Bareback vs. Condom Use

I have been seeing a new trend that is becoming more and more popular... :scared:

I've met a lot of great wonderful people at shows I've attended in the past. Some of these wonderful people were anti-bareback sex producers. Chi Chi LaWho for example.

At the GayVN expo, 2004 Chi Chi was there all about how bareback sex can kill you. I thought she was going to throw out holy water with the cocaine running out of her nose.
Chi Chi became Larry later in the night (losing the make up and drag clothes). He was inviting people to a sex party that was bareback.
When Larry is Chi Chi, he's all about condom sex, Bareback sex is going to kill you. When Chi Chi is Larry, yea! Let's Bareback!

Here's an example: http://www.safesexishotsex.com/ That's CHI CHI not Larry.

---

Falcon Studios is a studio that refuses to work with any producer that produces bareback.
2005 we produced our first 3 titles. We tried to get Maleflixxx to carry our line. They said no because Falcon would have a fit. Okay, whatever.
2006 we seen Maleflixxx carrying bareback titles. By this time we had about 16 titles. We contacted Maleflixxx again. They said no because we did not have enough bareback or cum eating content.
Whatever.

Later in 2006 we GetGayMovies.com opened its doors as a online retail outlet. We were carrying Falcon's DVDs for resale. Shortly after it was opened, a threatening letter came in from Falcon giving us 2 choices.
1) Immediately remove all bareback content (DVDs) from the store and keep Falcon DVDs.
2) Remove Falcon DVDs and keep the Bareback DVDs.

We chose to drop them. Their $60.00 over-scripted product didn't sell anyways.

Now, they are pulling out pre-condom DVDs and calling them bareback.

WTF!
---
A producer called us (don't want to say a name) and wanted advice on a project he wanted to do... He wanted to take all of his DVDs, if a condom showed during the penetration, he'd edit it out making it look as if it were bareback. Then call the DVD "Bareback." I told him that's a bad idea because people know Claudio Antonelli, Fred Goldsmith, etc. and knows they were in your movies. Your films have been exposed for years.
I don't know where he took the idea.
---
A site... I personally joined just to see, I was curious as all hell. A very popular site and very active cash program on here created a paysite, on the tour images, they photoshopped the hell out of a guys dick to remove the condom. In the members areas, the so called "bareback" videos do show condoms.
---
Michael Lucas who staged his death a few years ago, all of the sudden is still alive. Wow! Oh goody! Michael Lucas runs all over New York City telling individuals how they need to engage in safe sex to protect the gay communities of HIV and AIDS. Michael Lucas produces condom and cum eating DVDs.

We were in New York City at "The Pyramid Club." 2 years ago. Michael was passing out condoms with "Lucas Entertainment" on them. This was about 10:00PM. At midnight, I and 2 of my friends were handed an invitation to a Pent House Suite not far from the club. We went. Drugs were there all over the place, the bath tub was filled with liquor, and SOMEONE was in the sling laying with about 15 guys around him and cum leaking out of his ass. This SOMEONE always portrays himself as a TOP ONLY.
---

My biggest problem ordeal out of this is those who photo shop images to make you think the site is bareback.
Those of you who take precondom videos or content and call it "Bareback."
Those who edit out condoms out of DVDs...................

The bareback market can be profitable. But it's not going to be profitable if you fuck it up like your doing.

Those who promote bareback sites or bareback products, perhaps research deeper into the site or the product because there are shady (not everyone) individual in the industry who simply do not care what others think.

We will be the very first to stand up and say, "HELL YES WE PROMOTE BAREBACK SEX TO THE PUBLIC!" BUT, We explain how to be safe about it.
We will also be the first to stand up and say, "HELL YES WE PROMOTE SAFE SEX!" We do give out condoms. They look like match books, except there's a condom in it. This is our advertising.

We produce both bareback and condom DVDs. Next weekend we're producing a 17 man bareback gang bang and it's getting sloppy. The next day we're producing an 8 man gang bang with a condom to finish up another DVD.

Point I'm making is, research the product before you promote it. You could be misleading product to the consumers.
If you are someone who is turned off by condoms (many are) and you join a site that shows bareback sex, and you pay for it. Your in the members area and you see nothing that is bareback or you know something isn't bareback... Would you be leary of joining another site in the future? Of course you would.

There's individuals coming in and leaving the industry who are straight or clueless of what to do. They have a video camera or a digital camera, they have cash. They're in because they think the adult is an open cash register. OH BOY ARE THEY MISTAKEN. They'll make something. Screw up things, see they screwed up, lose money, and they're back out of the industry doing something else. I see it all the time.

I see that GWW has taken a total turn for becoming a sponsor and affiliate forum, so I figured I would post this.
$0.02

The issue i have with bareback vs. pre-condom is that in my eyes (and im sure there are people who will disagree with my views on this) pre-condom isnt actually 'as bad' as bareback because back in the 70's and 80's and before, pre-condom sex was considered the 'norm' and was not produced to illicit a response from the surfer/viewer.

Bareback on the other hand, is deliberately produced to (and sometimes with the mindset of, models contracting HIV/AIDs) illicit that 'look we're edgy' feel from the studios/producers of this type of content, it has become a marketing tool for many... With a total disregard for models safety and that is wrong.

Pre-condom porn on the other hand, was natural during the time it was produced, people didnt know any better and whilst that doesnt make it 'right' from a safe sex perspective, it does make it right from the fact it isnt being produced a studio or individual solely for the purpose of saying 'look we have bareback and all our models are cum sluts' when in reality, they could be making just as much money from the same production had the models practiced safe sex.

Unfortunately, many in the industry feel that they need to produce 'bareback' in order to remain profitable, just as many in the straight side of the business feel they have to produce 'extreme' content that pushes the limits of obscenity.... When the reality of it is, unless the producer/studio actually has a 'thing' for bareback (which i too can understand) there really isnt any reason for anyone to be producing the stuff other than not being able to think of anything else to do.

Regards,

Lee

Lee,

I agree and disagree with some of the things you stated...

Bareback on the other hand, is deliberately produced to (and sometimes with the mindset of, models contracting HIV/AIDs) illicit that 'look we're edgy' feel from the studios/producers of this type of content, it has become a marketing tool for many... With a total disregard for models safety and that is wrong.

You are correct. Some producers I have worked for in the past a couple years ago... 2 of which were bareback, they have "Don't ask, Don't Tell" Policies. The directors or casting agents were not permitted to ask. The director asked the model not to tell.

Many models need that quick buck. They need cash now. At this point it's either they're kicked out of their apartment or they have to take a risk.
We have never let it get to that. I quit one of the jobs because of this.

One thing we have never done is internal cumshots. We do require that all models get tested within 20 days of a shoot and bring us their "results slip" with them to the shoot.
We know there is still a risk at hand for HIV as a test only looks for evidence of the HIV anti-bodies. But we can say we are 50% certain the model does not have HIV. That 50% is better than none.

Secondly, we do not require models to bareback. Our models have always been given the option to use condoms or bareback.

We have a model application. One of the questions is "Bareback Fucking."
If they say they do it, fine. If not, fine.
Before a shoot is arranged, models are asked what they prefer. We shoot around what the models want to do.

Pre-Condom was before I existed. I'm 28. I'm not familiar with that era. So I cannot judge on it.

I disagree with you, maybe you can help me understand... I believe that there is a big difference between barebacking and pre-condom.
Pre-Condom in my eyes means "Before condoms were made." If you look at a precondom film vs a bareback film... The precondom looks retro, the bareback looks newer.

You are correct, many do produce bareback only for a profit gain. I can only speak for ourselves... We shoot what our models prefer to do. Yes, there has been more profit in bareback vs condom. But, we've also made more on a condom title than a bareback title. It's in how it's shot and what occurs in the shoot.

I recently wrote an essay for Carnal Nation about barebacking and purposely wrote it from an objective view. This is the pull quote they highlighted:

"In the debate between free speech and zero tolerance for unsafe sex, both sides feel they own the moral high ground."

Let me know what you think.

http://sf.carnalnation.com/content/1...cs-barebacking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LavenderLounge

Let me know what you think.

---

Wow. Wow.
Very interesting.

One thing you mentioned in the article is about Barebacking online. Barebacking in porn....
If someone wants to bareback, they are going to do it regardless if it's in front of a video camera. Or if they're looking for that quick hookup.

I am a barebacker. Yes, I most certainly am. Am I HIV-, HELL YES.

There is:
Safe Sex - Condom Use
Sleaze Barebacking - HIV at Risk
Safe Sex in Bareback - Knowing your partner.

Sleaze barebacking are those who go out to a bath house. They hookup with 10 guys there. They dump their loads in another guys ass, leaves him, goes to another guy, takes his load up his ass, goes on. ANONYMOUS HOOKING UP. He doesn't know anything about anyone.

HENCE "PNP" and Meth... Those who generally do it are the "Sleaze Barebackers." I've seen it.

Safe Sex Barebacking are those who find a fuck buddy, a lover, a hookup... They are cautious about who they fuck, who they let cum inside them, who they let them cum inside. They ask status, They pull out when they cum. They don't have multiple partners.

I have had sex with 3 different people in 4 years. I became a barebacker when I was 16. I had a high school girlfriend. We couldn't fuck at her house, we couldn't fuck at mine. We found a train tracks, we fucked there. Couldn't stay hard, I tossed the condom out somewhere off to the side, fucked her there.
2 weeks later, I cheated on her with a boyfriend I secretly had. I was bottoming for him. He was VERY endowed. The condom felt like a slab of rubber inside me. Felt very uncomfortable. I asked him to take it off. He did. Felt soooooooooo much better.

I went through a slut phase in San Diego, California. I was there 8 months and I probably had more than 150 partners. I was at the bath house nightly. I threw sex parties 2-3 times a week. I barebacked all the way through it.
This was 4 years ago. I am still 100% clean, and 100% HIV-.

It's all in how you bareback. Yes, even though the top pulls out, there's still a risk. But a smaller risk. I asked every single person what their status was.
We would fool around and have foreplay, then when it came time to "stick it in." I'd stop him and ask again.

Just because they say they are HIV- doesn't always mean they are.

There's places like Folsom Street Fair (as you mentioned) - We will not support, there's places like "Sleaze Pits." I'm sure some of you know what they are... we won't support.
We know what goes on there, you will never see us there.

I do however love your article, and I printed it off to show Phil when he comes in later.

This is where im going to bow out of this conversation as its turned in to the normal 'them vs. us' debate about barebacking, not about the difference between bareback and pre-condom.

Regards,

Lee

Lee,

What is the difference between Pre-Condom and Bareback?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derekt

Lee,

What is the difference between Pre-Condom and Bareback?

---

From this thread alone, looks like it depends on who you ask.

The challenge with any discussion on pre-condom, condom and bareback discussions is how many factors necessarily enter the picture...the era, science, personal freedom, responsibility, health, pleasure, comfort to start. Then as webmasters and producers...whoa...even more sticky politics. At this early stage as just an affiliate, I'm just starting to have to deal with this whether I want to or not. In this issue, that's nothing compared to being a producer.

On the side...

That's right, some people do lie about their status. My primary physician happens to be an infectious disease specialist in NYC, active in studying/treating "the virus." Some of his careful patients who contracted AIDS report that their own partner lied about their status. Makes you wonder who you can trust.

I'm not surprised about your reports. I've seen it so much. While I haven't spoke with him in years, a friend of mine was born for community work, helping people. He used to work for an AIDS organization, one of those folks that passed out condoms in cruising areas...was part of his job. AT the same time, he also told me about some hot times fucking a guy without a condom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derekt

Lee,

What is the difference between Pre-Condom and Bareback?

---

Here's my two cents (Which I am sure is all it’s worth!)

Pre-condom films were simply guys fucking without condoms. They pulled out to show the money shot, there was no internal cumshots. There was no eroticization of any high risk sex aspect.

The vast majority of modern day “bareback” films glorify and eroticize the internal cumshots and the high risk sex aspect. It’s all about 40, 50, 100 loads up some guys butt. The more cum you take up your butt the hotter the sex will be. It’s become a culture of eroticizing and glorifying the high risk aspect of sex. The term bareback itself is meant to imply a wild, masculine feeling…not what it really is, high risk sex.

Do you ever see modern "bareback" films that are just guys fucking without a condom and pulling out for the cumshot? Or do you see internal cumshots and cum oozing out a guys ass? The core erotic premise of these films in the internal cumshot and the high risk and “edgy” aspect they are trying to promote.

One man’s opinion….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

Here's my two cents (Which I am sure is all it’s worth!)

Pre-condom films were simply guys fucking without condoms. They pulled out to show the money shot, there was no internal cumshots. There was no eroticization of any high risk sex aspect.

The vast majority of modern day “bareback” films glorify and eroticize the internal cumshots and the high risk sex aspect. It’s all about 40, 50, 100 loads up some guys butt. The more cum you take up your butt the hotter the sex will be. It’s become a culture of eroticizing and glorifying the high risk aspect of sex. The term bareback itself is meant to imply a wild, masculine feeling…not what it really is, high risk sex.

Do you ever see modern "bareback" films that are just guys fucking without a condom and pulling out for the cumshot? Or do you see internal cumshots and cum oozing out a guys ass? The core erotic premise of these films in the internal cumshot and the high risk and “edgy” aspect they are trying to promote.

One man’s opinion….

---

Yep, same thing i said above, just more eloquently put :)

Regards,

Lee

Really derek? I don't think you really care about the content of videos at all. It sounds like you're just sucking on some sour grapes and trying to blame others for bad business decisions, and trying (poorly) to drum up some attention for your company.

I really can't imagine that any of the people you bring up (including Lucas & Chi Chi) would engage in such dangerous behavior, and I fail to see what that has to do with your "discussion" about bareback vs. pre-condom vids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

Here's my two cents (Which I am sure is all it’s worth!)

One man’s opinion….

---

Now I understand. As I said, I wasn't around in that era. I appreciate your comments.

Dear Derekt,

From your starting post in this thread it is clear that you are reaching. No one wanted to carry your movies and so you are reaching out to drag down others who are successful. You are a sad case my friend and even more pathetic is your lack of awareness of how sleazy you are.

Your agenda is to push traffic to your site-- so you are name dropping. It is pitiful that you are leeching off of lies, trying to muster up any recognition. Because I vehemently disagree with you-- i did some research. In fact yes, Michael Lucas does promote and only practice safe-sex with condoms-- he however has never went around passing condoms out and you got caught in a bigger lie because Lucas has never been to the Pyramid Club you claimed.

You are trying desperately to tear apart other people's efforts to encourage safe-sex...because this hurts your business. So you are attacking Lucas because he is a known activist on the cause. Your extreme and disgusting lie about the "sling" is a mere ploy to make it sound like no one really is promoting and practicing sex with condoms. This couldn't be further from the truth. You should be very ashamed in your false attacks and more so embarrassed that this is what you must result to in order to get attention.

I also have to be fair and point out that the TRUE "pre-condom" period for porn would be porn shot prior to about 1983, because that is when the public started to become aware of HIV, and how it was transmitted.

However, every studio or VOD or whatever that I've seen marketing "pre condom" content really means "pre 2257 when no condoms were used." This is an important distinction. It also completely negates the argument that pre-condom material is OK (unless it was shot prior to 1983)

Adult studios clearly knew that HIV existed in 1984. Yet many did not switch to condom use until many years later. Those that shot "pre condom" content up until the 1990s put their models at incredible risk; there was little testing available at the time, and there was almost no effective treatment, so getting HIV was, for many, a death sentence.

Also, I think that Lee and Titan have both eloquently stated the issue; these days it's less about showing "natural" sex and more about showing some guy shitting cum out of his ass, or other "extreme" content. I guess some people find it "hot" but all I think of when I see bareback content is somebody being unnecessarily put at risk.

I would love to know the names of the studios using the "don't ask don't tell" policy; those studio owners should be taken out and shot, as not only are they being grossly irresponsible, they are giving the rest of the industry a bad name.

Until and unless (fat chance) the industry starts caring about ethics as much as it cares about money -- or until laws are passed FORCING us to care about ethics -- those of us who continue to promote and produce safer sex content will have to put up with competition that isn't on a level playing field, and/or choose the level of tolerance for bareback that we can stomach (Do you produce it? Do you sell it but not produce it? Do you promote sites that have it but don't actively market it? Do you use processors who process for bareback? Do you have your content on VODs that also promote bareback?)

It's unfortunate that in this day and age, those who started in the industry with the intent to send a positive message are having to make difficult choices, because as Keith said a year or more ago, it's pretty much impossible in this business to remain free of the influence of bareback content.

Derek is stating facts. The initial post was not to tear others, it was an explanation of what extremes producers or webmasters will do to gain they're traffic and product conversions. We have a great traffic flow. Most, of which was stated is a fact. You can do the research on the internet.

This is a website geared towards affiliates to speak about what programs work, what programs do not, what sells, what doesnt, and how much money they made. Very rare you learn something entirely new. Posting what was stated was not a gain to monetize further traffic flows. It would be pointless. The post was speaking of the extremes producers go through and to know the product prior to promoting the product.

Your statement regarding our movies is neither here nor there. :jerkoff: We hold and have full control of where our movies are placed. We do just fine without DVDs distributed or placed all over the markets.
This business is not hurting in any situation, we are probably stronger than ever.

Derek, you need to cease from posting on this board. Posting anything whether it be good, bad, excellent advice or evil advise is pointless.