Here’s Cum in Your Eye: Falcon’s “Fleet Week”
When I posted a clip from Falcon’s upcoming Fleet Week it was mostly to spotlight Tristan Jaxx’s almost comically voluminous cum shot. It didn’t really occur to me as significant that Tristan gets a few squirts in Josh Weston’s mouth in between getting it in his eye and all over his face.
A hint of things to “cum” from Falcon: More oral cum shots. The trailer also features Erik Rhodes lapping up some jizz less serendipitously:
Oral cum shots are nothing new (Michael Lucas features the occasional oral cum shot in his films and they crop up elsewhere), but this is definitely a new direction for Falcon.
Watch the full trailer after the jump …
— Jack
Tags: Cum Shots, Erik Rhodes, Fleet Week, Josh Weston, Oral Cum Shots, Tristan Jaxx
Charles March 25th, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Yeah, I saw the preview last week and thought Falcon has to make more money. Notice that Falcon Studios is HIGHLY promoting the cum drenching done by Tristan Jaxx and received by Josh Weston. Falcon is doing what it feels that it has to be competitive with bareback porn in addition to amateur porn sites like Sean Cody, Randy Blue and ChaosMen. These websites frequently show someone taking a hot load of cum to the face and/or mouth. Whether or not this is considered bareback porn is questionable but I do believe that bareback porn will be explored by mainstream companies as the market continues to explode all over the place.
You have many porn stars that are willing to do this because it will keep them employed. Many of Lucas Auditions series materials feature cum licking and sucking. Bel-ami already has “bareback†in place on their website with a disclaimer of the potential risks. I have noticed that AEBN.net has taken it up a notch and started requesting double time to watch “new release†bareback porn. In addition bareback porn constitutes more than ½ of their “Most Watchedâ€. Also there is an explosive release of “classic pre-condom†porn for gay men to enjoy without feeling that it is bareback porn. There seems to be clear lines drawn in the sand for some people and it is getting more intense.
What if both performers are HIV negative; is bareback porn OK? Do we assume that if you are participating in bareback sex you MUST be HIV+? Are cum shots less risky for HIV infection? Many gay studios are starting to use Rapid HIV tests for their performers. Is gay porn that much of a mirror of the true gay community? Does porn make such an impact on the decisions of the average gay man?
Have gay men learned to “say†that they are against bareback porn but “do†watch and participate in the behavior? Not many gay men going to stand up and honestly say that they are having bareback sex; the rate of infection of HIV and other STDs are increasing so there must be something that is not adding up. What is going on?
What does it mean for the average gay man? You will have to decide what “fantasy†is and what is “real†for your life. Furthermore, you have many people that are not going to share their HIV status with a one night stand. Why take the risks with a stranger? Are drugs involved? Are gay men that trusting of one another? Each gay man will have to decide where to and how to draw the line for themselves.
FYI: Josh Weston a major star of Falcon made a bareback porn video, the production dates for SX Video: Bodybuilders Bareback was from 09-11 thru 11-16-07 and productions date for Falcon Studios: Fleet Week is listed on the back of the box as 12-06-07. Did Falcon Studios do something wrong? Should Falcon Studios have worked with Josh Weston? Are the production dates correct? Is Falcon Studios heading towards bareback porn?
Anonymous March 25th, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Bad decision come from desperation.
incredulous March 25th, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Isn’t that really unsafe? I’ve read that you’re only in danger of contracting HIV if you do something like that with open sores in your mouth but, come on, no one’s gums are air-tight and the occasional nick or cut happens in the mouth and we’re totally unaware of it.
I’m not prude. I think it’s hot to see but I’m worried about the people doing it. They shouldn’t have die just so someone can get their rocks off.
FrenchBen March 25th, 2008 at 9:52 AM
yeah, this is quite new for Falcon!
J March 25th, 2008 at 11:34 AM
So, if Falcon goes bareback, will they drop the price of their products…since at that point, they will be little more than a dressed-up version of Treasure Island Media. I can see it now–“Cream My Ass” with Josh Weston, Erik Rhodes, Titpig, and Dawson the cumwhore…tagline–“Jizz drips from every opening”. Yes, I know that twisted.
tito March 25th, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Josh Weston looks like he’s sucked down one load too many…my god that face. Sleezstack anyone?
Madonna March 25th, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Brent Corrigan was/is a dirty little cum-pig who Falcon had no problem employing – I don’t see the big deal.
Oh, and Erik needs to lay off the steroids – too much for a prissy little Queen like him.
Ta ta.
Leo March 25th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
The gay community should be demandeing a CURE for HIV/AIDS. Money for prevention is great but I have heard less and less about a CURE. The community demanded the government recognize AIDS. Now we must stand up again!
Anonymous March 25th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
God the porn industry is soo petty! Just wait and see before you start throwing around accusations.
will March 25th, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Can someone explain how this is any more unsafe than getting a couple of drops of cum in the mouth during routine oral scenes? And don’t pretend that doesn’t happen.
Anonymous March 25th, 2008 at 4:18 PM
A cure is great, but lets try and keep people from getting it in the first place!
Anonymous March 25th, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Oral cumshots are my absolute favorite thing, and I’m glad they’re becoming more and more of a presence in gay porn. Kristen Bjorn, the alltime best gay porn studio, is doing them, why not Falcon? Besides the fact that they’re very commomplace in straight porn, I’ve heard they are safe, so long as the person does not have any cuts or sores in their mouth. I agree with ‘indredulous’ when he says nobody’s mouth is air tight all the time, but if a model agrees to do a scene like that, check them out ahead of time amd make sure. My own doctor told me the chances are very small of contracting anything unless I have ‘deep’ cuts in mouth. Also,saliva kills the aids virus. That’s a fact. As long as things remain safe, I say go ahead.
MHK March 25th, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I’m glad, to me it ain’t porn without cum slurping.
Anon 13243526 March 25th, 2008 at 6:13 PM
My observation has been that cum-in-mouth shots (from major studios) have become quite a bit more common in the past couple of years. I think it’s because of two related trends: (1) consumers’ demands for realistic sex, rather than airbrushed, sterilised sex; and (2) competition from an increasing number of studios that offer bareback films.
The jury is perpetually out on just how much risk is involved, but we can be fairly assured that blowjobs (even with cum) are markedly safer than bareback fucking.
junior March 25th, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Yeah, it sounds worse than what you see in the video and I agree with the person who said that it’s no more worse than the amount of pre-cum I’m sure they ingest when filming the oral scenes in the first place.
However, I think it’s always better to promote safer sex practices even at the expense of hotness (although I don’t think cum slurping is that hot to be honest).
Anonymous March 25th, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Stop pretending that these porn stars are anything other than cum hungry sluts. I’ve fucked many of them bare. :-)
chriso March 25th, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I’m trying to figure out how everyone is making the leap from oral cum shots to barebacking? That is a pretty wide chasm to jump across and there are several mainstream gay porn studios that portray oral cum shots but are clearly still using condoms during fucking.
Anon 13243526 March 25th, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Chriso,
The reason people are drawing a connection is that barebacking and cum swallowing both pose larger disease transmission risks than mainstream studios have been willing to portray in recent years.
Mainstream porn studios basically abandoned oral cumshots, along with barebacking, after the AIDS crisis hit. Now, barebacking has become a pretty significant part of overall gay adult entertainment revenues — but mainstream studios are unable to share in that revenue because of the high moral positions they took on the issue (for which I commend them).
I guess it’s just a little curious that, at the same time bareback studios are exerting some serious competitive pressures on mainstream studios, the mainstream studios are now starting to let the boys guzzle cum again.
tom March 26th, 2008 at 3:33 AM
The San Francisco study mentioned above says there is a less than 0.01% chance of contracting HIV orally. Factors like enzymes in the saliva and the unhospitable climate of the mouth and esophagus play a big role. People had already been suggesting this for years because of flawed studies that said otherwise, tested on monkeys. It’s a personal decision nonetheless. The study has, actually, much more alarming statistics in relation to anal sex. The risk factor fot anal sex with a condom, for instance, is much higher than you’d imagine @ atleast 1%. Barebacking is just plain crazy, in life and on porn. It’s hot, maybe, but can’t you just use your imagination?
Kostas March 26th, 2008 at 7:07 AM
I’d like to point out that porn does indeed influence the behaviour of the average gay man , especially the average gay teenager who doesn’t live in New York , Paris or London , hasn’t explored his sexuality enough , hasn’t come out and doesn’t have many people to talk to .
Studios should promote ONLY safe sex and bareback studios should be shutted down , if you ask me . The message they send out is just unacceptable
Anonymous March 26th, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Wait, are they swallowing? If not, I don’t see the problem. I don’t bareback, but I love cumming on a guy’s face and watching it drip down.
I don’t think it’s that big of a problem as long as they don’t swallow.
Mark March 26th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
LOL..So suprising..remember FALCON started as a BAREBACK studios..and i might add those were probably there BEST movies..lol
ChicagoCub March 26th, 2008 at 10:37 AM
If you could get HIV from sucking dick we’d all have it.
Cfoo March 26th, 2008 at 11:41 AM
If Falcon don’t respect his performers, than I am no longer be watching their films.
Falcon has splendid performers, I like and dreame about them.
Now, fantasizing on models whom are potential HIX+ kills my libido.
Who will j.o. on a dead person?
Mike March 26th, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Falcon was one of the last major studios to start using condoms years ago. You can find some of their movies after 1990 that was bareback. They took heat for it for not using them.
Anonymous March 26th, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Anon has his head up his ass as usual.
Ringwraith March 26th, 2008 at 11:14 PM
The fact that Falcon has stooped to using oral cumshots suggests that their revenues have declined and probably substantially. I have been a fan of Falcon’s videos for years. They rountinely put out hit after hit from the late 1990s through the mid-2000s but then many things cropped up to challenge their status as the premiere gay adult studio. They were slow to make the big conversion to the dvd format when there was a huge demand for their product. It was not too many years ago that they were still charging around $70 for a vhs cassette at a time when most studios were rountinely offering dvds. Then they kept changing directors moving from the steady and creative efforts of John Rutherford to Chris Steele, and now several less talented directors in my opinion. Also a huge factor is that the technologies allow anyone with a video camera and a website to potentially sell porn or allow subscribers to download directly from their website without ever having to press a dvd or run a big-budget porn operation. Also of revelance is bareback porn as several of the previous writers have mentioned. Not only is it prevalent but there are also quality bareback porn studios like Eurocreme with their Raw films line that rival anything that Falcon is currently producing. Finally, Falcon has not put out the “high quality” product that it did when it was in its heyday. I believe the standard for models today is pretty low and again they have many more formats in which to release their work—from live internet porn shows to amateur companies like Sean Cody or Corbin Fisher. Today’s technology has “democratized” the industry. Who wants to spend $50 or more for lame porn in which half of the models can’t get a hard-on for more than a few minutes even if it sports the Falcon brand. Economically, its less riskier to rent them. All this considered, and no wonder that Falcon would try oral cumshots–health risks and all–to boost their flagging movie sales.
Anon 13243526 March 27th, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Gee, __, thanks for that insightful critique. :+)
organist March 27th, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Not mentioned explicitly in any of the posts thus far is an important bit of history. When AIDS first struck in a big way in the mid-late 80s, there was very little known or understood about transmission of HIV. For a long time, oral sex was thought to be just as big a risk, if not even more so, than condomless anal sex. As a result, the gay porn industry abandoned both condomless anal sex and oral cumshots. But this is now, and the vast majority of studies today agree that oral sex of most kinds is a low risk activity. There is no slippery slope here, as Chi-Chi implies; oral cumshots represent a low risk factor, whether in porn or in every day life.
Also, we should all remember that safe sex isn’t black and white, but a continuum from very low risk to very high risk behavior. To suggest that porn must adhere to some arbitrary line drawn in the sand is contrary to the very concept of freedom and personal responsibility that we all need to cherish and take for ourselves.
The most responsible porn makers will do everything they can to promote less risky activities. However, we seem to be coming closer to a time when such a moral high ground will only result in bankruptcy forced by the myriad of less “responsible” porn makers. If this is true, then the guilty party isn’t the porn makers themselves, it is the millions who eagerly buy their questionable products.
In other words, the real answer to all these difficult questions lies in the face you see in the mirror.
For what it’s worth, I think Falcon is making a very smart business decision, and I don’t see anything wrong with it on any moral level.
Anonymous March 27th, 2008 at 9:24 PM
All you you better watch out. What many of you are advocating is censorship. In many states two men having sex in any form is against the law and you can be put in jail. In some countries you can be killed.
So be very careful about throwing out words like boycott and the like.
Because, if you really want to have the government telling us how we can have sex and with whom, we are all in real trouble.
There are some people and groups in America that would like to see our pleasure of watching porn taken away from us completely and have been trying for years to make that happen.
Dawgson March 27th, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Hey [blank @9:24],
Boycotts are not the same as censorship. Censorship is the government telling us what we can and cannot say and view.
A boycott is a perfectly legal, perfectly capitalist, private sector way of voting with our dollars. If people here choose to boycott Falcon because they believe they’re showing riskier sex to make a quick buck, then more power to them.
No one here (that I’ve seen) has suggested the government come in and and regulate porn.
Anonymous March 28th, 2008 at 9:00 AM
This is not about the personal and private behavior of private individuals. This is about the paid commercial exploitation of sexual acts.
These are corporations paying performers to engage in sex acts for money, and then commercially exploiting them for profit. As such, they have a moral and ethical responsibility to both their performers and to the gay community.
For a company that made hundreds of millions from the gay community, they need to give some back. And pushing the boundries and portraying higher risk sex is not giving back to the community.
If you’ve gotten to the point where you cannot remain profitable, then maybe it’s time you look for new leadership.
Anonymous March 28th, 2008 at 9:41 AM
If the industry does not regulate itself, then trust me the government will! The only reason the government has stayed out so far has been because of the AIM testing in the straight business, and the use of condoms in the gay business.
When CalOHSA sees things like oral cumshots without any AIM testing, or full bareback without any testing they go crazy! The industry needs to hold producers accountable and to the industry standards of either AIM testing or condoms. You’ve got to do one or the other at the very minimum.
nekwer March 28th, 2008 at 7:05 PM
are you sure you people are into porn? you sound more like the moral gestapo. anyway, straight porn is much nastier and the guys are really hot – that’s why I like watching it.
will March 28th, 2008 at 9:17 PM
@organist: Just a fan letter. Yours is probably the only post I’ve read on this subject that I agreed with from beginning to end.
Anonymous March 29th, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Organist- “For what it’s worth, I think Falcon is making a very smart business decision, and I don’t see anything wrong with it on any moral level.”
Do you think it’s okay that Falcon is paying performers to do oral cumshots, but is not testing the models for HIV?
Don’t you think that paying performers to engage in higher risk activity should require additional precautions on the side of the producer?
When you pay performers to engage in higher risk sex acts, you have an obligation to mitigate the risk as much as possible. That’s just the right thing to do. Even the straight industry has recognized that and requires testing of their performers that engage in oral cumshots and unprotected sex. Why should Falcon, or any other producer for that matter, not be held to that same threshold standard?
These are multi-million dollar a year corporations we are talking about, not people in the privacy of their own homes. There is a different standard once it becomes a commercial and for profit business venture.
Dan Jay March 29th, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I know this may sounds like a really stupid question-and I’m just getting into gay porn BUT don’t the models get tested before the scenes?? Surely that should be the questions been asked?
organist March 29th, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Thanks to both who responded directly to my post.
One poster, however, seems to take my statement supporting Falcon a little too simply, and I will acknowledge fault in that I didn’t give as complete a statement as I should have.
I absolutely agree about testing, “hazard” pay, etc., as you suggest. In fact, I said…”most responsible porn makers will do everything they can to promote less risky activities.” I just didn’t properly direct this sentiment to my comments about Falcon, which was a grave oversight on my part.
The parallels and lack thereof with the straight porn industry is also telling and I agree that sensible industry standards are an excellent idea that should be welcomed by any responsible producer.
The main thrust of my comments were really addressing some of the reactionary comments people have made, based, it seems to me, on appalling ignorance of widely agreed-upon safe sex and safer sex standards. In particular, there seems to be a great amount of misunderstanding of the risk level involved in oral sex. Had Falcon announced a full bareback movie, I would have denounced them for it. But many posters here and elsewhere don’t see any difference between oral cumshots and condomless anal sex, which is absolutely ignorant. I don’t think Falcon should be vilified out of ignorance for attempting to keep pace in what surely must be one of the most difficult industries in the world today.
This raises very well the question of risk. Should Budweiser, for example, be censured because they have sponsored men like Dale Earnhardt Jr engaging in a high risk behavior that killed his very famous father, all because some of us regard this as “entertainment”?
Porn performers who take risks should be properly compensated, but the reality, just as in Nascar, is that merely participating in the business is risky, and not just because of HIV and AIDS. For example, has anyone thought to insist that the porn makers provide counseling and help with street drug use among its stars?
We all take risks everyday. I don’t support condomless anal sex, either in porn or in general. But we must understand the larger picture before we start getting our tighty-whities in a twist.
Organist
Anonymous March 29th, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Dan- No, they do not get tested, that’s the point!
The industry standard has been in the straight industry they do HIV testing, but they do not use condoms and they engage in unprotected sex. Testing is done by an independant outside third party organization called AIM. All test results are databased and tracked, with results being made available to all the straight adult producers. There is no confidentiality regarding test results in the straight industry. If you test positive for HIV, you can no longer work in the straight industry…period.
In the gay industry the standard has been no HIV testing, but safer sex by the use of condoms and no oral cumshots. This was done to protect the privacy rights of gaymen who did not feel comfortable with their HIV status being non-confidential and made public. Performers are counseled to privately dicuss HIV status and comfort level with their scene partners before hand. The gay industry felt that since they were using condoms and practicing safer sex, they would not do HIV testing that would expose performers HIV status publicly.
That’s how it has worked for the past 10 years or so. But, things are changing with some producers pushing the boundries. As an example most gay “bareback” porn is being done without any AIM third party testing in place. They are not testing, they are not using condoms and they are engaging in high risk unprotected sex.
This is why so many in the gay industry are so upset. These new producers are not playing by the same rules (AIM testing or condoms) as everyone else. They are putting the models at risk, and the entire industry at risk of government intervention.
Chelseanorth April 7th, 2008 at 6:54 PM
For people to suggest that bareback sex is more or less safe than getting a shot in the eye…. I don’t know. But I do know that the tissue surrounding the eye will absorb just about any gas or liquid that it comes in contact with. So it really just doesn’t seem probable that taking a monster load in the eye is safe at all.
I used to find Josh Weston breathtakingly beautiful. Used to. Like many porn “stars†that I’ve followed over the past seven years or so, he developed a caricature-like physique appears to be a result of a steroid cocktail of some sort. To me, this disproportionate muscle development is a telltale sign that they’re not healthy. I have to assume that with bareback movies, these men are doing it because they really need the money and they’re already infected. I don’t find bareback movies sexy at all. I apologize for saying this, and I know that those of us with HIV don’t want to hear it, but that’s the way I feel. While many of the men in safe sex videos are also HIV+, I’m able to suppress my disbelief for twenty minutes. I’d like to think they always wear condoms.
By virtue of the fact that actors wear a condom, they’re promoting safe sex. The opposite goes for bareback sex.
Deon25 April 19th, 2008 at 5:34 PM
People get to uptight about the issue of cum. So one guy shoots a load and the other guy laps it up in the heat of the moment, so what. Falcon porn stars get regular screenings and I’m sure before they decided to make this film, they had all the actors given check ups.
Fact is, in real life, men suck off guys and get cum in their mount and over their face all the time, its just that since falcons played it overly safe for years, and now suddenly showing hotter cumshots, people are suddenly up in arms over it.
Truth being I think falcon would lose out if it ended up one of theit stars contracted an std, so very unlikely any of this here is unsafe.
loves it in the ass June 26th, 2008 at 9:51 PM
who cares about stds?! marry a big, sexy, boy that`s a virgin, or has been careful with that big ol` cum covered monster cock of pleasure!
moudougou August 29th, 2008 at 3:02 AM
Hey everyone. This is a fascinating subject, and I’ve enjoyed everyone’s post. I had always assumed that the more hot and healthy and good-looking porn stars would never be doing what they’re doing UNLESS the studio was more or less “guaranteeing” that all performers had been recently tested for AIDS. I am just learning about the “AIM” organization – is that just in California, or nationwide? The studios – at least the gay ones – shouldn’t need an “outside” organization to do their testing for them. It is their responsibility. Of course, there could be differences between every studio. Then it is the models’ responsibility to KNOW what the risk level is of the activity they are supposed to engage in.
It will never be possible (in some senses) for the big studios to be able to “match” what some (possibly) committed and tested “couple” can film and put out on XTube or whatever.
With studios like “Treasure Island Media” or “DickWadd” I figured perhaps that all the models are already HIV+. I don’t know. OR, they are ALL just taking their chances at the risk of becoming infected??
I would hope that the larger studios – that MOST of the studios – would have frequent testing in place, so that AT LEAST the HIV status is known, at least among the producers and models in any given production, at the time of production!
That right there would eliminate a huge amount of the risk that everyday people in real life probably take with one-night stands and cruising, etc.
I just don’t know how it actually works within the majority of the studios today. When I see oral cumshots and the like – it’s HOT, but I have to remember (and assume) that the studio and its models are taking necessary precautions to be ABLE to relatively safely engage in such activities.