Brent Everett barebacks; would you still hire him?

[Guest Daddybottom]

As I was checking out Brent's really hot pictures on another thread I could not help noticing that some of them come from a video where he barebacks as both a top and a bottom. I feel very ambivilent about this.

 

If brent were escorting in my city I'd have a strong desire to hire him since gorgeous big dicked top twinks like him turn me on more than anything else. I'd really want him to fuck me. But I'd also be very scared of letting him top me since his barebacking (especially his barebacking as a bottom) makes it likely he is HIV+ and condoms occassionally break. I'd also be scared of sucking him off without a condom since I could always have a cut in my mouth. And I really wouldn't want to ask him to wear a condom when I sucked him off since I wouldn't want to bring up the whole HIV thing with him. I think discussing HIV with him would kill off any sexual excitement I had with him. I'm not sure there are many other things I'd want to do with Brent other than getting fucked and sucking him off.

 

While I just said I would not want to bring up HIV because it would kill my sexual desire, another part of me (my non sexual side) would be strongly tempted, if I hired Brent, to talk to him about barebacking and convince him that he should stop or at least make sure he understands how dangerous it is. Part of this is due to having spent years as a HIV counselor and working in health care but I think there is also a natural human desire to try to stop someone from putting themselve at risk (particulary if they are as hot and cute as Brent). But I think hiring someone to convince them not to bareback would be a mistake. Not only would it kill the sexual experience for me but I doubt Brent would enjoy being lectured to (I know I usually don't enjoy people telling me what to do, even when they are right).

 

All this seems different for me than the situation with Greg in Seattle (seaboy) who asked Hooboy to put in his profile that Greg is HIV+. Greg seems like someone who is taking care of himself now inspite of any mistakes he may have made in the past. His request to put his HIV status in his profile suggests a very responible desire to avoid putting others at risk. So I wouldn't feel any need to lecture Greg and would be comfortable hiring him (there is lots of fun stuff that is completely safe). I don't think I'd enjoy doing completely safe stuff with Brent (cuddling, mutual jo, oral sex with a condom) because one part of me would be desperately wanting him to pound me. I could easily discuss safe sex with Greg since we agree on its importance, I think discussing safe sex with Brent would be unpleasant and kill the sexual energy for both of us since Brent and I disagree about its importance.

 

Then there is Brent's barebacking video. I have to admit barebacking videos really turn me on. And Brent is in it doing both top and bottom. I can't remember ever wanting a video more.

 

On the other hand I feel bad for Brent since he is putting himself at risk for a serious illness. This makes me reluctant to buy the video since I don't want to encourage an activity like barebacking. I know people have a right to bareback if they want to. They also have a right to smoke tobacco. But buying bareback videos makes the industry that produces barebacking videos profitable and that industry gives performers (like Brent) financial incentives to bareback and makes it seem hot to people who watch the videos. Just as I would not want to give anyone incentives to smoke tobacco or do anything to make smoking seem cool, but I would not want to do something that gives people incentives to bareback or to make it seem hot.

 

I have seen similar posts on these boards degenerate into debates on whether HIV is really a problem with all the new drugs. That's really not what this post is about. If you don't think HIV is a problem, clearly you won't be bothered by the fact that an escort barebacks. This post is asking for advice from people who would like to avoid becoming HIV positive.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Brent Everett ; would you hire him?

 

"This post is asking for advice from people who would like to avoid becoming HIV positive."

 

Really?

[Guest Cumbee]

Nope.

[JamesK840]

Only with his boyfriend...

 

If you look into the various Brent Everett threads, you'll realize that his barebacking scenes seem to have been with his boyfriend (that lucky fuck!). Given that, assuming they are tested (as porn starts generally are) and that they use condoms with others (which Brent definitely seems to do), it doesn't seem like a problem at all.

[marc anthony]

Do you assume that all the other escorts you hire are HIV negative?

 

That having been said... it is all a matter of risk and probability and what each individual is willing to tolerate. Brent barebacks on film with his BF only, which (if you only consider that fact alone) makes him more likely to be positive than if he didn't bareback at all, and less likely than if he did it randomly.

 

He also engages in gay sex, which makes him more likely than the general population (of course the same is true of all gay pornstars).

 

He is Canadian (which makes him less likely)... the prevalence of positivity is less in Canada than the US.

 

There are MANY other facts or issues that make HIV positivity more or less likely. But truly I really don't understand how anyone who engages in random gay sex with young gay escorts can delude himself into believing he can screen his hiring population to protect himself (short of demanding each one use Tampa Yankee's new FDA approved 10 minute HIV test...LOL).

 

Bottom line for me. If he attracts me (which Brent does BIG TIME), I would hire him. And I would take the same precautions that I take with each and every escort that I hire.

[guptasa1]

In my opinion, you're making a lot of assumptions.

 

For one, as someone else pointed out, the barebacking may very well be with his boyfriend. If they're exclusive to each other and tested regularly, what's the problem with that? I know (before I started seeing escorts occasionally) I barebacked a few times with my first boyfriend. Reason being, we were both virgins, exclusive, and because of that, there was essentially zero risk. There was no point in using a condom then.

 

Would I do that today now that I'm with escorts sometimes? Absolutely not. I do believe in STD prevention, and I practice what I consider safer sex practices. That is, I always use a condom for any anal sex. (However, I don't use condoms for oral sex, and since I take good care of my mouth, I do sometimes swallow - I consider that to be very low risk based on studies, and I certainly hope I don't regret that someday.)

 

As to how you handled the situation, assuming the escort in question has an e-mail address, I have to wonder why you didn't simply e-mail him and ask about the barebacking videos instead of pose the question publically here. Considering he escorts, if put tactfully, I can't imagine him objecting to such an e-mail.

 

There could be several explanations, from the person being his boyfriend, to doing it years ago and not doing it since. If the latter, as long as he hasn't barebacked for more than 6 months (and many would say you could even cut that down to 13 weeks) and is testing HIV-, he's conclusively negative and it's no longer an issue.

 

I know sometimes bringing up STD prevention is awkward and uncomfortable, but I certainly do think it's within a clients right to ask.

 

Just my two cents.

[guptasa1]

Oh, and to answer the question directly since I forgot to (lol), yes, I would still hire him given the fact that he's barebacked before in a video.

 

As to whether I would hire an escort who was confirmed HIV+, I've actually given that a lot of thought recently, and yes, I think I would, but, to be completely honest, I still might be a little more cautious than usual in a few of the activities as opposed to with someone who's status is thought to be HIV- (and there's something about admitting that I just don't like...but I'm trying to be completely honest about it at the same time).

[Guest Yorkian]

RE: Only with his boyfriend...

 

Of course. The lad is being totally responsible and smart. After all, we all know no one who is in a relationship ever cheats or anything.

[JamesK840]

RE: Only with his boyfriend...

 

If they both get tested regularly (isn't monthly the standard for porn stars?) and wear condoms when they're 'cheating' what the fuck is the difference?

 

Especially since condoms would be involved in any type of escort encounter, not that there's any hint that he's even available to be hired!

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

RE: Only with his boyfriend...

 

>If they both get tested regularly (isn't monthly the standard

>for porn stars?)

 

It's my understanding that contrary to popular belief, porn stars are NOT required to undergo HIV testing, regular or otherwise.

[Guest skrubber]

I'd hire him any day of the week.

 

Everybody loves Backa Baa

[+ Italiano]

I think that guptasa1 made a VERY great point.

 

If you are really concerned about not getting infected you should assume that EVERYBODY (escort or not) whom you are having sex with could be HIV+.

 

In 2004 being concerned ONLY with someone who either declares positiviness or has being seen barebacking sounds very lightheaded to me.

 

Do you think that if an escort (or an occasional sex partner) says "don't worry I am negative" it means that you can suck him or getting topped (with condom) without ANY risk at all??

Come on, grow up!

[Nvr2Thick]

As an obsessive Internet porn junkie and lurker of the bareback sites I'm always surprised to find yet another escort who either has an bareback personal ad, a bareback escort ad, or a scene in a bareback porn production.

 

A bareback porn scene represents just a couple of hours in an escort's life -- hours that you now know about. You know even less about the behavior and history of an escort who does not have any bareback porn scenes.

 

In an interview Cole Tucker once explained that he got into escorting and porn after he tested HIV positive. He decided to become more sexually adventurous because he was now positive. It wouldn't surprise me if very many other porn actors and escorts got into the business for the similar reasons.

 

Is safe sex any more dangerous if you know your partner is infected with HIV? Is sex any safer if you have no idea of your partner's status?

 

(I wonder if we'll ever see Carrie Bradshaw type that one into her Powerbook?)

[JamesK840]

For crying out loud, he's not even an escort (despite the fervent wishes of half this board)!

[Guest Cumbee]

marc anthony asks "Do you assume that every escort you hire is HIV-?" The answer is "No."

 

But I do assume that any escort I consider hiring (actually, I've only hired ONE in years) is striving to avoid the HIV infection as carefully as I am. In fact, I certainly would insist on brief discussion of HIV status, and safe sex practices, as a part of our pre-meeting planning. I suspect (or at least HOPE) that most others do this as well. So we BOTH would have to be looking to minimize the chance of infection for my interest to remain. An escort that I KNOW practices barebacking cannot assure me that he is doing everything he reasonably can to avoid the infection.

 

Also, there is the matter of philosophy. By refusing to patronize an escort who does not practice safe sex, especially one I am really attracted to, I am making the best statement of disapproval of unsafe sex practices that I know how to make.

 

You are either a part of the solution, or you make yourself a part of the problem! You must have STANDARDS, and you must ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS, or you really don't have any in the first place.

 

What is so hard about that philosophy, to understand or to practice?

[+ deej]

RE: Only with his boyfriend...

 

>It's my understanding that contrary to popular belief, porn

>stars are NOT required to undergo HIV testing, regular or

>otherwise.

 

For gay porn, this is correct.

 

Some of the str8 companies require their contract players to be tested regularly. But for gay porn, well, that's why AIM was started: to make free testing available to pornstars/sex workers who otherwise might not get tested.

 

There was a time, early in the plague, when models were required to sign a statement that they were not Pos. That statement has morphed over time to be basically "I am aware of the risks". That's the extent of HIV-prevention in gay porn.

[marc anthony]

>Also, there is the matter of philosophy. By refusing to

>patronize an escort who does not practice safe sex, especially

>one I am really attracted to, I am making the best statement

>of disapproval of unsafe sex practices that I know how to

>make.

>

>You are either a part of the solution, or you make yourself a

>part of the problem! You must have STANDARDS, and you must

>ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS, or you really don't have any in the

>first place.

>

>What is so hard about that philosophy, to understand or to

>practice?

 

I do have standards. My standards are that I practice safe sex with 100% of the people that I have sex with. I just don't have your standards. Does that make me wrong?

 

The moral right believes that abolition of gay sex would reduce the incidence of AIDS, and they are right. It would. But to many of us, that is an unacceptable intrusion into our personal freedoms. So we reject their standards and their solution.

 

Many NORMAL American citizens (maybe even the MAJORITY) would reject your standards... and just the fact that you would hire gay young men as escorts for random gay sex would be an unacceptable risk for them. If you told a cross section of the US population that you hire gay escorts, can you imagine them using your words on you... "You must have STANDARDS, and you must ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS, or you really don't have any standards at all." (Actually the really IRONIC thing about standards is that by American legal standards it is NOT illegal to have bareback sex, but is illegal to have "safe" sex for pay)

 

Re-focusing back to the original question on this thread. Would I hire a boy I was very attracted to if I saw him perform in a bareback video with his boyfriend? My answer was yes... because it is a tolerable risk for me, as I assume every person I have sex with may be contagious and I practice safer sex 100% of the time. And so I ask you the same RHETORICAL question that you asked me (since I don't want you feel like you have to answer as I am well aware that there internet discussions NEVER change anyone's mind, lol)...

 

What is hard about my philosophy to understand or practice?

 

And my own rhetorical question... whose philosophy and solution is right? The moral right's? The American legal system's? Yours? Mine? Ashcroft's?

 

When it comes to passing judgement on personal freedoms, just be careful what you wish for.

[guptasa1]

I have to agree on this one - standards that one enforces are all good and well, but what may be acceptable risk to me and what may be acceptable risk to you may vary greatly.

 

Hiring an escort that has non-safe sex with only his boyfriend is an acceptable risk to me. I might want to talk with him about it and see if he gets tested, etc., but I wouldn't hold that against him at all.

 

This type of thing is so subjective though - what exactly is safer sex? I already mentioned for me, it's a condom for anal sex every time, but no condom for oral sex since I believe the risk to be extremely low (even with swallowing) and about on par with that of protected anal sex based on some studies I've read. I know there are definitely some people who consider safer sex to be a condom for everything, including oral sex. And there are those who truly believe the only thing that's safe is complete absstinence. Who's right? Where is the objective cut-off of acceptable risk?

 

I know it's difficult to be perfect about taking precautions. I'm not as assertive about asking people's status as I should be, and I have performed low-risk activity (oral) without asking before, assuming the person to be negative. While this is still relatively safe, I do admit if I knew the person was positive, I might do things a bit differently (use a condom for oral or at least not swallow, etc.).

 

When it comes down to it, my own opinion is that people need to be responsible for their OWN actions and how they might affect other people. Practice safer sex as defined by your views on acceptable risk, but since there IS a risk even if fairly small, get tested pretty regularly for HIV (and I personally just found a place that tests for a few other things as well for free). I truly do NOT want to become positive, and if I did, I would have to tell all the partners I'd been with in the last 6 months or however long possible exposure could be, which would be unbelievably hard and uncomfortable to do. But if you're going to take some risk...any risk...I think you also have to realize you have a responsibility of dealing with the consequences in the best way possible as well as doing everything you can to be AWARE of your own status so as to minimize risk to others.

[Jeff]

True, he's not an escort! If he has sex only with his boyfriend, good for him.

 

If he were an escort, then this is bad.

 

Aaron Lawrence just did a bareback video with a bunch of guys, including known escorts; it's on his site. That was very sad.

[Argos]

The answer to your question is yes. I, like many of the other posters on this thread, practice safer sex 100% of the time. This has not always been the case and I have taken up the offer of 2 different escorts for me to top them without a condom. This was not a wise decision on my part and I can only say that I am thankful that I tested negative after these encounters. The stress and angst of wondering whether I was postive or negative was not worth the added pleasure of the barebacking encounters. I grew up in a very fundamental, right-wing, Christian family and my current "standards" would obviously be condemned by this group of people and many others. I no longer live my life according to other people's rules, regulations and requirements but I do recognize the need to be responsible in my sexual practices, not only for my sake, but for the sake of anyone I am sexually active with.

[Guest Cumbee]

marc anthony. I did not mean to sound as "preachy" as I did. My standards are for me. Yours are for you. I have no problem with that at all. My response was prompted by your question about whether I (or anyone else) assumes that any escort we might patronize was HIV negative. I thought that argument was a bit if a red herring, because it was beside the point IMHO. Once I got going, I added more info to justify my point of view.

 

Brent, when he is performing on video, is acting as a role model for many in the gay community. It is a shame that his message to that community is that bareback sex is acceptable, but that is the message as I perceive it. Even if his bareback sex on video for public viewing is only with his boyfriend. Does that make it right? I did not know that he was with his boyfriend. I would guess that many if not most of his audience similarly did not know that fact. Therefore, the message to most of the public viewing his videos is contained in his actions, not in the fact that this is his boyfriend. That message is that safe sex precautions are unnecessary or optional at best. I disagree with that message.

 

Therefore, in spite of the fact that I find this young man VERY appealing, I would not choose to patronize him or his performances. Simply my manner of economic protest. HIV is still with us. And the sofening of attitudes toward the disease seems to be contributing to its resurgeance in the gay community. That is what I meant about being a part of the problem or of the solution.

 

I am not a right winger, nor am I advocating their point of view on ANYTHING. I recognize and accept anybody elses right to a different point of view than mine. I was just trying to elaborate on my "Nope" answer earlier because of some of the comments made by others.

[marc anthony]

Fair enough, Cumbee. I don't disagree with your stand on barebacking. And it is certainly your right to take an economic stand against it by refusing to patronize video companies or escorts who are known to do it.

 

We would just approach the hypothetical question a little differently. If I could hire Brent Everett, I would. And I would kiss him passionately, tell him that he is such a cute thing, that he is too precious to bareback, that he should take better care of himself even if he only does it with his BF, and then I would put a condom on myself and put it right in that fine ass of his!

 

:7

[guptasa1]

I totally respect your point of view! I just thought if you don't mind I'd make a few comments.

 

>Brent, when he is performing on video, is acting as a role

>model for many in the gay community. It is a shame that his

>message to that community is that bareback sex is acceptable,

>but that is the message as I perceive it. Even if his bareback

>sex on video for public viewing is only with his boyfriend.

>Does that make it right? I did not know that he was with his

>boyfriend. I would guess that many if not most of his audience

>similarly did not know that fact. Therefore, the message to

>most of the public viewing his videos is contained in his

>actions, not in the fact that this is his boyfriend. That

>message is that safe sex precautions are unnecessary or

>optional at best. I disagree with that message.

 

When I'm watching a porn video, I'm not looking for a message at all nor do I assume one's intended. I certainly don't watch bareback videos and think "Hmmm...that must make barebacking okay." It'd be like playing a violent video game/watching a violent movie and then assuming going around shooting people's okay. Yes, one difference is that in the bareback video's case, the barebacking is likely real. But there may be behind-the-scenes circumstancesa you don't know about (between boyfriends for example), and like with film, I think that needs to be kept in mind).

 

>Therefore, in spite of the fact that I find this young man

>VERY appealing, I would not choose to patronize him or his

>performances. Simply my manner of economic protest. HIV is

>still with us. And the sofening of attitudes toward the

>disease seems to be contributing to its resurgeance in the gay

>community. That is what I meant about being a part of the

>problem or of the solution.

 

I completely respect that, and I think it's cool and important you stand up for your views. I also do agree with your stance on barebacking in general - I just feel there are valid (and fairly safe) exceptions.

[+ Lucky]

RE: ...barebacks; would you still hire him?

 

"my own opinion is that people need to be responsible for their OWN actions"

 

Indeed Mr. Guptaps.

[guptasa1]

RE: ...barebacks; would you still hire him?

 

I still stand by my statement. Consentual barebacking is one thing. I don't think it's wise, but if people want to do it, I think it's their choice. I don't feel, however, it's the same thing at all when safe sex is agreed to and barebacking happens without the other person's consent.

 

You are correct in that it's my choice to see escorts sometimes, and I'm fully responsible for that decision and the risk given by having safe sex.