Please comment on our new PSA

[gaybucks_chip]

Chip,

Thanks for your remarks back. You know, as you've said, it really is just a matter of people not knowing what it feels like on this side of the fence. Sometimes when I cruise online I send people messages about their "clean" and "disease free" notes in their profiles. Most of the time I'm greeted with "I had no idea" or "it never occurred to me," sometimes people just tell me to fuck off. But not very often.

I went to Oberlin College, probably one of the most politically correct places on the planet. Sometimes the PC language was overkill, but for the most part, being there brought me a level of sensitivity to how much language, improperly used, can be extremely hurtful, even when it's entirely unintentional. I made a lot of changes to my language as I was a student there, and it still sticks with me. But amazingly, this is something I'd just never really stopped to think about, which surprises me, since AJ sometimes chides me for being *too* PC in my language and viewpoint.

I also wonder about the message that you encourage people to buy from non-bareback producers because they promote safe activity. That could give surfers the idea that what they see in non-bareback porn is actually safe all of the time.
(snip)
By your suggestion, surfers could be thinking that either activity is safe when it might not be so safe.

This is another *excellent* point. All of us in this industry have the opportunity to educate others, and like it or not, everything we produce does at some level have an impact on the perception of those who view it. At the same time, I suspect that few would disagree that porn that was 100% safe sex (if 100% safe sex was a realistic possibility) would be as appealing as bareback sex or other "riskier" sex.

I would love to produce a concise, no-nonsense statement of some sort that talks about the safety issue, relative risks, and helps to more clearly define what is dangerous / somewhat risky / reasonably low risk / extremely low risk. (Nothing other than sex by yourself is truly risk free, and there are people who have died of heart attacks masturbating, so that isn't even risk free. )

We do plan to add a safer sex message to our videos in the future. We were going to license a wonderful film from a young filmmaker, but his "manager" decided it wasn't a good idea for him to license to an adult company, so we're going to shoot our own. And we have also talked about adding a short tag, performed by one of the models, about safer sex that would go at the end of our films.

It's definitely a crapshoot because talk about safe sex in a porn film is a buzzkill. But at the same time, it's an opportunity to educate, and if the message is short and sweet and gets the point across, maybe it will help people to think.

Eventually, we'll get it right... this is our first attempt, and it's great to have all the input that will help us make it better next time.

[BarebackJack]

I think “taking a whack at the bareback studios” automatically reduces your credibility among any autonomous adult, unless you’re aiming your PSA at those who have spent their lives under a rock.

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. 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.

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. Buying only safer-sex videos won’t change that.

Taking potshots at an arm of the gay porn industry is not only mean spirited, but it is also unnecessarily so. And it won’t halt the spread of HIV nearly as much as just trying to get people to practice safer sex in their day-to-day lives. Encouraging people to NOT buy bareback videos won’t have your desired impact on new HIV cases any more than not attending a movie where people blow things up will bring about an end to violence in any part of the world.

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.

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.

[gaybucks_chip]

I think “taking a whack at the bareback studios” automatically reduces your credibility among any autonomous adult, unless you’re aiming your PSA at those who have spent their lives under a rock.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Buying only safer-sex videos won’t change that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dzinerbear]

Instead of pushing the safe sex aspect so much and not buying bareback porn, why don't you get Jesse to suggest people talk to their partners before they get naked. Safe sex is not our number one weapon against HIV, communication is.

They've been running a campaign in Toronto that essentially talks about the misconceptions people have: "If he's willing to fuck me without a condom, he must be negative."

Seems to me that most people aren't talking about what is acceptable for them, what is safe for them, and what's going to happen if they get high (or higher). They just jump in the sack and start doing it. The worst time to try and negotiate safe sex is when you've got a hard dick pushing up against your butt hole. That is the top's way of non-verbally asking you, "Is this okay?" If you spread your legs, he has his answer. But had you talked about it before you got naked, he probably wouldn't have even gone there.

Cheers
Michael

[gaybucks_chip]

Instead of pushing the safe sex aspect so much and not buying bareback porn, why don't you get Jesse to suggest people talk to their partners before they get naked. Safe sex is not our number one weapon against HIV, communication is.

Wow, what a great quote. Again, complete agreement with you.

I'd forgotten you are in Toronto. Jesse is in Toronto, perhaps I should get the two of you together to talk, he's quite passionate about facilitating change, and you have a lot of insight on this issue. He's getting ready to go to India for a monthlong social welfare practicum, but perhaps when he gets back...

[Dzinerbear]

Sure, I'd love to talk to him.

Cheers
Michael

[A_DeAngelo]

now that the kettle of fish has been opened...

telling people not to buy bareback videos won't work - (and I certainly do not appreciate that comment) - as I said in my earlier post, this is suppose to be a public service announcement NOT an AD for your safe sex products

here are some points from the numerous focus groups and public hearings we have attented and sponsored re: HIV AND AIDS (for chirst's sake get that right please)

get tested (knowledge = power) - heard that before?

teach safe sex

know your status

stay negative

do not infect others (its illegal - you can go to jail)

do not abuse alcohol

do not abuse drugs

stick to these topics and your message will best serve your intent

and please leave us off the list of bareback production companies you would like to ban -

[Matt 26z]

it really is just a matter of people not knowing what it feels like on this side of the fence.

So anti HIV messages have to consider the feelings of those who've already made their moment of poor judgment?

Preaching only about condom use obviously hasn't been enough to prevent people from ending up on your side of the fence. I for one think there needs to be more hard hitting statements put out there regardless of who they might upset.

[basschick]

i've thought about posting what i'm about to say since yesterday. i realize it may hurt people's feelings, and i really don't want to. but if chip is serious about getting this message out - and he sure seems serious - i feel it's important to get every viewpoint so he, aj and jesse can consider them all and decide what's right for them with all the input possible.

jesse was using common terminology used in personal ads all over. it may be thoughtless, but so are most people. heck, i had a doctor tell me "you're clean" when my test results came back negative. and i've had doctors and nurses use this expression to me when they've tested me for things that are totally non sex related. if you want to get a message that really sinks in, you have to talk to people in ways that they can relate to. like it or not, most people use the word "clean" to mean STD-free or disease free.

by not using terms that are already on people's radar, you may be doing the right thing at the expense of your message.

btw, i have several positive friends who use the word "clean" to refer to people who don't have HIV, so i don't think this is a universal perspective.

Michael,

I really appreciate this, though I also feel about 2 inches tall right now You're totally right about the language. When I think about it, it's no less insensitive than having a straight company write content for a gay site and unintentionally say a lot of incredibly offensive things, or people making racist remarks, or anything like that.

Jesse really is a social worker and does really work with HIV positive people every day, though it's with at-risk youth and youth who are very newly diagnosed, so it's likely that he isn't as familiar with the language because he hasn't so far worked with many people living with HIV longer term.

He's very sensitive to language about things like "client" vs "patient" and using language that empowers and so I'm certain he will be horrified. When we pass on the comments to him, I'm sure he'll do his own research and talk with the staff at his youth center to learn the correct terminology.

AJ and I wrote most of the text of what he was saying, so we are the ones that take the responsibility for the insensitive language.

But... this is EXACTLY why we put it out for input from the GWW community. So far, we've gotten a lot of very helpful and useful criticism. which we really appreciate. Please keep it coming.

[gaybucks_chip]

Arrgh.

Tony, as I've said many times before, I respect you on many levels. I don't share your viewpoint, but I defend your right to hold it. From what I've heard, I think that you guys probably are among the best of the bareback companies in many ways.

PSAs can serve many purposes. Anti-smoking ones encourage people not to smoke; safe sex ones can encourage safe sex in every way, including encouraging people to buy safer sex porn instead of unsafe sex porn. It's simply our expression of our viewpoint, which as I said at the beginning, I realize is in conflict with the viewpoint of others in the GWW community whom I respect.

As far as the effectiveness of the PSA, if it has no effect, then there should be no concern among the companies that produce bareback content. We don't have any illusion that one little PSA is going to suddenly change the habits of millions of porn buyers... but perhaps it will make a few people think... about their own safety, about the risks of various unsafe behaviors, about what it means when they are watching porn that's produced in a way that puts someone else (the models) at risk.

We have quite a few customers that ask if we sell bareback the first time they call us, and we usually take the time to explain why we don't produce it. Often, they tell us they had never thought about the risks facing the people performing in the videos. Of course, it doesn't mean they will stop buying bareback content, but it is an opportunity to educate.

It's not my place to ban anything. Thus far, we have chosen not to sell or promote any bareback titles on our online DVD store (and I know we lose a ton of sales because of it), but that's our choice... there are stores that only promote bareback and not condom product, and that's OK too.

While I'd be delighted to see a world where there's no demand for porn featuring unsafe sex and therefore no one produced it (as well as a world where everyone treated each other as they'd want to be treated), I would, at the same time, stand up for your right to produce it if someone tried to ban it on censorship or obscenity grounds, because as soon as we allow any sort of restriction on speech, it's a dangerous precedent.

And as for the other messages, absolutely yes... they are all very important, and we intend to produce a series of PSAs on a variety of topics, many of which are very personal to some of our models who have volunteered to participate in the production.

The PSA I posted is just that - a PSA. Not supposed to have links to our sites on it, as I've already said 3 times above. There is another version of this that is, in fact, promoting one of Jesse's titles, but that one is for different uses and purposes and is designed to promote our safer sex product. The PSA is simply designed to make people think... and I've gotten a ton of excellent suggestions that will, I think, vastly improve the next one's ability to accomplish that goal.

[gaybucks_chip]

So anti HIV messages have to consider the feelings of those who've already made their moment of poor judgment?

Preaching only about condom use obviously hasn't been enough to prevent people from ending up on your side of the fence. I for one think there needs to be more hard hitting statements put out there regardless of who they might upset.

I'm inclined to side with Michael. There is probably 1 person out of 100,000 who would NOT do things differently if they were given the chance, and I see no reason to be insensitive to someone who is already unhappy and, in fact, may have had insecurities or low self esteem that contributed to the decision to bareback in the first place.

I don't think that effective use of language more sensitive to those who are already living with HIV will dampen the message to the target audience.

I do agree that we can make more hard hitting statements; the film I referenced above is amazing and powerful, and as soon as we reshoot it, we will make it available to anyone who wishes to use it. And I think that there's lots more that can be done, from addressing the issues that Tony raised to encouraging communication as Michael said. It's all part of a complex message, and the more opportunities we take to communicate and educate, the greater likelihood that people will have the information to make wise decisions.

[Dzinerbear]

So anti HIV messages have to consider the feelings of those who've already made their moment of poor judgment?

What the fuck are you trying to say? That 25 years ago, before we knew that AIDS existed, before we knew that men needed to use condoms, that I made a bad decision by letting some guy fuck me without a condom?

I sure hope that's not what you're saying, but I'll wait for your response before I rip you a new asshole.

Michael

[A_DeAngelo]

I strongly urge you to work with local community groups and resources in San Francisco to develop your message and define the audience it is to reach

there is ample research, data and staff available for the purpose of effectively educating people on HIV and AIDS - you may even receive their endorsement

by doing so, the message will be credible and believable and should achieve your goals...

[Matt 26z]

Instead of pushing the safe sex aspect so much and not buying bareback porn, why don't you get Jesse to suggest people talk to their partners before they get naked.

Considering the number of HIV+ men who hold their status as "private information," asking is a no brainer.

However while talking about it may reveal that your partner is positive, you don't want to imply that it's okay to bareback if you both think you are negative.

An estimated 20-25% of all HIV+ men don't even know they are positive. So go and just "talk about it" with one of these men and see where that gets you.

[A_DeAngelo]

oh, and yes of course...

I forgot to mention that there is actually grant money available to produce these messages if your are SERIOUS about your intentions...

drug companies and condom manufacturers will provide ample funding for this type of message

you can ask me privately about resources...