BarebackJack
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Posts
- 309
- Media
- 25
- Likes
- 76
- Points
- 173
- Age
- 63
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Wow
a lot of stuff is coming up as a result of this thread
some of it true, some of it not quite as true, and some of it downright false. Given my position in the community ~ having been both a mover and shaker in the bareback community as well as the voice of responsibility and educator on risk and harm reduction, plus a participant in bareback porn, a promoter of the many studios that produce bareback porn, and host webmaster to the (formerly) Annual Bareback Video Awards, I think I might be qualified to speak (at some length) on this subject
Incidentally, while the safer gay porn has a reputation for drug abuse on-set (and I am not naming names), the BB producers I know do not allow their performers to go on camera if they are on any drug (except perhaps Viagra or poppers). So the barebacking is consensual, and discussed in advance, ergo not a surprise to the performers.
The supervirus scare of last year failed in most reports to include or expound on the fact that the NYC patient at the center of this controversy was also a severe meth addict who trashed his immune system with drugs then went out and had anyone willing to stuff their dick up his ass blow him full of infected cum. The patient may have been carrying two strains (HIV-1 and 2) and numerous med resistances inside him, which is what led to total failure of any medicine he took, and thus the jump to the supervirus conclusion. It remains unproven.
MORE FOLLOWING...
Not universally true. I believe that hetero porn actors who test positive are blacklisted from doing more hetero porn. However working gay porn actors are both POZ and Neg. And there are opportunities aplenty in bareback porn for POZ men.warwithscars said:and like it was said.....pretty much when you are HIV+ you are done with the porn industry.....there are a few fringe markets where its a fetish to know a positive person is fucking.......but you are pretty much shunned and quarantined when its found out you might be positive....in straight and gay porn
Problem? Global warming is a problem. International terrorism is a problem. But bareback porn is not a problem. I suppose that it could be a problem if the producers of BB porn were putting up Get Infected announcements in their videos and having their actors tell the audience that barebacking is completely safe behavior or that AIDS is not a reality. However EVERY bareback video that I have seen (and I have probably seen way more than most of you) starts off with disclaimers and warnings about the unsafe nature of barebacking. Some even have the disclaimers repeat again at the end.BBB2.5 said:Wow...I'm glad to see a real conversation about this subject. At least it seems that most people do realize that it has become a problem.
Many studios do test their actors regularly. I believe the producers of twink bareback videos test and retest before putting their actors in front of the camera. One thing that is worth noting is that the person who plays the bottom role on video (as in life) runs a greater risk of being infected by a POZ top than does a neg top from a POZ bottom. Those studios that do not do testing do tell their performers to assume that the people they will be having BB sex with are POZ. It is then up to the discretion of the performers to continue or back out.BBB2.5 said:
I'm sure that the bare backing video producers are taking precautions with there actors with testing on a regular basis. However that will not work out if one of them should get infected between test.
Incidentally, while the safer gay porn has a reputation for drug abuse on-set (and I am not naming names), the BB producers I know do not allow their performers to go on camera if they are on any drug (except perhaps Viagra or poppers). So the barebacking is consensual, and discussed in advance, ergo not a surprise to the performers.
Not exactly true. HIV cells do not mutate as the result of being in close contact with other HIV cells. What can happen is this: Person As HIV might have developed resistance to meds 1, 3, and 5. Person Bs HIV might have developed a resistance to meds 3, 4, 6, and 7. When they cross-infect each other, both persons might find themselves unresponsive to meds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. But the HIV cells do not teach or transfer their resistances (at least that is what a Maricopa County HIV test administrator told me). Since HIV doesnt fuck to give birth to new cells, but replicates itself by injecting its proteins into a normal blood cell which incubates the virus until it ruptures and sends little copies of itself into the body, it is highly unlikely that HIV cells from person A and person B will combine unless they both infect the same cell.BBB2.5 said:
Someone spoke of two HIV+ guys doing it together....well that is even more dangerous. That could lead to a mutated cell, which may or may not be destroyed by the current HIV medications.
The supervirus scare of last year failed in most reports to include or expound on the fact that the NYC patient at the center of this controversy was also a severe meth addict who trashed his immune system with drugs then went out and had anyone willing to stuff their dick up his ass blow him full of infected cum. The patient may have been carrying two strains (HIV-1 and 2) and numerous med resistances inside him, which is what led to total failure of any medicine he took, and thus the jump to the supervirus conclusion. It remains unproven.
MORE FOLLOWING...