May
20
Marco Paris, Josh Weston Go Condomless
May 20, 2008 | 67 Comments
Certain factions of GayPornLand appear to be up in arms again over the issue of condomless sex. Last January (click here), I wrote about popular hotbod Josh Weston, a high-profile former Falcon exclusive, signing on with SX Video to film BODYBUILDERS BAREBACK. His decision to do so angered the safer-section faction in gay adult who felt Mr. Weston’s popularity could induce fans to go condomless in their private lives. And I took some heat for writing about it; as if ignoring the movie would make it go away. Some of our Constant Readers may already know about SX Video’s new BAREBACK POWER BOTTOMS, which features the return of Mr. Weston alongside another fan-favorite performer: Marco Paris, both of whom are gang-banged by seven African-American topmen. (This is actually Mr. Paris’ second condomless film with the studio.) I think some would have preferred a quiet distribution, but an SX Video press release has stirred the pot. √¢‚Ǩ≈ìIt used to be that the models were hesitant to do bareback because non-bareback studios threatened them with boycotts and some were downright hostile,” SX director Ben Baird is quoted as saying. “The consumer has spoken though, the bareback market is growing and models have more choices.” I’m writing about this because I want the industry to get beyond finger-pointing and temper tantrums. Ignoring bareback films and studios won’t make them disappear. Chime in below and let’s talk about what could or should be done, and what we as an industry can be doing better.
Comments
67 Comments so far
Wasn’t it Hot Desert Knights that said they were going to institute a testimg program for all models? At least that’s something. I know it’s not the only issue here, but if these bareback producers want to gain some respect from the rest of the industry and consumers, why don’t they publicly state what policies they have in place to insure the safety of the models? Until they do, they will remain pariahs, I think for a very good reason.
Josh Weston should have stayed retired and Marco Paris should have known better.
Josh Weston should have stayed retired and Marco Paris should have known better.
As long as the Blk dudes have BIG DICKS..i don’t care:-))
actually it IS sick….to this we’ve come..oh my
Marcos Paris has done more than a couple bareback videos in the past (Bareback Gangbang, L.A. Lovers Bareback, and Bareback Studs.) He did them under the name “Justin T.” and they’re all pretty good.
I always thought that it was silly when Carlos Morales was doing “under-the-table” bareback movies using the name “Ricky Balboa”. Just be honest. And kids … *don’t* try this at home.
I think it was Jeff Palmer (remember him) who blazed this trail,,The career trajectory of a porn star…
1. Launch as a Twink w shaved pubes for a heavy breathing “Uncle”
2.Re Launch after 12 months heavy gym work at Falcon,Titan,Hot House et al
3.Exclusive status awarded by major studio,,,
coast for two or three years making lackluster porn while faking it and collecting your check…
4.Released from Contract (we wish _______fill in the blank) great future success!
5.Resurface at SX video (known locally as “SX means it SUXX”)where the retread (ex star)gets fucked bareback by whatever and whoever SX roundsup at “Club” San Diego!
Regardless of what people are gonna say,there has to be a reason why these porn stars are going the bareback route.Take Josh Weston for example.When he was with Falcon,he wasn’t your typical circuit boy doing steriods(the stereotype that was prevalent at that time)Josh was an intellectual guy with a dry sense of humor.When Josh resurfaced at COLT/Buckshot he had become a cookie cutter version of himself.Gone was the alabaster skin,replaced by a tan and muscular physique.Josh once said that he would never cave in and be tanned.What happened to him? And for Josh to suddenly go bareback? We can all speculate from when Michael Lucas came out and said Johnny Hanson was HIV positive when Johnny chose to do a bareback movie after doing a Lucas movie.We all know Dawson is HIV+
Thats just my opinion.
So, let me know what the problem is with HIV + performers having bb sex with other HIV + performers. These are big boys. They can really have whatever kind of sex (on or off camera) they want. (Myself included here) I don’t think the performers are really concerned with being ‘morally responsible.’ That’s not our job. This is pornography, not sex ed. And as far as producers seeking ‘respectablity’ in the industry…I can tell you that’s reeeeeeeallllly NOT what they’re looking for in making these movies
To each his own. Sexual desires and practices are personal. No one has any business trying to dictate how another has sex.
If you don’t like somthing then avoid it but certainly do not think your opinion matters more then anothers and try to lessen them.
There probably is nothiing intrinsically wrong with HIV+ models having bareback sex together on film. Has Dino Phillips ever said publicly that that is his company’s policy, and that he tests to make sure HIV- models aren’t involved? I’m not that tuned in to the industry, so he very well may have and I just am uninformed.
We (of course) only put + performers with other + performers, and – with -. If they’re neg, we require recent proof of status. I think most of the models nowadays doing bb are +. I don’t advise any neg model to do bb porn (or bb off camera) if they wish to stay neg because of the risk, but there are guys out there who would rather bb and take on that risk rather than use condoms. I’m not saying it’s the smartest thing in the world to do, but everyone’s entitled to make their own choices and live their lives however they choose.
Dino Phllips – Thanks for that (quick!) response. Only one question left from me: If you don’t approve of negative guys having bareback sex, why facilitate it?
Well, like I said, it’s up to them to have whatever kind of sex they want to have…and when you think about it, if you take two negs and put them together you can’t get a poz
[Two -'s don't make a +]. I just hope they’re careful in real life. We can have them provide status results on the set, but in real life I doubt they’re carrying around they’re status papers. It’s done all the time in the straight industry. Performers provide their status results and have bb sex all they want.
These are grown ass men having grown ass sex. If you are negative and have bareback, you know the risk. We all fuck at our own risk. Some of us are comfortable at a higher risk level than others.
The gay community is are some hypocrits…i’m sure if a survey was 2 be taken as 2 how many of these same guys will watch a bb movie..they would not be honest!
I have to laugh, or I should say cry, when I read some of this nonsense. Did something change and I missed it? Can a person who is + not pick up a different strain of the virus?
It boggles my mind. What is going on here is guys trying to rationalize their stupid behavior. Mr. Adams, if you had any courage whatsoever, you would simply not run anything
about BB porn. That would be the responsible thing to do. However, it seems like you are bowing to the almighty dollar and selling out the lives and health of your gay brothers – be they + or -.
Greg – Right you are, of course, about picking up different strains, but I think the emphasis should be on keeping negative guys negative.
The bareback “debate” is essentially over when you put this url http://falconraw.com/
in your browser you can see the “Majors” are just “biding their time”
Greg what you propose didn’t work in 2002-03 when Cobra Video & Tippo Sisso started Bareback Twink porn in the USA. Where was the condemnation then?
Where the Bareback studios shamed out of buisness for putting 18-21 young men at risk?
No..
Its over!
Absent another outbreak or another plague the Bareback debate is finished!
Like everything in America the market has voted and they want Bareback
The dollar knows no morality or ethics,,,
we learned that in Frosh Economics.
Just to clarify I am not Pro Bareback I have certainly blogged enough and caught flack for my stance. We lost the bareback wars and I think that is sad.
DeWayne – Never give up fighting for what you think is right.
Sorry, J.C., I just think that it has become “old fashioned” to wear condoms for some people, for some reason or another. I was looking through older Adam Gay Video Directories and even the low-budget kink videos advertised therein didn’t go condom-less. It was just a stupid thing to do. Now, because HIV can apparently be contained with massive doses of medication, people don’t seem to give a shit or consider it a threat any longer. I’m 24, and I don’t think that very many gay men in my generation have seen someone with a body destroyed by HIV. I can say that I personally have NEVER seen the damage HIV can do; that doesn’t mean I don’t still consider it a major epidemic, but you have to wonder how many young gay men, introduced to the gay lifestyle as they are coming out, are learning “how to be gay” by watching the widespread bareback video plague. These kids don’t know any better, and this may explain why I do know a number of gay 18-to-24-year-olds are + already. Part of this may be a lack of cohesion between members of the gay community in this day and age; sometimes it seems that we just don’t care that much about each other beyond the bedroom. There isn’t the sense of urgency or brotherhood one would feel in the 70s, as we were fighting for recognition, or the 80s, as we stood together to force conservative America to open their eyes to the AIDS epidemic. I just don’t know what happened…
Dino, for someone who worked in the “condom-mandatory” 90s and who may very well have first-hand experience of the virus, one would think you would be very aware of the risks of continuing to have unprotected sex with another HIV+ person even if you are HIV+.
Saying that “people can make their own decisions” is neglecting the fact that sometimes those decisions hurt other people. I’m thinking of Ashton Ryan, who went bareback and then lied about his status and then infected several other young men. Even testing isn’t 100%. You can take a test, have bareback sex in your personal life, receive the results saying you’re negative, shoot bareback videos, then 3 months later you’re +. The best way to save your own goddamn life is to sheath your cock! IS IT REALLY THAT MUCH OF A HASSLE?? REALLY???
To end this very long comment (!), I don’t see the industry self-regulating itself or banding together to do anything substantial to decrease the distribution and availability of bareback videos (something the Adult Film Association of America would have done years ago, but there’s no such unifying organization existing in the gay porn world today), so the last resort may be to get the government involved. But if the straight world can still do it without issue (let’s just ignore the widespread AIDS breakout on that side of the fence a couple years ago), then the gay world can, too. Sorry to be a downer, but the dollar has indeed spoken. Chi Chi can keep doing those silly “Wrap It Up” promos, Steve Cruz can spend his own money and time running his wonderful Safe Sex website, and Francesco D’Macho can continue making heartfelt videos pleading with people to “use a fucking condom”. The tides seem to have turned, though, unfortunately.
“So, let me know what the problem is with HIV + performers having bb sex with other HIV + performers.”
I’ll tell you exactly what the problem is.
A) as Greg pointed out, reinfection.
B) the example you’re setting to your viewers.
“If you take two negs and put them together you can√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t get a poz [Two -√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s don√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t make a +].”
And this? Making a joke out of this subject? makes we want to threaten things you’re probably not allowed to over the internet.
maybe its john rutherford who drives all these pornstars into barebacking! jeff palmer and now josh weston? coincidence? i dont think so!
I was gonna say Rutherford’s long gone, but I guess he was still there when Weston started (though it’s still a stretch!)
OH, SORRY, you mean at Colt. Never mind.
never fails that the queens come out in droves with their fake rage whenever this issue comes about. and the same ol’ shortsighted bullshit in the guise of concern is touted every time. anytime you will tell someone that the solution to the hiv problem is to slap on a condom and have fun as if that is the problem not their devil may care attitude to their own and others’ hiv status then you have serious balls to utter the word responsible. how’s this food for thought. since you think a condom is a solution to the hiv problem because it “lowers” risk, then lets expand on that logic. straight caucasian sex in the usa is the loooowest risk sex of all sex, especially gay sex. now why don’t you doubletalkers go find yourselves a white lady to fuck.
Wow, Lee’s was one of the most cogent responses on this topic I’ve ever seen. However, that policy on being open and honest with your (potential) partner(s) was dismissed in the early 90′s under the premise that it would lead to blatant discrimination against poz guys. So, instead of working to foster an environment of education, responsibility and care, gay society chose condom use. Not even educated condom use… Chi Chi thought we were all too stupid to know you had to talk before you fuck. I guess that doesn’t make for any more an interesting porno than watching the guys put on a condom, hence the “magic condom” decried so often.
Did you know that condoms have never been approved by the FDA for male-to-male contact? Can the government require the use of a device that has not been FDA approved for the specific application? Perhaps anal sex on the porn set will be a thing of the past. Afterall, condoms don’t work (according to the religious right and hence the government).
Moreover there is no consensus on oral sex and whether the virus can be transmitted through oral contact. So I guess blowjobs on the porn set are a thing of the past.
Certainly rimming is a problem, as the virus can be trasmitted through this pathway as well. No more rimming, boys!
So look for your next new feature film from XYZ studios, Boys Waving At One-Another from Across the Room!
finally, someone willing to scratch beneath the surface.i don’t hate hiv positive people, but it’s fucked up that sparing them from sexual discrimination trumps sound sexual policies. warped priorities, it is. the cart does not go before the horse, people. what’s really fucked up is that all the groaning about bareback is misdirected. it’s rightfully directed at the groaners themselves. it’s their support of the condoms that screwed shit up. beyond mystifying bareback…acting like it’s something new when it’s actually as old as people themselves, condoms bred an attidute of invisiblity, and the barebackers are doing nothing but emulating that same reckless mentality except without condoms. i bet you those angels trying to spare the feeling of hiv positive people would not have sex solely with proven hiv positive or full blown aids people.
..with condoms
Sorry lee and Jamie, despite the fact that you both write really well I’m not following you at all. You seem to be decrying the condom culture, but what are you really saying? COME OUT WITH IT! That people should stop having, or start having less, sex? I know I may seem dense to you, but if I’m not following it there must be one or two others.
ADDENDUM: I just reread your posts to see if I was missing something. Is your point that HIV+ people should be branded or forced to disclose their status? There seems to be that theme running in there too. Again, apologies if I’m just not awake yet.
ADDENDUM #2: Or is it that condoms give people a false notion of security and thus license to be promiscuous? Help me out here!
Will, this has been the problem with the Hiv/Aids and condom/safe sex vs bareback debate.
The two sides are not on the same planet!
Its Fox vs CNN they have their own belief system we have our’s!
I have read Paul Morris at TIM in the Aug 07 OUT article on Barebacking. He and his cult like followers don’t “Buy our disease mentality” they simply chose to ignore STD’s & Hiv and live in the moment as mindless sexual savages!
At least this is what I have been told on my blog whenever I run a story on Barebacking and HIV. Denial!
Okay I understand that but as someone in the middle I actually believe in facts and the notion (quaint I know) of two sides to every story.
In this debate there is only one side that of the person making the argument, we are expected to accept only two choices in our sexual life.
Bareback Sex because HIV does not exist
Or Condom Nazi/Don’t have sex be a celibate nun!
Surely there is a middle ground for the rest of us?
DeWayne – Hopefully they’ll speak for themselves, but I didn’t even fully understand that they were defending barebacking, if they were.
I get both their posts. I’m starting to think that prevention of new hiv cases is not the only agenda of safe sex/condom promotion too. I mean, it can’t be. Condoms are not 100%, even in an controlled test, so considering accidents that can happen from the interaction of human and condom or the not-so accidental and the fact (as Jamie pounted out, they’re not even tested on anal sex) into the equation, it’s definitely not 100% after that. So why promote that? Even If 99 out of 100 lives are saved, does the 1 life lost not matter? That’s what I don’t get. But, that 1 life lost would not be if they weren’t having sex with someone with hiv in the first place. That’s where Jamie makes a lot of sense. Is there some unspoken agenda to keep hiv positive people on equal standing in the sexual pool, even though their condition is a special case? Is that where the “assume everyone is hiv positive” philosphy comes from? I don’t get that. It’s not true that everyone is hiv positive, so why assume a lie? and why act like knowing who is hiv positive is an impossiblity? even if I can’t get physical test results everyday, I’m aware everyday and should know if there is some reason my last hiv test results could have changed. Why isn’t it everyone’s reponsiblity to know that like especially before having sex with someone? We could essentially be deadly weapons and only relying on an imperfect barrier to keep from affecting another person. I think everone has that reponsiblity and don’t see how just using a condom fulfills that.
Addendum: I don’t see anyone telling anyone not to have sex. I don’t get why people always say that. If you listen to Lee, the worst you’ll do is have to give up gay sex. lol
But even if that is what Jamie and Lee reccomend, it IS logical. Sex as it’s practiced now, leave everyone open to getting hiv. And it may feel worse to the one’s using protection because they stopped expecting it to happen.
Dante – Appreciate your interpretation, but I’m not going to assume anything you said is what they meant until they say so themselves.
Until then, I just have to say I find your argument ludicrous. Just my humble opinion.
Will, it wasn’t my intent to interpret for your benifit. And with all due respect, your conclusion that my “argument” is ludicrous, is incredibly lacking. And you sound just as on edge as Lee. Just MY humble opinion.
ADDENDUM: Dante, why is it you guys have such long posts but never really come out and say what you mean clearly? What is it you’re recommending? No gay sex? No condoms? Concentration camps for HIV+ people? WHAT???
You guys? I’m only me, and can only speak for me. I just agreed with them. Is that a problem?
I think you need to calm down, stop shouting and read those “long” posts again if you’re having trouble understanding. Don’t get mad with me.
Dante – I am calm as a cucumber, believe me. Only said “you guys” cause I thought you agreed with them, altnough I am still puzzled as to what it is you’re really saying.
All I’m saying, Dante, is why not state your position succinctly, clearly, and own it?
BTW, all caps is for emphasis, not a raised voice.
Is it really puzzlement or frustration because what has been said doesn’t jibe with your pre-conveived notions? I’m getting the feeling it’s the latter, so no explaining will help. I, on the other hand am truly puzzled how you think anyone said a thing about concetration camps or no sex. By all means, demonstratate that logic. Do you need to be isolated from hiv positive people to not have sex with them. I mean, be sensible.
Why must you continue lashing out at me instead of stating your case? If it helps, I apologize for the “ludicrous” comment, that was rude and beneath me. I am sorry about that. But I’m not going to go back and give my interpretation of what you said. The floor is yours if you want it, I’m just listening now.
I haven’t lashed out at you. I’m now asking questions (mostly what I did in my comment too) to faciliate your understanding. But you don’t seem interested in answering them.
All right, my friend, let’s leave it for now.
LOL. You had no intention of getting anything clarified – only to pick a fight.
Will, do you or maybe anyone else reading, think you have a valid reason to be against condonless sex in and of itself? Judging from the latest comments, it doesn’t look like that valid reason exists. Help me out here.
why oh why must these buffies play stupid? they practically want you to fucking breast feed ‘em. well, it ain’t gonna happen. yes, my dear will, i am defending bareback aaaaaaaand opposing hiv. don’t hurt yourself wrapping your condom indoctrinated mind around that.
Why in the living daylights are you so afraid to explicitly state that for the more impaired among us? Thanks for finally owning up.
If you can be bothered, I would still like to know what it is you’re recommending in real-world terms, without all the sarcasm and finger-pointing.
aw, you need help. ever taken sex ed 101, will? let me make it real easy for ya. in “real world terms”, ^^don’t do any of the shit that spreads hiv if you have hiv^^ you know, like um, show some cajones and do the responsible thing. ^^if you don’t have that shit, do what the fuck you like^^ this is like so duh, right? hehe
oh and don’t you dare ask a stupid question like what if don’t know if i have hiv. find the fuck out.
Wow! 53 posts. I think I’m going to sit this one out and go pop in a Dawson movie. Besides, I already wrote an essay long response regarding the Chi Chi Larue article, so I’m a bit tired at the moment.
tabbit – Finally saw this and thus your Chi Chi post, so see my short response there. BTW, all of these posts starting with lee are fake (mine excluded).
and sorry for typo
Very long drama playing fellas, I guess the question I have is do BB stars get paid extra or less than non BB?
If the BB has HIV + (any strand) and have BB sex with other + stars is the sex scene cheaper or +$$$$?
There must be reasons why anyone would risk BB. I like seeing BB, but I have questioned the health standard to the stars. It is their lives. Will, Lee, etc: you guys keep BLOGs alive! Sunday would be so boring without you all*
Btw, would you like to answer the question I asked to Will, JR? Are you under some impression that people have HIV econded into their DNA that would lead you call condomless sex a “risk”? Call me stupid, but I though at least one person had to have the virus plus the engagement of some specific (not all) sexual acts for there to be a “risk” of transmission, sexually.
JR – The reason any neg person would risk bareback, on film or not, is either a death wish or a fetish for risk. What other possible reasons would there be?
Bramdon – If you are a real poster, I apologize. lee, Jamie, and Dante are not, IMHO, but a well-known spammer on this site.
I only recall seeing “lee”. I’ve never seen the names “Jamie” or “Dante”.
“What other possible reasons would there be”?
Well, let’s see, they don’t like the sensation of condoms? Possibly the same reason billions of people have and always have had sex that way until rather recent. The logic you’re using to say they have a “death wish” or “fetish for risk” is very odd.
Brandon – Why do you say you don’t RECALL the others? They are right there above us! Is your computer malfunctioning? That is such an odd thing to say.
I love the sensation of inhaling cigarettes, but quit a long time ago because I don’t want to die. I am beginning to wonder about your authenticity.
“That is such an odd thing to say”.
LOL. How, pray tell is it “odd”? You said this individual (even though there are three names, lol) is a well-known (keyword) spammer on this site. Using common sense, if the person is well-known, that implies they are regularly interacted with. Hence, I said I’ve seen the name “lee” before, but never the others.
“I love the sensation of inhaling cigarettes, but quit a long time ago because I don√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t want to die”.
Bizarre analogy. Smoking, because of the chemical inherent in the cigarette are deadly by design. People that don’t die are exceptions to the rule. By rule, condomless sex will never cause someone who is hiv negative to become hiv positive. I suppose you also have issue with blood donation too since intravenous drug users also use the method of needle injection?
“I am beginning to wonder about your authenticity”.
Why, because again, anyone who disagrees with you must be “fake”. I’m beginning to wonder about your apparent insecurity.
Brandon – Go read what you said about not recalling the others. You worded it terribly, and if you meant you don’t recall seeing the others’ names ON THESE THREADS before, could you posssibly point out to me where lee has posted before? And while you’re at it, could you point out to me where you posted before this thread?
“By rule, condomless sex will never cause someone who is hiv negative to become hiv positive.”
I just don’t know if this is worth continuing with statements like that. Have a nice day.
Folks — We’re closing this thread. Thanks for participating until now.
Regards,
JCA