The other issues... that none of the bareback studios like to talk about...

Test results are easily faked. If the studio isn't testing the model on the spot, or using AIM (which carefully checks ID and maintains records on models they test) then there's room for fakery. There are several cases where this is known (or strongly suspected) to have happened.

Everybody talks about HIV, but nobody talks about hep-C and syphillis, both of which can be more difficult to treat than HIV. And then there's chlymidia, gonorrhea, molluscum, and various other STDs. I seriously doubt that most of the studios that shoot bareback take the care to test their models for all of those things.

And, as Patti said, HIV test results are nearly meaningless if the model has barebacked within the last 3 months. Even the more sensitive PCR test has a window of several weeks, and if a studio is relying on a model providing their own results from a lab other than AIM, they are probably getting a quick test or an ELISA, which rely on the presence of antibodies to determine HIV status. A model recently infected will have a very high virus load as the virus initially replicates. Then, antibodies are formed and the viral load decreases. If the model has sex after infection and before antibody production, he will test negative and be at high risk of transmitting to another performer.

But the majority of bareback studios don't know, don't care, or feign ignorance. I realize there are some studios, such as Tony and Cam's operation, that are very up-to-date on all the issues and take appropriate precautions, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

In my book, and without getting into the issue of the message sent to viewers with barebacking, I believe that we do have a responsibility as producers to take reasonable precautions. Studios that use AIM or otherwise directly test their models for all known or difficult-to-treat STDs, and, in addition, provide models with complete, detailed disclosure of the risks (by talking to them, not by handing them a form with fine print they don't read) have done all they reasonably can.

If those steps are in place and the models truly, completely understand the risks, then at that point it is truly the model's choice to engage in that risk if they choose to. But I will wager that very, very few bareback producers take that sort of precaution. In any other business situation, an employer would be *required* to take steps to minimize risk to their employees and/or to fully disclose the risks that are present. Why some adult producers don't feel the need to do this is beyond me. Ultimately, if we as an industry don't step up and police ourselves, someone else will do so for us, and probably in a way we don't like.