Bareback Sex - Is there really any difference here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Rock

In my life I've never met someone who did not know what a condom was or what would happen if they didn't use one. If you're old enough to legally be viewing porn, then you should have a pretty damn good idea what a condom can do for you.

And where is it "shown" that these barebackers have a distorted view of the risks of unprotected sex? Maybe thier distorted view is caused by something other than poor education; dont make me say what it is.

---

Evidently there are all kinds of pockets of the world with backwoods communities where kids are being educated in shacks with leaky roofs who have no idea what HIV is. At least that's what I'm led to believe, based on the number of people who tell me that I would be surprised to learn that SO MANY PEOPLE just don't understand the risks associated with having sex.

To be fair, I do have to acknowledge that I grew up in the "age of AIDS," when it was first announced, and I took it upon myself to look into the risks so I could learn what those risks were. I know about the 6-month, 3-month and 1-month latency periods; I know the risks of swallowing versus not swalowing. I know that simply by barebacking, the risk for me contracting HIV is much lower than if a guy comes in my ass, or if I've douched beforehand. I know that if I've brushed my teeth in the last 3 hours, it's best not to give head in case I brushed too hard. I know that HIV can only be contracted via access to my blood stream, and I know that although I can take all the precautions in the world, sometimes unforseen circumstances can lead to bad news.

Obviously, not everybody knows about these things. Perhaps not everybody cares to know. It's easier for some people to always have safe sex just to be on the "safe side," just as recovering drug addicts say they can never smoke pot lest it lead to them using crack again. For others, they do the things they feel most comfortable with. They self-reduce the risks and choose to accept responsibility for their actions. It's all good to me, as long as you are aware of your risks. I think you can sit and say all you want that porn producers have a certain responsibility toward this and that, but in the end, it really boils down to the individual and the choices they make in life, and the responsbility they have to themselves to get the facts and know the statistics before having sex.

That said, apparently these backwoods communities DO exist (again, so I'm told), and as I said in my previous post, it is commendable when any porn company takes the initiative to try and instill safe sex values in the movies they make. Again, I just wish they would do it more accurately and honestly, instead of just doing it for the sake of doing it.

I'd like to see more attention to ALL details in my porn, though; not just in regard to the matter of condoms. But that's just me. I'm more turned on intellectually (by things like dialogue, scenario, character and seduction) than I am by simply watching two guys have sex. But apparently I'm some kind of freak. Apparently everybody else only cares about the sex.

I know from personal experience my first two sex acts were baraback. And I didnt know the person at all. I guess I was lucky.

To be honest, I really didnt know how to use a condom.

The site I was thinking of doing was a bareback site. As many I felt there was a group of people that enjoy this. And though I disagree that unprotected sex is the way to go, I can't be judge and jury.

The site I was going to do was going to have all the porn stuff.

Then it was going to have a section, where we interviewed someone w/o showing face or anything, sorrta like a CIA agent appearing on a talk show and not be able to identify him. He's being interviewed w/ Back turned to camera. The goal was besides the regual porn too have someone talk about "What is it that really turns you on about BB" Is it the thrill of the risk, the fun part, or do you feel that the Drugs are so good know you are not worried."

Now, all these relpies make sense. But the fact that the person came on here shows he has doubt about if its something right. When you have doubt about something, then to be honest, I feel that it's not the thing for you to do.

I will offer a quote to Dizi from a book I am reading,

"The secret to making something work for you in your lives, is, first of all , the deep desire to make it work; then the faith and belief that it can work; then to hold clear definite vision in your conciousness and see it working out step by step, without one thought of doubt or belief."

IF you feel it's may not be right or have doubts, move on to something that will not make you lose sleep at night.

Who knows, there are many small towns in America and many people too shy to by them in even bigger cities, and those like me who like the best lube and the collest condoms, that you may make more money selling condoms and lube and safe sex toys.

BTW, I bought the docking toy after XXXwriter asked me to find s docking site and I couldn't. The only thing I could find was this cool docking toy. And IT FEELS GOOD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Lots of pictures of hard condomless cocks pushed up against butt holes. And then further into the shoot we are treated to the simulated fuck scenes -- one guy on top of the other in a fucking position. We don't actually see any cocks in holes, but we actually never see a condom on a cock either, not even a condom wrapper on the bed beside the couple....

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Michael

---

How right you are...and the amazing thing is that so many models are ordered to "cover the cocks" when on camera but, are able to fuck each other and fluff off camera...no condoms...and, so many models cut the ends of their rubbers off so that the illusion of condom fucking appears on film.

We've been on so many sets for so many companies over the years..

It's not amazing...it's just stupid! hypocritical and even more so...down right silly! and all to make a buck!

I've said this before, but either some folks missed it or maybe don't believe it.

In the twink market, I can tell you that a *lot* of the models really DO NOT fully comprehend the risks. They don't understand the latency period, most of them don't know anyone with full blown AIDS, and there's a sense of "Oh, it's not that big a deal any more."

Once we sit and explain it to the models, nearly all of them tell us that they didn't realize some of the aspects of the risk. Doesn't mean they don't ever bareback, but at least they've been warned and perhaps they will think about it a little more.

Even though we use safer sex, we test everyone before a shoot. We don't rely on the model's providing a (possibly faked) test result.

If a model is fully aware of the risks and still chooses to bareback, then it's their decision. However, I agree with Bostonboy that in the event a model contracts HIV later and decides to try and blame it on the studio, I'm guessing that would be a hard battle to win in court.

boyfunk,

Not to mention that there is now a "drugs are getting better, i can live a normal life" feeling in the gay lifestyle.

HIV is on the rise from what I have heard. I could be wrong.

Then look a year or so ago about the guy in NYC that had a fast moving strain of the Virus and they actualy tried to get manhunt to turn over all the possible guys he infected there.

So many people for whatever reason (mentally) just cant resist trying something after seeing it done countless times.

I fall in that category. I resisted drugs when going to circuit parties for two years, seeing my friends do it, then one day after seeing them sem to enjoy it so much, I did it as well.

IF you do a baeback site hire the Marlboro Man, he seemed to get a lot of people addicted to cigs and then there is that camel.

Show something to someone enough times and it becomes cool to them. Killing someone, you may never get them to do (though there are rare occassions), but having someone come home after the club, watching a bareback video, get horny, and go on Manhunt.net, hahahaha. Chances are he MAY leave the condoms home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

boyfunk,

but having someone come home after the club, watching a bareback video, get horny, and go on Manhunt.net, hahahaha. Chances are he MAY leave the condoms home.

---

More likely, that person, too drunk, left the club alone, came home horny and will spend money WATCHING our videos...and getting off to a fantasy...

how harmless is that - now THAT's Safe Sex at its best!

Isn't that why everybody pushes VOD? To get people to WATCH?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyfunk

I've said this before, but either some folks missed it or maybe don't believe it.

In the twink market, I can tell you that a *lot* of the models really DO NOT fully comprehend the risks. They don't understand the latency period, most of them don't know anyone with full blown AIDS, and there's a sense of "Oh, it's not that big a deal any more."

---

They don't understand, or rather, they just don't listen???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

They don't understand, or rather, they just don't listen???

---

At least based on the feedback we get, they really haven't had anyone explain the risks and the issues surrounding them in detail. Remember that thanks to the Bush nazis, many school systems breeze by STDs and anything that would remotely relate to being sexually active, and probably even more completely avoid any serious discussion of gay sex.

Now... that said, I fully agree that there are quite a few that don't listen or have the "It will never happen to me" attitude. One of our models who became positive after I knew him totally had that attitude, convinced himself that he only barebacked "occasionally" and therefore "wasn't at risk." And I think that is a prevailing thought pattern among many young people.

So we can't (and perhaps shouldn't) do anything if a model has the knowledge and chooses to engage in risky behavior. But, at least for us, we can do our best to avoid asking a model to put himself in a risky situation for our financial benefit.

The simple fact is

MANY PEOPLE ACT OUT FANTASIES THAT THEY SEE - ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED ABOUT THE RISKS!

Plain and simple.

And how and hell can any producer of bb content sleep at night knowing that in 5 or 10 years they may see a model that did a bb video for them be in a stage of HIV.

The whole concept of bb production is just morally wrong.

But like in any industry, most people think a quick buck is the answer.

And some may say I am doing it as a favor because there are some that enjoy this lifestyle and want to see it. Let them see it, let them go out and do it.

MY ANSWER TO YOU - Then donate all the fucking money you make to HIV prevention. Give back to those who you have ruined their lives.

abostonboy, nice of you to take on the role of moral compass for the entire industry. Thankfully, I have my own morality that guides my actions and I don't need to rely on yours to make sure I'm doing the "right" thing.

On my galleries that display barebacking, I place a warning on the gallery's main page that leads interested surfers to information about barebacking. I tell surfers that these galleries were created under the guise of fantasy and that they're unaware of what took place behind the scenes. I point out that the barebackers may all be positive or they may all be negative, we just don't know. I encourage people to talk to their sexual partners about HIV, drug use, their HIV-status, and what is acceptable risk for them. Ultimately I think communication between consenting adults is more important than a "just say no" message, which is not as effective. We all know that smoking is bad for us, but how many people continue to smoke. We all know that cars are killing the planet and they will drastically affect the lives of future generations, but we continue to do little to stem their use. We all know that crystal meth and other party drugs are harmful and yet we continue to promote the party within our community.

One of the things that infuritates me about this debate and this issue is the inability of people to see that barebacking is not just an issue of safe versus unsafe sex or prevention versus infection. There is a whole community of positive men, like me, who don't wish to see condoms in their porn. It's not about me promoting unsafe behaviour, it's about me presenting porn to men like me who want to see men like themselves having sex.

And I have no problem doing that because I've presented my surfers with an extensive warning. I also provide them with links to AIDS service organizations, if they want more information. So, abostonboy, while you scream that it's morally wrong, I have no trouble sleeping at night because I have done everything I feel I need to in order to present a positive, informative message. And the fact is that I do more than most sites.

The second thing that angers me about this whole debate is that the magazine in question is implying bareback sex, but yet publicly they will scream against barebacking. Pick your side of the issue and stick to it. If you believe barebacking is wrong then showing your models putting on condoms and fucking with comdoms. The point that I was trying to make is that omitting condoms and implying barebacking should be just as offensive to anti-barebacking proponents and barebacking itself.

Cheers,
Michael

I appologize for not having the time to dwell on this topic. We are in the middle of post production on a new feature and are being pulled in all directions. (I will address this issue in depth at a later time)

The problem is clearly with the lack of education our young are getting these days. The message of abstinence is not working.

And, to make matters worse, their decision making is impaired by alcohol and crystal meth abuse.

Youth is already bombarded with safe sex messages in the media. Since so many believe that porn stars are an important part of the gay community, why don't HIV porn stars who use condoms on camera step forward?

Perhaps the use of HIV positive porn stars who use condoms would be a positive message for the community - (and a frightening reality for all movie producers).

In the past, producers have successfully black listed any porn star who has come out publicly with their HIV positive status - I guess that positive people who use condoms can not have sex?!?! - Is this the message?

Consumers of our (very expensive line of adult bareback materials) are of the age and position in life to have enough discretionary income to cover the costs of our adult oriented entertainment. These consumers have made a conscious choice to watch OUR bareback videos. Youngsters don't have the kind of money it takes to buy, rent or download this kind of stuff and generally don't want to watch some old timers fucking anyway (with or without condoms!)

We have only hired two models who were younger than 25 at the time they appeared for us on camera.

We always spend a great deal of time with each applicant reviewing all of the risks involved with shooting fuck movies without condoms. We frequently turn people away who do not understand the inherent risks involved or understand the responsibilities of advising as and their on-screen partner(s) of their HIV and STD status.

We freely give our time and resources to many community based HIV organizations. Some organizations have actually turned our money down - so we often give anonymously and, some have used our celebrity to raise lots of money. (We also give freely or our time and resources to homeless organizations and environmental causes.)

De Angelo, I don't know if you remember Cole Tucker, but he was one of the only HIV-positive porn stars who was vocal about his serostatus, and he became something of a spokesman for a few years there. And he got work just fine. He may have been an exception to the rule, though.

dzi,

What you are doing is different than most. You are taking a responsible approach. Yes, you are making money, but also by providing links you are educating someone who may if he hadn't visited your site may never know.

There is a difference.

I gues this is personal as i had a friend who became HIV infected kill himself.

And sometimes when I post in a thread like this, I may not be able to do it after replying to MAX. My uprofesssionalism comes out. Even though using Max as an excuse is wrong. i have to take responibilty for what i say no matter what and tray and think from all angles.

But, I still do not like the producyion of bb amongst people who are negative and the promotion of such material without some education.

And to be very honest with you Dzi, You are educating people who may never visit these education sites. That may save a life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

The simple fact is

MANY PEOPLE ACT OUT FANTASIES THAT THEY SEE - ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED ABOUT THE RISKS!

Plain and simple.

And how and hell can any producer of bb content sleep at night knowing that in 5 or 10 years they may see a model that did a bb video for them be in a stage of HIV.

The whole concept of bb production is just morally wrong.

---

That's a little preachy for my taste, bostonboy.

"Morally wrong" is a very subjective term, don't you think? It's not something that is set and stone. Most morals are things that some out of community traditions and standards. In some cultures, incest is fine; in America, it's taboo. A lot of what passes for "morals" in this country is little more than Judeo-Christian values shoved down our throats ad nauseum. It's really not for one person to say what is "morally wrong"--or, for that matter, right--for everyone else.

Of course, we like to think that we have the corner market on morals in this country. And especially in this business. It's the topic of my latest column in the upcoming July issue AVN Online magazine, as a matter of fact--how porn people are so deadset on pointing fingers at each other instead of banning together to fight the good fight.

I don't think there's anything "morally wrong" inherent in the simple production of bareback material. Ultimately--just as in any kind of adult content being produced--it depends on how the producers are going about doing it. I've heard horror stories of major gay studios who jip their models and take advantage of them. I think if the bb producers take the necessary precautions to ensure that their models know the risks and if they sero-sort them based on poz and neg status, those are pretty much acceptable conditions for producing bb material. If additionally they then make sure to produce HIV-prevention messages to accompany that content, that's commendable.

As dzinebear points out, I think bb material is very useful for those who wish to see it. Not all men use condoms when they have sex. Why should they have to watch other men use condoms in the porn they see? If I'm poz and sleep with other poz men who don't use rubberss or if I'm in a committed, monogamous relationship with a negative partner, why shouldn't I have the right to view the kind of adult content that specifically addresses my sex life? Just as gay people have wanted to see accurate repersentations of themselves in movies and on TV for years, so, too, do those who indulge in a certain kind of sexual activity want to see their sex lives honestly depicted in adult material. Who's to say that's "morally wrong"?

The debate over bareback material, to me, comes down to just a few basic points:

1) Is there a market for it?

2) Is there a way to produce material for that market that takes into account model safety yet also delivers the kind of content the audience wants to see?

3) Were the models aware of the risks before they agreed to participate in bb content, and did they give their expressed permission to be filmed partaking in it?

4) Did the producers take every precaution on set to ensure that models were not engaged in activity that they did not feel comfortable with?

5) Did the producers include HIV-prevention statements that warn audiences of the risks associated with condomless sex prior to the movie's credits?

6) Is the sex featured in the film accurate in its portrayal of human sexuality?

In my humble opinion, if those six questions can be answered with a yes, then there should be no qualms with how those producers conducted themselves on their sets. They are simply providing material for a market that wishes to see it, just as cigarette manufacturers are doing, just as alcohol companies are doing, just as mountain climbing groups and organizations are doing, and just as bungee-jumping companies are doing.

Whether or not we as individuals have a responsiblity to "babysit" everyone else and "spread healthy messages about sexuality" is really up to each individual. Some people believe there's a higher purpose than their own financial gain; others feel it's their responsibility to take the higher road. I guess it's up to each one of us to decide what works for us and what doesn't.

Personally, I try to live a judgment-free life in general. It's not up to me to say what's right and wrong for other people. I try to abide by a live-and-let-live outlook on life. I think above all, we all have a certain responsibility to each other to live that kind of life, but then again, I have to acknowledge that not everyone thinks the same way I do and that, while I may think I'm always "right," others might think I'm way off-base in my thinking.

Anyways, that's my $.02. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

I gues this is personal as i had a friend who became HIV infected kill himself.

And sometimes when I post in a thread like this, I may not be able to do it after replying to MAX. My uprofesssionalism comes out. Even though using Max as an excuse is wrong. i have to take responibilty for what i say no matter what and tray and think from all angles.

---

I'm glad you realize that. Personally, I HATE it when someone says, "My brother or my sister or my so-and-so died as a result of BLANK," b/cuz it immediately turns a debate emotional, and there's simply no room for emotion in mature, theoretical debate. In fact, there's no quicker way to kill a debate than to turn it personal.

Whether or not anyone tested positive as a result of barebacking has no relevance on how others should live their own lives or produce their content. Ultimately, it must boil down to what is best for each person going by their own moral compass.