There are two: one exclusively devoted to male-male sex, and the other devoted to just about everything else. The producers are different, the stars are different, the stars' compensation differs, etc. Sure, the markets are not the same, but the technical elements of production pretty much are. Years ago, there was more than a little crossover among the guys. "Matt Ramsey" appeared in all male sex vids sucking dick and getting fucked while appearing as "Peter North" fucking girls and getting blown by them in hetero videos. Marc "Wallice" Goldberg appeared in hetero porn while appearing as, I think, "Don Webber" in all male porn. So why are they so separate now? Surely some girls would do scenes with tested guys who also do male-male porn, and some of those guys are hung and hot.
I would think that the initial AIDs scare seperated the two sides. Before testing and tracking going gay porn or going a guy who did gay porn may have been a stigma. By that time guys like Peter North had already crossed over. I'm sure if a female porn star wanted to work with a male porn star that did gay porn, it would be done. Jamie Summers did several straight porn movies with Jeff Stryker. But would straight male porn stars still want to work with her? This is something that she must consider. It seems more common to have a restricted list of guys a woman will work with or avoid than a specific request to work with a man. I'm sure most just work with whoever is booked, unless they don't like a specific guy. Besides, there is a large pool of available male talent and I'm sure more guys are willing to do porn. In spite of that, notice that year in, year out it is the same male talent, unless one rode in on the tail of a new female porn star and was accepted/requested by others. The market brings in and spits out new women at a fast rate, the men are props.
Pay rate difference makes sense - this is tied to sales and demand in the industry.
As for producers crossing over, I think there is enough work on the straight side that there is little incentive. Also it may not be so easy to cross over. Take a guy like Jules Jordan. He understands what some guys like to see in a woman's body and films it well. Not (I'm guessing) being gay, he wouldn't have the same understanding of what a guy likes to see about another guy. So why do it?
There are the issues of homophobia and HIV/AIDS, neither of which are conducive to a melding of the industries.
Plus, from the production standpoint:
For the most part, attempts by the straight porn industry to cross over with gay product have failed. Even Private seems to have abandoned its effort after 8 titles (there has been nothing about new titles in quite a while), most of which were really only second rate.
Those companies which started with gay porn seem to have no interest in straight porn at all. (Duh! They are usually gay men.) A very few gay-oriented companies have produced some bisexual porn that is generally much, much better than the bisexual porn produced by the straight industry. (Trannie product, which is not considered bisexual, seems to come mostly from the straight industry.)
I think the gay porn industry exists because there is an interest within the gay community in gay porn and I think that there is little (successful) gay product from the straight industry either because they don't care about or don't understand the gay market (i.e., they're exploitive or they're off target in terms of chemistry and content - but, then, so are many of the gay efforts - ).
From the performer's standpoint:
While straight men are generally welcome in the gay industry, gay men generally have no place in the straight industry. (Straight customers are seldom interested in gay action.) There are a number of straight (or bisexual) men who dabble in the gay industry, usually with alternate screen names. And there are a very few who started in the gay industry who have crossed over to the straight side, eschewing their beginnings, Matt Ramsey/Peter North being the most famous.
A more recent example is Maxx Diesel / Christian (I'm in lust!) who is very successful in gay porn and is also successful in straight/trannie titles. It will be interesting to see if he makes it in traditional straight titles. (I wish him luck but I'll miss him!)
Interesting. On a TV show there was a report of a - actually two - porn shoots in Ibiza or Mallorca. One porn shoot was about some hetero porn with two - then much hyped German; IMNSHAO unimpressive - porn-starlets and a gay porn shoot. A few scenes which of course were not explicit, but you knew the actual thing was going on, were shown. Surprisingly, while the gay shoot had no boner-growing potential for me, it definitely had "deep breath"[1] potential. The scenes from the heterosexual porn shoot had neither boner-growing potential, nor "deep breath" potential.
[1]"Deep breath" as in watching romance, passion, love, whatever.
From what I understand, the gay porn side of the industry (male/male) doesn't test the perfomers. Reason being is that they almost all have HIV. If they were to test them there would be nobody to perform in the movies because almost all of them are HIV+, so they just don't bother. Therefore, you won't find too many girls that want to work with guys that have done gay porn for obvious reasons. The only real crossover you see is in Bi/shemale videos. You see a lot of the same guys in bi videos and shemale videos, but they don't appear in "straight" movies. You'll also notice that a lot of the females that appear in Bi movies don't appear much in straight porn anymore. Usually they are older girls that can't get work in straight porn anymore so they do the Bi stuff. Girls like Saki and Sharon Kane come to mind.
Any sources or references, or is this cognition by thumbsucking?
[Link]
whooya Deactivated User
33 Posts 10/04
Posted - Nov 19 2004 : 6:13PM
There are several reasons why the gay porn coummunity does not test for std's or hiv. Yes, you do see condoms in the final produc that is released for sale but as everyone knows not everything that happens on the set that day ends up int the final product.
It is widely assumed that a large percentage of gay performers are hiv positive, but there is now way to prove that because they dont test.
The gay porn community will tell you that htere greatest fear about testing is the PRIVACY issue. It sounds like a good argument but it is utterly false.
The true reason they do not test is because if they did it would show that HIV is being transmitted on their sets. If a testing program like AIM were in place the results would surely show that there are people who begin their gay porn carreer hiv negative and are subsequently infected with HIV.
I dont see any problems with HIV positive performers working with other hiv positive performers. But how do they know who's positive or not without testing? HOw does a gay performer who is HIV negative know if the person he is working with is HIV positive?
I belive i read an article a while back in which CHI CHI LARUE stated that hiv is not being spread in the gay porn community because they use condowms.(If I am misrepresenting what chi chi said i apologize, but i dont think I am)I alos believe there was a quote in that article where CHI CHI stated "FUCK AIM"
As we all know, alot of stuff happens on set that doesnt make it into the commercially released video.
Everyone should agree that not spreading the hiv virus is a good thing. THE GAY PORN COMMUNITY HAS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER TO STATE THAT THEY ARE NOT SPREADING THE VIRUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING BECAUSE THEY DONT TEST.
Like is stated before, a testing program for the gay community would show that hiv is being spread on their sets and thay is why the powers that be in gay porn do not want testing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AIM has offered on many occasions to help the gay side of the industry establish a program to help protect their workers. They want none of it.
AIM is open to everyone. If you work in porn, gay or straight, you owe it to the people you work with to know your own health status. Yes, it is a great thing that there is alot of condom usage i gay porn, and yes it is a tragedy that they would rather remain ignorant to the truth than to take a simpole blood test and possibly prevent someone from getting hiv. VERY SELFISH INDEED
I applaud those individuals in the gay community who do tests themselves regularly, and i would encourage them to try to get other members of their community to do the same.
What you don't know CAN hurt you, and it can also hurt others. Personal responsibility is what its all about. Denial can be a deadly thing. "It wont happen to me"
wow, M.B. that is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. First of all, I have never had any kind of STD ever, nor do i plan on it. I have been tested at AIM probably 20 times this year. Also, you say that the girls who perform in bi or shemale movies are minor. Tell that to Belladonna, Ariana Jollee, Julie Night, and Christie Lee. For a "senior member" who has been on this site for a long time, you said some unresearched statements.
It is hard to cross over, there is a lot of resistance. From directors, girls, and guys. You cant fight them, you just move on. I harbor no ill will to anyone who doesnt want to work with me. It stings sometimes when the person has already worked with you and then says no, but hey, oh well. I can tell you that certain directors (Chico Wang, Skye Blue) wont hire me. I can tell you that male performers dont like me (Lee Stone, Kurt Lockwood), I can tell you agents who wont let their girls work with me (September Dawn and Stacy Valentine), and I can tell you girls who wont work with me (Tyler Faith, Cindy Crawford, Keri Sable). You just recognize the fruitlessness of changing their minds and move on.
I am in this business because I like to have sex, and I like the people, and I like the money. If there ever comes a time when I cant get any work, then I will move on to the next phase of my life. I refuse to get caught up in getting pissed off about circumstances I cant change....
whooya nailed it. The simple reason gay performers aren't tested for HIV is becuase a lot of them have it and most (not all) of performers would not be able to work any longer. It's exactly the same reason straight performers aren't tested for herpes, because most of them already have it so why bother testing for it? Get your heads out of the sand. The fact that one of the groups most at risk of HIV (gay men) don't get tested before doing gay movies is totally insane and utterly irresponsible if you ask me. The only logical explanation is that a lot of the performers are already infected. cwians, all the girls you mentioned have done shemale scenes, but probably don't do ANY scene without seeing tests first. I seriously doubt any of the girls you mentioned would do a scene with a gay male performer without seeing a test first. But the male/male porn world doesn't seem to mind shooting hundreds of movies every year without any kinds of tests. It's crazy.
Edited by - M.B. on 11/19/2004 7:46:40 PM
[Link]
whooya Deactivated User
33 Posts 10/04
Posted - Nov 19 2004 : 7:50PM
cwians, I applaud you for the fact that you test yourself regularly. YOu're obviously a very conscientious performer.
Perhaps you could shed some light on some serious issues bought up here.
What percentage of the gay porn community do you think have hiv, and if you have an answer for that, how do you come to that conclusion?
Do you think there shoud be a regular testing program for the gay porn actors? Why or why not?
Do you feel it would hurt your carreer if you became an outspoken advocate for testing in the gay porn community?
I realize that these questions may sound a little accusatory, but they are not meant to be. I just think they are good queations, and you're the only one on this thread that I think can give a very reasoned response.
And to answer the question as to why there are two industries, the taboo that still exists today towrds the gay community is certainly one reason, but hte main reason today is simple, HIV
P>S> there is also another issue that is very prevelant in gay porn that is virtually ignored,SYPHILLIS AND METHAMPHETAMINE. Drug use is not only a gay porn problem, but the rate of meth use among gay performers is alot higher(no pun intended)than the straight industry, which does have it's own drug problem
Actually, I suspect that most performers in the gay porn world do not have HIV/AIDS these days. However, in the mid-late '80's, that certainly wasn't the case. Back then, performers were dropping like flies. Condoms were pretty much universally accepted as necessary to protect everyone involved. There were (and still are) a few gay porn companies that bucked the convention; however, most then and now use condoms religiously.
I've been very loosely connected to a few guys in the gay porn industry for about 25 years. I knew performers then and I know some now. Most of the ones I knew then are indeed dead, some due to drugs, too many others due to HIV/AIDS. Most of those I know today are healthy. Drug use is generally down. And condom use is generally mandatory. The guys I know have no death wish: They play and work safely.
gaysatyr, thanks for the response but I wholeheartedly disagree with your assumptions. I know more than a few performers in the gay industry and there is widespread hiv and drug use in that industry. Of course I have no way to prove that, there are no statistics because there is no testing.
I will agree with you that condom usage is universally accepted in gay porn, but like I stated before, what you see in the finished product is not everything that happened on that set. There is alot of barebacking"behind the scenes" and alot of promiscuous sex outside of the industry that the perormers participate in. I know I am not endearing myself to my friends in the gay industry, but I do believe that I am telling it like it is.
It would be very simple for the gay industry to prove that hiv is not a problem in their industry, But they refuse to test, so to make any claim that hiv isnt a problem is absolutely ridiculous.
What if AIM offered to test everyone in the gay industry confidentially, using code numbers instead of names, and then just release a final report about the percentage of infected performers? The gay industry will not do this because they know the truth, and if that truth were verifiable with actual tests, the health department would have no choice but to take action to stop the spread of hiv. And the powers that be in the gay industry would be shown for what they really are: careless and reckless.(wow, i guess there are some similarities between the two industries)
p.s. gaysatr, my condolences to you for the friends you've lost to this wicked disiease. We've all lost friends and that is why we owe it to their memories to do everything we can to prevent it from happening to anyone else. I see so many in the gay porn community "mourn" the loss of so many friends and then turn right around and get involved in the same high risk behaviors that took their friends lives.
The amount of denial in the gay porn world is amazing. Their "we always use condoms" line is getting real old real fast. The percentage of hiv positive performers is testament to the fact that what theyre doing is not working, and if you're in the gay porn industry and disagree with me then you can very easily prove me wrong, but you wont because that would mean you have to be tested.
DENIAL IS AS EQUALLY DEADLY AS AIDS. I CHALLENGE THE GAY PORN INDUSTRY TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH FOR THEMSELVES AND GET TESTED. DENIAL AND IGNORANCE ARE THE TWO MAIN CAUSES FOR THA TRANSMISSION OF THE HIV VIRUS.
For the gay porn community to say that they promeot safe sex is laughable. Everyone knows that the most improtant part about being safe is knowing your own hiv status so you can pass that information on to your partner. If you don't test then you cannot give that information to your partner. HOw is that safe? And what good is a condom when it gets taken off for the money shot(usually a facial). Semen in the eye is a very good way to transmit hiv. Next time you see a gay movie and see a money shot land in the eye, say a little prayer for that guy. He just did one of the riskiest things you could ever do. I'd go over niagra falls in a barrell before ever doing that.
I agree that denial is a major problem. And I know the industry is far from perfect. I'd like to hope that there are more guys practicing safe sex than practicing unsafe sex. And I'd like to hope that most of those in the industry as performers are being careful. I do know that some are just as I know that too many others are not.
Anyway, for what little it's worth, I refuse to purchase any new bareback material. It's not much but it's about all I can do.
It is not a good idea for HIV+ people to engage in risky contact with other HIV+ people.
HIV should not be thought of as a single unique virus: rather picture it as a swarm of closely related viruses that mutate over time. There are 50+ different named clades or strains of HIV.
When an HIV+ person is re-infected they now have two different "swarms of closely related viruses" rather than just one. There's a wider range of viruses to target for treatment. There may be fewer effective treatment options, and even the best options that can be tolerated may not work as well as what worked for one or the other single-infection scenario.
"Re-infection" is the wrong word and I am drawing a total blank on the right word. So I can't search for a reference at the moment, but it's been posted here before.
Use of condoms does not drop the odds of infection to zero. Common sense tells you this: condoms break, etc.
One paper published by the CDC estimates the using condoms decreases odds of infection by a factor of 2 hex . That's at once a lot and not very much: 2 hex is 2 hex , but then again that's not a lot to a performer who shoots frequently with people they don't know. An active performer who is condom-only may well be exposed to more risk in a year than someone who does one or two bareback performances and quits.
echoing jrv's post, it's probably enough of a challenge to prevent the nasty lytic cycle where stuff ruptures and spreads with one strain. not to mention you're going to help create the terminator of retrovirii and screw the human race down the road.
[Link]
whooya Deactivated User
33 Posts 10/04
Posted - Nov 20 2004 : 3:24PM
While I agree that cross infection with hiv is a serious problem there are a few realities the porn world has to deal with.
The first is: Porn is going to be made. There will always be people willing to participate in it.
Second; Unethical people who have hiv(not all people woho have hiv are unethical) will continue to participate in the production of porn.
Because of this, I would rather have already hiv infected people working with eachother, and cross contaminating eachother than to spread the disease to someone who does not already have it. This may sound a bit cavalier, but there is no simple, one size fits all solution to this problem.
But in gay porn, they dont know who does or does not have hiv because they dont test. Right to privacy is one thing in your private life, but when we're talking about a BUISSNESS relationship(porn is a buissness,not a personal lifestyle choice) the privacy argument is just a red herring the gay community uses to keep the real truth from being discovered. That real truth is there is alot of hiv in the gay industry and alot of the spreading of hiv on gay porn sets. That's the truth that the gay porn industry is most afraid of.
The fact is if you have hiv and you continue to knowingly put people at risk,(for a paycheck) then god help you.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS HIV. YOU CAN REDUCE THE RISK BY USING PRECAUTIONS BUT IT IS NEVER EVER "SAFE"
Playing russian roullette is one thing, but putting five bullets into the chamber of a six shooter and then playing is another matter all together. That is what they do in gay porn/
The biggest fear in the gay porn industry now is the health department. With the events of last april, the health department scrutiny of the porn world is at an unprecedented level. When the health department discovers the truth about the spread of hiv in the gay industry,first amendment and obscenity laws wont mean a dam thing. And the government does not discriminate betwee gay and straight porn. To them its all the same. Its about time the straight world calls on the gay side of the industry to, and this may sound very crude, rid itself of the hiv positive performers.
1.) How do you differential between gay masturbation and straight masturbation? 2.) I thought I read somewhere that such videos exist. 3.) The real question is do any viewers want to see anal sex, not all. By getting rid of it, those viewers would have nothing to buy. 4.) Since it caters to the gay market, I'm going to guess yes, some do want to see anal sex. 5.) Why can't the same argument be applied to any sex? Disease can be transmitted through vaginal and oral sex too. 6.) This effectively destroys the straight sex movie market too, congratulations.
1.) gay masturbation: gay guys jerking off. straight masturbation: girls doing it. It's not difficult to differentiate. 2.) OK 3.) That is your question. My question is, do gay guys want to watch gay guys doing anal? As whooya stated, that's like watching gay guys doing russian roullette. Is that erotic? 4.) OK 5.) What arguement? 6.) The problem here is that gay guys don't get tested but straight performers do. Don't congratulate me, congratulate those nut heads who don't get tested and continue to perform.
1.) A handjob is not masturbation, at least not to me - somebody else is doing it, hence the seperate phrase. 2.) In spite of testing, recently performers in straight sex movies did transmit AIDs through scenes they filmed. 3.) Other STD's are not tested for and they are transmitted. 4.) Would a straight person find this erotic? 5.) You propose getting rid of anal sex in gay porn. Why not get rid of porn to stop the transmission of disease through commercial pornographic ventures? It has happened and the odds are, given time, it will happen again. 6.) Your reasoning for limiting what can or should be done in gay porn can be enlarged to get rid of all porn. That is what I congratulate.
I think there should be testing and tracking, but until society can talk about gays in a level headed manner people will believe arguements of privacy.
The above is a brief extract from a long and informative posting by whooya. Why do the ultimately released male/male videos and/or dvds not include footage of the "barebacking" that occurs on the set? Does the audience for male/male porn only want to see condoms used, and, if so, why? As a huge number of postings on this site from consumers of heterosexually-oriented porn indicate, there is a robust market for the least antiseptic material that the mind can imagine, with real interest in smashing taboos agains dirty anal, incest, etc. Is there not a similar sentiment among numerous consumers of male/male porn? I may not be expressing my curiousity clearly, but what I'm trying to understand is if the audience for male/male porn wants a tamer product than does the audience for heterosexually-oriented porn.
[Link]
DIAMOND DOG Deactivated User
"Puff Daddy is crap." - Keith Richards 320 Posts 7/04
Posted - Nov 22 2004 : 12:57AM
I think I get what you're trying to say, so let me state it another way: "If barebacking does occur 'behind the scenes', why don't they just use it in the film?" Or to add to that: "There's no law (at least not until possibly recently with the CalOSHA thing) that would prohibit Gay Stars to shoot bareback -- so if they're doing it anyway, why not just use that in the video".
Those are good questions and I have no idea why that would be the case. I just assumed that most of the main gay studios were on the "honor system" when it came to condoms; meaning they didn't have to use them, but did so for safety reasons.
But my guess is that gay men would be no different then hetero men in watching porn; thus they would prefer not to see condoms because it plays into their fantasy more.
Now this all comes from whooya, and may be purely speculation or hearsay. Maybe cwians or someone familiar with the gay side can elaborate further.
1.) I didn't mention handjob. Why do you keep intrepreting my answer in a twisted way?
5.) In fact, why not get rid of any human contact at all? After all, a flu can be transmitted without sex. C'mon, the slope is not that slippery.
6.) My reasoning is based on the fact that gay performers don't get test for HIV and other major STDs and the fact that straigh performers do. As a consumer, I find this state of affairs in the straight side satisfactory enough to keep watching straight porn. Although the porn industry will probably never come up with satisfactory enough health standards for performers (as you might say), I didn't propose any restriction to straight porn. And I keep watching straight porn. So don't congratulate me. And please DON'T ENLARGE any of my argument.
If the guys are not giving each other off, but merely jerking off, then how can you tell they are gay? Will they wear signs? The slope is that slippery, if you are familiar with Ashcroft and the portion of the Bush voter base that Rove targeted. You somehow believe that the consumer is the only one who must be satisfied that the porn industry is doing enough to test and monitor HIV. If that were the issue, then there might not have been testing on the straight porn side. It was a move to keep the government out. No, you didn't impose a restriction on straight porn, but you posed a reasoning for limiting gay porn that could be applied to straight porn. This is what the government or lawyers would do. You pose the arguement, others will do what they will with it.
I told you, I am not talking about handjob. I was talking about guys jerking off their own penis, no one else's. If you want to discuss handjob, do it with someone else.
Click to expand
croy wrote: You somehow believe that the consumer is the only one who must be satisfied that the porn industry is doing enough to test and monitor HIV.
Click to expand
WHAT? Where did I say this? To be honest, I don't think anyone is ethically satisfied with what porn is doing. I don't think what it is doing will someday become so clean that even children can watch it.
Click to expand
croy wrote: No, you didn't impose a restriction on straight porn, but you posed a reasoning for limiting gay porn that could be applied to straight porn. This is what the government or lawyers would do.
Click to expand
I don't know why you keep moving to straight porn. There is a difference: HIV test by AIM and no HIV test. Every post in this thread centers around this issue. But if you think this is negligible, then make whatever argument you like. Goverment this, Ashcroft that. Great. I don't care. But don't change what I am saying into into what you think I am implying. (If you do that, I will no longer engage myself in this childish game of argument.) Chances are, I am not implying anything.
Because homosexual porn consumers actually have sex - sex with a partner - and don't consider condoms something alien from another planet as the family-father who has only sex every 2nd saturday of the month with his wife or the heterosexual wanking nerd male-virgin does?
Well you mention nothing about testing, just getting rid of everything that is not a masturbation video. Now if you said that if the gay porn industry would not accept regular testing and tracking then they should be restricted to masturbation only, it all would have been different. Why do I move to straight porn? Because even with testing HIV and other diseases have been passed. While AIM and testing have reduced the amount chances of HIV being passed, it has not stopped it from happening. People like Marc Wallace have gimmicked it, Darren James (?) spread HIV in part because of a lack travel tracking and quarantine, and a guy like Jay Ashley will leave the country during his quarantine to circumvent it. Is AIM negligible? No, but it may not do enough. Do you think you are implying something? I just point out the logical conclusion by the people who would get rid of porn. Do you care? Never occured to me that it matters, I was just pointing out where it goes.
Huh? If you want to argue, check every post of mine. Yes, I did mention about testing. In fact, it's really hard to miss the topic of the absence of HIV testing in gay porn in this thread.
