Bareback film studio creates contraversy at CLAW

I'm glad to see that this debate about bareback porn is being done in a genuinely sincere manner. I have shied away from other conversations before which were not "adult" in nature. This is an issue that I believe to be important for the community both in porn and in general.

Around 10% of my gay movies are bareback. And no, I don't have 10 guys coming into someone's ass. It is done naturally and not emphasized. And both models have to be comfortable getting tested and doing it. We do label it bareback for two reasons. First, it sells better, and I would be lying if I said I don't want to have a product that sells better. And two, I don't want a customer all pissed off at me because I didn't let him know a particular scene was bareback (yes - that's happened).

Also, all of my Straight Guys for Gay Eyes straight porn movies are done without condoms. 99% of my movies are done with models (including myself) tested through the AIM clinic or Biocollections in Miami using the PCR/DNA test (not the antibody test). The only exception I have made is when the couple being shot are spouses or lovers, and this is what they do normally.

But this conversation should go beyond "bareback" and also talk about "barecock." Though everyone has been taught endlessly that anal sex without a condom is unsafe, almost everyone thinks that oral sex without a condom IS safe. Not so. It is safer, but oral sex without a condom is NOT safe. If you don't believe me, take a look at this article from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) where a study showed that 7.8% of people got infected through oral sex. [they won't let me put in the url, so bare with me - Go to cdc dot gov slash hiv slash resources slash factsheets slash oralsexqa and end it with htm.]

A quote from this article: "The Options Project found that 7.8% (8 of 102) of recently infected men who have sex with men in San Francisco were probably infected through oral sex. Most of these men believed that the risk was minimal or non-existent."

So, if all producers want to be completely responsible and make sure that no one mimicks unsafe sex acts, they better start putting condoms on cocks before they get sucked. We wouldn't want 7.8% of boys from the sticks to get HIV because they saw some hot hunks sucking cocks bare, and they had accidently bitten the inside of their mouth while chewing tabacky.

Of course most of us would have to retire, too. No one is going to pay to see guys, or girls, sucking cock with condoms on. Of course there would still be solo videos and lesbian flicks.

Now, I'm not exactly a youngster so I know that everyone under the age of 30 has been educated the hell out of safe anal sex. Is there anyone who really needs to know that anal sex without a condom is not as safe?

I've been on the fence about whether I should mention the fact that everyone is tested for these scenes or if I should just leave it alone. Do I bring it up and possibly ruin the moment or do I tell them the background info?

All of your thoughts on whether or not to comment about this would be appreciated. As I've said, I've been sitting on the fence on this and the fence post is getting painful.

As for the monkey-see-monkey-hit-clown scenario I have to point something out. If people actually did in real-life sex what they see in porn, there would never have been an AIDS epidemic. There would have been AIDS, don't get me wrong, but I doubt it would have spread like it did. Why? Because all the tops would have pulled out and shot on the bottom's back or belly like they used to do in pre-condom classics. So, sorry, the monkey-see hypothesis doesn't hold up to logic.

In short my point of view is:

1) Everyone is educated about safe sex.
2) Adults should be viewing porn and not impressionable children.
3) My business is to provide a fantasy, but to do it responsibly.
4) The use of a condom brings up STDs and thus reduces the fantasy.
5) To be 100% responsible for both the safety of my models and the few impressionable people out there I would have to use condoms for both anal and oral sex.

Those are my dos centavos.

Be good.

Jake,

Thank you for the thoughtful contribution, and kudos for the clever way of getting around the "no url" block for new members.

For those who don't want to translate, here's the link:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac.../oralsexqa.htm

I'm really glad to see this cite, because I got ripped at gaymainstreet several months ago after saying, from memory, that I remembered a study that said something like 8% oral transmission rate. I'm a little frustrated, though, because after 45 minutes of searching in Medline and Google, I can't find any original citation to the actual presentation referenced in the Q&A. (It was a poster summarizing the results of their research.)

It is interesting, however, that the studies cited in the bibliography are contradictory. Some show no evidence whatsoever of oral transmission, and one showed that the self-reports by the subjects of not having anal sex turned out to be inaccurate when the subjects were re-interviewed, so it's unclear how accurate the cited report actually is. And that report is dated 2000; it would be interesting to know what other information has been obtaned in the last 6+ years.

The other interesting thing I found in reading the abstracts of several of the journal articles is that a large majority of the subjects who did experience oral transmission of HIV reported bleeding gums or other oral irritation problems, and nearly all also reported have cum and/or precum in their mouths.

We've made the decision to not shoot cum eating or to for a model to ejaculate in another model's mouth for the same reason we don't shoot bareback. About a year ago, we also started including disclosures to our models about risks of oral transmission, and we changed preshoot prep procedures to include telling our models not to brush their teeth for at least 90 minutes prior to the shoot, as this increases the risk of oral transmission. Yet we realize that there is still risk, and I agree with Jake that it's not possible to completely remove the risk, and some could argue that it is inconsistent to show oral sex without a condom if one is showing protected anal sex. We know that some people view our content as not as "hot" as other studios simply because we choose not to include cumming in mouths, and few facial cum scenes as well, but that's a cost/benefit analysis that we've chosen.

What I think is clear is that each studio (and model) has to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with. The one disagreement I would have is on the level of education that young people have. I find that in the detailed discussions we have with our models (generally 18-19 year olds, with a few who are 20-22), most of them are not really clear on the risks, particularly when it comes to what it really means to test negative. Many are surprised, and quite a few tell us months later that our conversations with them were meaningful in changing their behaviors. So, at least based on the sample of kids represented by our models, we *do* have an opportunity to educate them better than the Bush-mandated abstinence-based sex ed programs have done, and I *don't* think that everyone under 30 is really clear on the risks.

Jake, on the issue of saying that your models are tested, I would say that all the education you can provide is beneficial. I doubt that many will be "turned off" to know that your models were tested and serosorted (assuming that's the case) prior to shooting the scene; if part of the goal is in part to encourage responsible behavior, then providing that bit of information may help to remind people that they're viewing fantasy that is outside the normal realm of "safe" behavior in the real world.

interesting thing is this, this thread has inspired me to view some of the old vids we have in our stacks and I've dug out vhs titles to review and see when companies really did stop shooting without condoms and transition into the safe sex genre...

we are finding videos without condoms being shot way into the late 80's like 88 and 89 and producers knew damn well what was going on with HIV infection and how to prevent it - shame on the studios for putting those models at risk without the benefit of today's modern scientific knowledge...

I have to admit that enjoy the "pre-condom" classics for their authenticity and full development of plot, characters and theme - so lacking in today's "hotel room" vids....great lighting, great and healthy looking models (all a little too young for me for the most part) - imaginative sets and fuck positions - no chintzing out on good cum shots - generally inaudible horrible dialog and most of all - very predictable plot development and organization of sexual positions - lousy title sequences, etc.... but, these have served us well as inspiration for our situation sex videos....

one thing I can say for certain is, thank god the studios started handing out viagra to their models by the time we hit the sets - some of the older videos lack big, stiff dick...

Chip,

Thanks for sending out the url. I guess once I participate more I'll get the privilege. I do intend to make the time to converse with everyone more. Just like the time I'm going to make to go the gym! LOL

While early 2000 isn't yesterday, it seems to be the most current information on this subject. There have been other studies, as those in the bibilography state, but not with the higher number of subjects.

There is a lot more information out there. I did a Google search for "hiv transmission through oral sex" and got this article, and many more.

Personally, my best friend since junior high contracted HIV orally. He had problems with bleeding gums for years and he swears it is the only thing he did that could have contracted HIV. I believe him.

On my gay site the only one who eats cum is me. I get all the facials and take the risk. Of course I take as many precautions when doing so. One precaution I haven't taken is to have all models that give me a facial tested through AIM. After reading the CDC article I'll make sure they all are.

Most of the guys that give me facials are straight and have been tested for their straight porn scene. But some of the guys were shot before their straight scene and were not yet tested. I've been lucky.

Kudos to GayBucks for taking the time to inform their models about the risks even though you don't do bareback or facials. I am surprised that so many of the kids you state do not have the basic information that anal sex without condoms is risky. It's not just the current Presidumb's policies that I am referring to, it's every movie, tv show, People magazine article, etc. Not to mention word of mouth from their friends.

I don't really get into this with my models because I shoot anal gay scenes with condoms or with testing, and all straight scenes with testing. Since I don't do HIV+ bareback, I don't serosort. Even if the two HIV+ models were comfortable doing so, I would not be. Re-infection causing an increase in viral load is still not confirmed or unconfirmed.

I know that the AIM clinic has literature about HIV/STD transmission and I will make sure that all new models have read it. Most of my models are in their mid to late 20's so they aren't kids. Yet it can't hurt to hand them the lit before the shoot.

And thanks for your comment on educating my members about how we do bareback. I've thought of a solution that may not be too distracting for those who don't want their fantasy ruined. I'll just put up a link called "About Bareback" on the scene page, then if they are interested they can link to a page with the full explanation.

useful tools to help navigate the current data bases re: the ever changing landscape of HIV transmission - what is ok and what is considered risky behavior -

there are all sorts of valuable resources available to us these days, here are but a couple...

By Will Boggs, MD
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jan 15 - Selection by men of sexual partners and behaviors according to HIV status, a phenomenon called serosorting, influences the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, according to a report in the December 2006 issue of Sexually Transmitted Infections.

"Prevention with positives is a promising point of intervention to slow the epidemic by preventing further transmission," Dr. Willi McFarland from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, California told Reuters Health. "With respect to serosorting in particular, physicians should be ready to discuss the implications of HIV-positive patients having unprotected sex with other HIV-positives."

Dr. McFarland and colleagues attempted to assess whether increases in HIV serosorting contribute to preventing further expansion of the epidemic and have other effects on other sexually transmitted diseases.

Despite decreases in the incidence of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco, the authors report, cases of rectal gonorrhea and early syphilis increased from 1998 to 2004.

Over this interval, there was an increase in unprotected anal intercourse, the results indicate, but the behavior decreased among HIV-negative and HIV-positive MSM with partners of unknown HIV serostatus.

"Our data support the hypothesis that MSM are increasingly selecting HIV seroconcordant partners when engaging in unprotected anal intercourse," the investigators say. "The choice of HIV negative people as the insertive partner, referred to as strategic positioning (or 'seropositioning') may reflect a second strategy to decrease HIV risk."

"There are other reasons why people may choose partners of the same serostatus beyond the risk of HIV transmission," Dr. McFarland explained. "For example, HIV-positive persons may find more support in a relationship with another HIV-positive person because they share many more of the challenging aspects of living with HIV."

The investigator concluded: "Our observations and studies of serosorting may simply be documenting the rise of a community-generated HIV prevention strategy that is happening whether we have any control over it or not." Dr. McFarland said.

Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:461-466.

Reuters Health Information 2007. © 2007 Reuters Ltd.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

also

I think seattle's web page on serosorting is impressive. so matter a fact and with flash crappy images to distract the eyes. and it mentions poppers as something of concern. also like that it uses the widespread accepted vernacular 'serosorting.' very easy to find practical info and answers to basic questions.

Seattle and King County Health dept

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/in...erosorting.htm

and on the other hand, i am not taken with the SF/les pappas showy site. saying 'status-sorting' is confusing to some people, when we've all been using the word 'serosorting'. guess SF always thinks it has to (re)invent the wheel. and i loathe all the distracting bright colors. what is this, an update of 'laugh-in'?
difficult to locate basic info and facts, and takes a few clicks to do so.

San Francisco Department of Public Health HIV prevention
http://disclosehiv.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeCruise

Chip,
I am surprised that so many of the kids you state do not have the basic information that anal sex without condoms is risky. It's not just the current Presidumb's policies that I am referring to, it's every movie, tv show, People magazine article, etc. Not to mention word of mouth from their friends.

---

Just to clarify, the kids all have heard the message they're supposed to use condoms. What they haven't heard is about the actual risk of transmission, the fact that someone with a negative test result can actually be infected and transmitting HIV before testing positive (especially since most people don't get PCR tests), and what having HIV actually means in terms of day-to-day life and lifestyle. And very few of them realize that hep-C is in many cases more difficult/complicated to teach, is rising among gay men, and is transmitted via the same methods (blood and semen) as HIV. Part of the reason we added hep-C testing to the mix (along with syphillis) in 2006.

Yuk, I apparently had an Alzheimer's moment.

What I meant to say was hep-c is more difficult/complicated to *treat* and also that most people *outside the adult industry* don't get PCR tests.

I know this is all a tremendous confusion for we adults - I can't imagine how youth today are trying to sort through this vast and ever changing landscape of choices, rhetoric, hypocrisies, mis-beliefs and truths relevant to the transmission of HIV and an assortment of potentially damaging STD's

That is why WE believe it is ESSENTIAL for all to educate themselves on these issues and stay on top (like me) or at the bottom (like Cam) of the latest information available to us - this is essential as responsible producers of ALL types of porn - condom coated or not

remember: knowledge = power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeCruise

As for the monkey-see-monkey-hit-clown scenario I have to point something out. If people actually did in real-life sex what they see in porn, there would never have been an AIDS epidemic. There would have been AIDS, don't get me wrong, but I doubt it would have spread like it did. Why? Because all the tops would have pulled out and shot on the bottom's back or belly like they used to do in pre-condom classics. So, sorry, the monkey-see hypothesis doesn't hold up to logic.

---

I'm starting to agree with this stance. Thinking about it, when you see tv shows like "cops" or other dangerous reality tv shows, they don't go into every scenario they show and tell you the danger of driving fast, crashing a plane, Jwalking, etc. etc. They say the show is for "mature audiences"

I think the Gay porn industry has been inundated with the PC bug. Porn is for mature adults, not children who don't know about STD's. On my sleepingmen.com site I have disclaimers that the content is fantasy, to avoid idiot copycats. That's as far as my responsibility goes as a content producer. And Jake is right, if people did as they see in porn they'd always pull out and HIV would be close to a distant memory.

Is it really hard for people to promote bareback films? Are they really shut out of the industry?

There are some events, such as GayVN awards, that have recently stopped accepting bareback titles for nomination. And there are publications like the Specialty family (Freshmen, etc) that, at least last I checked, did not accept ads for bareback products. And there are VODs, such as Naked Sword and Maleflixxx, that will not accept bareback product.

But I see bareback advertising everywhere, bareback titles selling exceptionally well, and (unfortunately) lazy producers - I am not talking here about the people who have a philosophy about wanting to produce bareback, but the people who are too lazy to put out good quality safe product, and instead put out a shitty bareback product because it's an easy sale - producing more and more bareback product.

I think there's plenty of opportunity for both bareback and safe producers to sell their wares. There are a few opportunities, such as I listed above, for safe producers that bareback producers can't make use of, but I doubt that anyone who is looking for bareback product has any difficulty finding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

There are some events, such as GayVN awards, that have recently stopped accepting bareback titles for nomination. And there are publications like the Specialty family (Freshmen, etc) that, at least last I checked, did not accept ads for bareback products. And there are VODs, such as Naked Sword and Maleflixxx, that will not accept bareback product.

---

you know Chip, I really want to respond to your statement and to the total insanity behind those who run these enterprises but....

I am saving all of that negativity for my book and putting all of my positive energy into the documentary project I am working on - good things come back to us you know 10 fold as I have been lead to understand....