Gay Porn Pig Removes All Bareback Sex Content

(Toronto, Canada, January 22, 2007) - Gay Porn Pig has taken the initiative of eliminating over 500 links to bareback sex sites from its directory. All paysite and video reviews of bareback sex content were also removed, along with several dozen blog posts. “The gay online porn community needs a stronger voice to teach younger gay men how to protect themselves without sacrificing hot sex,” says Michael Kealy, Gay Porn Pig’s owner and operator. “Gay youth needs to get this message before it’s too late.”

Gay Porn Pig is oinking loud and clear that HIV is still thriving in the gay community. “We’ve become complacent,” Kealy adds. “The success of anti-retro viral drugs has caused many to think that the epidemic is over.” But a whole generation of young gay men have never seen first-hand the effects of HIV and AIDS on our community. And these same men are getting the message through bareback porn that fucking without condoms is okay. “I’m saddened that many of us are putting profits ahead of caring for our community. And I can no longer do it,” Kealy adds.

On January 2, 2008, The New York Times reported that “Over all, the number of new diagnoses of HIV among men who have sex with men has declined steadily since 2001. But among those younger than 30, new cases in New York are rising.”

“Many producers like Titan Men, Hot House, Raging Stallion, and Channel 1 Releasing are producing videos showing us that condom sex is hot,” Kealy says. “But with bareback sites popping up faster than we can count – and thousands of webmasters promoting these sites – we’re losing the battle.” Kealy adds that it’s time to become more personally involved in the fight.

Gay Porn Pig’s initiative is aimed at steering visitors towards alternatives to bareback porn. And our gay porn portal has already added a resource section to its directory providing surfers with access to AIDS service organizations online. A more detailed information and resource section is planned for the site in the spring of 2008.

Gay Porn Pig has been in operation since December 2005. The gay porn portal offers a links directory, free galleries, paysite reviews, gay sex video reviews, porn star bios, and a blog.

A very daring move. Congratulations. And I'll bet the difference in income won't even be noticed.

“We at Titan Media would like to personally commend and thank Michael for having the courage to do the right thing. Michael has chosen the interests and health of others in his community over his own personal self interests.

While others in the gay adult community continue to profit at the expense of the entire gay community, Michael has had the courage to stand up and say no more. Michael has chosen to no longer support the commercial exploitation of films that glorify high risk and unsafe sex, putting performers and the entire gay community at risk.

We applaud and thank Michael for standing up and doing the right thing for his community.”

That's really wonderful. Congratulations on taking a stand for something important like this.

Kudos Michael!!! All of us here at C1R applaud you for your courageous efforts to make our industry a safer one!! :cheekymonkey:

Way to go Michael. It is nice to see people who back up their words with real action.

Congratulations, I hope that you'll be just the first of many others to follow.

Way to go, Michael!

Wow!



.

I gave my congrats on the other board. I am going to talk to Adam and see if I can get you in our links section (it's our own traffic, so no affiliate leaks.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xstr8guy

Wow!



.

---

Interesting. Guess we'll be cancelling his discount for all the bareback photos he's been purchasing from us and for the work he did privately for us at Hot Desert Knights.

Bill

I am glad to see your change of heart. Welcome to the very small number of gay adult portals that are accepting some responsibility for the effect of the content they promote.

Bold move - Congratulations!


mud slinging aside, I think it's a good choice and wish you well with it.

You should email people whose links you have removed so that they can remove linkbacks - otherwise this makes you a link "cheater".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilihost

You should email people whose links you have removed so that they can remove linkbacks - otherwise this makes you a link "cheater".

---

Luke,

You are obviously correct in your statement. It seems that Michael, after many years of promoting bareback content and supporting those companies who produce bareback content, didn't believe it was necessary to let his "friends" know about his "change of heart. He just went and blindsided the people and companies who produce bareback material who he said were his "friends". I find that somewhat unethical, certainly underhanded and not what a "friend" would do to another friend.

What is strange is that after reading his announcement on AVN at 3 AM this morning, I went to his blog and low and behold the link to Hot Desert Knights was still there.

The links to his sites from all of our site were removed by 3:30 AM this morning.

Bill

So what you saying is that after Micheal has supported you and your business you drop him like a hot plate within a few hours. Wow I wish I had friends as good as you.

WTF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcjacob

So what you saying is that after Micheal has supported you and your business you drop him like a hot plate within a few hours. Wow I wish I had friends as good as you.

WTF.

---

No, it was Michael who publicly stated in a News Release that HE was dropping all bareback studios and inferred in the News Release that studios who produce condom less films are somehow to blame for an increase in HIV infections among gay youth.

If your company was attacked in such a way how would you respond? If you were told that he didn't want to have anything to do with the type of films you make, would you continue to send traffic to him?

He made the decision not to deal with bareback companies, of which we are one. We simply acquiesed to his wishes by removing his links from our sites.

Bill

LavenderLounge Mark is correct - that is a gutsy move. And of course, once you do it, that's it. You'd look like an idiot in a year or two if you started promoting a site that included bareback sex.

Personally, I see **significantly** greater amounts of unsafe sex practices culminating from the venues provided by gay.com, manhunt and all other dating/hookup websites, who are teaming with young guys. (Gay.Com Austin boasts three full chat rooms most of the time, and my ex slept with dozens of them in the last half of 2007. Care to multiply that out by thousands daily across North America?)

At least studios like Hot Desert Knights are honest about what they provide, and include PSAs. And as I reject Marxist philosophy, I do not think capitalist business exploits their workers and consumers in order to obtain their profits.

Now everyone in our business should run their business in the way they feel comfortable with. I respect that. Here's another example of how people really are torn on the subject.

Steve

I just took a peek and I immediately spotted several sites on gay porn pig that feature bareback fucking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seth

I just took a peek and I immediately spotted several sites on gay porn pig that feature bareback fucking.

---

What I said above doesn't even include those sites that feature cum in the mouth/cum eating... If you're really about promoting only "safer" sex then why don't you take all of those down too?

Wow this is getting a bit mean spirited. I guess I can thank my lucky stars that I am not a big league player in this industry, or I'd be chewing on a lot of anti acids about now.

I don't get the whole 'nastiness' or 'attack' mode so many seem to be in these days. (speaking generally) as it just seems to me to be rather counter productive.

Michael made a decision, we all do, and perhaps like most of us, he might have rushed through making the announcement, and not taken all of the 'business ends' into consideration, but hey, who hasn't made a mistake here? I know I sure have made a few.

Fact is, not many of us are big time players, we don't have a staff, so things get missed, or forgotten. I know when I did a major site revamp I missed some links, got yelled at too, but it was in private, because while I goofed, while I was wrong, the other party didn't think they needed to go over the top just because I goofed.

I have found that there are three ways to solve issues. One is to first go to the party in private, and discuss the issue. Yes, even when they do it publicly, I prefer to do it privately, because my momma taught me that two wrongs never make one right.

My other choice is to simply ignore the issue, sort of a cowardly way out, but at times it just isn't worth the aggravation.

Then too there is the go public route, and I have done it, and gotten satisfaction, but it was a fleeting feeling. It never really lasts, specially when the other party wasn't intentionally trying to screw me.

I have done work for a few people, know on a passing basis a fair number of folks here, do some link trades with them. Hell I do one with Bill at Hot Desert Knights, but that is a link trade, so does that make me a hypocrite because I don't promote bareback? I don't think so, but hey to each their own

There are some I have done written work for, and the terms include that credit of authorship is made known, and there are some who have ignored that agreed to stipulation, some have even taken credit for my work, and I made a choice, to ignore the issue. I don't do any more work for them, but it just isn't worth the conflict to call them out on it.

Michael made a choice, his execution might not be perfect, but he has taken a stand. I think if we don't like it, we can simply choose to ignore it, not go out of our way to cast aspersions or ridicule for his efforts. As for the link issues, well I have links with some here, they haven't kept mine up and I have given them the benefit of doubt, and talked to them privately about it.

Some have blown me off, others made the correction, and some even made the correction, then waited to remove them. It is life and frankly, just not worth the hassle to call them out. Others haven't touched a link since it went up, so it evens out.

Call me naive, old fashioned, or just old, but I think if there is a problem with a decision made by one, the first course is to discuss it with them, not bring it to the board. But then I am blond, or at least will be once again soon as the wife gets the hair color stuff. :innocent:

Gaystoryman,

VERY well said.

Thanks for inserting some logic into the controvesy. Michael does still have links to bareback sites on his sites but we all know Michael well enough to know that he's good for his word and I'm betting he is just as busy as the rest of us trying to make a living in this crazy economy and most likely he underestimated the time required to delete all of the links. If he says they are coming off, you can bet your ass they will be removed.

Bill

Michael is to be congratulated not only for taking a stand on an issue that's important to him, but also for being willing to think carefully about the bigger issues outside of his own views and his personal tastes, and make a tough call.

I credit Michael for being one of the main people that caused me to think about a viewpoint I'd never considered -- that of gay men who are HIV positive and are constantly reminded of that in safer-sex porn and in all of the media coverage of the importance of safer sex.

The issues involved are extremely complex, and there are few, if any, black-and-white answers to any of them. As many have pointed out, it is near impossible to be "pure" on the safer sex issue in the porn industry in part because of differing opinions of what safer sex is, in part because so many parts of the industry are driven by financial issues and not by ethical ones.

Michael has taken a bold step and put his money where his mouth is. That doesn't mean that his decision is the right one for everyone else, and it certainly doesn't mean -- as some seem to think -- that it is a condemnation of bareback or a call to ban bareback. It is simply a step, made from the heart, by a person who has been around long enough, both in the industry and in life, to understand the bigger issue.

And as for those claiming cheating or worse, sorry but I don't agree at all. This is a step made for reasons that are personally important to Michael. It is encouraging to me personally to see people taking such steps, and I hope that we will continue to see meaningful dialogue on the many issues that come into play -- the potential impact on a webmaster's income, the psychological effect on those who view bareback content, the safety and other issues surrounding those who perform in bareback productions, the absolute right of those who wish to view and to create bareback to create it, and the challenge that many of us face in balancing success or growth of our businesses against the ethical issues that arise.

Congrats Michael this is great news!

As far as the other posts in this thread it does seem the BB issue is being used to divide people, which is interesting. On one hand we have the non BB people saying there is so little non BB content out there and they need to stick together and support each other, yet they only promote a very small select portion of the non BB content that's out there.

On the other hand you have the BB producers and promoters feeling judged and demonized while being presented as a powerful majority by the other side.

It's starting to seem that the non BB camp is the only one benefiting from their consistent public promotion of their stance as a minority supporting the right cause which is strange because the biggest Gay sites on the web seem to be primarily non BB sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

and it certainly doesn't mean -- as some seem to think -- that it is a condemnation of bareback or a call to ban bareback. It is simply a step, made from the heart, by a person who has been around long enough, both in the industry and in life, to understand the bigger issue.

---

Chip,

You are absolutely right. Michael's decision to stop promoting bareback was a personal decision and not, and this is according to Michael, a condemnation of barebacking or an attempt to join the small minority you would like to ban barebacking completely.

However, as we have already seen, the vocal, rabid minority who would like to take a person's constitutional right to bareback if they so choose, or would like to take away my constintutional to produce bareback films if I choose, have already "jumped on the bandwagon" and started twisting Michael's words and his motives.

Look for example at the bullshit Keith at Titan immediately had to say; "Michael has chosen the interests and health of others in his community over his own personal self interests". Is he implying that EVERYONE who produces bareback films isn't concerned about the "health of others in the gay community, or that we who produce bareback films aren't concerned about the health of and welfare of our models?" Well, if he is, he's full of crap and he damn sure better not ever publicly accuse me or anyone in my company of not caring about our community or of not caring about our models.

Keith goes on to say; "Michael has chosen to no longer support the commercial exploitation of films that glorify high risk and unsafe sex, putting performers and the entire gay community at risk". That certainly sounds like a condemnation of the bareback industry to me. Again, what a load of crap. Are we to believe that a company who produces a bareback film is putting the entire gay community at risk? Talk about sensationalism! Watch out....the shy is falling, the sky is falling! Does he want all of us to believe that we only produce bareback films so that we can "exploit" models and our community just so we can make, if you believe the crap the anti-barebackers keep saying, HUGE profits? I'll guarantee you this, as Squirt somewhat pointed out in his post, the big NON BB companies such as Titan, Channel 1 Releasing, Falcon, Raging Stallion are making a hell of a lot more money than bareback companies are making.

The anti-bareback studios, of which Titan seems to be the "leader of the pack", keep inferring that companies who produce bareback films are the cause of the increase of HIV among young gay men. Why don't we hardly hear them talk about other STD's? The reason is that in EVERY film they produce they are absolutely NOT having their models perform "safe" sex. Keith needs to catch up with the times and come to understand that the term "safe sex" is no longer used in the health community. Why, because the only "safe sex" is NO sex. The proper word is "safer sex".

Have you ever looked at a Titan film and seen one man sucking the dick of another man without the use of a condom? Have you ever looked at a Titan film and seen rimming going on without the use of a dental dam? Have you ever looked at a Titan film and seen a model pull out of an ass, yank of the condom and then shoot his load on the ass and/or back of the other model? And, what about Raging Stallion, who a couple of years ago, created a ton or publicity promoting a film that featured....Oh my God, a FACIAL CUM SHOT? Of course you have, we all have. The fact of the matter is that everyone of those activites is considered unsafe by most health organizations. Everyone one of those activites has the potential to spread STD's including HIV. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Keith from Titan who stated on this board or some other board or forum about a year or so ago that the bareback industry had better be careful because having anal sex without a condom violates Cal-OSHA regulations? The fact of the matter is that every activity I just mentioned above absolutely violates Cal-OSHA regulations. That is, of course assuming that in California a model is considered an employee. And, for those of you who don't know, as of December, models are in fact employees of the company even if they only work for you for one day or one hour and appear in a scene under your direction.

Their isn't a gay or straight production company who isn't violating a number of Cal-OSHA regulations every time they film.

The point I was trying to make and I somewhat got off the subject is that Michael, in making the decision he made, did not condemn the companies making bareback films. But, the rabid anti-barebackers are jumping on what they see as a "bandwagon" and using what was a very personal decision made by Michael, and trying to use it to condemn barebacking and bareback producers. They want you to believe that they are the only ones who care about the safety of their models, of if you believe what Keith at Titan had to say thread, they, the NON BB companies, are the ONLY ones who care about the gay community since, we have to assume, according to Keith, that THEY aren't putting the "entire gay community at risk". Some would say he sounds a bit like chicken-little, I would say he's full of hogwash and frankly, that's being polite.

Bill
A Proud Supporter of
Everyone's 1st Amendment Right.
Not just those who agree with me.

Bill, well said.

Personally, i dont see what all the fuss is about, this is just one of Michaels sites being mentioned, he never said he was removing BB content from them all, just from the Pig.

Regards,

Lee

Please see my clarification in this post

Thanks
Michael

Bill- Perhaps you can explain to us all how bareback sex with internal cumshots would not be considered "unsafe sex"? I'm very careful how I chose my words and I purposely chose those words because the sex depicted in bareback films is considered "unsafe sex". When I am referring to sex that includes the use of condoms, then I generally use the more correct term of "safer sex". Please do not try and put words in my mouth.

You've also heard me say many times, that people have the right to make and view whatever they would like to make. Above all I believe in the freedom of speech. But, freedom of speech is a two way street. I have every right to stand up and challenge what I believe is a dangerous and irresponsible business model. At the same time I applaud your efforts to stand up and defend your side of the issue as well.

Bill, you may very well be the exception to the rule within the bareback part of the industry. You where one of the originators of the genre and I believe your motives were very different from the motives of others that followed behind you. Unfortunately, many of the others that followed in your footsteps had much different motivations that ended up making you all look bad.

From what I have seen the vast majority of producers making bareback, and twink bareback in particular, are sleazy opportunists that are just out to make a buck. They are not doing it because they believe in the freedom of speech issues, they are doing it to make money. I know several of the producers that themselves are HIV negative and would never bareback personally, yet they will pay some 19 year old kid an extra $200 to take a load up his ass. That I find repugnant and disgusting!

I have never and will never personally attack you or HDK. I'm sorry that you feel attacked, but unfortunately you get lumped into the "bareback industry" by default. Perhaps you can take the lead in your part of the industry and get others to operate in a more socially responsible manner such as yourself?

I understand about take precautions in sex, HIV test in porn, etc...

but sometimes I see that is criminalized the gay bareback porn.
what happen with straight content?
is almost always without condoms and nobody says anything?

for straight porn its ok and is very bad for gay porn?

there are still people who believe that the AIDS only is for gay people?

If you have a straight link list, you remove all unsafe straight sex content?

WEBNET- The primary difference is that mainstream straight adult industry requires HIV testing and will not allow HIV+ performers to work.

The majority of the gay bareback producers do not require testing and allow HIV+ performers to be in films. They usually just ask the performers their HIV status and then try to pair HIV negative with HIV negative, and HIV positive with HIV positive. This practice is called sero-sorting, matching like HIV status together.

The majority of non-bareback gay producers also do not require testing, but instead use condoms for all anal sex and many also ask and do sero-sorting as well. HIV status is a still a very personal and private thing for many gaymen.

The other major difference is that HIV+ performers are banned from performing in the straight industry. Whereas in the gay side of the industry up to 25-30% of performers are HIV+. This is very much a taboo subject within the industry and many do not want to disclose or discuss it. I don't think many people on the straight side of the industry really understand what's going on the gay part of the industry.

HIV is a part of gay men lives much more so than it is in the straight community. More than half of all new HIV cases in the USA are in gay men. We are affected more then the straight community. That does not make it a "gay disease", it simply makes it a disease that affects us more. (In terms of full disclosure I am personally HIV+)

thanks for the info

so, I think the gay producers need take more control about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webnet

what happen with straight content?
is almost always without condoms and nobody says anything?

for straight porn its ok and is very bad for gay porn?

there are still people who believe that the AIDS only is for gay people?

---

Unfortunately AIDS is still seen as a Gay disease by most Americans, this is why HIV/AIDS is the 5th leading cause of death for all American women age 25-34.

It's also the 1st leading cause of death in African American women age 25-35 and the 4th leading cause of death for American Hispanic women age 35-44.

In America the only disease causing more deaths in women are cancer and heart disease. [source]

Like any culture we have double standards, and this is one of them.

Bill,

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but there are some inferences (it's been discussed in other threads) that viewing bareback sex does seem to have an influence on the behavior of young gay men, and it is this issue... educating youth... that Michael and I and many others are concerned about. There's no definitive data yet that I'm aware of, but I believe that there are a couple of studies underway that are looking at the issue.

On the issue of model safety, as a responsible bareback producer, am I to assume that you test each of your models for HIV, hep-C, gonorrhea, syphillis, chlymidia, genital herpes, and other STIs? Or at least HIV and hep-C, the two most difficult to treat? I would assume, since you've made it clear you don't want to be accused of not caring about your models, that you are taking these precautions. Perhaps you'd care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titanmen

Bill- Perhaps you can explain to us all how bareback sex with internal cumshots would not be considered "unsafe sex"?

---

Keith I don't believe I have ever said that "bareback sex with internal cumshots would not be considered 'unsafe sex'". Of course it would be IF it is really occuring. I can't go in to detail about that on a public board other than to say thank God for creative editing.

I do appreciate the fact that you recognize and have now stated that all bareback companies are not the same. There are bareback companies doing things that HDK has never done and will never do. I am disgusted with certain things I see some of these bareback companies do and am ashamed to be in the same part of the industry as they. Which, of course is probably why I get so damned upset when HDK gets lumped in the same basket as them by default.

You said; "Perhaps you can take the lead in your part of the industry and get others to operate in a more socially responsible manner such as yourself?" Again, thanks for recognizing that HDK does act in a more socially responsible manner than many of the current bareback producers. I wish I could get all bareback producers to act more socially responsibe but the truth is, I don't have the ability to get them to do anything. Some bareback producers I believe do act very responsibly and I am proud to be in associated with them. But, their are others in the industry I want nothing to do with. Hell, so much of this crap is now coming in from Eastern Europe that I don't even know who is producing it. We do use companies from Eastern Europe to produce a few films for us, but we do require that these companies conduct HIV testing and provide us with the test results for the models. As we all know, over there many of these kids are "gay for pay" and will do nearly anything in order to make a few dollars.

Even though I don't believe I have the ability to control what other bareback companies do in their films I can tell you that we are very concerned about it and have been investigating ways to dis-associate ourselves from them. In that regards, I can tell you to that shortly we will be releasing a major announcement which, we believe, will separate us from the irresponsible and socially rephrehensible actions of many of the bareback producers.

Bill

As I said Bill, I have made a conscience attempt to never attack you or HDK personally. Unfortunately, you end up being the spokesman for the entire bareback part of the industry by default. Many of the other producers do not have the chutzpah to defend what they do and how they operate.

As an HIV+ man myself I "get" the films you make and the motivation behind them. What I don't "get" is the flood of European and UK twink bareback films that utilize primarily HIV negative models, and many without any real valid testing mechanism in place. That scares the shit out of me!

What may have started out as niche specific product intended for other HIV+ men quickly disintegrated into a free-for-all based on greed and profit. As you know many of the EU bareback producers, and models, are straight. They do not care about our community, they only care about how cheaply they can crank out product and turn a profit.

I look forward to your announcment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Bill,

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but there are some inferences (it's been discussed in other threads) that viewing bareback sex does seem to have an influence on the behavior of young gay men, and it is this issue... educating youth... that Michael and I and many others are concerned about. There's no definitive data yet that I'm aware of, but I believe that there are a couple of studies underway that are looking at the issue.

On the issue of model safety, as a responsible bareback producer, am I to assume that you test each of your models for HIV, hep-C, gonorrhea, syphillis, chlymidia, genital herpes, and other STIs? Or at least HIV and hep-C, the two most difficult to treat? I would assume, since you've made it clear you don't want to be accused of not caring about your models, that you are taking these precautions. Perhaps you'd care to clarify?

---

Chip,

Before I answer that question AGAIN, because over the past couple of years, I've answered it several times on this board, let me ask the same question to ALL of the producers here on the board.

For the producers on the board, whether bareback or non-bareback, how many of you test your models, or at least have them provide to you the results of a recent test for the full panel of STD's? And then, how many of you test at least for HIV and HEP-C.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Bill,

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but there are some inferences (it's been discussed in other threads) that viewing bareback sex does seem to have an influence on the behavior of young gay men, and it is this issue... educating youth... that Michael and I and many others are concerned about. There's no definitive data yet that I'm aware of, but I believe that there are a couple of studies underway that are looking at the issue.

---

Chip,

Sorry, but I failed to respond to the first part of your post.

I'm not sure that I've ever said I felt "persecuted". What I have said is that I'm getting damned tired of being, by default, lumped into the same basket as some of the bareback studios that are out there, especially the newer ones, that are doing things on camera that are reprehensible and totally irresponsible.

Yes, inferences have been made many times on this and other boards that watching bareback films influence young gay men to go out and bareback in their private lives. Inferences have also been made many times on this and other boards that their is absolutely no proof to back up those statements. If there are studies being conducted regarding that issue, good. But honestly, I'm not aware of them and I stay pretty aware of what is happening within this industry.

Regarding educating our youth, if you care to go back and take a look at the dozens of posts I have made about that issue, you will find that I have always stated that the lack of education of todays youth in regards to sex education and more specifically, how to prevent STD's, is one of the primary causes of young gay men becoming infected with HIV. Another major cause is substance abuse as well as the pharmaceutical companies presenting HIV management as easy as just taking one pill a day.

And, I really believe, and you have to be able to think back to when you were 18 or 19 or 20, at that age we all believed we were indestructible. The youth of today also believe that. It's just part of growing up. Combine those feelings with the lack of education, with the problems our youth are facing with easily obtainable, inexpensive drugs which substantially lower inhibitions, with the pharmaceutical companies trying convince us that HIV is an easily managed and controlled disease and then add into the mix that today's youth believe that AIDS is an "old mans disease" since most of them have never known or seen anyone with advanced AIDS, I think then, it's easy to see why we are seeing an increased incidence of HIV and other STD's among young gay men.

But, it's human nature to just take the easy way out and the easy way, at least within our own industry, is just to blame those company's that produce bareback films.

What we should be doing as a community is raising hell with the politicians who refuse to provide public funding to schools if they teach anything but abstinence. What we should be doing is raising hell with the drug companies for presenting such a pretty picture about HIV and AIDS and, finally, all of us who are producers, should be including PSA's at the beginning of each film about how HIV is transmitted and how it can be prevented as well as a PSA about the effects of these so called "party drugs". The fact of the matter is, that with the exception of the PSA's about HIV transmission and prevention which most gay studios have, the gay community isn't really doing a damn thing to hold the politicians or the drug companies accountable for their actions.

I can't speak for other studios, bareback or non-bareback, but at HDK we do have a strict "no tolerance" drug policy in effect that applies to both regular HDK employees and models. We don't tolerate anyone using illegal drugs within our company or on the set. We also have a very detailed PSA on each film as well on the outside of every box cover that goes in to very specific details as to how HIV is transmitted, how it can be prevented and we finish with the statement that "YOU are responsible for your own health. If you are HIV negative you should do everything in your power to stay that way and the best method is through the use of condoms".

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Chip,

For the producers on the board, whether bareback or non-bareback, how many of you test your models, or at least have them provide to you the results of a recent test for the full panel of STD's? And then, how many of you test at least for HIV and HEP-C.

Bill

---

As I have said many, many times on this board, we (Gaybucks/18 West Studios) shoot only safer sex, which to us is condom sex, no cum eating, and various other safer sex precautions. (Unlike some producers, we do not define "safer sex" as condomless sex between people who are or claim to be in a relationship, because that's a loophole one can drive a truck through.)

In spite of the fact that we shoot only safer sex content, each model is tested upon their arrival for HIV 1 and 2, hepatitis C, and syphillis. We chose these four tests because those diagnoses are the most difficult to treat, but we will probably add chlymidia and gonorrhea to our testing policy this year because of a spike in infection rates in California. We serosort to the extent that we simply do not work with HIV+ models in action scenes; the one exception to that rule was a scene that my former business partner Ryan made the choice to participate in (as a model) with an HIV+ model.

As to the issue of proof regarding data on sexual behaviors and viewing barebacking, numerous psychologists involved in the study of human behavior have done research on the influence of watching various types of sexual behaviors in pornography and the effect that watching such behavior has on the practices of individuals. The studies show that there is virtually no question that individuals who watch specific types of sexual behaviors are far more inclined to incorporate those behaviors into their sex lives than those who are not exposed to those behaviors. So while there is no published data *specifically on barebacking* there is most certainly enough similar research that the vast majority of researchers agree that watching bareback sex is very likely to increase the incidence of bareback sex in the same way that watching people smoke in movies and on TV increases the rates of smoking. Denying the correlation would be something akin to the tobacco companies claiming that nicotine is not addictive; the data is pretty solid, and there is every reason to believe that it generalizes to other sexual behaviors such as barebacking.

Now... with that said, I still defend your right to produce bareback content, and I applaud your stance on drug use among models and staff; we have the same policy, and extend it to include alcohol as well. We also believe that sex or sexual behaviors between staff/employees/owners/scouts and models is inappropriate and so don't permit that either, though I realize our view is probably a minority one in this industry.

I also agree with just about everything else you say with regard to pharmaceutical advertising, invincibility, the lack of quality sex education, the perception of HIV as "easily curable" or "easily manageable." All of those are issues that must be addressed, and we as an industry, regardless of whether we produce/market/promote bareback or not, have an opportunity to influence those who buy and view our products. I guess whether we choose to or not depends on whether we as business owners believe that we have any reason or responsibility to contribute to society in that way.

As I said in my first post on this thread, the issue is extremely complicated, with few black-and-white decisions. Each company owner must make a decision for him or herself. What I have found in the past year or so is that a lot of people in the industry who initially had not thought about the barebacking issue have more recently found themselves considering the impact they are having, and finding that they are uncomfortable with how that affects them. It is a very personal issue, a personal decision, and an unusual one that potentially affects one's "gut" as well as one's bottom line. I don't think that it is anyone's position to tell others what they should or should not do, but I do think that as each of us who have opinions, one way or another, share those with each other in a meaningful and thoughtful way, that nothing but good things can come from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

For the producers on the board, whether bareback or non-bareback, how many of you test your models, or at least have them provide to you the results of a recent test for the full panel of STD's? And then, how many of you test at least for HIV and HEP-C.

---

I have a quick question. How many that don't so testing allow Out Reach programs (like Fenway Community Health has) to actually perform them onsite. They long ago realized the dangers of STD infections in our industry and have tried, with little success, to be allowed to do these type of onsite tests.

The money is there (via grants), the people are ready, but the producers seem to have no interest. I don't understand it.