Bottom line, we have PrEP nowadays, so any negative person that wants to do bareback sex scenes should be on it. Also, anyone in the industry who knows themselves to be positive should have the condition controlled (down to undetectable viral loads) before doing porn. There would be no further transmission of the virus if those two measures were in place …. unless the performers had that fetish on the fringe of our culture where they WANT to become infected, at which point, it shouldn't be called a "scandal."

Back when, porn did the sex scenes without cum shots.  When the first cum shot video came out, porn makers realized that guys (hetero and gay) want to see the cum shots.

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.
https://www.gaytor.rent/details.php?id=c6c5ae52576b8fdc721e650ad4175fa3b81f43f0d6e96a5d&hit=1

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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