Bareback film studio creates contraversy at CLAW

[Squirt]

This whole "pre condom" thing being ok in our industry, but condoms mandatory now, except for in straight porn, is strange to me because it's a contradiction and double standard.

"Pre condom" people were getting syphilus, clamidia, crabs, herpes, etc. "pre-condom" days were STD days as well.

Also, there were 1,342 MORE new cases of HIV in the heterosexual community then in the Gay community!

Why are we inundated with reports saying Gays are methheads drug addicts spreading HIV when the CDC just released a report showing that new HIV cases in 2005 in the U.S. were almost equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals, with heterosexuals in the lead?

[gaybucks_chip]

DonMike,

No worries at all. I'm deeply flattered that you thought I was younger than you... at this point, I'll take any flattery I can get

I do see all the time the ageist comments that go on in the gay community, and I think a lot of it is just said mindlessly, without any thought at all. Sometimes some of our models will make some offhand comments about "old people" which, I find, includes me in the age category they're speaking of... but when I point this out to them (usually in a funny way), they suddenly realize that the stereotype or generalization they are making doesn't apply... and perhaps changes their thinking a little bit for the next time.

In many ways, we're all as old as we feel. Some days I feel a few days older than the Queen of England, while other days I feel as young as our models... and I think that once people realize that most of their perceived objections to "old people" are really objections to the *mindset* that some people in that age group may have, then they start to think a little differently.

[gaybucks_chip]

"Pre condom" people were getting syphilus, clamidia, crabs, herpes, etc. "pre-condom" days were STD days as well.

Really good point. For me, when I was in high school, I can remember people talking about how terrible it would be to get herpes, because it's incurable. Of course, it was really nothing than a relatively mild annoyance in comparision to other STIs now, but that was a big deal back then. And I think that's the difference... you have unprotected sex in 1975, you might get gonorrhea or syphillis or herpes, but that one-time decision wouldn't kill you. A couple shots or a week's worth of antibiotics and you were pretty much fine. Ten years later, a one-time decision to have unprotected sex did indeed mean a death sentence to many people.

I think part of the reason that there is a resurgence of barebacking is because very few of the current generation of kids has seen anyone near or dear to them suffer and die, as people of my generation did. So it's perceived as a distant thing that might affect them at some indeterminate point in the future, much as the risks of smoking cigarettes, but not something that needs to be worried about now. And, of course, the other reason for the resurgence of barebacking is the increased prevalence of crystal meth, which both creates a strong sexual appetite and removes the reasoning and inhibitory responses that would otherwise normally kick in.

[Squirt]

I think part of the reason that there is a resurgence of barebacking is because very few of the current generation of kids has seen anyone near or dear to them suffer and die, as people of my generation did.

I don't know how old you are, I'm 35 and remember watching people slowly die off at a friends house who rented a discounted room to terminal AIDS patience. I also remember all the safe sex ads that used to be on TV. I've been out of the states for 5 years now (soon to come back) so I can't speak about how it is there, but here in Australia I've yet to see one safe sex ad. There are commercials every hour for a vaginal thrush treatment, and another for a herpes treatment that states 1 in 7 Australians has herpes. Seems backwards seeing ads for treatment and none for prevention.

If you are correct and the reason HIV rates continue at current levels because the new generation hasn't been exposed to what we have, and they use meth, then bareback films simply mirror reality right?

[A_DeAngelo]

If producers feel so strongly about putting the wrong message out there - "monkey see mokey do..." - than the content should be labeled appropriately and marked with disclaimers similar to ours

I think that producers should take full responsibility for the content they produced and should stop hiding behind the invisible label of "pre condom" to mask the fact that they filmed people fucking without condoms even when they knew people were at risk of contracting HIV - primarily between 1982 - 1990

No doubt, I am an old fart but, I've lived long enough to know the truth behind the scenes on and off the set...

[gaybucks_chip]

If producers feel so strongly about putting the wrong message out there - "monkey see mokey do..." - than the content should be labeled appropriately and marked with disclaimers similar to ours

I think that producers should take full responsibility for the content they produced and should stop hiding behind the invisible label of "pre condom" to mask the fact that they filmed people fucking without condoms even when they knew people were at risk of contracting HIV - primarily between 1982 - 1990

I agree with that, and practically speaking, there's almost no way to know when the so-called "pre condom" content was shot.

On a peripherally related note, Tony, I remember you saying something about re-purposing or re-editing of precondom (pre-2257) content and the legal issues. Did you or whomever was working on that ever get a read on what level of reediting or republishing content would trigger 2257 requirements?

I've heard some argue that *any* change, including adding a safer sex notice, would constitute republishing, which might then trigger 2257... but I've heard others say that the law is clear, and you only have to have a notice of exemption if the content was actually produced (shot) prior to July 1995. Curious if you found anything out.

[gaybucks_chip]

If you are correct and the reason HIV rates continue at current levels because the new generation hasn't been exposed to what we have, and they use meth, then bareback films simply mirror reality right?

I'm not really saying there is direct cause-and-effect, only that what we do know about repeated exposure to anything (advertising, viewpoints, behaviors, etc) creates some level of subconscious conditioning that decreases our resistance to it.

I am not sure what the cause is, but I do know that the majority of the 18-22 year old guys we work with, when I talk to them, don't seem to really "get" what it means to have HIV. It could simply be because they are young and consider themselves invincible (as many young people do) or it could be because they've never been in a situation of seeing many or most of their friends die, as people of my generation (I'm 47) did.

There is another theory about the rise of illegal drug use, and particularly the abuse of prescription drugs among youth... and that is the constant barrage of ads from pharmaceutical companies. There was no such advertising at all for prescription drugs when I was growing up; now you cannot watch television, read a magazine, or go anywhere without being bombarded with ads trying to convince you that you need some nasty liver-toxic crap that could cause severe kidney failure or death in order to get a better erection/have less anxiety / reduce your cholesterol / etc. The theory goes that since kids are convinced as early as childhood that there is a drug for every single human condition, they naturally see no problem with using prescription drugs - and crossing over into illegal drugs - to "improve" the human condition of going clubbing or hanging with friends or whatever. I haven't seen data analyzing this, so I don't know if there's much evidence to support it, but on the face of it, with what we know of human behavior and influence, it seems very plausible.

[Lazer]

I am not sure what the cause is, but I do know that the majority of the 18-22 year old guys we work with, when I talk to them, don't seem to really "get" what it means to have HIV. It could simply be because they are young and consider themselves invincible (as many young people do) or it could be because they've never been in a situation of seeing many or most of their friends die, as people of my generation (I'm 47) did.


There is another theory about the rise of illegal drug use, and particularly the abuse of prescription drugs among youth... and that is the constant barrage of ads from pharmaceutical companies. There was no such advertising at all for prescription drugs when I was growing up; now you cannot watch television, read a magazine, or go anywhere without being bombarded with ads trying to convince you that you need some nasty liver-toxic crap that could cause severe kidney failure or death in order to get a better erection/have less anxiety / reduce your cholesterol / etc. The theory goes that since kids are convinced as early as childhood that there is a drug for every single human condition, they naturally see no problem with using prescription drugs - and crossing over into illegal drugs - to "improve" the human condition of going clubbing or hanging with friends or whatever. I haven't seen data analyzing this, so I don't know if there's much evidence to support it, but on the face of it, with what we know of human behavior and influence, it seems very plausible.

Interesting theory. Personally, I can say that when I was in my early 20's (I'm 28 now), I participated in a lot of unsafe activities and a lot of my friends did as well. Not only was it the feeling of invincibility, but for me it was the idea that, if I got infected, i could just pop a pill everyday and I wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. I was very fortunate to learn how ridiculously dumb I'd been before I got to put my theory to the test.

Point is, we live in a time where we have incredible faith in medical science. Not only that they can cure anything, but also that they even want to.

[A_DeAngelo]

I agree with that, and practically speaking, there's almost no way to know when the so-called "pre condom" content was shot.

On a peripherally related note, Tony, I remember you saying something about re-purposing or re-editing of precondom (pre-2257) content and the legal issues. Did you or whomever was working on that ever get a read on what level of reediting or republishing content would trigger 2257 requirements?

I've heard some argue that *any* change, including adding a safer sex notice, would constitute republishing, which might then trigger 2257... but I've heard others say that the law is clear, and you only have to have a notice of exemption if the content was actually produced (shot) prior to July 1995. Curious if you found anything out.

yes, we did find out and yes, according to the attorneys we consulted, the deal is this... the process by which a video tape is converted into digital or dvd form constitutes a change in the video thus requiring 2257 info for the new project - so... in short, those who issue dvds from older content could be (according to who you listen to) be required to provide 2257 documentation - and of course, this does not exist for many (if not all) of these releases.....

this leads me to a new question - one that you have raised for me Chip - if this is correct and some of these producers feel so strongly about their rights to re-issue the content, then isn't it their responsibility to tag this new release so that it conforms to their new studio rhetoric? or does the loss of revenue blind these companies with respect to acting in accordance with their new, principals?

makes you kind of wonder doesn't it -

this is one of the reasons why I posted the thread on the motion picture industry's new ratings for "smoking in movies" - you would think that pornographers would begin to follow the example and mark the older titles with a new warning and disclaimer to warn the viewers about the possible hazards of fucking without condoms - If the studios feel so strongly about the hazards of fucking without condoms that is.... and getting their message out to the viewers of their condomless "classics" - if that's what they call them...

[gaybucks_chip]

this is one of the reasons why I posted the thread on the motion picture industry's new ratings for "smoking in movies" - you would think that pornographers would begin to follow the example and mark the older titles with a new warning and disclaimer to warn the viewers about the possible hazards of fucking without condoms - If the studios feel so strongly about the hazards of fucking without condoms that is.... and getting their message out to the viewers of their condomless "classics" - if that's what they call them...

I would think that the only responsible way to market any bareback video, whether "pre-condom" or "bareback" or "post-condom" or whatever you want to call it, would be to include an appropriate warning.

We were at one point considering doing a fun video in which the plot integrated new scenes with old, pre-condom content, but I could never get a definitive answer (probably because one doesn't exist until there are court decisions) as to whether we would have to have 2257 for the old content. Your answer is disappointing, but not unexpected.

The interesting part is, though, if the information you were given is correct, it means that NONE of the precondom videos out there are compliant (well, unless they have proper 2257 docs, which seems highly unlikely), since the conversion to VOD, for example, would be at least as much change as the conversion from VHS to DVD.

I'm guessing that AEBN probably takes a "bring it on" stance to everything they do, because their PornoTube service isn't remotely compliant from what I can see, so maybe they are just big enough that they don't care about compliance with the precondom stuff they are offering.

[JakeCruise]

I'm glad to see that this debate about bareback porn is being done in a genuinely sincere manner. I have shied away from other conversations before which were not "adult" in nature. This is an issue that I believe to be important for the community both in porn and in general.

Around 10% of my gay movies are bareback. And no, I don't have 10 guys coming into someone's ass. It is done naturally and not emphasized. And both models have to be comfortable getting tested and doing it. We do label it bareback for two reasons. First, it sells better, and I would be lying if I said I don't want to have a product that sells better. And two, I don't want a customer all pissed off at me because I didn't let him know a particular scene was bareback (yes - that's happened).

Also, all of my Straight Guys for Gay Eyes straight porn movies are done without condoms. 99% of my movies are done with models (including myself) tested through the AIM clinic or Biocollections in Miami using the PCR/DNA test (not the antibody test). The only exception I have made is when the couple being shot are spouses or lovers, and this is what they do normally.

But this conversation should go beyond "bareback" and also talk about "barecock." Though everyone has been taught endlessly that anal sex without a condom is unsafe, almost everyone thinks that oral sex without a condom IS safe. Not so. It is safer, but oral sex without a condom is NOT safe. If you don't believe me, take a look at this article from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) where a study showed that 7.8% of people got infected through oral sex. [they won't let me put in the url, so bare with me - Go to cdc dot gov slash hiv slash resources slash factsheets slash oralsexqa and end it with htm.]

A quote from this article: "The Options Project found that 7.8% (8 of 102) of recently infected men who have sex with men in San Francisco were probably infected through oral sex. Most of these men believed that the risk was minimal or non-existent."

So, if all producers want to be completely responsible and make sure that no one mimicks unsafe sex acts, they better start putting condoms on cocks before they get sucked. We wouldn't want 7.8% of boys from the sticks to get HIV because they saw some hot hunks sucking cocks bare, and they had accidently bitten the inside of their mouth while chewing tabacky.

Of course most of us would have to retire, too. No one is going to pay to see guys, or girls, sucking cock with condoms on. Of course there would still be solo videos and lesbian flicks.

Now, I'm not exactly a youngster so I know that everyone under the age of 30 has been educated the hell out of safe anal sex. Is there anyone who really needs to know that anal sex without a condom is not as safe?

I've been on the fence about whether I should mention the fact that everyone is tested for these scenes or if I should just leave it alone. Do I bring it up and possibly ruin the moment or do I tell them the background info?

All of your thoughts on whether or not to comment about this would be appreciated. As I've said, I've been sitting on the fence on this and the fence post is getting painful.

As for the monkey-see-monkey-hit-clown scenario I have to point something out. If people actually did in real-life sex what they see in porn, there would never have been an AIDS epidemic. There would have been AIDS, don't get me wrong, but I doubt it would have spread like it did. Why? Because all the tops would have pulled out and shot on the bottom's back or belly like they used to do in pre-condom classics. So, sorry, the monkey-see hypothesis doesn't hold up to logic.

In short my point of view is:

1) Everyone is educated about safe sex.
2) Adults should be viewing porn and not impressionable children.
3) My business is to provide a fantasy, but to do it responsibly.
4) The use of a condom brings up STDs and thus reduces the fantasy.
5) To be 100% responsible for both the safety of my models and the few impressionable people out there I would have to use condoms for both anal and oral sex.

Those are my dos centavos.

Be good.

[gaybucks_chip]

Jake,

Thank you for the thoughtful contribution, and kudos for the clever way of getting around the "no url" block for new members.

For those who don't want to translate, here's the link:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac.../oralsexqa.htm

I'm really glad to see this cite, because I got ripped at gaymainstreet several months ago after saying, from memory, that I remembered a study that said something like 8% oral transmission rate. I'm a little frustrated, though, because after 45 minutes of searching in Medline and Google, I can't find any original citation to the actual presentation referenced in the Q&A. (It was a poster summarizing the results of their research.)

It is interesting, however, that the studies cited in the bibliography are contradictory. Some show no evidence whatsoever of oral transmission, and one showed that the self-reports by the subjects of not having anal sex turned out to be inaccurate when the subjects were re-interviewed, so it's unclear how accurate the cited report actually is. And that report is dated 2000; it would be interesting to know what other information has been obtaned in the last 6+ years.

The other interesting thing I found in reading the abstracts of several of the journal articles is that a large majority of the subjects who did experience oral transmission of HIV reported bleeding gums or other oral irritation problems, and nearly all also reported have cum and/or precum in their mouths.

We've made the decision to not shoot cum eating or to for a model to ejaculate in another model's mouth for the same reason we don't shoot bareback. About a year ago, we also started including disclosures to our models about risks of oral transmission, and we changed preshoot prep procedures to include telling our models not to brush their teeth for at least 90 minutes prior to the shoot, as this increases the risk of oral transmission. Yet we realize that there is still risk, and I agree with Jake that it's not possible to completely remove the risk, and some could argue that it is inconsistent to show oral sex without a condom if one is showing protected anal sex. We know that some people view our content as not as "hot" as other studios simply because we choose not to include cumming in mouths, and few facial cum scenes as well, but that's a cost/benefit analysis that we've chosen.

What I think is clear is that each studio (and model) has to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with. The one disagreement I would have is on the level of education that young people have. I find that in the detailed discussions we have with our models (generally 18-19 year olds, with a few who are 20-22), most of them are not really clear on the risks, particularly when it comes to what it really means to test negative. Many are surprised, and quite a few tell us months later that our conversations with them were meaningful in changing their behaviors. So, at least based on the sample of kids represented by our models, we *do* have an opportunity to educate them better than the Bush-mandated abstinence-based sex ed programs have done, and I *don't* think that everyone under 30 is really clear on the risks.

Jake, on the issue of saying that your models are tested, I would say that all the education you can provide is beneficial. I doubt that many will be "turned off" to know that your models were tested and serosorted (assuming that's the case) prior to shooting the scene; if part of the goal is in part to encourage responsible behavior, then providing that bit of information may help to remind people that they're viewing fantasy that is outside the normal realm of "safe" behavior in the real world.

[A_DeAngelo]

interesting thing is this, this thread has inspired me to view some of the old vids we have in our stacks and I've dug out vhs titles to review and see when companies really did stop shooting without condoms and transition into the safe sex genre...

we are finding videos without condoms being shot way into the late 80's like 88 and 89 and producers knew damn well what was going on with HIV infection and how to prevent it - shame on the studios for putting those models at risk without the benefit of today's modern scientific knowledge...

I have to admit that enjoy the "pre-condom" classics for their authenticity and full development of plot, characters and theme - so lacking in today's "hotel room" vids....great lighting, great and healthy looking models (all a little too young for me for the most part) - imaginative sets and fuck positions - no chintzing out on good cum shots - generally inaudible horrible dialog and most of all - very predictable plot development and organization of sexual positions - lousy title sequences, etc.... but, these have served us well as inspiration for our situation sex videos....

one thing I can say for certain is, thank god the studios started handing out viagra to their models by the time we hit the sets - some of the older videos lack big, stiff dick...

[JakeCruise]

Chip,

Thanks for sending out the url. I guess once I participate more I'll get the privilege. I do intend to make the time to converse with everyone more. Just like the time I'm going to make to go the gym! LOL

While early 2000 isn't yesterday, it seems to be the most current information on this subject. There have been other studies, as those in the bibilography state, but not with the higher number of subjects.

There is a lot more information out there. I did a Google search for "hiv transmission through oral sex" and got this article, and many more.

Personally, my best friend since junior high contracted HIV orally. He had problems with bleeding gums for years and he swears it is the only thing he did that could have contracted HIV. I believe him.

On my gay site the only one who eats cum is me. I get all the facials and take the risk. Of course I take as many precautions when doing so. One precaution I haven't taken is to have all models that give me a facial tested through AIM. After reading the CDC article I'll make sure they all are.

Most of the guys that give me facials are straight and have been tested for their straight porn scene. But some of the guys were shot before their straight scene and were not yet tested. I've been lucky.

Kudos to GayBucks for taking the time to inform their models about the risks even though you don't do bareback or facials. I am surprised that so many of the kids you state do not have the basic information that anal sex without condoms is risky. It's not just the current Presidumb's policies that I am referring to, it's every movie, tv show, People magazine article, etc. Not to mention word of mouth from their friends.

I don't really get into this with my models because I shoot anal gay scenes with condoms or with testing, and all straight scenes with testing. Since I don't do HIV+ bareback, I don't serosort. Even if the two HIV+ models were comfortable doing so, I would not be. Re-infection causing an increase in viral load is still not confirmed or unconfirmed.

I know that the AIM clinic has literature about HIV/STD transmission and I will make sure that all new models have read it. Most of my models are in their mid to late 20's so they aren't kids. Yet it can't hurt to hand them the lit before the shoot.

And thanks for your comment on educating my members about how we do bareback. I've thought of a solution that may not be too distracting for those who don't want their fantasy ruined. I'll just put up a link called "About Bareback" on the scene page, then if they are interested they can link to a page with the full explanation.

[A_DeAngelo]

useful tools to help navigate the current data bases re: the ever changing landscape of HIV transmission - what is ok and what is considered risky behavior -

there are all sorts of valuable resources available to us these days, here are but a couple...

By Will Boggs, MD
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jan 15 - Selection by men of sexual partners and behaviors according to HIV status, a phenomenon called serosorting, influences the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, according to a report in the December 2006 issue of Sexually Transmitted Infections.

"Prevention with positives is a promising point of intervention to slow the epidemic by preventing further transmission," Dr. Willi McFarland from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, California told Reuters Health. "With respect to serosorting in particular, physicians should be ready to discuss the implications of HIV-positive patients having unprotected sex with other HIV-positives."

Dr. McFarland and colleagues attempted to assess whether increases in HIV serosorting contribute to preventing further expansion of the epidemic and have other effects on other sexually transmitted diseases.

Despite decreases in the incidence of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco, the authors report, cases of rectal gonorrhea and early syphilis increased from 1998 to 2004.

Over this interval, there was an increase in unprotected anal intercourse, the results indicate, but the behavior decreased among HIV-negative and HIV-positive MSM with partners of unknown HIV serostatus.

"Our data support the hypothesis that MSM are increasingly selecting HIV seroconcordant partners when engaging in unprotected anal intercourse," the investigators say. "The choice of HIV negative people as the insertive partner, referred to as strategic positioning (or 'seropositioning') may reflect a second strategy to decrease HIV risk."

"There are other reasons why people may choose partners of the same serostatus beyond the risk of HIV transmission," Dr. McFarland explained. "For example, HIV-positive persons may find more support in a relationship with another HIV-positive person because they share many more of the challenging aspects of living with HIV."

The investigator concluded: "Our observations and studies of serosorting may simply be documenting the rise of a community-generated HIV prevention strategy that is happening whether we have any control over it or not." Dr. McFarland said.

Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:461-466.

Reuters Health Information 2007. © 2007 Reuters Ltd.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

also

I think seattle's web page on serosorting is impressive. so matter a fact and with flash crappy images to distract the eyes. and it mentions poppers as something of concern. also like that it uses the widespread accepted vernacular 'serosorting.' very easy to find practical info and answers to basic questions.

Seattle and King County Health dept

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/in...erosorting.htm

and on the other hand, i am not taken with the SF/les pappas showy site. saying 'status-sorting' is confusing to some people, when we've all been using the word 'serosorting'. guess SF always thinks it has to (re)invent the wheel. and i loathe all the distracting bright colors. what is this, an update of 'laugh-in'?
difficult to locate basic info and facts, and takes a few clicks to do so.

San Francisco Department of Public Health HIV prevention
http://disclosehiv.org/