Mar
26
Falcon Isn’t Going Bareback (Really)
March 26, 2008 | 29 Comments
[Edits, 03/27/08.] The other day we posted a sexy snap of newbie Dylan Saunders (which you folks loved) from Falcon Studios’ FLEET WEEK (scroll down or click here). I included a link to the hardcore trailer on Falcon’s website (click here) which includes Josh Weston taking a thick, wet, splashy facial from Tristan Jaxx, as well as Erik Rhodes lapping up Jude Collins‘ copious spooge. Well, that did it. A vocal contingent of our readers took this as proof that the venerable studio was thisclose to dropping their condoms-only policy. (Same thing happened over at GayPornBlog.com.) There have been rumors about Falcon deciding to produce and/or distribute a bareback line for months now (click here for the official denial we got back on January 2) and the cum-eating in this trailer put fuel to the fire again. We had a major director complain bitterly that Falcon’s re-intoduction of oral cumshots is opening the door to condomless sex. Our colleagues at The Sword got Falcon CEO Todd Montgomery, as well as other industryites, on the record. (One of them is the person who complained, off the record, to us). Click here for the scoop…
For quite some time, this was verboten. Then, a few years ago, directors Blue Blake and Gino Colbert riled up the biz when they began including oral cumshots and cum-eating in their films. Lucas Entertainment and Raging Stallion Studios have also routinely included the practice in their films, although The Sword quotes Raging Stallion’s Chris Ward as noting they only film cum-eating and the like if the models request it.
Channel 1 Releasing’s Chi Chi LaRue disproves and says she edits out oral cumshots√¢‚Ǩ‚Äù”Don’t say you’re for safer sex and then film oral cum shots. Studios that film oral cumshots, they’re trying to be on both sides of it”√¢‚Ǩ‚Äùwhile Titan Media’s Keith Webb considers filming them “without AIM standard testing, at the very least” a “slippery slope” as well as “unacceptable and unethical.”
Mr. Montgomery is standing firm, citing strong sales for FLEET WEEK. “People in this industry can read the tea-leaves any way they like. Falcon Studios isn’t doing bareback and our core brands will never be bareback,” he says. “People should be careful when they get on their soap box√¢‚Ǩ‚Äùit can come back to bite you.”
I want your point of view on this. Are oral cumshots “unethical”? Are studios playing it both ways when they take a stand on safer sex but also include cum-eating in their films? Are studios painting themselves into a corner by shooting sex scenes that don’t allow a drop of semen anywhere a mouth or rectum? I wonder if this isn’t an overreaction to the continued popularity of condomless sex. Thoughts?
TheSword.com: “‘Fleet Week’ Fuels Rumors, But Falcon Not Going Bareback”
GayPornBlog.com: “Here’s Cum in Your Eye: Falcon’s ‘Fleet Week’”
Comments
29 Comments so far
“Our core brands will never be bareback” isn’t exactly a denial. I’m on Falcon’s side, actually, but statements like this don’t help matters.
God, I’m sick of this shit. Pretty soon the only acceptable porn will be tea and crumpets and extended fucking pinkie fingers. YOU ARE FILMING MEN HAVING SEX THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A RISK. What’s next? No blowjobs? There’s some risk there, you know. There’s some risk WITH a condom. You can’t eliminate every bit of risk, you just can’t. And why isn’t anyone stopping the sale of pre-condom movies? Bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Anon 3:55 is right…where are all the complaints about precondom movies?
Call it hypocritical if you want, but if I have to put up with condoms, at least give me a facial every now and then. Jesus. It’s enough to make me just rent straight porn from now on.
well, i contacted some of the studios who have a no bareback policy but are releasing pre-condom porn (in some cases going the extra distance by putting words like ‘RAW’ in the new title) = their response? Pre-condom porn has “historical significance” and therefore is OK by them. I guess they figure that guys watching porn movies pay extra special attention to the dates of production. Hypocrites is right.
i agree if people like chi chi care so much for safe sex then stop caring pre condom titles.
All oral scenes include the ingestion of some pre-cum and/or cum, and I’m sick of Chi Chi and others pretending otherwise. I have no objecion to releasing old pre-condom titles, I just find watching them to be too sad to be arousing.
This was covered in Damon Kruezer’s exclusive interview with Todd Montgomery last week.
You used the exact same photo for Fleet Week that Kruezer’s had up for a week now.
Time you acknowledged Mr. Kruezer as your industry peer if you want us to respect you and believe you’re fair and balanced.
Are you Mr. Adams?
The crazy part is the “safER” sex militia don’t realize that their HYPOCRISY is going to be their WORST fucking enemy. They’d save MORE lives by stopping the lies and hysteria and reminding people that condomless sex CAN be safe under certain circumstance hmmm much like a condom is safe but only under certain circumstances. But no, they say do as I day, meanwhile DOING otherwise. My friends, THAT’s what’s going to make people act rash, disregard ALL advice and engage in condomless sex dangerously.
can this ‘kreuzer stalker’ please quit…would be a relief
If the directors wanted to be completely safe, then they should do blowjobs with condoms as well. But that simply won’t happen, despite the fact that HIV can still be transmitted this way. I think it’s up to the performers, really, if they want to open their mouths during a facial or go back for seconds post-orgasm.
It should be noted that Chi Chi’s the director who has his performers simply stand and jerk off usually instead of actually reach orgasm together with their partner. Talk about a mood killer!
And no, Will, not all oral scenes feature ingestion of pre-cum. Not all men can pre-cum.
I’m as disgusted by this as many you appear to be. It makes me sick to read the justifications for carrying pre-condom movies and making anything less than 100% safe sex movies today. It’s so ridiculous and obscene. HIV is awful. It hasn’t changed. My partner is a therapist to many many recently HIV diagnosed clients and they are morally, physically and psychologically destroyed. It is not a ‘little thing’ it is life changing in the worst way possible and IT’S AVOIDABLE. I don’t get this death threat gay men have. Yes, death threat. They are playing Russian Roulette and it’s partial self-hate and sometimes, the meth addiction. Facing that head on with compassionate but ruthless tactics is the key…it’s hard to enjoy jerking off to porn anymore! Everyone is drinking spunk and taking unprotected cock up the ass…it’s like we long for 1976 and boys…THOSE DAYS ARE GONE. I makes me so mad and sick. If you wanna fuck (and God bless you for it) PUT A RUBBER ON THE DICK. End of story.
Ultimately the consumer has the final say in this argument. From the real guys I talk to about this subject, I get the feeling that the community has just grown complacent with safer sex. That’s why we have turned barebacking into a fetish rather than recognizing it as a health risk. Its not just HIV, you can also get Hep C from having unsafe sex… and there is currently no vaccine for Hep C.
My personal feelings aside, we can all bitch at the studios for where they each draw the line of prevention… but as individuals WE make the choice where we spend that dollar. I say that as the sales of barebacking porn continue to rise… if there were no longer a market this argument would be moot.
As we all try to figure out what works for us… my hope is that we don’t lose sight of the most important goal: stopping the spread of HIV. Regardless of what seems hot in moment… if youre HIV Negative always use a condom. It’s the only way to be sure you’ll stay that way. Until there’s a cure.
Get the facts at howiroll.info, a free site I created because I want to see an end to HIV in my lifetime.
Casey Scott — I agree with everything you say, but remember with HIV the tiniest microscopic amount of semen can potentially be as deadly as a mouthful. I’m just trying to understand where Chi Chi and others decide a line must be drawn, and why.
Steve…
You are to be commended. What a great site. You really need to push this into the gay centers as much as you can. I’m sure you’re already doing that, but you’ve really got something great there. You are doing the True Good Work. Thank you!
Critical Eye seems to want to be in denial of the facts. This is a factual blog called “hard news” and the fact is that Damon Kruezer scooped everyone on this story and its lead-in. Or has JC Adams interviewed Todd Montgomery recently as Kruezer did?
No, I didn’t think so. You have to give Kruezer the respect he’s earned or else just admit you’re a bigot for some undefined reason. I doubt if Damon cares though, he’s unquestionably got some of the biggest names in the industry talking with or working with him directly or indirectly. I guess they know something you don’t! LOL
“It√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s the only way to be sure you√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll stay that way”.
Does lying get you off? You can pretend that condom is a magic bullet all you want, but the fact remains that you are not screwing ALONE. You’re doing it WITH another person and you are required just like a person doing it without barrier to ascend your faith to another person. Have you ever heard of chicks in ostensibly trusting relationships poking tiny holes in condoms to get knocked up? That’s just ONE example (involving the corrodible condom) showing the ignorance of believing that if you got rubber, you’ve got no fears. It ain’t cast iron, buddy. If you’re with a SOB with that doesn’t care about your health, you’re with with a SOB that doesn’t care – condom present or not.
I stand corrected and change my statement to “its the most effective way to prevent HIV.”
What you should know is condoms are 98% effective when used properly. Those are damn good odds! Always check the expiration date and use compatible lube and lots of it, just to be smart.
As for poking holes in condoms as to purposely infect someone with HIV. Isn’t that just a bit paranoid? Sounds more like a plot from a movie thank a situation most of us might run into.
But just in case carry your own condoms and that should solve that issue. -Good grief!
Babe, it’s no more PARANOID than thinking ALL incidents of condomless sex are “health risks”. You are unsurprisingly calm and collected when it comes time to rationalize a choice you made.
When taking the proper precautions that anyone (even those using condoms) should take before engaging in sex acts, which in this order include: disclosure of sexual history, testing, waiting, (if applicable) disclosure of any present sexual affairs unknown to sexual partners followed by testing and waiting again, what pray tell is the problem here if all negative parties participate in sex without a condom? Can’t think of anything, can you? The only way you could is by projecting paranoia or negative intentions on at least one of the parties..gee. much like I illustrated with the theoretical person poking holes in condom. It goes both ways. And I’m sorry Steve if what I’m saying is causing you grief. But I have zero freakin’ tolerance for the propaganda I’m seeing that rests upon sloppy thinking.
Lee.
Although I still think your scenarios are a little paranoid and likely- I one thing I can’t say about you is that lacking intelligence. You seem like a smart guy who’s informed… and its good when people keep me on my toes, so thanks.
I stand by the guidelines on my site at howiroll.info. These were written by the STOP AIDS Project of San Francisco because I don’t pretend to public health expert.
Personally I do disagree with your calculated risk scenario though. With most HIV tests, as I understand, there is a window of 1-3 months when the HIV virus may be present but yet undetectable. A person may be infected and still not yet know it until their next test. If two negative guys sero-sort and then bareback this is a very likely scenario for sero-conversion. Rather than a deviant that purposely infects others by poking holes in condoms… I think it is more likely that person might accidentally infect another trusting that their status is negative. Because of this indeterminate window, this is why the recommendation for ‘negative’ guys is to always use condoms, to be most sure.
Thanks again for keeping me on my toes, I admire your spirit. And I encourage you, if you don’t already… to use it in some way in the community. We may not agree, but the more of us out there doing our part to stop the spread of HIV, the better.
Best to you.
SC
correction: Although I still think your scenarios are a little paranoid and UNlikely- I one thing I can’t say about you is that you lack intelligence.
GRAMMAR?!! LOL!
Greetings from Germany.
Well, actually I do not get the point. Do you all really believe that people at home have safe sex when the gay porn movies they watch only show safe sex? And do you really believe that people change their behavior because they watch bareback movies.? I am sorry, but this really makes me laugh.
I personally think that today the influence of the gay porn industry in the sexual behavior of the people is far less influential than you think. I do not change my sexlife just because I see a bareback movie.
There was a time when it was important to show the gay community that you can have safe sex and still have fun.
Today people know that bareback is dangerous and will kill them and they know that they should practice safe sex, even if they watch bareback movies. I certainly do.
But there are two additional points I would like to add to the discussion:
1. If bareback movies in gay porn really will be accepted, who will protect the models being forced to make bareback movies to make a living and risk there life?
2. Is it not more dangerous to present people movies as safe sex movies and then use unsafe practice and create a wrong impression of safe sex which is not true?
“Rather than a deviant that purposely infects others by poking holes in condoms√¢‚Ǩ¬¶ I think it is more likely that person might accidentally infect another trusting that their status is negative”.
No, what you “think” is that essentially there is no way for anyone to claim will full certitude that they are HIV negative. Be honest. When you cut out the bs, that’s ultimately what you are saying – that anyone having sex without condoms and remaining HIV negative does so in spite of their precautions, (luck basically, hence the ignorant phrase calculated “risk”) not because of them. But what you are saying is not supported by medical fact or common sense. There is no hesitation to talk about the “need” to “educate” on proper use of condoms, but so many want to pretend that there is no proper way to have sex without condoms. I can only chalk it up to propaganda.
BTW, observe that you completely omitted the disclosure part and disregarded that order that I suggested. You’re not even replying to what I said when you do that.
claim “with” full certitude.
i noticed that nobody has mentioned the fact that Josh Weston did a bareback title and now has done another Falcon title. Does that bother anyone?
Uh, do they even test the actors? If not, why should that fact bother anyone more?
I think companys that proclaim to be CONDOM only if they then switch to facials, cum swapping, or anything close should take the next step and require A.I.M testing of ALL talent and for it to be updated every 30 days just as they do on the “straight” side. I really wish that companies would go this route whether condom or not.
Amen Wendy!