Did you seriously just right that? I wonder if people who died from AIDS in the 80s would appreciate your view?

They’re only virtually invisible in certain situations and positions. The best bareback studios and the best performers are good at setting up shots that call attention to the penetration in ways that make the condom not invisible at all. View a scene with Trevor Yates, Jack Harrer, or now Brooks at Sean Cody — there is nothing subtle about those penetration shots. You can see those bare dicks going in from across the room.

Anyway, I take your point that bareback is mental and that we could train ourselves to stop thinking about the condom (as many of us did in the 90s). But when it comes right down to it, porn itself is mental. Condoms don’t bother you and by corollary, their absence does not fascinate you. Vaginas don’t bother me (as long as I don’t have to do anything with them!), so I like straight porn, but other people here are completely offended by it. I say this entirely in the cheerful spirit of debate because I think you raise an interesting point, but my point in reply is that you’re really not going to reason most of us out of our devotion to bareback porn because a lot of what turns us on is more emotional than reasonable. If I really believed that bareback sex could not be practiced without injury to the performers, I would make an effort to change my interest the same way that I would if I thought my taste in porn was racist. I just don’t happen to buy the injury argument.