GAYVN Summit Bareback Discussion Video Clips

I finally got my video clips from this weekend uploaded. I found the three that deal with barebacking to be the most interesting. I know that this is a very complicated, and sensitive subject. Regardless, I for one was interested in hearing the answers to Mark's questions. If you are as well, here are links to these three clips:

http://gaywebmasters.com/gallery/vid...reback_or_not/
http://gaywebmasters.com/gallery/vid...king_part_one/
http://gaywebmasters.com/gallery/vid...king_part_two/

The first clip is from the State Of The Industry session. The other two are from the Directors Session, which was a panel consisting of gay adult directors Steven Scarborough, Doug Jeffries, Michael Lucas, Thor Stephans, and moderator Chi Chi LaRue.

I apoligize for the crappy camera work. I've never used that camera for video before, and I was having some focus issues. :-(

I don't often disagree with Morgan, but I believe is incorrect on the issue he makes about discrimination (saying you cannot discriminate against HIV+ people in California, and therefore cannot choose to avoid hiring models who are HIV+)

He makes the (correct) argument that in California, HIV+ people are a protected class, and as such, cannot be discriminated against in an employment setting... but (for the moment at least), models are not employees except perhaps with the very few companies that put them on salary. So there would be absolutely nothing preventing a studio from refusing to hire an HIV+ model.

Secondly, if models are, in fact, declared to be employees, then CalOSHA regulations apply, and those regs prohibit exposing employees to biological hazards without appropriate safety precautions. So if you are hiring a model as a sex worker (to perform bareback in a sex video) you can most certainly discriminate in not hiring a model that would result in a knowing violation of OSHA regulations.

I think it's also really important to hear the last comment made by the person (who I didn't recognize) who travels worldwide and talks to retailers everwhere... bareback, according to him, to our distributor, and based on our own experience, is NOT taking over. It is a niche, it is popular right now, but studios and webmasters should not feel any pressure to produce bareback product. Now... if everybody suddenly becomes fearful and says "I have to produce bareback because everyone else is" or "My sales will plummet if I don't jump on this bandwagon" then people could *create* that environment where it does not exist.

But if those who care about having the highest safety standards for their models and care about the messages they are sending to those who view their content continue to produce safer sex content of high quality, it will continue to sell... and as the public becomes more aware of the issues, it will probably continue to sell at an increasing rate.

I was unclear on the intent of Mark's question, which related to suggesting that studios switch from "condom required" to "HIV- required." If he is proposing testing IN LIEU of condoms, I would be strongly opposed to that for our studio, because it would ignore the entire latency issue which I believe to be a significant problem in models who are willing to bareback in the first place. If he is proposing that all models be HIV- AND that condoms be used in addition, I believe that would be sensible business practice in terms of protecting the safety of models, but also from a risk-reduction perspective on the part of the business itself.

If you've tested every model, used condoms in your videos, and a model somehow develops HIV or another disease and blames the studio, showing that you have a policy of testing and safer sex in your videos will go a long way to limiting your liability as a business. That's why we test each model we work with, after their arrival, not only for HIV but also for hep-C and syphillis, the three STDs that are most difficult to treat.

Sorry if people feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

I can't really speak for Mark, but as a fellow San Franciscan who got to live through the early days of the epidemic - and watch as her young beautiful friends withered and died - I am appalled that any gay-postive company would shoot bareback - ever - at all.

I don't give a rats behind how much money is in it. Its wrong. Its immoral. It sends the message to young men that the epidemic is over, and regardless of the amount spent on AIDS education, when you are 20 years old mortality is an impossibility.

Part of a positive sexual lifestyle is condom use if you are not in a committed relationship. So, eroticise the damn condoms already. I'm a little bit tired of my friends being diagnosed with HIV, a disease which we KNOW is preventable.

Yeah yeah - I know - you aren't your brothers keeper. We hear that from the same companies who manufacture transfatty acids, pollute the enviroment, and put dangerous chemicals in our food supply for money.

I expect better from this community.

I was the one who dropped the bombshell about barebacking. I didn't plan ahead to bring up the subject, but I thought someone should, and perhaps the wording of the question was awkward.

My only intent was to get people talking.

I hear conflicting stories about the sales figures of backbacking titles and websites, I want to know the true numbers.

I would feel uncomfortable if someday a bareback studio was on the same "Directors Download" panel as Chi Chi and Hot House discussing their craft.

GayVN awards exclude bareback titles, but the magazine let's them buy ads.

Cybersocket sells ads to bareback websites, but Specialty Publications recently started refusing ads from bareback companies under pressure from local AIDS organizations.

Cum-eating is making a comeback. Press releases were sent out about "Invisible condoms". Models who've worked in bareback are no longer ostracized from condom-only studios. What's next?

The older studios didn't adopt their condom-only policies until very late in the game, perhaps as late as 1993. I'm concerned they may go back to their old ways just to stay in business.

These are all very touchy subjects, but what better occasion to bring it up than a gay industry "Summit"?

And a big thank you to Dick Hunter for providing those video clips!

The guy in the third clip that Chip is talking about is Michel Lozier, founder of maleflixxx. From what I understand, it's the Canadian laws that prevent maleflixxx from accepting bareback movies. However, that doesn't mean that if that weren't the law, the people at maleflixxx wouldn't have come to the same decision. I do question that though, consider the AEBN and Hot Movies both have bareback, so the pressure is on.

I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on this issue. It was definetly helpful to hear the views of Chi Chi, Michael Lucas, and the others. I think Micahel Lucas is way off when he says that bareback models all look gross, tired, and on drugs. I've seen some pretty hot guys do bareback lately.

Once I was producing/directing a movie, and two days prior to the shoot, one of the models called and said that his test had come back positive. He'd done bareback for several studios. He said it so matter of factly, like it was no big deal. I asked him how he felt about it, and he said it didn't surprise him, and that "I guess I'll have to go to the doctor or something eventually". This was very disturbing to me. I had to recast, because understandably, the other talent refused to work with him. However, since then I've seen him doing bareback in several videos shot since then.

I have to admit that the first video I ever released has a bareback scene. It was a couple who's been together for two years, so they bareback anyways. I started the scene with an interview where they clearly explain they're a couple.

I absolutely believe that gay men should not be barebacking unless they're in a long term monogomous relationship. However, I think that there may actually be a place in gay porn for bareback, if done correctly. I'm still trying to sort this out, but here's what I'm thinking. Like most movies, porn is about fantasy. You see stuff in movies and on TV everyday that you would never do in real life, and you know it's just a movie. And the stunt men you see on screen really are taking risks. Could it be possible that allowing people to watch their fantasy of bareback in a fictional movie could actually help prevent them from doing it in real life? Probably not, but you know how people always want what they can't have?

I don't know. It's very complicated.

It is a complicated issue. It is a business decision with moral implications.

AVN is absolutely within their right to exclude bareback films from their awards, and even though it seems contradictory, they are within their right to accept advertising money from the exact same company. It may not make complete sense but that is their business decision. VOD sites and distributors are completely within their right to exclude bareback films from their distribution networks.

Although many believe it is wrong to produce these films, we cannot expect to impose our moral judgment on those that choose to make them. Otherwise, the tables may turn and someone else try to impose their moral judgments on us. If you believe barebacking is wrong and should be banned, there are plenty of people that think all porn is wrong and should be banned. In order to have to freedom to do what we do, we have to accept that other companies have the same freedom to do what they do. However, we all have the right to do business with whom we choose to do business and if everyone chose to stop working with bareback companies, the bareback industry would dry up. Unlikely that could happen because it really is the consumer driving the demand, and as long as there are consumers buying bareback films there will be someone out there willing to sell it to them. I just wish that those choosing to produce these films thoroughly explain the dangers to the models before they film so the model can make a truly informed decision.

Good points. However, do you really think that the models don't know the risks? They'd have to be retarded, IMO. My guess is that many of these guys have bareback sex in their personal lives on a regular basis anyways.

I think it's more important for the producers to make the consumers aware of the dangers of having bareback sex. They should explain that this is a fantasy situation, and you should never do this in real life, unless you're stupid (like the models?).

I don't know. If these guys are having bareback sex all the time anyway, is it really so bad to film it, as long as you make people who are watching that these guys are taking huge risks?

Like I said, I don't know. I hate to come off like I support bareback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hunter

Good points. However, do you really think that the models don't know the risks? They'd have to be retarded, IMO. My guess is that many of these guys have bareback sex in their personal lives on a regular basis anyways.

I think it's more important for the producers to make the consumers aware of the dangers of having bareback sex. They should explain that this is a fantasy situation, and you should never do this in real life, unless you're stupid (like the models?).

I don't know. If these guys are having bareback sex all the time anyway, is it really so bad to film it, as long as you make people who are watching that these guys are taking huge risks?

Like I said, I don't know. I hate to come off like I support bareback.

---

I was fortunate enough to receive trial training from the US Department of Justice when I was a prosecutor. I was told to assume that my entire jury had only 7th grade educations. I would never assume that a model was informed of the dangers of barebacking. Hell, so much so-called "sex ed" is teaching abstinence that what little real education there is can be lost.

I think the responsible producer should assume their models know nothing about the dangers of barebacking, STD's, or the repercussions of having their images in hardcore films for the rest of their lives. A good producer will make sure the model is aware that barebacking is a dangerous practice, you can still transmit STD's even using condoms [such as herpes that is spread by contact] and that teachers lose jobs when the school board finds out about the hardcore film released 10 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

...or the repercussions of having their images in hardcore films for the rest of their lives.

---

That much is definetly true! Actually, there's a video clip of Steven Scarborough, president and founder of Hot House, talking about this.

I'm not sure how you can be an adult gay man and not know that you can get HIV or other diseases from bareback, wether you're a model or not. In fact, I bet most straight people know this as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hunter

That much is definetly true! Actually, there's a video clip of Steven Scarborough, president and founder of Hot House, talking about this.

I'm not sure how you can be an adult gay man and not know that you can get HIV or other diseases from bareback, wether you're a model or not. In fact, I bet most straight people know this as well.

---

When we were young HIV killed men in a matter of months -- diagnosis meant that you had 18 months or less left to live. Today, HIV positive men and women live to retirement age, although they have to endure debilitating cocktails, terrible side effects, and constant attention to HIV management. Sex ed is awful, so young models probably are not educated about STD's, condom use, or even what the symptoms of STD's are. They did not see the steady stream of hearses going to cemeteries with the decimated bodies of men who had been strong and healthy 2 years prior. They think that HIV is a disease that can be managed, like diabetes, and don't see it like we did. I really don't think you can assume that models have any real education about sex at all. Thank you Abstinence Only Crowd for pushing your morals so far as to deprive young people of the education they need to keep them safe in the real world

Michael Lucas must be living on a different planet if he thinks that "beautiful models won't bareback." I heard that statement and was amazed... it was almost as though it was from someone with absolutely no knowledge of the industry.

I would say that probably half or 2/3 of the models we talk to have told us they would seriously consider barebacking. Usually, after they spend a week with us and have a chance to hear our position on it, they've changed their position on it, and many have emailed me months or years later thanking me for etaking the time to fully educate them on the issue.

With twinks at least, it seems that most of them know barebacking is bad, but fey really understand how bad or what the real risks are. And of those that do, many are drunk or high at the times when they're making decisions about sexual behavior, which undoubtedly contributes to the problem.

I agree that we cannot and should not dictate the behavior of others on free speech grounds. At the same time, I applaud Specialty for taking a stand that puts their money where their mouth is, though it would be nice if they were more clear in their publication about *why* they take the stand they do, as it would likely have more of a desired effect. But, after all, we are in the business of selling sex, and if we put out too much of a "downer", people will simply go to somebody else's product that doesn't include that message.

Like anything else, bareback porn is susceptible to all kinds of complaints, opinions and judgments, but there are two--sometimes three or four--coins to every side, and who's to say which opinion is superior?

Do I think we should do everything in our power to spread messages about healthy, responsible sexuality? Absolutely, but I also acknowledge that people have different opinions about what that entails.

Do I believe that bareback porn teaches younger, uneducated gay men that it's OK to have unprotected sex? Not anymore than I hold Marilyn Manson responsible for the Columbine shootings, or Quentin Tarantino for Natural Born Killers-type cross-country killing sprees.

Do I believe it is our responsibility to educate these poor, unfortunate youths who obviously never watch TV or pick up magazines or attend health classes that they should get the facts about HIV? No, I don't, but it's great when we try.

Do I believe that there is a place in gay adult entertainment for responsible bareback porn? Absolutely, though I think the producers of this sort of content should make it implicit (through more than just text on a box or on a screen) that the models were sero-sorted and/or that unprotected sex is still risky.

Do I think that bareback porn represents a population of gay men who feel that their sex lives should also be represented on screen? Yes. It's worth noting that even though smoking has been outlawed in certain bars and restaurants, smokers still have certain rights, and HIV-positive people (or monogamous HIV-negative couples) whose sex lives do not include the use of condoms should have their own form of entertainment to enjoy as well.

Bareback porn is here to stay. Steven Scarborough said it best on the panel when he said that "The consumers have had the final say in this matter; bareback porn is here to stay."

We can opine and soapbox ourselves into oblivion, but that's not going to change anything. The best thing we can do is just work by our own standards, and do our best to spread the messages we think are important, and not worry so much about what everyone else is up to. Personal responsibility is a beautiful thing. For those not fortunate enough to understand the value of it, they might pay an ugly price. But that's just called survival of the fittest, and it's been around ever since the beginning of time. Change starts at home and by our own examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hunter

The guy in the third clip that Chip is talking about is Michel Lozier, founder of maleflixxx. From what I understand, it's the Canadian laws that prevent maleflixxx from accepting bareback movies. .

---

What Canadian law are you talking about? I'm not aware of any so I'd be interested to know.

Since Chip is speaking from experience, I guess I stand corrected. I guess, being a smart guy like I am, I forget that, in general, people are stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robin

What Canadian law are you talking about? I'm not aware of any so I'd be interested to know.

---

I don't know, but I've got movies on maleflixxx, and I've always been under the impression that was the case. Also, I was talking to someone from maleflixxx this weekend who mentioned that the law now prevents them only from bareback. It used to be other things as well. There was apparently something referred to as "the four finger rule".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hunter

I don't know, but I've got movies on maleflixxx, and I've always been under the impression that was the case. Also, I was talking to someone from maleflixxx this weekend who mentioned that the law now prevents them only from bareback. It used to be other things as well. There was apparently something referred to as "the four finger rule".

---

I could be totally out to lunch but I rather think that's an internal company policy rather than Canadian law. I've never heard of such a thing but would love to see a specific reference from the Criminal Code of Canada that says so. Or perhaps a specific reference from The CRTC, which governs internet things in Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hunter

Good points. However, do you really think that the models don't know the risks? They'd have to be retarded, IMO. My guess is that many of these guys have bareback sex in their personal lives on a regular basis anyways.

---

It's not that they are retarded. It's not that they aren't hearing the message.

It's just that they are YOUNG. Death is inconcievable at that age, and when you are 20, 45 is just OLD. (Now that I am nearing 45, of course... well... no it's not!)

And Chad, yes, I understand what you are saying about "if we censor others, others will censor us" - but truth be told, I wish we were a bit more self censoring when it comes to life and death issues.

In my "former life" I owned and operated a really hardcore straight BDSM fetish site. Content included fisting, pee, piercing, etc. But not ONE dildo, not ONE fist, not ONE vegitable wasn't clearly swathed in layers of quite obvious latex (there was no sex on the site) - now, all of us know that you can't catch HIV from a cucumber - but it was a decision I made to clearly and obviously promote safer sex.

The site was immensely popular - and not one customer ever complained.

I don't advocate banning anyone. But shunning them, refusing to do business with them, and mouthing off my opinion that they are a contributing factor to the deaths of many beautiful young men (and women)? You betcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hunter

The guy in the third clip that Chip is talking about is Michel Lozier, founder of maleflixxx. From what I understand, it's the Canadian laws that prevent maleflixxx from accepting bareback movies. However, that doesn't mean that if that weren't the law, the people at maleflixxx wouldn't have come to the same decision. I do question that though, consider the AEBN and Hot Movies both have bareback, so the pressure is on.

---

Hi Everyone,

Dick Hunter brought this thread to my attention, so I thought I'd weigh in on why Maleflixxx doesn't stream bareback content. While the laws are slightly different in Canada as to what defines obscenity (and these have recently loosened), barebacking was never a banner subject, so our reasons for choosing not to stream bareback content are simply a decision of our company.

Maleflixxx is gay owned and gay operated, and our owners and founders (like many of you) lived through the 80s watching our friends die, not knowing why and then dealing with the prejudice and ostracization that was a result of this disease.

While we don't want to get on a moral high horse, and rarely involve ourselves in this argument the choice to create and/or stream bareback content is simply that, a choice. There is money to be made for bareback content, but no one could convince me that studios like Falcon, Titan and Hot House will go the way of the DoDo Bird if they don't go condom optional - that is a fallacy, and a dangerous one for our industry.

Bareback content is a niche, a fad, it is not taking over. There is a market for it, but it isn't the entire market and it isn't even a large portion of the market. It just seems so because it polarizes our community. As responsible webmasters and business owners, it is incumbent on us to see through the hype.

So there you have it. Thanks Mary! :x

Quote:

---

In my "former life" I owned and operated a really hardcore straight BDSM fetish site. Content included fisting, pee, piercing, etc. But not ONE dildo, not ONE fist, not ONE vegitable wasn't clearly swathed in layers of quite obvious latex (there was no sex on the site) - now, all of us know that you can't catch HIV from a cucumber - but it was a decision I made to clearly and obviously promote safer sex.

The site was immensely popular - and not one customer ever complained.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mgillis

Hi Everyone,
While we don't want to get on a moral high horse, and rarely involve ourselves in this argument the choice to create and/or stream bareback content is simply that, a choice. There is money to be made for bareback content, but no one could convince me that studios like Falcon, Titan and Hot House will go the way of the DoDo Bird if they don't go condom optional - that is a fallacy, and a dangerous one for our industry.

Bareback content is a niche, a fad, it is not taking over. There is a market for it, but it isn't the entire market and it isn't even a large portion of the market. It just seems so because it polarizes our community. As responsible webmasters and business owners, it is incumbent on us to see through the hype.

---

Praise the Lord! I am really pleased to hear people saying this sort of thing, which we've felt for a very long time.

If this message gets repeated enough, I think it WILL have an impact on the industry. Yes, there will always be a demand for bareback content, but it doesn't have to outsell safer content and it doesn't have to take over the industry.

Mary, I can't tell you how much it raises my opinion of Maleflixxx to know that you guys made that choice for philosophical reasons. Putting your money where your mouth is isn't easy for most in this business (particularly in your end of the business) and I think that Maleflixxx and Naked Sword deserve kudos for sticking to what's important to them.