Factory Video Releases First Bareback Title

Thought I would share this with the board before people read it on the news sites.

FACTORY VIDEO RELEASES FIRST BAREBACK TITLE
Models Free To Make Their Own Decisions About Using Condoms

San Francisco, CA - September 13, 2007 – Factory Video Productions announced today that all models for all Factory Video Productions studios are free to make their own decisions about using condoms on Factory Video Productions’ shoots. If all the models agree, condoms will not be necessary.
With this announcement comes the release of their first bareback title Raw Rookies. Raw Rookies is currently available exclusively to consumers at and available wholesale through AVNS for a retail store release at the end of September.

New director Luke Cross and his real life partner videographer Orion Cross made this fantastically hot video for Factory. Featuring first timers to video, or first timers to raw sex. Will Montgomery, Alexandre Carino, Casey Wood, Erin, Mark Galfione, Enrique Gurrero, Adrian, Justin Side, and Luke and Orion Cross star in this cum packed skin to skin barebacking video. Threeways, outdoors, huge cocks. They got it all in this one.

“We have always been a company that prides ourselves on serving our customers and our models first,” stated Scott Morris, owner of Factory Video. “We want our models to be able to express themselves in a way that reflects the sex that they really enjoy. So, we direct with only the minimum of control. The models just have the sex they enjoy the most.”

“Over the last few years, Factory has been getting more and more letters from consumers and retailers about videos that include barebacking.” commented Jeff Rosenberg, director business development. “In response, we brought on the instantly popular ThreshHold Media to make unusual nasty twisted barebacking porn.”

“Our other models have been more and more insistent that the choice to use condoms was THEIRS and not ours to make,” continued Scott. “We have had to insist on the use of condoms on our videos to honor a vocal minority that insists that gay porn is condoms only. (Something that the straight side of the business has never done.) Finally, we've decided to put our philosophy in practice. Our guys are all adults. They can make their own decisions about using condoms. It's always been our policy with cum eating.”

What a great spin to put on a profit-driven decision.

As a producer of gay porn and straight porn "made for gay men" I've always had an issue as to why it was so wrong to not use condoms in gay porn, but it was fine to do so in straight porn.

I don't deny that there is a profit to be made from raw sex. The reason is because there is a huge demand coming from adults who know what is involved with unprotected sex. But let me tell you, the hate mail I get from people saying I'm a Nazi who likes killing people never stops flowing in. I find this vocal minority to be as intolerant of different opinions as the radical right.

I've always let my gay models decide whether or not they want to use condoms. If they are a couple I don't go any further. But if they are strangers then I have them take the HIV/STD test through the AIM clinic. That's the same test the straight performers take. I don't shoot HIV positive raw sex not because the models don't have the right to do so, it's just that I've decided not to do it.

I hope some day soon this won't even be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

What a great spin to put on a profit-driven decision.

---

Without profit, I doubt there would be very many people in the adult industry. Profit is not a dirty word.

Filming Bareback is not a bad thing. Any production studio that films BB scenes should be responsible enough to request the most recent test results from there models performing in BB scenes. If everyone is properly tested and all the models review each others tests and all the models agree and feel compfortable at that point to film BB scenes. Then there shouldn't be an issue.

There are many in the gay community that say its immoral and it shouldn't be done, as human beings we should not judge and make opinions what other people want to do. As producers we can take every opportunity to make sure what the models do are safe and perform in a clean safe environment.

What bothers me about the whole BB issue is that many condon the act but yet BB DVDs sell overwhelming compared to non-bb DVDs. When we place a BB scenes on our website, those particular pages are viewed more compared to the non-bareback scenes...so go figure?

There's a misunderstanding here of the relevance of "test" results.

If a model has been tested, and the test was negative (read "not positive"), and the model has not had unprotected sex six months prior to the test, nor since the test... there is a relative sense that the model does not carry bacteria nor viruses that can harm another model.

If not, then not.

The big factor is whether a model has had unprotected anal intercourse, receiving pre-cum, saliva, semen, blood in the anus/rectum, for a period of time before and certainly after a test.

Having a test, then having bareback sex the next day, makes the test moot in terms of any future unsafe sex work from the time of any unsafe sex going forward.

To be concerned about one's personal health and safety, a test result "today" would really be for a point about 3-6 months prior, depending on the roughness, duration, multiple partners, and quantity of unsafe sex experiences.

nickbaer, well put!

i have no real issues with committed couples doing bareback but in ANY other bareback, there is a real posibility of contracting not only HIV but also hep C, which these days is more likely to be fatal then HIV, and also several other nasty STDs including herpes, for which there is no cure and it can shorten your lifespan.

some producers test for stuff the same day on the set - although not many - and try and negate some of these issues, although you can be communicable and not yet test positive. very few producers test for all the STDs that can be life threatening or changing. i've actually never heard of a bareback producer that tests for all the common STDs although there could be some.

also there was at least one case of a male performer who managed to infect several female performers with HIV after he was tested that month. he didn't know, his tests didn't show yet, but the women still got HIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allboysvideo

Filming Bareback is not a bad thing. Any production studio that films BB scenes should be responsible enough to request the most recent test results from there models performing in BB scenes. If everyone is properly tested and all the models review each others tests and all the models agree and feel compfortable at that point to film BB scenes. Then there shouldn't be an issue.

There are many in the gay community that say its immoral and it shouldn't be done, as human beings we should not judge and make opinions what other people want to do. As producers we can take every opportunity to make sure what the models do are safe and perform in a clean safe environment.

What bothers me about the whole BB issue is that many condon the act but yet BB DVDs sell overwhelming compared to non-bb DVDs. When we place a BB scenes on our website, those particular pages are viewed more compared to the non-bareback scenes...so go figure?

---

and they waited all this time?

no surprise - congrats guys... so much going on in the world of bareback these days....

always plenty of room for QUALITY videos in this niche... welcome on board!

Filming sex acts where the models are not using condoms is risky. So is breathing. There are definitely germs and viruses everywhere.

I believe only porn that is shot in sterile environments, under medically supervised conditions should be allowed to be sold. Any sex acts that involve the tiniest amount of risk should be shunned to the darkest corners of the world and the producers treated like outcasts. I think we need to band together and determine what porn is acceptable to us and what porn is not acceptable. We could use the christian right for a guideline as to how to proclaim support for freedoms and acceptance but at the same time condemning those that do not act like we do. After all, we believe in the First Amendment right to free expression as long as those making the expressions agree with us.

Filming bareback is normal thing if you ask me,same as for straight,and i do rellly film a lot of bareback content,models are FULL tested,not just aids,they agree on it...shots are legal.Its much less risk then what they do in private life,so Factroy video,.... congrats,hope tittle does great for you and lookig forward nto our future posible cooperation :groovy:

chad, i'd feel differently except that most porn companies tell their models flat out that if the tests are negative, they're safe. a lot of companies believe that someone showing a recent test means they're safe. yet people can fake test results, change dates on test results or simply have results that aren't accurate because of when they were infected.

i'm not saying laws should change.

i DO feel that potential models should have the risks explained accurately by people who actually understand what the risks are - and not just regarding HIV, either. i believe there are some jobs where full disclosure is the law, aren't there?

We're supposed to justify Porn as an alternative for consumers to actually engage in physical sex.

But when studios hire models to bareback, Porn is being a bad role model - and giving the wrong signals - to consumers, especially those under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, uneducated, and/or young.

Anytime a penis, or fingers, or a toy is inserted in any body orifice with mucus membranes, or broken skin, there runs the risk of passing bacteria and virus material from one partner to another.

STDs, HIV, HPV related Cervical and Rectal/Colon cancer, are easily passed.

STD/HIV rates are at all time highs. Most of us health educators would like to believe that this situation is primarily due to the radical Bush Administration's ethnic cleansing agenda of censoring public health education efforts.

HIV is transmitted through unprotected anal and vaginal intercourse, and possibly oral, from blood and sexual body fluids. HPV is passed from surface virus from a man to men, and to women, or a women to a partner, or from a toy to a partner.

Making modern day bareback is unhealthy, and creates the wrong message for viewers. Re-releasing pre-condom video from the 1980s reminds consumers of the estimated 420,000 US HIV infections in 2007, 425,000 AIDS cases, and 320,000 persons infected but untested and unaware.

With the recent revelation that HPV (a herpes virus related to cold sores, warts and worse) is a primary cause of Cervical and Ovarian cancer, as well as rectal and colon cancers, there's just no legitimate basis for shooting and releasing modern day bareback porn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeCruise

As a producer of gay porn and straight porn "made for gay men" I've always had an issue as to why it was so wrong to not use condoms in gay porn, but it was fine to do so in straight porn.

---

there's little if any comparison with straight porn

in straight porn an hiv+ model has no future
in gay porn an hiv+ model is the shiz

straight porn doesn't have HIV+ brainless dimwits that do it without condom tell people HIV doesn't exist and that they everyone should bareback 'cause it's no big deal

nor do they have HIV+ models who go around to parties and whatnot fucking bugchasers 'cause they are "famous"

in straight porn there are no companies that use HIV+ models and glorify the fact they fuck someone bareback and cum in them, appeal to bugchasers etc...

if there are please enlighten me

The other issues... that none of the bareback studios like to talk about...

Test results are easily faked. If the studio isn't testing the model on the spot, or using AIM (which carefully checks ID and maintains records on models they test) then there's room for fakery. There are several cases where this is known (or strongly suspected) to have happened.

Everybody talks about HIV, but nobody talks about hep-C and syphillis, both of which can be more difficult to treat than HIV. And then there's chlymidia, gonorrhea, molluscum, and various other STDs. I seriously doubt that most of the studios that shoot bareback take the care to test their models for all of those things.

And, as Patti said, HIV test results are nearly meaningless if the model has barebacked within the last 3 months. Even the more sensitive PCR test has a window of several weeks, and if a studio is relying on a model providing their own results from a lab other than AIM, they are probably getting a quick test or an ELISA, which rely on the presence of antibodies to determine HIV status. A model recently infected will have a very high virus load as the virus initially replicates. Then, antibodies are formed and the viral load decreases. If the model has sex after infection and before antibody production, he will test negative and be at high risk of transmitting to another performer.

But the majority of bareback studios don't know, don't care, or feign ignorance. I realize there are some studios, such as Tony and Cam's operation, that are very up-to-date on all the issues and take appropriate precautions, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

In my book, and without getting into the issue of the message sent to viewers with barebacking, I believe that we do have a responsibility as producers to take reasonable precautions. Studios that use AIM or otherwise directly test their models for all known or difficult-to-treat STDs, and, in addition, provide models with complete, detailed disclosure of the risks (by talking to them, not by handing them a form with fine print they don't read) have done all they reasonably can.

If those steps are in place and the models truly, completely understand the risks, then at that point it is truly the model's choice to engage in that risk if they choose to. But I will wager that very, very few bareback producers take that sort of precaution. In any other business situation, an employer would be *required* to take steps to minimize risk to their employees and/or to fully disclose the risks that are present. Why some adult producers don't feel the need to do this is beyond me. Ultimately, if we as an industry don't step up and police ourselves, someone else will do so for us, and probably in a way we don't like.

do you know of any condom-only studios that discuss ALL the risks with their models? condoms do break, you can get syph or many other STDs in your throat and there are other issues not pertaining to health - most models don't understand that the minute their content is on the web, there will NEVER be a way to stop it.

in california, i know of at least one studio that was fined heavily by cal osha for exposing their performers to unprotected sex, which they deemed unsafe even though the performers were willing. so there are already laws in place here to all workers from dangerous conditions and they do cover porn, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

If those steps are in place and the models truly, completely understand the risks, then at that point it is truly the model's choice to engage in that risk if they choose to. But I will wager that very, very few bareback producers take that sort of precaution. In any other business situation, an employer would be *required* to take steps to minimize risk to their employees and/or to fully disclose the risks that are present. Why some adult producers don't feel the need to do this is beyond me. Ultimately, if we as an industry don't step up and police ourselves, someone else will do so for us, and probably in a way we don't like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

If the studio isn't testing the model on the spot

---

I have to jump in here for a sec... Not every studio shoots their own "exclusive" content and it's up to the studio AND videographer to ensure the model is well informed and checked.

And not all studios require a test with your name on it. There are "free" testing locations that offer full anonymous testing. My brother was once told to do this because it was free and the studio would accept the test.

So far the primary argument against shooting gay porn without condoms are abuses and wrongdoings by the producers and sexually active models that have sex after their test but before they perform. These are not issues with condomless porn, these are issues with the people involved doing things they should not. The issues should not be confused. We should not condemn condomless porn because there are some bad people involved in it; the bad behavior should be addressed and corrected.

The next argument is that porn without condoms send the wrong message. As much as I respect the speakers, I say "fuck that noise" because when one wants to stifle expression because it "sends the wrong message" that is censorship, and I unconditionally support the right to expression, even if it is unpopular.

Condomless porn in itself is not bad and should not be penalized or marginalized. The abuses by the bad apples do need to be addressed, but a blanket condemnation of the genre of porn without condoms will not solve any problems at all. The market dictates what will be produced; the suppliers are responsible for HOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

So far the primary argument against shooting gay porn without condoms are abuses and wrongdoings by the producers and sexually active models that have sex after their test but before they perform. These are not issues with condomless porn, these are issues with the people involved doing things they should not. The issues should not be confused.

---

My own experience generalizes only to twinks and twink studios, because I've not had much opportunity to talk to models other than twinks.

Within the twink genre, and according to the stories I hear from models (which may or may not be reliable), the correlation between [sloppy or nonexistent testing and inadequate risk disclosure or risk minimization] and [bareback producers] is near 100%. I'm not confusing the issues, but I am saying that the coexistence of the two is extremely high in twink porn.

One well known DVD producer told a retailer (with a straight face) that his bareback porn was only shot with "real, committed boyfriends." Interesting how one model must have had 8 real, committed boyfriends in the space of a couple months. It's that sort of disingenuous stuff that we don't need and doesn't help the industry.

Quote:

---

We should not condemn condomless porn because there are some bad people involved in it; the bad behavior should be addressed and corrected.

---

I completely agree.

Quote:

---

The next argument is that porn without condoms send the wrong message. As much as I respect the speakers, I say "fuck that noise" because when one wants to stifle expression because it "sends the wrong message" that is censorship, and I unconditionally support the right to expression, even if it is unpopular.

---

There is a huge difference between stifling expression and encouraging producers to send positive messages. I can't speak for others, but I do not advocate restricting the right of producers to produce bareback porn, simply because I cannot condone restricting speech or expression. However, I do advocate voluntary responsibility. There's no question that it sends a mixed message to encourage our youth to use condoms and be safe, and in the same breath, glamourize porn where condoms are not used. I'm not in favor of any sort of regulatory restriction on barebacking, but I do think it would be good if producers would voluntarily choose to produce less of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

do you know of any condom-only studios that discuss ALL the risks with their models? condoms do break, you can get syph or many other STDs in your throat and there are other issues not pertaining to health - most models don't understand that the minute their content is on the web, there will NEVER be a way to stop it.

---

Our disclosure process is pretty complete. We discuss the risks of barebacking (and why we don't shoot it), the risks of oral transmission, condom breakage, ways to reduce risks of oral transmission while shooting scenes, the latency period and the limitations of the testing that we do, and the permanence of the decision to do porn (web and DVD distribution and the fact that our content is distributed worldwide, and we are a pretty well branded studio with wide visibility.) Most of that is done before the models ever decide to work with us, and we go over it again in a discussion once the models arrive, and after discussion, have them read and sign statements that they have understood everything, they are not relying on our STI testing in making their decisions, and that there are real risks. We currently test for syphillis, hep-C and HIV, because those are the most difficult to treat, and will likely add chlymidia and gonorrhea soon.

We do have a small but significant number of models who are initially gung-ho who, after we've gone through disclosure, decide not to do porn. Although we sometimes lose a cute model, I would much rather do that than have someone later be unhappy with their decision.

I'm sure our process isn't perfect, and there's no question that any sexual activity involves a certain amount of risk of transmission of various STDs, but we do the best we can to provide full disclosure and a safe working environment.

I can only speak for myself of course. WE test everyone , for everything. We attend the instant HIV test and wait in the outer room for the actor to return with the written ( nameless ) results . That way we receive the paper before it is folded , etc pretty much insuring someone did not pull a bait and switch on the results. Is this fool proof ? No. And locked cars get stolen, I lock mine anyway .

I am much more concerned about BB studios who do not test, who discourage testing when the guys ask about and knowingly placed Pos guys with neg guys. When I received THAT chat log, I was horrified .

Most BB compnaies I think, I hope, are far more responsible . Ultimately , this is the ADULT industry, everyone must take responsiblity for their health .

you know, everyone... I'd love to join in for a spirited debate...

however, we are in the middle of relocating our home and business to the Central Coast of California and I'm up to my nipples in wires and plugs

I'll join in sometime in the next week or so (if this thread is still alive)

somehow, this topic is always a HOT one

so keep it going, always love good, whole hearted discussions on this topic

much love to everyone from Tony&Cam

the BAREBACK MASTERS

up to your nipples in wires and plugs - now THERE's a picture *LOL*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo

you know, everyone... I'd love to join in for a spirited debate...

however, we are in the middle of relocating our home and business to the Central Coast of California and I'm up to my nipples in wires and plugs

I'll join in sometime in the next week or so (if this thread is still alive)

somehow, this topic is always a HOT one

so keep it going, always love good, whole hearted discussions on this topic

much love to everyone from Tony&Cam

the BAREBACK MASTERS

---

My main concern with the bareback porn segment is that some models might be accepting the jobs (and risk) out of money desperation. When I watch these scenes I can't help but wonder if behind the performance, the bottom is trembling in fear over the raw dick of some guy being inside him. All in the name of no other options to pay this months rent. Those are the models I fear for.

There will always be the other models, the promiscuous guys who are trying to hookup at the club every single weekend. The ones who'll bareback with anyone. If you want to capture what is their everyday behavior on film, I guess that's not such a big deal. But how do you really know who is who?

I have always believed producers should leave barebacking up to the models just before the scene is shot. Not a requirement to get the job. Not paid a penny more. No incentive to do it. Only then do you know it was 100% consensual.

i've definitely heard stories about models who didn't want to bareback but desparately needed the money.

i think your description of those who bareback willingly sounded very judgemental. how is someone who fucks without a condom more promiscuous than someone who wears a condom? for that matter, i feel that the entire concept of promiscuity is archaic. why shouldn't a person fuck who they want for pleasure?

a bareback production can't leave it up to the last minute whether the models will use condoms as their material is - by definition - condom-free. i also think leaving it to the model at the last minute means no full disclosure and also allows the model to make a spur of the moment choice he or she would not have made if someone had sat down with them and explained everything. it also wouldn't work if one model suddenly thought "fuck it - i'm going bareback!" in a scene with a guy who is condom-only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

My main concern with the bareback porn segment is that some models might be accepting the jobs (and risk) out of money desperation. When I watch these scenes I can't help but wonder if behind the performance, the bottom is trembling in fear over the raw dick of some guy being inside him. All in the name of no other options to pay this months rent. Those are the models I fear for.

There will always be the other models, the promiscuous guys who are trying to hookup at the club every single weekend. The ones who'll bareback with anyone. If you want to capture what is their everyday behavior on film, I guess that's not such a big deal. But how do you really know who is who?

I have always believed producers should leave barebacking up to the models just before the scene is shot. Not a requirement to get the job. Not paid a penny more. No incentive to do it. Only then do you know it was 100% consensual.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

So far the primary argument against shooting gay porn without condoms are abuses and wrongdoings by the producers and sexually active models that have sex after their test but before they perform. These are not issues with condomless porn, these are issues with the people involved doing things they should not. The issues should not be confused. We should not condemn condomless porn because there are some bad people involved in it; the bad behavior should be addressed and corrected.

The next argument is that porn without condoms send the wrong message. As much as I respect the speakers, I say "fuck that noise" because when one wants to stifle expression because it "sends the wrong message" that is censorship, and I unconditionally support the right to expression, even if it is unpopular.

Condomless porn in itself is not bad and should not be penalized or marginalized. The abuses by the bad apples do need to be addressed, but a blanket condemnation of the genre of porn without condoms will not solve any problems at all. The market dictates what will be produced; the suppliers are responsible for HOW.

---

Chad...the more I read what you write, the more I like and respect you!
I want to thank you for eloquently expressing some of the very same things I think as well.

I am curious to know something....

Of all the producers who allow bareback, how many have HIV themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I am curious to know something....

Of all the producers who allow bareback, how many have HIV themselves?

---

I don't ,lol
and honestly....i know maybe 20 producers and as far as i know,non of them is HIV positive...and non of prducers shouldnt alow bareback... no mether is is it straight or gay... without ALL TESTS POSIBLE

I have to wonder about any model so desperate for money that he was forced to pose bareback. too many companies are hiring / shooting all the time doing condom work . However whatever the situation, "Letting models decide " is a cop out, unless producers are insisting on seeing test results. Are tests perfect? no. Locked cars get stolen all the time , I lock mine anyway . Precuations and common decency are not a bad thing

.



I do not believe that models who shoot porn are all "so desperate for money". I think if you want to use such a broad blanket statement, how about this one:

"I have to wonder about any model so desperate for money that he was forced to pose nude or even worse, so desperate for money that he was forced to have sex on film"

Sounds a bit ridiculous, I know but it is said every day by judgmental right wing porn haters everywhere.



I think if you met some of the bareback producers, like Tony or THE ENTIRE STRAIGHT PORN WORLD, you would not be so judgmental about bareback films. But, everyone has the right to an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

.



I do not believe that models who shoot porn are all "so desperate for money". I think if you want to use such a broad blanket statement, how about this one:

"I have to wonder about any model so desperate for money that he was forced to pose nude or even worse, so desperate for money that he was forced to have sex on film"

Sounds a bit ridiculous, I know but it is said every day by judgmental right wing porn haters everywhere.



I think if you met some of the bareback producers, like Tony or THE ENTIRE STRAIGHT PORN WORLD, you would not be so judgmental about bareback films. But, everyone has the right to an opinion.

---

Agreed..that is such a strawman arguement that is used all the time by those opposed to bare back sites.

Perhaps it would be better to argue that bareback sites pay MORE than regular sites. I honestly don't know the stats on that..but would make more sense to me that the other way around.

To be fair to the bareback producers, it is definitely true that quite a few of the models we speak with will admit to having barebacked (in their private life) at least occasionally, so I could see that they would be willing to have extra money waved in their face to get them to bareback.

My problem is mostly with the lack of honest disclosure of risks. Once we explain the risks, the latency period, what it really means to have HIV (that it's not just "taking a few pills every day", which a lot of the twink models seem to think) and the notion that anyone willing to bareback on camera has probably done so pretty regularly off-camera and is therefore a higher risk for having one or more STIs, most of the models realize this is probably not something they want to risk. If bareback studios all explained the risks and the models were still gung ho for doing it, then an informed decision has been made. But when you see a number of models publicly changing their position on it, you pretty much have to assume they were not adequately informed in the first place.

I always felt good about BB at miamistudios because they were very careful about testing, and the great majority of guys I was with were military. Still, my brother did it once, didn't feel comfortable, didn't do it again, and went on to have a long career with the company in condom films, perhaps the best system of all ?