Three young male actors, aged 18, 21 and 26, were infected with HIV whilst making a British bareback gay porn film last month. The boys were performing alongside a 26 year old actor who had tested negative several weeks before production, but it later transpired that he was HIV positive at the time of filming.
Boyz has learnt that only three days after shooting had finished, the actor undertook a routine monthly HIV test, only to discover thatthe result was 
positive. He then alerted the DVD company's director,who rushed his other young stars to hospital to undergo a rarely used 48-hour HIV test which it is claimed can detect HIV within hours of infection, by looking for the virus' DNA. All three co-stars were then informed that their tests were also positive.
positive. He then alerted the DVD company's director,who rushed his other young stars to hospital to undergo a rarely used 48-hour HIV test which it is claimed can detect HIV within hours of infection, by looking for the virus' DNA. All three co-stars were then informed that their tests were also positive.One of the actors, Jay*, 21, told Boyz: `On all the shoots we do everything: suck, kiss, rim, fuck. I'm passive but he didn't cum inside me - that never happens in porn, it's all face and mouth. It must've been from his pre-cum inside me.' It appears that the guy who infected his co-stars didn't allow for the so-called `window period' ˆ a three month wait before a standard HIV antibody test, used in most clinics in London, will provide an accurate result. Many pornstars use the standard test to certify that they're HIV negative, allowing them a ticket to ride bareback in films which are a rapidly growing part ofthe gay DVD market.
However, Jay's experience highlights the problems related to thiskind of testing for bareback porn actors. Since his young stars were infected, the director of the DVD company is now ensuring that all his actors are checked every month for HIV using the 48-hour test at an NHS GUM clinic on the outskirts of London. Each test is charged at£18.50. This is paid for by the film company as the hospital has refused to waive the cost of such frequent testing.
A senior nurse at the clinic, told us that providing the test`does not condone unsafe sex' but that the hospital was responding to`a unique situation'. He said: `We acknowledge that [bareback porn]happens and we have to respond to that to do whatever we can to minimise risks to people.'
Yet the Department of Health's guidelines still recommend using the traditional three-month test because of its proven reliability. One doctor told us that the 48-hour test has given many false positive results and still requires the standard antibody test for confirmation. Nonetheless, the dilemma for bareback performers remains.
`I do wish my company was using the quick test before my shoot but they didn't know about it', said Jay. Even his director was angry, adding, `If we'd have known about it we'd have chased it up and made sure we used it'.
But Alan Smith, an HIV consultant at St Mary's Hospital,Paddington, described the 48-hour tests as `novel' and said, `Whilst they may show infection earlier than the conventional tests, the bestway to use them isn't yet clear'.
Another HIV doctor who declined to be named admitted that tests with shorter window periods would be the best way for anyone who works in bareback porn to reduce the risks. However he stressed that such activity is never completely danger-free, regardless of testing.
As long as bareback movies continue to be made there needs to be further research into the success rate of the 48-hour test. Thestandard 3-month antibody test is clearly of little use to porn actors wanting to prove their negative status. But whatever the controversy over such tests, nothing can change the fact that three young men who performed in a bareback sex movie are now counting the cost to theirlives.
Jay's bareback DVD will be out before Christmas. Unsuspecting viewers won't be aware that they're actually watching the young performers being infected with HIV.
* Names have been changed to protect identity
I hate how the British use the word "whilst." It is almost as bad as when they say "amongst." It is 2007, quit sounding like your living in the Middle Ages. Oh, and natural sex is dangerous, please take all precautions to ensure your safety.
ReplyDeleteThe window or latency period is a myth in that benchmark testing for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases now, today can detect existing infections reducing ambiguity. Not getting tested delays knowing about any infections that another person might be exposed to. Getting tested again reduces ambiguity further. In fact the test is an assay of more than one test. When it comes to sex we shun the usual broad modalities of medical protocols that have worked for other diseases. If activism would step up and look at the phenomenon going on of potential sex partners getting tested TOGETHER BEFORE having sex we might learn that those people taking this step have improved their sexual health. It's unlikely because the strategy will bring into question the fidelity of relationships. We deceive and are self deceptive about trust rather than taking a test. That's built in by nature. The biological imperative is too powerful a force. If our public health officials looked into the phenomenon of the strategy their spouses, their sex partners would ask what about you, have you had other sexual opportunities besides me? David Imagawa observed that most people who get tested that have infections had the infections way before any considered window or latency period. When it comes to healthcare we delay. Getting tested now, today at the very least will be a benchmark of use in medical treatment should another test detect infections.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I sympathise with the actors for this unfortunate turn of events, I don't believe - statistically speaking - that they contracted HIV all at the same time from this one guy on the one shoot.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the probably of contracting HIV from receptive anal intercourse is between 0.1 - 3%. So if we take a fair 1.55% chance, then the probability of this happening to all 3 guys during this one video shooting would be, at worst, 1 in 215,000.
However, it makes for a good story and at least makes us consider what all people indulging in unprotected anal sex should really be bearing in mind: "What are my chances of contracting HIV from what I'm about to do?"
Thanks very much for this important context Moocherx.
ReplyDeleteI think there are a couple of aspects which come out of this incident which are worth exploring, not just in the US but internationally.
ReplyDelete1 - Rapid result testing (RRT - is there a anacronym for it?) for porn stars
This seems a no brainer provided that the test is specific enough, i.e that it has a very high number of true negatives, if the test has a high number of false negatives then it is a false economy as the positive actors will go on to have sex with a false sense of security. The sensitivity of the test (the number of true positives) is less important as anyone testing positive will have a second traditional test to confirm the result and is excluded from acting. I think this is fundamental to get a handle on before any campaigning starts for the introduction of the test.
2 - Use of Bareback/condomless sex
I'd be interested to know if there is any published research linking consumption of bareback porn with an increased risk of condomless sex in real life and that shows causality rather than association i.e. bareback porn causes people to have condomless sex vs. people who are already having condomless sex watch bareback porn.
The US did a major study into the implications of sexual violence in pornography in the 1970s and was unable to find a valid link between use of porn and relating sexual behaviour.
I think it is easy to demonise the bareback porn industry but in the context of the internet and the ease of digital editing it is highly unlikely that it will cease to exist if the target is the production companies as the market will exist and to some extent it is better that it is made by production companies where interventions such as testing can take place.
However if the market is turned then it may be a different matter. The article on the seroconversion of these actors was in a free gay magazine, as far as I know it didn't make the more glossy internationals such as gay times.
3 - Our own honesty
I am a gay man who has had unprotected sex. Sometimes negotiated, sometimes it was 'just one of those things'. I've also had lots of protected sex and so far have tested negative. I have bought and enjoyed (and still do) bareback porn. I want to celebrate and reclaim cum and I wrestle with the challenge of hot sex and the pause for the condom.
I think we need to talk honestly about our own experiences and not fear persecution from our communities and from our peers.