Gay Porn Pig Removes All Bareback Sex Content

WEBNET- The primary difference is that mainstream straight adult industry requires HIV testing and will not allow HIV+ performers to work.

The majority of the gay bareback producers do not require testing and allow HIV+ performers to be in films. They usually just ask the performers their HIV status and then try to pair HIV negative with HIV negative, and HIV positive with HIV positive. This practice is called sero-sorting, matching like HIV status together.

The majority of non-bareback gay producers also do not require testing, but instead use condoms for all anal sex and many also ask and do sero-sorting as well. HIV status is a still a very personal and private thing for many gaymen.

The other major difference is that HIV+ performers are banned from performing in the straight industry. Whereas in the gay side of the industry up to 25-30% of performers are HIV+. This is very much a taboo subject within the industry and many do not want to disclose or discuss it. I don't think many people on the straight side of the industry really understand what's going on the gay part of the industry.

HIV is a part of gay men lives much more so than it is in the straight community. More than half of all new HIV cases in the USA are in gay men. We are affected more then the straight community. That does not make it a "gay disease", it simply makes it a disease that affects us more. (In terms of full disclosure I am personally HIV+)

thanks for the info

so, I think the gay producers need take more control about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webnet

what happen with straight content?
is almost always without condoms and nobody says anything?

for straight porn its ok and is very bad for gay porn?

there are still people who believe that the AIDS only is for gay people?

---

Unfortunately AIDS is still seen as a Gay disease by most Americans, this is why HIV/AIDS is the 5th leading cause of death for all American women age 25-34.

It's also the 1st leading cause of death in African American women age 25-35 and the 4th leading cause of death for American Hispanic women age 35-44.

In America the only disease causing more deaths in women are cancer and heart disease. [source]

Like any culture we have double standards, and this is one of them.

Bill,

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but there are some inferences (it's been discussed in other threads) that viewing bareback sex does seem to have an influence on the behavior of young gay men, and it is this issue... educating youth... that Michael and I and many others are concerned about. There's no definitive data yet that I'm aware of, but I believe that there are a couple of studies underway that are looking at the issue.

On the issue of model safety, as a responsible bareback producer, am I to assume that you test each of your models for HIV, hep-C, gonorrhea, syphillis, chlymidia, genital herpes, and other STIs? Or at least HIV and hep-C, the two most difficult to treat? I would assume, since you've made it clear you don't want to be accused of not caring about your models, that you are taking these precautions. Perhaps you'd care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

Bill- Perhaps you can explain to us all how bareback sex with internal cumshots would not be considered "unsafe sex"?

---

Keith I don't believe I have ever said that "bareback sex with internal cumshots would not be considered 'unsafe sex'". Of course it would be IF it is really occuring. I can't go in to detail about that on a public board other than to say thank God for creative editing.

I do appreciate the fact that you recognize and have now stated that all bareback companies are not the same. There are bareback companies doing things that HDK has never done and will never do. I am disgusted with certain things I see some of these bareback companies do and am ashamed to be in the same part of the industry as they. Which, of course is probably why I get so damned upset when HDK gets lumped in the same basket as them by default.

You said; "Perhaps you can take the lead in your part of the industry and get others to operate in a more socially responsible manner such as yourself?" Again, thanks for recognizing that HDK does act in a more socially responsible manner than many of the current bareback producers. I wish I could get all bareback producers to act more socially responsibe but the truth is, I don't have the ability to get them to do anything. Some bareback producers I believe do act very responsibly and I am proud to be in associated with them. But, their are others in the industry I want nothing to do with. Hell, so much of this crap is now coming in from Eastern Europe that I don't even know who is producing it. We do use companies from Eastern Europe to produce a few films for us, but we do require that these companies conduct HIV testing and provide us with the test results for the models. As we all know, over there many of these kids are "gay for pay" and will do nearly anything in order to make a few dollars.

Even though I don't believe I have the ability to control what other bareback companies do in their films I can tell you that we are very concerned about it and have been investigating ways to dis-associate ourselves from them. In that regards, I can tell you to that shortly we will be releasing a major announcement which, we believe, will separate us from the irresponsible and socially rephrehensible actions of many of the bareback producers.

Bill

As I said Bill, I have made a conscience attempt to never attack you or HDK personally. Unfortunately, you end up being the spokesman for the entire bareback part of the industry by default. Many of the other producers do not have the chutzpah to defend what they do and how they operate.

As an HIV+ man myself I "get" the films you make and the motivation behind them. What I don't "get" is the flood of European and UK twink bareback films that utilize primarily HIV negative models, and many without any real valid testing mechanism in place. That scares the shit out of me!

What may have started out as niche specific product intended for other HIV+ men quickly disintegrated into a free-for-all based on greed and profit. As you know many of the EU bareback producers, and models, are straight. They do not care about our community, they only care about how cheaply they can crank out product and turn a profit.

I look forward to your announcment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Bill,

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but there are some inferences (it's been discussed in other threads) that viewing bareback sex does seem to have an influence on the behavior of young gay men, and it is this issue... educating youth... that Michael and I and many others are concerned about. There's no definitive data yet that I'm aware of, but I believe that there are a couple of studies underway that are looking at the issue.

On the issue of model safety, as a responsible bareback producer, am I to assume that you test each of your models for HIV, hep-C, gonorrhea, syphillis, chlymidia, genital herpes, and other STIs? Or at least HIV and hep-C, the two most difficult to treat? I would assume, since you've made it clear you don't want to be accused of not caring about your models, that you are taking these precautions. Perhaps you'd care to clarify?

---

Chip,

Before I answer that question AGAIN, because over the past couple of years, I've answered it several times on this board, let me ask the same question to ALL of the producers here on the board.

For the producers on the board, whether bareback or non-bareback, how many of you test your models, or at least have them provide to you the results of a recent test for the full panel of STD's? And then, how many of you test at least for HIV and HEP-C.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Bill,

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but there are some inferences (it's been discussed in other threads) that viewing bareback sex does seem to have an influence on the behavior of young gay men, and it is this issue... educating youth... that Michael and I and many others are concerned about. There's no definitive data yet that I'm aware of, but I believe that there are a couple of studies underway that are looking at the issue.

---

Chip,

Sorry, but I failed to respond to the first part of your post.

I'm not sure that I've ever said I felt "persecuted". What I have said is that I'm getting damned tired of being, by default, lumped into the same basket as some of the bareback studios that are out there, especially the newer ones, that are doing things on camera that are reprehensible and totally irresponsible.

Yes, inferences have been made many times on this and other boards that watching bareback films influence young gay men to go out and bareback in their private lives. Inferences have also been made many times on this and other boards that their is absolutely no proof to back up those statements. If there are studies being conducted regarding that issue, good. But honestly, I'm not aware of them and I stay pretty aware of what is happening within this industry.

Regarding educating our youth, if you care to go back and take a look at the dozens of posts I have made about that issue, you will find that I have always stated that the lack of education of todays youth in regards to sex education and more specifically, how to prevent STD's, is one of the primary causes of young gay men becoming infected with HIV. Another major cause is substance abuse as well as the pharmaceutical companies presenting HIV management as easy as just taking one pill a day.

And, I really believe, and you have to be able to think back to when you were 18 or 19 or 20, at that age we all believed we were indestructible. The youth of today also believe that. It's just part of growing up. Combine those feelings with the lack of education, with the problems our youth are facing with easily obtainable, inexpensive drugs which substantially lower inhibitions, with the pharmaceutical companies trying convince us that HIV is an easily managed and controlled disease and then add into the mix that today's youth believe that AIDS is an "old mans disease" since most of them have never known or seen anyone with advanced AIDS, I think then, it's easy to see why we are seeing an increased incidence of HIV and other STD's among young gay men.

But, it's human nature to just take the easy way out and the easy way, at least within our own industry, is just to blame those company's that produce bareback films.

What we should be doing as a community is raising hell with the politicians who refuse to provide public funding to schools if they teach anything but abstinence. What we should be doing is raising hell with the drug companies for presenting such a pretty picture about HIV and AIDS and, finally, all of us who are producers, should be including PSA's at the beginning of each film about how HIV is transmitted and how it can be prevented as well as a PSA about the effects of these so called "party drugs". The fact of the matter is, that with the exception of the PSA's about HIV transmission and prevention which most gay studios have, the gay community isn't really doing a damn thing to hold the politicians or the drug companies accountable for their actions.

I can't speak for other studios, bareback or non-bareback, but at HDK we do have a strict "no tolerance" drug policy in effect that applies to both regular HDK employees and models. We don't tolerate anyone using illegal drugs within our company or on the set. We also have a very detailed PSA on each film as well on the outside of every box cover that goes in to very specific details as to how HIV is transmitted, how it can be prevented and we finish with the statement that "YOU are responsible for your own health. If you are HIV negative you should do everything in your power to stay that way and the best method is through the use of condoms".

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Chip,

For the producers on the board, whether bareback or non-bareback, how many of you test your models, or at least have them provide to you the results of a recent test for the full panel of STD's? And then, how many of you test at least for HIV and HEP-C.

Bill

---

As I have said many, many times on this board, we (Gaybucks/18 West Studios) shoot only safer sex, which to us is condom sex, no cum eating, and various other safer sex precautions. (Unlike some producers, we do not define "safer sex" as condomless sex between people who are or claim to be in a relationship, because that's a loophole one can drive a truck through.)

In spite of the fact that we shoot only safer sex content, each model is tested upon their arrival for HIV 1 and 2, hepatitis C, and syphillis. We chose these four tests because those diagnoses are the most difficult to treat, but we will probably add chlymidia and gonorrhea to our testing policy this year because of a spike in infection rates in California. We serosort to the extent that we simply do not work with HIV+ models in action scenes; the one exception to that rule was a scene that my former business partner Ryan made the choice to participate in (as a model) with an HIV+ model.

As to the issue of proof regarding data on sexual behaviors and viewing barebacking, numerous psychologists involved in the study of human behavior have done research on the influence of watching various types of sexual behaviors in pornography and the effect that watching such behavior has on the practices of individuals. The studies show that there is virtually no question that individuals who watch specific types of sexual behaviors are far more inclined to incorporate those behaviors into their sex lives than those who are not exposed to those behaviors. So while there is no published data *specifically on barebacking* there is most certainly enough similar research that the vast majority of researchers agree that watching bareback sex is very likely to increase the incidence of bareback sex in the same way that watching people smoke in movies and on TV increases the rates of smoking. Denying the correlation would be something akin to the tobacco companies claiming that nicotine is not addictive; the data is pretty solid, and there is every reason to believe that it generalizes to other sexual behaviors such as barebacking.

Now... with that said, I still defend your right to produce bareback content, and I applaud your stance on drug use among models and staff; we have the same policy, and extend it to include alcohol as well. We also believe that sex or sexual behaviors between staff/employees/owners/scouts and models is inappropriate and so don't permit that either, though I realize our view is probably a minority one in this industry.

I also agree with just about everything else you say with regard to pharmaceutical advertising, invincibility, the lack of quality sex education, the perception of HIV as "easily curable" or "easily manageable." All of those are issues that must be addressed, and we as an industry, regardless of whether we produce/market/promote bareback or not, have an opportunity to influence those who buy and view our products. I guess whether we choose to or not depends on whether we as business owners believe that we have any reason or responsibility to contribute to society in that way.

As I said in my first post on this thread, the issue is extremely complicated, with few black-and-white decisions. Each company owner must make a decision for him or herself. What I have found in the past year or so is that a lot of people in the industry who initially had not thought about the barebacking issue have more recently found themselves considering the impact they are having, and finding that they are uncomfortable with how that affects them. It is a very personal issue, a personal decision, and an unusual one that potentially affects one's "gut" as well as one's bottom line. I don't think that it is anyone's position to tell others what they should or should not do, but I do think that as each of us who have opinions, one way or another, share those with each other in a meaningful and thoughtful way, that nothing but good things can come from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

For the producers on the board, whether bareback or non-bareback, how many of you test your models, or at least have them provide to you the results of a recent test for the full panel of STD's? And then, how many of you test at least for HIV and HEP-C.

---

I have a quick question. How many that don't so testing allow Out Reach programs (like Fenway Community Health has) to actually perform them onsite. They long ago realized the dangers of STD infections in our industry and have tried, with little success, to be allowed to do these type of onsite tests.

The money is there (via grants), the people are ready, but the producers seem to have no interest. I don't understand it.