Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
Back to the post

Michael Lucas Continues Recruiting Veteran Adult Performers For Bareback Sex

lucasx390_2_1


Back to the post
By:           Matthew Tharrett
On:           Mar 1, 2014
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 37 Comments
    • Franco C.
      Franco C.

      Condom advocates who suddenly engage in bareback performances are demonstrating how easily fragile their values are. It’s sad how simple it is for any number of them to compromise their ethics, and potentially spread or contract HIV. Regardless I wish them nothing but good health.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dougmc92
      dougmc92

      I read a page on the Truvada site- they recommend the drug with safe sex/condoms…these people are idiots- how many times have we seen this disease/virus morph and out with the research????

      Mar 1, 2014 at 5:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dougmc92
      dougmc92

      by ‘these people’- I meant the porn stars….

      Mar 1, 2014 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MarionPaige
      MarionPaige

      Prior to the aids hysteria, the big “concern” among porn performers (gay and straight) was hepatitis. Back in the day, the two professions in which there was a high degree of hepatitis infections were Porn Performers and Hospital workers. The risk of hepatitis infection is now so much more common that Hepatitis has been reclassified as an STD.

      The gay adult marketplace is overflowing with pre-condom content from the 70’s and early 80’s. So, the “appeal” of so-called condom-less content clearly has nothing to actually do with performers not using condoms, it is all almost the taboo factor and the IMPLIED risk associated with the audience “Not Seeing A Condom”. In other words, the barebacking debate is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

      The way I see it, if there was actually a whole lot of barebacking content being produced today, we would be seeing a whole lot more lawsuits from performers claiming that they became infected while performing in a porn production. I frankly don’t know what the truth is. Either the “barebacking” performers are already positive or there isn’t actually much condom-less content being produced. At least one studio has disclosed that can digitally erase condoms.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MK Ultra
      MK Ultra

      @Franco C.: Money changes everything.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Harley
      Harley

      @MK Ultra: Yea, but is $500 or $1000 worth having to take HIV medication the rest of your life? Really?

      Mar 1, 2014 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bad Ass Biker
      Bad Ass Biker

      What is the big deal about seeing someone fuck with a condom? We have seen it in so much gay porn for so long that it seems like the natural thing to do.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mdterp01
      Mdterp01

      @MK Ultra:

      Exactly. Its all about money. Bareback porn is more popular and therefore brings more revenue. In the end its a business and has to think about its bottom line.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MK Ultra
      MK Ultra

      @Harley: For me personally, that’s a huge resounding NNNOOOO. Haven’t done it. Won’t do it outside of a monogamous long term relationship.
      But for porn performers, that’s their choice to make and the $$$ will definitely be a factor.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fang
      Fang

      Ugh, Queerty is so judgmental about bareback sex. I think when we stigmatize bareback sex, we also stigmatize HIV positive people and attribute the contraction of the disease to a moral and behavioral “fault.” It’s not a natural thing to put condoms on during sex. It’s against our biological and behavioral conditioning. So we can we all just take a collective breath and admit that we all have a tendency to engage or want to engage in condomless sex?

      Instead of pointing fingers at a condom advocate who switched his stance on bareback sex because of the advent of Truvada, why don’t we pause and discuss how Truvada changes our relationship with safer sex? What are its implications? Truvada shows us that safer sex is not a static concept, but an evolving one. Our ideas on it should evolve, too. Especially because the status quo ISN’T WORKING.

      Queerty, be a little more responsible and add to the conversation rather than make superficial and bias assessments on an important matter.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geeker
      Geeker

      Well since they’re literally prostitutes I would imagine money was a deciding factor in their change of hearts.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Tharrett
      Matthew Tharrett · Queerty Editor

      @Fang: Where in this article did I imply that bareback sex is a bad thing? I explicitly stated that “performers having bareback sex don’t owe the world an explanation for their sex practices” because I completely agree with you—a majority of people writing about the topic DO stigmatize and imply that the porn industry has some sort of moral obligation to educate viewers about safe sex.

      You say: “why don’t we pause and discuss how Truvada changes our relationship with safer sex? What are its implications? Truvada shows us that safer sex is not a static concept, but an evolving one. Our ideas on it should evolve, too. Especially because the status quo ISN’T WORKING.”

      You’re absolutely right. My reason for continually harping on Michael Lucas is so that HE begins the discussion. I think as someone who actively condemned bareback sex for nearly a decade and suddenly flipped his entire stance overnight, he absolutely owes an explanation for it, and one measly article in Out about his personal decision to begin using PrEP isn’t good enough.

      Do you not think it’s hypocritical for models like Jonathan Agassi to call barebacking “irresponsible,” only to release a bareback film years later? If there’s one person in this industry that should start—and has the power to productively start—a discussion about Truvada and how it’s influenced his behavior re: bareback sex, it’s Michael Lucas.

      My intention isn’t to “point fingers” or stigmatize HIV-positive models, but Michael’s decision to continue recruiting condom advocates to have bareback sex without providing an explanation (i.e. a discussion about PrEP) isn’t helping anyone move forward…

      Mar 1, 2014 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robirob
      robirob

      @Fang:

      —-I think when we stigmatize bareback sex, we also stigmatize HIV positive people and attribute the contraction of the disease to a moral and behavioral “fault.”—-

      I believe most people are able to consider barebacking dangerous and not worth the risk while still feeling compassion for those who became HIV positive thanks to sad and unfortunate circumstances (for example longtime partner cheated or rape). But in the end it comes down to ‘actions have consequences’.

      —-It’s not a natural thing to put condoms on during sex. It’s against our biological and behavioral conditioning.—-

      There are a lot of things that felt / were natural decades and centuries ago and yet humanity evolved and adapted.

      —-Truvada shows us that safer sex is not a static concept, but an evolving one. Our ideas on it should evolve, too.—-

      In what direction do you propose it should evolve?

      —Especially because the status quo ISN’T WORKING.—

      status quo of what exactly?

      My personal opinion about HIV and barebacking being so popular may sound a bit too New Age for some. Subconscious self loathing (based on the way people were raised – being gay is bad and shameful, All fags should get AIDS and die!) can result in substance abuse problems (like alcohol or drugs) and the desire to get punished for being gay or acting on gay urges.

      In regards to Michael Lucas, well, as someone previously posted: Money talks.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tada-no
      tada-no

      You have to be a complete moron to model your own sexual health based on bareback practices of porn stars who market their HIV safety methods i.e. DNA-PCR testing or Truvada pills. Those methods might work to reduce infections in a porn studio setting with a good bank account to afford those services regularly, but for the average guy casually barebacking with strangers and relying on someone to be “clean” because they look hot or they told you they tested will be a statistic sooner or later.

      Besides, we should not be focused on HIV prevention alone! HIV rapid tests and Truvada will not prevent Hepatitis B and C that require chemo like treatments and still wreak havoc on your liver if you manage to survive. (Not to mention the medical care for Hepatitis can bankrupt you.) Then you have antibiotic resistant gonorrhea floating around because people do not test regularly to detect it in time to stop its spreading.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cooldudesea
      cooldudesea

      Lust and hate is the candy,
      if blood and love tastes so sweet,
      then we give ‘em what they want.
      Hey, hey, give ‘em what they want.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 9:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Respect4all
      Respect4all

      If gay men were not shelling out millions of dollars to watch porn performers fuck each other to death, these companies would not be making this stuff and they wouldn’t be coercing performers into endangering their lives and these men wouldn’t be taking stupid risks for cash. Yes, they are responsible for their actions, but anyone of us who has paid for bareback porn is also responsible. Ask yourself: “Why am I turned on by watching men infect each other with life-threatening diseases?” Then stop buying bareback porn. “If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem?”

      Mar 1, 2014 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ED49
      ED49

      It’s your decision and choice to have any kind of sex you want as long as it’s consensual and you are 21. All you queens are hypocrites and all get all mighty riding your horse, when in fact I bet you all take out your monkey and spank it watching bareback >If bareback sells it’s because we are all watching it, Let people live their consequences, respect them and shut up

      Mar 1, 2014 at 9:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geeker
      Geeker

      If a performer I enjoy watching does bareback porn I can’t watch them anymore because I refuse to financially support that kind of dangerous,self destructive behavior.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LifeNewbie20s
      LifeNewbie20s

      These performers are tested prior to sex. They are adults making an adult decision. I personal choose to use protection. But when did we become a community that demands others follow our morals? These people take precautions by getting tested prior to sex. There is a very good idea of their status. As a community who wants other people to get their morals off of use, we sure impose ours on a lot of people. It’s a free country. Let people be free to do what they want. And also, clearly there are people who are paying for this. If there wasn’t a market, it wouldn’t happen.

      Mar 1, 2014 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • xzall
      xzall

      People can do what they want and risk what they want. It’s this attitude of so what that people seem to now have about HIV that’s disturbing. I do think young gay teens are going to probably pick up some of the behavior of their favorite porn star and start thinking bareback is the way to go. It’s not like there’s a whole lot of gay sex ed being taught to these kids anyway and they don’t have a lot of people to model their behavior off of so the porn star might be it for them.

      They don’t realize that when you’re HIV+ it’s the non HIV related diseases & illnesses normally associated with aging that seems to be a side effect of HIV or the medication that ends up hurting you. I believe that Queerty reported at least 3 deaths this week from people having or possibly being HIV+ that’s from heart attack and pneumonia.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Black Pegasus
      Black Pegasus

      Why is condom free porn such a big damn deal for “some” gay men? I assure you that your objections to condom-less porn is in the minority, but like any loud barking dog your voices drown out all other opinions. These studios are giving viewers what they want. If I watch porn I want to see fit, sexy guys enjoying each other like nature intended. Condom free!

      If straight porn can be enjoyed without condoms, it’s only fair that gay porn offer the same options. You don’t have to watch it!

      Mar 2, 2014 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Niall
      Niall

      Would be nice if the stars he was recruiting were at least hot. Thank god, I won’t have to be tempted to even give this a watch.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tommysole
      Tommysole

      Truvada is a miracle drug until the virus mutates and kills everyone involved.
      And it will mutate.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gskorich
      gskorich

      you meet a guy on the street. you are both negative as of a week ago. you have unprotected sex. the only difference in this scenario than michael Lucas is chances are you aren’t being filmed. if both the actors are tested negative then the risk is the same as meeting someone in real life.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CCTR
      CCTR

      Condoms or no condoms, Truvada users or not, HIV- or HIV+, porn and porn performers are thoroughly overrated!
      We as a community should evaluate why many of these performers are exalted to “role model” and “star” status. We are doing ourselves and younger generations a disservice not to.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Manchester
      Manchester

      @Niall: I agree wholeheartedly with you.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lazycrockett
      Lazycrockett

      @cooldudesea:
      you go Natalie.

      Mar 2, 2014 at 10:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteveDenver
      SteveDenver

      @Geeker: I agree 100%, I cannot have buried 30 of my friends through the years and watch studios treat porn performers as disposable. Anyone who tries to defend porn made without condom use is simply an imbecile: there is NO VALID ARGUMENT.

      Mar 3, 2014 at 6:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      @Matthew Tharrett, bare sex without Truvada and bare sex with Truvada are not the same thing, so it is not inconsistent to be against one and for the other. I don’t see anything contradictory with Michael Lucas’s and these performers’ actions. None of them are advocating or practicing unprotected sex on camera.

      Mar 3, 2014 at 8:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sportyguy1983
      sportyguy1983

      Adults making adult decisions. I would never do bareback outside of a long term monogamous , but to each his own.

      Mar 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bobby Christina Crawford
      Bobby Christina Crawford

      Michael Lucas is to the gay community as Marie Osmond is to the world of entertainment.

      Despicable to his core. Disgusting beyond belief. A man on the wrong side of every political issue as long as it puts money in his pocket.

      I assume we all know that the work of Lucas sets the HIV community back by years and years. Who wants to donate money to help fight a disease when we support someone who wants to publically support the spread of the disease? This is the sort of shit the religious right loves to use against us.

      Does a thin piece of rubber make that much difference to your dick hungry asshole?

      Mar 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      The biggest surprise of this story. There are still people who actually need to BUY porn?

      Mar 3, 2014 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geeker
      Geeker

      I wonder how much money the studios are getting from Truvada?

      Mar 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bobby Christina Crawford
      Bobby Christina Crawford

      @viveutvivas: WOW…did you ever sum that up in a nutshell (no pun intended if one exist).

      Why in the holy bat hell would any person need to spend a dime on porn when the most awesome of all awesome porn is all over the net. And they don’t miss a kink. From guys who get off on smashing condiment packets to dudes fucking mufflers…there is no shortage of variety.

      And now for something completely different.

      Mar 4, 2014 at 9:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Niall
      Niall

      @viveutvivas: Ikr? There are very, very few porn vids that can’t be found somewhere online. I can’t even imagine paying lol.

      Mar 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nycscottie
      nycscottie

      http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/07/24/michael-lucas-comes-out-hiv-negative-sexually-active-man-prep

      The article linked above was published July 24th, 2013. It is written by Michael Lucas, and is a clear and nuanced account of his choice to begin taking Truvada, including current statistics (at the time). He also shares about a program to get financial assistance for Truvada, directly from the company producing it, for some people that may not be able to afford it.

      Your article and accompanying post say that Michael Lucas “[is]n’t… comfortable talking about the things that motivated [him] to completely change [his] stance on condom use?”. You also state that: “Michael’s decision to continue recruiting condom advocates to have bareback sex without providing an explanation (i.e. a discussion about PrEP) isn’t helping anyone move forward…”

      At the risk of simply sounding contrary, Michael Lucas is obviously very comfortable talking about the things that motivated him to completely change his stance on condom use, and there is a clear explanation of his logic and the thinking that led up to it in this article, published 7 months before your article was published.

      Jul 30, 2014 at 1:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nycscottie
      nycscottie

      Also – this is a really fantastic Facebook group that has a very active and up to the minute public conversation about PrEP: https://www.facebook.com/groups/PrEPFacts/. I highly encourage anyone that is interested in finding out more to join this group.

      Jul 30, 2014 at 11:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • MORE PHOTOS

    FOLLOW US
     




    GET THE DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.