BAREBACK MOVIES - HIV scandal in gay porn industry
Hello December 18, 2018, 05:52:59 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Author Topic: BAREBACK MOVIES - HIV scandal in gay porn industry  (Read 13244 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 28, 2008, 10:50:51 am »

HIV scandal in gay porn industry

By Madeleine Holt - Culture Correspondent, BBC Newsnight
[Many people Newsnight spoke to did not want to be identified]

Three films have been withdrawn from sale following a Newsnight investigation into the health risks of
so-called bareback gay porn - which shows men have unprotected sex.

It follows concerns within the gay community that performers are being infected with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Two of the DVDs featured footage from a week-long shoot during which eight British models had sex with each other in multiple combinations
without condoms.
Four of those who took part were diagnosed as HIV positive soon after. One of the men told the BBC he was distressed that footage which he
believed showed him becoming infected had been put on sale.

After all the gay community has been through why are we putting people at risk for porn (Chi Chi Larue - US gay porn director)

In a separate case a British producer, Rufus Ffoulkes, was jailed last week on a child pornography charge for putting a 16-year-old boy in a gay
porn film in which he had unprotected sex.
The US company which released the film had refused appeals to stop selling the DVD until it was approached by Newsnight.
Now, Britain's leading bareback film company, Icreme, has told the BBC it has decided to only do films using condoms.
Most heterosexual pornography has never featured condoms. But showing unprotected sex became taboo in gay porn after HIV and Aids
emerged in the 1980s.

We have been talking about condoms so long that people are bored or think they know it all (Ceri Evans - Sexual Health Adviser)

Yet in the last four years there has been an explosion in the production of bareback films. They now make up about 60% of the gay market.
Some health officials believe this is a sign of a wider complacency in society about the risks of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases
which is mirrored in rising statistics for new infections.

Ceri Evans, Senior Sexual Health Adviser at West London Centre for Sexual Health, told Newsnight: "I think that there is a possibility of something
being called condom fatigue.

"We have been talking about condoms so long that people are bored or think they know it all. Education in schools is not what it could be,
for anybody, for heterosexual but particularly if you are gay."

The rise of bareback porn exasperates many who lived through the 1980s and 1990s.

In the US the leading gay porn director Chi Chi Larue has taken a very public stance against bareback films.

"After all the gay community has been through why are we putting people at risk for porn," he says in a new advert aimed at persuading consumers
to boycott bareback films.

In Britain the campaign against bareback is being lead by a director called Steven Brewer.

He is inviting both producers and performers to sign up to a new code of practice designed to minimise risk within the gay porn industry.
He told Newsnight: "I just don't want another 18-year-old model crying on my shoulder not sure how to tell his partner or his parents that
he is now HIV positive."

Story from BBC NEWS:



« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2008, 11:28:35 am »

Considering how many Hetero porn stars get HIV, I'm surprised they don't use condoms. 

Treasure Island Media has some very disturbing videos, such as this one;

IAN JAY, a smooth and boyish 20-year-old, isn't my usual kind of obsession. I'm usually drawn to the no-limits total sex-extremist. Now, I'm not saying that IAN is an innocent little angel. He's been rawfucked before, sure. And he's been in a few videos, some mild and mainstream, some not so mild. So for a guy as young as he is, he's definitely sexually precocious.

But he wrote to me and told me he was ready to take a big step: he wanted to be irrevocably bred. I knew what he meant, and I took him at his word. So I flew him to San Francisco and put him through a deep-boning weekend that would do the job.

Before he came to me he'd been dabbling in raw sex, but he was still naive. By the time the weekend was over, his hole was fuckin' insatiable, ready and willing and available to any man.

If you read the middle paragraph, it sounds like the bottom in the video wanted to be infected.  Even if it's all just hype, that is some sort of sick marketing.

The thing I find most odd is that there is a whole gay sub culture of "bug chasers" and "gift givers".  That really does my head in.

Anyway, if this had happened in the hetero porn industry, I doubt there would have been a story.  It's just another opportunity to make gays look like complete sleazes for doing/enjoying the same thing heteros do.
2x Thumb Up


« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2008, 05:41:17 pm »

Four of those who took part were diagnosed as HIV positive soon after.

I've found some info on this that shows how much of a non story full of hype it is.

Apparently, they were diagnosed less than a week after the video shoot weekend. All the "models" {7 of them} who were to be in the next video shoot were tested the following Tuesday.  That gives, at most, 5 days for them to have been infected during the shoot and test positive. Looking at medical websites {AMA, BMA, etc} the the earliest detection is at 25 days, but that is rare.  It usually takes 3 to 6 months to detect it. 

The four of them had sex scenes in 2 pairs and 1 three way amongst themselves, so no others were at risk.

All four are/were "rent boys" in London and 3 are/were porn veterans, while 1 was a porn "virgin" until that video shoot weekend.

Unfortunately, I can't find out the name of the videos or the actors involved to get more info.   Undecided


« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2008, 10:53:16 pm »

i saw the original broadcast of that bareback expose
generally speaking its kind of saying unsafe sex is creeping back into a new generation of gay porn after 2 decades of it's absence. It was also saying that there was no reason to think it was any safer to do so , exept for it being the attitude of a new generation who were tired of the cultural restrictions brought along by aids.

Che Che La rue also runs anti bareback awareness.

But the industry players say that the porn world is much more regulated and actors have regular tests. Also aids doesnt kill you today, you can medicate.

But the general concern was that young gays think they are immune from the effects of aids and are taking risks with their lives.



« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2008, 07:08:31 am »

I still don't understand why it's a "news story" when 4 gay porn actors didn't actually get infected from a porn shoot, but hetero porn actors getting infected from porn shoots don't make the news.

The fact that they fluffed the piece to say that the gay porn actors got infected during the porn shoot is crack head and bigoted. 

The porn shoot was from Friday afternoon til Sunday afternoon and they tested positive the following Tuesday morning {impossible according to all the medical websites I've read} and that is somehow proof they got infected during the porn shoot and had nothing to do with the fact that all 4 were rent boys.

I didn't see the show, but I'm willing to bet they made no mention of the rent boy aspect.

I agree that there is a real danger of getting AIDS through barebacking, even with the massive testing programs in place.  However, I'm disgusted that they made up "facts" to make the "news" piece and left out stuff, nor did they mention anything about the hetero porn industry's track record of AIDS prevention and number of infected.


« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2008, 08:13:28 pm »

That's right, as you say. Although it is "technically" possible to detect HIV virus even just "after", these tests are not taken, because of their expensiveness (test based upon HIV DNA), instead, the tests based upon anti-bodies are used. Right, as you mention, the less time needed for positive matching is at least about a month, no sooner, thus it is not possible to get infected in relation to anti-bodies tests used before and after (too short time period). All this mess is taken for money, I guess... non-bareback studios ruining the bareback ones Smiley - as we know, "vox populi, vox Dei", public opinion is the strongest weapon for anything...
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 08:17:03 pm by (Hidden) » Logged


« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2008, 03:05:52 am »

I don't know much of the recruiting policy for gay porn, can't they test the actors BEFORE making them have unprotected sex? I'm not saying that HIV positive actors should be banned or anything, just that they shouldn't be having unprotected sex (even protected sex for porn movies in my opinion) with uninfected people.

What i find more disgusting is that there are so many bareback movies with young guys... bareback experiences that could ruin their lives...


« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2008, 05:15:07 am »

From all the articles I've read, gay porn has an extensive testing program compared to hetero porn.

The real problem is, that unless you lock the guys away in separate rooms, they are going to do what they want.  This means that infection can happen at any time and it won't show up for another couple of tests.


« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2008, 04:07:46 am »

I remember reading an article in the AVN a couple months ago about Treasure Island Media.  They work mostly with HIV positive men and they provide testing as well.  I also learned that they are well aware of "bug chasers" and should any new actors test negative for HIV they are only allowed to top.


« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2008, 12:19:59 pm »

From all the articles I've read, gay porn has an extensive testing program compared to hetero porn.

The real problem is, that unless you lock the guys away in separate rooms, they are going to do what they want. This means that infection can happen at any time and it won't show up for another couple of tests.

In this case, guys who'll be doing what they want instead of caring for their own health would be the only ones responsible if they ever catch HIV. But those you'll do that...i'm sorry but they must be total whores.

And concerning the testing programs, i think the gay porn industry should carry out like a sensitization campaign to let people know that the testing is there, so that the porn companies dont get blamed for everything when in fact it's mostly the actors' fault.


« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2008, 08:32:07 am »

I remember reading an article in the AVN a couple months ago about Treasure Island Media.  They work mostly with HIV positive men and they provide testing as well.  I also learned that they are well aware of "bug chasers" and should any new actors test negative for HIV they are only allowed to top.

Okay, I'm all for equal oppurtunity employment, but if you a porn star and you have HIV/AIDS, isn't about time you looked for a career change?  Would you wanna go get surgery from a surgen with parkisin's disease?  Or a cab ride from a blind person?  You wouldn't put yourself in a situation like that, and as responsible adults (at least they all should be) they should make the logical choice and not star in porno's anymore.  If companies like Treasure Island Media say it's ok to be an HIV positive porn star, what kind of message is being sent? Why do you think there are "bug chasers"? How are you supposed to tell a younger generation the dangers of HIV/AIDS when we felt it was ok for HIV infected stars to make movies.  Saying that's ok is almost like saying being infected with HIV is trendy. Plus, it makes it look like we as gay people have accepted that HIV is our problem only, or that it's just another part of our culture, wich we all know is not true at all.  Ever since that bath-house incident in the 80's gay people have become overly defensive about HIV because we were blamed for the out-break.  I'm an open-minded person, and i don't think anyone with HIV/AIDS has any less rights at all, or should never have sex again, but you shouldn't star in porn either.  I also think by trying to say that article was written with the sole intention of only pointing the finger at gay porn is silly.  Unfortunatly, once again, gay people were used to get the point across cause let's face it: gay sells, and starts controversy.  The idea behind that article was plain and simple: if you have a deady, infectious disease you have no place in the porno industry, and i don't disagree with that.   And sticking up for them in this situation because of perviously lost battles on this subject is destructive and is only going to hurt the gay community, not help it.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 08:41:52 am by (Hidden) » Logged


« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2008, 01:08:21 pm »

I also think by trying to say that article was written with the sole intention of only pointing the finger at gay porn is silly.  Unfortunatly, once again, gay people were used to get the point across cause let's face it: gay sells, and starts controversy.

All porn is still taboo and sells newspapers/magazines.

I belong to several skeptic {about religion} forums and articles like this are constantly used by fanatical believers when they try to justify denying gays equal rights.


« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2008, 07:37:48 pm »

ummmmmmmmm...........I am gay.  how do you see that as denying MYSELF or anyone else rights?  IF YOU HAVE AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE THERE ARE OTHER JOBS OUT THERE BESIDES WHORING YOURSELF OUT!!!!! GAY OR STRAIGHT.   And i don't belong to any church or religious groups, because i'm not so shallow that i need someone else to decide my beliefs.  You should think about what you stick up for, don't just stick up for them because they're gay.  Sorry you think my views are extreme to you.   Try actually arguing the issue instead of saying I'm just belittling homoexuality (MYSELF).  As soon as the word gay is used, everyone always wants to go right on the defensive even when it's not always the whole issue.  Let's fight battles worth winning, and not for the right for HIV positive people to be whores.  And yes, all porn is still taboo, but anything gay stirrs up more contreversy because the general public is extremely unaccepting when it comes to our culture, and especially what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 08:22:05 pm by (Hidden) » Logged


« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 pm »

I think you are misreading what I wrote.

I never said you were trying to deny gay rights.  I said fanatical believers use any bad article about gays to justify denying gays equal rights.

I won't respond to the rest f your post because I didn't say any of the things you are claiming.


« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2014, 11:13:49 pm »

christ2000 said: I don't know much of the recruiting policy for gay porn, can't they test the actors BEFORE making them have unprotected sex?

No one at any known studio is "making" anyone do anything. Period.

The relation between what is onscreen and what actually happens may be tangential at best. Lots of staged scenes of allegedly
sleeping men "molested," supposedly "strait" guys "tricked" into gay sex on a bus or at a gloryhole. This works fine as fantasy,
even with the performer being a known porn star. In his first movie or two, gay-for-pay Jeff Stryker had a stunt cock for the
money shots. Also, lots of editing goes on to eliminate limp periods, and the cum shot may not follow instantly from when the
condom-clad dick is removed. The bottom may not cum quickly, etc.

What I've been thinking about lately is some comments on various torrents that the cum is fake. That is problematic, for me anyway.
Maybe the raw fuck is completed to climax and then additional visual sauce is added? Or maybe the whole thing is fake. So then
it is a question of what degree of fantasy you want. The idea is that real men are having real orgasms, right? That's why they pull
out most of the time in gay-- or strait-- porn, so you can tell the actor has "finished."

All the moaning and "oh, yeah, fuck me baby" babble for the mic can be ignored if you want, but when the ejaculation occurs,
it is hot to think it is the real thing, just as one is watching guys actually do it, whatever "it" is. With internal cum shots, it
is more difficult to demonstrate that cum was delivered. A sucker who opens the mouth widely enough to see it filled with
man suds, or a dick that shoots a bit outside but mostly inside where the goo dribbles or squirts, drains or is spit, that all
works. But I just watched a bunch of people having unprotected anal sex and it seemed to me the copious liquid that
resulted looked the same for each pair of performers. And there was ALWAYS some kind of cut before the "proof" was shown.

Pulling out to climax for the camera is not how the world is supposed to operate, so I like seeing the mouth, pussy, or ass receive what
it has been working so hard for. Rarely, what is shown is the condom being loaded up before extraction. Equally as easy to fake,
maybe easier, but it can be done credibly. Problem is to identify such videos. Much closer to safer sex that way.

I know one guy who shot a strait porno who used only existing m/f couples, who only played with each other and did not use
condoms. That is one solution, and there are some gay scenes like that, or supposedly like that. Real life lovers provide a
different visual to fantasize about. But what IS this where the BB scene ends with the top pulling out and shooting all over
the hole and THEN plunging back in? That's just stupid. Either do it or don't.


« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2014, 02:23:03 am »

Ok I have to reply on this as there is another factor. Those that were sero positive that have been taking heir meds cannot infect anyone. In some courts cases in the EU, we just had  one here too, a guy was acquitted as his defense could prove his viral laod was undetectable and had been for along time. That is why many are not so concerned as before. Howverer, you still run the gauntlet of  a load of other infections including syphylis (I got the multi resistant type) and treatment was NOT fun. As adults I guess we have to make informed choices a what we do. Yes the Gay Porn industry does make it clear in their intro about the risks and that shoudld remain so. HIV  developing into the AIDS diagnosis is no fun and I am sure we are many out there who have lost good friends at an all too early age. I love watching bareback porn I can only hope those guys do take care but I suspect not all do. I suspect  many of us can be reckless when having a good time, drinking a good  deal and under the influence of other substances. All we can do is try to exercise some care.


« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2014, 05:45:44 pm »

Please keep in mind that this thread is 6 years old.
1x Lamp


« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2014, 10:35:34 pm »

Most of the young guys I know hate condoms. They look at it with kind of an oh well! attitude.


« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2014, 09:46:50 am »

i remember this story, poor guys, they were not even tested before filming...


« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2014, 01:21:43 am »

Yes, this is an old thread. What's your point?

As it happens, the topic is just as lively, just as life/death now as it ever was. And a lot has happened since the sensational
"news" story about the horrors and dangers of horny faggots baring their perversion on camera for pay. Ohh, the horror.

In California, much of the mainstream porn industry of all orientations is in the area just north and west of Los Angeles in
the famous San Fernando Valley of which Bing Crosby sang in a hit song named after the general area. (It's on YouTube!)
Or perhaps there are geezers out there who have heard of Highway 101, known locally as "The 101," which runs east and
west across the whole area before bending north toward San Francisco and south, past the Marine base at Camp Pendleton
where Bobby Garcia made so many legendary videos of real soldiers getting naked and celebrating the pleasures of relieving
their horniness, and on toward San Diego.

I mention The 101 because it is the scene of a classic early rock 'n' roll song about a man who wore "Black Denim Trousers"
and a leather jacket "with an eagle on the back" when he was riding his motorcycle there. Great song. Vaughn Monroe, 1955.
The Edith Piaf version in French is also pretty damn terrific. Both are on YouTube, or have been.

Anyway, local authoritarians, in order to "protect the public" from easy access to visual titillation, have in their "wisdom" recently
decided condoms will be mandated for all porn. Well, that's one solution. Those who don't like it are free to relocate to friendlier
climes just outside the long bell end of the law, where professionally competent performers may be more difficult to locate than
in an industry town pretty much adjacent to Hollywood itself, which certainly made for convenient extra night work for
cameramen and others when the home video industry was being launched.

I saw a porn performer with a YouTube channel (!) a while ago, chatting gaily on and referencing "the old days" when you had to
rent a video and pop it in, back before the Internet thing. Ha! Maybe not in his lifetime, but definitely in mine, there once were no videotapes.
Hell, once upon a time there were no 8-track audio tapes either. And the most porn a man-fan was likely to get was some
quality time with the underwear section of a gigantic store catalogue (those no longer exist, and neither do some of the stores,
which, like the old-fashioned "five and dime" with sewing patterns and a lunch counter (often racially segregated) have also vanished.

Hard to believe there was a time when a boy had to go through puberty without ever seeing anyone having actual sex on camera,
not in the movies and certainly not even in magazines, where women famously had bodies with a staple in the middle. There were
no bulging Speedos or "budgie huggers" to oogle in secret fascination. (Which is where bodybuilding magazines became a significant
means for connection (see Beefcake, the movie). Once there did get to be "adult" theaters and 8mm peep shows, what you got to
see was the way of a man with a maid, and you had to decide where to direct your attention, which may not have been where the
filmmaker intended to feature.

But yeah, the hub of the US pr0n industry is being challenged-- oddly, just at the time when prophlaxis is becoming available before and after
unprotected sex. That doesn't stop BB movies. The last person I knew who was shooting a fuck flick in that area employed only
existing m/f couples, so they were already exposed to each other and were not going to be exposed to anyone else. So there are
perfectly legit and healthy workarounds that existed even before HIV+ people could reduce their viral load to an undetectable level,
and before rapid testing and the rest of the medical advances for which we can thank Larry Kramer and ACT-UP, among others. (See,
for example, the star-studded recent remake of The Normal Heart (available right here), based on a revival of his original
Broadway play written at the start of the crisis and as important a part of history to know as why pirates had cabin boys, whether
"rum, sodomy, and the lash" was once the Royal Navy norm, and that there have Always been gay soldiers and armored warriors
having gay sex since, oh, at least the love of David and Jonathan in that book they all keep abusing.

Much of the prurient challenge to prevent other people from having a good time is a result of the usual fearmongering from the usual
god-bothering Wholly Babble wallopers trying to impose churchianity and feed the war machine while keeping women and the poors
subservient. But I digress.

What I think is interesting about the supposed BB videos I've seen is that most of them still withdraw to display "the money shot,"
usually delivered by an extensive prolonged handjob and perhaps a time-lapse cut or two so that the movie does not show a major
droop or hiatus between passionate pistoning and far-spewing proof of pleasure being taken in the performance.

As someone noted, porn actors are not paid to have good sex; they are paid to look good having sex.  Bobby's real enlisted young
horndogs are amazing to watch, often brilliantly handsome, macho, muscled, boyish, innocent despite their experience (sometimes
over a half dozen years or more of penetrating their love objects, even when they are still in their teens.   Unfortunately, while
Bobby sweet talks them into enjoying great orgasms and pays them well enough that they keep coming back (even bringing along
other guys  from the barracks), part of what makes his sessions so completely credible is the frequently incompetent camerawork,
the train whistle blowing loudly just outside his low budget setting, which is next to the Base railroad stop that everyone uses for
weekend liberty at "the titty bars" downtown. Add in the annoying longeurs a la Warhol's early anti-verisimilitude approach to
moviemaking, and you can see why John Waters like them so much. Never was art so artfully artless as these documents of the
secret life, needs,  and serviceable accommodations of this virile warrior class.

Never a doubt about those men, and when the lights are working and the camera properly aimed and focused, your eyeballs will
occasionally burst into flame from the reflected heat of these male animals discharging their abundant tension at the peak of their
fertility and the moment of maximum explosive power for what often is a very long-awaited draining, as documented in closeup
as they grin cheekily with pride in response to Bobby's praise of their macho and professionalism. Then they may take their cash
and stumble out with a few beers in them, looking to get laid they way the like best-- if they can-- now that the frenzied edge of desperation
has been taken off and their randy prowl bankrolled for the night.

Awol Marines - October 2010 Audition Archives, for example, offers a goodly selection of Bobby's work.

There may be handjobs, oral, anal, solos, duos, whatever. And am I the only one who ever watches these and thinks, gosh, I hope that
poor, naively macho stud gets some of the action he's after, because the girl would certainly have a good time. Actually, I guess not,
because there are some videos where guys plow gals and mess around with each other, or take time out from a well paying gig doing
gay for pay to make a record of them slamming their girlfriends enthusiastically. As with Dirk Yates, who followed soon after with his own
military strait guys, some of the blowjobs and manual stupration of the membrane get a sensational result that clearly takes the
satisfied youth to a whole new level of carnal bliss.

Another digression. Rambling again. Would be nice if there could be a pleasant conversation about such things, maybe even right here.

Anyway, yeah, there are BB vids, but what shocks me as I said is that for all the fuss about condomless sex, the load is usually airborne.
And even alleged oral enthusiasts m and f, seem generally uninterested in swallowing that lush cream, which cannot be entirely for the
benefit of the camera, but more of what seems to me, anyway, as a pathetic failure at being able to feign actual interest. It's only on
occasion that the man topping gets so carried away as to shoot inside, though some do rather make a feature of showing the result after
the flood has been launched.

And if showing it deposited inside one hole or another is the point (maybe it is not?), why wouldn't a cream-filled rubber make the same point,
and not interrupt the exciting finish for the participants to "hit their mark," as they say in acting? I mean, isn't it closer to actual two-person
sex if the act includes with everything in situ? A condom can provide that. So can quick gulping or some other clear evidence besides the
frantic breathing and twitching of the man cumming, whether or not we ever see a drop of what just put a smile on at least his own face that
is absolutely convincing. Some of these SoCal military-man stimulation sessions pretty clear help the man achieve a previously unknown
level of all-in satisfaction.

It might only be me in search of authenticity. Not sure bareback for the camera necessarily provides that, whatever the risk. Anyone? Bueller?

« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 02:12:01 am by (Hidden) » Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Industry lobby on HIV search for Cure HIV & AIDS revenger 7 3721 Last post October 16, 2015, 11:51:17 pm
by MrMazda