The straight industry is able to forgoe condoms by testing all of its performers and banning the ones who test HIV positive. By contrast, the gay industry is able to forgoe testing by mandating condoms and allowing performers who are HIV positive.
There are exceptions on both sides, of course. Some straight studios do mandate condoms, and once in a while an HIV positive performer slips through the ass cracks. And then you have those gay studios which film bareback sex, shunned as they are by the big and glossy side of the industry.
Even within the bareback studios there are different strategies for handling HIV. Hot Desert Knights tests its performers and sero-sorts them, aiming to pair poz guys with poz guys and neg guys with guys. On the other end of the spectrum is Treasure Island Media, the notorious bareback studio that does not acknowledge the virus except to fetishize it, at times, with poz daddy "breeding" lingo.
The condom side of the gay industry is full of HIV positive performers too, performers who fuck with condoms on-screen but bareback in their personal lives. Some condom studios go even further to stave off HIV, as with Next Door Studios and Randy Blue, among others, who test models as well as slapping condoms on them.
This diversity in gay studios’ approaches to condom usage and HIV reflects the diversity of sex in the gay community at large, and the risks involved in fucking on camera mirror the risks involved in man-on-man sex in private. Just as there is no effective way to monitor gay men’s sex lives in private without messy and invasive legislation, there is no way to prevent HIV positive performers from fucking on camera without a witch hunt that would decimate the gay porn star ranks and unfairly expose those porn stars who are living with HIV.
This conversation is far from new, but I’m writing about it in response to Jeremy Bilding’s blog post this week that compared and contrasted two "mind-blowing facts": that "50%" of gay performers are HIV positive while "0%" of straight performers are. Jason Curious did not like this post very much. The porn agent said that Jeremy’s blog post was beating a dead horse, and added that Jeremy was pulling these statistics out of his tight virgin ass.
As it happens, Jeremy’s statistics are not so far from the numbers that The Sword gathered in 2008, in a study finding that nearly 30% of working gay porn stars were HIV positive or didn’t know their status. And Jeremy’s conclusion is the same as The Sword’s. He writes:
I’m not opposed to anyone working in Porn that wants to work in Porn. … Every time anyone, industry or not has sex, you are entering into a risky act that may leave you with something for the rest of your life. It is absolutely up to you AND your partner as to how you wish to reduce that risk. You AND your partner need to figure that out.
In other words, porn policy needs to come from inside the industry, not from zealous prosecutors and outsider watchdog organizations. The only mandate that makes sense for me would be to require studios to disclose the risks involved in fucking men, either with condoms or without. Once informed, performers can consent to these risks as adults, and studios can choose for themselves which kind of slice of gay sex they serve to consumers.
Condoms, Tests And Where You Think You’re Putting That Cock (Jeremy Bilding)
It's an interview with Phillip Aubrey: porn star, Spencer Reed's boyfriend, burp fetishist.
The COLT superstars joined a protest in Rome against the Catholic Church in order to make the claim that gay people are not pedophiles. There was a chihuaha involved.
I feel sorry for people with fetishes that can never be realized in real life. Take this Flickr user, who has to make do with his giants fetish using Photoshop.
I'm not one for bragging about intellectual accomplishments (it's something I learned from, you know, graduating with honors from Brown University), but Conner Habib is justifiably excited about his blurb in a book written by Carl Sagan's son.