Barebacking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

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.

---

Good points, Keith. I think it's safe to say that most men in general hate condoms, and think of them as a nuisance--a necessary evil. What's more, most porn companies have not yet dealt with condoms in a way that is honest and accurate. Another reason why bareback porn can be appealing to some of us--the authenticity of the moment, compared to the fabrication and dishonesty of a lot of what we see in mainstream, condom-only porn.

I hate the way that most porn companies incorporate condoms into their videos. Why do the models never talk about it? Why doesn't anyone say, "Do you have rubbers?" Or like when guys hook up a bathroom and they just happened to have condoms on them. The "magic condoms" used in most porn films--to me--destroys the momentum a scene had going for it.

If we truly want to encourage gay men to use condoms, why not DEAL with using condoms in our porn movies? When gay men get together in real life to have sex, we have that talk. We take that moment. To ignore that (much like producers present all the characters in porn scenes as gay--another major pet peeve of mine) because--as many say--"it destroys the fantasy," is detrimental to the message we claim we are trying to send.

I guess that's my point. Much like people say, "Nobody wants dialogue in their porn movies" because it is rarely treated as anything other than an inconvenience, a lot of us say "Nobody wants to see condoms" because porn producers are not effectively dealing with their inclusion in the movies.

From what I have heard, there have already been several complaints recieved by CALOSHA regarding specific companies. There are several very aggressive HIV/AIDS activists that have been complaining to CALOSHA and the State Department of Health.

Some of the bareback companies that do not do testing have made very public statements that they do not do testing. Many have said very publicly that they do not test and that they "sero-sort" based on what the model tells them.

It doesn't take brain surgery to put two and two together, even for CALOSHA! ;-)

And, yes all it takes is one complaint from a flaky model and CALOSHA is required by law to investigate.

XXXWriterDude - back when i was single, when i was with a guy i didn't discuss condoms. i simply put one in my mouth and sucked it on at the beginning of oral. since no comdom equalled no playtime to me, it wasn't even worth talking about.

Ken- You are more then welcome to jump on into the pool and start making your own films! If you don't like what out int he marketplace, then do something about it! ;-)

Obvisouly a lot of guys are very happy with watching condom-only porn, or we would not be in business and still growing every year! ;-)

If you make good, high quality films with great sex and hot guys, then the condom does not matter to the vast majority of customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

Ken- You are more then welcome to jump on into the pool and start making your own films! If you don't like what out int he marketplace, then do something about it! ;-)

---

Funny you should mention that. I have plans to do just that. ;)

Quote:

---

Obvisouly a lot of guys are very happy with watching condom-only porn, or we would not be in business and still growing every year! ;-)

---

Don't mistake constructive criticism for condemnation, Keith. Obviously condom-only porn is monetarily successful. But then again, so was Star Wars, Episode 1, even though the majority of critics and fans agree that it was a failure as far as a movie was concerned. Money is not everything, especially when it comes to porn. Right???? Isn't it about sending healthy messages about gay male sexuality? ;)

You know that I am a big fan of Titan's. I don't love everything you put out, and yes, there are things that bother me about some of the scenarios here and there, but I have always been a big fan of Titan movies, and believe that for the most part you present a very healthy image of gay sexuality. I am especially happy to see you working with Joe Gage, who I find to be the most honest, most authentic adult filmmaker working today. He doesn't treat his audiences like idiots. He seduces them as much as the models in his movies seduce each other. Even though his scenes are staged, they come off as incredibly in-the-moment and real, and any company that honors that tradition of filmmaking is A-OK with me.

Quote:

---

If you make good, high quality films with great sex and hot guys, then the condom does not matter to the vast majority of customers.

---

I don't know that that's an accurate statement, or really just a personal theory, Keith. But it would be an interesting study to conduct... ;)

I was talking some with the owner of my company, Steven Toushin, about this subject today...and regarding poz guys and barebacking (in real life and porn).

He reminded me that there is still risk involved for poz guys to bareback. The chance of drug resistant strains to form, and so on. He mentioned that there's an article by Guy Baldwin (a friend of mine, and author of The Ties that Bind, etc.) that suggests that poz and neg men should be treated similarly in our industry.

In my personal sex life, I've always treated everyone as though they're poz...so I never have to worry about asking status. There's always a condom between us for fucking.

I just fear that we're being overly optimistic around a subject we still know very little about. It's easy to forget only about 20 years ago, we thought that AIDS was the Gay Cancer and had no idea where to turn. We don't know long term effects of a lot of what we do.

As to what other companies do, and what people do in their personal lives, it's thier business. We choose to maintain occupational safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BijouWorld

I was talking some with the owner of my company, Steven Toushin, about this subject today...and regarding poz guys and barebacking (in real life and porn).

He reminded me that there is still risk involved for poz guys to bareback. The chance of drug resistant strains to form, and so on. He mentioned that there's an article by Guy Baldwin (a friend of mine, and author of The Ties that Bind, etc.) that suggests that poz and neg men should be treated similarly in our industry.

---

The risks are not only the "super strain" issue (which is controversial), but a complex set of interactions that can result from an individual being infected with different strains of HIV. This has been demonstrated in numerous cases to make it more difficult to treat people with multi-strain infections. This isn't "unproven" at all; it's well documented in a number of articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature. I mentioned that in the last thread about the topic, but it seemed like it made people uncomfortable, perhaps because it challenges a convenient denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

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.

---

Keith, I guess the old saying about "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" hold true in this case. I suppose it's true that some people living with HIV/AIDS don't like watching bareback films and find them disturbing. But then, many guys who are living with HIV/AIDS do like watching them and find them enjoyable. I hear from these guys all the time.

You are not the only one living with HIV/AIDS on this board and at times you sound somewhat "holier than thou", as if living with HIV/AIDS somehow gives you special rights to speak on the subject of bareback films . I've been living with HIV for 9 years, my partner for 18 years. Bareback films may not be sexy to you and that's fine. But for many many guys, inlcuding us, condom films are not sexy. We just don't like 'em. And, apparently, judging by the apparently huge market for bareback films, many guys prefer to see their films sans condoms.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for your company and for you. Titan makes damn fine films and deserves the success they have achieved and you are to be congratulated for building and managing such a fine company. You certainly have the right not to like and not to watch bareback films, but please, don't use your HIV status to condemn an industry that you don't agree with. To those of us living with HIV/AIDS that do like bareback films, it sounds somewhat disengenious.

Bill

.....this is interesting!! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

From what I have heard, there have already been several complaints recieved by CALOSHA regarding specific companies. There are several very aggressive HIV/AIDS activists that have been complaining to CALOSHA and the State Department of Health.

Some of the bareback companies that do not do testing have made very public statements that they do not do testing. Many have said very publicly that they do not test and that they "sero-sort" based on what the model tells them.

It doesn't take brain surgery to put two and two together, even for CALOSHA! ;-)

And, yes all it takes is one complaint from a flaky model and CALOSHA is required by law to investigate.

---

We are all aware of the company (straight company) who has been investigated and fined for allowing intercourse on film without the use of condoms. CALOSHA of course, can only intervene when the issue is between an employee and employer. They have no jurisdiction over a independent contractor relationship. The straight company is fighting the fines on the basis that their models are independent contractors and as such are not regulated by CALOSHA. It remains to be seen how this issue will be resolved.

The interesting point here is that if CALOSHA is successful and all models are deemed employees, then CALOSHA will have jurisdiction over ALL adult film companies regardless of whether they are straight or gay or bareback or condom only companies if they are based in California. Many companies, as you can imagine, have already left the state or California.

The regulation being violated, according to CALOSHA is the issue of the responsibility of the company to prevent the transference of bloodborne pathogens from one employee to another employee. If CALOSHA is successful in their argument then rest assured that not only will intercourse without condoms be deemed illegal, but so will cock-sucking without a condom and rimming without the use of a dental dam, not to mention many other activites that pose a risk of the transference of ANY bloodborne pathogens.

It amazes me that the adult entertainment industry doesn't see what is happening here. If CALOSHA is successful in regulating the industry, the industry will come to a grinding halt. Sucking a cock without a condom will be just as illegal as barebacking. Rimming without a dental dam will be just as illegal as barebacking. This will be what the government uses to shut down the industry. We will be regulated out of business and it won't be through the use of 2257 or obscenity charges, it will simply be through simple regulatory control. Unless, of course, anyone thinks that customers will purchase films where condoms are used for sucking and dental dams are used for rimming.

Bill

Bill- I never meant to appear as though I was speaking for every person with HIV/AIDS. I am mearly speaking for myself, as well as many of my friends and customers. We get emails and letters from our customers thanking us for our safer sex stance and for publicly making the statements we've made as a company. The point I was trying to get across is that for many that are HIV- it is hard to fully comprehend what it means to live with HIV/AIDS on a daily basis.

I respect your right to make your product in anyway you feel is appropriate. I also wholeheartedly respect your right to free speech, and I know you respect ours. We don't need to agree with each other, but I do hope we can respect each other.

In terms of the CALOSHA stuff...Yes, I agree with you on many of the points you raise. All I was trying to do was let people know the information we had gotten back from the capitol. We are in a unique position in that we have close ties and relationships with people in the assembly and state politics. So, when I get inside information that others may benefit from I like to share it.

Also, the information we got is that there are 1 or 2 gay companies being investigated, but they have not been formally cited yet...if they ever are! Alot is hinging on the current case and the outcome of that will most likely be the deciding factor in additional companies being cited.

Just letting everyone know what we've been told...do with the information what you may! ;-)

Keith,

I have always respected both you and Titan. Hell, Titan is one of the most successful companies out there and they are so largely in part to your leadership.

And, certainly we disagree on the issue of barebacking, but I do respect your right to make business decisions as you see fit and I appreciate you respecting ours.

CALOSHA, I believe, is going to become the biggest threat to the adult entertainment industry we've ever known. In a previous life, I actually owned a company that did training on DOT and OSHA regulations for the transportation industry. Because of that career I am more than a little familiar with the bloodborne pathogen regulations promulgated by OSHA, which every state has adopted and which CALOSHA is attempting to use against our industry. CALOSHA is working in concert with the California EDD in trying to get all models classified as employees rather than independent contractors. The EDD is conducting audits of adult entertainment currently and thus far, as far as I know, have been very successful in re-classifying models from independent contractors to employees. If this continues un-challenged we are heading for some very tough times, not only in California but in every state since each state's OSHA regulations are based solely on the federal OSHA regs.

You and I will continue to agee to disagree on the issue of barebacking but perhaps someday, in the not to distant future, we'll be fighting together against the possible demise of the adult entertainment as we know it today.

Thanks for keeping us all informed as to what is happening at the Capitol.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

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.

---

Patti,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue isn't whether or not a company does testing but whether or not an activity takes place that allows for the transference of blood borne pathogens. And, this is true regardless of whether it is a company that does bareback or a company that uses condoms.

To the best of my knowledge, their is no law or regulation that states a company must test. All testing is voluntary. The issue is whether or not the relationship between the company and the model is an employer/employee relationship or an independent contractor relationship. If it is an employer/employee relationship, then the relationship is regulated by CALOSHA. If it is determined that the relationship is an independent contractor relationship then CALOSHA regulations do not effect such a relationship.

Bill

i was responding to this part of this post:

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.

---

if i were currently shooting hardcore, every performer would test and they'd have those things wrapped up better than a christmas present ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Patti,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue isn't whether or not a company does testing but whether or not an activity takes place that allows for the transference of blood borne pathogens. And, this is true regardless of whether it is a company that does bareback or a company that uses condoms.

To the best of my knowledge, their is no law or regulation that states a company must test. All testing is voluntary. The issue is whether or not the relationship between the company and the model is an employer/employee relationship or an independent contractor relationship. If it is an employer/employee relationship, then the relationship is regulated by CALOSHA. If it is determined that the relationship is an independent contractor relationship then CALOSHA regulations do not effect such a relationship.

Bill

---

Folks -

Here is an interesting thread that illuminates the notable fact that California has gone from a state in the 1970s and 1980s where everybody moved to.... to the state that it is today - the population and business entities are leaving at a faster clip then those moving in.

Steve