Printable View
I have to jump in here for a sec... Not every studio shoots their own "exclusive" content and it's up to the studio AND videographer to ensure the model is well informed and checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
And not all studios require a test with your name on it. There are "free" testing locations that offer full anonymous testing. My brother was once told to do this because it was free and the studio would accept the test.
So far the primary argument against shooting gay porn without condoms are abuses and wrongdoings by the producers and sexually active models that have sex after their test but before they perform. These are not issues with condomless porn, these are issues with the people involved doing things they should not. The issues should not be confused. We should not condemn condomless porn because there are some bad people involved in it; the bad behavior should be addressed and corrected.
The next argument is that porn without condoms send the wrong message. As much as I respect the speakers, I say "fuck that noise" because when one wants to stifle expression because it "sends the wrong message" that is censorship, and I unconditionally support the right to expression, even if it is unpopular.
Condomless porn in itself is not bad and should not be penalized or marginalized. The abuses by the bad apples do need to be addressed, but a blanket condemnation of the genre of porn without condoms will not solve any problems at all. The market dictates what will be produced; the suppliers are responsible for HOW.
My own experience generalizes only to twinks and twink studios, because I've not had much opportunity to talk to models other than twinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Within the twink genre, and according to the stories I hear from models (which may or may not be reliable), the correlation between [sloppy or nonexistent testing and inadequate risk disclosure or risk minimization] and [bareback producers] is near 100%. I'm not confusing the issues, but I am saying that the coexistence of the two is extremely high in twink porn.
One well known DVD producer told a retailer (with a straight face) that his bareback porn was only shot with "real, committed boyfriends." Interesting how one model must have had 8 real, committed boyfriends in the space of a couple months. It's that sort of disingenuous stuff that we don't need and doesn't help the industry.
I completely agree.Quote:
We should not condemn condomless porn because there are some bad people involved in it; the bad behavior should be addressed and corrected.
There is a huge difference between stifling expression and encouraging producers to send positive messages. I can't speak for others, but I do not advocate restricting the right of producers to produce bareback porn, simply because I cannot condone restricting speech or expression. However, I do advocate voluntary responsibility. There's no question that it sends a mixed message to encourage our youth to use condoms and be safe, and in the same breath, glamourize porn where condoms are not used. I'm not in favor of any sort of regulatory restriction on barebacking, but I do think it would be good if producers would voluntarily choose to produce less of it.Quote:
The next argument is that porn without condoms send the wrong message. As much as I respect the speakers, I say "fuck that noise" because when one wants to stifle expression because it "sends the wrong message" that is censorship, and I unconditionally support the right to expression, even if it is unpopular.
Our disclosure process is pretty complete. We discuss the risks of barebacking (and why we don't shoot it), the risks of oral transmission, condom breakage, ways to reduce risks of oral transmission while shooting scenes, the latency period and the limitations of the testing that we do, and the permanence of the decision to do porn (web and DVD distribution and the fact that our content is distributed worldwide, and we are a pretty well branded studio with wide visibility.) Most of that is done before the models ever decide to work with us, and we go over it again in a discussion once the models arrive, and after discussion, have them read and sign statements that they have understood everything, they are not relying on our STI testing in making their decisions, and that there are real risks. We currently test for syphillis, hep-C and HIV, because those are the most difficult to treat, and will likely add chlymidia and gonorrhea soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
We do have a small but significant number of models who are initially gung-ho who, after we've gone through disclosure, decide not to do porn. Although we sometimes lose a cute model, I would much rather do that than have someone later be unhappy with their decision.
I'm sure our process isn't perfect, and there's no question that any sexual activity involves a certain amount of risk of transmission of various STDs, but we do the best we can to provide full disclosure and a safe working environment.
I can only speak for myself of course. WE test everyone , for everything. We attend the instant HIV test and wait in the outer room for the actor to return with the written ( nameless ) results . That way we receive the paper before it is folded , etc pretty much insuring someone did not pull a bait and switch on the results. Is this fool proof ? No. And locked cars get stolen, I lock mine anyway .
I am much more concerned about BB studios who do not test, who discourage testing when the guys ask about and knowingly placed Pos guys with neg guys. When I received THAT chat log, I was horrified .
Most BB compnaies I think, I hope, are far more responsible . Ultimately , this is the ADULT industry, everyone must take responsiblity for their health .
you know, everyone... I'd love to join in for a spirited debate...
however, we are in the middle of relocating our home and business to the Central Coast of California and I'm up to my nipples in wires and plugs
I'll join in sometime in the next week or so (if this thread is still alive)
somehow, this topic is always a HOT one
so keep it going, always love good, whole hearted discussions on this topic
much love to everyone from Tony&Cam
the BAREBACK MASTERS
up to your nipples in wires and plugs - now THERE's a picture *LOL*
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
My main concern with the bareback porn segment is that some models might be accepting the jobs (and risk) out of money desperation. When I watch these scenes I can't help but wonder if behind the performance, the bottom is trembling in fear over the raw dick of some guy being inside him. All in the name of no other options to pay this months rent. Those are the models I fear for.
There will always be the other models, the promiscuous guys who are trying to hookup at the club every single weekend. The ones who'll bareback with anyone. If you want to capture what is their everyday behavior on film, I guess that's not such a big deal. But how do you really know who is who?
I have always believed producers should leave barebacking up to the models just before the scene is shot. Not a requirement to get the job. Not paid a penny more. No incentive to do it. Only then do you know it was 100% consensual.
i've definitely heard stories about models who didn't want to bareback but desparately needed the money.
i think your description of those who bareback willingly sounded very judgemental. how is someone who fucks without a condom more promiscuous than someone who wears a condom? for that matter, i feel that the entire concept of promiscuity is archaic. why shouldn't a person fuck who they want for pleasure?
a bareback production can't leave it up to the last minute whether the models will use condoms as their material is - by definition - condom-free. i also think leaving it to the model at the last minute means no full disclosure and also allows the model to make a spur of the moment choice he or she would not have made if someone had sat down with them and explained everything. it also wouldn't work if one model suddenly thought "fuck it - i'm going bareback!" in a scene with a guy who is condom-only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Chad...the more I read what you write, the more I like and respect you!
I want to thank you for eloquently expressing some of the very same things I think as well.
I am curious to know something....
Of all the producers who allow bareback, how many have HIV themselves?
I don't ,lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
and honestly....i know maybe 20 producers and as far as i know,non of them is HIV positive...and non of prducers shouldnt alow bareback... no mether is is it straight or gay... without ALL TESTS POSIBLE
I have to wonder about any model so desperate for money that he was forced to pose bareback. too many companies are hiring / shooting all the time doing condom work . However whatever the situation, "Letting models decide " is a cop out, unless producers are insisting on seeing test results. Are tests perfect? no. Locked cars get stolen all the time , I lock mine anyway . Precuations and common decency are not a bad thing
.
I do not believe that models who shoot porn are all "so desperate for money". I think if you want to use such a broad blanket statement, how about this one:
"I have to wonder about any model so desperate for money that he was forced to pose nude or even worse, so desperate for money that he was forced to have sex on film"
Sounds a bit ridiculous, I know but it is said every day by judgmental right wing porn haters everywhere.
I think if you met some of the bareback producers, like Tony or THE ENTIRE STRAIGHT PORN WORLD, you would not be so judgmental about bareback films. But, everyone has the right to an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Agreed..that is such a strawman arguement that is used all the time by those opposed to bare back sites.
Perhaps it would be better to argue that bareback sites pay MORE than regular sites. I honestly don't know the stats on that..but would make more sense to me that the other way around.