Safe porn or Bareback Porn??? Preferences??

ps; Matt, you say you are safe. However, look at your own initial post; if u catch something straight after the results u wont know til 30 days later.[/quote]

I always wear protection, and still insist on models being tested too.. i dont do bareback..

I'm glad to hear that. I meant to say in my earlier post that although I do enjoy bareback porn, I would never advise or encourage it, and I agree with XCUZE--I always feel a bit uneasy when watching it.

This is off-topic, but I feel sometimes feel like a loser for being on here so much, especially on the weekends, but I feel slighly less lame knowing that you're also on here posting at, what, about 4:00 on a Saturday afternoon?

I feel strongly about this. Barebacking in gay porn is an awful practice.

Why?

1. Even though most people who watch porn view it as fantasy, barebacking in porn nevertheless sets a precedent. The implicit message is that *someone* somewhere is barebacking -- and if they're porn stars, they probably appear healthy and hot -- so it can't be all that bad. I trust that most porn viewers understand the difference between the porn they watch and their real lives, and I don't know of any data correlating watching barebacking in gay porn to viewers' own risky sexual practices, but my gut tells me that barebacking in porn nevertheless sets an example. A misleading example.

2. Perhaps more to the point: For the viewer, porn may be fantasy. For the performer, it's a job. And *your* viewing habits and preferences dictate the demand for (potentially unsafe) practices. For a forceful version of this argument, check out Chi Chi La Rue's PSA on why he will never film a bareback gay porn.

OK, I'll get off the soapbox now.

And Danny, glad to see you on here. You are one hot mofo.

Plain and simple, bareback spreads STDs/HIV/AIDS, there's no getting around it.

This site says, "We are seeing...20 year olds in the UK who have reportedly become HIV+ after making their first porn." Unfortunately, I don't think the demand for bareback porn is going to decline unless and until we start hearing some horror stories that include some details about the specific performers, what studios or Web sites they've worked for, and what films they've done. But when viewers are confronted with the fact that the twinks whose anal creampie videos they've been jerking off to contracted HIV as a result...that might serve as a big bucket of icewater to douse people's enthusiasm for the genre.

Btw, If/when I settle down with someone and I know we are both clean, I am totally giving up condoms and barebacking forever.

Many people live vicariously through porn and want to see things they wouldn't normally do in their daily lives. Porn is all about the fantasy, not the reality.

There seems to be three basic types of BB porn available:
1) Treasure Island Media, Hot Desert Knights and SX produce professionally-shot vids of guys who, with very few exceptions (like Jeff Palmer, for instance) would really be classified as "amateur". They are not your typical porn stars at all. And nearly all this material was/is filmed in the US, featuring Americans, 95% of whom are already HIV+.

I enjoy much of this stuff, but there are some problems I have with them occasionally. There is a droning monotony to much of this stuff: they always seem to feature the same sets, same acts and the same type of performers. There is little variety and no real sense of surprise, which I find essential to good porn. One can guess immediately what the scenario will be and who will do what with whom. Machofucker belongs in this group as well.

2) SEVP and other Scandinavian/European companies, most of which are indistinguishable from the other. The guys in these vids are extremely young, thin twinks. Their lack of experience is obvious. Their skill set is extremely limited, and I rarely find them attractive. They also suffer from a complete lack of spontaneity of role. The tops are only tops, the bottoms are always bottoms. The tops never (or rarely) suck cock, even. There's an ugly mercenary quality to much of this stuff.

3) Smaller, independent producers who are not exclusively BB, but who film it based on the participant's co-operation (or lack thereof). Active Duty is not a BB company, but much of their product in unprotected. My hard drive is chock-a-block with this kind of stuff. There are features from all over the world in this group, with a variety of performers and a flexibility in roles. I am consistently surprised by the quality and the variety I find in this "category".

There is also a double standard on the part of many production companies. Private's straight stuff is always unprotected, but their gay product never is.

As to this notion that frequent testing stops STDs from entering porn sets, I'm sure it does help. But HIV infection can occur up to 13 weeks post-exposure, and some diseases take even longer. Color me dubious.

People film porn for a variety of reasons, and anyone who does it ignorant of the possible risks is an idiot.

That's part of the mix that I neglected in the post above. People in monogamous, long term relationships rarely if ever use protection with each other, presuming they have the same serostatus.

And there are thousands of HIV+ guys (such as myself) who serosort and forgo protection.

I am very very strongly against bareback porn, and have taken every opportunity in my professional life to rail against it.

I love when boys are cock hungry, when they simply adore fucking and getting fucked. I think it's a beautiful, wonderful thing. But when it's more important to them that their very lives, that's when I have a problem.

Matt, I'm very pleased to hear you have common sense.

Is this a typo or do u actually have HIV?

I was diagnosed with AIDS in 1996, but I was infected sometime between 1978 and 1983, when I adopted safer sex practices.

I don't mind actually, I rather prefer that you are safe and use a condom, but don't use a colored condom, the regular (big ones for you :p ) are great enough. Just like Artful already said before, when it's porn, I don't mind if they are wearing condoms, it is still hot :p

2 weeks isn't necromancy is it? :s

I prefer condoms in penetration porn simply due to my little fetish. :s I do see, in some porn, condoms that look like they are barely there. I suppose those are for the people that like the bareback look? I really don't watch much penetration porn, though. I prefer to simply watch a guy jerk off, since cock is what I watch porn for and not much else. :x

All i can say is- No Glove, No Love!!

I prefer Condoms in porn. I find it much sexier for a couple of reasons:

a) I have always practised safe sex so condoms to me equate with fun, horny times and aren't a mood killer for me

b) I have no guilt or anxiety in wondering whether the porn stars are at risk for infections, are already positive or have been tested etc

c) Big cocks look great with a condom on, you can see how big the cock is when the ring is tight and pulls it in a bit and especially when the codom is all the way unrolled and there is still a couple of inches left before the pube line (A perfect example are your films Matt... Drool...)

d) the condom ring acts like a marker for the eye. When its a good pounding it actually makes it easier to see how far in and out the cock is going with each thrust.

There is another thing that I think influences my preference as well. In terms of gay porn I find most of the bareback stuff I have seen is more to do with the bottom being submissive/used/abused etc. Its all about some guy with a big dick who doesn't even acknowledge the bottoms pleasure at all, the bottom sucks his dick, bends over and gets barebacked and often doesn't even get to cum or even have his dick touched by the top. I much prefer to watch two men who are into each other and are enjoying what they are doing, which tends to be studios which use condoms.