He's HIV , Escorting, and Barebacking!?!

[OneFinger]

Last night I saw Tony Valenzuela’s one-man show The (Bad) Boy Next Door . Tony’s bio indicates he came out of the closet to his parents 4 different times when he told them he was: (1) gay; (2) HIV+; (3) a porn star; and (4) an escort.

 

The play raised a number of interesting points since Tony was the first openly HIV+ porn star. In addition, I believe he started escorting after becoming HIV+. He also indicates his preference for “barebacking” with other HIV+ partners.

 

After the Salt Lake City performance, which included full frontal nudity, there was a question/answer session with Tony. He was very up-front, out-spoken, engaging, and entertaining.

 

Has anyone else see this play or have opinions on Tony Valenzuela?

[mmk]

I have no problem with the fact that this gentleman is an escort who is HIV positive and a porn star to boot. I admire him for his honesty in revealing his HIV status up front. I would imagine that he is on the triple combo"cocktail" therapy and that he is doing very well. If that is the case, then he should be more than careful when it comes to the barebacking. Until a cure is found, it is possible that he could live decades further on that therapy but if he gets reinfected, that could blow(no pun intended) his chances right there. Like I said, I admire him for his honesty and being upfront about his status, however if he does continue to bareback on a regular basis, then where is his common sense?

[+ Lucky]

What if he just barebacks on an irregular basis?

[Guest jc92103]

Anyone who barebacks is spitting on the grave of those who have died and slapping the faces of the activists of the 80's who fought so hard for them.

[mmk]

I do not think that it matters whether he-or anyone-barebacks on an irregular basis-You are still running a severe risk. Is the sexual thrill really worth potential infection or reinfection just because you choose not to use a condom. And yes, if you are topping, there is a difference in the sensation of penetrating someone without a condom as opposed to how it feels when you do wear one and yes it does feel better without one, however, it is not worth it. It only takes one time. Like I said, I totoally respect Tony's honesty in revealing his HIV status. The fact that he is very open about it I feel shows a great deal about his character and what I feel his integrity as a human being is. I just cannot respect his choice in choosing to bareback at the possible risk of reinfecting himself.

[+ deej]

>Anyone who barebacks is spitting on

>the grave of those who

>have died and slapping the

>faces of the activists of

>the 80's who fought so

>hard for them.

 

How about the activists of the 90's, 00's, and 01's? They're still out there activisting (or whatever you call it).

 

The reason the American Cancer Society still runs heavy campaigns against smoking is that the message must never die. There's a new crop of young people every year. Sadly, HIV is no longer a message. We've become complacent.

 

And by the way, condoms were not invented to prevent HIV transmission and they were not invented to prevent pregnancy. They were invented to help prevent Syphilis infections.

 

Syphilis infections are at an all-time high in the US right now. A recent three-month period showed more infections reported than all of last year.

 

Why?

 

Bareback fucking.

 

It's just not worth it.

[N.N.]

I met Tony several years ago (not as a client). I can't say what

he does nowadays, but at the time he was serving a kind of niche

market, specifically he was willing to get fucked bare.

 

I spoke with him about a few related topics. He thought health

care should be provided to all at government expense. This

gets controversial; do taxpayers have a right to get angry when

their money pays for medical care required by dangerous

activities? Should the public pay for treatment of STDs, or

smoking-related illnesses, or even motorcycle accidents?

 

I'm not claiming to have the final answers to these questions,

but I will note that if an escort thinks the state should pay

for health care, the least he can do is pay his share of income

tax. (Most of the escorts I have discussed income tax with told

me that they don't declare their escort income.)

[Guest jc92103]

>How about the activists of the

>90's, 00's, and 01's? They're

>still out there activisting (or

>whatever you call it).

>

 

 

Yes they are and I should have mentioned them. I only mentioned the 80's because I was on the front lines during that time and watched so many from my generation pass away. All of the barebacking ads and videos you see today make me so sad. It seems as if the generation that followed us heard and learned nothing and we sacrificed so much. To see an escort in his early twenties advertise his bareback services brings me to tears. My beautiful and wonderful friends did not die so these people can amuse themselves in this way. I have met Tony many times during his San Diego years. He was a patron at a business I owned in Hillcrest. Tony was/is a beautiful and smart young man. However, his practices should be illegal and he should be punished for it. What is it that really causes one to participate in this behavior? A lack of self worth is the only answer I can come up with. The Gay community has lost its fight and settled into a lifestyle of parties and steroids. The sense of community is gone. As an early member of ACT UP I would suggest that our new breed of Gay and Lesbian leaders lead the fight for laws that would punish barebackers and the videos they produce. I know that I am not very well liked in this forum and many would wish I would join that guy from DC. These views certainly will not increase my popularity, but this is how I feel. My beautiful lover Gary and those wild and crazy guys Jon and Rob were all taken from me. I will not let anyone disrespect their memories for a sexual thrill. Please don't be too hard on me. I very much enjoy being a part of his forum and the opportunity to express my opinions.

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Differences of Opinion

 

"I know that I am not very well liked in this forum and many would wish I would join that guy from DC. These views certainly will not increase my popularity, but this is how I feel."

 

Please don't worry whether or not your opinions are popular. Keep posting. One of the values of the message center is that it is a place for differences to be expressed within a community. If everyone agreed, it would be dull (or some would say, even more dull).

[+ deej]

>These views certainly will not increase my popularity, but this is how I feel.

 

You'll get a high-five from me.

[Justice]

>All of the

>barebacking ads and videos you

>see today make me so

>sad.

 

Me too. :-( Those ads and videos also make me very, very angry. x(

 

>It seems as if

>the generation that followed us

>heard and learned nothing and

>we sacrificed so much. To

>see an escort in his

>early twenties advertise his bareback

>services brings me to tears.

 

You took the words right out of my keyboard. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

>However, his practices

>should be illegal and he

>should be punished for it.

 

Again, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

>What is it that really

>causes one to participate in

>this behavior? A lack of

>self worth is the only

>answer I can come up

>with.

 

Ditto.

 

 

>The Gay community has

>lost its fight and settled

>into a lifestyle of parties

>and steroids. The sense of

>community is gone. As an

>early member of ACT UP

>I would suggest that our

>new breed of Gay and

>Lesbian leaders lead the fight

>for laws that would punish

>barebackers and the videos they

>produce.

 

Although I hate censorship, I the producers of bareback videos should spend some time in jail. They're guilty of attempted murder, IMHO.

 

>I know that I

>am not very well liked

>in this forum and many

>would wish I would join

>that guy from DC. These

>views certainly will not increase

>my popularity, but this is

>how I feel.

 

You have no idea how wrong you are. Your views are right on the money as far as I'm concerned.

 

>My beautiful

>lover Gary and those wild

>and crazy guys Jon and

>Rob were all taken from

>me. I will not let

>anyone disrespect their memories for

>a sexual thrill.

 

I'm sorry about your loss.

 

>I very much enjoy being

>a part of his forum

>and the opportunity to express

>my opinions.

 

That's what this place is all about.

[Guest happyday]

>> To

>see an escort in his

>early twenties advertise his bareback

>services brings me to tears.

>My beautiful and wonderful friends

>did not die so these

>people can amuse themselves in

>this way.

 

Thanks for your post jc92103. These younger men have no point of reference. They did not experience what you and I lived through. There are no words to describe how terribly sad it was to watch the most important person in your life die of this dreaded disease. In the early 80's it was especially horrific since there were zero medications and little medical knowledge. It was such a God awful terrifying time. Every day of my life I worry about young gay men and the risks many of them are taking. Some of the responses to your post -- talking about privacy, keeping the government out of bedrooms, comparing smoking to barebacking-- they all missed your message. If only all of those wonderful gay men of our generation who were lost to AIDS would have had a chance to hear someone with your knowledge. I share your tears but we can never throw in the towell. We have to keep speaking out because it is our obligation and our responsibility. Don't lose your faith jc92103. Your post tonight may have resulted in someone re-evaluating. In other words you may have saved a life. What a nice thought.

[Guest]

Well, most disease is pretty preventable. If you don't pay for HIV care, should you stop paying for care of those who smoke, those who injure themselves in certain sports, and so on? How about those who don't do regular cancer screenings?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

I'm curious. To follow your point to its logical conclusion, smoking should be outlawed and obese people who stuff their faces should be jailed. Smoking causes cancer and obesity causes heart disease. Both lead to death.

 

Although smoking and being huge don't involve the participation of another person, while barebacking does, the two people are doing something they both want to do with the perils well-known to both. Why should that freedom be criminalized?

 

Let me be clear, I'm not advocating the behavior of these crack-head barebackers, I'm just pointing out the faults in your logic.

 

Contentiously yours,

 

FFF

[OneFinger]

>...He thought health care should be provided to all at government expense.

 

The subject of paying for health care did not come up in the discussions. Wish I had thought about asking because he never indicated that was his belief. Would love to have heard his response.

[Boston Guy]

To answer your question, freedom shouldn't be criminalized but some kinds of behavior should be.

 

Society has always had to draw the line between certain kinds of acceptable behavior and other kinds that are not. Your examples illustrate some of the difficulties in doing so.

 

If, instead of barebacking, the two guys wanted to use knives to mutilate each other's body, potentially requiring long and expensive hospitalization, society would probably frown on that and find it illegal. Or if they wanted to sit in a closed garage with a car running and see if they could stop just in time before actually dying, we'd probably have a problem with that one, too.

 

It's all a matter of judgment and it's often difficult to know when and where to draw a line. When an activity can have results that require society to come in and clean up the mess or pay to repair the damage, then it's reasonable for society to take a stand.

[Guest ItalianLover]

I would like to share an idea.

 

Being new , i often read and simply listen , but today i would like to say something.

 

I agree with the outrage of some for the behavior of Tony , i agree that in the 21st Century we should know better , but i also think people should be able to act as they please if they don't interfere with other.

 

The point is , there are several escorts on this board , very well liked , that have ads "somewhere else" offering bareback services. So , either way , we are all a bunch of ipocrits , or someone is using their picture , or we simply like to "see" only what we like.

 

I hope i dont sound bitter , i just wanted to share , and say that with the Net is pretty easy to snoop around , and realize that is the "same" person , even if the e-mail address is different.

 

Tony might have a questionable attitude toward HIV and the Gay Community , but at least is able to stand behind his beliefs.

 

Any thoughts ?

 

ItalianLover

[Guest TruthTeller]

>It's all a matter of judgment

>and it's often difficult to

>know when and where to

>draw a line. When

>an activity can have results

>that require society to come

>in and clean up the

>mess or pay to repair

>the damage, then it's reasonable

>for society to take a

>stand.

 

This is a very dangerous form of thinking.

 

Poor nutrition imposes far more costs to society than unprotected sex does. Bad dietary habits cause heart attacks, strokes, and exacerbate virtually every health risk. Should the government make it illegal for people to eat junk food or take their kids to McDonalds five times a week, or should the government mandate exercise, on the ground that society has to repair the damage from these habits?

 

Excess alcohol consumption imposes far more costs to society than unprotected sex does. Should the government ban alcohol (again), or make it illegal for people to have more than two drinks a day?

 

There are countless recreational activities that entail a very high risk of serious injury or death - parachuting, skiing, even rollberlading. Should those be banned too?

 

The government isn't supposed to be the Daddy to adult citizens, making sure they don't do bad things to THEMSELVES. That's what distinguishes adults and children. That's what it means to be an adult - having the freedom to decide for yourself what risks TO YOURSELF you're willing to take.

 

If you believe that it should be illegal for adults to decide for themselves that they want to have sex without wearing a condom (and how could that possibly be enforced?), then there is no logical way not to also make these (and plenty of other) "risky" activities illegal as well.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I would suggest that our

>new breed of Gay and

>Lesbian leaders lead the fight

>for laws that would punish

>barebackers and the videos they

>produce.

 

Few things are more alarming - and more shocking - than seeing gay people advocate that certain kinds of sex between consenting adults should be ILLEGAL and punished by the State.

 

How would this law making it illegal to bareback be enforced? Who is the "victim" of this crime?

 

Adults have the right to parachute out of airplanes at risk to themselves. They have the right to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or eat an unhealthy diet at risk to themselves. Why shouldn't they have the right to bareback if they want to?

 

And you think it should be illegal to make videos that depict barebacking??? Should it then also be illegal to make movies showing people shooting other people?

 

You have the right to encourage others not to take risks that they want to take. But to advocate that the Government make it illegal for them to do so is to say that you think that the Government should be our Daddies, FORCING us to avoid doing what it think isn't good for us.

 

Being a free, adult citizen means making that choice for ourselves. What you advocate is way more dangerous than all teh barebacking in the world.

[Boston Guy]

>This is a very dangerous form

>of thinking.

>

 

If, by this remark, you mean that my remarks can lead to a kind of slippery slope where the freedom of each citizen is constantly eroded, I can agree. There is that danger.

 

But the thinking behind your remarks is equally dangerous, because it can lead to a slippery slope at the bottom of which is either anarchy or a very dangerous disregard for the rules that we have decided are needed to make this collection of 270+ million individuals into a nation.

 

Which is brings us back to my point. This is not a question of them (the government) vs. us (the individuals). People often seem to forget that they are us and we are they.

 

When laws are enacted or rules or regulations created, they must necessarily be within what is acceptable to the majority of the population within that jurisdiction or they will fall, one way or another, sooner or later. That's the nature of democracy and ours seems to be functioning pretty well.

 

Government and rule-making require judgment; that's one of the main reasons why we have legislatures and judiciaries. It's entirely possible to go too far in the direction of protecting the rights of the invidual while disregarding the needs of the nation (or state or town). On the other hand, it's just as possible to go too far in the other direction.

 

Our various constitutions quite rightly value the rights of each individual very highly and even after a couple hundred years of law-making, we still enjoy remarkable freedoms. I hope it will always be so.

 

But maintaining stability so we can each enjoy our rights in peace does require that government perform a wide variety of functions. Some of these functions deal with criminal behavior and public health.

 

I happen to think the government should stay out of our bedrooms wherever and whenever possible. But that doesn't mean I support a wholesale prohibition on any law or regulation related to sex; I just want good judgment to prevail whenever possible and for the laws to respect our constitution.

 

Within that context, there's plenty of precedent for sex-related legislation that is acceptable to a broad majority of citizens. For example, we don't allow multiple marriages. We also don't allow gay marriage, which is a law that I hope will fail. But until it does, US citizens have to live within it.

 

Similarly, sex-related activities that are harmful to oneself or to other people are often prohibited. I would personally place barebacking itself outside of the activities prohibited by law but make it illegal, punishable by high penalty, to knowingly infect another person with HIV.

 

Because of our freedoms, it's easy for us to disregard laws and even break them. Many Americans do that constantly, often depending upon how seriously they view the law in question.

 

Many of us break the speed limit or don't wait at the red light at the empty intersection at 4:00 am. Many of us here have engaged in one side or another of prostitution. No completely law-abiding citizen would do any of the above and one can easily argue that doing so is just the beginning of yet another slippery slope.

 

It all calls for judgment, on the part of each individual and on the part of our legislators, judges and regulators.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

first?

 

>Tony was the first openly HIV+ porn star...

 

not for nothing but wasn't the late Scott O'Hara an open POZ porn star? actually, i know he was involved in activism/education and may have died while writing a book.

 

other out POZ porn stars i don't know about?

[OneFinger]

RE: first?

 

Jizz,

 

There certainly may have been other HIV+ before Tony. But it was his "claim" that he was the first to openly admit it and still make movies. I don't know for sure he was the first and didn't question his statement.

 

According to Tony, he had actually signed a contract with All World Video(?) and then told them he was poz. They tried to cancel the contract and Tony threatened to take them to court.

 

Prior to that, Tony said the video community practiced a "don't ask - don't tell" policy with their stars.

 

Anyone else have info on other poz actors?

[+ deej]

RE: first?

 

>Anyone else have info on other poz actors?

 

There are many, they're just not "out" about it because producers are hesitant to use them.

 

Joey Stefano was poz for quite a while and still working, but it was a "dirty little secret".

 

Cole Tucker was, I think, the first one to openly admit being poz. It was sorta simultaneous with the scandal with him and the British diplomat. My memory is a bit vague but I think both stories hit the news at the same time.

 

If you want to build a roster, look at the guys making bareback videos. They're either poz or don't care. In some cases both. Or they're at the end of their careers and the only people who will use them are the BB companies. If they're neg and making BB videos, how long do you suppose they'll stay that way?

 

Having re-read that paragraph, I realize it's a WAY TOO BROAD generalization. But it's not very far from the truth in most cases.

[Guest TruthTeller]

The primary distinction you're overlooking is the difference between laws which prohibit behavior which harm others (which are legitimate laws) and laws which prohibit behavior which harms only the person choosing the behavior (which are not legitimate laws). If barebacking were illegal:

 

(1) How would that law be enforced? Should law enforcement be able, say, to subpoena the address of those people putting "bareback" ads on the Internet, and then get a search warrant to enter their homes to catch them in the barebacking act and arrest them?

 

(2) What possible rationale is there for criminally outlawing barebacking but allowing: (a) smoking; (b) poor diets; © lack of exercise; (d) alcohol consumption; and (e) parachuting, when four of those activities (a-d) result in far more harm and cost to society than barebacking, and one of them (e) is far riskier?

 

>>This is a very dangerous form

>>of thinking.

>>

>

>If, by this remark, you mean

>that my remarks can lead

>to a kind of slippery

>slope where the freedom of

>each citizen is constantly eroded,

>I can agree. There

>is that danger.

 

I don't mean it's just dangerous for the slipperly slope risk; I mean it's dangerous per se, because endorsing the idea that the Government will prohibit certain activities *not* on the grounds that it hurts others, but instead, on the ground that it hurts *only* the adult actor engaging in the behavior, requires Government to play far too intrusive and improper role in our lives - by urging the Government to ban such things, you turn Government into our Daddies, and free adults, by definition, don't have Daddies anymore.

 

Children are prevented from doing things because doing it may harm themselves. Adults are allowed to decide for themselves what risks to take, and are only prevented from doing things

that harm others. That's the primary difference between the two - and it's the primary difference between a free society and a tryannical one.

 

>But the thinking behind your remarks

>is equally dangerous, because it

>can lead to a slippery

>slope at the bottom of

>which is either anarchy or

>a very dangerous disregard for

>the rules that we have

>decided are needed to make

>this collection of 270+ million

>individuals into a nation.

 

How so? What danger is there in allowing adults to do anything they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm others?

 

>When laws are enacted or

>or regulations created, they must

>necessarily be within what is

>acceptable to the majority of

>the population within that jurisdiction

>or they will fall, one

>way or another, sooner or

>later. That's the nature

>of democracy and ours seems

>to be functioning pretty well.

 

It may be functioning "pretty well," but it's certainly not without its dangers. And one of the reasons it's worked so well is because -- unlike most other governments in the history of the world -- our system has highly valued personal liberty, and has understood the critical importance of restricting the power and scope of Government.

 

>But maintaining stability so we can

>each enjoy our rights in

>peace does require that government

>perform a wide variety of

>functions. Some of these

>functions deal with criminal behavior

>and public health.

 

Again, public health is important to the extent it affects the health of *others*. But if I'm allowed to shove junk food down my throat all day; be obese and never exercise; smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day; drink every night until I pass out; and jump out of an airplane wearing a parachute, what possible rationale is there for prohibiting me from allowing someone to put their dick in my ass without a condom if I, as an adult, choose to do so???

 

>I happen to think the government

>should stay out of our

>bedrooms wherever and whenever possible.

 

I don't think there is any law ever on the books which would put government MORE in our bedrooms than a law criminalizing barebacking. The Government would legitimately need to know not just who we have sex with, but what kind of sex we have.

 

>Similarly, sex-related activities that are harmful

>to oneself or to other

>people are often prohibited. I

>would personally place barebacking itself

>outside of the activities prohibited

>by law but make it

>illegal, punishable by high penalty,

>to knowingly infect another person

>with HIV.

 

If I'm HIV-negative, and another person is HIV-positive, and I know that he is HIV-positive, and I allow him to fuck me without a condom, and I get HIV, whose fault is that? Do you really think that his act is tantamount to someone who walks up behind me and shoots me in the head?

 

Similarly, if I'm HIV-negative, and another person is HIV-positive, and I don't know that he is HIV-positive, but I take the risk and let him fuck me without a condom, and I get HIV, whose fault is that?

[Boston Guy]

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying and, in fact, you seem to overlooked my statement that I don't think the government should outlaw barebacking. I think outlawing particular sexual activities between two consenting adults is dangerous.

 

However, I'm not willing to extend that to behavior that is clearly or potentially very dangerous to personal or public health. In this case, in particular, I think knowingly infecting another person with HIV should be illegal and should carry a very grave criminal penalty, no matter what the other party said about it.

 

If I wanted you to come to my home and cut off my leg, it would be illegal for you to comply. I happen to think that it's reasonable for society to place some limits on personal liberty where personal harm is involved.

 

It's very difficult for two people to always be equal and it's easy to visualize a situation where one person either chose not to tell his partner he was HIV+ or convinced the other partner to go ahead anyway. In both cases, I think the person doing the infecting should be guilty of a crime. And I don't think that has anything at all to do with 'Daddies.'

 

As a people who have come together as a nation and who pool our resources in many ways for the common good, including public health, it is reasonable for us to expect adult citizens to act in a way that does not purposely harm the body or health of other citizens, regardless of the feelings of the third party.