Talk:Corbin Fisher/Archive 1

Supposedly

Please stop adding this, there are no sources to back up your claims. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is good evidence (and sources) to suggest that the use of SUPPOSEDLY straight is warranted. In the films, the (supposedly) straight actors engage in a full array of gay sex then go on to say that they ENJOYED the experience! How much more of a source do we need to wonder if these young men are really straight?? Clearly, if this entry is to be taken seriously in its claim that these actors are straight, we need sources to prove THAT claim. We have very good evidence to the contrary already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.254.202 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What independent reliable secondary sources are you referring to? -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you'll re-read my comment, you'll note that I've not claimed a secondary source. I, like you, am claiming a primary source, (i.e. one that according to Wikipedia is "very close to an event, ... by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event."). At least I BELIEVE you are claiming a primary source, namely the producer/distributor of the videos in question, but since you have not named a source, I cannot be sure. If you have a source other than one associated with Corbin Fisher, please name him and link to the evidence. As stated above, my sources are the actors themselves, who engage in hard core gay sex, achieve orgasm, then smile and affirm that they did indeed enjoy the experience. While the same actor may well have said that they are "straight" at the beginning of the video, I don't think I can be accused of doing original research, synthesizing or analyzing when I take the person's word for it that he enjoyed having orgasmic gay sex. If at the beginning of a video an actor informs us that he is straight, then goes on to behave in a manner that proves otherwise, I do not believe that using the description "supposedly straight" is uncalled for. So, there you have it. I only admit to primary sources associated with Corbin Fisher. If you have reliable secondary sources, not associated with CF, who can disprove my lying eyes and prove that these actors are straight, i.e. neither bisexual nor gay, I'd be most interested to examine them. 75.108.254.202 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NOR. Please put forth independent reliable secondary sources to suggest. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is you, who contends that these performers are believably straight (against all logic, common sense, and the very definition of the word 'straight') that needs to list INDEPENDENT SECONDARY SOURCES. Your only sources are the people who are producing and selling this fraud. There is NO legitimate, independent source listed in this article to verify that the young men in question are straight other than those people who are profiting by making this extraordinary claim. This is what I'm trying to tell you: The bloody article HAS NO CREDIBLE SECONDARY SOURCES. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I've previously admitted that I have only primary sources and common sense to make my claim. And still you challenge me to list independent, secondary sources without listing ANY of your own. I can see by your responses that you have no logic and no legitimate sources to offer, so I won't waste my time with further discussion. After all, we're not talking about the causes of the Civil War here, we're talking about using the adjective 'supposedly' to modify a ridiculous and self-negating claim in an article about a gay pornographer. Since you have neither challenged my primary source (the actor who claims to have enjoyed himself after reaching orgasm while licking another man's scrotum), nor have you named a source other than primary yourself, I believe I've made an excellent case for the term 'supposedly straight' to be appropriate. BTW, if anybody cares, my primary source is the actor playing 'Cole' in the Corbin Fisher video "Cole's First Time". As for your claim of original research on my part, it is not original research to listen to this actor proclaim that he had a good time while kissing, performing fellatio on, sodomizing, and orgasming with another naked man. Straight men do not (by definition) enjoy, or even engage in extreme non-straight behavior. This is not original psychological research on my part, it is a damn dictionary definition. So if you want an independent secondary source, open any dictionary, look up the words 'gay', 'homosexual' and 'straight' (as it relates to the straight vs. gay definition). Dude, if you want to verify that a 'supposed' unicorn is the real deal, you cannot rely on the guy that is selling a swayback horse with a paper cone attached to its forehead by a rubber band to verify that it is indeed a REAL unicorn. It is YOU who needs a secondary source to prove YOUR contention, not me. So, in summary: please provide reliable, independent secondary sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.254.202 (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So far all you have done is provide your own personal opinions after watching some videos. -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And so far all this article (and you) have cited are primary sources associated with Corbin Fisher. They are exactly the same sources I'm citing. You're CONSTANTLY telling me I don't have secondary sources but you never rise to my challenge to provide secondary sources yourself. Since you CANNOT provided any secondary sources, I'm claiming that the phrase "supposedly straight" is absolutely appropriate in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.18.23 (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this info is disputed. A reliable source is needed, to verify your claims. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is correct in that CF "sells" straight young men discovering their bisexual side. (The "CF education", as it's called over there) However, a few models explicitly identify themselves already as gay or "already bisexual before CF" in their portraits. So the claim that gay models are sold as "straight" is baseless, as there are indeed enough models self-identifying as gay on the site as well. And we can say for sure that those engaging in the "straight part" of the site, ACS, (actually the majority of the models on ACM) definitely are not gay by definition. (unless they are "straight for pay")... As for definitions: If a man sleeps exclusively with men, he's "gay". If he sleeps exclusively with women, he's "straight". If he sleeps with men and women, he's "bisexual". So, almost all boys start out straight, and change to bisexual. End of discussion, unless we want to start a lifestyle-vs-sexual-habit discussion. -- 84.142.121.239 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, it should be considered to change "gay" in the introduction etc. to "bisexual", since that is the whole point of Corbin Fisher and the site's scope is indeed straight, bisexual, and gay sex, performed by the same models, which thus are, (for the most part, as described above) bisexual (at least after their "education";-)). -- 84.142.121.239 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Without WP:RS secondary sources satisfying WP:V that specifically state these supposed opinions from the above IPs, this would be a WP:NOR violation. -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(Wow, aren't we fast?!) But isn't that the whole selling point of CF? ACM - ALL EXCLUSIVE content featuring mostly STRAIGHT GUYS exploring their sexuality and earning an education in hot, gay action! (quoted from the home page) Unless you allow for bisexuality, above quote wound be a contradiciton in itself. The alternative would be "gay-for-pay". But that's not how it's marketed. And the scope of CF (as opposed to ACM) is indeed broader, including ACS. Note that I'm only quoting how the makers of the site identify themselves. I see the above comments of the 75... IP as moot as you do. -- 84.142.121.239 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder

Someone keeps naming Brian Lowderman as the "founder" of the company. Brian is an information technology person and domainer who registered domain names for the company while doing programming for them. Please stop falsely stating that he founded the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.41.22 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

Please stop with the recent unsourced changes. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a some content on on the recent copyright infringement cases which have been initiated by Fisher. I added references and also created a new copyright infringement cases section. There seems to be quite a bit of press about this case, mostly because Fisher's company is being quite aggressive. TurtleMelody (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

I removed two books, searchable through Google, that don't seem to mention the company. Does Homosex: Sixty Years of Gay Erotica (not searchable that way) give this company any significant coverage? FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)