO ACS: JOIN ACS, AND THEN WRITE Corbin Fisher SAYING YOU WANT A REFUND BECAUSE THERE WAS SEX WITHOUT CONDOMS — WITH NO WARNING — AND YOU WERE OUTRAGED. THINK YOU’LL GET A REFUND???

“Bottom line is neither of us know the reason for Corbin Fisher making the decisions they made. But there are certainly reasons beyond simply doing it to insult you.”

I sure agree with the first sentence! And partially agree with the second: he may not be *trying* to insult me and others, but he’s doing it anyway. And there are plenty of posters here who have reported, based on their correspondence (and attempted correspondence) with CF, that he can come off as really haughty. It doesn’t surprise me that he went after pirates like a rabid bulldog, and endlessly crows about his success at it. I don’t blame him in that case, but it shows the kind of “don’t mess with me, I rule the roost” personality you’re dealing with in Corbin Fisher.

elmtree, in a way I can’t blame you for not reading the whole response, as it was so long. But suffice it to say I effectively showed the fallacy in most of your logic.

As for “it’s just porn,” do you recall how many people were upset with the recent dialog where one of the models was saying something along the lines of “gay sex is Ok, but gay love isn’t”? They had good cause to be upset. This was again Corbin Fisher sending his customers — in a different way — the ugly message that they are inferior to straights, via allowing (or instructing) one of his models to say that. It’s the same old demeaning attitude.

You might so, “so what, it’s porn, avoid Corbin Fisher and go to another site.” Well the answers are:

(A) This *is* a porn discussion site, so it’s an appropriate place to analyze these things — it should be of more interest here;

(B) I’m trying to make people realize that they are being dissed by the negative signals being sent toward their sexuality; namely that they are inferior and “not man enough” to watch BB if they can’t deal with having a pussy in the mix; and

(C) On a more practical note, CF’s site has better looking models than most, so I’d like to be able to subscribe without the insult that comes from being deemed “too gay” (inferior) to handle watching male barebacking because pussy is a big turnoff for me. Just make the policies equal between the sites. I repeat: Just make the policies equal between the sites. Any business lost from ACS or outraged ACM viewers would be dwarfed by the increase in ACM subscriptions.

I am getting more and more of a feeling that you may be associated with Corbin Fisher. Or at the very least one of those “more worthy beings” that doesn’t mind seeing pussy. And/or also that you do not suffer budgetary constraints that would restrict you to only one of the Corbin Fisher sub-sites.

As for “it’s just porn,” that’s how I feel when posters get outraged along the lines of “how dare he keep using the same models over and over!” I’m talking about something more significant and insidious, namely that a site targeted at a group that society tries to marginalize and deride is insidiously ADDING to that marginalization and derision attitude itself…yet people continue to patronize not seeing the message, and just chalk it up to “a business move” (one which would make no sense when analyzed, anyway). That certainly doesn’t help the cause, it just encourages more marginalization.

Hope you were able to make it through this one.

I think you’re wrong, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.