Haha, words of wisdom from rocky, make sure you cook your chicken before you eat it.
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Printable View
Haha, words of wisdom from rocky, make sure you cook your chicken before you eat it.
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Yup, that's me! Just some ole coot on top of a mountain dispensing nuggets of knowledge!
:-P
Rocky
Ok I have a couple problems with this. How can HIV positive and negative performers do anything completely safe together? HIV really CAN be transmitted orally, no matter how small the risk. Does that mean performers should be wearing condoms during oral scenes? What if a condom breaks? That DOES happen! Obviously there is no black and white here, and the grey area is dangerous and impossible to navigate safely. There really don't seem to be any good answers here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachBoi_Rocky
I have much respect for hardcore producers on many levels, but threads like this just reinforce my strong favoritism toward solo productions as a more "wholesome" and guilt-free form of fantasy indulging adult entertainment.
And as far as irresponsible, I think HH is anything BUT! He put it out there, asked for opinions and advice, let it be known he was taking these decisions extremely seriously and weighing every facet of this issue. I can't understand why you or anyone else wouldn't commend him for discussing this openly and honestly.
I like the point you just made SLS, safe sex is not risk free. Oral sex can still subject a person to the virus especially if it's rough but no one really has any objections to that. I know alot of guys that think I'm nuts because on the occasion, I will suck a dick without a condom. They use condoms when they recieve oral sex, they believe that it's just as risky as unprotected anal sex. I guess it's all about personal beliefs and the risks that are acceptable on a personal level.
I'm still around because I practice relatively safe sex if you consider oral sex without a condom every now and then. I never for one second thought I would film a person getting gang banged without condoms. I just had to know why bareback sex is so popular now on film. Active Duty is now doing it. Sean Cody, all these really big names in our industry.
Have any webmasters actually written to these webmasters to stop because all I've really seen is people who promote them. If you promote it, then how can you condemn it at the same time.
we have a member of this board who got hiv through oral sex. i used to slap a condom on a guy before i'd touch his dick with anything but my hand. if he didn't like it, no problem! i moved on - the world is full of guys and gals i thought would make good playmates ;)
Would they be... Mc Nuggets? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by BeachBoi_Rocky
Regards,
Lee
I often think about that as well, particularly when I'm looking at vintage (pre-condom) porn. It would be interesting to try and track down some of the guys from the old YMAC or Falcon stuff from the 80s and see how many of them are still around, how many of them lost friends to HIV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
I don't mean this to be offensive, but I honestly think that anyone who is aroused watching guys (often really young guys, 18, 19) risk their lives by shooting bareback porn and seeing them potentially killing themselves right then and there really needs to think about what's going on in their (the viewer's) psyche. It certainly doesn't seem like healthy emotional development to me. It really *isn't* any different than watching guys play russian roulette, except that you don't get to see the outcome.
People will film whatever they want to film. Models will or will not use protection off camera. No one should restrict free speech and prevent the filming of bareback, nor should anyone try to prohibit consenting adults from making informed decisions to engage in risky behaviors.
But as Trevor said, we can send a positive message that might help people to learn more and make wiser decisions. We can avoid sending messages that could have a negative effect. We can choose to enhance our relationships with companies, models and individuals that have chosen to be part of the solution.
And maybe, by doing this, each of us in our tiny individual way can make a difference as a whole.
Holy crap its on in here.
AIDS from oral sex????!?!?! for real? I thought that wasnt possible.
With one exception (made with all parties aware of the situation and given time to research and consider the risks) we've never allowed anyone who was HIV positive to shoot content for us period. In that one case, we were careful to do everything reasonably possible to keep the negative model safe. And I doubt that's an exception we'd make again... we were in a different place, with a different constellation of partners.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachBoi_Rocky
That may be overly cautious, but as Basschick said, there are risks that appear to be greater than once thought about oral transmission of HIV, and something as simple as a model getting cum in their eye could mean that model becoming HIV positive. And no amount of cash is worth a model risking getting HIV (and no amount of sales would make me feel OK if one of our models got HIV.)
There's no possible way to make barebacking safe, since seroconversion often takes more than 90 days and a model could be testing negative and infecting people during that entire time period. This is something that seems to conveniently elude all of the people talking about how it can be made safe. As Rocky said, it's foolish, both from a personal and from a business perspective, to put your models at risk.
But as somebody else said, rarely do you get people with strongly held positions to change them, so perhaps I should just shut up :)
So Boyfunk,
That means that your models having oral sex, that risk is acceptable to you because there is a risk that one of your boys could have gotten infected in that photoshoot.
Actually, to be honest, we've been really looking at the infection rates regarding oral sex. It is a major concern to us... the last I looked, the risk wasn't considered that high, but it seems that it is now being considered higher risk than it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
We decided a couple months ago to start testing for syphillis, gonorrhea, chlymidia, Hep B in addition to HIV on each model -- since several of those are easily orally transmitted -- and we've never allowed models to eat cum or for models to cum in another model's mouth.
My impression is that the risk of oral transmission is very low if certain precautions are taken (models don't brush teeth close to shooting of scene, no one cums in mouth, you minimize exposure to precum, etc) but nonetheless, it is a risk we're seriously looking at.
There's no question that there's some risk in all cases. Condoms break, some studies show they aren't completely effective. What we are also doing is changing our contracts and disclosures to more fully explain the risks of even the safer sex... but I agree that at a certain point, the model will have to assume at least some risk. And at some point, AJ and I may decide that even that level of risk is too much for us to be comfortable with, at which point we will move into a different industry.
boyfunk - years ago, the maraposa foundation put out ratings for various brands and types of condoms. trojans were quite permeable after a few minutes of hard fucking, and also broke the most according to what i read. condoms like ramses (which seem to be gone) were the least permeable to viruses and the strongest, even though they were not as thick as trojans. the stretchier ones like beyond seven and kimono were that same type of latex.
and i'm sure you know never to use lamb condoms.
anyway, those reports are probably still out there somewhere. if you really want to be careful, finding the least permeable and most durable condoms may help.
just a thought....
Hmmm. So far, I've found an FDA reference to the study (which says it's unreliable) but not the study itself.
I've found the FDA often specializes in Not Invented Here so I'll take some of what they say with a grain of salt... but if anyone has the actual study, it would probably be worth having, certainly better than nothing at all.
OK, so I'm hijacking the thread, but here's the study. Apparently it was good enough to be published in Consumer Reports, which is generally pretty high on scientific rigor, so I'm inclined to think the data is probably pretty good.
http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1988/LT880613.html
Thanks again to Basschick for the reference.
CONDOM RELIABILITY
Preliminary results on a scale of 0 to 100, based on safety and effectiveness.
Score Brand
98.9 Mentor
91.3 Ramses Non-Lube
91.3 Ramses Sensitol
85.2 Gold Circle Coin
83.7 Gold Circle
83.7 Sheik Elite
81.7 Durex Nuform
80.2 Pleaser
78.7 Ramses Extra
77.3 Embrace Her
77.2 Hot Rubber (1)
76.6 Lifestyles Stimula
75.3 Ramses NuForm
74.8 Excita Extra
74.5 Parrish (2)
71.9 Yamabuki 1 (3)
71.4 Trojan-Enz
71.1 Trojan-Enz Lubricated
70.4 Duo (1)
69.9 Shields (4)
69.9 Trojan Plus
68.4 Zero 0-2000 (3)
68.1 Prime
66.8 Lifestyles Nuda Plus
64.1 Arouse
62.7 Tahiti
60.9 Lifestyles Conture
60.6 Lifestyles Nuda
57.7 Trojan Ribbed Natural
50.9 Trojan Ribbed
21.3 Contracept Plus
(1) Marketed in Europe
(2) Experimental, not for sale
(3) Marketed in Japan
(4) Marketed in Canada
one correction to that list - soon after that list was first compiled, trojan bought mentor, and any of you who are so endowed might have noticed the change in material and quality.
Not too sure if this was posted - I did do a quick scan, but I was actually reading an article the other day Study: Hollywood Doesn't Show Consequences.
For 10 years in my younger days I socilized and worked with gay men. For 10 years I watched men I loved with all my heart pretend there was nothing wrong with giving themselves in the dark corners and back allies of Long Island. For 10 years I begged them to be smart. For 10 years I watched them die one by one, until I couldn't stand it any longer and started my `nilla hetero life in the backwoods of Georgia.
15 years later ..
Very little has changed and I know it never will.
Do I care if 2 HIV+ ppl fuck each other? Nope .. their choice.
Do I buy bareback content? I do and I will until it's no longer legal.
Do I care? I do, but I also know that you cannot force ppl - by laws or PSAs -to make intellegent decisions today, if they couldn't make them 25 years ago.
I know, now that I'm back among gay men that there will be more grief in my future, as I watch some of you die .. slowly and painfully - just like I did 25 years ago.
Madame begs you ...
Wrap that willie!
I received an email from Gay Wide Maters, one of the topics being about bareback sex. So I "tuned in" to see what was being said. I am not surprised by what I have read - or rather I should say, by what I have NOT read.
No matter where these discussion are held - this forum or somewhere else - it is always about gays and what they should do, are expected to do, amd must do regarding sex. When straights have sex, does the guy wear a condom to prevent disease ? No, he goes "in" bareback, and out pops a baby 9 months later. If straights were to stop "barebacking" also, the mushhrooming population rate would drop dramactically - and, oh yes, capitalism would be in for a total collasp.
So, when you guys talk about profits and money and that is the ONLY reason why sex firms with guys barebacking are made, that they are immoral, etc.,etc., you are the kettle calling the pot black.
The bottom line is: straights can do what they want - sex without condoms, but gays cannot - because sex between straights produces babies which keeps the muti-trillion dollar economy world wide going full blast; but guys barebacking together cannot produce babies, and thus do not contribute to money making for the economy. If they, too, could make babies in the process of engaing in bareback sex, the media, the government, the health officials, would never have started the campaign against the so called "unsafe sex" practices (barebacking).
We produce BareBack videos. We only pair up like HIV type with like eg: pos with pos, neg with neg.
Testing is a good policy and we endorse the process however, the acuracy of the tests remains a dilemma and the cost of testing for amoebas and STD's is expensive and time consuming. Do we keep our models in a cage waiting to turn them loose on a set after we receive all the test results?!?!?!?
It is true that Straight companies require tests which gives them the belief that barebacking is ok.
It is also true that Gay companies do not test because they believe that the use of condoms help protect the talent from HIV infection...
Gay companies do however overlook the real posiblity of STD infection by unprotected rimming, cock sucking, etc... this must be an ok practice with them...
Hey Charles,
Looks like you've started a riot here--and I haven't even looked at pages 2-5 of the post! LOL!
Barebacking is one of those topics that EVERYBODY has an opinion about, and it's usually one associated with self-righteousness. People LOVE to get on their high horses and start shouting about RESPONSIBILITY and MORALS and ETHICS, and it becomes much more about their desire to assert their OWN moral codes and ethics instead of actually reviewing the subject from a TRULY responsible POV.
What amazes me about the whole barebacking debate is how angry people get over it. And I think it has a lot more to do with our archaic attitudes surrounding sex than it does anything else. Nobody runs around saying "We can't show smoking in videos!" or "We can't film people bunji jumping anymore!" or "We can't show anymore violence." But as soon as the subject turns to barebacking, suddenly, it's wrong to show it. Why is this? Is it REALLY because we have so much concern for our brothers and sisters that we climb up the ladders of our high horses and start shouting from the rafters, or is it because we want to feel morally superior to the heathens who participate in such "revolting," "disgusting" behavior? Personally, I think it's the latter.
Fact: Bareback entertainment is simply that... entertainment. It is designed to showcase and celebrate a form of sexuality that is taboo and deemed inappropriate, and that is its chief selling point.
Opinion: People are drawn to the fire, and they like to push the envelope. It's exciting. There's something fascinating about watching people ignore the rules and do what they feel comes naturally to them, regardless of societal opinion. It's anarchy of a kind. It's punk rock for porn. Bareback porn gives the proverbial finger to all the politically correct companies who sit around and moralize about "proper sexuality."
Fact: Bareback porn is not for everyone.
Opinion: If you don't want to watch it, don't fucking watch it.
Fact: Bareback porn eroticizes potentially life-threatening behavior.
Opinion: Again, so do cigarette commercials and bunji jumping videos. What's the difference? It's all the same. The only difference is that barebacking is attached to sex. And THAT'S where the true problem lies.
Fact: A lot of young guys growing up are impressionable and can be easily swayed by entertainment.
Opinion: Are we going to take Marilyn Manson CDs off the market and ban Natural Born Killers as well for all those impressionable young teenagers in the world?
Fact: Bareback movies don't encourage barebacking anymore than music or movies promote violence.
Opinion: See above opinion regarding Marilyn Manson and Natural Born Killers. People are turned on and entertained by many things, but it does not mean that they are going to run out and do what they are entertained by. If you think they are, then you're essentially treating people like they are idiots. Give people more credit than that.
Fact: Art imitates life.
Opinion: Barebacking is part of life. For those of us who like seeing it (and I like seeing it), we should be allowed to watch it without judgment.
I think what we need to remember when it comes to this debate is that CONSENSUALITY is the key to a healthy lifestyle. I fucking hate it when people start asking things like "Well, would you film *********** or child porn?" Can we PLEASE, for once, get OVER ourselves for a little bit here and tackle this issue from a practical, RESPONSIBLE point of view and not one tied up in such overwrought drama and morality and hostility toward each other?
Is it possible for people to engage in responsible barebacking sex? Absolutely! When all of the partners are informed about each other's status and are aware of the risks involved, that is absolutely responsible. Do people want to acknowledge this? No. Instead, we want to run around sounding like fucking Republicans and Christian zealots who keep screaming about "The children! The children! We've got to protect the children!" In reality, we just want to control each other, just like the government wants to control porn.
Do we have a responsibility to set forth postive examples for our youth? Well, that depends on you. A lot of people say, "Look, I'm making the entertainment that I want to see, and I'm not here to spread a message." And that's fine. Personally, I would rather see everybody take notice of the messages they are sending out and move forward from there. As I always say, It's NEVER just porn. Every time we film a porn movie, we make a statement about gay male sexuality.
So, what statement should we be making? Personally, I feel we should be making a statement about A) being educated, and B) personal responsibility. We need to make sure that everybody in the community is educated about the potentially harmful risks associated with participating in bareback sex, and make sure that they are armed with the information they need to stay negative.
To me, barebacking films are educational tools. They are also fantasty fulfillment for a lot of guys who would love to bareback, but won't because they don't want to seroconvert. In this way, barebacking films are serving a very important purpose in our community. They allow guys to "participate in the behavior" without actually physically doing it themselves.
How can we shift the balance in barebacking films and making them more responsible? First of all, studios can take a stand and raise the age of performers who wish to perform in them, and not allow any model under the age of 25 to be involved in them. (Personally, I think we should do that for ALL of porn, but it's not for me to say.)
Secondly, we can make sure that before the movie starts, viewers are given the information to stay negative in an entertaining way. PSAs with hot porn stars are a great way to do this. Inform the viewer about what it is he is about to watch (just like they do on TV with "NYPD Blue" and "Law & Order") and then let them make their own choices about whether they want to watch it or not.
Thirdly, we can just not make these movies, but we can acknowledge that there ARE those who wish to see it, and we can simply say, "Personally, it's not for me, but I understand that it's not my place to tell others what they should be turned on by." We need to take all the judgment and the sermonizing and the finger-shaking and the fucking hypocrisy out of this equation and simply let the world turn as it does.
The reality is that we can't stop barebacking movies from being made. The demand for them is too high. Just like we can't stop kids from having sex, but we CAN educate them on having safer sex. Our job is not to tell people WHAT they can watch, but HOW to watch it. THAT is what I think is really important in this topic, and all that other bullshit we keep slinging at each other needs to stop, b/cuz it's just fucking TIRED. Nobody needs to hear it, and nobody WANTS to hear it. Stop being a cliche' for a change and wake up to reality and be a responsible person who is pro-active instead of reactive.
Barebacking porn is NOT the problem. IGNORANCE is. That's where the battle needs to be fought.
And that is just my "humble" two cents.
Sorry if my last post came off as argumentative or angry. I'm not directing my comments at ANYONE here personally. I understand it's a very passionate topic for many, and I, of course, respect those who have lived through the devastation that the AIDS epidemic has caused in our community.
I'm just really tired of hearing people screaming about this topic. It never solves anything, and it's not pro-active. I feel it's incumbent on us to discuss this topic without all the emotional histrionics we like to resort to. If we are truly going to set positive examples for those just coming out, then we need to tackle this issue the same way we would when talking about drunk driving or smoking or teenage pregnancy. And as anyone with a SANE mind knows, screaming at people and saying "This is wrong!" is not the way to get them not to do something. Educating them and telling them they have a choice is the best policy.
It's no different than needle-sharing programs in the big cities and condoms in schools. We have simply got to stop the sermonizing and step up to the plate and be pro-active for a change. If that means you don't film barebacking movies, that's great. Good for you. But don't go around telling everyone one else that they are wrong for A) making them, or B) wanting to see it. Judgment calls are not the way to make change. Education is.
I don't think you have anything to apologize about. You made an excellent point of what you were trying to say and at no time did you point fingers at any one in particular. We seem to agree on many points, and the things you said that I did not agree with at the onset did give me food for thought about my attitudes on the subject. It's funny how we can be so permissive on some things and so indignant about others when they are both more similar than we'd care to admit.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
And I have to say, the reason we are so hot and fired about this topic is because we're not affected by the abortion controversy and why should straight people have all the fun? (tongue firmly planted in cheek, thank you very much)
Well, I asked for thought on the subject of filming bareback. Everyone seems to have an opinion. No problem with that. After all, this is a discussion board. I see know reason not to tackle complex issues. Most of us do it every day.
Stating your opinion and damning everyone else, let's just say, this hardly is ever constructive. Shouting louder than your opponent does not make you right. It simply makes you louder.
It's about time there is some serious dialogue on this subject because it does affect everyone, directly, and indirectly. Most of the new porn I'm seeing is all about bareback. Maybe it's time that we self police and opt for some sort of warning label on dvd's and such ?
XXXWriterDude - you never even try to understand other people's points of view- or not in any serious thread i've seen. you decide what our motivations are and group us together, regardless of the fact that we don't all have the same motivations. in NO way were morals a part of my objection.
i have friends who have HIV - it's no fun. it's horrible, and may be fatal, although often it appears that hep C will kill them long before AIDS - which is often also avoidable with condoms. and yes, one of them got it through oral sex. he's never done IV drugs and never fucked (weird, i know). it does happen.
ignorance may cause the problem, but people living - or dying - with HIV, hep C, herpes, and many other uncurable life-threatening diseases is the problem. and it's one we can prevent - not just with education, but using condoms.
basschick, my love, I'm not sure I understand your response. My post was ALL ABOUT trying to understand other peoples' points of views. That was the whole purpose for my post in the first place. Perhaps you missed that part at the end where I said "People make barebacking porn, but it's just not for me."
Again, my post was not directed toward anyone in particular, just to the general population, and I'm not damning anyone. I'm stating my personal viewpoints about the topic, that's all. I'm also pointing out that the majority of the objections to bareback porn seem to have to do with moral objections as opposed to practical ones. I'm simply stating what I observe in the behavior of others when this topic comes up. If you take that personally, it's your perogative to do so, but please don't assert your off-base analysis of my intentions into what I say, because you couldn't be further off the mark if you tried.
You do realize that putting positives with positives drastically increases the likelihood that the poz in question will get sick much quicker, have a much more complicated case to treat, and likely drastically shorten his life expectancy?Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
Likewise, I assume you also realize that testing negative is virtually meaningless since a newly-infected negative will have a very high viral load for the first several weeks, while still testing negative?
Can you prove this or are you just repeating propoganda? Because this is not my personal experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
Michael
Feel the need to respond to this a little more. If you look on the VERY first page of this thread, you can see exactly why I posted the message that I did. Huskyguy posted his question--a VERY responsible, open-ended question intended to promote discussion--and immediately got responses that were both emotionally and morally based. When one member rightfully commented on what he felt sounded like hypocrisy, he was viciously attacked by another who started to immediately sermonize. And that's what I perceive the CHIEF problem to be when it comse to this topic. People choose to ignore the reality of the situation and instead resort to name-calling and intimidation through sermonizing. And I find that to be highly irresponsible. In school, sex education classes give EDUCATION about sex, not MORAL SERMONS around it. (Or at least we hope not.) It's important to stick to the facts and the facts alone, not pull in our judgment calls and start making snap analyses of how "sad" other people are for having their own opinions or acknowleding that, indeed, the world is not a perfect place to live in and that not everythign is rose-colored.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Another common thread in debates like this one. Perhaps one of the most prevalent, and personally, one that I'm really tired of hearing. "I've had friends who have been effected" does not make it OK to preach to the rest of the world what they should be doing. In fact, I would think it would make you more sympathetic than anything else.Quote:
i have friends who have HIV - it's no fun. it's horrible, and may be fatal, although often it appears that hep C will kill them long before AIDS - which is often also avoidable with condoms. and yes, one of them got it through oral sex. he's never done IV drugs and never fucked (weird, i know). it does happen.
I never debated that fact. And it's a VERY good point to make. My chief point to make is that the barebacking in porn issue is one that is best defeated through education and the encouragement of personal responsibility, NOT censorship and moralizing.Quote:
ignorance may cause the problem, but people living - or dying - with HIV, hep C, herpes, and many other uncurable life-threatening diseases is the problem. and it's one we can prevent - not just with education, but using condoms.
Do I engage in bareback sex in my own private life? On occasion, yes, but only if both partners are informed and are aware of the risks involved, even if we both think we are negative. I'm being responsible for my OWN actions, and proceeding with the full knowledge of the possible consequences. (Again, just as people do when they hang-glide, or bunji jump, or smoke cigarettes. People do things every single day that are potentially life threatening and carry a great deal of IMMEDIATE risk, and no one jumps on a high horse about that.)
Do I enjoy watching bareback porn? On occasion, yes. And I take offense to the notion that there is something "wrong" with me for wanting to do so, as somebody stated on here earlier. Does the fact that one of my favorite movies of all time is Pulp Fiction make me a sick fuck as well? Gee, how nice to know that I'm not being judged by my fellow mates...
Would I film bareback sex in the porn I want to one day produce? Probably not. (Unless, perhaps, both partners were a monogamous, long-time couple who were both negative and wanted to record their sexuality on film. But even then I would proceed with caution and host huge banners on the risks involved in unprotected sex.) Personally, I DO feel that I have a responsibility to put certain messages out into the world, and I would rather promote safer sex than bareback sex b/cuz I understand the need to reinforce the idea of safer sex in the gay community.
Again, that said, I feel it is the right for any company to produce the content they see fit to produce--PROVIDED that their models are informed of the risks and that they take part only through informed and expressed consent.
Again Basschick, none of my comments were directed toward you personally, and they are still not. I'm simply trying to reinforce what I feel to be a more pro-active mentality when it comes to barebacking porn--one that is predicated upon the belief that human beings are intelligent creatures who have the power of personal responsibility in their favor, and who have the "God-given" right to utilize it as they see fit.
Chip, there is no scientific or medical proof to show that two positives have unprotected sex will cause either to get sick faster. The only medical theory behind these actions is that is has the "risk" of the virus mutating between the two partners and creating a seperate string that could potentially be more lethal because of it's unknown characteristics, being new and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyfunk
The second part you put is unfortunately very true. It can take up to 90 days in an average individual to produce enough of the virus in your system to be detectable by standard tests. We could always lock our models in closets for 3 months, with no other human contact, test them at the end and if everything comes up clean... Off we go... :whip:
i didn't preach and some other people didn't, either.
i believe that most people don't have the information to make an informed decision on this issue. a lot of people believe that you simply CAN NOT get hiv through oral because they have heard it from their own authority figures.
and there is more to life than HIV, but most producers and webmasters don't even talk about hep C, which is more of a problem in some ways as the treatments are less friendly and less effective.
maybe every producer should sit down with every model and tell him every STD he could get, and then ask him to do a shoot. but that's never really going to happen - producers mostly don't even think outside the gon, syph, and HIV. so first we'd have to educate the producers - all of them.
this isn't going to happen in a day or a month - or at all. there are some brilliant and informed producers but there are ignorant or opinionated or predatory producers. so why not just have the talent wear a condom and keep everyone as safe as possible? they can always shoot committed couples for barebacking...
Yes, and again, I wasn't directing my comments to YOU or them. What about that do you not get? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Well, because they own their own studios, and fortunately for them, they get to make their own rules. Isn't that what the First Amendment is all about? Barebacking porn is a form of self-expression for some people, and it is protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.Quote:
maybe every producer should sit down with every model and tell him every STD he could get, and then ask him to do a shoot. but that's never really going to happen - producers mostly don't even think outside the gon, syph, and HIV. so first we'd have to educate the producers - all of them.
this isn't going to happen in a day or a month - or at all. there are some brilliant and informed producers but there are ignorant or opinionated or predatory producers. so why not just have the talent wear a condom and keep everyone as safe as possible? they can always shoot committed couples for barebacking...
If you REALLY want to see an issue from someone else's viewpoint, then consider the HIV+ people who consider bareback porn to be liberating to their self identity. Just something to think about...
I've always wondered about things like that. Hep C and Syphilis are both extremely dangerous, orally transmittable, and without immediate treatment can cause some major damage. It makes me wonder how the studios that have "fuck and suck everything with a pulse" stars like Jeff Palmer and Damon Dogg keep them around and healthy. To be responsible, I just have to guess that the stars who put themselves at the most risk, like these guys, finish up every shoot with a rigourous round of tests and more tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
I'm still at a loss for what keeps extreme sluts, the real life mirrors of these kind of guys, who suck dicks like it's a hand shake, from dropping like flies. When I ask people questions about that, they say it dosn't matter how many std's you have, it's all about diet and exercise.
There are MANY different strains of HIV.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanmasters
You can get re infected with a new strain from a partner infected with that strain. Now you are infected with two strains of HIV infection.
Googling HIV reinfection brings up a lot of results that say reinfection occurs and can cause you to get sick faster. I'm not a doctor. I personally have no idea, but the articles and studies are from doctors, so I hope they know what they're talking about.
This is a really good point and one so many overlook. You can have two HIV/AIDS positive performers, suppose a bottom that has full blown AIDS, and a top that has herpes. Bringing those two together would be detrimental to their health. I don't want to be a part of that equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
When people share their stories and say things like "I've had friends who have been effected" they are not moralizing. They are sharing why they feel people should be responsible from their own experience. Just like I tell my son stories of my mistakes so he'll learn. It's what human beings do.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
In all 8 pages of this thread I haven't seen ANYONE say that porn should be censored. People have said they don't like the fact there is a market for this, or don't want to be a part of it, etc.
When you put censorship and moralizing together with an opinion that differs from your own, you're vilifying those that don't share your opinion.
I learned to jack off by watching the movie Footloose. The part where Kevin Bacon is in the cafeteria, and says to his friend "So what you been doing?" and the other guy replied by making a jack off motion.. then I realized what that was, and couldn't wait to get home and try it, and I did, and it was great!
What entertainment puts out in the real world directly affects what people do. Young, impressionable people, model their behaviors by what they experience in person, and are fed by the media (including entertainment).
Older, more experienced people, try something new based on what they see because it's not something they have experienced, because if it's in media it's ok now, and for a large number of other reasons. A large part of Gay acceptance, and condemnation, has been because of the media & entertainment. Look at Oprah, her entertainment, does she affect peoples lives?
You contradict yourself when you say that what we all do isn't proactive, and that bareback videos need this, and that, before the movie to educate people before watching a bareback film. Along the same lines of logic all movies that have violence, smoking, etc. should have the same education before a film. In fact.. your new ideas of being proactive are you moralizing what others should do... the very thing you're against. Yet you brush off those of us who are for condemn only fucking as not being pro active.
You talk about censorship and people not being filmed smoking, or bungee jumping, etc. What you fail to consider is that sex is a different beast, real sex, with real consequences, not only for the models, and their lovers/family/children, but the producers as well. Filming smoking... well... their is a filter on the cigarette. Filming bungee jumping.. well... there's a rope tied to their feet to stop them from dying. Filming bareback.. there is NO protection.
The world is not an anarchy. Porn is not anarchy. If we don't govern ourselves, we will be governed. If we don't protect our models, we will be forced to protect them. It's human decency. Why disregard the safety of others to make a quick buck?
Hopefully, however, you give your son the information that you feel he needs to make an informed decision, yet you realize that your son needs to learn by making his own mistakes. THAT is actually what human beings do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Granted. Not all of my posts were specific to this thread, though. This issue is one that divides the entire community, and I was admittedly tossing a lot of stuff in there for consideration. There are people who do say it shouldn't be made at all, and I actually think it was implied a few times during this thread.Quote:
In all 8 pages of this thread I haven't seen ANYONE say that porn should be censored. People have said they don't like the fact there is a market for this, or don't want to be a part of it, etc.
Yes, but my opinion is the RIGHT one. LOL! :)Quote:
When you put censorship and moralizing together with an opinion that differs from your own, you're vilifying those that don't share your opinion.
And after your entirely inappropriate tirades and personal attacks against Lee earlier, I really don't think you have any place to go around telling other people that they're vilifying people for not sharing their opinions. In other words, "Hello, kettle, you're fucking BLACK!" ;)
Same here, but I learned it through Fast Times at Ridgemont High (hello Judd Nelson!) and Risky Business (Mr. Cruise)! Oh, those were the days, back when just the implication of masturbation was the hottest thing ever! :)Quote:
I learned to jack off by watching the movie Footloose. The part where Kevin Bacon is in the cafeteria, and says to his friend "So what you been doing?" and the other guy replied by making a jack off motion.. then I realized what that was, and couldn't wait to get home and try it, and I did, and it was great!
EXACTLY what I've been saying all along, in regard to not only barebacking, but, ahem, the whole straight niche. :)Quote:
What entertainment puts out in the real world directly affects what people do. Young, impressionable people, model their behaviors by what they experience in person, and are fed by the media (including entertainment).
"Older, more experienced people" would probably never bareback because they saw it in a bareback video. As for the young ones, well, hopefully they are smart enough to know better.Quote:
Older, more experienced people, try something new based on what they see because it's not something they have experienced, because if it's in media it's ok now, and for a large number of other reasons. A large part of Gay acceptance, and condemnation, has been because of the media & entertainment. Look at Oprah, her entertainment, does she affect peoples lives?
Oh, come on, Squirt. You're SERIOUSLY grasping for straws just to be argumentative on this point, and you know it. A disclaimer before a movie that says "The following movie contains images of violence that may not be suitable for all audiences" is not moralizing. It's giving the viewers an option. Educating is not moralizing if you're doing it right. And I'm sure the MPAA would love the idea of putting messages before films like Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, but that's what the "R" rating is for in the first place, to let people know that there are things that may not be suitable for children.Quote:
You contradict yourself when you say that what we all do isn't proactive, and that bareback videos need this, and that, before the movie to educate people before watching a bareback film. Along the same lines of logic all movies that have violence, smoking, etc. should have the same education before a film. In fact.. your new ideas of being proactive are you moralizing what others should do... the very thing you're against. Yet you brush off those of us who are for condemn only fucking as not being pro active.
Except EDUCATION! That's the whole point of my thread!Quote:
You talk about censorship and people not being filmed smoking, or bungee jumping, etc. What you fail to consider is that sex is a different beast, real sex, with real consequences, not only for the models, and their lovers/family/children, but the producers as well. Filming smoking... well... their is a filter on the cigarette. Filming bungee jumping.. well... there's a rope tied to their feet to stop them from dying. Filming bareback.. there is NO protection.
Porn absolutely, positively IS anarchy, or at least a form of liberation for those of us who are trying to get away from the increasingly fundamental values of this Judeo-Christian society. Porn is a way of accepting our sexuality and giving it validation. When that flies in the face of the prevailing attitudes of the nation, is IS anarchy.Quote:
The world is not an anarchy. Porn is not anarchy. If we don't govern ourselves, we will be governed. If we don't protect our models, we will be forced to protect them. It's human decency. Why disregard the safety of others to make a quick buck?
But you're right about one thing. It IS up to us to police ourselves. But it's also up to each one of us HOW we choose to police ourselves. That's what I have to say about it anyway. Disagree all you want. You're entitled. :)
I just did a fairly exhaustive Medline search and there is apparently pretty solid evidence for two different problems relating to reinfection: recombinant HIV, in which two slightly different strains of HIV form a recombinant form of HIV that becomes medication resistant, and the emergence of what in the literature is called "superinfection", which is apparently the new infection of people with the recombinant strain. (Sex Transm Dis. 2004 Apr;31(4):201-4 )Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
Among other issues, they specifically address bareback sex between HIV+ people as the source of the recombinant HIV, though it is less certain whether superinfection is a result of exposure to multiple HIV strains (as in barebacking with multiple HIV+ partners) or a single exposure to a person that already has a recombinant infection.
Other articles in the literature point to difficulties with these strains responding to known medications and, additionally, a significant acceleration of the pathological effects of HIV as a result of the recombinant strains.
As with any other emerging research, there is some conflict in the literature, with some studies indicating less impact than others, but it seems the majority of studies are now reporting this as being a serious problem. It also appears to be a *separate* problem from the emergence of HIV-2, the more aggressive strain of HIV.
So while my initial post was based on repeating the information given to one of my friends by his HIV-specialist physician, this post is based on my own research in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
Um.. yeah.. by telling my son about my own mistakes he's getting the information he needs to make informed decisions. I also show him examples of people that didn't learn from others mistakes (i.e. last year he told me about kids at school having sex so we had a talk about what sex with others means, respect for your partner, and condom use. Then I promptly took him to the computer and showed him pictures of STD's that people contracted by not using condoms. He was 10)Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
We make porn. We're open minded people. Just as human being cannot stop rape, murder, suicide.. we can't stop bareback filming. People here are voicing their opinions about supporting this in the industry. Most people just don't want to be a part of someone hurting themselves, or others.. that's just the way it is. There is always the exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
I think you need to re read that part and see who attacked whom. And yes.. after a few drinks and a good fuck I came back to the computer and sunk to his level for a bit while my sex partner was in the shower.. then left and fucked a couple more times... such is life.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Yeah the days of "she bop, he bop a we bop" and "I had to touch myself" and just say no LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Yes well I hope young people model not being afraid of straight men sexually, or submissive to them. :kiss:Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Well if young people see sex with condoms they'll know, if they don't, they wont. If they feel the rest of the world isn't afraid of HIV/AID, or it can't happen to them, or the guys in the movies, then they'll do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Older more experienced men who are new to the scene, straight all their life and just coming out, or who are bisexual, or straight men experimenting, can very well think it can't happen to them, or they're clean because they're straight, only bottoms get it, etc. etc.
But I guess what others do isn't our problem, we're not responsible for what we put out there. Every man for himself right? he he
Educating isn't saying "if you do this it could be bad for you"Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Education is also showing people the consequences of their actions. Bringing it home. Like scared straight... when they take the kids to the prison, the morgues, when they see the reality, not just are told not to do something. Give me a break.
Unfortunately our schools don't talk about AIDS and sex that much, let along homosexuality. A lot of people learn from what they see on TV or in movies... and teaching them that saying unprotected sex is not good... then showing them a movie of men having unprotected sex... well that's just plain stupid and irresponsible.
Yes it is up to us to police ourselves as an industry and decide what we will, and will not, endorse. That's what these discussions are about.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
It's important to remember that while we're in a Gay forum and addressing this as a Gay issue because of our given productions, this is a HUGE problem on the straight side of the industry that I've never seen openly discussed in any of their forums. I'm glad we're being responsible on this important topic.
I've answered the reinfection issue in a separate post,but wanted to clarify:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanmasters
1) Standard HIV tests aren't testing for presence of virus, they're testing for presence of *antibodies* to the virus. According to the medical literature it seems that about 70% of people will test positive for antibodies to the virus within 90 days of exposure, but the remaining 30% may have the virus, but not test positive for it for up to 3 years after exposure.
Additionally, viral loads (and therefore infection risk) are very high within the first 30-45 days after exposure in the majority of individuals, but these individuals will still not test positive for antibodies; so in that way, an individual may be at risk of infecting another individual *more* during the first 30-45 days than during the next year or two, depending on how the disease progresses and what treatment that individual receives.
The virus titer itself is an expensive test that's more difficult and is not commonly used for HIV screening. It's also not completely reliable as the retrovirus can "hide" during certain stages of the disease and be low or near undetectable. Thus, the presence of antibodies to the virus is a strong indication that the individual has been exposed to it, and therefore, probably has it and is at risk of transmitting it to others.
In short, waiting 90 days isn't a safe bet,and testing at the moment a scene is filmed isn't a safe bet at all. What isn't a matter of conjecture is whether it can be made safe. It can't. So whether a producer chooses to encourage his models to do it, or people choose to participate in bareback sex is an entirely separate issue.
BTW, in making this post I did look further into the issue of oral transmission. Again, there is some conflicting information, but all of the available studies indicate that while oral transmission has definitely been documented, it is still considered rare. Of the cases in which oral transmission has been documented, nearly all involved the ejaculation of cum into the recipient's mouth. Additionally, many of those infected orally had open sores in their mouth, bleeding gums, or other complications that made it easier to become infected. While precum and saliva do in some samples have incidence of virus, it is at vastly smaller rates (often zero) in proportion to that in blood or semen.
So, for the time being, based on the most recent studies in the medical literature, the risk of oral transmission, with appropriate safeguards, continues to be very, very low, while the risk of transmission via unprotected anal contact is much higher.
well fuck, it was on the CDC site and Yahoo. I can't dig the link out
Im going by what % of the new infections are man-on-man sex.
Every time the stats come it's always 40% 50% 60% of infections being gay/bi men or male-to-male as I think they put it so often.
This is from today:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid21380.asp
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_051005154539
Again I'm talking about the proportion of how many gays there are vs how many hetero and which group tests HIV+ the most.
Unless the stats are rigged then gay people being 2.8% of the population (I don't know that this stat is accurate) yet half or more of the new HIV infections are gay.
Logically since there are more heterosexuals the HIV stats should be the opposite. But they're not.
Which means either heterosexuals are having a lot less sex, or a lot of sex with rubber and that gays are having a lot of sex without rubber.
And I'm saying that meth contributes TO having unprotected sex which leads to a lot of infection HIV and other STDs. And since a lot of meth is going on at the gay clubs, and seems to be a problem as acknowledged in the gay rags by community activists and so on, then it is a contributing factor in why so many queers are getting the virus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt