Cocky Boys' Kyle Majors Supports Mandatory Testing & Condoms For Porn Studios
Owner of Cocky Boys, Kyle Majors, has published an open letter coming out in support of mandatory testing and condom use for California-based porn studios.
In light of an HIV outbreak in straight porn studios this summer, the California government's considering regulating the porn industry to ensure it doesn't happen again. Kyle's all for it and writes an articulate, well-reasoned defense of his position:
CockyBoys has been AIM testing almost since we started AND requiring condom usage. We pay for the AIM tests, not the models. And, we are not alone. Many web-based studios have required testing and condom usage for a long time. Bait Bus, Randyblue, NextDoorMale and Suite 703 require AIM testing. Sean Cody and Collegedudes247 require HIV testing...
I am sick and tired of the DVD and bareback guys whining over this issue. This is a situation where the industry should have banded together and self-regulated. There might have been some means of establishing "truly informed consent" that could co-exist with testing. That didn't happen. Now the only state in the Union where producing porn is clearly legal is considering government regulation - it's policing an area where the industry failed to police itself. CockyBoys approached a couple of the pro-condom DVD studios a year or so ago about creating an industry trade association and we were privately told to "not rock the boat" over bareback content. Now the government is stepping in, and frankly, it's about time.
Far from being an absolutist or self-promoting, Kyle acknowledges that condoms and testing can still be insufficient to protect porn models. He also says that even studios that use condoms have an obligation to inform their models about the real HIV-risks involved with acts (like oral cumshots and pissing in one's eyes) and to not spread untrue health information in the interest of quickly shooting a scene.
He also raises two interesting arguments in his letter. First, he equates bareback sex with selling your kidneys for cash:
There are tons of examples where the government protects us from doing something potentially dangerous for money. If you can't sell a kidney or a lung for money, it seems to me you shouldn't be able to engage in unsafe sex for money either.
But there are lots of examples where the government's completely willing to look the other way—the alcohol, sports, and war industries, for example—so that argument doesn't entirely hold water. Next he says that the gay porn industry already has more HIV+ porn stars than it thinks, making testing and condoms absolutely essential to preventing the spread of the virus:
In an insightful piece written for TheSword.com entitled, "Pornstars to Producers: Condoms Not Enough," the author highlights models' genuine concerns over the risks and the general lack of communication by studios regarding potential STD exposures. The article states that 30% of gay adult models are HIV positive. I suspect that number may be higher viewed on a studio-by-studio basis.
We're wondering how far Kyle's willing to go to keep the industry safe. Though he doesn't call for it, would it be best to not use HIV+ models at all? Should HIV+ models only be paired in scenes with other HIV+ men?
During the summer we wrote extensively about barebacking so we won't recount all the arguments and complexities here. We will applaud Kyle for working to keep porn models safe; that's something we can all agree on. We also agree that studios should be responsible for ensuring their models safety and should pay for the testing.
We also acknowledge, however, that bareback porn is a niche market that's not going away. If California decides to start regulating the industry, bareback studios will either relocate or go underground possibly making the practice even more dangerous. Kyle says that if millions of porn dollars are gonna leave California and bareback elsewhere, then maybe the feds should regulate porn nationwide. But that's a bit drastic and unlikely, we think. Obama's not even touching any gay issues, does anyone really think he'd stick his fist into the gaping butt hole that is gay porn?
We realize how high passions run on both sides of this issue. Even if pro-condom studios formed an alliance to support safe sex efforts in porn, it would draw a clear political line between studios and might even re-instate the blackballing of actors who decide to cross that line. Where would studios that do both condom and bareback scenes (like Corbin Fisher and Chaos Men) fall in that continuum? The social stakes are high and so are the profits and loyalties.
6
QC Asians
Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
So what kind of "logic" would support making condoms mandatory in porn, but not mandatory in a non-pornographic context?
"Non-pornographic context" means what?
This should be an OSHA issue. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for making sure the workplace is safe and that hazardous work conditions are abolished.
Sites like CHAOS MEN make me sad. Seems like every college-age guy eventually ends up in a "hot raw action" film. They're beautiful, young and stupid; but the proprietors are even stupider. These porn ponies make a couple of films and disappear, who knows what happens to them after that.
Good for Kyle for speaking up. The most shrill proponents of unsafe sex practices accuse me of preaching or demagoguery, but it's simpler than that: I know what happens when friends contract HIV or AIDS, the difficulties, illness, depression, worries and anger. Some of my friends who are HIV-positive are more healthy now than they've ever been, but one put it in perspective: the ticking clock of mortality is in his face and it takes up a lot of his time and energy staying well.
Barebacking is for stupid assholes.
Why is unsafe sex considered "entertainment?"
Gay "snuff films" are boring and my immediate reaction is: "These models are ignorant and foolish."
Six years ago I had a false positive HIV test. That put me through the wringer emotionally. Condoms are part of my modern gay life, the way dependable brakes are crucial to my operation of a car.
Profiting from death-defying acts shouldn't be part of entertainment, we have insurance companies for that bullshit.
Something that always bothered me is that some of these "bareback" sites claim that they are even more vigilant that "condom" sites because they use PCR testing, a form of HIV testing that looks for HIV RNA (and can thus find HIV before someone has antibodies, which an immune response could theoretically take up to 6 months).
HIV PCR testing isn't fool-proof (because if you barebacked and were exposed yesterday, you might be infected, and infectious, but there is a possibility the RNA wouldn't show), it's ridiculously expensive (compared to HIV antibody testing), and can give "false" readings at times.
Let's face it, barebacking is the "thing" now; it's what people want to see. If that weren't the case, studios wouldn't be doing it. Only the dumbest porn actor who has been living under a rock on Mars doesn't understand the possibility of HIV (or syphilis, or herpes, or HPV) risk in this world now, so anyone who walks into the situation (barebacking), seroconverts and is distraught only has themselves to blame.
That, most definitely, is a scenario of personal responsibility, and we need to accept the consequences of our actions....even if they are predicated on a paycheck from ChaosMen...
Get a grip condoms and testing only makes sense to argue otherwise is just plain capitalistic. Niche market gimme a break. I'm sure there is a niche market for snuff films maybe we should allow that as well.
"Non-pornographic context" means what?
Uhh let's see, when sex occurs OFF camera!!! You do know that sex occurs this way, don't you? And surely you also know that creating "porn" is as simple as turning that camera ON, right? Your bringing up OSHA issue is really reaching, and shows how desperate you are to get your way. I don't see you or any of the other "safety" officers yelling "OSHA" about all these fisting, pissing, and spitting videos. The fact that HIV is an issue that is near and dear to you, doesn't mean your inconsistent opinion gets a free pass. And news flash to you all, everyone WILL die. Just because your emotional immaturity leads you to believe that someone who is ill got what they deserved from being so bold as to not listen to almighty You, does not make it true. Unless you are lucky or invisible, it can happen to you too, but of course you would think you deserve sympathy in the face of the "I told you so's". Essentially a few zealots are trying to make sex without a condom into the next gay sex - an objectively immoral thing, context, motive, or details notwithstanding. It's so transparent that nothing but fear guides them.