The American Medical Association Supports Making Bareback Porn Illegal

[rawTOP]

http://bit.ly/bBVFvj

:bang:

Can't they just stick to medical care?

[romancexcore]

Or maybe actually curing HIV? But I guess a $1500/month regimen is more profitable.

[desslock]

Rawtop > Can't they just stick to medical care?

How about they stick to neither? Both opinions contain identical flaws in logic. :-)

Steve

[gumdrop]

Probably got some funding from the Mormons.

[RDude]

It sounds like the US medical professionals can't get their priorities straight either. Our Canadian medical field is similar in many ways. I have no idea where we stand on bareback, but I wouldn't doubt that there's a similar mindset.

I have to wonder if our governments will ever stop intervening in our private lives and actually start addressing the REAL issues. i.e. - Unemployment, crime, substance and other addictions, and well...we could go on forever on this.

[romancexcore]

Government can intervene just fine if it's positive (no pun). It's pretty obvious where HIV came from. Just the why part is a bit uncomfortable. No citizen should even have to worry about their healthcare bills or education for them or their kids.

[Seth]

"The adult film industry has steadfastly refused to take any steps to protect its workers from diseases spread by bloodborne pathogens... We need to take the necessary steps to protect performers by providing and enforcing the use of condoms during filming..."

That's pure B.S. What do they think monthly testing is for? Are they also going to regulate specifically how the condom is used? Are they going to require condoms for all oral scenes too?

Many anti-bareback studios don't think twice about having their models take loads of cum in the mouth.

[rawTOP]

Rawtop > Can't they just stick to medical care?

How about they stick to neither? Both opinions contain identical flaws in logic. :-)

You lost me there. The AMA is an organization of doctors who provide medical care. My point is legislating the production techniques used in the porn industry is outside of their field of expertise. They should stick to medical care, which is what they're trained in.


Or maybe actually curing HIV? But I guess a $1500/month regimen is more profitable.

The AMA is an organization of physicians. They don't represent the pharmaceutical industry so they're not in a position to cure HIV, only treat it. Likewise, they don't (directly) benefit from the high cost of medication. They just get more visits from poz patients and a few "educational dinners" and the like paid for by pharma.

[desslock]

You lost me there. The AMA is an organization of doctors who provide medical care. My point is legislating the production techniques used in the porn industry is outside of their field of expertise. They should stick to medical care, which is what they're trained in.



The AMA is an organization of physicians. They don't represent the pharmaceutical industry so they're not in a position to cure HIV, only treat it. Likewise, they don't (directly) benefit from the high cost of medication. They just get more visits from poz patients and a few "educational dinners" and the like paid for by pharma.

Likewise, this professional organization/corporation is equally not qualified to endorse a draconian legislative bill like Obamacare. You state that "the AMA is an organization of physicians." Why not think of them more like the RIAA, which is "an organization of music industry professionals" ... which exists to further the purposes of their members.

Don't let the RIAA write the world's copyright laws or set tariffs on music imported from Europe or Asia. Don't let the AMA write health care bills, or decide what business becomes a public health issue that should be regulated or criminalized.

As I first stated --- accepting the AMA's public policy suggestions for either bareback porn or national health care meets the same standard, therefore deny them on both.

Steve

[rawTOP]

Likewise, this professional organization/corporation is equally not qualified to endorse a draconian legislative bill like Obamacare.

Actually, they're getting paid by the healthcare system. Its appropriate for them to be involved in it's reformulation. But they're not involved in shooting porn.

[romancexcore]

I'm gonna get so yelled at for this.
No one fucks without a condom without understanding the possible consequences. And no one in their right mind would want to use one unless they're a girl. How this can even be sold in 2010 is just plain scary. How anyone wants to have sex with a condom unless they're a girl is beyond me, might as well shove a Swiffer up there. It's sex, it's supposed to be enjoyed, and yeah dangerous and rough. Just like not wearing a seatbelt. And before anyone yells, I'm poz and how I got that way is a way more interesting story than where I am now, I'm sorry people just take responsibility for your actions and I'm way too sick of this argument that BB porn promotes unsafe sex. There is no safe sex, period, and who are they gonna blame next for people just being people? C'mon. Find a fucking cure instead of this secure system where they charge $1500/month which only gets paid mostly by ADAP.

[desslock]

Actually, they're getting paid by the healthcare system. Its appropriate for them to be involved in it's reformulation. But they're not involved in shooting porn.

So you are saying that the AMA's policy position is appropriate only in areas which you arbitrary find topical. You're skating on really thin ice here.

(Examples of the thin ice RawTop is skating on ---How is the AMA is an expert authority on insurance premium rate regulation? Federal student loans or Drug pricing? These were all significant portions of Obamacare. Are you saying that your physician NOT ONLY knows how to set your broken arm, but also has a full command of public choice economics and every possible trade-off? If you are, you're skating on really thin ice.)

Avoid the thin ice. Recognize the folly of granting such lobbying organizations sufficient power to propose either of these short-sighted ideas.

Should I find it surprising that you see their error in calling for enforceable laws to prohibit barebacking, but not in national health care schemes? If you invite society to be responsible for everyone's health, you're allowing society to decide what they think will be best for you.

In short, you invited them to make this unfortunate finding about bareback porn and publicize it. Now isn't that ironic?

Steve

[desslock]

I'm gonna get so yelled at for this.
No one fucks without a condom without understanding the possible consequences. And no one in their right mind would want to use one unless they're a girl. How this can even be sold in 2010 is just plain scary.

I think RawTop's point is that the American Medical Association should butt out of people making personal choices. Unfortunately, the AMA is going to point at their long history of cigarette smoking policies as an example of pushing public health issues.

Personally, I oppose laws that prohibit cigarette smoking for the exact same reason that I'm fingering the AMA for what they are --- just a self-interested lobbying organization who advances the causes of their own members, who purport to speak for an industry. Criminalizing bareback porn, Obamacare and cigarette smoking all fall into the AMA's own self-appointed realm of authority, and their public policy suggestions genuinely suffer from equally poor credibility.

The AMA is like the Free Speech Coalition. Just like most people posting in this message board have nothing to do with the FSC, nor does the FSC speak for them, the AMA suffers from the exact same limitations.

Steve

[rawTOP]

So you are saying that the AMA's policy position is appropriate only in areas which you arbitrary find topical.

If you want to pass legislation on how to clean sewers so they won't back up and create health hazards, wouldn't you want to talk to people who actually clean sewers? If you want to pass legislation on building a brick wall that won't fall down and kill people, shouldn't you talk to people with experience building brick walls? People who actually do the work have insights other people just don't have. The same is true in healthcare. Doctors need a voice in the process because they're the ones doing much of the work. They shouldn't be the only voices considered and they shouldn't be writing the laws behind closed doors, but to exclude them is preposterous.

In contrast, doctors are not involved making porn. By saying doctors' involvement in healthcare is like their involvement in porn it would seem you're under the impression that the doctors on DrTwink.com (http://www.drtwink.com/) are real medical doctors. lol


I think RawTop's point is that the American Medical Association should butt out of people making personal choices. Unfortunately, the AMA is going to point at their long history of cigarette smoking policies as an example of pushing public health issues.

OK, smoking is a better analogy, but there's still a difference. With smoking they were saying a product was dangerous to consume by the general public. With porn they're saying a product is dangerous to produce by a few people who have made a conscious, informed choice to make that their profession. So instead of comparing apples and oranges you're comparing oranges and tangerines...

Either way, you're right, we're talking about a medical professional taking away people's rights in the name of "protecting" them. And even with smoking, all they accomplished was warning labels and no smoking in public places.

Plus, smoking is way more lethal than HIV. Smoking kills like 5 times more gay men than HIV/AIDS (http://www.rawtop.com/blog/2008-08/gay-men-5-times-more-likely-to-die-of-smoking-than-hiv). How they can advocate a total ban on barebacking and when they only got a warning label on something that's 5 times more deadly, makes no sense.

[desslock]

We're ultimately on the same side on this. So, hey a nice back and forth. There it is.

I'm headed to the gym now, where this afternoon's workout involves my back muscles. Tonight --- I'm making a pot roast with vegetables in my dutch oven. Hopefully the AMA won't criticize me for that either. :rolleyes:

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

I'm gonna get so yelled at for this.
No one fucks without a condom without understanding the possible consequences.

From working with a lot of 18-to-20 models, as well as from attending a Q&A for teens and young adults sponsored by the local gay-lesbian center, I can tell you for a fact this isn't true. The state of education in the US about STIs is deplorable, and the level of ignorance is alarming.

Add on top of that porn producers who lie their asses off and claim that "all models are negative" but who rely on self-reports rather than tests, or producers that deliberatly misrepresent the risks, fail to explain (or even understand) the latency period, and it's a big problem, at least with twinks. If you're talking 25 or 30 year olds, then I'm more inclined to agree that people have at least some awareness, but even among that age group, I'm appalled at how common it is to see a lack of real understanding of the potential risks involved.



And no one in their right mind would want to use one unless they're a girl. How this can even be sold in 2010 is just plain scary. How anyone wants to have sex with a condom unless they're a girl is beyond me, might as well shove a Swiffer up there.

Your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but I know a LOT of people, including ones in committed relationships of 2+ years, who still always use condoms. And these are sane people who would probably find your statement offensive.


It's sex, it's supposed to be enjoyed, and yeah dangerous and rough. Just like not wearing a seatbelt.

Um no. Not wearing a seatbelt is unlikely to give you a disease that may affect you for 30 or 40 years, strain the public health system to pay for your medication, and cause you to have a lingering, drawn-out illness resulting in death. Generally, if you don't wear a seatbelt, you either live and recover, or you're thrown from the vehicle and probably die quickly.


I'm way too sick of this argument that BB porn promotes unsafe sex.

You can be sick of it as much as you want, but there's some pretty good data showing, at least among young people, that there is a direct correlation. There's also extraordinarily strong data showing correlation between the presence of smoking in films and higher incidence of smoking of teens, and experts have compared the two and drawn some strong inferences with bareback sex. It's fine to say it doesn't matter, but trying to rationalize it by saying it has no effect is simply wrong, and not supported by the facts.


There is no safe sex, period,
But there is safer sex, and there is no question that condom use (which, contrary to your position, is actually rather widespread. Safer sex does, in fact, work to dramatically reduce incidence of STI infection without significantly diminishing the quality of the experience, at least according to those who those who regularly practice safer sex. The argument that because sex cannot be made risk-free, that it's therefore pointless to use harm reduction and safer sex techniques is flawed, unsupported by the data, and simply irresponsible.


and who are they gonna blame next for people just being people? The people who choose to be irresponsible, spout inaccurate information, and perpetuate the idea that it's pointless to be safe are the ones who need to take responsibility for their own actions. It is "people being people" and taking no responsiblity for themselves that has gotten us to where we are. When people start taking some responsibility, maybe things will change.[/QUOTE]

[fetishlad]

I hope it becomes law! And I wish then that people who break that law are put in jail for it too!

BB porn DOES send out the message to young gay men that it is ok to take a load up an arse, it glamourises it, it makes it cool, it makes it a non-issue; for 18yo boys who surf the net and are exploring their sexuality, the net is their 1st point of reference. And they get the message that BB sex (through porn) is ok.

Anyone who makes BB porn or makes a profit out of it promoting it, is part of the genocide of then next generation of young gay men.

[rawTOP]

I'll ignore FetishLad's comments as they, once again, are over the top. But in all fairness I gotta say I agree with at least some of what Chip is saying...


From working with a lot of 18-to-20 models, as well as from attending a Q&A for teens and young adults sponsored by the local gay-lesbian center, I can tell you for a fact this isn't true. The state of education in the US about STIs is deplorable, and the level of ignorance is alarming.

In a completely unscientific poll I have on my new forum site, 6 of the 18 (33%) people answering the poll said they became poz when they were a teenager. (You have to login to see it, so I attached it as a pic.) I'm not sure if I completely believe the poll, but at least a fair number of teens are indeed becoming poz. In a different, related poll over half the guys say they started taking loads when they were teens (http://www.breedingzone.com/threads/2459-How-Old-Were-You-When-You-Took-Your-First-Load?highlight=first+load). What I don't know is whether they understood the risk at the time. To me it's a double edged thing. I do think the teens doing porn are probably somewhat more likely to understand risks as they're less naive about sex. Ultimately, they're adults who are responsible for the decisions they make, but they also need to understand the risks.



You can be sick of it as much as you want, but there's some pretty good data showing, at least among young people, that there is a direct correlation. There's also extraordinarily strong data showing correlation between the presence of smoking in films and higher incidence of smoking of teens, and experts have compared the two and drawn some strong inferences with bareback sex. It's fine to say it doesn't matter, but trying to rationalize it by saying it has no effect is simply wrong, and not supported by the facts.

Bareback porn does get at least some people to bareback or bareback more. In another completely unscientific poll that I did, 40% said they bareback more because of bareback porn (http://www.breedingzone.com/threads/2612-Did-Bareback-Porn-Influence-You-To-Bareback). I'm in that 40%. Treasure Island's "What I Can't See" was ground breaking and inspirational to me (http://www.rawtop.com/porn/2009-11/what-you-cant-see-will-change-your-life). As what I was seeing on the screen really sunk it, it changed my view of what constituted "hot sex". I know for a lot of bottoms Dawson's 20 Load Weekend was equally significant. He became their role model and getting 20 loads in a weekend became their goal.



But there is safer sex, and there is no question that condom use (which, contrary to your position, is actually rather widespread. Safer sex does, in fact, work to dramatically reduce incidence of STI infection without significantly diminishing the quality of the experience, at least according to those who those who regularly practice safer sex. The argument that because sex cannot be made risk-free, that it's therefore pointless to use harm reduction and safer sex techniques is flawed, unsupported by the data, and simply irresponsible.

This is where we start to disagree. At least for some of us, condoms do significantly diminish the sexual experience - both physically and psychologically. The funny part is when I was younger I liked condoms for two reasons - 1) I didn't get shit on my dick, and 2) the tightness of the condom felt good on my cock. But times changed and going raw feels much better to me now. So I'll acknowledge that for some people condoms can actually make it feel better, but I'd say MOST guys would say bareback feels significantly better.

But I agree that using condoms can help, especially when combined with things like serosorting. I'd just disagree that it's for everyone. I get a fair number of people coming to me more or less asking whether I think they should bareback. My answer these days is for them to look deep inside themselves and figure out who they are. If they're the controlling type who wants a neat and orderly life and they'd be devastated if they tested poz - then I tell them they should stay safe and never even experiment with barebacking (because barebacking is highly addictive (http://www.breedingzone.com/threads/2872-Would-You-Say-Barebacking-Is-Addictive)). But if inwardly they're a slut and they'd regret it later if they didn't have a really great sex life. Then I tell them they should go for it with the understanding that it means they'll most likely become poz.

Ultimately this is about respecting adults' rights to make informed choices, even if you personally disagree with the choice. Getting back to the topic - the AMA is not respecting the right for people to make choices about their sex life.

[AlexManifestMan]

A life where getting "twenty loads in a weekend" is held to be a goal, is a life that is most seriously fucked up.

[romancexcore]

We make choices and if you've managed to live to sixteen you're hopefully smart enough to be aware of the possible outcomes. I think it's just as easy to say 'bareback porn made me do it' as it is to say heavy metal made me shoot up a school. Americans at least are quite good at blaming anyone but themselves for their actions. But ultimately it is you who makes that choice for whatever reason. I'm not going to police you and I sure hope people get that porn is just fantasy anyways. I'm poz and have np with bareback porn so maybe that knocks people off their pedestals. You want a real strain on the healthcare system then consider watching nightly news here and see just how many pills are being forced on people, not my scrip which is $1500/month that cost all of $2 to produce.

[fetishlad]

We make choices and if you've managed to live to sixteen you're hopefully smart enough to be aware of the possible outcomes. I think it's just as easy to say 'bareback porn made me do it' as it is to say heavy metal made me shoot up a school. Americans at least are quite good at blaming anyone but themselves for their actions. But ultimately it is you who makes that choice for whatever reason. I'm not going to police you and I sure hope people get that porn is just fantasy anyways. I'm poz and have np with bareback porn so maybe that knocks people off their pedestals. You want a real strain on the healthcare system then consider watching nightly news here and see just how many pills are being forced on people, not my scrip which is $1500/month that cost all of $2 to produce.

Wow! That feels bitter ...

And RawTop; sure ignore my posts - it is probably too uncomfortable to think about the consequences of the whole BB porn industry.


Anyway ... YES the media IS responsible for how people make choices.

If people are wrongly informed, given mis-information, they cannot make a well educated decision. For example; Before WW2 there were commercials that said that smoking cigarettes are GOOD for your health ...

I agree that people are adults and decide for themselves whether or not to have BB sex, but we do have a responsibility to make sure young impresionable and vulnerable men can make an informed decision - not distorted by the lies and glamourisation of a part of the porn industry that only cares about the amount of $$ they make.

So yes it is made clear by some people that they don't give a sh*t about the wellbeing of others. Money talks .... Of course people involved in BB porn try and shift responsibility away from them; Imagine the guilt they would feel if they actually thought of what results of their actions are. But; be in denial as long as you get your paycheck.

[rawTOP]

A life where getting "twenty loads in a weekend" is held to be a goal, is a life that is most seriously fucked up.

...says the guy who makes a living off guys who morph their bodies with steroids. lol

There are critics of just about every fetish - including the one you promote. Some of those fetishes can be harmful to the people's health. You don't need to understand where it comes from to accept that sane people get into it and respect their decisions.

And for the record I find your steroid induced bodies incredibly hot. I find guys who take 20 loads in a weekend incredibly hot. I find guys who drink piss incredibly hot. I find pain pigs who get whipped incredibly hot. But I also think regular guys who are just into vanilla sex can be incredibly hot... I don't understand guys who are into scat, but I respect their right to do it.


And RawTop; sure ignore my posts - it is probably too uncomfortable to think about the consequences of the whole BB porn industry.

No, it's 'cause you don't have a reasonable argument that shows respect for the decisions of other people.


If people are wrongly informed, given mis-information, they cannot make a well educated decision. For example; Before WW2 there were commercials that said that smoking cigarettes are GOOD for your health ...

Here's one of Mickey Mouse promoting meth (aka "Peppo")...

http://all-thats-interesting.tumblr.com/post/706923431/mickey-mouse-becomes-a-speed-dealer


I agree that people are adults and decide for themselves whether or not to have BB sex, but we do have a responsibility to make sure young impresionable and vulnerable men can make an informed decision - not distorted by the lies and glamourisation of a part of the porn industry that only cares about the amount of $$ they make.

So yes it is made clear by some people that they don't give a sh*t about the wellbeing of others. Money talks .... Of course people involved in BB porn try and shift responsibility away from them; Imagine the guilt they would feel if they actually thought of what results of their actions are. But; be in denial as long as you get your paycheck.

We agree people should be informed, but I disagree with you on the motivation behind bareback porn producers. The most effective bareback porn is personal in nature - made by people who just love it. Treasure Island is at the top of the heap for a reason - the guys there live the life they show on video. If they're "glamorizing" anything, it's their own lives. For them it's really not about the money as much as it is about being a proud cumhole, breeder, or pig.

And that's really the issue... Your real battle isn't against evil, money hungry guys. It's against people who love the life they live. People are drawn to their positive portrayal of their own lives. And they're even open about the fact that bareback bottoms will probably wind up poz. But their message is that it's OK. If it were just money hungry guys not caring about the health of the person who buys their product, I could see your point. But it's not - it's guys with HIV saying "don't worry". They live with it every day, so in my book they have the right to say what they want about it.

If you have another point of view, you need to express it in a compelling way rather than just trying to silence the voices of others. Showing hot guys fucking with rubbers is a good positive image, but it's easily destroyed when it gets out that the model barebacks in his personal life. You guys really need to work on marketing safer sex and stop complaining 'cause we do a better job marketing bareback sex.

[AlexManifestMan]

You are absolutely correct. It is the right of anyone to suck the shit tainted cum from the asses of syphilitic strangers. It is also my right to believe that to encourage others to do this under the guise of hot sex is reprehensible.

17 of us started out as very good friends in Houston in 1979. I was the only one that believed that getting fucked by strangers in adult bookstores and public parks was tacky and without any real merit. I am the only one still alive.

Regardless of how well an idea is presented, some ideas are simply wrong. A turd in a pretty pink bow still stinks.

[fetishlad]

Thank you Alex!

[rawTOP]

17 of us started out as very good friends in Houston in 1979. I was the only one that believed that getting fucked by strangers in adult bookstores and public parks was tacky and without any real merit. I am the only one still alive.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm probably just a few years younger than you - I experienced the fear as well and I used to be a huge safe sex advocate complete with safe sex posters in my dorm room (http://www.rawtop.com/blog/2009-02/from-safe-sex-advocate-to-rawtop) in grad school.

But the issue is that the cum dumps today probably won't ever have stories like that. Things have changed. It really doesn't disrespect the memories of the people we lost to acknowledge that it's not like it was back then.

[RDude]

While I agree with both arguments, on several different levels, I cannot agree that blaming the media is the answer. Whatever happened to people thinking for themselves? I've been doing it my whole life and by the time I was old enough to fuck or get fucked, I knew there was serious danger in engaging in unprotected sex. I'm bisexual, so when I say this, I refer to unprotected sex with both men and women. HIV and AIDS had just hit big by the time I was in my late teens and even though there was still a lack of knowledge about it, I got the clue right away.

I've made a lot of mistakes in my life, but fucking bareback with anyone who came along was never one of them. BUT, that was my choice. If you choose to bend over for a condomless cock, be prepared to accept the fact that you could contract HIV from that behavior. The warnings and evidence are everywhere. Perhaps more young people should be taken down to their local AIDS clinic and shown what it does to people. I watched 2 people I grew up with - one a woman who contracted it through intravenous drug use - pass away in their early 20's of AIDS. It certainly helped me make more informed decisions from then on.

If people are not willing to read the warnings on bareback videos about the dangers of engaging in such activity - and yes, these warning are SUPPOSED to be there - then using bareback porn as an excuse to engage in the same behavior is then left upon them. NOT the media and NOT the bareback porn producer. Our society continues to blame others for it's mistakes and fuck-ups. It's getting pathetic really. We all make choices in life. Some are stupid and irreparable. "To err is human" as they say.

In conclusion, I do not believe controlling people's lifestyle choices is the answer. In fact, I think it will have the opposite effect. After all, isn't doing something illegal and "nasty" more tempting to a young person? Indeed.

As far as locking bareback porn producers up etc. LOL. It's akin to when people were locked up in North America for even looking and/or appearing gay. That wasn't too long ago either. Lest we forget? It's downright fascism and nothing but.

[basschick]

okay, guys - enough of the insulting and rhetoric.

fetishlad, i don't agree with bareback porn, but i TOTALLY don't agree with a law about it. what - are porn actors to have less rights than the man in the street? imo laws are not the answer - education is. posting on boards is about sharing opinions. please keep in mind that what you're posting is your opinion, and we're not obliged to share it.

rawTOP, some of my models work hard on their bodies and get great results without steroids. probably some do use them, but there's no reason to insult muscle guys regardless. it would be great if this thread could continue without insults.

alex, the beginning of that last post was very... er... colorful. it would be great if we could all avoid rising to the bait.

folks, it would be great if this thread could calm down and continue as a discussion rather than a way of insulting each other or furthering an agenda. how about it?

btw, there are some board members do bareback porn. they don't do it because they're evil or greedy directors - they do barebacking themselves as well as having their performers do it, and it's their legal right. what's more, as mature and informed adults, i feel they should have the right to do what they choose. the thing is, we need to inform better.

i think the more the legal system stays away from our sex lives, the better off we'll all be. i've seen our legal system at work. btw, the u.s. currently has the highest percentage of citizens in jail of ANY country in the world. would it really be in anyone's best interest to put still MORE of our people in jail? i could go with making it a legal requirement for porn models to be accurately informed of the risks of bareback sex, but chances are the law would get stupid there, too. still, having a law like that done right would make sense and be a viable compromise.

[rawTOP]

rawTOP, some of my models work hard on their bodies and get great results without steroids. probably some do use them, but there's no reason to insult muscle guys regardless. it would be great if this thread could continue without insults.

Patti - It wasn't intended as an insult at all. I was just pointing out that other people could criticize the work Alex does the same way he criticized barebackers. Yes, some muscle guys are all natural, but when we're talking about the really big guys Alex specializes in many, if not most, have done steroids at some point.

I happen to disagree with all the critics. If people want to do steroids it's OK with me. If they want to get 20 loads of cum in their ass in a weekend it's fine with me. It's their body in all the cases I mentioned... Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[amadmedia]

I'm gonna get so yelled at for this.
No one fucks without a condom without understanding the possible consequences.

AMEN!!! I will never yell at you for that. I am a bottom. I am 100% bottom, I will not nor ever top. I hate it. I have taken risks of barebacking and have let guys cum in me. I have taken condom dick and let them cum in me inside the condom. I have swallowed. I can honestly say that if I had ever caught HIV... I would have nobody to blame but myself. I took the risks. I knew what I was doing. Should I have been cautious, certainly I could have.

I am employed by 2 companies here: Sebastian's Studios, INC. and AmAd Media Distribution, INC. (same owners). My full time job is with AmAd in online content distribution... I won't go into details.

My part time job is casting and being a model for Sebastian's Studios. Sebastian's Studios tested guys before. The models were required to get an HIV test no earlier than 2 weeks before a shoot. They were asked to bring their results to the shoot and they had to show the results to the director or producer in a private area and everything was held confidential.

I stepped forward and said that's not enough. Just because they have that piece of paper doesn't mean shit. They could have had someone go get that test for them, there could be a number of things. Now, the director or producer actually takes them to HIV clinics before any filming begins. They do 3 oral tests. (3 to be certain of the results)... Results are given within 10 minutes.
EVEN IF a model says, "I'm HIV Positive" we still require a test. There are chasers out there who want the HIV Virus. Yea, they say that, we could pair them with an HIV positive guy, next thing you know we're being sought after for the guy becoming HIV Positive.

Now on the other hand, you have producers who seriously have don't ask don't tell policies. I know because I've been a model for them and once they verbally told me that, I said this isn't going to work out and I left. THAT'S SHADY.

These people do need to stay the hell out of porn. It's the responsibility of the producer or director and models to know and understand what they are producing and to take the steps to not just protect themselves, but their models too. Producers forget that the models are their bread and butter. WITHOUT models, producers cannot survive.

[desslock]

I hope it becomes law! And I wish then that people who break that law are put in jail for it too!

BB porn DOES send out the message to young gay men that it is ok to take a load up an arse, it glamourises it, it makes it cool, it makes it a non-issue;


Fetishlad: Do you think the England's banning of the public theatrical showings of the film A Clockwork Orange because of it's depictions sexual violence was appropriate, in light of the fact that at the time the film was blamed for a widely publicized 1972 trial involving very brutal "copycat killings"? [see Wikipedia: A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film))]

Has it occurred to you that those who feel criminalizing bareback porn are equally inclined to criminalize all porn for the exact same justifications for "responsible behavior" which you cite? (Of course, RawTOP makes the same error that you do - wishing to have his cake and eat it too regarding justifying only certain policy decisions form the AMA which he happens to agree with, or, in your own case, your own well-intended beliefs of what should be responsible, moral behavior!)

How are your calls for "responsible" behavior and expression in the media different from those of the Catholic Church?

Steve

[Titanmen]

This is not about what people choose to do in their own personal lives. This is about a business paying an individual to perform high risk and potentially unsafe sexual acts for money. Once it becomes a commercial venture and money changes hands then I believe it becomes a whole different moral and ethical debate. There are plenty of morons out there that will gladly go down into a mine without safety equipment if you pay them enough money. Just because someone will do something for money doesn’t make it okay. We have plenty of laws that protect workers and others from known risks. This is a business like any other, why should we have different rules from any other business? Just asking…..

[RDude]

This is not about what people choose to do in their own personal lives. This is about a business paying an individual to perform high risk and potentially unsafe sexual acts for money. Once it becomes a commercial venture and money changes hands then I believe it becomes a whole different moral and ethical debate. There are plenty of morons out there that will gladly go down into a mine without safety equipment if you pay them enough money. Just because someone will do something for money doesn’t make it okay. We have plenty of laws that protect workers and others from known risks. This is a business like any other, why should we have different rules from any other business? Just asking…..

Good points of course. However, one would think that anyone willing to engage in bareback porn knows exactly what they're getting into. If a reputable producer is testing models properly and pairing up poz's with poz's etc, or however it's done, then to me, there shouldn't be an issue. This is still a matter of personal choice.

If any laws are to be put in place, it should be that an actual physician be involved in affirming the HIV status of a willing, bareback model. I know, I know. It's probably very expensive, but if this became law there would be a lot less negative outcomes. At least, in theory.

I stand my ground on the "impression" bareback porn portrays. Perhaps I give the average person too much credit here, but it's common knowledge that fucking bareback outside of an organized gay porn shoot is highly risky. If they still choose to take that risk, it's on them and not a bareback porn video.

[rawTOP]

This is not about what people choose to do in their own personal lives. This is about a business paying an individual to perform high risk and potentially unsafe sexual acts for money. Once it becomes a commercial venture and money changes hands then I believe it becomes a whole different moral and ethical debate. There are plenty of morons out there that will gladly go down into a mine without safety equipment if you pay them enough money. Just because someone will do something for money doesn’t make it okay. We have plenty of laws that protect workers and others from known risks. This is a business like any other, why should we have different rules from any other business? Just asking…..

You don't understand bareback porn.

Bareback porn is about honesty - it's about capturing on camera what we do in our bedroom. If you don't believe that - look at what's selling best in bareback porn - bareback porn that is over-produced doesn't sell well at all. People buy bareback porn because it mimics their sex lives (or what they want their sex lives to be). It would be disingenuous for us to fuck raw at home and rubber up on set. And for some of us the set is our bed at home. There is no way you can ban bareback porn without infringing on my rights to fuck how I please in my own bed.

Bareback porn is largely about personal expression and hence "protected speech". That's not true of miners going into a coal mine.

I'm not saying all bareback porn is about honesty and personal expression, but enough of it is that you can't ban it without infringing on people's rights.

[RDude]

There is no way you can ban bareback porn without infringing on my rights to fuck how I please in my own bed.

Bareback porn is largely about personal expression and hence "protected speech". That's not true of miners going into a coal mine.

I'm not saying all bareback porn is about honesty and personal expression, but enough of it is that you can't ban it without infringing on people's rights.

I couldn't agree more. This coming from someone who has never fucked bareback with someone unless both of us have been tested as negative after our last sexual encounters. Just thought I'd add that in.

[rawTOP]

If any laws are to be put in place, it should be that an actual physician be involved in affirming the HIV status of a willing, bareback model. I know, I know. It's probably very expensive, but if this became law there would be a lot less negative outcomes. At least, in theory.

So what do you do with a negative top (like me) who wants to bareback a poz bottom? Don't I have a right to fuck whom I please? Why would you mandate testing in that scenario?

While I've heard of boyfriends getting tested together before barebacking, those of us who bareback with strangers understand we're taking a risk. Asking questions really doesn't help that much since guys can lie or not know his true status. That's just part of bareback sex. We accept it. Bareback porn usually involves having sex with someone you really don't know that well - so the same rules apply. If you wouldn't do it in real life then you shouldn't be doing it on camera.

Bareback porn producers should make it clear that they can't guarantee the HIV status of the other model and only work with models who are OK with an "assume everyone is poz" approach to things. Or, if they work mostly with neg models (like Jake Cruise) then they might choose to test but still make it clear that there's a chance the test is wrong and the model needs to accept that level of risk. Models who aren't OK wit that level of risk probably aren't barebacking off-camera and shouldn't be barebacking on camera.

The bottom line is there are no laws that will be helpful in these scenarios. Studios just need to be upfront about risk with the models, and the models should walk away if they're not comfortable with the risks involved. All we need is common sense - not a law.

[RDude - I just noticed your reply after posting this one - sounds like we're on the same page.]

[RDude]

So what do you do with a negative top (like me) who wants to bareback a poz bottom? Don't I have a right to fuck whom I please? Why would you mandate testing in that scenario?

While I've heard of boyfriends getting tested together before barebacking, those of us who bareback with strangers understand we're taking a risk. Asking questions really doesn't help that much since guys can lie or not know his true status. That's just part of bareback sex. We accept it. Bareback porn usually involves having sex with someone you really don't know that well - so the same rules apply. If you wouldn't do it in real life then you shouldn't be doing it on camera.

Bareback porn producers should make it clear that they can't guarantee the HIV status of the other model and only work with models who are OK with an "assume everyone is poz" approach to things. Or, if they work mostly with neg models (like Jake Cruise) then they might choose to test but still make it clear that there's a chance the test is wrong and the model needs to accept that level of risk. Models who aren't OK wit that level of risk probably aren't barebacking off-camera and shouldn't be barebacking on camera.

The bottom line is there are no laws that will be helpful in these scenarios. Studios just need to be upfront about risk with the models and the models should walk away if they're not comfortable with the risks involved. All we need is common sense - not a law.

Whoa! I'm on YOUR side remember. LOL. I didn't mean it to sound the way it does. As I re-read my post, I see your point. I was referring to the legalities a bareback porn producer might face if it came out that an HIV negative person was paired up with an HIV positive person in a shoot, or a number of shoots.

Personally speaking, I would never put myself in that kind of a situation, but again, this is MY choice. People have the right to make their own as much I have the right to make mine of course.

Now, looking at this from another perspective. As much as a model may be negative and is willing to engage with a positive model, how does this reflect upon the bareback porn industry? Probably not very well. Not everyone sees this like you and I do. Obviously, from this thread. Would it NOT be better to strictly pair up poz's with poz's and vice versa?

As far as the physician involvement in all of this, it was just a suggestion in order to avoid government intervention. Like it or not, our governments are always going to stick their noses where they don't belong. Which is how I see it anyway. Sometimes you have to find solutions that satisfy them for a time in order to keep them off your back.

I personally like bareback porn. I like the "raw" nature of it and yes, there is probably a fantasy for me there. I would not like to see it get abolished due to laws this thread is based on. Hence, my suggestions and opinionated comments here. lol

[Gaystoryman]

Bareback porn producers should make it clear that they can't guarantee the HIV status of the other model and only work with models who are OK with an "assume everyone is poz" approach to things. Or, if they work mostly with neg models (like Jake Cruise) then they might choose to test but still make it clear that there's a chance the test is wrong and the model needs to accept that level of risk. Models who aren't OK wit that level of risk probably aren't barebacking off-camera and shouldn't be barebacking on camera.

The bottom line is there are no laws that will be helpful in these scenarios. Studios just need to be upfront about risk with the models, and the models should walk away if they're not comfortable with the risks involved. All we need is common sense - not a law.

Sounds good, but what if there are porn producers who don't do as 'they should do' or who outright lie to their models, while waving a shitload of cash in their faces?

It was that which led to many of the laws in the workplace today, that some 'owners' failed to act responsibly, and outright lied about the risks, and many who bought into it, simply weren't educated about it.

So what then?

[rawTOP]

Sounds good, but what if there are porn producers who don't do as 'they should do' or who outright lie to their models, while waving a shitload of cash in their faces?

It was that which led to many of the laws in the workplace today, that some 'owners' failed to act responsibly, and outright lied about the risks, and many who bought into it, simply weren't educated about it.

So what then?

Ultimately, the models are adults who are responsible to know the risks and protect their own health. Bottoming when a producer swears the top is neg is no different than bottoming for a top off-camera who swears he's neg. It's simple enough to actually talk to the top and get your own feel for the veracity of what the producer told you. Actually, it would take two people lying in a porn scenario which is less likely than one person lying in real life.

Plus, the free speech issues trump a few people who lie.

If you want, make it a crime to knowingly lie about HIV status - that would be a lot less controversial. But even that I don't support. I had a boyfriend ('92 to '95) who made me believe he was neg when he was poz. I can't imagine sending him to jail for it. He wasn't able to accept the fact that he was poz, let alone admit it to someone else. What he did was hardly criminal. I was able to see his motivation for lying to me, and still loved him deeply and stayed with him until he died. You just can't legislate stuff like this.

[pocoloco]

Anyone can have his own opinion about bareback sex, but I don't think a government or health association should decide for you. Adults are smart enough to decide for themselves. We all know the consequences and the risk involved.

[Titanmen]

He who doth protest too much....

[fetishlad]

You don't understand bareback porn.

But do you?

Have you seen the paperwork from the "clinics"in the Czech Republic? (for example) Do you really know that these doctors and clinics that have the HIV tests actually exists? .... Well let me tell you something: a friend of mine just got back from shooting in Eastern Europe and he saw the fake paperwork (fake clinics, fake doctors) allover the place, young boys not really knowing what they are getting themselves into (even gay for pay) believing the sordid lies that unscrupulous producers tell them.

Do you really know that when a wannabe pornstar says "I am poz" ... he is really poz? Does the wanabe have a "I am Poz certificate?" .... have you seen it? ... I would really like to know if you are 100% death certain these boys are Poz .... you know - for that sero-sorting argument.

BB porn is glamourising getting pozzed and it IS changing the judgement of a impressionable 18yo; it is too often the only sex education they get nowadays ..... well do you think it is great that the porn biz gets young men to become HIV pos?

In the end it is just about making money ... blood money ... the way diamonds and oil dollars are made .... closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there doesn't make it not real.

Reality is that we do not live in a world where ALL young gay men "should" know and "do" know" what risks there are in BB and as an industry we have the opportunity to not for once think with our wallet, but think with our conscience.

For the people who are involved in BB porn: because of your appalling behaviour in appeasing and glamourising this; the mainstream people will have to take hard action and you that are involved in this will be hit hardest, and it will happen, laws will come into force, because decent people know that this type of porn is unethical and wrong.

I hope it becomes law and that the gay BB porn maffia is silenced once and for all and that we as a gay community can be proud again and can educate the gay men to make an informed decision - whatever they decide in their own private lives.

[gaydemon]

Anyone can have his own opinion about bareback sex, but I don't think a government or health association should decide for you. Adults are smart enough to decide for themselves. We all know the consequences and the risk involved.

Agree.

This has always been a very intense and very personal subject. I promote and sell bareback porn, never had any problems with doing so either. Probably because it's what turns me on. I've also fucked with and without condoms and it was my own choice.

I don't think it's for me to say what's right or wrong, neither should government or health associations. What should they stop us doing next? Bondage? Golden Showers? Fisting? Dildos? There are health risks associated with all sexual acts. Awareness and education is a different issues, that should always be a priority.

The problem is that Bareback has become more about making money than a niche or choice, which is when things start going wrong. There are now a lot of producers who make bareback porn - doing it because they feel everyone else is doing it - but it doesn't do anything for me because they don't understand what it's about.

[basschick]

i'm not a big fan of bareback porn, but i can have my beliefs without calling people names, and i have a balanced enough worldview to realize that there will never be a time when everyone agrees with me. i asked everyone to calm down, but you seem to stay at a fever pitch, being frantic with your position insulting people who disagree with you - and btw, insulting people will never change their mind, where being reasonable might have changed the mind of a reader or two, even if not that of the people who are active on the thread.

the world is FULL of dangerous things that are legal - many which are far more dangerous than bareback porn, and some that are far more immediate. drunk driving kills a lot more people than porn performers die of HIV. does that mean we should make driving illegal? drunk driving is already illegal - doesn't seem to have made a difference. right now the number one killer of pregnant women between 18 and 30 in the u.s. is murder at the hands of their husbands/boyfriends, and there are more people dying of it than there are porn performers with HIV. murder is illegal, but it doesn't seem to have made a dent.

i don't think the law is going to help - i believe real education is. and it would have to be real education - very factual and non judgmental - because no one likes to be judged.