Bareback Sex - Is there really any difference here?

From time to time we become embroiled in a bareback sex debate, and the teams pile up on both sides of the debate.

I was just looking at one of the big gay porn glossy magazines. Lots of pictures of hard condomless cocks pushed up against butt holes. And then further into the shoot we are treated to the simulated fuck scenes -- one guy on top of the other in a fucking position. We don't actually see any cocks in holes, but we actually never see a condom on a cock either, not even a condom wrapper on the bed beside the couple.

So, is it bareback sex only if you're actually seeing a bare cock in a butt hole? And if you're implying bareback sex, or at least not confirming the models are engaging in condomed-sex, isn't that sending out an irresponsible message, too? I could pretty much guarantee if we took the exact same shoot in that magazine (picture for picture) and just renamed it "Bareback Afternoon Fuck," there would be an outcry. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Michael

If you ask me condoms leave a Safe, and Impersonally message, that could be good I guess. But I do not work for the department of disease control, while in real life I would suggest everyone use one, I am creating porn here. Dangerous hard-core sexy porn. I know I am going to catch hell for this, but I even removed a condom from the graphics of my new site because it does not send the message I wanted. What I am doing is fantasy, just like on TV not everyone has condom on all the time, my site will not be a episode of seventh heaven or anything.

My own issue with bareback has been primarily with safety of the models. Since there's no way to know that a person isn't in the latency period, there's no way to ensure that a model won't get infected from another model, even if both test clean.

I have some concern about the message it sends, but I think that can be mitigated with appropriate messages/education placed elsewhere within the video.

I've always wondered what the anti-bareback porn crowd would think about an invisible condom that couldn't be seen on video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I've always wondered what the anti-bareback porn crowd would think about an invisible condom that couldn't be seen on video.

---

Is their a invisible condom that will not show up on film?

I was working on a bareback project two years ago. I said no after thinking and planning like you are now. It was just against my gut feel. Do I need to stoop to this level?

I have the same concerns as boyfunk.

And to be perfectly honest, there really are better ways to make money.

Take the high ground. That's my opinion.

I mean there are many responsoble organizations that spend money eduacting about the risks of babeback sex. They are good guys. And I support their efforts as the hiv issue is scary now that many feel th edrugs can control it to a manageable level. Why Compete against the time, effort, and dedication these companies are doing to help keep the gay community safe when you can make the same amount of money elsewhere.

It's like going to a club and getting free condom and lube then on the way out getting a flier for a hot bareback sex site.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE DON"T FILM YOUR OWN BB CONTENT. It's just too risky and the time frame that different people start showing hiv is just not concrete enough to risk models. thats not even taking into account that if someone can forge an id they can forge an hiv tests result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxpower

Is their a invisible condom that will not show up on film?

---

Even if there is it that something you want to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

Even if there is it that something you want to do?

---

I do not make my own stuff, so will have to cross that bridge yet, but I don’t really know maybe. It would be nice, make sure the guys are a safe as possible, everything does not have to be a commercial for safe sex, what about if you are with someone for a long time you do not use a condom then, or what if its both guys first time you would not need it then either.

On the Bareback thing:

Porn is a fantasy not reality. Condoms are a reality, and no one wants to have that harsh reality interrupt their sexual fantasies, staring them right in the face when they are trying to imagine fucking or being fucked with out a condom. We all know it feels better with out one, and we all know the ramifications if we don’t wear one. Basically we are adults, porn is for adults, adults that know the circumstances of safe sex. If some studios try to relay this image of ‘no condoms’ with the bareback fuck pose than so be it. They are trying to appeal to a group of people. Just like any other niche; bi, interracial, S&M, fisting, barely legal etc. And for the models that willingly don’t use condoms when making films - The reality is it's their own damn fault if they catch some STI.

It's all under the big umbrella of Pornography.

"We all know it feels better with out one, and we all know the ramifications if we don’t wear one. [...] Basically we are adults, porn is for adults, adults that know the circumstances of safe sex."

What makes you think that "we all know the ramifications if we don't wear one?". You would be amazed at how many people do not know them. Not everyone receives the same education and not everyone knows the true ramifications.

Why do you think sensibilization/awareness efforts are being increased, not decreased? It has been shown that of those who bareback intentionnaly, many have a distorted view of what the real risks are. Few people even know what is the latency period and what it means.

I hope I did not sound confrontational, because it's not my intention! It's just that you used absolutes such as "we all" and "everyone" and "adults that know"... :)

and the models fucking bare are just a fantasy too lol

I stick with the group of leaving the choice to the models and the fact that it is a fantasy group. The models know good and well before they enter into the situation that there are risks... and its their choice to refuse or accept the risk. I'm still baffled a lot of times that there is still much debate to this in the gay porn world whereas it is second nature to not even deal with condoms in the straight porn world. There are risks in each side of the industry and its up to the model to accept or deny those risks.

Bareback Sex - Is there really any difference here?

yes - about 60$ and a better hotel room

"We all know it feels better with out one, and we all know the ramifications if we don’t wear one. [...] Basically we are adults, porn is for adults, adults that know the circumstances of safe sex."

What makes you think that "we all know the ramifications if we don't wear one?". You would be amazed at how many people do not know them. Not everyone receives the same education and not everyone knows the true ramifications.

Why do you think sensibilization/awareness efforts are being increased, not decreased? It has been shown that of those who bareback intentionnaly, many have a distorted view of what the real risks are. Few people even know what is the latency period and what it means.

In my life I've never met someone who did not know what a condom was or what would happen if they didn't use one. If you're old enough to legally be viewing porn, then you should have a pretty damn good idea what a condom can do for you.

And where is it "shown" that these barebackers have a distorted view of the risks of unprotected sex? Maybe thier distorted view is caused by something other than poor education; dont make me say what it is.

Though I've often been known to come down on the side of personal responsibilty (i.e. take care of yourself and take responsibility for your choices), I do think it is great when studios make a conscious choice to address safe sex issues in their videos. BUt to me it's not enough just to have the models use condoms; I want movies that openly address the moment when the models put the condoms on.

If porn producers really want to instill safer sex values in their movies, then why don't they actually address the moment instead of just having the condoms magically appear? I think there's a difference between just having the condoms be used and actually showing them being put on.

Regarding bareback porn, for me it's not so much that there's just a market for it, but I honestly believe that it can serve a very useful purpose in gay culture. I don't know of one single gay man who actually LIKES to use a condom, who wouldn't rather be barebacking the way sex was INTENDED to be, and I think that having representations of condomless sex is not only a great way for those people to fantasize about going raw, but it's also porn for a community of people who do live that lifestyle. Everybody should be able to see representations of their lifestyles, desires, fantasies, etc. reflected in porn. Bareback porn is simply another form of sexual validation.

I think as porn producers (and for me, as someone who plans on producing porn in the next few years), you have to make the movies that you feel comfortable making, and I also think there's nothing more important than model safety. Hopefully the majority of bareback producers are keeping that in mind, b/cuz honestly, nobody should contribute to HIV infection in our community. And going back to the personal responsibility thing, hopefully the models themselves are looking after their own health and making sure they are only participating in sexual activity that they feel comfortable with.

For the past year, I was part of an HIV-prevention study through Project MIX, and the whole objective was to get gay men thinking about their sexual practices, how those practices were influenced by factors like low self esteem, drugs and alcohol, and getting each man to come up with a reasonable plan for limiting as much risk as he could from those practices. What I liked about the study was that there was no judgment; it was simply a matter of saying, "What risk are you comfortable with? What works best for you?" Because after all, when it really boils down to it, it really is about each one of us and what works best for us.

Still, it couldn't hurt for a lot of us porn folk to give gay men a gentle nudge in the right direction. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Rock

In my life I've never met someone who did not know what a condom was or what would happen if they didn't use one. If you're old enough to legally be viewing porn, then you should have a pretty damn good idea what a condom can do for you.

And where is it "shown" that these barebackers have a distorted view of the risks of unprotected sex? Maybe thier distorted view is caused by something other than poor education; dont make me say what it is.

---

Evidently there are all kinds of pockets of the world with backwoods communities where kids are being educated in shacks with leaky roofs who have no idea what HIV is. At least that's what I'm led to believe, based on the number of people who tell me that I would be surprised to learn that SO MANY PEOPLE just don't understand the risks associated with having sex.

To be fair, I do have to acknowledge that I grew up in the "age of AIDS," when it was first announced, and I took it upon myself to look into the risks so I could learn what those risks were. I know about the 6-month, 3-month and 1-month latency periods; I know the risks of swallowing versus not swalowing. I know that simply by barebacking, the risk for me contracting HIV is much lower than if a guy comes in my ass, or if I've douched beforehand. I know that if I've brushed my teeth in the last 3 hours, it's best not to give head in case I brushed too hard. I know that HIV can only be contracted via access to my blood stream, and I know that although I can take all the precautions in the world, sometimes unforseen circumstances can lead to bad news.

Obviously, not everybody knows about these things. Perhaps not everybody cares to know. It's easier for some people to always have safe sex just to be on the "safe side," just as recovering drug addicts say they can never smoke pot lest it lead to them using crack again. For others, they do the things they feel most comfortable with. They self-reduce the risks and choose to accept responsibility for their actions. It's all good to me, as long as you are aware of your risks. I think you can sit and say all you want that porn producers have a certain responsibility toward this and that, but in the end, it really boils down to the individual and the choices they make in life, and the responsbility they have to themselves to get the facts and know the statistics before having sex.

That said, apparently these backwoods communities DO exist (again, so I'm told), and as I said in my previous post, it is commendable when any porn company takes the initiative to try and instill safe sex values in the movies they make. Again, I just wish they would do it more accurately and honestly, instead of just doing it for the sake of doing it.

I'd like to see more attention to ALL details in my porn, though; not just in regard to the matter of condoms. But that's just me. I'm more turned on intellectually (by things like dialogue, scenario, character and seduction) than I am by simply watching two guys have sex. But apparently I'm some kind of freak. Apparently everybody else only cares about the sex.

I know from personal experience my first two sex acts were baraback. And I didnt know the person at all. I guess I was lucky.

To be honest, I really didnt know how to use a condom.

The site I was thinking of doing was a bareback site. As many I felt there was a group of people that enjoy this. And though I disagree that unprotected sex is the way to go, I can't be judge and jury.

The site I was going to do was going to have all the porn stuff.

Then it was going to have a section, where we interviewed someone w/o showing face or anything, sorrta like a CIA agent appearing on a talk show and not be able to identify him. He's being interviewed w/ Back turned to camera. The goal was besides the regual porn too have someone talk about "What is it that really turns you on about BB" Is it the thrill of the risk, the fun part, or do you feel that the Drugs are so good know you are not worried."

Now, all these relpies make sense. But the fact that the person came on here shows he has doubt about if its something right. When you have doubt about something, then to be honest, I feel that it's not the thing for you to do.

I will offer a quote to Dizi from a book I am reading,

"The secret to making something work for you in your lives, is, first of all , the deep desire to make it work; then the faith and belief that it can work; then to hold clear definite vision in your conciousness and see it working out step by step, without one thought of doubt or belief."

IF you feel it's may not be right or have doubts, move on to something that will not make you lose sleep at night.

Who knows, there are many small towns in America and many people too shy to by them in even bigger cities, and those like me who like the best lube and the collest condoms, that you may make more money selling condoms and lube and safe sex toys.

BTW, I bought the docking toy after XXXwriter asked me to find s docking site and I couldn't. The only thing I could find was this cool docking toy. And IT FEELS GOOD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Lots of pictures of hard condomless cocks pushed up against butt holes. And then further into the shoot we are treated to the simulated fuck scenes -- one guy on top of the other in a fucking position. We don't actually see any cocks in holes, but we actually never see a condom on a cock either, not even a condom wrapper on the bed beside the couple....

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Michael

---

How right you are...and the amazing thing is that so many models are ordered to "cover the cocks" when on camera but, are able to fuck each other and fluff off camera...no condoms...and, so many models cut the ends of their rubbers off so that the illusion of condom fucking appears on film.

We've been on so many sets for so many companies over the years..

It's not amazing...it's just stupid! hypocritical and even more so...down right silly! and all to make a buck!

I've said this before, but either some folks missed it or maybe don't believe it.

In the twink market, I can tell you that a *lot* of the models really DO NOT fully comprehend the risks. They don't understand the latency period, most of them don't know anyone with full blown AIDS, and there's a sense of "Oh, it's not that big a deal any more."

Once we sit and explain it to the models, nearly all of them tell us that they didn't realize some of the aspects of the risk. Doesn't mean they don't ever bareback, but at least they've been warned and perhaps they will think about it a little more.

Even though we use safer sex, we test everyone before a shoot. We don't rely on the model's providing a (possibly faked) test result.

If a model is fully aware of the risks and still chooses to bareback, then it's their decision. However, I agree with Bostonboy that in the event a model contracts HIV later and decides to try and blame it on the studio, I'm guessing that would be a hard battle to win in court.

boyfunk,

Not to mention that there is now a "drugs are getting better, i can live a normal life" feeling in the gay lifestyle.

HIV is on the rise from what I have heard. I could be wrong.

Then look a year or so ago about the guy in NYC that had a fast moving strain of the Virus and they actualy tried to get manhunt to turn over all the possible guys he infected there.

So many people for whatever reason (mentally) just cant resist trying something after seeing it done countless times.

I fall in that category. I resisted drugs when going to circuit parties for two years, seeing my friends do it, then one day after seeing them sem to enjoy it so much, I did it as well.

IF you do a baeback site hire the Marlboro Man, he seemed to get a lot of people addicted to cigs and then there is that camel.

Show something to someone enough times and it becomes cool to them. Killing someone, you may never get them to do (though there are rare occassions), but having someone come home after the club, watching a bareback video, get horny, and go on Manhunt.net, hahahaha. Chances are he MAY leave the condoms home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

boyfunk,

but having someone come home after the club, watching a bareback video, get horny, and go on Manhunt.net, hahahaha. Chances are he MAY leave the condoms home.

---

More likely, that person, too drunk, left the club alone, came home horny and will spend money WATCHING our videos...and getting off to a fantasy...

how harmless is that - now THAT's Safe Sex at its best!

Isn't that why everybody pushes VOD? To get people to WATCH?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyfunk

I've said this before, but either some folks missed it or maybe don't believe it.

In the twink market, I can tell you that a *lot* of the models really DO NOT fully comprehend the risks. They don't understand the latency period, most of them don't know anyone with full blown AIDS, and there's a sense of "Oh, it's not that big a deal any more."

---

They don't understand, or rather, they just don't listen???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

They don't understand, or rather, they just don't listen???

---

At least based on the feedback we get, they really haven't had anyone explain the risks and the issues surrounding them in detail. Remember that thanks to the Bush nazis, many school systems breeze by STDs and anything that would remotely relate to being sexually active, and probably even more completely avoid any serious discussion of gay sex.

Now... that said, I fully agree that there are quite a few that don't listen or have the "It will never happen to me" attitude. One of our models who became positive after I knew him totally had that attitude, convinced himself that he only barebacked "occasionally" and therefore "wasn't at risk." And I think that is a prevailing thought pattern among many young people.

So we can't (and perhaps shouldn't) do anything if a model has the knowledge and chooses to engage in risky behavior. But, at least for us, we can do our best to avoid asking a model to put himself in a risky situation for our financial benefit.

The simple fact is

MANY PEOPLE ACT OUT FANTASIES THAT THEY SEE - ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED ABOUT THE RISKS!

Plain and simple.

And how and hell can any producer of bb content sleep at night knowing that in 5 or 10 years they may see a model that did a bb video for them be in a stage of HIV.

The whole concept of bb production is just morally wrong.

But like in any industry, most people think a quick buck is the answer.

And some may say I am doing it as a favor because there are some that enjoy this lifestyle and want to see it. Let them see it, let them go out and do it.

MY ANSWER TO YOU - Then donate all the fucking money you make to HIV prevention. Give back to those who you have ruined their lives.

abostonboy, nice of you to take on the role of moral compass for the entire industry. Thankfully, I have my own morality that guides my actions and I don't need to rely on yours to make sure I'm doing the "right" thing.

On my galleries that display barebacking, I place a warning on the gallery's main page that leads interested surfers to information about barebacking. I tell surfers that these galleries were created under the guise of fantasy and that they're unaware of what took place behind the scenes. I point out that the barebackers may all be positive or they may all be negative, we just don't know. I encourage people to talk to their sexual partners about HIV, drug use, their HIV-status, and what is acceptable risk for them. Ultimately I think communication between consenting adults is more important than a "just say no" message, which is not as effective. We all know that smoking is bad for us, but how many people continue to smoke. We all know that cars are killing the planet and they will drastically affect the lives of future generations, but we continue to do little to stem their use. We all know that crystal meth and other party drugs are harmful and yet we continue to promote the party within our community.

One of the things that infuritates me about this debate and this issue is the inability of people to see that barebacking is not just an issue of safe versus unsafe sex or prevention versus infection. There is a whole community of positive men, like me, who don't wish to see condoms in their porn. It's not about me promoting unsafe behaviour, it's about me presenting porn to men like me who want to see men like themselves having sex.

And I have no problem doing that because I've presented my surfers with an extensive warning. I also provide them with links to AIDS service organizations, if they want more information. So, abostonboy, while you scream that it's morally wrong, I have no trouble sleeping at night because I have done everything I feel I need to in order to present a positive, informative message. And the fact is that I do more than most sites.

The second thing that angers me about this whole debate is that the magazine in question is implying bareback sex, but yet publicly they will scream against barebacking. Pick your side of the issue and stick to it. If you believe barebacking is wrong then showing your models putting on condoms and fucking with comdoms. The point that I was trying to make is that omitting condoms and implying barebacking should be just as offensive to anti-barebacking proponents and barebacking itself.

Cheers,
Michael

I appologize for not having the time to dwell on this topic. We are in the middle of post production on a new feature and are being pulled in all directions. (I will address this issue in depth at a later time)

The problem is clearly with the lack of education our young are getting these days. The message of abstinence is not working.

And, to make matters worse, their decision making is impaired by alcohol and crystal meth abuse.

Youth is already bombarded with safe sex messages in the media. Since so many believe that porn stars are an important part of the gay community, why don't HIV porn stars who use condoms on camera step forward?

Perhaps the use of HIV positive porn stars who use condoms would be a positive message for the community - (and a frightening reality for all movie producers).

In the past, producers have successfully black listed any porn star who has come out publicly with their HIV positive status - I guess that positive people who use condoms can not have sex?!?! - Is this the message?

Consumers of our (very expensive line of adult bareback materials) are of the age and position in life to have enough discretionary income to cover the costs of our adult oriented entertainment. These consumers have made a conscious choice to watch OUR bareback videos. Youngsters don't have the kind of money it takes to buy, rent or download this kind of stuff and generally don't want to watch some old timers fucking anyway (with or without condoms!)

We have only hired two models who were younger than 25 at the time they appeared for us on camera.

We always spend a great deal of time with each applicant reviewing all of the risks involved with shooting fuck movies without condoms. We frequently turn people away who do not understand the inherent risks involved or understand the responsibilities of advising as and their on-screen partner(s) of their HIV and STD status.

We freely give our time and resources to many community based HIV organizations. Some organizations have actually turned our money down - so we often give anonymously and, some have used our celebrity to raise lots of money. (We also give freely or our time and resources to homeless organizations and environmental causes.)

De Angelo, I don't know if you remember Cole Tucker, but he was one of the only HIV-positive porn stars who was vocal about his serostatus, and he became something of a spokesman for a few years there. And he got work just fine. He may have been an exception to the rule, though.

dzi,

What you are doing is different than most. You are taking a responsible approach. Yes, you are making money, but also by providing links you are educating someone who may if he hadn't visited your site may never know.

There is a difference.

I gues this is personal as i had a friend who became HIV infected kill himself.

And sometimes when I post in a thread like this, I may not be able to do it after replying to MAX. My uprofesssionalism comes out. Even though using Max as an excuse is wrong. i have to take responibilty for what i say no matter what and tray and think from all angles.

But, I still do not like the producyion of bb amongst people who are negative and the promotion of such material without some education.

And to be very honest with you Dzi, You are educating people who may never visit these education sites. That may save a life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

The simple fact is

MANY PEOPLE ACT OUT FANTASIES THAT THEY SEE - ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED ABOUT THE RISKS!

Plain and simple.

And how and hell can any producer of bb content sleep at night knowing that in 5 or 10 years they may see a model that did a bb video for them be in a stage of HIV.

The whole concept of bb production is just morally wrong.

---

That's a little preachy for my taste, bostonboy.

"Morally wrong" is a very subjective term, don't you think? It's not something that is set and stone. Most morals are things that some out of community traditions and standards. In some cultures, incest is fine; in America, it's taboo. A lot of what passes for "morals" in this country is little more than Judeo-Christian values shoved down our throats ad nauseum. It's really not for one person to say what is "morally wrong"--or, for that matter, right--for everyone else.

Of course, we like to think that we have the corner market on morals in this country. And especially in this business. It's the topic of my latest column in the upcoming July issue AVN Online magazine, as a matter of fact--how porn people are so deadset on pointing fingers at each other instead of banning together to fight the good fight.

I don't think there's anything "morally wrong" inherent in the simple production of bareback material. Ultimately--just as in any kind of adult content being produced--it depends on how the producers are going about doing it. I've heard horror stories of major gay studios who jip their models and take advantage of them. I think if the bb producers take the necessary precautions to ensure that their models know the risks and if they sero-sort them based on poz and neg status, those are pretty much acceptable conditions for producing bb material. If additionally they then make sure to produce HIV-prevention messages to accompany that content, that's commendable.

As dzinebear points out, I think bb material is very useful for those who wish to see it. Not all men use condoms when they have sex. Why should they have to watch other men use condoms in the porn they see? If I'm poz and sleep with other poz men who don't use rubberss or if I'm in a committed, monogamous relationship with a negative partner, why shouldn't I have the right to view the kind of adult content that specifically addresses my sex life? Just as gay people have wanted to see accurate repersentations of themselves in movies and on TV for years, so, too, do those who indulge in a certain kind of sexual activity want to see their sex lives honestly depicted in adult material. Who's to say that's "morally wrong"?

The debate over bareback material, to me, comes down to just a few basic points:

1) Is there a market for it?

2) Is there a way to produce material for that market that takes into account model safety yet also delivers the kind of content the audience wants to see?

3) Were the models aware of the risks before they agreed to participate in bb content, and did they give their expressed permission to be filmed partaking in it?

4) Did the producers take every precaution on set to ensure that models were not engaged in activity that they did not feel comfortable with?

5) Did the producers include HIV-prevention statements that warn audiences of the risks associated with condomless sex prior to the movie's credits?

6) Is the sex featured in the film accurate in its portrayal of human sexuality?

In my humble opinion, if those six questions can be answered with a yes, then there should be no qualms with how those producers conducted themselves on their sets. They are simply providing material for a market that wishes to see it, just as cigarette manufacturers are doing, just as alcohol companies are doing, just as mountain climbing groups and organizations are doing, and just as bungee-jumping companies are doing.

Whether or not we as individuals have a responsiblity to "babysit" everyone else and "spread healthy messages about sexuality" is really up to each individual. Some people believe there's a higher purpose than their own financial gain; others feel it's their responsibility to take the higher road. I guess it's up to each one of us to decide what works for us and what doesn't.

Personally, I try to live a judgment-free life in general. It's not up to me to say what's right and wrong for other people. I try to abide by a live-and-let-live outlook on life. I think above all, we all have a certain responsibility to each other to live that kind of life, but then again, I have to acknowledge that not everyone thinks the same way I do and that, while I may think I'm always "right," others might think I'm way off-base in my thinking.

Anyways, that's my $.02. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

I gues this is personal as i had a friend who became HIV infected kill himself.

And sometimes when I post in a thread like this, I may not be able to do it after replying to MAX. My uprofesssionalism comes out. Even though using Max as an excuse is wrong. i have to take responibilty for what i say no matter what and tray and think from all angles.

---

I'm glad you realize that. Personally, I HATE it when someone says, "My brother or my sister or my so-and-so died as a result of BLANK," b/cuz it immediately turns a debate emotional, and there's simply no room for emotion in mature, theoretical debate. In fact, there's no quicker way to kill a debate than to turn it personal.

Whether or not anyone tested positive as a result of barebacking has no relevance on how others should live their own lives or produce their content. Ultimately, it must boil down to what is best for each person going by their own moral compass.

Ken,

You are correct in saying that what guidlines people choose to produce their content does fall in their moarl issues on the sibject. I agree with you on that.

My (and these are MY moral issues) is first and foremost protection of the models. That is why MY moral issue would not let me produce the content.

To a lesser degree I have moral issues with how the content is presented. It can be presented in a way that I PERSONALLY find more acceptable than others.

And what somewhat scare ME is when it is widely presented in a way with no education and just very hardcore to a wide audience, what is to say that an uderage surfer (they are there) may find it and with no knowledge (they are out there) think that is the ONLY way to have sex.

These are just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

De Angelo, I don't know if you remember Cole Tucker, but he was one of the only HIV-positive porn stars who was vocal about his serostatus, and he became something of a spokesman for a few years there. And he got work just fine. He may have been an exception to the rule, though.

---

Yes, we know him and actually, he did not get work for quite a while.

We worked with him in a group scene for MSR. The movie was Don't Ask Don't Tell. Cole Tucker filled us in on what had happened after he went public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo

Yes, we know him and actually, he did not get work for quite a while.

We worked with him in a group scene for MSR. The movie was Don't Ask Don't Tell. Cole Tucker filled us in on what had happened after he went public.

---

Hmmmm, I don't know all the backstory. I was a bit younger then, but I seem to recall seeing him pop up in all kinds of movies after he went public. Didn't Unzipped do a big story on him at one point as well? Maybe it was just my perception, but I'm pretty sure he worked for Chi Chi and a few other majors after he outed himself...

I totally disagree with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

I HATE it when someone says, "My brother or my sister or my so-and-so died as a result of BLANK," b/cuz it immediately turns a debate emotional, and there's simply no room for emotion in mature, theoretical debate. In fact, there's no quicker way to kill a debate than to turn it personal.

Whether or not anyone tested positive as a result of barebacking has no relevance on how others should live their own lives or produce their content. Ultimately, it must boil down to what is best for each person going by their own moral compass.

---

The very reason that people feel so strongly about this issue is that we are talking about an incurable, chronic condition with very real health consequences. It is because our friends are living with (and eventually dying early because of) HIV/AIDS that this debate even exists.

I also think that many individuals who decide to bareback are only considering the consequences for themselves personally, and do not consider the larger social issues. If a gay man cannot even do the most basic thing to prevent HIV from spreading in the community (by using a condom when fucking with strangers) then how on earth can he expect the government and community to support that decision by paying for his meds and providing counseling, housing and all sorts of other supports?

As long as HIV remains incurable and the health consequences so serious it is the responsibility of every gay man to practice safer sex unless he is 100% sure that he is fucking with someone with the same HIV status.

I also think that, until there is a cure for HIV, bareback porn is unethical.

Yep, I've just judged every barebacker and the entire bareback industry. This issue is way too important not to be judgemental.

And, by the way, two old friends of mine have died of HIV related causes in the past two months. Guess I'm just being emotional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

They don't understand, or rather, they just don't listen???

---

I'm not going to get embroiled in this controvery again, but I will say not to forget that if a public school teaches anything EXCEPT abstinence, the school will lose its federal funding.

John, my partner, grew up in south Georgia. He never had a sex education class. When we first met, he had no clue how to put on a condom. He thought you unrolled it, put two fingers in, stretched it out and then put it on. Many kids today, graduating from high school, are just as unaware...maybe even more so since you rarely ever see PSA's talking about HIV like we did in the 80's and early 90's. Keep in mind, the kids graduating from high school today, usually don't know anyone with HIV and what they do know, or think they know, is that it is an "old gay mans disease".

Nuff said,

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

I'm not going to get embroiled in this controvery again, but I will say not to forget that if a public school teaches anything EXCEPT abstinence, the school will lose its federal funding.

John, my partner, grew up in south Georgia. He never had a sex education class. When we first met, he had no clue how to put on a condom. He thought you unrolled it, put two fingers in, stretched it out and then put it on. Many kids today, graduating from high school, are just as unaware...maybe even more so since you rarely ever see PSA's talking about HIV like we did in the 80's and early 90's. Keep in mind, the kids graduating from high school today, usually don't know anyone with HIV and what they do know, or think they know, is that it is an "old gay mans disease".

Nuff said,

Bill

---

I grew up in a small town in Maine. Sex education was a joke. My first two sexual experiences were bareback. Firstly, the one gay vhs tape I had was an 80's babeback its was cool. The other videos I watched were straight. No one used a condom and I was NOT taught in school, and my dad never pulled one out and told me how to put one on. So it was like I guess this is how its suppose to be done. For all I knew at the time you could get HIV from a blowjob. I wasn't educated. Was I to blame? I mean we are talking late 80's here. I couldnt hop on the web.

And what really bothers me about bareback now is the misconception of the "education" gay men are getting. My friend works for aid action commity and was involved in a study with Fenway Community Health (they have some of the pioneering Docotors on aids research in the country). The findings that they found was gay men were practicing unsafe sex beacuse of the information that the "new" pills made them lead a better life and that they felt a cure was right around the corner.

This is just such a touchy issue. I find it unethical, but I also find it unetchical to dictate my ethics to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaMan

I totally disagree with this:


The very reason that people feel so strongly about this issue is that we are talking about an incurable, chronic condition with very real health consequences. It is because our friends are living with (and eventually dying early because of) HIV/AIDS that this debate even exists.

I also think that many individuals who decide to bareback are only considering the consequences for themselves personally, and do not consider the larger social issues. If a gay man cannot even do the most basic thing to prevent HIV from spreading in the community (by using a condom when fucking with strangers) then how on earth can he expect the government and community to support that decision by paying for his meds and providing counseling, housing and all sorts of other supports?

As long as HIV remains incurable and the health consequences so serious it is the responsibility of every gay man to practice safer sex unless he is 100% sure that he is fucking with someone with the same HIV status.

I also think that, until there is a cure for HIV, bareback porn is unethical.

Yep, I've just judged every barebacker and the entire bareback industry. This issue is way too important not to be judgemental.

And, by the way, two old friends of mine have died of HIV related causes in the past two months. Guess I'm just being emotional.

---

You certainly have the right to disagree, and I certainly understand your side of the debate, but I just think there is a much bigger picture here than that.

Do you fight just as strongly for the obliteration of smoking privileges?

How many gay men who say they are against barebacking go out and light up a cigarette the first chance they get?

If you want to judge everybody who participates in bareback as being unethical, that's your right. But... it doesn't mean that are ARE right.

And again, THAT'S the bottom line: We're all entitled to our opinions. That's what makes us who we are.

Respectfully,
Ken

The problem with this debate about barebacking is that too many people allow their emotions to get involved in the discussion. Once emotions become involved then a reasonable, intelligent discussion becomes impossible.

We all have the right to our opinions. That makes them neither right nor wrong. They are only opinions, nothing more.

The making of bareback films are not unethical. If the making of bareback films are legal. If the models are adults, are fully informed of the consequences, participating on a consensual basis and are sero sorted according to their HIV status, then a very compelling argument can be made that nothing unehical is taking place. In fact, a very compelling argument can be made that encouraging sero sorting.....that is, HIV+ individuals only have sex with other HIV+ individuals and HIV- individuals only have sex with HIV- individuals, actually leads to a decrease of new HIV infections. This theory is now being studied by the New York Health Department and others and have been looked at seriously by the CDC.

Further, as long as appropriate warnings, cautions, PSA's, etc. are included at the beginning of any bareback films and on the literature and box cover; then the producers of bareback films are not doing anything unethical, but rather, are simply giving the public a choice in the viewing matter they choose to watch. And, after all, isn't that what 1st Amendment rights really men.

Most of us on the board and all of the other board scream that our 1st Amendment rights are being violated whenever the politicians or the DoJ try to restrict our right to produce adult entertainment, or create an adult website. Yet many of the same people who scream the loudest about infringement of their 1st Amendment rights, are the first to scream that the production of bareback films are immoral or in some way unethical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. .

Let's keep the emotions out of the debate. I make bareback films.Those of you who critisize me have never been on my set and you've never seen how we treat the models. You've never heard the discussions that take place between our staff and our models. Our models are treated with the utmost dignity and respect which is why the majority of them film over and over for us. Their health concerns play a very primary part in every decision we make regarding our models.

To the best of my knowledge, we are the only gay adult entertainment company that has a drug testing policy that all models must adhere to. We don't condone illegal drugs of any sort on the set which is why all models are subject to random drug testing as well as for cause drug testing.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

How many gay men who say they are against barebacking go out and light up a cigarette the first chance they get?

---

How many goto clubs and hand out condoms and goto the dock at Prov Town and hand out condoms and ask if they know what safe sex is on the way down. That's the question one should ask as it directly relates to this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

So, is it bareback sex only if you're actually seeing a bare cock in a butt hole? And if you're implying bareback sex, or at least not confirming the models are engaging in condomed-sex, isn't that sending out an irresponsible message, too? I could pretty much guarantee if we took the exact same shoot in that magazine (picture for picture) and just renamed it "Bareback Afternoon Fuck," there would be an outcry. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Michael

---

To answer the original question of the poster. And I believed you asked two.

1. Yes, it IS only bareback sex if they are truly barebacking. I can ask is it child porn if you have 18 year old models that look 16 in a video called Jr High Dropuots. No. It's simulated child porn and perfectly legal. Though some may argue unethical.

2. And yes, if you are implying barbeck sex, even simulated, though you may feel iirresponsible, others may not.

Concerning the last point Magazines are limited to what they can show. Very few show actual penetration. (Feshmen, men, etc etc etc). I believe it has to do w/ laws in certain states. I may be wrong.