Timidly asking a bareback question...

Webmaster Discussion
, ,
#30

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

As far as AIM and the privacy issues go, we do have a federal law in the US called HIPPA which protects medical privacy, but a person can voluntarily waive it and allow their medical records to be released. I assume that’s how AIM handles it. I don’t know if, when you get tested by them, you have the option to “opt out” of having them track your results and share the information; perhaps we can get somebody from AIM to post here and explain what they do.

RawTOP, I could be wrong, but I don’t think AIM dictates that a poz person cannot work with a neg person; I think that the studios make those decisions based on info from AIM, but I can’t imagine why a responsible studio would allow that because, regardless of releases signed to the contrary, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen if a model becomes positive and it can be shown that the studio knew about it. Not to mention, as Bill from HDK has pointed out, the CalOSHA regulations that would undoubtedly be used to come down hard on a studio if something like that became public.

Tony, I think times are changing. CCBill, for one, tried to assemble a panel of knowledgeable people on the bareback issue for the last Gay Phoenix Forum (as part of the Phoenix Forum) but fell a little short on the pro-bareback side; it was not by their choice. I will suggest your name next year.

The other thing is… I agree with rawTOP that trust is a HUGE issue in barebacking with a boyfriend; I can’t tell you how many times a model tells me that he’s barebacking with his BF, and he trusts the BF completely… only to find out the BF is fooling around on the side after they promised to be monogamous.

I do think that most of the young people who bareback are in denial about the risks in the same way they are convinced when they start smoking that they’ll never get addicted, or that they can do crystal meth occasionally and “always keep it under control.” They’re always convinced that it “won’t happen to them” and somehow they’re “different” from the statistics.

#31

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

Been there, and in the 1980’s. Love is a terrible thing :wink: I could have been dead now. It gives me the creeps even to think about it.

#32

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

In my case, a neg top barebacking a poz bottom who’s got things under control with meds - the scientific data say that’s close to zero risk. Plus, if the person is actively barebacking in their private life then how can it be traced back to the shoot? It could have been any number of incidents…

Which, from what I read, is actually partly the case with “British Bareback Vacation”. Some of the models say they converted around the time of the shoot, but not on the shoot.

CalOSHA doesn’t apply to me, I’m not in California. And from what I understand the federal regulations treat employees different from contractors - which is one reason why so many of the actors in porn are contractors, not employees…

I still don’t see how I could be refused work because I’m negative… By personal preference of the director sure (along the lines of wanting someone thinner or with an uncut dick), but I can’t see how you can legally mandate that I’m not allowed to do certain work that I may want to do. It’s a curious legal question which I don’t have the answer to.

#33

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

[QUOTE=rawTOP;15983]

I still don’t see how I could be refused work because I’m negative… By personal preference of the director sure (along the lines of wanting someone thinner or with an uncut dick), but I can’t see how you can legally mandate that I’m not allowed to do certain work that I may want to do. It’s a curious legal question which I don’t have the answer to.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it’s a legal mandate, only one in which the producer may not feel comfortable.

While, you may never sue if you become HIV+, others may. Even if you sign a document stating you wont, unless the document is legally binding by the laws of the jurisdiction, it doesn’t mean anything. So, in the end it’s the producer who has to take the risk of a possible lawsuit and ultimately make the choice.

#34

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

there ARE other diseases besides HIV out there that a condom will protect you from most of the time. hep c is a lot less treatable than HIV and can kill a person more quickly than HIV, but other diseases can have tragic consequences, too - especially if not treated. whether people are pos or neg, they can still communicate all those diseases, and i only know of a couple smaller studios that test for all.

#35

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

VERY good point. Hep C is now very common in the UK, and specially in London. My ex I found out was a carrier of Hep C (I think, or the other version…) and had it most of his life, I was lucky I didnt get it off him.

#36

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

[QUOTE=rawTOP;15983]

CalOSHA doesn’t apply to me, I’m not in California. And from what I understand the federal regulations treat employees different from contractors - which is one reason why so many of the actors in porn are contractors, not employees…[/QUOTE]

California, where a significant majority of all US-based porn is shot, set the precedent years ago that actors/performers in films (porn or Hollywood) are employees, not contractors. They have been going after bareback producers for OSHA violations, among other things. Of course, a lot of studios if not the majority are ignoring that law and the related OSHA regs. Bill from HDK has more details on the story, but that’s it in a nutshell.

I don’t know about Federal OSHA regs and their applicability to contractors. As of yet, I don’t think there are any federal cases where OSHA regs have been applied to porn.

And Lloyd is right, for practical purposes, it would be a studio not being comfortable with mixing seronegative and seropositive people. No matter how a release is written trying to disclaim responsibility on the part of the producer, I can imagine that it would probably not stand up in court, particularly with the laws in California criminalizing sex between HIV+ and HIV- people.

Finally, as Patti points out, we spend all this time focusing on HIV when hep-C and, actually, syphillis (if not caught and treated early) can both be extremely difficult to treat. And one study showed that a majority of people who have HIV also have at least one, and as many as three or four other STIs, which also complicates treatment.

I’ve never seen the studies you’re speaking of relating to the risk of sex with low-viral load HIV+ people, but I’m interested in reading up. Do you have links?

#37

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

[QUOTE=gaybucks_chip;16010]

I’ve never seen the studies you’re speaking of relating to the risk of sex with low-viral load HIV+ people, but I’m interested in reading up. Do you have links?[/QUOTE]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/treatment/PIC/pdf/viral_chart.pdf

Here is another opinion on it -

“Unfortunately, undetectable does not mean non-existent since the viral load measures only what’s in your blood serum on a given day. A person can have more virus in their semen or vaginal fluids than in their blood, and vice versa. Research has shown that decreases in viral load in blood correlate to levels in semen and vaginal secretions, but no one has shown how much virus, measured in terms of viral load in the blood, is “enough” for transmission. “Undetectable” viral load does not mean you won’t transmit the virus to someone.”

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-01-10-24

Another -

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Couples/Archive/Guilt/Q10939.html

When I volunteered at Fenway Community Health, they did agree that a low viral load amongst a large target group did in fact reduce the risk of the larger target group as a whole. However, and this is a big however, The VL in your blood (which is what those will say their VL is) may NOT be the same as in your semen.

In rawTop’s case, he is talking more with less of an emphasis on semen levels as he is talking about being a top.

I guess I am just pointing this out because an HIV+ top with a low or non detectable VL in the blood can have a much higher VL in the semen.

#38

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

The Swiss put out a “statement” in January saying under certain circumstances it was reasonably safe for a poz person and a negative person to have sex…

http://aidsmap.com/en/news/4E9D555B-18FB-4D56-B912-2C28AFCCD36B.asp

But, upon closer inspection the statement only applied to vaginal sex. SO, one of the researchers was interviewed at a conference and said they would most likely find a similar finding if they looked at anal sex…

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_condoms_virus_2151_14010.shtml

(go to 9:30 in the video to see what I’m talking about)…

Then just recently there was a finding that giving aggressive HAART therapy could lower new HIV infections by 60%.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/53/23036.html

That’s based on the same premise as the other studies - that once a person stabilizes and is undetectable then they’re basically shooting blanks and can’t pass on the virus.

All of this has been known for a while in rough terms but just recently scientists have been able to say that it’s true with a certain degree of certainty…

#39

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

All of these types of statements are theoretical. The point the Swiss made was that there isn’t a single documented case of a HIV+ person infecting someone through vaginal sex if they were undetectable for 6 months or more and had no other STDs.

And they didn’t say it was impossible, just so unlikely it shouldn’t be a significant concern for straight people who want to forgo condoms. So if a case is found it has to be taken in perspective as a statistical outlier…

#40

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

I’ve also heard a school of thought that the condition of the immune system of the non-poz person may have a huge effect on the outcome (whether or not the person seroconverts) but, as far as I understand, it is near impossible to quantify.

In other words, there appear to be some people who for lack of any other explanation have very strong immune systems that resist seroconversion even when repeatedly exposed to high viral loads.

Pretty amazing that we’re going on some 25+ years of research on this topic and there’s still so much we don’t know.

#41

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

[QUOTE=gaybucks_chip;16023]In other words, there appear to be some people who for lack of any other explanation have very strong immune systems that resist seroconversion even when repeatedly exposed to high viral loads.

Pretty amazing that we’re going on some 25+ years of research on this topic and there’s still so much we don’t know.[/QUOTE]

There are the people of Northern European descent who are resistant and in some cases immune. The Smallpox epidemic that Northern Europe went through resulted in a mutation of the CCR5 receptor. If both receptors are mutated (1% possibility for Northern Europeans) then your completely immune except to one particularly virulent strain of HIV that kills you quickly. If one receptor is mutated (10% chance for Northern Europeans) then you’re half as likely to get HIV.

In contrast just this week they found that 90% of black Africans and 60% of African Americans have a genetic mutation that makes them 40% more likely to become infected. Which explains much of what’s going on with AIDS in Africa.

But yes, it’s amazing how little we know about HIV 25+ years into things…

#42

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

[QUOTE=gaybucks_chip;16010]
I’ve never seen the studies you’re speaking of relating to the risk of sex with low-viral load HIV+ people, but I’m interested in reading up. Do you have links?[/QUOTE]

Chip, let me RE-Post this important link for you - the CDC remains one of the most complete data bases of knowledge for all aforementioned…

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/serostatus/components.htm

#43

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

I’m not a content producer so I’m curious: how much it will cost you to test and teach the guys about STD and all the best you can do about that?

#44

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

I can’t speak for other studios, but our education process involves sitting all of our models down at the beginning of a shoot period (we shoot usually in groups of scenes) and having a frank conversation, talking about some of the 8 or 10 or so models who we know and have worked with who have become positive over the past several years. So the only real cost there is the time spent trying to keep current on our information.

As for testing, it depends on how many STIs you are testing for, what lab or testing tools you’re using, whether you have someone come in and do the draws, and so forth. We have a pretty good deal, so it costs us under $100/model for HIV, hep-C, syphillis. When we add gonorrhea that will boost it up a little. I believe AIM is a bit higher, in part because you’re helping to support their infrastructure and service to the industry.

#45

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

the standard AIM panel runs about $120 and additional viral load testing is extremely expensive - in the neighborhood of hundreds of dollars

we spend weeks in conversations and interviews with models prior to any type of agreement which if calculated, would run thousands of dollars in our time and time for medical professional consultations

I must emphasize that we are not trained medical practitioners (nor is anyone respondent on this board as far as I know) - and while the information we are all supplying in the form of links to articles and reports is all very interesting, it does not come with the vast medical backgrounds of doctors who have been reading, writing, researching and practicing in the field of HIV/AIDS for the past 25 years - this is why Cam and I have worked closely with a team of EXPERT researchers and practitioners and continue to do so in order to broaden our own knowledge base and to keep our performers at the lowest possible risk of HIV and STD infection.

I am thrilled that people are taking interest in the subject and are interested in learning more.

#46

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

Out of curiosity, what is the turn around time for results these days for tests?

I recall a panel discussion at the Phoenix Forum in which someone pointed out the only way accurate results could be ensured is if models were locked in a hotel room from the time the test was taken to the time of the shoot. This would allow producers to get the results back and ensure the model didn’t become infected after the blood was drawn for the test.

Is this still the case or is it easier to get results?

#47

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

I think you are confusing the time to get results with something else.

Some tests get immediate results, but may not be accurate. For example, an HIV test takes no time at all. But, it is really only an accurate reflection of your HIV status approximately three months ago, as it takes about three months for the HIV to show in the test. So, to say with a high percentage of accuracy that a model is HIV- at a shoot, you would have to test, lock the person up from having sex, and test three months later.

Some tests will show right away if there is an STD.

Other tests have to be sent back to a lab and may take a week.

So in some cases to be certain for a disease (HIV) you would really have to do two tests and be damn sure the model didn’t get exposed to the virus to be sure.

I can’t remember the accuracy on that three month period, but it is pretty high. The hard part is to be 100% safe, you would literally have to lock the model up and make sure he didn’t get exposed to HIV during that window.

#48

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

There are near-instant tests (15-20 minute) for HIV, hep-C, syphillis, chlymidia, gonorrhea, and a couple of others that use a couple drops of blood and have an accuracy rate better than 99% for detection of antibodies to the virus or bacteria.

The issue with HIV is the latency period. The instant tests are all looking for the presence of antibodies, which can take 3 months to develop (and in a small percentage of cases, considerably longer.) The more sensitive PCR test (which I think AIM uses) identifies a protein inside the HIV virus, but still won’t catch someone very newly infected. Of course, if the person has HIV, but hasn’t yet developed antibodies to it, he will test negative with the instant tests, but could still have a high viral load and be able to transmit the virus to others.

This is because when HIV transmission occurs, the virus rapidly replicates and viral loads skyrocket until antibodies are formed which (temporarily) drop the viral load down, in many cases to almost undetectable levels, where they may stay for a long time, or climb again, depending on a number of factors.

So when someone says that the only way to truly ensure barebacking safety is to test a model and then lock him in a room for 3 months and test him again, they’re speaking of the latency issue.

#49

Re: Timidly asking a bareback question…

This may be a silly question but…
RawTop, where are you going with this thread as it has branched off in many directions ?
as i do with any thread i read i like to know who started it and so i went to your home page and notice lots of bb and such as a matter of fact one of the images shows a guy being anally played with while have a blister on his ass. So i am confused on what your stance is and how are you relating it all to your own site. maybe im just off track by the time a thread gets to 5 pages i end up forgetting what the main theme was supposed to be…

just my 2 cents