Carter Longway aka Jarod Steele's Barebacking Adventures Continued
While there are loads of facial and internal cum shots to be had (pun intended!) in Hot Desert Knight's latest, Dungeon Gang Bang, it's Carter Longway, or as he's known in this genre, Jarod Steele, who is obviously stealing the show.Longway/Steele has performed bareback scenes before, but never one quite this intense! He bends over and gets plowed rough by a daddy in a group sex scene, taking a load of cum up his asshole and letting it drip out before topping Alan Gregory in a one-on-one. He slams Gregory skin to skin until he busts in his hole, then eats his cum out of his bottom's ass and then kisses him.
Intense to say the least!
Co-starring Duke Savage, Steve Tuck, Leo Sargent, John Andrews, Ray Adams, Hank Cruz, Zachary Blackwell, Coby Kincade and Tom Colt, Dungeon Gang Bang features a total of ten tops and two bottoms with too many barebacking internal cum shots to count, so you do the math!
WATCH IT NOW!: Hot Desert Knights' Dungeon Gang Bang is now playing the JC Theatre!
posted by Jason Sechrest at 5:17 PM
26 Comments:
Jason, I dont know how much "in your realm" this question would be, but there is something that has slightly bugged me about the recent upsurge in bareback gay porn. Are there are a whole class of gay adult stars who are now positive and just no longer care about being safe or ...? I guess I just wonder b/c some production companies that make this type of porn feature men who look like they've been through a few ringers while others use guys who give hte strange appearance of being "healthy" (yes i know HIV doesn't usually have physical 'signs' per se, i'm just saying)
Julien - I think you answered the question for yourself. Having HIV does not neccessarily mean that you look like you've been "through the ringer." And choosing to bareback someone doesn't neccessarily mean that you are positive, so it would stand to reason that just because someone does bareback porn it also doesn't mean that they are positive. For me personally, handing someone a condom is as offensive as handing someone a Bible. Both acts are done with the "best intentions" of trying to "save" someone. But life is about personal choice and different people have a different set of priorities. If you don't want to be hurt by their choices, you have only protected sex. Banning unprotected sex would certainly decrease the amount of lives lost from HIV. Banning alcohol woiuld certainly decrease the amount of lives lost from drunk driving. If we want to keep our freedom, we have to remember that it is "our" freedom and not just one person's. Just my own two cents on the topic. xo L, J.
Sorry but I am willing to give up a "freedom" if it means no more people contract HIV and that gay men are responsible and respect their partners. To me, it in offensive if someone rejects a condom because to me they don't respect me and my life.
I'm not sure my question would best have been answered by a political one, but I suppose one might have drawn that from the tone of my question. So I might as well just say what I'm thinking..I belief there is a correlation between all of the exponential increases in the amount of gay porn sans condom and the recent upswing in HIV positive test results. I'm wondering if gay porn producers are paying more for performers to perform bareback.
Ty - People do a lot of things to me that say they disrespect me and my life. I just don't let them succeed by making sure I'm protected from those things. I'm not going to take someone's freedom away over it. xo L, J.
Julien - Yes, they do. xo L, J.
Julien,
On the condition of anonymity a few Cobra models had told me that they were paid a lot more money to perform bareback than other models, but I am unaware of how the rest of the industry handles such.
contributing to our own demise; how human hehe
"For me personally, handing someone a condom is as offensive as handing someone a Bible. Both acts are done with the "best intentions" of trying to "save" someone. "
Sorry, Jason, but that's bullshit. If a guy you knew was positive wanted to fuck you, you yourself, without a condom, would you be afraid to insist he use one in case you offended him?
What about on the sets of your own porn movies? You handed those guys condoms. If they didn't want to use them, which I know Flex hasn't in the past, why did you do it?
There is a huge difference between trying to persuade someone to do something which may or may not have some kind of "spiritual" value down the road, and doing something which we know for an absolute inviolate fact saves real lives in an entirely physical, corporeal, scientific sense.
There's also a huge difference between allowing other people their freedom of choice, and divorcing yourself from all sense of responsibility to your fellow human beings. You sound like you're doing the latter.
For fuck's sake, it's just a tiny piece of rubber. Why does everyone have such a problem with it?
Whoa -- my bad! I definitely need to clarify something. When I was talking about it be offensive when someone hands me a condom, I wasn't talking about in a sexual situation. I'm talking about when you are walking down SMB or when you walk into a gay club and people are all but throwing them at you. To me, I feel like, "Um, thanks -- but I know where to find the Bibles and the condoms. I don't need you shoving your ideals and priorities down my throat."
Like I said, yes without bareback sex we would have a lot less HIV. Without alcohol, we would have a lot less drunk driving deaths. I don't see a difference. It's a personal choice, as everyone has a different set of vices/morals/values/priorities.
But let me be more clear, I would never be offended if someone asked me to WEAR one in a sexual situation. That is THEIR personal choice too. And mine.
I'm offended by the way we as a culture have decided to wage a full-on "war" against barebacking. And I'm not down with war of any kind. And it's not a lot different than the way the Church operates, honestly with their images of roasting on a spitfire in hell to scare you. Look at those ads that were up on QueerMeNow the other day -- the ones with grotesque images of what HIV and AIDS can do to you? Implementing fear is not the answer, that just makes people scared and confused.
What we need is better education -- and education from many different points of view. We need to educate how little is known about it, but the many theories that surround it. I have had sex with 18 - 21 year olds in the past year who have told me all they learned of HIV in school is, "If you have sex without a condom, it could kill you." ... That's it?!
The problem with this line of teaching is that people like to overcome their fears because they don't like being locked in a cage. That's human nature. Gay guys especially -- we've been repressed enough by the time we come out, we're not looking to let anyone "scare" us into how to live our lives anymore. We're often very into combating that ideal and living for the moment -- and doing so is actually very exciting for us!
So what this means is that those kids some day are going to be overcoming it and barebacking the world because they don't have a clue "why" someone told them that in the first place. They were just told, "This could kill you." And yet, everywhere they look, they see their friends and others doing it. I can understand why they would throw up their arms and say, "What gives?!"
It's a personal choice that should be chosen via education - not out of fear.
Just my point of view. Doesn't have to be your's.
L,
J.
^^^ Okay, better.
I entirely agree about education, and hopefully once Cuntface is out of the White House, it might get a little better. Wasn't there a survey recently that said kids who are taught "abstinence only" are not less likely to have sex, they'll just be more stupid about it?
But I see these men who lived through the horror themselves, who lost all their friends to it, who suffer themselves from it every day, refusing to take responsibility for teaching their successors how to avoid it themselves. The image they portray is instead "It doesn't matter, we're all gonna die anyway." It's disrespectful to both those youngsters who know no better, and to the friends who they lost before they knew how to prevent it. We have the solution - why aren't we using it?
The fact is that, in today's online world, kids get most of their education, especially sex education, from the internet. What they see on these online porn sites is what they'll do, because no-one told them otherwise.
The FACT is that gay men cannot take the risk to bareback if we love each. I will accept FEAR anyday if it saves my life.
wow, heated is an understatement! :-)
I seem to have opened a can of worms. Well, hey, thats what I'm good at I suppose. Let's try this again.
So we have an industry that has decided to say "fuck you" to the "common sense" that was pounded into us during the 90s; (well; with the exception of Chi Chi La Rue).
We have porn directors paying more for performers to perform bareback and we have OSHA who says that making people work in "dangerous situations" is illegal.
Well well well, the amount of issues that could be construed from this argument...
Julien - True, but in this case no one's "making" anyone work there. ;-) xo L, J.
offering to compensate further if you agree to risk your life? hrm, maybe there's a "condom waiver" in porn contracts nowadays...
Julien - I'm just saying, it wouldn't work legally. You 'risk your life' everytime you get in a freaking car. Having sex unprotected on camera doesn't automatically mean you will be harmed. There is a huge potential for it, yes. But legally... Let's put this into perspective. xo L, J.
the original question was whether or not you think there is a whole slew of "positive" gay adult stars who "no longer care about being safe" (clarified: they are positive and fucking/getting fucked by other positive people; thereby potentially re-infecting each other). Or...are porn studios requiring tests with 3-month window periods to minimize risk..?
Julien - It would be silly of me to guess at whether or not people are positive. Performers rarely reveal their status within the gay industry. Some bareback companies do insist on testing. Some do not. Sometimes it is per performer, whether or not they insist on it. xo L, J.
Well Jason, can't fault me too much for asking, you are described as the "oprah" of porn, afterall (snicker). Figured I could mine your brain :-)
Why all the beating around the bush? I think it is OBVIOUS the men in T.I.M and HDK videos are poz,,I mean would anyone who is negative DO THEM?As for Carter Longway he was signed as a Falcon exclusive in June dropped in November and jumps right to HDK. Anyone want speculate as to his last HIV test for Falcon?
I know for a fact that Carter Longway has several friends who are concerned about his constant barebacking and his out of control behavior. Incidentally, the last name in his porn stage name is the last name of another well known model who works for Chi Chi, and they did a shoot with Brent Corrigan.
I know for a fact that not all TIM and HDK models are positive. It IS possible to bareback without being so.
I agree w/ you, Jason, that no one should tell us whether to bareback or not. The problem I have is that porn producers are making money off of people risking their lives and their health. I do think that people who do bareback porn are being self-destructive, and it makes me sad. So I won't give any money to porn producers that make bareback porn -- won't pay for a website subscription, won't buy a dvd, nothing, unless it's safe.
It is a personal choice whether to bareback or not. I have personally barebacked with Carter/Jarod, and am negative, months after those encounters. As for the studios making money - if those guys don't want to bareback they can say no, it is still a free country.
This is not so much a question of studios luring innocent hiv-neg guys into barebacking. If you look at the adult studios like TIM, HDK, SX, etc. and the stars they use, we are clearly talking about positive guys having sex. Why blame the studios? The actors were obviously poz before they started doing BB on film. As for Jarod Steele he has now been fucked BB by so many openly positive BB-stars that his hiv-status cannot possible remain a mystery to anyone.
Jarod Steele can be seen in Tipo Sesso's "Cumdump" and in HDK's "Buckets of Cum" getting fucked by e.g. Dino Phillips. Phillips makes no secret of his status as poz. He even uses his own name on his poz- profile on bareback.com.
The only problem I see with bareback-porn is the phobia surrounding hiv+ in the industry which forces the studios and the stars to stay quiet about HIV. Openness and communication free from prejudice are the best Hiv-prevention you can get.
Hi Guys,
This is Bill, owner of Hot Desert Knights.
Just wanted to jump in the discussion here to clear up a couple of items.
First, HDK does not pay models more to bareback. I've checked with other studios and our rate of pay is pretty much in line with what condom only studios pay. Actually, I've heard from many of our models who have worked for other bareback studios who tell me they pay even less than we do. So, frankly, it's a fallacy that bareback studios pay models more in order to get them to do bareback.
We don't recruit models. Never have. We have an online model application on our website and models voluntarily fill it out and send to us. If we decide to use a model, we simply look at his experience in the industry, if any, and then offer him a certain amount. That amount is not negotiable.
I just read on another blog that ALL HDK models are HIV+. I can assure you that statement has never been issued by HDK. We respect the privacy of our models ferociously and have never made such a statement, nor will we ever. The health status of our model is their business, not anyone's else EXCEPT for who they will be in a scene with when they film for us.
Someone here mentioned OSHA. It's really important to understand that OSHA, whether at the Federal level or State level, exists to protect EMPLOYEES from injury in the workplace. OSHA does not have the authority to become involved in relationships between INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS and Employers. When a model works for us one day and then does a scene for another studio the following day, he is not an EMPLOYEE, he is a Indendent Contractor. To the best of my knowledge all studios pay their models as Independent Contractors. The only exception to that would be studios who have models under exclusive contracts. Under California law, models with exclusive contracts would most likely be considered an employee.
Jarod Steele's name has popped up here a couple of times regarding his HIV status. Obviously I'm not going to talk about his HIV status due to privacy issues, but on other boards it has been stated that he is HIV+ and that he became positive while filming for HDK. That was news to me. The only comment I will make regarding Jarod is that prior to filming for HDK, he did film for at least one other bareback studio and I think he actually filmed for two bareback studios before performing for us. We just happened to be the first studio to release a film where he barebacked. But frankly, Jarod is an adult and what he does, as long as it is consensual is his business, not yours or mine.
HDK takes a lot of steps to ensure the safety of our models while on set with us. If someone applies to us to perform in a film and he tells us that he is HIV- and wants to catch the virus, he will be rejected. We don't believe in "bug-chasing" or "gift-giving". Our stand has always been and always will be; "If you are HIV-, you need to do everything you can to stay that way, and a condom is the best method to prevent HIV if you are engaging in anal sex". We have that statement on every box cover and on every film. It isn't just a PSA....it's something that we really believe.
The issue here is not barebacking vs condoms. The true issue is the right of every adult to choose for themselves the type of sex in which they want to participate. That right is something that all of us in the gay community have been fighting for...for a long time. Don't forget that until just recently, many states still had sodomy laws. If we ever get to a point that a governmental agency can dictate what type of sex that informed, consenting adults can and cannot participate in, then we stand to begin to lose many rights that we have fought so hard to achieve.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill - What did you do? Just find this article?! lol... You're about 7 months late! It went up in April! hehe ;-) I wanted to talk to you thought about something actually. Can you email me so I have your contact info? jason@jasoncurious.com -- thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home