Safe Bareback Sex?

So i was just reading up on the Chris Ward (Raging Stallion) guys blog that he has 'invented' a 'secret' (LOL) a way to make condoms appear invisible in movies, (i thought that was called editing/image extracton but whatever).

Im just wondering if he has actually 'invented' something or whether this is Raging Stallions way of saying we're going to be producing bareback porn whether you like it or not to everyone?

I seem to recall a year or two back RS saying they wouldnt produce bareback porn, the synical part of me is looking at this as a way to divert from the fact they are losing money by not creating bareback movies... Thus enabling them to produce 'safe' bareback content if this new 'invention' actually does exist.

Your thoughts on this?

Regards,

Lee

Oh and a link to the blog entry would probably of some use too LOL

http://www.chriswardpornblog.com/200...y-to-make.html

Regards,

Lee

Well, if Speilburg can make a Dinosaur, or Lucas can fuck up the Trilogy...I see no reason with modern tech that you could not use a bright colored condom, and then greenscreen it out or something. Seems like a lot of work though. My guess is they are just filming bareback, and then re-filming the same scene with condoms (for the special feature on the disc that lets you see them).

They also state it wont work in every scene...like when the actor refuses to go bareback but they still want to use him.

$0.02

Maybe I am just a cynic.

BAREBACK:whip: (And not in the good way.)

people will do the strangest things in order to make money - we heard (at the show) that some majors are considering shooting bareback videos - well, well, well - we say, bring em' on!

but I sure hope that producers who are new to filming bareback will follow our stringent guidelines for insuring that the models will be working safely...

I know a pink condom doesn't show up as much and if you run the film through after effects, It wouldn't be all that hard to pull off.

I think the real question is WHO is going to pay a video editor to sit and clone out the base of each rubber?

The cost of man hours alone .... But who knows.

Female condoms stay in the hole. That'd be a way to remove visibility from the dick, no? And I've heard of guys removing the ring, which would make the condom even less visible.

Edit: But I see that he still seems to refer to the condom actually being on the dick.

Is the condom just on the tip of the cock and held in place with an adhesive? I seem to recall something like that actually exsiting.



.

OUCH!

http://www.apvcoatings.com/cms/produ...r_adhesive.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolKnights

OUCH!

http://www.apvcoatings.com/cms/produ...r_adhesive.jpg

---

HAHA! I was thinking more along the lines of Post-It Note adhesive not tire adhesive.

I think somebody is producing a glans-only condom, but I haven't been able to find one. Additionally, even if it does exist, there's no safety data on it, and there would still be a fairly substantial risk of infection because there's some evidence that the shaft of the penis (as well as the tissues of the rectum and anus) has some tissue that's thin enough to allow transmission of the virus through microscopic tearing and blood.

AJ and I have discussed the notion of fake barebacking, and while it would resolve our concerns about risk to models, it doesn't resolve the other question (which I feel less strongly about) regarding the influence of seeing bareback activity on the viewer, and so we've thus far decided not to produce fake bareback material.

And yes, it is possible to use CGI to remove a condom from the penetration scenes, but it would not be a trivial task, and probably not worth the time invested in a scene to do so.

Frankly, if the majors are considering producing bareback porn, I find that totally appalling. It's one thing for smaller or midsized producers that produce a specialty product, quite another for the major companies to do that. If the majors start doing that, it sends a message to the industry as a whole, and will most likely result in more federal regulation, which is the last thing we as an industry need.

And Tony, while I respect you a lot, I'm not sure what stringent safety precautions you can take. Even though we shoot safe content, we test every model upon arrival, but the commercially available testing is only for antibodies to the virus, and does not address the issue of the latency period (the time it takes for one's body to create antibodies), which is not less than 60-90 days and by some indications can be up to 1 year or longer. Even an actual virus titer, which is very expensive and not available as a rapid test last I checked, isn't foolproof, since the HIV retrovirus can camouflage itself, and virus levels go up and down rapidly in newly-infected people.

I've made no secret of the fact that I don't think much of bareback porn or it's producers, but hey.. we all have to make a buck, and what bothers some of us doesn't bother us all.

I'm a big fan of RS, and I think what Chris is saying is that using lighting, clear condoms and a few tricks (like clipping off the halo from a condom so you don't see the un-rolled part) the condoms won't be as visible as they are in most porn movies.

They're not going to market them as bareback, they're just going to try to downplay the condom use a bit, but not stop using them.

Although I think condoms are hot, some people find they get in the way and they wish they weren't necessary.. this seems to be a good solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

And Tony, while I respect you a lot, I'm not sure what stringent safety precautions you can take.

---

No one ever seems to consider that some bareback producers may be using HIV+ performers only. It's certainly a possibility. I certainly don't mean to imply that Zyloco does this, I'm just thinking out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xstr8guy

No one ever seems to consider that some bareback producers may be using HIV+ performers only. It's certainly a possibility. I certainly don't mean to imply that Zyloco does this, I'm just thinking out loud.

---

Not trying to start the old bareback debate again but, doesnt that carry some risk?

I was under the impression there are varying strains of HIV/AIDs and that if you have 1 type, contracting another could significantly damage your chances of finding med combos that worked as well as shorten your lifespan?

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

And Tony, while I respect you a lot, I'm not sure what stringent safety precautions you can take. Even though we shoot safe content, we test every model upon arrival, but the commercially available testing is only for antibodies to the virus, and does not address the issue of the latency period (the time it takes for one's body to create antibodies), which is not less than 60-90 days and by some indications can be up to 1 year or longer. Even an actual virus titer, which is very expensive and not available as a rapid test last I checked, isn't foolproof, since the HIV retrovirus can camouflage itself, and virus levels go up and down rapidly in newly-infected people.

---

yes, yes, yes - we know all about the fact that tests can not reflect current status however,

we SEROSORT so that our models do not cross mix - pos with pos and neg with neg - its fairly simple that way - and with pos individuals, it is essential that their viral loads are non-detectable or >50 - this minimizes the risk of so-called "re-infection"

as a matter of fact - there is an interesting article on serosorting that was just published and might be of general interest on the topic - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550806

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Not trying to start the old bareback debate again but, doesnt that carry some risk?

I was under the impression there are varying strains of HIV/AIDs and that if you have 1 type, contracting another could significantly damage your chances of finding med combos that worked as well as shorten your lifespan?

Regards,

Lee

---

Yes this is true, the HIV virus come in many different strains, and is constantly changing, it is advised even if your having sex with a HIV + person and your + too that you still should use protection.

As far as risk, we live in a world filled with risk not sure its so easy to pick and chose the once we care about and don’t. If you think about it the drive to the studio I am sure is much more dangerous than anything that will happen on the shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo

yes, yes, yes - we know all about the fact that tests can not reflect current status however,

we SEROSORT so that our models do not cross mix - pos with pos and neg with neg - its fairly simple that way

---

Hey, Tony,

Glad to hear that you consider viral load when serosorting HIV+ individuals. I don't claim expertise in the area, and I'm sure you have more knowledge than I about relative viral loads and the risks associated therewith.

However, the whole problem with putting negatives with negatives is you have no way of knowing they are in fact negative because of the latency period. So I don't see how, unless you are doing virus titers on each negative model in addition to standard testing for antibodies, that you're addressing the latency period, and therefore keeping the models safe.

I realize that the majority of your models are older than ours, and therefore, (in theory, at least) better able to make informed decisions about whether or not to participate in barebacking (on or off camera.) I just talk to soooo many people that don't seem to really understand how real the risk of infection is as a result of the latency period. I'm sure that your process includes a proper explanation... I just know a number of, ahem, studios who are more ethically challenged who don't take such precautions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

I'm a big fan of RS, and I think what Chris is saying is that using lighting, clear condoms and a few tricks (like clipping off the halo from a condom so you don't see the un-rolled part) the condoms won't be as visible as they are in most porn movies.

They're not going to market them as bareback, they're just going to try to downplay the condom use a bit, but not stop using them.

Although I think condoms are hot, some people find they get in the way and they wish they weren't necessary.. this seems to be a good solution.

---

If this is true, it's great to hear. We are doing something similar... our first experiment was with the Durex Avanti condoms, which are made of polyurethane rather than latex and are clear. Unfortunately, they were a complete flop. They weren't very stretchy, they were too small for many of our models, and the models hated them. We're looking now into other ways to minimize the distraction of the condoms while still not portraying our materials as bareback.

no one ever talks about this but me, but here goes again...

HIV is not the only STD out there and it is not the only potentially fatal one. hep C is less treatable and at the moment, more often fatal as well as very communicable and less quickly testable.

and people with low T cell counts may not easily be able to fight off syphilis, chlamydia or other stuff. so even if 2 people are positive and have the same strain, if one has another STD, it can still cause the other partner serious problems.

i'm not trying to be the moral compass of the industry. my world has more questions than answers most of the time. but seriously, why is HIV the only STD that gets this much play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

HIV is not the only STD out there and it is not the only potentially fatal one. hep C is less treatable and at the moment, more often fatal as well as very communicable and less quickly testable.

---

yes Patti, and there are also many other hazards that ALL producers face when filming hard core sex videos whether or not their models are wearing condoms - amoebas are only one of our concerns - and there's a lot of ass eating in this industry, as well as fisting which can lead to severe complications

this is why we prefer to use healthy, non-drug or alcohol abusive models who take care of themselves

this business is full of risks - there is no question - we try to minimize risks at all times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

no one ever talks about this but me, but here goes again...

HIV is not the only STD out there and it is not the only potentially fatal one. hep C is less treatable and at the moment, more often fatal as well as very communicable and less quickly testable.

---

Actually, there is a quick test for hep-C. It's one of the three infections we test our models for (HIV, syphillis, hep-C.) You just have to be willing to spend the money to test your models. Fortunately, we haven't had any models who have tested positive yet, but I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Quote:

---

and people with low T cell counts may not easily be able to fight off syphilis, chlamydia or other stuff. so even if 2 people are positive and have the same strain, if one has another STD, it can still cause the other partner serious problems.

---

Syphillis, even for a healthy person, is very difficult to treat if not caught early. The bacteria is a spirochete, similar to Lyme disease, which burrows and hides, and many people who suffer from Lyme or syphillis have to take high-dose antibiotics for months. There is also a quick test for syphillis.


i'm not trying to be the moral compass of the industry. my world has more questions than answers most of the time. but seriously, why is HIV the only STD that gets this much play?[/QUOTE]

I think because HIV is most visible and prevalent, though hep-C is growing ever year in new diagnoses.

Ultimately, the models themselves need to take responsibility for their own behavior, and the ones that bareback on camera almost certainly do so in their own lives, where things are considerably less controlled and risks are probably higher.

I do believe that the majority of models probably take risks with barebacking occasionally in their private sex lives. But the good news is, with our models at least, it seems more of them are aware of the risks now than even a year or two ago, and I hear and see more of them paying attention to safe sex practices, asking questions, and choosing more wisely.

I'm not interested in being a moral compass either, but I do think that we, as producers, are in a unique position to be able to influence behavior both of our models and the customers who view our product. How we choose to use that influence is a decision that each producer has to make for him or herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

I'm not interested in being a moral compass either, but I do think that we, as producers, are in a unique position to be able to influence behavior both of our models and the customers who view our product. How we choose to use that influence is a decision that each producer has to make for him or herself.

---

yes, and we agree a thousand times over, this is why we counsel all of our potential models and turn down a large number of applicants -

we also provide disclaimers on our videos (we even do this with the videos we stream) and we provide references to professionals in the community if there are any concerns or issues our models are having (HIV related or otherwise) -

we're human beings too and we would not be where we are if not for our model pool - I think they care about us too - at least their performances show that they do