Barebacking

Chip & the Guys:

I think it is easy to write off people's actions as ones based on "not knowing all the facts." The fact is that every person approaches risky behaviour differently. I have often contemplated this, and used it as an interesting lens at explaining people's sexual choices.

Some people are drawn to a safe and boring civil service job with the post office or a city agency. Some people will work through high school and college, get a degree that gives them a specific skill, like accounting, and then become an accountant for the rest of their life.

Others will pick careers that are very difficult to get into - like film acting or writing novels. And starting your own business is certainly only done by someone who accepts risk.

Some people just ride motorcycles, statistically, an extremely dangerous practice. Some people buy land in the country and aspire to start a winery.
Others leap onto the Atkins Diet.

Why is this any different from how people approach their sex lives?
That means that people can have "complete information" and still engage in barebacking.

So therefore define "smart and informed choice...."

Also, I maintain that the Internet is the main culprit to barebacking - because everyone's sexual behaviours have never been so easily and widely chronicled since post 1996 - with sexual profiles, personal websites, digital cameras, instant messaging and broadband.

I am not convinced it is the gay porn movie companies who film their scenes without condoms.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotMaleVideos

Thanks to everybody contributing to this thread... While there are lots of differing opinions, I feel like I at least have a better understanding of both sides of the issue than before it began.

Usually this topic rapidly inflates into someone electing themselves as the moral police and down-talks to the dissenters, and then people stop listening to each other very quickly. So, thumbs up for the real dialog. :thumbsup:

---

this is definetly "the great divide" but ignoring this subject does not make it go away and/or any better.
there are always valid points against "bareback" and very little "for" ( let us ignore the obvious "it feels good" , "condoms are so troublesome" , "but were a couple" , "etc." ) other than the obvious reasons of "models approached me" , "i have an interest in photographing it" and a "market for it" i probably would not bother. ( i generally need 3 reasons to make a decision "guy is cute" , "i want to do him" , " 1 & 2 should be good enough! )
i have always viewed this as a choice , you either choose to do this or you choose not.
..."barebacking can be hazardous to your health"... there is no cure at present , be responsible and make an informed decision by consulting with a physician and/or medical expert before engaging in unsafe-sex practices.

jim

Whenever we have this discussion, we always seem to focus on the prevention of infection aspect. Rarely does anyone discuss HIV-positive people themselves.

Not all HIV-positive men use condoms because they see no need. Whether there's a risk for reinfection or not, they have opted to better quality sex, i.e. condomless sex feels better. And what a sero-concordant couple does in their own bedroom is nobody's business.

Likewise, when watching porn, positive men don't necessarily want to watch guys fucking with condoms. They perhaps don't want to be reminded in a moment of fantasy about their condition. Or, perhaps they would just like to see more of themselves represented in porn.

While I agree that our entire industry should encourage condom use, I think a bigger crisis facing our community is crystal meth use. And I think we should be taking that one on head-on. Afterall, when a couple of guys are suped up on tina, condoms are the last thing on their minds, even if they're watching a condomed video at the time.

I partied hard for four years and I saw and experienced first-hand the devasting effect that drugs has on our community. Thankfully, tina never appealed to me, but I've had to write off a couple of friends who got lost in that world.

Cheers,
Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

What's more, I would like to see more than just boring scrolls of text warning against the possible dangers of barebacking before the movies. I think there are other, more effective ways of relaying this information.

---

I've stayed out of this thread mainly because everyone knows what type of films we produce and because their really isn't much I could add to the thread that hasn't already been said.

Ken, I would like to ask you; other than the "boring scrolls of text warning" what would you like to see at the beginning of each film" The text we have at the beginning of each of our films, and the bright yellow and black text we have on every cover came from AIM, the Adult Industry Medical Foundation. They came to us and asked if we would be willing to place the text and warnings at the beginning of each film. We of course agreed immediatly and even included thier logo and contact information. We have since removed their logo and contact information after we attempted to make a rather large financial donation to them and they refused they money because "they couldn't take money from a company that makes bareback films". Talk about hypocrisy!

We are very concerned about the spread of HIV within our community. My partner and I both ran an HIV/AIDS support group and were officers in an AIDS organization on the east coast. But frankly, we believe that the watching of a bareback film is not going to cause someone to go out and bareback in their personal life. We give our community more credit than that.

To answer Patti's question, yes, we do have serious talks with our models regarding STD transmission prior to filming. Yes, we do sero-sorting when filming.

We have never knowingly allowed an HIV- negative guy to perform with an HIV+ guy. We do not require testing prior to performing for a number of reasons but primarily because it is certainly possible that a person could present a negative test and yet be positive. We believe that requiring such tests can create a sense of false security.

In regards to what Keith has said about the eastern europe models, yes, the market is being flooded by such films. We've even had some made for us over in Prague and in Poland. It's ironic but the companies we use do in fact test the models and do provide us with the negative test results. So, Keith is not entirely correct regarding all of the companies over there offering an extra $100 to get the guys to perform bareback.

Ken from Bijou said: "If you look at most non-bareback studio's model application forms, you will see that if they have been in any films without using a condom after 1992, it is the studio's policy to not use them in their films". That is simply incorrect. I can think of at least a dozen of our models who have performed for us and then turn around and perform for many of the major non-bareback studios including All Worlds, Falcon and Raging Stallion. To the best of my knowledge only Titan and Chi-Chi have an actual policy of blacklisting models who have performed in bareback films. That, of course, is their absolute right, just as it is ours to produce bareback films. Michael Lucas used to have such a policy, but now that he has hired (and is heavily promoting) the individual who supposedly barebacked Clay Aiken, I guess you can discount him. Again, talk about hypocrisy.

Someone else mentioned on this thread how amazed he was at the mis-information their is out there about how HIV is spread. He is correct, especially when talking about the younger gay population. Neither the government nor those charged with combatting this disease, namely the various HIV/AIDS organizations are really doing anything today to educate the young, gay population. Young gay kids today have not been exposed to the proper education because our wonderful Federal government only allows the teaching or abstinence in the public school system. The AIDS organizations have gotten away from education and prevention and are more focused on simply obtaining clients AFTER they have been infected so they can receive more state and federal funding so as to protect their inflated budgets and salaries.

Barebacking is always going to be controversial. Just like religion and politics. Nothing we say is every going to change anyone's mind.

So Ken, I go back to my original question, what would you like us to put at the beginning of each film? We're certainly open to suggestions.

Bill

AIM does not have a problem taking money from companies that produce bareback/non-condom movies. Their major contributors are the straight companies that shoot non-condom films.

The issue that AIM and Sharon had with taking money from HDK was that you are a non-condom company that does not do testing. Had you done testing Sharon would have gladly taken your money!

It was not about the bareback issue, it was about the testing issue. AIM supports non-condom with third-party and closely monitored testing in place. AIM does not support "sero-sorting" without verified testing program in place.

Just wanted to clear that up for everyone. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Ken from Bijou said: "If you look at most non-bareback studio's model application forms, you will see that if they have been in any films without using a condom after 1992, it is the studio's policy to not use them in their films". That is simply incorrect. I can think of at least a dozen of our models who have performed for us and then turn around and perform for many of the major non-bareback studios including All Worlds, Falcon and Raging Stallion. To the best of my knowledge only Titan and Chi-Chi have an actual policy of blacklisting models who have performed in bareback films. That, of course, is their absolute right, just as it is ours to produce bareback films. Michael Lucas used to have such a policy, but now that he has hired (and is heavily promoting) the individual who supposedly barebacked Clay Aiken, I guess you can discount him. Again, talk about hypocrisy.

---

I stand partially corrected...

All Worlds Video is now owned by Chi Chi, and I would assume that they will now implement the same policy that his other companys hold.

So, my correction is to change the word most and change it to many. That said, I do it begrudgingly, because the words "many" and "most" are both arbitrary statements of quantity, and it seems like my words are being nit-picked...but that's okay. I see your point.

The point behind my statement was, that there was a gentleman's agreement by the players in the Industry back in the early 90's to use condoms.

Does that mean that newcomers to the industry (or even those that were in the industry at that time) are bound to that agreement? NO. IMO, that's the purpose of a gentleman's agreement...that, at this time, in these circumstances, things seem right to agree without contracts, laws, etc. We essentially self-regulated the situation.

One big fear that I have about Bareback films: 2257. I'm afraid that the Feds will pick on bareback studios. That's not to say I agree with the Feds if they go down that route, just a statement of fact that there's pressure on our industry right now...especially with election year coming up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Likewise, when watching porn, positive men don't necessarily want to watch guys fucking with condoms. They perhaps don't want to be reminded in a moment of fantasy about their condition. Or, perhaps they would just like to see more of themselves represented in porn.

---

Good point. :sun:

I recently found a 3 minute student film that, to me, is one of the most simple and yet powerful ways of driving home the message about safe sex I've ever seen. You can see it at

www.boyfunk.com/positive.mov

We're in talks with the 19 year old filmmaker to license the film to put on our DVDs as an extra. It might be a little bit of a "buzzkill" but we think that it just might encourage people to think a little bit more about their decisions.

Our attorney just got back from 2 days of lobbying the California State Assembly in Sacramento with the FSC.

In 3 openly gay State Assembly members offices (Leno, Koretz, Kuehl) the first question he was asked is what are we doing regarding the "condom issue". The general consensus is that there be an adpotion of a "testing or condoms" solution. If you use condoms in your films and do not engage in "High risk" acts you do not have to test. But, if you do not use condoms and engage in "high risk" acts you would be required to do testing utilizing a third party approved testing facility such as AIM.

The word is that CALOSHA is currently investigating several California companies that do bareabck and do not do testing. They are staying away from companies that are doing testing, and are focusing their investigations only on ones that do not test and do internal ejaculations.

Just an FYI for anyone doing business/filming in California.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Likewise, when watching porn, positive men don't necessarily want to watch guys fucking with condoms. They perhaps don't want to be reminded in a moment of fantasy about their condition. Or, perhaps they would just like to see more of themselves represented in porn.

---

That is the point I was trying to make earlier, albeit briefly, when I said, "In some ways, I think bareback porn serves a very useful purpose, especially for those whose sex lives it depicts."

Why the hell would HIV-positive guys want to watch dudes fucking with condoms? I'm negative, and *I* don't want to see that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

So Ken, I go back to my original question, what would you like us to put at the beginning of each film? We're certainly open to suggestions.

---

I would like to see more of a creative PSA-type thing with models or with someone talking about the risks involved in bareback sex. You could intermix it with content from your movies, then have the scene freeze and the words "STOP AND THINK" pop up under it, then have someone say something like, "Whether you participate in bareback sex or not is a choice that only you can make, but be aware of the risks involved." Then have someone say some of those risks and how you can limit your chances of infection. Something short (no more than 90 seconds, if that) with quick, flashy, MTV-style editing and a voice-over as opposed to words on a screen. Nobody reads words on a screen. You have to catch their interest visually--ENGAGE them in the message. We are gay men, after all. It's all about the visual. And I think it must be stressed, "There is no cure. Ever."

There are all kinds of ideas and scenarios you could film and edit into quick clips to show along with minimal words and a phone number to call for up-to-the-minute facts and statistics.

I think it could be done in a way that isn't too heavy-handed (or heavy-handed at all; you don't want to get too serious with it). And, of course, without any stigma of judgment. And it must be said, "Only you can decide what's right for you, but knowing the facts is half the battle."

What frustrates me is, like others have said, the lack of frankness in sexuality. We are hardly ever truly honest with each other about stuff. Too much of the info gets bogged down in sentiment and judgment. I think that if the bareback companies can't be entirely honest and frank with the community, then who can?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

AIM does not have a problem taking money from companies that produce bareback/non-condom movies. Their major contributors are the straight companies that shoot non-condom films.

The issue that AIM and Sharon had with taking money from HDK was that you are a non-condom company that does not do testing. Had you done testing Sharon would have gladly taken your money!

It was not about the bareback issue, it was about the testing issue. AIM supports non-condom with third-party and closely monitored testing in place. AIM does not support "sero-sorting" without verified testing program in place.

Just wanted to clear that up for everyone. ;-)

---

Keith,

Actually I'm going to disagree with you on this. We were told specifically by AIM that they would not take, or allow us to donate because we produced bareback films, period. At no time did anyone at AIM every mention the issue of testing, nor have they ever contacted us asking that we do testing. This occurred approximately 5 years ago. I doubt that any gay production company used AIM back then. In fact, I doubt that very many even use them today and certainly those that do are in the minority.

Regardless of the reason, no organization such as AIM should ever refuse donations. Again, that is nothing but the sickest type of hypocrisy.

Bill

Because as an HIV-positive man with now full blown AIDS watching bareback and cum-dump videos reminds of how I got HIV! It's not sexy to me and it makes me sad to watch.

For many people who have HIV/AIDs or who have lost many friends from HIV/AIDs watching bareabck videos is very disturbing to them. Things take on a whole new meaning when you actually live with HIV/AIDS.

Thats "why in the hell an HIV-positive guy would want to watch guys fuck with condoms"! As long as the sex is good and guys are hot, the condom becomes irrelevent.

Ken,

When we first started doing the PSA's for AIM on our films we did in fact use a voice over. We hired a professional announcer to do the voice over. We continued doing that until AIM, in their hypocritical wisdom, decided to refuse our donation.

I appreciate your other ideas and we'll certainly consider them.

Thanks,

Bill

how would they know which companies do testing? all it takes is one flaky model to report you don't do testing and how would they know? it's not like cal osha monitors the shoots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

The word is that CALOSHA is currently investigating several California companies that do bareabck and do not do testing. They are staying away from companies that are doing testing, and are focusing their investigations only on ones that do not test and do internal ejaculations.

Just an FYI for anyone doing business/filming in California.

---