Would people pay to 'give' someone a blowjob?
Isn't it usually the other way around?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Basketball Diaries (1995) Discussion > Would people pay to 'give' someone a blo...
It's pretty ridiculous but I thought about it from a cinematography point of view. It wouldn't have been as disturbing if he had just gone in the stall...and then come out. They clearly wouldn't have showed Leo blowing the guy, but since it was the other way around we were able to see the look on his face. The look of desperation and disgust and...ugh that scene just wouldn't be as sick and twisted and...sad if we weren't able to see the look on his face.
I did think "Why would you pay to blow someone?" When I first saw this but I immediately decided that it worked better that way. I have no idea if that's why the director/writer chose for it to be that way but whatever haha
-- I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
The answer to this question? Absolutely. I saw an incredible documentary a few years back (I'm sorry I've since forgotten the name) where a young couple addicted to crack and heroin allowed the camera to follow their lives for a few months. Nothing was staged. Nothing was held back. Just two people living on the street and living for nothing but drugs while a camera filmed virtually every thing they did. One of the more incredible and difficult scenes to watch answered just the question you ask. The camera actually showed the male of the couple getting a blow job from a man who paid him to allow him to do so, and asked for nothing in return. Nothing staged. No trick angles. All the while his girlfriend waited outside, knowing what he was doing, and all she had on her mind was the money she would share for buying drugs when the deed was done. Call me homophobic if you wish, but I found the scene sickening and so hard to watch I had to look away. If I remember the title of this film or somehow track it down here on the net I will return to edit this post and include it's name and where it might be seen or read about.
I'm back and I found the movie. It is called Union Square. You can read about it here on IMDb and you can watch an interview with the film maker on YouTube. With this information you should be able to find out where it can be seen.
I'm back again to say forgive me readers for I have sinned (I inadvertently gave incorrect information). The movie with the scene I describe above is actually called "Dope Sick Love". The reason for the title is because the movie specifically follows couples who are addicted to drugs. Documentary film making at it's best in my opinion.
I don't know about anyone else man but I would def pay the big bux for a chance at going down on Robert Pattinson! dAMN! LMAO
shareWell this thread seems to have just become a discussion on sexuality and whether or not people would pay to go down on female celebrities. But if anyone is still looking for an answer to the original question, here it is. It is much more likely to suck dick for money rather than be sucked for money, but Im sure there are people that would pay to give a blowjob as the old guy did in the movie. However, the reason it is portrayed this way in the movie is simply because Leo was an up and coming actor and it was considered detrimental to his career to have him blowing someone in a movie. Although the difference may seem minimal, it was a decision made by Leo's agent, manager and publicists combined. It likely would not have stopped Leo from becoming the star he has, but the reasoning was simply a PR one.
shareI don't know where you got your info from but you couldn't be more wrong. What you saw go down is and was very typical behavior for dope sick guys who need quick cash to get their next high.
I knew of guys and a gal who used to drive into the city together to 'hustle fags' (their words) and the female sold herself for the usual, then they would cop their dope or methadone while there (Leo/Carroll even mentions the 'types' ie: suburban junkies). A lot of gay men used to drive around looking for young male hitchhikers and make the same offer. The reasons have already been covered here as to why the closeted 'business man' types paid to do this but your missing the point that Jim Carroll was trying to make: For him to allow a man to perform oral sex on him went against all his religious upbringing + 'street/gang' thinking - he risked getting his a** kicked had any of the crew caught wind of what he did or, at the very least, had his balls busted about it daily. It was revolting to him and just one more horror that kept him slammin' dope to forget. Think of the logic of doing something that goes against everything you know/been taught so that you can get high to forget about it. Its an endless cycle (dope addiction) which robs one of their self esteem.
Also, back in the 60s/70s and 80s even, things weren't as 'loose' as they are today so a lot of you younger people on here won't get how it was back then. Until '73 homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Getting caught or found out about could end ones career (at the very least), hence the quick in/out anonymous encounters.
A white, closeted, middle/upper class exec. 'family man' who worked in the city could run into one of these Times Square pits, pay the hustler,do his business and be done in time to catch the train back out of the city to the family home out on the Island or Westchester/Conn. with out the wife suspecting a thing.
Talk to any NYC cop who was assigned to precincts around TS or in the Village - the stories would astound you (even if you consider yourself a bit jaded).
Where you get that a strung out straight male junkie makes money performing oral sex on gay men in a public toilet (??) I have no idea. Not saying it couldn't or didn't ever happen but what you saw in this scene was exactly what went down all around Times Square etc all the time. Easier money - safer than doing robberies/muggings/purse stealing.
This is one way to explain it: I have never met a girl who doesn't like giving head. I have never met a gay guy who doesn't like giving head. For some people, they even prefer going down/giving head than actually receiving it. That fact - fueled with certain people's perversion of young boys - means that someone paying someone to receivea blowjob really doesn't surprise me. I mean, I'd rather go down on someone than receive it. Not a 13 year old kid, mind, but you get my point.
shareI don't know what kind of closed life you guys have, but where I live I know lots of dudes who easily accept money for allowing gay men giving head to them. And they are straight.
share"Life as a House" is another movie which also has some guy who pays teenage boys to sit in his car and he gets his jollies by giving them head. Hayden Christiansen is the teenager Sam. But Sam doesn't actually end up going through with selling himself in this way because a patrolling cop interrupts things and Sam runs off and it's kind of the turning point where he realises how low he has sunk.
shareYes. Many closteted people would pay to give a blowjob. There's nothing "sick" about it pther than a) society makes homosexuality a vice and b) in the case of this movie, Leo's character is an underage prostitute so it IS "wrong" (but only in the same way it would be if his character was a girl and an adult was preforming cunniligus).
share[deleted]