Barebacking

[Lippi]

Who of you produce barebacking video or picture sets and what of special contracts you are using for the models? Do you ensure that the models will be tested by a medical before and after a shoot?
What do you think in general about bareback sex?
I am curious about your answers!

[gaybucks_chip]

There is no possible way to make barebacking safe for the model. Testing done even at the moment the scene is shot will be positive only if antibodies have already developed, which can take anywhere from two weeks to three months or more.

IF the models are adequately warned, then it is truly their decision whether or not to participate, but I have yet to hear of anyone actually providing full disclosure of not only the risks but the huge limitation of the testing.

[BijouWorld]

Bijou World's policy is to not produce or distribute bareback films.

We do not judge each person's individual choice, however, we believe in the value of the Industry's commitment to our community in 1991 to help promote understanding and practice of safer sex by using condoms in all anal and vaginal intercourse and gloves during fisting.

Granted, this is similar to arguments that mainstream films promote violance. It's just a risk we haven't been willing to take.

Because we have a judgement-free environment, we still add all bareback films to our catalog for reference purposes.

[sexyd]

Bijou World's policy is to not produce or distribute bareback films....

What about films shot before the mid 80s?

[BijouWorld]

What about films shot before the mid 80s?

The Industry standardized at the end of 1991 to use condoms for fucking and gloves for fisting. Anything after 1992 is considered a "Bareback" film. Anything prior to this time is considered "Pre-condom".

If you look at most non-bareback studio's model application forms, you will see that if they have been in any films without using a condom after 1992, it is the studio's policy to not use them in their films.

I realize it's a very political and controversial issue these days. Like I say, we choose not to judge any choices people make.

From a personal position, I believe that there are a lot of creative and innovative things done at many of the bareback studios. I've also been active in harm reduction efforts for those who choose to bareback.

[XXXWriterDude]

We've had this discussion/debate on here a few times before. (You may, in fact, want to try searching through the older threads to find some of those discussions.)

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Barebacking porn is simply a reflection of what goes on in real life, and is also a visual manifestation of the desire of a select group of people to accurately and honestly depict their sex lives on film for those who wish to view it. There's nothing wrong with that. They aren't slaughtering babies, and from what I gather, it's purely consensual. And any model who gets involved in barebacking porn in this day and age knows the risks they are taking.

The issue lies in the alleged responsibility of the industry to present healthier images of sexuality. I do feel that we should, at all costs, attempt to present images of responsible sex to the gay community, but I think, more importantly, we need to stress the importance of CHOICE and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, as they are the most important factors in whether one chooses to participate in unsafe sex.

The extent to which porn influences human behavior has yet to be accurately gauged, but I do think that there are many aspects of the gay community that have been informed and/or driven by the increasing prevalence and the continued mainstreaming of adult content. Images of gay porn stars are used in ads for everything from circuit parties to plastic surgeons, and I dont think it's out of bounds for me to say that the community's obsession with body image is absolutely an indirect result of porn companies' insistence on using conventionally attractive models. Before porn became so widespread in the mid-'80s, most gay men didn't have gym memberships, nor did they define themselves by the sexual positions they took in bed. In fact, pre-1985, if you took a poll, I bet most guys would have said they were versatile.

Since gay porn has become so casually integrated into our community, however, gay men have grown to look more and more like the models they see in the movies (gym-pumped muscles, shaved balls and trimmed pubes, tattoos, tattoos, tattoos!), and men taking only "top" or "bottom" roles is quite common practice. (Before gay-for-pay models were introduced to the gay porn industry in 1982, the majority of models all practiced versatility on film.) I have no doubt that these developments are due in large part to the images of sexuality that gay men find in adult entertainment.

I thoroughly believe that all images of entertainment affect us on some psychological level. However, I do not believe there is any direct correlation between viewing bareback porn and practicing it yourself. To me, that is akin to saying that listening to Marilyn Manson music is going to make you go to school and start shooting all your classmates. Or watching Natural Born Killers is going to make you go on a cross-country killing spree. Yes, these things influence us on some level, but at some point, we have to take responsibility for our own actions, and not blame the things we see on TV or hear on the radio.

I do, however, feel that it is IMPERATIVE that the adult industry do everything in their power to encourage safer sex. But I do not feel that involves the ferreting out of bareback porn. In some ways, I think bareback porn serves a very useful purpose, especially for those whose sex lives it depicts. To others, it is simply fantasy viewing. I myself enjoy watching bareback movies. Unlike the whitewashed, over-choreographed, over-lit and over-long depictions of sex we get from mainstream studios (which, honestly, I think do a lot to erode sexual etiquette in the gay community), bareback porn is utterly honest and in-the-moment. It's not staged. It is, in fact, sex the way it was meant to be had. Without restrictions and without barriers. It's "raw" in more ways than one, but mostly in the way that it really counts: "in-the-moment."

So much porn of today feels forced and stale to the point of blandness. It's all the same. Tired scenarios, wretched dialogue and horrible acting. With the exception of Joe Gage, who is still making the most authentic condom porn today (and who is woefully overlooked at awards time in favor of ridiculously boring content from the major studios), hardly anybody out there is capturing authentic man-to-man sex on film--except the bareback studios. The fact that bareback porn has become such a profitable and sought-after niche should be a very telling sign that adult producers should be paying attention to. People watch it for a reason.

It's a double-edged sword. Do we risk the safety and health of the gay community in order to make a buck, or do we do our thing and hope they are smart enough to make the best judgments? As a hardcore Darwinist who believes that the strongest of the species are the ones who will survive, I think one only has himself to blame if he CHOOSES to participate in unsafe sex of any kind. (And I say this free of judgment, and--I might add--as someone who has gotten a few STDs along the way for not being as careful as I should have been.)

For that reason, I think it's much more important to teach the importance of personal responsibility and choice instead of mixing useless things like judgment and sanctimonious self-righteousness into the barebacking debate. People will do what people will do. It's the nature of the beast. Parents can only teach their kids so much before they have to stop holding their hands and let them make their own choices.

That's what I think, since you asked.

[Titanmen]

Sorry Ken, but with all due respect I have to disagree with you. When you are paying someone to perform unsafe sex, you have some level of responsibility regarding their health and welfare. These are not documentaries that are capturing real life sexual encounters with unpaid performers; these are commercial products being produced to make money.

I’m sure there are plenty of coal miners that are willing to go down inside a coal mine without adequate protection. Or plenty of immigrant labor that will work without proper safety equipment. But, guess what…we are a civilized society and we do not allow people to get paid to take unnecessary risks when there are simple ways to easily protect them.

If there are simple, non-intrusive measures such as condoms that can protect the worker from harm, then we should use them. Even if the workers says they don’t care and are willing to work without the protective measure doesn’t mean we should let them.

As we grew out of the industrial age we realized as a society that we often have to protect workers from themselves. We banned child labor; we required safety equipment in coal mines, we banned the use of asbestos and other dangerous chemicals. There are many, many examples in history where we have implemented basic safety measures for the good of the worker. Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves, especially when you are paying them to perform.

What people choose to do in their own personal lives is just that, there own personal choice. But, when they get paid to perform in a commercial product then it takes on a whole different realm of responsibility! This is NOT about the personal lives and what people do in their own homes. This is about the responsibility of the producers of the product to ensure the health and safety of their performers.

The largest increase in bareback film productions seems to be coming from Eastern Europe, and is primarily twink oriented. And guess what, it’s because there is a pool of young performers that are desperate for money and they do not have the same HIV/AIDS information available to us here in the USA. These are often poor and un-educated kids that will do just about anything for a couple hundred dollars. So when some rich Western producer comes along and offers them an entire month’s wages to work for one day, they jump on it! Most of these kids will perform bareback for an extra $100 a scene.

This is a much bigger and more complex issue. It is not about “sanctimonious self-righteousness”. I think that often people blur the issue in their minds between freedom of speech and the commercial product. This is a commercial product with people being paid to perform. This is not about telling or preaching to people about their private lives and what they choose to do. What people want to do in their own private lives is their business. When you pay someone to perform unsafe sex then you have a responsibility to that person…whether they like it or not.

[XXXWriterDude]

Hey Keith,

Thanx for your response. I definitely see your point, and I think there is a lot of merit to it. And, of course, I have a lot of admiration for anyone who stands by their principals and feels it is their responsiblity to protect their employees. Kudos to you.

That said, as what you say is not a matter of law, it essentially boils down to a difference in opinion. There are those who feel it is not their responsibility to tell models how to conduct their sex lives. The fact is, this isn't the coal-mining industry, and as long as there are models who PURSUE jobs in bareback porn, it will continue to flourish.

I'm sure there are bareback producers who may strong-arm models into appearing in bareback videos, but probably no more than there are condom-only producers who, let's say, take advantage of their models by paying them less than they deserve to be paid or turning the other cheek when those models show up on the set under the influence of drugs. Shady dealings are going to go on on both sides, and I don't think it's fair to say that bareback producers are any more guilty of "morally questionable" behavior. When you do as many on-set visits as I have and you hear the models talk amongst themselves, it's quite amazing to hear what so-called "ethical" porn producers have been guilty of.

There ARE bareback producers who are very thorough with their models. There are those who practice with integrity. There are those who would never let an HIV-negative model appear in their videos. And there are those who match models by sero-status. I've talked with some bareback performers as research for the book I am writing on the influence of porn in the gay community, and they all say that they were not coerced into performing in the scenes. Many of them are HIV-positive to begin with, which (with exception to STDs) pretty much eliminates the risk of becoming HIV-positive. (The alleged "super-strain" has never been proven.)

What bothers me about this whole thing is that barebacking porn is the NORM in straight porn, and until the entire industry adopts a condom-only policy, I do not think it is any more implicit upon gay adult producers to create condom-only porn. I find that double-standard to be archaically homophobic, especially in light of the HIV scare that shook the hetero porn industry just less than two years ago.

Again, I stand by my statement that the thing that we--condom-only producers as well as bareback producers--can do to minimize risk within the adult community is to make sure that we do our best to educate and teach personal responsibility. Unless barebacking porn is outlawed by the government for both gay and straight companies, this situation is not going to change, so any opining we do is all for naught. I say focus on the here and now and on operating by your own set of ethics and principals, and let those who disagree with you do as they will. By their summation, they are operating well within ethical consideration and boundaries as well. (I'm sure Bill Gardner will have much to add to this.)

Respectfully,
Ken

[Titanmen]

Ken- I'm surprised that an industry vetern like yourself would be confused about this being "real sex". <G> Your comment "There are those who feel it is not their responsibility to tell models how to conduct their sex lives." make it appear that you think that when models are paid to perform sex acts on films that is "their sex lives". I hate to break it to you but, it's not real sex, it's acting! Trust me, it's acting! LOL!

Again, I am confused by the blurring of lines between personal and professional acts and responsability. When you pay someone to have sex on camera, thats not "their sex lives". They are performing and doing what they are told to do...it's not real sex.

I think comparing the straight industry to the gay industry is overly simplistic. There is no "law" that the straight industry do mandtory testing, they do it because at the very least it's the right thing to do. They know that there is a very real risk when not using condoms so they do rigorous testing. They also have a very small and limited model pool that they work with and can for the most part effectivly protect their performers.

While I would personally prefer that all films use condoms, I think at the very least mandatory testing should be utilized in all non-condom films, gay or straight. If a producer chooses not to use condoms, then at the very least they should be doing testing to ensure the safety of their models. It's just the right thing to do, even if there is no "law" requiring it.

Yes, I do agree with you that some of the major gay bareback studios in the USA do use testing and the bulk of their performers are already HIV positive. The problem I have is with the huge increase of twink and especially foreign twink bareback films. The overwhelming majority of these under 25 year old models are NOT HIV+, and the producers of these films for the most part do NOT do any testing.

Do you think that this is okay? Just because there is not a "law" requiring condoms or testing we should not care about the health and safety of models? I'm sorry Ken, but as long as I can still draw breath I will fight to do the right thing whether there is a law requiring me to or not.

When you have HIV/AIDS like I do it becomes more personal and emotional. I don't want any kid to have to go through what I do on a daily basis because he needed a couple hundred extra dollars.

Again, I do agree with you...each and every producer needs to operate by their own level of ethical and personal responsability. But, I do not think it is wrong to try and challange others in the industry to strive for a higher level of care and compassion, especially when it comes to the lives and well-being of their performers.

Do I have the all the answers...no. Am I saying everyone should do things the same way we do...no. What I am saying is that we should all be open to discussing and raising issues that concerns us all, both as business people and as human beings. I am trying to get people to think, to dicuss and to be open to thinking about issues from all perspectives.

Thanks for making this the kind of thread that can hopefully challange people to think about this issue from all sides. In the end each person needs to too make the decision that is right for them. ;-)

Peace.

[longboardjim]

i produce it! , all models are screened and tested for aides as well as other communicable/infectious diseases every 6 months.( did you know that you can also contract aides by sharing needles? )
..."barebacking may be hazardous to your health"... just as driving a car , firing a gun , etc. you can have all the warnings/safety's in place but nothing in this world is a sure thing especially where people are involved.
there are so many things on this planet that kill , i will most likely be taken-out by some speeding teenager ( desperate to make hundreds of dollars doing bareback on film ) on the highway before sleeping with the wrong person.
as mentioned this topic has been brought up 3 - 4 other times since i have been here , you may want to review what has been written.
there is no cure for aides at present so be responsible and make an informed decision about barebacking , your life may depend on it!

sincerely ~ ..."this has been a public service announcement from jim!"... :francais:

[SLS]

These are not documentaries that are capturing real life sexual encounters with unpaid performers; these are commercial products being produced to make money.

It's too bad there aren't any good studios making adult gay documentaries or movies with real couples. Commercial product for the sake of profit tends to suck.

[maxpower]

WTF guys is the new contest who can wright the longest post

[sexyd]

...I hate to break it to you but, it's not real sex, it's acting! Trust me, it's acting! LOL!
...

I agree and think it's sad... :frown:
Why can't you just put two men together, let them fuck like :playboy: :playboy: and shoot the stuff?!

[Lippi]

Well, this was an interesting thread. Thanks guys.
As we also produce bareback video clips, picture sets and DVD I can only say, that we take very care about our models and their selection.
Also, we warn people on all our bareback products about unprotected sex.

Play safe guys!

[XXXWriterDude]

Ken- I'm surprised that an industry vetern like yourself would be confused about this being "real sex". <G> Your comment "There are those who feel it is not their responsibility to tell models how to conduct their sex lives." make it appear that you think that when models are paid to perform sex acts on films that is "their sex lives". I hate to break it to you but, it's not real sex, it's acting! Trust me, it's acting! LOL!

Again, I am confused by the blurring of lines between personal and professional acts and responsability. When you pay someone to have sex on camera, thats not "their sex lives". They are performing and doing what they are told to do...it's not real sex.

Ahhh, but for some of the bareback models (and even for a good many of the condom-only ones), it's not acting. It truly is an extension of their sex lives, only with cameras involved. True, they may be getting paid for it, but I would bet you that a lot of them would film it in their households and post it on the Net if they had the resources and know-how, just for the sheer exhibitionist factor. And as far as I'm concerned, even if there are cameras involved and money exchanged, if a model is enjoying himself and thoroughly getting off, it's "real" sex.

As far as the blurring of lines is concerned, the actions in bareback porn may be actually happening (i.e, not simulated bareback sex, but real bareback penetration), but porn is still entertainment, and as such, the lines will inevitably always be blurred.

I think comparing the straight industry to the gay industry is overly simplistic. There is no "law" that the straight industry do mandtory testing, they do it because at the very least it's the right thing to do. They know that there is a very real risk when not using condoms so they do rigorous testing. They also have a very small and limited model pool that they work with and can for the most part effectivly protect their performers.

While I would personally prefer that all films use condoms, I think at the very least mandatory testing should be utilized in all non-condom films, gay or straight. If a producer chooses not to use condoms, then at the very least they should be doing testing to ensure the safety of their models. It's just the right thing to do, even if there is no "law" requiring it.

Personally and ethically, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is, what I feel in my heart, the "right" thing to do. But again, as there is no law governing either straight or gay barebacking, it will continue to occur as long as profit can be made from it, and as long as the models themselves seek to participate in it. I think it's great to tackle the issue from the various sides of the debate, but because gay bareback porn is not going away--and because the gay porn industry chooses not to test its models as they do on the straight side--I think the more important thing to discuss is not what we SHOULD be doing, but what we CAN be doing.

I do agree with you that some of the major gay bareback studios in the USA do use testing and the bulk of their performers are already HIV positive. The problem I have is with the huge increase of twink and especially foreign twink bareback films. The overwhelming majority of these under 25 year old models are NOT HIV+, and the producers of these films for the most part do NOT do any testing.

Do you think that this is okay? Just because there is not a "law" requiring condoms or testing we should not care about the health and safety of models? I'm sorry Ken, but as long as I can still draw breath I will fight to do the right thing whether there is a law requiring me to or not.

No, I don't think that's OK, and as an aspiring porn producer myself, I would never film bareback sex because of my own personal position that porn helps to encourage healthy sexual thinking, but like with any profession, you can't let a few shady people stand for the actions of an entire section of the industry. In a perfect world, bareback producers would test their models and to take steps to ensure that HIV-negative models are not put at risk. But we don't live in a perfect world, so my challenge to anyone who truly cares about this issue--and who has a position of some influence that can be used to help their cause--would be to figure out a way to deal with the imperfect world we currently live in, not the gay porn utopia we often envision on these boards.