I think somebody is producing a glans-only condom, but I haven't been able to find one. Additionally, even if it does exist, there's no safety data on it, and there would still be a fairly substantial risk of infection because there's some evidence that the shaft of the penis (as well as the tissues of the rectum and anus) has some tissue that's thin enough to allow transmission of the virus through microscopic tearing and blood.

AJ and I have discussed the notion of fake barebacking, and while it would resolve our concerns about risk to models, it doesn't resolve the other question (which I feel less strongly about) regarding the influence of seeing bareback activity on the viewer, and so we've thus far decided not to produce fake bareback material.

And yes, it is possible to use CGI to remove a condom from the penetration scenes, but it would not be a trivial task, and probably not worth the time invested in a scene to do so.

Frankly, if the majors are considering producing bareback porn, I find that totally appalling. It's one thing for smaller or midsized producers that produce a specialty product, quite another for the major companies to do that. If the majors start doing that, it sends a message to the industry as a whole, and will most likely result in more federal regulation, which is the last thing we as an industry need.

And Tony, while I respect you a lot, I'm not sure what stringent safety precautions you can take. Even though we shoot safe content, we test every model upon arrival, but the commercially available testing is only for antibodies to the virus, and does not address the issue of the latency period (the time it takes for one's body to create antibodies), which is not less than 60-90 days and by some indications can be up to 1 year or longer. Even an actual virus titer, which is very expensive and not available as a rapid test last I checked, isn't foolproof, since the HIV retrovirus can camouflage itself, and virus levels go up and down rapidly in newly-infected people.