Jan
31
Chi Chi Debuts New Safer-Sex PSA
January 31, 2008 | 16 Comments
Directrix and Channel 1 Releasing co-owner Chi Chi LaRue is stepping up her safer-sex campaign. Her new PSA debuted earlier today on blogger Andy Towle’s Towleroad.com. I spoke with Ms. LaRue today about the PSA’s content, which reps a change in tactics. Until now, her “Wrap It Up!” campaign has centered on the notion that bareback or unsafe sex in porn would then carry over into the personal lives of the men watching it. I have my doubts about that, and there was concern that a condoms-only message was being lost. The new PSA focuses on the health and personal safety of the models. As well, Ms. LaRue vows, loudly and continuously, that she will never film condomless sex. I wondered whether that would be seen as sanctimonious. She firmly disagreed. “It’s about setting an example. It’s about using my big, loud voice to set an example for everyone else. Period.” Check it out for yourself: SafeSexisHotSex.com.
Comments
16 Comments so far
Still wondering what Chi Chi has to say about the barebacking in Dark Alley Media’s 8 1/2. Are the GAYVNs rewarding barebacking now, or didn’t anyone actually watch the movie?
Will Chi Chi be refusing any GAYVN awards over this?
Interesting catch, that Chi Chi changed his/her tactics in how to do these PSA’s. I still think they’re a touch strident, so it’s good (brave?) that you asked her about that. Thanks for the updates, I’d never hear about this stuff otherwise. Brightens a dreary British day.
Chi Chi is my Idol, As a Transsexual Performer and Entertainer her message has caused me to sit back and rethink my bareback and condom options……Though I am A.I.M tested every 30 days I still wonder what kind of message my videos send when there is bareback sex.
Of course Chi Chi has a statement to make and naturally safe sex is the best, but first of all what if you meet a drop down gorgeous guy in a club/pub? Do you swoon first and then ask for a skin or rather lose the momentum and the guy takes a run. Condomless movies can be made if a doctor examins all performers and the company is prepared to issue the movie with a ‘all actors are examined and safe’ certificate!
Of course Chi Chi has a statement to make and naturally safe sex is the best, but first of all what if you meet a drop down gorgeous guy in a club/pub? Do you swoon first and then ask for a skin or rather lose the momentum and the guy takes a run. Condomless movies can be made if a doctor examins all performers and the company is prepared to issue the movie with a ‘all actors are examined and safe’ certificate!
ALL the performers on the bareback porn shoot in the UK last summer where three were contamined with HIV HAD such certificates.
Then, Jerome, the certificates were not legitimate from a recognised MD.
Then, Jerome, the certificates were not legitimate from a recognised MD.
But of course they were! Delivered by a GUM clinic run by the NHS, after proper testing.
More information is available at the following url :
http://www.gaikiss.org.uk
What you fail to understand if that those certificates are not good enough, because of the realities of bareback gay porn and of the models’ sex lives in environments where AIDS and HIV are rampant in the gay community. In other words, those tests and certificates are worthless unless models stay entirely safe in between shoots and shoot only once every three months, Is that what happens? No. Is it going to happen? No. Are models who shoot bareback porn going to engage in safer sex off screen? If you believe that, I have a nice tower to sell you in Paris. So the only responsible way for gay porn producers is to stick to condoms. Bareback porn producers are fully aware of this, and if they continue to shoot bareback, they are knowingly putting their models at risk, because they think that very risk will sell their videos, and they are not the ones gambling with their lives.
An English blogger put it very simply last september, as the news of that disaster were beginning to spread: “Buyers of bareback porn – you’re dealing with an industry with the morals of drug traffickers and pimps – and your seemingly insatiable demands are putting lives at risk.”
Chi Chi is an amazing “Drag Queen”, but not a transsexual. He is still very much a complete man when not in dress and make up.
Just wanted to make that clarification…
Thanks,
>G
WendyWilliams on January 31, 2008 6:20 pm
Chi Chi is my Idol, As a Transsexual Performer and Entertainer her message has caused me to sit back and rethink my bareback and condom options……Though I am A.I.M tested every 30 days I still wonder what kind of message my videos send when there is bareback sex.
_______________________________
Sorry Wendy. I see now that you meant; you are a transsexual performer. Pardon my misinterpretation. Good luck with the re-examination of your future “safe sex” career choices!
>Grant
Well it’s good she’s keeping safe sex practices..but she need to do something about her movies as of late..they SUCK..and since she’s taken over that other company..they have been mostly recycling old movies..i’ve moved on from her/him ..or whatever movies:-)
J√ɬ©r√ɬ¥me, you act as if these bareback performers or models, don’t have minds of their own. They are gambling with their lives. Consumers are forcing them to do anything that they haven’t already chosen to do. If someone gets off on bareback porn then so what.
ALL the performers on the bareback porn shoot in the UK last summer where three were contamined with HIV HAD such certificates.
Quick question for you, Mr. “safe” sex advocate. Would you approve of these same HIV positive models making a porn while using condoms if they were still participating in the standard sex acts of gay porn? If your answer if yes, then I’m afraid you are full of it. This is NOT safe sex and it poses a risk. (notwithstanding the ignorant position by condom supporters – that condom should be used from the assumption that everyone is HIV positive) And in the context of risk-benefit analysis, it too should not be considered worth the risk. The same standards used to say that testing certificates are not ‘good enough’, adding condoms still don’t make the situation good enough. It constantly annoys to hear “bareback producers are knowingly putting models at risk”, yet this just after acknowledging that condoms are only safeR sex. In other words, still leaving room for risk. What makes me even more furious is that people continue placing their heads in the sand as if there isn’t an alternative to that. It may not be as “hot” though, and you’d better believe that condom-based producers are keenly aware of profit..even with their false surface image of concern.
Here’s a blog story I ran into that some folks might want to give heed to.
http://phlamer.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-gay-man-got-hiv-from-kissing.html
“Would you approve of these same HIV positive models making a porn while using condoms if they were still participating in the standard sex acts of gay porn?”
This, of course, happens all the time to gay men in the Western world. ALL THE TIME. And in real life too, not just on porn sets. People with different HIV status having protected sex, safer sex, and the full range of it, and as a result the HIV negative person still is HIV negative. Condoms ARE good enough.This has been demonstrated again and again over twenty years and more. I would be dead if it weren’t the case. It is the relapse in safer sex procedures, particularly among the young, which is causing the awful rise in first infections among gay men in the “first world” (North America and Western Europe), it’s NOT that condoms are not working any more, it’s that guys are not using them any more. And frankly, your all-or-nothing rhetoric is not helping.
You are advocating monogamy and abstinence, and also the end of gay porn. Fine. Do you really think it is pornography that gives people the urge to have sex? If just one gay kid, reading your rants, gets the idea that condoms are no good, so what’s the point, and gets out and has unprotected sex and becomes HIV positive, I say you’ll have it on your conscience.
PS: gay porn, like the movies, cannot be done without money. I’ve come to know a few gay porn filmmakers here in Europe, and frankly, if they wanted to get rich, they’d do something else.
This, of course, happens all the time to gay men in the Western world. ALL THE TIME. And in real life too, not just on porn sets.
This, my friend is an overstatement since the compared to the population at large, the number of people with HIV is not that outstanding. You will encounter far more HIV negative people than HIV positive people. And if by “all the time” you mean to say that no one has EVER contracted HIV by participating in more than what the link you provided defined as “safe sex”, then you are flat out lying.
Condoms ARE good enough. This has been demonstrated again and again over twenty years and more.
Right, and in those twenty years, no one has EVER contracted HIV (or any other STD) while using condoms, and using them correctly? I can refer you to a study where exactly that happened – maybe only in a few of about 170 some odd people, but ENOUGH people to question the tenability of claiming that they are “good enough”.
I would be dead if it weren’t the case.
There are people who have condomless anal sex with an HIV positive person and do not contract the disease. Does that convince you that the risk isn’t there then? I doubt it. You would see that the risk is there and they just happened to be lucky. Same with you.
It is the relapse in safer sex procedures, particularly among the young, which is causing the awful rise in first infections among gay men in the “first world” (North America and Western Europe), it’s NOT that condoms are not working any more.
It’s the relapse in common sense that says to get tested. It’s the relapse in adherence to the larger cultural values that demand that all be sexually monogamous. It’s the promotion of confusion by people continuously conflating safe sex with safeR sex, which all together will prevent the real chance of eliminating this disease by sheer discipline, and in the process provide the perfect setup for another unsuspected epidemic. I recommend getting past this short-sightedness that the condom mentality seem to encourage.
your all-or-nothing rhetoric is not helping.
You haven’t seem all or nothing rhetoric from me. What you’ve seen is a mirror being placed to the condom propagandists. Some people don’t like mirrors. But their refusal to look is not helping.
You are advocating monogamy and abstinence, and also the end of gay porn. Fine.
You are right on the first part, false on the other parts. It is absolutely possible for gay porn to exist with monogamous couples (or even individual men) and even those of different status or two HIV positive men who employ safe sex practices as defined in the link. This may not be a “thrilling” to some people however, to borrow the psychoanalysis from those describing barebackers’ motivation.
Do you really think it is pornography that gives people the urge to have sex?
The question is do YOU since your dispute with bareback porn seems to labor under this assumption?
If just one gay kid, reading your rants, gets the idea that condoms are no good, so what’s the point, and gets out and has unprotected sex and becomes HIV positive, I say you’ll have it on your conscience.
If you think this is what I support, then clearly you haven’t been reading. A kid reading what I write would see that I see a better alternative…to what you apparently think is “good enough” and may begin to spread that message to change some minds. Now what will be on your conscious after the young gay man contract HIV anyway or perhaps herpes or HPV because somebody bare balls made contact with their skin while engaging in standard “safeR” sex?