3 young porn actors infected with HIV on UK bareback shoot

[Titanmen]

http://boyz.co.uk/pdfs/843/pdfs/06_BOYZ_In_The_Know.pdf


Three young male actors, aged 18, 21 and 26,
were infected with HIV whilst making a British
bareback gay porn film last month. The boys
were performing alongside a 26 year old actor who
had tested negative several weeks before production,
but it later transpired that he was HIV positive at the
time of filming.

Boyz has learnt that only three days after shooting
had finished, the actor undertook a routine monthly
HIV test, only to discover that the result was positive.
He then alerted the DVD company’s director, who
rushed his other young stars to hospital to undergo a
rarely used 48-hour HIV test which it is claimed can
detect HIV within hours of infection, by looking for the
virus’ DNA. All three co-stars were then informed that
their tests were also positive.

See above link to .pdf for the entire story

[Lee]

Thats actually a pretty good testimony to show just how naive many of these younger actors are when it comes to porn shoots i mean seriously...

‘On all the shoots we do everything: suck, kiss, rim, fuck. I’m passive but he didn’t cum inside me - that never happens in porn, it’s all face and mouth. It must’ve been from his pre-cum inside me.'

Sure, theres never ever internal cumshot with bareback porn LOL

Regards,

Lee

[Jasun]

It makes my fucking blood boil how many companies still use Bareback and act like it's "hot" or "shocking" or "cool" or some nosie like that.

Three young men have now had their lives cut short so a weekly update can get done and a few bottom feeders can make a buck.

Why are we giving companies that make bareback porn any time? Why are we associating with them?

It's obvious that these are people who are hurting young men, hurting the industry, hurting society and so many people just shrug it off as if "oh well.."

I get so sick of the bottom feeders who come here and post about their bareback shoots and act like they're fucking revolutionaries for making content that's ultimately cut short the lives of lots of young men.. the ones in the movies and the ones who use porn stars as their role models.

[eldorado]

From the article:

"Jay's bareback DVD will be out before Christmas. Unsuspecting viewers won't be aware that they're actually watching the young performers being infected with HIV...Even his director was angry, adding, "If we'd have known about (the quick test) we'd have chased it up and made sure we used it.""

Isn't that noble? The directly really DOES care about the safety of his models! In fact, to save the director the bother of having his models tested before bareback scenes, I would just suggest that instead of fucking, the models could play Russian roulette with real bullets. There's really no difference, huh?

- David

[jIgG]

what Jasun said...

it was only a matter of time anyway.

and who's the idiot company

hopefully the studio will be sued

[gaybucks_chip]

Well, and I've always been disgusted and grossed out by the scenes where a model cums in another model's ass, and the bottom then shits out the cum.

How people can find it "hot" to watch some guy risk his life and potentially get infected, or find it exciting to watch somebody shit cum out of their ass is totally beyond me, but perhaps I'm just missing something.

[hdkbill]

Thats actually a pretty good testimony to show just how naive many of these younger actors are when it comes to porn shoots i mean seriously...

Regards,

Lee

It's a better testimony about requiring "current" HIV test documentation prior to the shoot as "proof" that the model is HIV negative. Any HIV test is good only for the moment in time that the test was taken. The only thing a HIV test documentation requirement does is create a false sense of security as was proven with the Darren James situation when he, with a "current" HIV negative test document, infected three women with HIV.

Bill

[hdkbill]

what Jasun said...

it was only a matter of time anyway.

and who's the idiot company

hopefully the studio will be sued

The "idiot" company was mentioned in the original post by Keith as well as in the link.

[hdkbill]

It makes my fucking blood boil how many companies still use Bareback and act like it's "hot" or "shocking" or "cool" or some nosie like that.

Three young men have now had their lives cut short so a weekly update can get done and a few bottom feeders can make a buck.

Why are we giving companies that make bareback porn any time? Why are we associating with them?

It's obvious that these are people who are hurting young men, hurting the industry, hurting society and so many people just shrug it off as if "oh well.."

I get so sick of the bottom feeders who come here and post about their bareback shoots and act like they're fucking revolutionaries for making content that's ultimately cut short the lives of lots of young men.. the ones in the movies and the ones who use porn stars as their role models.

Jasun,

Why don't you avoid the drama and the name calling. You don't know that these kids lives have been cut short. Their are many of us who have been living with HIV for many, many years. And, none of us know what the future holds for new discoveries for the treatment of HIV, or even, a cure someday. So knock off the drama. You are smarter than that.

As for the name calling, I'm assuming you are referring to me as a "bottom feeder" since I make bareback films. Simply put, you won't want to call me that to my face or in print by actually mentioning me specifically.

We used to be friends, especially when you were hitting on one of my employees a couple of years back at the CCBill show in Phoenix. We've always had a cordial relationship and I can think of nothing I've done to you personally which warrants the attack you are making on me as a bareback producer.

Not exactly sure what has happened in your life that is now causing you to resort to name calling. I suggest you keep your posts professional and polite. We can all agree to disagree and we can disagree in a manner which isn't offensive.

Bill

[IdolKnights]

Jay’s bareback DVD will be out before Christmas.
Unsuspecting viewers won’t be aware that they’re actually
watching the young performers being infected
with HIV.

And would this also be the marketing for the dvd?

LIVE INSIDE, REAL HIV INFECTION VIDEO! IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE BAREBACK THAN THIS!

[edit] I have a very, to each their own attitude. I'm just turned off by the release of the movie. fyi [/edit]

[hdkbill]

Well, and I've always been disgusted and grossed out by the scenes where a model cums in another model's ass, and the bottom then shits out the cum.

How people can find it "hot" to watch some guy risk his life and potentially get infected, or find it exciting to watch somebody shit cum out of their ass is totally beyond me, but perhaps I'm just missing something.

Chip,

And you certainly have the right to your opinion. No one would ever attempt to take that away from you. But others, happen to like the scene you described. Guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Everyone has different tastes. Great thing about the freedom in this country is that if you don't like to watch those type of films, you don't have to. You have the absolute right NOT to watch those films. But, would you take away the rights of the guys who do like those type of films simply because you don't like them? That would be the same as me saying, "I'm gay and I don't like straight films, therefore, let's ban all straight films because I don't like them".

And, how do you know the guy who is doing what you described above, isn't already positive and therefore at no risk of "potentially being infected and risking his life" by becoming HIV positive since he already is?

Bill

[gaybucks_chip]

Chip,

And you certainly have the right to your opinion. No one would ever attempt to take that away from you. But others, happen to like the scene you described. Guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Everyone has different tastes. Great thing about the freedom in this country is that if you don't like to watch those type of films, you don't have to. You have the absolute right NOT to watch those films. But, would you take away the rights of the guys who do like those type of films simply because you don't like them? That would be the same as me saying, "I'm gay and I don't like straight films, therefore, let's ban all straight films because I don't like them".

As an advocate of the First Amendment, I support the freedom of anyone who wishes to make such films to make them. To take it a step further, many (including me) find much of the violence in Hollywood films to be as disgusting as some of the more gross porn acts portrayed on film... and no doubt some find the content that we produce to be gross or distasteful. So I don't advocate banning such speech.

But (putting on rose colored glasses) I do wish that content producers would perhaps give at least some thought to the impact their content has on society. Violent video games are banned in much of Europe, and Europe has far lower incidence of violence than the US. Coincidence? Maybe. Correlation does not equal causation, so we don't know for sure, but many studies indicate there is a correlation between viewing violence and more violent behavior, and many studies indicate that repeated viewing of any behavior creates a subconscious acceptance of such behavior. In other words, people watch violence (or barebacking, or shitting cum out of your ass) and people eventually get the subconscious programming that it's OK to do that. Again, I would not advocate banning such expression, but it would be really nice if producers would simply realize the impact they have on people's psyches, and perhaps take that into consideration when producing content.

And, how do you know the guy who is doing what you described above, isn't already positive and therefore at no risk of "potentially being infected and risking his life" by becoming HIV positive since he already is?

I don't. But there are many other STIs in addition to HIV, some of which (hep-C, for example) are even more difficult to treat than HIV. And since you've already said you don't do testing, let's turn it around: Are we to assume that your models already have every STI on the planet and therefore can fuck anyone and everyone completely carefree?

Additionally, last I looked at the literature, it was pretty widely accepted among HIV specialists that mixing strains of HIV (reinfecting someone already infected) frequently introduces additional complications making it even more difficult to treat and stabilize them. And someone who is HIV+ but does not have AIDS can certainly be pushed into a more serious condition through reinfection. Many HIV+ people either don't know this, or are in denial about it. If the reinfection risks are clearly explained to the models involved in a shoot, and they make the conscious choice that they still wish to bareback, then it's been disclosed and it's at that point the model's choice... but I would wager that no such conversation takes place.

People have a right to do what they want to do. Studios have a right to film unsafe or risky or offensive content. The main thing I'm in favor of is full, honest disclosure of risks to the people being asked to take them, minimization of risks wherever possible, and that thought be given to the impact that we, as producers, have on our audience.

[gaybucks_chip]

It's a better testimony about requiring "current" HIV test documentation prior to the shoot as "proof" that the model is HIV negative.

I would disagree. I think Lee's point is that very few people, particularly young people, actually understand the risks of bareback sex and STI infection, and the issues of the latency period.

In the past year, I've spoken to about a dozen models that were considering doing (or had already done) bareback work for another studio. After I had fully explained the risks, the limitations of testing, and the secondary factors (anyone willing to bareback has probably done so before, and therefore already at higher risk of transmitting HIV than someone who's never barebacked), in all but one case, the models decided not to accept the offer to bareback, and a number of models who had previously done bareback decided not to do any further work.

If someone is already positive, I point them to the literature on reinfection and the risks of further health complications (something, sadly, many of them are unaware of.)

I really believe that if the risks are properly and fully disclosed, most intelligent people will not choose to take the risk, because it simply isn't worth it. If they do, then it's their choice, but at least they've entered into the situation with a full understanding of the risks.

If a studio cares about its models as people and not simply as exploitable commodities, there really isn't any other way to operate.

[Jasun]

Bill, I'm not really thinking of the companies such as yours that use, from what I've been lead to believe, only models who are HIV+. I didn't single you out in that post because I'm not really thinking of your company. I don't think any of your movies have ever featured young men being infected.

I actually get a kick out of some of your stuff. I think you've had some ideas that are rather clever, to be honest, and as long as you stick to the policy of only using models who are HIV+, I'm all for it.

I don't think you've ever suggested that barebacking is shocking, revolutionary or ground-breaking. I'd call you on it if you did. I DO think that you could put that tag on some of the movies you've done (the Cumhole competition comes to mind) but not because of a lack of condoms.

(and for the record.. I was not "hitting on" a member of your staff. I think "flirting with" would be a better characterization. :jasun: )

[jIgG]

And would this also be the marketing for the dvd?

LIVE INSIDE, REAL HIV INFECTION VIDEO! IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE BAREBACK THAN THIS!

[edit] I have a very, to each their own attitude. I'm just turned off by the release of the movie. fyi [/edit]

nothing new for some bareback companies I'm sure
just more known in this video