Printable View
Did I miss a press release or something?
http://maleflixxx.tv/pc/Theme.asp?Th...k&R=1EXYAGWEBX
Maleflixxx now has 24 bareback titles and they've added "Bareback" as one of the main categories on their front page. I think this is news, given that I recall they were at one time firmly in the safe sex camp, or was I mistaken?
Could someone from Maleflixxx comment on this, please?
That could be an issue for some of their other studios who went to Maleflixxx specifically because they didnt carry bareback titles.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.
Regards,
Lee
Some movie descriptions:
"All new, all beginners involved in hot bareback sex. These studs get their holes worked by big dicks and no condoms. These twinks wont be beginners for much longer"
"These guys don`t just paint the walls, they paint the insides of each others ass...with cum!"
"Bareback beginners 3 has a hot assortment of sexy Eurotwinks who wouldn’t recognize a rubber from a balloon. "
"This movie is packed with hardcore, raw fucking action. No need to search for a rubber in this movie...these studs don`t want them."
"Candles aren’t the only thing being blown in US Male’s Bareback Birthday Party. These 10 twinks put the icing on each other’s cakes and exchange all the party favors one could imag"
this is all very interesting
perhaps a PR event designed to give the titles more public (consumer) awareness?
don't forget, controversy sells fellas and the more bitching, moaning and groaning that goes on... the more interest amongst the readers is spiked which translates into sales...
drama, drama, drama - I am SO sick of drama
I heard a rumor this was going to happen....
I used to be proud to work in this industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderLounge
LOL love the descriptions... and good for them to expand their selection of movies..
Ooops, looks like Naked Sword gave in, too.
http://vod.nakedsword.com/dispatcher...categoryId=567
Hi Guys:
As you saw, we do now carry some titles that contain bareback sex. As the gay adult community evolves we felt that consumers who wished to watch bareback porn were going to do it any way. By offering it on our network, this allowed us the opportunity to disseminate information about safer sexual practices and debunk myths about barebacking.
Not carrying bareback content means our content mix does not accurately represent our customers’ tastes. For the past 3 years we’ve had feedback from our studios, affiliates and customers that there is a shift in consumer preferences underway and that previous objections or concerns about merchandising bareback content have for the most part disappeared.
We did discuss this with all our major studios and partners before implementation of this category happened.
I hope this answers all your questions. Feel free to email me directly if you have anything else on this topic to discuss.
Cheers,
Brent
brent@sureflix.com
The opinion that matters most to a business that depends on sales is the opinion of the buyer.
Right now buyers want bareback.
Buyers do not buy porn because the company that made it has grand social ideals -- buyers buy porn because they want to get off.
I don't believe that companies that produce hardcore without condoms are evil beings that should be spit upon by the more righteous.
I believe that more and more companies will produce or market hardcore videos where the models do not use condoms.
I believe that "it is all about money". Yes, it is. Money is why companies exist. Without money, they cannot pay their employees who are usually the ones that complain "it is just about money". I have never heard an employer say "They just do it for the money" because an employer has to make payroll and mortgage and taxes and utilities and marketing costs and pay for employees to go to shows to party for 3 days and give out 10 business cards to other employees that are there to party for 3 days. It IS about the money, and if the consumer says "I want models that are not wearing condoms" then you either give it to them or don't make the sale. If you don't make enough sales, then jobs go away. Or they go to companies that DO provide the consumer what he wants. Any company can have high standards when the cash flows are good, but as revenues and profits are dropping listening to the consumer's desires becomes critically important.
With Condoms or Without seems to be the Abortion issue of the gay porn webmaster boards. Most are solidly in one corner or the other and little can be done or said to change any minds.
Personally, I wear a condom when I have sex. I have also watched bareback films and watching those films did not give me an uncontrollable urge to fuck someone without a condom, nor did it make me think that the producer was a greedy bastard that did not care about models.
Hey stud ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent-MF
Can you check your email please :)
Regards,
Lee
yeah, and TLA too
all very interesting - when we saw that Naked Sword had actually given in I thought I would shit!
we pulled our first video down YEARS ago because they had edited out all the barebacking between me and Cam and then wanted us to change all the titles we were submitting...
funny how $$$$$$ always comes into play in the end....
and speaking of money - we invested over one million dollars of cash, time and materials into our company in order to build the library that everyone is making $$$$$$ from
I suggest that all you guys out there who are angry over the bareback takeover of the market get out there and find yourselves a million dollars to build an inventory of titles and content you think are better than our stuff and then wait to see how people in the market respond -
sorry, but that's just the way I feel - too much anger in this industry !
Oh, get over yourself. Yes, you're making money and nobody faults you for that, but the way you carry on as if you're some sort of daring pioneer for making bareback movies is just absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
There is room for both.
Neither self-righteous safe sex advocates (of which I would have categorized my own views several years ago) and self-righteous barebacking advocates do anyone any good.
Unfortunately, the current market demand means that a lot of young kids will get the wrong message which will cause them to emulate the behaviors they have seen, and many will get HIV as a result. Based on the data collected on violent behavior in films and its influence on violent behavior in indivuals as well as in society, we can draw the conclusion pretty reliably that there is indeed a cause-and-effect relationship. Ditto smoking in films and on television. As it has been eliminated, studies have shown that it has directly influenced the decision to smoke by youth.
It is also complete bullshit that consumers will not accept safe sex. Comments saying "the market demands it" ignore the fact that there were plenty of sales before barebacking came along, and if barebacking were miraculously banned tomorrow, safe titles would do just fine, as many still do. The issue is that companies are making the decision -- which, as Chad points out, they are perfectly free to do -- to put money in front of message. Hollywood has done that for years.
So it's unfortunate that kids are getting the wrong messages and are acting on them, but, as Chad said, it's hard to argue with market demand. I just hope that the companies that have held out for a long time, and those who produce or market bareback in spite of their own moral objections will aggressively turn their efforts toward education. There are kids coming of age every day who, thanks to Bush's loser policymakers, are not getting any meaningful messages about the importance of safer sex and what it means to be infected with HIV, hep-C, or other difficult-to-treat diseases.
The more we work to communicate the message of safety, the more we can at least do our best to counteract the unhealthy messages that, unfortunately, seems inevitable will become a larger and larger segment of the industry.
I presented a flyer at the recent GayVN Retreat to the industry, and I am re-posting the text again.
==============
”The gay adult industry is at a turning point with technology, government regulation, and health issues. We need to think rationally, acknowledge our past, and plan for the future. There are a lot of unanswered questions we haven’t discussed because we’re in competition with each other or ashamed to admit we don’t have all the answers. Let’s make the right choices in setting the agenda for the next phase of our history.”
Sister Zsa Zsa Glamour,
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc.
San Franciso Order
I am an old nun, and I remember the days when we didn’t need condoms for sex. As a Sister, we’ve raised so much money for AIDS services and pushed our safe sex message until we’re blue in the face (under the white makeup, that is...) I have also been in the adult industry long enough to see some disturbing trends develop. I pray that our efforts were not wasted.
The current industry mantra for mainstream gay adult movies is to shoot safer sex only, maintain confidentiality of HIV status, and not discriminate on the basis of HIV status. But before we get all high and mighty and pat ourselves on the back, remember, it took a very long time for the industry to set that standard. In my opinion, too many models died before the studios decided it was economically feasible to go condom-only.
Today, feisty “outlaw” studios and websites are posing a challenge to the establishment by exploiting the concept of “raw” unprotected anal sex. The jury is still out as to whether bareback movies are an economic threat right now, but my crystal ball warns me the trend should be addressed in some way. Unfortunately, until I upgrade the software on my crystal ball, it only provides me with warnings, not solutions. It distresses me, though, to envision the day when the lunatics take over the asylum - or more correctly the WRONG lunatics.
I prefer to envision a day when STDs are curable, all performers working in the gay adult industry are completely disease-free, and condoms are no longer an issue. We’ve gotten so accustomed to the idea that the crisis is forever, we’ve lost hope of even trying to end it. I am posing this idea as a challenge and a goal to the gay adult industry for everyone’s long-term success and good karma.
The following are my ten steps to Barebacking Acceptable Practices for models, studios currently shooting bareback, and those who are considering it. These are my opinions. You can write me off as a blasphemer or a wacko, but please indulge me as I present my thoughts for your consideration.
=========================
BAREBACKING ACCEPTABLE PRACTICES
1. TESTING!
The current HIV testing technology is not perfect, but it helps. Our colleagues on the straight side do it, ask them if it works! And it wouldn’t hurt to test models before a condom-only shoot, either!
2. SERO SORTING.
Only mix positive with positive and negative with negative. Let’s set a goal that someday all performers in the industry are disease-free!
3. Performers: Don’t lie about HIV status.
Honesty shouldn’t be difficult. It’s the Golden Rule.
4. Don’t pressure models to bareback.
Always allow condoms as a option. If a model is uncomfortable barebacking, re-shuffling the cast might save someone’s life.
5. Studios: Downplay the sensationalism of barebacking.
Someday when the AIDS crisis is over, condomless porn will be normal again, and the word “bareback” will be meaningless. So what will be the selling point of your movie then?
6. Inform scene partners of each other’s HIV status.
Don’t be ashamed to tell the truth! If you’re not a good match, there are plenty of other hot guys for you to work with that share your HIV status.
7. Don’t take extraordinary risks.
Is taking 60 raw loads of cum really that much hotter than 50? Come on, there’s a reason those stunt movies are called “Jackass”!
8. Get information and advice.
Don’t be afraid to ask stupid questions from health professionals or from your colleagues. It’s not rocket science, and this isn’t the Cold War, either.
9. Accept responsibility.
Consider the worst-case scenario before engaging in risky behavior, whether you are a model or a producer. Minimize that risk to the point you can be proud of your decision.
10. Be open for change.
Whether you are a pushing-the-envelope risk taker or a holier-than-thou safe sex proselytizer, keep your opinions to yourself. Shooting your mouth off about other people’s businsess practices may bite you in the ass someday.
====================
Sister Zsa Zsa Glamour, the self-proclaimed “Porno Nun”, has been a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc. since 1991. Founded in 1979, the Sisters take vows to “Promulgate universal joy and expiate stigmatic guilt” through education, activism and putting the “fun” back into fund raising. The Sisters produced the world’s first safe sex guide “Play Fair” in 1982.
TheSisters.org
SisterZsaZsa.com
simply amazing.. by the way some of the "oh barebacking is evil" guys talk you would think that having seen a bareback film would make you unable to think rationally and practically demand of your human nature that you imitate what you saw on film in your personal life...Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
well what do you know ... :high:
If you really believe this, you're missing the point. Anything someone watches or spends time around, over time, affects their beliefs and values. Particularly if the people watching are at an impressionable age, the likelihood of it affecting them is much greater. This is one of the basic rules of advertising and marketing, and the data on it is pretty irrefutable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
We can't definitively say from the data that watching bareback porn makes kids more likely to want to bareback, but we can draw inferences from similar exposures (to violence, cigarettes, prescription drugs, etc) and their effect on large groups of people to tell us it is very likely this is the case.
That said, getting adult producers to stop producing bareback is about as likely as getting hollywood to stop making violent films. That's where the money and demand is, so that's what people produce. I suppose there's no reason why this industry should show any more responsibility than Hollywood, other than the fact that some of us have already been through one holocaust of sorts with the first wave of AIDS deaths in the early 1980s and would rather not see the pattern repeated. But when people are forced to make a decision between money and ethics, money almost always prevails. Sad but true.
The rest of the statement I can buy, but the statement above is simply not true. A more accurate way of stating it is "We (stores, studios, VOD providers, producers, whomever) lose too many customers by not carrying/producing bareback."Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent-MF
Not that I fault you for saying it... I keep hearing the same argument from everyone... but my biggest issue is that it is a gigantic fallacy that everyone is buying into which is, in turn, making it into truth.
Every time someone gives in, it just reinforces the notion that you *have* to produce or sell bareback in order to succeed. But the only reason this is the case is because so many people are signing on. Eventually, that may be a true statement. It defintely wasn't a year ago, and it wouldn't be now if people didn't simply say "Oh, well, I'm going for the money."
Just something to think about.
see, here we go again... thank you for making my point..Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Perhaps I'm oblivious, but I don't see how my coherent discussion of the facts and the data supporting them reinforces the point (if you're trying to make it) that watching behaviors has no effect whatsoever on your actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
If that's the point you're making, then 100 years of marketing, psychological, and anthropological data disagrees with you.
Hey Everyone--we own and operate GayDVD.com as part of the Raging Stallion / Gunzblazing family of companies. Having a DVD retail outlet that has emerged as a major web site have given us an opportunity to lean a great deal about the current DVD market. GayDVD.com carries all titles, including bareback. Bareback movies get a large share of front page space, right along with condom movies. For the record, most of our buyers come from google, so it is a random market sample.
We ran a sales report for the period January 1 thru June 30 of 2007 and guess what? Of the top 50 money making titles on our site, only four were bareback titles. So of the top fifty movies for the first half of this year, bareback had 4 and safer sex films had 46.
Today a big hit movie at a major studio sells between ten and fifteen thousand DVD units. A mega hit can do double these numbers. I guarantee you that the average bareback film moves under 2,000 units.
The bottom line is that it is a mistake to think that switching to non-condom porn will significantly boost sales in todays market. Frankly I would have thought otherwise, but the statistics speak for themselves.
I would echo this.
We have something like 22 DVDs out, and maybe 3 of them have sold less than 1500 units. Several are at or over 5,000 units, many more are in the 2000-3000 range. Our new titles continue to sell well at similar levels.
None are bareback.
Yet I hear of many bareback producers who are delighted to sell 500 or 1000 units.
You absolutely do not need to produce bareback in order to sell, you absolutely do not need to sell bareback product to be a successful retailer.
But if everyone is convinced of this fallacy, then the industry will *create* a reality that does not currently exist.
Chris:
Thank you for being open about sales figures. Most producers will never tell how much they earn, so it makes it really difficult for the rest of us to make business decisions if we don't have the facts.
Hopefully, other retailers will come through with more sales numbers so we have something to compare.
I'd hate to see a struggling producer go against his morals on the assumption he's going to make a killing producing for a niche that is not as successful as he imagined.
Yes- Those numbers are in the ballpark. An average film from a major condom only studio sells 6000 units, good ones sell 10,000 units and great ones sell 20,000+. DVD sales account for about half of revenue these days, with the other half coming in online VOD sales.
When we talk with major distributors that sell bareback DVDs they say they are happy to sell 1000 units of a bareback title. Maybe to a lot of bareback producers 2000-3000 units is a blockbuster, but to major studios we would go out of business if that's all we were selling.
I truly appreciate Chris sharing his numbers with us all. I also have to ask....now that the stats are in will you continue to sell bareback films? It would certainly be a powerful statement if a major company like RSS decided to stop selling bareback due to low sales.
Interesting. Considering these statistics, I wonder why it is that bareback appears to do so well on sites like AEBN?
Seems like they're always dominating the "Most Watched" list. What could cause that, assuming they really are the most watched?
My guess is that the DVD customer base is older and more condom oriented. The VOD customer base, currently, is younger and not as safer sex oriented.
You also need to look at things in terms of total dollar revenue generated, not how many times something was watched in VOD. Total dollar income generated is what counts. In the grand scheme of things hard product sales still represent 60%+ of total dollar revenue generated.
I think this is changing as more of the traditional condom studios move more aggressively into online and VOD. The bareback companies allowed their content into VOD much earlier then most mainstream studios, so they had a headstart on the younger VOD customer base.
From what I can see in our sales numbers at AEBN, I have no doubt that the VOD consumers just wants good content. Within our first couple of months on NS/AEBN we were doing over 1,000,000 pay-per-minutes per month. This is in addition to downloads and PPV rentals. On our own site we do over 2,000,000 minutes of streaming per month, plus downloads.
I think this will start to level out and switch over as more and more high quality content from condom studios becomes more readily available in VOD.
Bareback is a niche. As long as HIV is here bareback will never become mainstream becomes the vast majority of quality fresh models refuse to have bareback sex on camera.
People on this side of the business are constantly overlooking the influence that models have on this industry. As long as having bareback sex is a social NO NO....then working for bareback companies will be that aswell.
The emphasis should not be on attacking another business for making a business decision. The emphasis should be on discouraging models from entering that side of the business. This is not just good business practice: if you give a shit about your models, its the right thing to do. There is a lot of confused young people in this business.
Bareback company or condom company, everyone needs to work together to identify and weed out bareback producers that pressure models into performing without condoms.
Jeremy Hall
I would just like to say something. First of all unless you are in a 100% secure relationship (does that exist?) then it really doesn't matter if you are giving head or taking a bare cock up the ass...there are still plenty of chances to get a variety of STDs.
The bottom line is that there is risk in having sex. Period. And certainly for people who have made the CHOICE to have sex for money in front of a camera.
Yes, some STDs are "worse" than others BUT pointing fingers at people producing bare back content is just being elitist at best. If you produce content with 2 or more models engaged in sex then you are just as guilty so get the fuck over it!
Lee
In my opinion (and my information really applies only to the twink sector), it isn't so much pressure as misinformation or disinformation. In talking to various models that have either been asked to bareback or have done so, the issue seems to be that the studios commonly don't talk about the risks at all, just say "We'll pay you X dollars more (often just $50 or $100, which is really pathetic) if you're willing to bareback." A few studios go into a long pitch about how the tests they use are very sensitive and there's virtually no risk (which is completely untrue) and some apparently try enticing their models by offering various things. I have heard of studios getting models high on crystal meth, drunk, coked out before a shoot, and one studio is apparently known for insisting that all of its models take Xanax and Viagra before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Club Jeremy Hall
In my opinion, it's those sort of practices that are the most problematic. One of the best things we can do is to simply provide honest, accurate information and disseminate it as widely as possible. We are working on an info site now and I hope to have it up in at least some form within the week.