I don't often disagree with Morgan, but I believe is incorrect on the issue he makes about discrimination (saying you cannot discriminate against HIV+ people in California, and therefore cannot choose to avoid hiring models who are HIV+)

He makes the (correct) argument that in California, HIV+ people are a protected class, and as such, cannot be discriminated against in an employment setting... but (for the moment at least), models are not employees except perhaps with the very few companies that put them on salary. So there would be absolutely nothing preventing a studio from refusing to hire an HIV+ model.

Secondly, if models are, in fact, declared to be employees, then CalOSHA regulations apply, and those regs prohibit exposing employees to biological hazards without appropriate safety precautions. So if you are hiring a model as a sex worker (to perform bareback in a sex video) you can most certainly discriminate in not hiring a model that would result in a knowing violation of OSHA regulations.

I think it's also really important to hear the last comment made by the person (who I didn't recognize) who travels worldwide and talks to retailers everwhere... bareback, according to him, to our distributor, and based on our own experience, is NOT taking over. It is a niche, it is popular right now, but studios and webmasters should not feel any pressure to produce bareback product. Now... if everybody suddenly becomes fearful and says "I have to produce bareback because everyone else is" or "My sales will plummet if I don't jump on this bandwagon" then people could *create* that environment where it does not exist.

But if those who care about having the highest safety standards for their models and care about the messages they are sending to those who view their content continue to produce safer sex content of high quality, it will continue to sell... and as the public becomes more aware of the issues, it will probably continue to sell at an increasing rate.

I was unclear on the intent of Mark's question, which related to suggesting that studios switch from "condom required" to "HIV- required." If he is proposing testing IN LIEU of condoms, I would be strongly opposed to that for our studio, because it would ignore the entire latency issue which I believe to be a significant problem in models who are willing to bareback in the first place. If he is proposing that all models be HIV- AND that condoms be used in addition, I believe that would be sensible business practice in terms of protecting the safety of models, but also from a risk-reduction perspective on the part of the business itself.

If you've tested every model, used condoms in your videos, and a model somehow develops HIV or another disease and blames the studio, showing that you have a policy of testing and safer sex in your videos will go a long way to limiting your liability as a business. That's why we test each model we work with, after their arrival, not only for HIV but also for hep-C and syphillis, the three STDs that are most difficult to treat.

Sorry if people feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.