RELATED:

"our favorite geriatric temptress"

HAHAHAHHAHA! You guys are hilarious--a pleasure to read every day.

--Joe

Ummm... I think the fact that you did well in school has nothing to do with dumb decisions in life. That's like saying, "Oh, I'm sure he's really smart! He is the president of the United States after all!"

I have only performed bareback sex in videos which were done with disease free models whose tests were recent and verified."

Leo, surely you are aware that HIV may take up to six months to show up on a test. You being such a genius and all.

I"m sorry but the claim of "naivety" doesn't quite fly with me. Anybody who is comfortable enough to be filmed having sex (gay sex at that) has to have at least some basic awareness of safe-sex. Leo didn't look like he just turned 18 in his BB vids and since he brought up his MCAT-scores he is obviously intelligent enough to get a bachelor's degree ...so he has to at least know that condoms=safer sex, no condoms=unsafe. This just seems like damage control so as not to hurt his commercial-viab ility as a sex-performer....he/his agent are probably wanting to capitalize as much as possible on his appeal and probably didn't realize when he started that he would become "the next big thing"?!

I don't know Vince Ferelli. As far as I can remember he's never applied to my site. And if he had I would have offered him a job with or without condoms because in the picture above he looks hot. I do not shoot exclusively bareback scenes. In fact, go to my site and you'll see that the 8 most recent scenes are not bareback. I shoot the scene bareback if the model is comfortable with it. I do explain that because it sells better that they will get paid more. But that's fair, right? And they are informed of the risks. Many have said no. Hence the condoms in the scene.

And Will, you need to be a bit more informed. The test you are mentioning is the Elisa antibody test. We use the porn industry standard PCR/DNA test which reduces that window down to 7-10 days. Is there a risk? Yes, but it is minimized. That's why all the straight porn stars aren't coming down with HIV. For more information you can go to the Adult Industry Medical Clinic web site and learn about how the porn industry should test (not all studios do). http://aim-med.org. Leo does, in fact, know what he's talking about.

As for Leo, he was given all of the information just like all the models. There was never any pressure to do bareback sex. If he had insisted on using a condom we would have. The fact is that a lot of straight guys hate wearing condoms. And since they are doing a straight scene for my Straight Guys for Gay Eyes web site they understand all of the details and feel comfortable shooting a TESTED bareback scenes.

And by TESTED I mean through the AIM clinic and not the ora quick test, or even the antibody test. Every model who has shot bareback with a stranger has been tested. The exception are guys who are lovers and normally fuck bareback. But believe me, I was shocked when Rusty Stevens told me about the first 5 bareback scenes he did for a studio when he first started out where did no testing - period. He was never informed by this studio of the risks and I do not condone any one from making money from a scene where HIV is likely to be transmitted. Rusty was very, very lucky. I do explain the details to all of my models and I pay for their testing through the AIM clinic, which isn't cheap.

What I find sad is that gay men have become about as judgmental as the Christian far right. "Gay men should not be allowed to watch other gay men have natural sex." No, we must wear a condom! Why, to educate everyone who's already been educated? I produce adult entertainment and I believe that gay men have as much a right to view condom free porn as straight men. Don't know about anyone else, but when I'm trying to get off a "friendly reminder" about HIV is not a turn on. Hey, is anyone complaining that Leo fucked a girl without a condom? No, that's ok. "But he'd better not fuck a gay man without a condom." Doesn't anyone see how anti-gay this discrimination is?

I know it's controversial in the gay community, but the porn community should not discriminat against models because of how they chose to do a scene, as long as they've done it like Leo and all my other models, with industry standard testing. Why is Leo's career in jeopardy? Because he's being discriminated against. And that's not fair. Chi Chi didn't discriminate against Jeremy Bilding when he signed on as an exclusive. Anyone want to talk to Jeremy about how much "pressure" I put on him to do bareback? I'm not shooting naive boys. These are men. They aren't stupid. And they're informed.

Jake Cruise, thank you for that information. You're right, I should have been more informed about your testing procedures before spouting off.

However, I would point out that with the sexually active lifestyle many of your models lead, a 7 - 10 window is not by any means risk free. As long as they are all made aware of that risk, and there is no "pressure," then I would agree that it is their INFORMED decision to make. I choose not to watch videos in which all steps have not been taken to minimize risk as much aa possible.

Just to be clear, by "as much as possible" I mean with condoms. Barebacking in general does not fall into the "minimized risk" category for me.

A friend of mine is an independent porn producer for the sake of this discussion I won't name him. He also recruits young off the street performers. He also is insistent that any video produced by his studio is condom only.

He was telling me that the investors who provide the money to film a new picture will invest far more into a barebacking film than a condom film. the investors say that BB's tend to sell better. Anecdotally I look at the help space given to bareback films 8 years ago compared to now and I would agree that they sell well.

In Jake Cruise's response to this thread he claims no pressure is put on performers. Yet Cruise does not answer the charge that he pays performers more money if they bareback.

A few years ago I was speaking to a friend who was a retired porn actor about this. There are a good number of well known porn stars who had been making condom only films and then started making BB films. Why would an established star do this?

My friend claimed 2 reasons. First amongst the condom using porn stars there is much more HIV than the industry like to admit. When some condom only producers discover a performer is positive many times they will use them less if use them at all. Barebacking gigs may be the only offers they are getting.

Secondly with established names, the barebacking productions pay considerably more for a start to go condomless.

The claim that there is "no pressure" is B.S. With the advent of cheap pro-sumer high-def video equipment and laptop editing, there are more would be production companies in the market than ever before. The flood of these cheaply produced amateur films chips away at the sales of the big studios. If the money people offer more to make bareback films there is enormous pressure on the studios to make them.

Whether Jake Cruise is offering an extra 0 to a dumb naive kid who desperately needs money or an extra 00 or more to an established star whose other offers have been slowing down. The false sense of security by testing and promises that a costar is negative is pressure as well. How many gay men do we all know who were infected by someone who was just tested and identified as negative?

Personally I think the greatest offense of BB films is not the risk to the performers but to the viewers.

A large number of porn actors also work as escorts. The offers they get from wealthy clients dwarfs the offers from the studios. This is why so many condom only porn stars are positive. Also the total number of porn performers compared to the entire gay male population is insignificant. Even if no studio used condoms and new performers had a 70%+ risk of becoming infected on the set, filming a porn movie would have no statistical impact on the spread of HIV nationally.

However when young gays see twink performers having sex on film without condoms. When they see producers like Jake Cruise evagelizing on how there performers ARE protected by testing and the honesty that a performer did not BB in the time since the test. When that young kid sees far more unprotected sex being celebrated and less and less safe sex messages....what happens?

Is it any coincidence that the rise in new infections amongst gay men 18-20 is coinciding with the rise in bareback porn?
Jake Cruise crime is less than the handful of actors he puts at risk while filming. His real crime is the thousands of young gay men he puts at risk when he peddles this crap.

Porn Lover -- Thank you for your post. Perfectly said. Jake Cruise can talk about testing until the cows come home. But the reality is that the young men watching his videos are not reading his disclaimers on his website, are not asking their partners for their "verified" AIM tests and have not read Leo's regret about performing in bareback movies.

I'm sure as Jake Cruise reviews his bank statements he finds new ways to rationalize bareback sex. May he rot in hell.

Just for the record there are scenes a performer can do at Jake Cruise without barebacking. Leo had already shot several videos with Jake, non of which were bareback, when I worked with him in June. Vince came along several months later and he was relatively new. Vince got the same advice I tell every new performer that wants to make a career in video - you can have a great career without shooting bareback scenes. I worked with Rideout and Rockway early in their careers and they've become big stars without barebacking. Everyone makes their on choices. Vince is a hunk and I wish him the best and a long career in porn. Hopefully I will get a chance to work with him in 2009. Happy New Year to everyone. Jon Royce

I am the one who started this thread on queermenow lol