Bareback film studio creates contraversy at CLAW

[Sana Chan]

I wonder if that new condom thats being studied and tested will have an effect on barebacking? I think I posted an article about it last year or so. It was a spray on condom that felt more natural and would supposidly provide more protection. :bunny:

[DonMike]

Ooooh, like spray on cheese???

[JamesXR]

AJ and I had actually discussed a similar idea a few months ago, and AJ talked to Chi Chi about it. She wasn't very hot on the idea, but I could see it as being a positive thing that could definitely have an effect.

We haven't done anything with our exterior packaging, but we made a minor change in our end credits on the DVD we just sent to manufacturing, adding a statement at the end of the production credits to the effect that "to ensure the safety of our models, all models were tested for STIs prior to production, and condoms and safer sex methods were used in all scenes in this video." Idea being that perhaps if the *buyers* are encouraged to think about the safety of the models, perhaps they will start choosing more safe titles when they buy.

That isn't to say that bareback as a niche doesn't have a place. I think that the product that people like Tony and Cam produce is a different product designed to appeal to a specific market segment. It just shouldn't (in my opinion) become the norm, and particularly not in twink porn, where the models are frequently young enough and impressionable enough to be talked into doing something without truly realizing the risks.

The sad thing is... twink producers seem to think they *need* to produce bareback in order to sell product, but this simply isn't true. Our distributor tells us that our *back catalog* product (some of which is 2+ years old) is outselling the majority of their new releases, and one of our recently re-released titles that is close to 3 years old is among the top twink titles for our distributor right now. It has everything to do with the quality of the title and not whether or not it is bareback.

I would have to discuss with AJ, but I think we would be in favor of some sort of "best practices" certification, and I do think that it could have an impact.

To be effective a notice in the credits of the videos probably isn't going to even raise awareness. To be effective you'd need a readily identifiable seal of approval with a serial number registered to the company that can be double checked against the certifying website. The seal would need to appear on DVD cases and on the front pages of web sites. If it takes off, the certification program could fund itself through affiliate sales of certified programs. Get the big players on GWW to join and you've got the momentum to get started. Next see about some press in various gay publications, and you're on a roll. It sounds like it could be both fun and profitable.

[Sana Chan]

Ooooh, like spray on cheese???

LOL!! Actually no. Its like condom in a can. You stick your dick in the can and it sprays on a thin, flexible layer of clear latex. Now I've known of guys having a hard enough time getting the condom wrapper open, how long is it gonna take them to get the can open?

[Squirt]

LOL!! Actually no. Its like condom in a can.

Oh you mean like this?




I've heard this is the latest rage... the can condoms are so last year :bunny:

[A_DeAngelo]

you know, the deal is this guys and gals....

no matter what anyone does up front or at the tail end of a video or

puts on a package will do anything to deter a viewer form viewing the material

most viewers (that we know or have talked to) tend to skip though all of the upfront stuff and fast forward to the action...

this bothers me because I put a lot of time and energy into our opening title sequences - after all, I DID work for Saul Bass for 20 fucking years...

however, back to the point, we have put disclaimers in front of all of our video clips on line and users still fast forward to the action -

personally, I'm in favor of all these good measures but, I don't think that I want any agency or body of "colleagues" telling me how my products should be labeled.....

besides, we already use our own "labeling" system - we are 100% condom free! a "natural" product... real - RAW! and am I reading between the lines or is someone planting the "seeds" in order to produce a bareback line.....?!?!

[willwest]

This subject was previously discussed in this forum numerous times over the years and it still boils down to this is part of the ADULT ENTERTAINMENT business like it or not. People still have the right to choose their flavor of entertainment.

It is puzzling though why bareback sex scenes in straight adult videos still do not cause such a stir. Does that infer that gay men are less intelligent than heterosexual men and women? I hope not.

When have you ever seen a heterosexual adult video described as a “pre-condom classic?” It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

Not only do the male and female performers and producers have to be concerned about STDs but also with unwanted pregnancies. So why is there no outrage about that?

It is also very questionable business ethics how some adult video distributors condemn gay bareback videos and yet still sell and profit from "pre-condom classic" gay videos in their catalogs.

Condoms were available for many decades prior to when "pre-condom classics" were produced during the 70's and 80's. So the phrase “pre-condom classics” is deceptive and a misnomer. It is merely intended as a sterilized phrase to continue marketing natural bareback sex so they can still make money.

In any case though, it is the freedom of choice for adult video entertainment producers, performers, distributors and consumers. Do not take that freedom away.

Fortunately our parents practiced natural unprotected sex or else none of us would have been conceived and born now would we?

[gaybucks_chip]

Hey, Tony,

We have no intention, now or ever, of producing bareback titles. I don't know if you were speaking to me or to someone else, but figured I'd make that clear.

I have softened my stance a little on production by other studios, because I do agree that, as a free speech issue, a studio should be allowed to produce bareback titles, but I still believe that a large percentage of the studios do *not* adequately inform their models, take appropriate precautions, and test appropriately. I am also not up-to-date on the latest issues regarding reinfection; the last studies I read indicated it was a serious concern, but you referenced elsewhere that there is different thinking on this issue now.

"Best practices" or a "safer sex" seal would be just that... a group that believes in something marketing its product using that "seal" or whatever it would become. The challenge would be in getting any of us renegades in this industry to agree on much of anything as far as best practices go. Most of the bareback producers trumpet BAREBACK or BARE or RAW or whatever all over their titles, so in a way, that's marketing a product in much the same way.

Honestly, I suspect that it might be a tough sell getting some studios who produce safe content to call attention to the fact that their product isn't bareback, but I hope I'm wrong. In any case, a label indicating that the product was produced using safer sex techniques is no different than a label calling attention to a product which is bareback... both are using the presence or absence of condoms as a potential selling point.


Will,

No one is talking about taking any freedoms away. However, clearly communicating the issue is simply an education function and/or a means of reminding the customer about the importance of safer sex.

I differ a little with Chi Chi on the issue of condom use in videos; my focus is primarily on safety for the models, while I think Chi Chi is more concerned about the message that unsafe sex telegraphs to the person watching. Accordingly, I have less objection to "pre condom" videos because, for the most part, the risks to models of having unprotected sex in the 1970s were considerably less than the risks today, and many of the "pre condom" titles were produced before we as a country understood what caused AIDS and how it was transmitted. So I think that one can make a case that selling product produced at a time when models were not put at risk by barebacking might be ethically better than producing a product that does put models at risk.

Yes, with proper disclosure that is truly understood by the model, it is a model's choice whether or not they choose to bareback... but it is also a studio's choice to say "This isn't a message we feel comfortable conveying" or "This isn't a risk we feel comfortable asking our models to take" or both. And there shouldn't be any objection to a studio having the right to be visible and vocal that they believe model safety is important, in the same way there shouldn't be an objection to a studio having the right to produce content they want to produce because their customers want it.

[gayporncowboy]

Both my brother and I have made gay porn for four years . I am just starting to produce content for a couple of very cool sites, and so far as a producer To B, or not BB" has not come up. As actors, I have done several such films. My brother did one , felt uncomfortable, did not do so again. However we felt very good that the studio we worked for at the time insisted on testing at the county health for a full spectrum test. Addidtionally when the oral HIV was done, a company rep was always on hand to inspect the paperwork as soon as the potential model was handed his test results . this was because the test results do not list the actors name, though they are dated . This insures that there was no "bait and switch " with the paperwork.

While I no longer work for miamistudios.com I felt very comfortable knowing such practices were followed.

[alexbucks]

Bareback movies rules

[CamCruise]

I have less objection to "pre condom" videos because, for the most part, the risks to models of having unprotected sex in the 1970s were considerably less than the risks today, and many of the "pre condom" titles were produced before we as a country understood what caused AIDS and how it was transmitted. So I think that one can make a case that selling product produced at a time when models were not put at risk by barebacking might be ethically better than producing a product that does put models at risk.

I am sorry but your WRONG about that. It can takes apprpox. HIV 7 to 10+ years to become AIDS. So that means that it was being passed around all over the 70's in those very same videos that you say models were not put at risk.
The models of today can make a choice, but in the 70,s they could not. and now most of them are gone!!
So its is just wrong for the condom companies to say OH, we did not know so it alright to sell it.
I suppose the makers of Selabrex could say the same thing. Oh, we did not know so the people we hurt along the way is OK.

Todays BB vids put guys at much less risk than "PRE condom" vids did.

No condom sex sends the same message if its a 70's vid or one from today.

[gaybucks_chip]

Cam,

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, or perhaps I wasn't clear.

You and Tony and I (and a few others who shall remain nameless) are probably among the only "fossils" here old enough to remember the pre-condom era. I realize that many people were infected in that era. My point was that many, if not the majority, of the "pre-condom" films were made at a time when we as a country and as an industry were not aware of HIV, how it was transmitted and caused. So yes, undoubtedly people were infected before we realized what was happening, but the difference is that no one (producers, models) was knowingly taking the risk and knowingly putting the models at risk, at least until the time it became clear what the disease was and how it was transmitted.

So the point I was making is films made in that era were made in a more "innocent" time. I suppose that cuts both ways because, as you said, people didn't have the choice of deciding to take the risk... but it was also an era when almost *no one* used condoms because it was felt that, other than the risk of incurable herpes, there was no serious health risk in doing so.

I am sorry but your WRONG about that. It can takes apprpox. HIV 7 to 10+ years to become AIDS. So that means that it was being passed around all over the 70's in those very same videos that you say models were not put at risk.
The models of today can make a choice, but in the 70,s they could not. and now most of them are gone!!
So its is just wrong for the condom companies to say OH, we did not know so it alright to sell it.
I suppose the makers of Selabrex could say the same thing. Oh, we did not know so the people we hurt along the way is OK.

Todays BB vids put guys at much less risk than "PRE condom" vids did.

No condom sex sends the same message if its a 70's vid or one from today.

[DonMike]

Okay, guys. This has been an interesting and provocative discussion so far, please, let's not ruin it by resorting to name calling. Chip, you bring up some interesting points but before you go around calling older people "fossils" you might want to remember a little adage that goes "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". The young people in our community have a lot to learn from those who have been around and since gay history is not heavily documented, nor is it taught in schools, we do ourselves a disservice by not taking the time to listen to the people who have been around and experienced things such as the Stonewall Riots, the pre-Aids sexual heydays and the time when you could have been thrown in jail for simply holding hands with another guy in public.

I'm not picking on you, Chip. I just don't want this excellent conversation to devolve into hurt feelings and emotions when there is a lot to be learned from both sides.

[gaybucks_chip]

Okay, guys. This has been an interesting and provocative discussion so far, please, let's not ruin it by resorting to name calling. Chip, you bring up some interesting points but before you go around calling older people "fossils"

DonMike,

I'd think you'd realize that I'd be one of the last people to start a "name-calling" contest. You'll note that the statement I made was inclusive... you and tony and I

I used that term, tongue planted firmly in cheek, because Cam and Tony and I have all used it to describe ourselves (in lighthearted terms) over the past few months, and I figured they wouldn't mind. I intentionally didn't name some other folks who I know are similar in age to me because I *wasn't* sure that they would see the humor in my comment.

I'm near certain that I'm one of the oldest "fossils" posting here at GWW, which is why I felt it would be OK to self-describe.

[DonMike]

DonMike,

I'd think you'd realize that I'd be one of the last people to start a "name-calling" contest. You'll note that the statement I made was inclusive... you and tony and I

I used that term, tongue planted firmly in cheek, because Cam and Tony and I have all used it to describe ourselves (in lighthearted terms) over the past few months, and I figured they wouldn't mind. I intentionally didn't name some other folks who I know are similar in age to me because I *wasn't* sure that they would see the humor in my comment.

I'm near certain that I'm one of the oldest "fossils" posting here at GWW, which is why I felt it would be OK to self-describe.

Chip, my deepest apologies, I didn't notice your "I". Plus, I should have known by the quotes that it was meant to be funny. I didn't get much sleep last night so I guess I was a little edgy. I don't know why but I always thought you were younger than me. I've been dealing with some issues of people outside the industry being very ageist and being very disrespectful to the generations that came before, well and even mine (cuz I ain't so young either), heh heh. So I guess it's been on my mind alot. Sorry, didn't mean to be snippy.