Printable View
Seems the solution to avoiding this problem in the future would be to require the 48 hour test 2 days before shooting with a signed agreement from each model pledging to obstain from sex for 48 hours prior to the shoot.
Does this sound logical and safe?
Are you going to lock the door and post guards as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
;)
I was just about to say, my (totally unscientific) opinion would be that porn actors that would agree to do bareback scenes would more than likely not be considered benchmarks of uprightness or veracity... (not that there's anything wrong with that...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushiel
Jasun,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
Thanks, you have my apologies. Guess I jumped the gun on that. Any, yep, I'll accept the "flirting" as oppsed to "hitting". He's still talking about that so you certainly made an impression.
And, I'll agree that the "tag" could be placed on the Cumhole Competition. Actually, we've never done that again and what I do find particularly disgusting within the bareback side of the industry are the 20 load and then 30 load and 50 load weekends. That's a bit over the top even for us.
And Chip, just as a point of clarification, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the issue of....what is referred to as a "super-infection" has, to the best of my knowledge never been proven. Their is a lot of literature that talks about the "possibility" of it, but everything I've read about it, and as a person with HIV, I stay pretty updated on HIV research, all I've ever seen is that it is referred to as a theory and possibility, especially if the particular strain of the HIV virus that is common place in remote parts of the world every begins to spread here within in the United States. At this point, the number of individuals who have been diagnosed with that strain in this country as to not even being counted in the statistics.
No model shoots for us who isn't fully aware of all of the risks involved with having unsafe sex. While I've never confirmed or denied that our models are HIV+, I can tell you that if a prospective model tells us that he is HIV negative and wants to become infected on our set, their is a better chance that China will become a democracy and George Bush will be their President than the prospective model will ever be involved in one of our productions.
If we can ever figure out a way to test the models on the day of the shoot and get the results immediately, we'll be doing it. But, at this point we haven't had any luck accomplishing this. We've even requested the permission to use the test known as OraSure, but it's only available to doctors offices and clinics who test for HIV.
As for the other STD's, of course we are concerned, especially HEP-C, and we spend a lot of time talking with our models about these issues.
If you guys are at the show in LA, hope you are having a blast. Two of our guys, Lee and Luis are there, be sure to say "hi" if you see them.
Bill
I notice no one ever has a problem discussing the controversial subjects here :french: but the Gay Porn Blogs sure do. :chicken:
Guess I am not one of them http://dewayneinsd.blogspot.com/2007...th-hiv-on.html
BTW I repeat here what I say in my post on the UK story what a lot of us have a problem with are young men in England (or Euroland) paid 300 or 400 for a Bareback scene that may or may not result in infection.
No one seriously includes a company like HDK or even T.I.M. since they are using Adult men who know and should understand the risks and are assumed to be POZ.
Young Twink boys doing the same (even if they do so in their private lives) is simply reprehensible and will ultimately damage All Gay Porn!
An 18 yo simply don't know squat, who cares if its legal to film him BareBack,that does not make it right!
Well, no... not exactly the point that I'm making. While there have been several times that I've read in various adult publications about larger studios forbidding their talent from being promiscuous whilst on a shoot, (if I remember correctly, Bel Ami was one of them, and I think maybe Falcon.. but this is from memory - don't quote me) this is an occurrence that has two major points.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwildwest
One - These are bigger companies that can afford to put up the talent for the entirety of the shoot, whether it be for a couple days or a couple weeks for full - length features.
Secondarily, oft-times these are experienced talent that understand exactly what is going on, understand exactly what the reasons for the precautions are, and they have enough of a rapport with the studio to have a level of trust between them.
For a lot of the younger studios, this isn't something that they're able to have, simply because the maturity and rapport aren't present - they have boys, (*ahem* Young men) that they get off the street locally, or who drive in. There's not a great deal of control there. What if the talent came into town early and decided to check out the local scene prior to the shoot? From what I understand, the men would have to have not engaged in behavior that would put them at risk for at least 90 days or so prior to the test, for it to be within an accurate "window period".
"Benchmarks of uprightness or veracity?" Perhaps not. Teenagers and young men that think that they're invincible and it'll only happen to someone else? Absolutely. 'Fresh' talent that don't understand the internal politics, practices, history, and risks of the industry? Damn right. Naïve young men who think that every producer is a, "benchmark of uprightness and veracity," because they portray themselves as the best friend, able to promise them the world, money, and all they sex they can handle? I'm afraid so.
No, not all studios are like this... not all talent is that gullible... but some are. The scary thing is... a lot of times, you don't know who is who until after the fact.
Of course at the show, this thread has been a topic of conversation and everyone seems to agree that studios should take a bit of responsibility.
Anyone should know about the 48-hour tests, but that's not even the real issue.
It's too easy to say that these men are 18 and can make their own decisions, but I think we can all agree that if you're 18 and HIV-, having bareback sex isn't a good decision and we as the responsible adults need to step in. Young men think they're invincible and are notorious for making bad decisions and I think it's unconscionable for companies to exploit that.
when my little brother told me that he was having bareback sex, I kicked his ass. Maybe it's too much to ask that the adult industry puts their performers ahead of a bit more money?
Oh, and I got about 30 people offering to buy me a drink for using the term "Bottom Feeders." Too bad I went to rehab and no longer drink, eh?:thumbsdown:
Too bad? Not a bit. If you've made the decision to be sober, you shouldn't regret it. Otherwise, the choice is pointless. Just tell them that you'll gladly accept a Jack and Coke, hold the Jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
:thumbsup:
I've watched young men die horrid deaths for 30 years. Too many of them, dear Friends. In the begining, I was able to justify the poor choices because of the Gov't lies and lack of clear information. However I will NEVER understand why in 2007- with a full generation that has never known a world without AIDS- ANYONE has to explain the risks you take, when you don't wrap the willie.
My 22 year old Son's eduction about STDs began LONG before he ever thought about getting laid, and I know his public school experiences aren't any different than any other US student. PSAs, thinking parents, TV shows and even their middle schools have sent out the message loud and clear - yet I'm hearing that new models have to be informed of the risks. Actually Educated.
Sure you have to speak it - to do otherwise would be illegal- but truly should any of you HAVE to?
Sigh.
Hell, hold out for dinner! Anyway, sober you really get more done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushiel
Madame,Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
As a member of the self same generation, I have to point out that I was educated in school too.. In a backward town on the KY/TN border. I knew about it, I read about it, I learned about it in -every- health class that I had, from middle school up. Every health class, whether it was Sex Ed, or not.
That being said, are you really and truly that surprised? There are kids running around drinking and driving. There are grown adults running around drinking and driving. Want drugs? Find a gay friend, they've got the -best- drugs. Wanna fuck? Who needs a condom? No one, of course.
Yes, we should legally have to make sure that we make talent aware of every risk in the business. We also have to relentlessly pound it into everyone's head, because my generation, to be frank... doesn't care.
Like it was said prior, young men think they're invincible. I myself went through it. I was at every club, at every party. I knew the risks.. and I took them anyway because it was fun, and flaunting danger is a young man's prerogative. Was it smart? Bloody hells, no - and I'm lucky I came out of it.
From dating a call boy, to sharing his 'income'... it took him OD'ing and dying to wake me up, but it did.
Just because someone's been told about the danger, doesn't mean they consciously will admit to it. That's why we have to shout it at them, because if they refuse to think about it..
Out of sight, out of mind... Even if they deliberately put it out of sight.
*sighs right back at you* Of course we shouldn't -have- to. You may have been at it longer, but I think all of us here have friends or family that this affects. Time doesn't make it any easier.:kickcan:
how sad for those young guys :(
Well of course not :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Kushiel
Most producers ask models not to cum for the two days prior to a shoot anyway to assure a hot money shot.
Having a model sign an agreement that they wont have sex for the two days after the test, and until the shoot, would eliminate liability on the producers side if anyone was to be infected, but more importantly it puts into realization that failure to do so could endanger their life.
Everyone here has had unprotected sex in their lifetime. It's troubling to see the hypocrisy that straight bareback sex is natural, but Gay bareback sex is deadly. Gay porn actors have to wear condoms, straight porn actors don't. I don't see anyone here producing Gay porn where the actor getting a blowjob is wearing a condom. What a mess! Whoever is pushing this agenda really needs to look at WHY and WHO is influencing them to do so.
and straight also doesn't produce no-condom movies with known HIV+ models cuming in another model's ass
What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by jIgG