A Bareback Topic Worth Considering...

Zac, Jonathan and I just went and had our semi annual HIV tests done. We got to thinking about how the tests have changed over the years. Today, one of us had the finger prick and the other two had the mouth swab tests done. There are three ways to perform the preliminary test and the results no longer take weeks, but just a mere 20 minutes. This also got us to thinking, the tests are 99.9% accurate, simple and require little or no exposure to actual blood, so why don't the film studios that feature barebacking use them? Wouldn't it be great to know that the test result you had before you was authentic, the most up to date possible and as accurate as any health clinic? So we looked it up online when we got home and sure enough...the test kits are available for a mere $19.99 each. Seems like pennies compared to the loss of one's company, reputation, wealth or all of the above when suddenly faced with a lawsuit by a model or models. Not to mention the peace of mind for all involved in the production of films. Yes, it is still playing Russian Roulette with your life, but at least you've got a better chance of remaining negative and healthy. So what do you guys think? I would love to know how others feel about this concept.

I dont know but i would think, by having the producer slash studio administer the test themselves there could be a potential for liability that quite frankly, would be best left with a certified health care professional to deal with.

I do think its a good idea that tests can be done in the privacy of ones own home though.

Regards,

Lee

I think that the case that some of the "no barebacking" camp makes is that whether the models have HIV or not isn't the point, it's that unprotected sex is being condoned in productions and people will mimic the activity without getting tested and put themselves in danger.

Some of the "pro barebacking" camp feel that if the models are HIV negative that they are safe and that's all that matters and people watching the production can make up their own minds.

Perhaps if something in the production showed them getting the test before bareabacking it would be seen as responsible by some?

I feel the most important part of harm reduction is sero-sorting (poz with poz, neg with neg), and you need testing in order to do the sorting properly.

Chaz, I completely agree with you. For the studios willing to handle the testing in-house, as you said, there are a number of test kits available for self-administered tests with 20 minute results. For the studios not willing to handle it themselves, Labcorp has draw locations pretty much all over the US, so regardless of how far in the sticks you are, there is probably a location within 20 or 30 minutes. There's absolutely no excuse not to do testing.

We have never produced bareback content, and we still test every model on arrival, both because we want to be sure test results are not faked, and because few models do more than HIV; we test for hep-C, syphillis, and HIV.

However, even if one is only considering model safety, there are multiple issues. The tests don't guarantee safety because of the latency period, and it is the period when a person is first infected, BEFORE a test would show positive, when he has the highest viral load and is most likely to transmit the virus to someone else. Also, as Patti and others regularly point out, hep-C is in many cases even more difficult to treat than HIV, is transmitted the same way, and is spreadking phenomenally. And syphillis is at epidemic levels among gay men in several areas, and is also very difficult to treat if not caught early.

Then, as Squirt said, there's the issue of the message being sent to gay youth and others. Barebacking is glorified in video, it's marketed as "hot" and "spontaneous." One of our own models has admitted to barebacking in spite of his awareness of the risks because, for some delusional reason, he likes the danger aspect of it. (I think he will feel otherwise when he gets infected one day.)

Finally, on the serosorting issue, the evidence is pretty solid that reinfection and mixing of multiple strains of HIV, through unprotected sex among poz people, is a serious concern that significantly complicates the treatment and prognosis for the HIV+ person.

A studio that insists on doing bareback absolutely should test everyone, and in my opinion, should make an effort to educate even poz models on the reinfection issue.

A studio that puts the safety of its models first, and is also concerned about the message it is sending to the public will simply not produce bareback at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

I dont know but i would think, by having the producer slash studio administer the test themselves there could be a potential for liability that quite frankly, would be best left with a certified health care professional to deal with.

I do think its a good idea that tests can be done in the privacy of ones own home though.

Regards,

Lee

---

I wonder if the "liability" issue would be arguable in a court of law? I personally would rather be defending myself in court over the reliability of an HIV test kit rather than defending why I did not pursue up to date testing on a particular model or group of models. I see what you are saying Lee and that is one of the reasons we practice and preach safe sex in our houses. It's a double edged sword....damned if you do and damned if you don't. That's why I posted this. I wanted to see where people's thought process was on this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I think that the case that some of the "no barebacking" camp makes is that whether the models have HIV or not isn't the point, it's that unprotected sex is being condoned in productions and people will mimic the activity without getting tested and put themselves in danger.

Some of the "pro barebacking" camp feel that if the models are HIV negative that they are safe and that's all that matters and people watching the production can make up their own minds.

Perhaps if something in the production showed them getting the test before bareabacking it would be seen as responsible by some?

---

Terrific Idea! What about a quick blurb at the beginning of the film stating the testing that takes place before production of the movie and encouraging people to practice safe sex and get tested regularly. I saw a few bareback films years ago that stated, quite boldly that the content of the video was for fantasy entertainment only and then it went on to encourage safe sex practices. Does this make the video any less erotic? Does it detract from sales? Is it the profits that keep studios from implementing such disclaimers?

Practically every bareback title I've seen or heard about has some gratuituous safer sex message at the beginning of the DVD. To me, it feels like the producer believes that if he makes even the most minimal effort in putting some sort of safer sex message at the beginning of the video, it excuses him from any guilt and salves his conscience.

Now, that said, there are a handful that have attempted to put good quality safer sex messages out on their DVDs, but those are the exception.

The safer sex PSA that we shot in July will probably be finished by the end of this year. We know that it will be a total boner killer -- the people who have seen the earlier version have all said it's very powerful -- but we also know that it will perhaps hit home in a way that no other message can. We haven't decided where it will go, whether at the end of the film or in the added features, but we believe the value of putting it on each of our (safe) DVDs will outweigh the negative feedback (if any) that we get.

The problem with an on-the-spot test is that it still doesn't account for the window period. And while it may go a long way to protect performers, it still gives the viewing public the impression that barebacking is safe – or safer. "Here, just swab this in your mouth and if you're negative, we can bareback."

Michael

First time I ever had a test - 1st year in college - was finger test. Icky!
I still remember how it felt having my finger rubbed on that thick paper...eek... :thumbsdown:

Hated this shit, I'd rather have my veins prodded - so much easier and faster ...

I do wish I knew who the guy was that took my blood sample though.

I'm sure if I saw him now I'd recognize him - what he said to me then fucking stuck with me to this day - "never let anyone trick you into having sex without a condom" while looking straight into my eyes.

I always told anyone that wanted rubber optional to fuck off but what he told me then was just so profound that ever since that day I've never even questioned at all the need to use rubber. Not sure if it was because it came from a stranger or that he pretty much demanded my attention by touching my hand (and I knew he was gay :) )

So you all working as volunteers at HIV clinics what you say to those getting tested has an impact even if we have a bit of a daydreaming look to our eyes while you hold our hand :cheerleader:

I also remember a PSA that was on one of the first porn flicks I saw, kind of porny - It was a BelAmi movie and either before or after the film they showed one of the actors getting hard then showing how to put a condom on and then walking to the bottom and fucking him by the swimming pool :)

These two things actually left a bigger impression on me even though my dad has been shoving condoms in my pockets since I was 13 every time I went out clubbing - I just always felt a bit nagged on when the "put a condom on" came from my parents or someone else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cbl_chaz

I saw a few bareback films years ago that stated, quite boldly that the content of the video was for fantasy entertainment only and then it went on to encourage safe sex practices.

---

While there are -some- people that will thoughtfully read every syllable of the pre-movie message, just as they read the copyright and trademark, and cut scene forbidding them to illegally distribute the title...

I somehow think that most people are going to be grabbing some lube, snatching their Fleshlight or dildo or vibrator, and getting themselves ready for the featured presentation.

Simply stating that this is a fantasy, only reinforces that -bareback- is a fantasy that they should entertain. Meaning that that disclaimer just turned into an advertisement... -if- they read it.

JackAss episodes have disclaimers of "Do not try this at Home, kids" all over them, trying to keep idiots from smashing each other in the bared chest with florescent tubes, or jumping off of roofs onto trampolines and into pools.

Just as amazingly, the warnings have nearly no effect on the demographics that watch the show - either the people watching it for entertainment realize that there's a risk for whomever is attempting these stunts to be seriously injured and are smart enough not to try it themselves -without the warning-... Or they watch for entertainment, realizing that there's a risk shown that makes someone brave, cool, sexy, rich, and able to have their own tv show, acting like idiots and so do it anyway.

Porn is the same way, I think. Either consumers will watch the movie, having been told at some point previously that condom-less sex is bad, and realize what's going on, or they'll have been told previously, know what's going on, and not care - because it's a fantasy, and haven't we all been told that it's the ultimate achievement when our dreams come true, and when we get to experience the perfection of fantasy?