“[T]here can be such a thing as a responsible bareback studio where performers have legal obligations to practice safe-sex everywhere but in front of the camera. If performers seroconvert, they should be subject to the same legal penalties as movie stars who fail to meet their contractual obligations.”
That’s the absurd solution Queerty comes to after an otherwise thoughtful examination of bareback porn and why gay men like it, and how bareback porn studios could/should be regulated by state health agencies. They cite Mason Wyler’s recent foray into bareback work after his HIV status was revealed last summer.
So what kind of “legal penalites” are we talking about? A fine? As if any bareback gay porn star would sign a contract with that kind of clause. That’s like asking someone who smoked cigarettes for a living to sign a contract with his boss stipulating that he not get lung cancer. And what about the performers who are already positive? Are they fired? Also, you needn’t look further than Derrick Burts’ story to understand how impossible it can be to prove how a gay porn star gets HIV, so subjecting someone to “legal obligations” that include promising(!) to have safe sex off camera is as unrealistic as it is unenforceable.
I give credit to Queerty for at least attempting to offer a solution to an issue that’s more complex than just regulating the actions of studios and performers. There’s another component to the success of bareback porn that’s even harder to control: Audience demand.