So I guess I officially have a thing for Bel Ami model Roger Lambert? I’ll be the first to admit that he’s not the type of guy who’d turn my head on the street, but damnit, this fucking twink knows how to ride cock! Everything about him is pretty—his sparkling eyes, his big uncut rod, his impeccably smooth boy-hole…
Normally, I’d scoff at such prettiness in favor of burlier men like this, yet there’s something about Roger that makes me want to reach through my computer screen, pull him out by the arm and immediately impale him with my dick until he shoots all over himself.
Oh yeah, and Paul Mekas is in this post too. I guess he’s pretty okay.
– Dewitt
Photo credit: Bel Ami Online
Click through to see Roger and Paul in action:
the are both cuties, but I hate to see these guys barebacking, it is still so dangerous!
the are both cuties, but I hate to see these guys barebacking, it is still so dangerous!
So is crossing the street. Look, people are going to do it. As long as it;s not you, who cares? Folks shouldn’t look to fucking porn for responsible behavior.
So is crossing the street. Look, people are going to do it. As long as it;s not you, who cares? Folks shouldn’t look to fucking porn for responsible behavior.
“As long as it’s not you, who cares?”
What an appallingly selfish sentiment.
It’s true…
It’s they’re choice if it’s not me.
Unless they’re come up positive and cause a huge outbreak shut the fuck up and quit bitching.
If it’s going to happen and you don’t like it JUST DON’T WATCH IT.
It’s true…
It’s they’re choice if it’s not me.
Unless they’re come up positive and cause a huge outbreak shut the fuck up and quit bitching.
If it’s going to happen and you don’t like it JUST DON’T WATCH IT.
Way to go. That kind of mentality is confirms the close minded hetero that already think we a danger to society.
I find it funny that Paul’s initial scenes with Bel Ami were with a condom and now they aren’t… It’s evident the production company has a lot of sway in how these guys conduct themselves.
It is their choice, and in the case of porn, I doubt any production company wouldn’t offer extensive checking. Even so, it’s important to know the risks. At the end of the day, barebacking is only one way someone can be infected.
Of course unsafe sex will continue to happen. Were that not the case, HIV among gay/bi men would be on the decline rather than, as it is, on the rise. But if you think that those of us who advocate safe sex are going to turn a blind eye to the high risk of barebacking and, as you put it, “shut the fuck up,” think again.
The “lot of sway” that Bel Ami holds over how its models conduct themselves in BA-produced unsafe sex videos might more directly be characterized as money.
You “doubt” that any bareback porn studio wouldn’t conduct HIV and STI testing, but in fact there are a number that don’t. Indeed, if you or anyone else can offer up indisputable proof that Roger or Paul were tested before this scene was filmed, please do so.
Despite the literal accuracy of your last statement, unprotected anal sex is vastly more likely to lead to the transmission of HIV than any other sexual activity. To disminish it as “only one way” that HIV transmission occurs is, I believe, irresponsibly misleading.
The “lot of sway” that Bel Ami holds over how its models conduct themselves in BA-produced unsafe sex videos might more directly be characterized as money.
You “doubt” that any bareback porn studio wouldn’t conduct HIV and STI testing, but in fact there are a number that don’t. Indeed, if you or anyone else can offer up indisputable proof that Roger or Paul were tested before this scene was filmed, please do so.
Despite the literal accuracy of your last statement, unprotected anal sex is vastly more likely to lead to the transmission of HIV than any other sexual activity. To disminish it as “only one way” that HIV transmission occurs is, I believe, irresponsibly misleading.
This has nothing to do with homophobia, so don’t attach the barebacking policies of pornography to the fight for civil rights and equality for gay people everywhere. Defending someone’s right to make foolish, unsafe choices in a format that can easily influence young men to do the same is NOT the same as defending the gay lifestyle as a valid choice.
Point taken about what may have been an inapt analogy, Justin. But the portion of your comment that resonates with me is that these are young men making “foolish, unsafe choices in a format that can easily influence young men to do the same.” While these models and the company that employs them may have the right to make irresponsible choices, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the influential effect their choices may have on others.
As a side note, the “gay lifestyle” itself is not a “choice.”
very hot my dick is loving this
I admire your persistence, but can you offer up indisputable proof that Roger or Paul were NOT tested before the scene was filmed?
My desire to destroy a twink’s ass has been going up exponentially lately and this is why.
Thank you for the compliment, but, relatively speaking, my persistence doesn’t hold a candle to that of HIV.
To be honest, I find your question to be a little preposterous, for, as you well know, only the studio that produced this unsafe sex video would know if Roger and Paul were or weren’t tested prior to making it.
In defending the Maverick Men’s recent unsafe sex video with Chris Crocker, you posted links to the HIV test results of those who appeared in that video. Why can’t the studios that claim to do such testing do likewise? Perhaps you’re willing to take a porn studio at its word regarding such an important matter, but I’m not. The burden of proving a studio’s testing claim should be on the studio itself. Absent that proof, I’m not willing to disregard the possibility that the claim is false.
You still haven’t answered my question. Nobody at Bel Ami claimed these models were HIV-negative, positive, tested or otherwise…
I believe I did answer your previous question, although your latest comment raises another. Are you saying that Bel Ami doesn’t even claim to test its models for HIV and other STIs before it films unsafe sex videos? If that’s the case, it puts this matter in a different and, in my opinion, potentially even more unfavorable light.
I’m not saying anything of the sort, and once again, I don’t have time to argue with you about this.
Perhaps you should do research about Bel Ami’s testing policies on your own time. For all you know, these models could be celibate outside of their on-camera activity.
If you don’t have time for a dialogue about this, perhaps you shouldn’t have started one.
I have checked the Bel Ami site and found no mention that it tests its models for HIV and other STIs. I am not a member of the site (and have no intention to become one), so perhaps someone who is and has access to all of it would be willing to check to see if the site’s internal contents make any such mention.
I found this two-year-old interview with George Duroy, founder and owner of Bel Ami, on http://www.towleroad.com:
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-bel-amis-george-duroy.html
The interview includes a somewhat extended back-and-forth on the subject of barebacking. Duroy defends his production of unsafe sex videos (which he terms “condom-free”) based on the relatively low rate of HIV/AIDS in the Czech Republic as compared to the U.S. One might expect that in such a discussion he would take the opportunity to state that he tests his models if in fact he does so, but he makes no mention of this. Interestingly, he does say that, were his videos to be produced in the U.S., they would not be “condom-free.” As well, he refers to barebacking as “Russian roulette.”
I’d be happy to learn otherwise, but my research assignment appears to indicate that Bel Ami doesn’t tests its models, opting instead to roll the dice with their health based only on the lower rate of HIV transmission in the country where it films. If that’s really the case, I think it makes BA all the more despicable than those bareback studios that at least claim to test even if they’re unwilling to prove that they actually do.
If you don’t have time for a dialogue about this, perhaps you shouldn’t have started one.
I have checked the Bel Ami site and found no mention that it tests its models for HIV and other STIs. I am not a member of the site (and have no intention to become one), so perhaps someone who is and has access to all of it would be willing to check to see if the site’s internal contents make any such mention.
I found this two-year-old interview with George Duroy, founder and owner of Bel Ami, on http://www.towleroad.com:
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-bel-amis-george-duroy.html
The interview includes a somewhat extended back-and-forth on the subject of barebacking. Duroy defends his production of unsafe sex videos (which he terms “condom-free”) based on the relatively low rate of HIV/AIDS in the Czech Republic as compared to the U.S. One might expect that in such a discussion he would take the opportunity to state that he tests his models if in fact he does so, but he makes no mention of this. Interestingly, he does say that, were his videos to be produced in the U.S., they would not be “condom-free.” As well, he refers to barebacking as “Russian roulette.”
I’d be happy to learn otherwise, but my research assignment appears to indicate that Bel Ami doesn’t tests its models, opting instead to roll the dice with their health based only on the lower rate of HIV transmission in the country where it films. If that’s really the case, I think it makes BA all the more despicable than those bareback studios that at least claim to test even if they’re unwilling to prove that they actually do.
The twitter feed (BelAmiOnline) has stated more than once that they test the models extensively.
The twitter feed (BelAmiOnline) has stated more than once that they test the models extensively.
Thanks for weighing in with that information, Chris. I’m glad to hear that Bel Ami makes this claim. Now all it would have to do is prove it–which would be easy to do–for me to believe it is true. I otherwise wouldn’t take a porn company at its word about this.
I’m sorry, but WHY do they have to prove it to you? Why are these models’ HIV statuses any of YOUR business?
I know I said I don’t have time for this dialogue—because I *do* have a job to do—but despite your good intentions, I can occasionally find your comments very frustrating.
I’m sorry, but WHY do they have to prove it to you? Why are these models’ HIV statuses any of YOUR business?
I know I said I don’t have time for this dialogue—because I *do* have a job to do—but despite your good intentions, I can occasionally find your comments very frustrating.
Occasionally?
Occasionally?
Occasionally?
Haha, yes, occasionally! I appreciate a safe-sex video as much as the next “Commenter”.
The proof I’m suggesting they provide would amount to reasonable documentation that a video that includes barebacking in all probability didn’t result in the transmission of HIV. It would provide viewers with reasonable assurance that in watching such videos they are not witnessing an act that otherwise may have led to HIV transmission.
Sorry if you sometimes find my comments frustrating, but it was actually you who inspired me to launch this line of dialogue. In defending Chris Crocker’s video for the Maverick Men, including against a question that was raised about the HIV status of those in the video, you posted links to the pre-filming test results (which thankfully were HIV-negative) of the participants in that video. I think that was a great idea and one that others who produce high-risk sex videos ought to and easily could emulate. Absent such proof, I and others will be left to wonder and question if these tests are performed and if the production of these videos might have resulted in the transmission of HIV.
I don’t mean to speak for you, but I should think that also from your perspective it would be beneficial to put this issue–that is, the health safety of the models in these videos–to rest. That way we can focus our concentration exclusively on what I’d like to presume is our shared concern about reducing, and one day eliminating, new transmissions of HIV in our community itself.
You’re missing my point. What if both of these models were already living with HIV? To ask the studio to provide “proof” that they’ve been tested, you’d essentially be outing them.
The HIV status of a gay porn performer is NONE of your business, unless the model wants to share that information with you.
Thank you for clarifying your point, Dewitt, which is a good one and which I hadn’t realized was your point to begin with. I’ll keep this in mind in the way I frame future comments about bareback videos and the testing claims that some studios make, noting, as you have, the possibility that both or all of the models in those videos might already be poz. As we both know, there are additional real-life health risks associated with that type of scenario, but I acknowledge that it is not the same, or as potentially risky, as coupling HIV-negative and HIV-positive models when making a bareback video.
My point should have been obvious… pornography is a FANTASY. it’s like going to the movies, and trying to emulate Batman. Sure, there are going to be stupid people who do stupid things – this is why a responsible person should not look to fantasy for inspiration. Cripes, you people seem to think I was advocating shooting AIDS in a syringe directly into peoples eye. Look beyond your initial knee jerk reactions and pay attention to the actual message.
My point should have been obvious… pornography is a FANTASY. it’s like going to the movies, and trying to emulate Batman. Sure, there are going to be stupid people who do stupid things – this is why a responsible person should not look to fantasy for inspiration. Cripes, you people seem to think I was advocating shooting AIDS in a syringe directly into peoples eye. Look beyond your initial knee jerk reactions and pay attention to the actual message.
BEAUTIFUL BOYS
BEAUTIFUL BOYS
I like these two together!
I like these two together!