I specifically said I was not seeking to discuss the *philosophy* for or against barebacking. There have been about 10,000 threads on that topic here at GWW and it's been discussed ad nasueum. However, since you're making a number of statements that I believe are factually incorrect, I will respond.Originally Posted by BarebackJack
Even if true, this means the former don't care about the safety of their models, given the voluminous information (pretty much not controversial anymore - see the previous 10,000 threads I referenced) about reinfection and the deleterious effects of it, and the latter, almost without exception, do not adequately and honestly disclose the risks (again, see the previous 10,000 threads on the subject.)From my experience in dealing with bareback studios over the last 9 years, I’ve found there are generally two types of studios: those who contract mostly/exclusively HIV Positive performers (who are often blacklisted by mainstream production companies), and those who make an effort to contract HIV-negative performers. The former are to my knowledge upfront with their performers about the presence of POZ performers in their productions – even going to the extent of putting language to that effect in their contracts, and the latter perform tests prior to filming to ensure as safe an environment as possible for their talent.
Now... that's not to say that some bareback studios do not take reasonable precautions, and/or work with older models who are capable of fully comprehending the risks and are making an informed decision. I have less problem with that.
Then you don't know the twink marketplace. I know of one studio that *claims* to test everyone but according to multiple sources does not consistently do so, and many others that rely on models providing their own (non-AIM) results which can easily be faked, studios that regularly either blatantly lie or grossly misrepresent the risks to their models about the safety issues.Personally I don't know of any bareback studios that are as reckless as your Jesse makes them out to be with that one line.
Discussed ad nauseum in other threads. I specifically said that I realized there were differing viewpoints and didn't want to start another longwinded discussion that would rehash the same stuff.Yes, I heard Jesse’s remark about testing even moments before having sex, and I don’t disagree with him. But two things have to be taken into consideration. First is the basic fact that most people in our modern information-based society understand that there is always a risk present when engaging in unsafe practices (it could be needle sharing… and I notice that Jesse fails to mention anything on that subject). That doesn't stop them from doing unsafe things. The other is that all performers in the adult industry are indeed adults and are capable of making their own decisions about how they will conduct their personal and professional lives. As adults we are all entitled to make such choices, and as such, we are obligated to deal with the consequences of our actions. Nobody gets away from that basic law.
On that we disagree. If people stopped buying them, studios would stop producing them, and models would not be put in the position of putting their health at risk for an extra $500 or $1000.Buying only safer-sex videos won’t change that.
Jesse is a porn performer. He is also a social worker working daily with young people with HIV. He honestly believes, and AJ and I happen to agree, that each person can make a contribution to effecting change through their own actions. He is concerned about his safety and the safety of his fellow models.What I find most troubling about the cheap shot at bareback videos is this: In essence, Jesse is saying “Don’t buy the kind of content you think you want to see; buy the content that we deem politically correct.” Perhaps for the sake of full transparency you should have him say that. It would certainly be more honest.
If enough people say "No, it's not worth some model's health for me to see this scene without a condom when it really doesn't make any difference to the quality of the scene" then bareback will stop outselling safe content, and there will no longer be an incentive (in an industry that runs nearly 100% on monetary incentive) to produce it. Therefore, less models exposed to that risk, and potentially, less kids in isolated areas getting the idea that barebacking is the "standard" thing for gay sex. There are many, many, many examples of small movements starting with just a few people that took hold and changed an entire nation, industry, or practice.
We are far from isolated in our view on barebacking in the adult industry. We try to walk a middle line of not openly condemning companies that produce bareback, but at the same time, educating those in and outside the industry with facts. It is a challenge for us, because of the things I've said above about there being some risks even within "safer" sex.
I do appreciate the input on production values. This was a quick first attempt, done almost on a whim when Jesse was in town, as a starting point. Some of the angles and such are creative choices by our editor who is a filmmaker. I'm not sure if they work yet... this is indeed a work in process.Politically correct/incorrect bullshit aside, I’d say the production values are mediocre at best. Jesse seems to be reading off of cue cards that aren’t being turned fast enough. The setting is uninspiring. I’ll agree with Lazer in that a more intimate setting would not only keep the thing from looking cold and unimaginative, but a warmer backdrop would also make it look as though it wasn’t filmed by a teenager with his dad’s videocam. You might consider having Jesse look at the camera when the angles change so he doesn’t appear to be talking to thin air (which maybe he is doing after all…)
. Also consider more variations in the background lighting so the focus is on him, not that cheesy looking office. Again, setting it in an empty porn studio set would make it more attention-grabbing. And yes, for god’s sake get rid of the cheap plugs in the background. A plain title of “This message has been sponsored by…” at the end is much more professional. The damn thing doesn’t have to look like an MTV video, but as it stands the whole "PSA" ad is very amateurish. With a little more forethought and attention to detail you could do much better, frankly.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks