UK BB Twink Video Shoot Became a Conversion Scene…
Share: 
30 October 2007 | 25 Comments
According to the Boyz web site (PDF), two twinks were infected on a bareback video shoot in the UK recently. Here’s the basic story… An 18 y.o., a 21 y.o., and a 26 y.o. each had HIV tests before a BB video shoot last month. It turns out the 26 year old’s test result turn out to be a false negative – he was actually poz at the time of the filming. They did some special HIV test on the other two that can find your HIV status sooner than the standard test, and they both came back poz. Thing is, the 26 y.o. didn’t cum inside either of the other guys…
There’s something that just doesn’t ring true in the story… On average a bottom has to get fucked by poz tops about 50 times to get infected. For both of the kids to get infected that’s a 1 in 2500 chance. Let’s just say the 26 year old’s viral load was spiked and he was a lot more infectious than your average poz guy, but he didn’t cum in either one of them… Precum just isn’t that lethal. One bottom getting infected I might believe, but not two. If they were sharing a needle, I can see it. But I’m just not buying that both of them could get infected in one shot without getting cum in their ass.
It’s weird though… On the one hand it could be a marketing ploy – I mean an 18 y.o. and a 21 y.o. getting infected in a BB video that’s going to be released would have a certain crowd buying it like hot cakes… But they’re not releasing the name of the studio. Unless details are going to get leaked later, I’m not sure how it could be a marketing ploy.
Does anyone know which BB porn companies do twink videos and shoot in the UK? I know there are some European companies that do twink BB videos, but I thought they were all Eastern European…
Apparently the video is due out before Christmas – talk about “gift giving”…
UPDATE: The video in question is “British Bareback Vacation” – it’s been released.
well its possible if they were fucking each other before or using a dildo to loosen themselves up and the such. if they were in fact using butt plugs and dildos they could have damaged the lining inside their rectum giving an express route to the HIV infected precum. its a theory.
You really need to speak with people who specialize in HIV. Fact of the matter is if HIV gets into the bloodstream, you get HIV. No change in temperature or exposure to the elements also helps enable HIV transmission. And it is easy to get tears – microscopic or otherwise – in the rectal lining. So getting fucked bareback is the most likely scenario for HIV conversion. You are deluding yourself and spreading dangerous misinformation by inferring that getting fucked bareback is low risk, especially receptive. And you, my friend, are destined for a conversion yourself one day. It’s a matter of time before you fuck a bottom who bleeds profusely due to a hemmorhoid, etc and that gets into your urethra.
The statistics are what they are – 1 in 50 is well established after tens of thousands of sexual encounters…
I’m not “deluding [my]self and spreading dangerous misinformation”, the conclusions I’m drawing are based on facts published by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control, and 20 years of working with statistics. The chances are 1 in 50 – for it happen to two people simultaneously it’s 1 in 2500.
Yes, there are ways that it can be more likely. But “more likely” might make it 1 in 500 or maybe 1 in 100, which is still unlikely.
Remember, this report is an UNSUBSTANTIATED INTERNET RUMOR – at least at the moment. We don’t know the motives of the people at Boyz Magazine who reported the story… They haven’t even given concrete names of people directly involved so others can follow up.
Until it’s confirmed by a few more people, “be skeptical of what you read on the Internet”.
I was just looking into it some more and the Internet rumor mill is in full force…
XBiz.com screwed up and said 3 people were infected when only 2 were infected – the other guy was already poz. Their story does clarify it (by repeating the original story), but a bunch of other sites are just repeating the headline and the first few sentences of XBiz’s article…
If three were infected that means the odds were 1 in 125,000. I know people in porn are probably the type who didn’t do all that well in statistics, but how can people repeat this stuff without thinking how impossible it is for three people to all get infected at the same time (when no cum was exchanged)?
Remarkable…
You CAN get infected from pre-cum. Just because the risk is lower doesn’t mean it’s absent. And the thing about statistics is: 1 in 250 doesn’t mean 249 times you don’t have to worry. Any one of those 250 times could be the unlucky draw of straws. Or loaded chamber. Or whatever your metaphor. Virgins have contacted HIV the first time they had sex.
ewelthorpe… You’re completely missing the point – it’s almost impossible that two guys could get pozzed from precum in the same video shoot without extraordinary measures (of which there were none).
I’m not saying you can’t get infected from precum – I’m saying the chances of it are so low that the story is unbelievable.
That’s the story here – that bloggers like you are idiots can can’t tell a made up story when it’s painfully obvious. It suits your anti-barebacking opinions, so you run with it whether it’s true or not.
If you wonder why the “use a condom every time” message failed, it’s because people like you who were saying it told half truths an outright lies… Guys were tired of safe sex and tired of your lies…
There are a lot of reasons to have safe sex – “enjoy your retirement”, “don’t fuck up your chances of getting your green card”… But you chose to demonize guys who were just fucking the way that felt best to them…
Grow up and start being honest and factual.
What about the shot one of them was infected from precum, and the other was infected by an oral cumshot? Don’t forget you can get HIV from oral sex. HIV can be transmitted via tonsilar tissue. And… those Brits have shitty teeth! Could have had bleeding gums.
ewelthorpe… You’re grasping at straws. The point is the risk they took wasn’t that high risk. Did you ever take statistics? It’s really pretty basic stats.
I don’t care what low risk activity you pick – it’s almost impossible that it happened…
During initial infection (seroconversion if you will), the viral load spikes in a person (to millions of copies).
This spike is what causes “flu like symptoms” in someone who is recently infected (because the immune system has not yet responded, but the persons CD4 cells are declining due to the rapid spread of the virus).
This is also why someone can get a false negative (they have not yet produced an immune response in the form of antibodies, which is what an “antibody” test looks for).
In the meantime, due to the tremendous spike in viral copies, a person is extremely infectious.
About the comment, “On average a bottom has to get fucked by poz tops about 50 times to get infected. For both of the kids to get infected that’s a 1 in 2500 chance.”
This is something called the gamblers fallacy. It is the idea that if you keep playing the game (betting on the lottery for example), “eventually you will win.” This is untrue. Your chances remain the same regardless of how many times you have unsafe sex. The chances of each boy getting HIV was 1 in 50. If there were 10 boys, the chances would still be 1 in 50.
Yes, the chances of BOTH getting HIV at the same time is rare (technically 50 x 50 = 2500), but I dont think HIV cares much about statistics.
Attempted Recluse – I mentioned the guy’s viral load spiking – so no new news there… I also understand the whole concept that HIV tests are for antibodies, not the virus itself, hence you get false negatives right after infection… Again, no new news…
And nothing I said counteracts the fact that their chances are on average 1 in 50 every time. I didn’t say they were virgins so who hadn’t had sex with 50 guys yet… I used the 1 in 50 in an appropriate manner, statistically. I also mentioned that certain things can affect the 1 in 50 number – viral load makes it more likely, not cumming in their asses makes it less likely…
The statement “I don’t think HIV cares much about statistics” is really bad spin and totally wrong. HIV may not care about statistics – but that’s only because viruses don’t have emotions. What is true is that viruses such as HIV live their lives by statistical probabilities. They’re viruses which don’t have free will (even free will can be factored into statistics – since they’re about averages…)
Nothing changes the fact that it’s still highly unlikely that two guys got infected in the same shoot by someone who didn’t cum in their ass. Sure, the top had a huge viral load, but it’s still unlikely and no one has verified the story…
Oh, and by the way… Like you’re pic – especially the one where your head is shaved (the one on your Blogger profile)…
Please provide a citation for your statistics. Saying “well established” and you’ve worked with statistics for twenty years doesn’t cut it. If you’ve worked with statistics for one day you should know that.
Was away for the weekend – give me a day or two to find the study in my filing cabinet… There have been several, but the the one I have printed out is from researchers in San Francisco. The 1 in 50 was when they were working with pre-1995 data (pre-protease inhibitors). Which means it’s now harder to get infected since most poz guys have really low viral loads these days. Still the pre-protease inhibitor data is appropriate in this case since the top was recently pozzed and not on meds…
It may or many not be harder to be infected with the protease – you need to find statistics on that one, too – but the strain you DO get is more likely to be drug resistant.
I am curious though: what is your plan for when you DO get infected. You must have already faced up to this risk.
Are you saying that on average someone who catches HIV has been fucked bare 50 times by a poz top?
Sounds unlikely – I’d have thought it was easier to catch. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong if you find that reference.
I have not read the article. I will. However, the abstract ends with a telling comment: “Choosing one risk-reduction behavior substantially reduces absolute risk of HIV infection for heterosexuals but not for men who have sex with men.” It appears these statistics have no bearing on men who have sex with men.
brendan – Read the article before commenting, please. It does cover gay sex…
Perhaps the story is fiction. But ultimately, a LOT of these barebacking videos – especially ones from Eastern Europe – are going to be de facto conversion scenarios. The participants are doing it for money. Some are going to be negative, and have sex with positive guys. See the documentary Body Without Soul if you want to delve deeper into this reality.
@rawTOP
In determining the probability of 2 individuals getting infected essentially simultaneously you cannot treat the two transmission events as if they are independent.
The shared factor is the level of virus being shed in the pre-cum of the top. You mentioned spike in blood plasma viral load, but there is more to the story than this. Some individuals have orders of magnitude disproportionately higher levels of virus in their semen (including pre-cum) than other individuals with matched blood plasma viral loads – these individuals have been termed ‘super-shedders’ by some. The factors underlying this are not clear – but co-infections such as active CMV may play a role (Sheth et al, 2006).
If you are picking a person at random with whom to have bareback sex their may be a ~1/100 chance that you’re going to pick someone with a high enough seminal viral load to consistently establish new infections. But if this person then has sex with multiple partners the chances are high that more than one of these partners will become infected… particularly if these events happen in short succession when there is clearly infectious virus being secreted.
The trait of high levels of infectious virus in seminal plasma is not fixed on an individual-to-individual basis, but varies over time. I want to highlight this because it would be unwise for someone to think ‘I haven’t transmitted HIV to my past 3 partners, I must not be a super-shedder so nothing to worry about’. All it would take would be a flare-up of CMV or an STI, or any number of unknown factors and this could change in a hurry.
The research community does not ‘hide’ the fact that transmission is an infrequent event. It’s plainly present in the literature for anyone with enough initiative and intelligence as yourself to see. The fact is that if everyone were to have bareback sex as a matter of practice the large majority of people would get infected sooner rather than later.
look being infected in a video is not hot at all its sick and fucking bad if you like this shit you are sick why ill tell you i am mikey woods gay porn star i was infected during my modeling i will not say who for my own safety now you can make you own desision in the matter if you look up mikey woods gay porn star on google im 22 years old now and have a vary bad strand of hiv and i was a victum so please thank befor you say shit . thank you and have a nice day
oh btw im from usa
Yes! Conversion videos are HOT!!!