Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Porn Feuds

Michael Lucas Vs. Brent Corrigan

michaellucas-copy

Moments after San Francisco City Supervisor Bevan Duffy praised the gay porn industry for promoting a sex-positive environment and praising the industry’s role as “the first exposure many of us had to the gay community,” porn impresario Michael Lucas jumped on the stage of the Castro Theater’s GayVN Awards and admonished the crowd, “Shame on you! Shame on the judges who nominated and awarded [porn star Brent] Corrigan. On a night we honor ASACP there should be no forgiveness for the company’s and individuals who put the industry in danger by supporting this.”

Lucas was berating them because Corrigan had just won three awards, the first time the formerly underage model — he was starring in porn as young as 17, though we’ve heard 16 too — had been nominated. Corrigan admitted in 2005 to filming several bareback scenes for Cobra Video while underage, using a fake ID to convince now-murdered Cobra owner Bryan Kocis that he was over 18. Since then, Corrigan has gone on to form his own production company.

Proving the gay porn industry is the gay community’s version of hip-hop, hours later, Michael Lucas twittered that Corrigan’s boyfriend, Paul threatened to “throw acid in my face and kill me” and then claimed the following morning that he had Corrigan’s boyfriend arrested. Corrigan responded that Lucas “used me as a personal pawn in his game of publicity foul play” and that Michael Lucas had made the whole thing up.

According to a press release from Michael Lucas, here’s what happened:

“During my call to action Corrigan’s boyfriend rushed to the stage and started yelling insanely at me to get off the microphone. As I was leaving the theatre, several people were warning me to watch my back, as some overheard Corrigan’s boyfriend making threats to my address. Among all the scattered lunacy, people were saying THANK YOU for having the courage to say what I did. I didn’t see my statement as too heroic at that point. I simply exercised my right of free speech and I strongly believe in the importance ofmy message. The adult industry shouldn’t award models who work when they’re underage and forge their identification.

Conversely, and apparent in this occasion, speaking your mind can be dangerous. At the after party, Corrigan’s boyfriend came up to me and bumped his chest against mine. I do not know the boyfriend’s name but I know that it’s not his ex Grant Roy. This guy was a buff Latin male that appears to be in his thirties. He then threatened that he was going to kill me and demand that we leave the club together immediately so that he could break my neck. The club’s security swiftly came and separated him; he came back and told me that he will splash acid into my face, “which will be the end of your career.” I called the police immediately when I reached the hotel and recalled to them what happened. The cops went to Corrigan’s room, but the couple was still out partying elsewhere.

I called the police at 7:00 am, San Francisco time, as soon as I found out that they were back in their room (I simply called the room and Corrigan pickedup [sic] the phone). The police were there within ten minutes. They talked to Corrigan and his boyfriend for about twenty minutes, and then handcuffed the boyfriend and took him into custody.”

picture-219

Not so, claims Corrigan, who responded via his blog in a post titled “The Stuntman”:

“No one was arrested, and no one was threatened with any sort of bodily harm. Michael Lucas did say to my boyfriend, however, that he would “never, ever stop harassing your boyfriend!”

Later in the evening after the show, at the after party, Michael Lucas put himself between my boyfriend and me and the exit of the club. We were on our way home. He forced his body into Paul (my boyfriend of almost one year) and stepped on his toes and shoes. Michael immediately was hostile and a shouting match began. Paul requested the aid of two security officials of the venue. A warning was issued to Michael Lucas. The club was loud, there were many people around but words could not easily be heard over the noise unless you were within inches of the incident like I was. Despite this and what lies have been told, no threats of bodily harm or death were made ever to Michael Lucas. Names were called and threats of social ruin and disdain were made.

Paul and I woke the following morning at 8 AM with several police officers at our bedside. Paul was cuffed and taken out into the hallway so he could be questioned separately from me. Paul is 6 foot, 200 + pounds. There was no resist or hostility from either parties; the cuffs were used as a precaution based on the misleading statements ML had previously made to the authorities…

Once Michael’s history, motives and his outcry on stage were all brought to light to the authorities; Paul was released from his cuffs and we gave our written statements. The police were very fair and even sided. They were polite and quickly drew the correct conclusions. They departed after a little over an hour of discussion. Together Paul and I returned to bed to sleep the morning away.”

Oh, brother. Lucas has a long history of making extreme statements to garner attention and Corrigan claims the whole altercation occurred simply because occurred “because Michael Lucas’ pride and ego was brutally wounded when he was booed and the bulk of the GayVN patrons expressed distaste for his uninvited ranting on stage at the event.”

Honestly, we could care less about what actually happened. Queerty was at the awards and at the after party, though we didn’t see the alleged confrontation. What we did see was Lucas hanging out by the open-bar in the V.I.P. section until the event’s close, chatting up associates and friends for hours. If he felt he was in any sort of physical danger or harm, he didn’t show it.

The incident does highlight, however, just how far the gay porn industry has to go. This was only the second time the GayVN Awards were open to the public and if there was a message beyond “Cock is great!,” it was that the industry was beginning to mature. A tribute award was given to producer Chi Chi LaRue for her work in promoting safe sex on film and she appeared via video asking her colleagues to take care of their models and many of the award speeches focused on the artistry of porn. There was no mention of the multiple high-profile gay porn murder cases that had occurred in the last year — which, really, was the industry’s O.J. trial — and Lucas’ impromptu speech was widely met with boos.

Yet Lucas, despite himself, has a point. Why would the gay porn industry rush to embrace a star who made his fame through underage porn? If there’s a balance between being a source of sex-positive imagery and appealing to our carnal desires, gay porn has yet to find it. The aftermath of the dramatics, with its histrionic twitters, blog posts and police interrogations , proves that despite the industry’s efforts to grow-up, it still has a lot of maturing to do.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Mar 30, 2009
Tagged: , , ,

  • 147 Comments
    • fixator
      fixator

      Though Lucas might have his own hidden agenda he was correct in voicing his concern. Brent Corrigan seems to be an unsavoury character indeed and the fact that people go totally gaga over him is most disturbing.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ogre
      Ogre

      “Yet Lucas, despite himself, has a point. Why would the gay porn industry rush to embrace a star who made his fame through underage porn?”

      And why should the industry, and Michael Lucas–and you too, Japhy–rush to defend a man, Michael Kocis, who made millions producing and selling underage porn?

      I don’t know shit from Shinola about porn; much like life I prefer to participate than watch. But wasn’t Lucas raked over the coals after claiming a famous Hollywood actor, who lives in the same building as Lucas, had treated him in a homophobic way, which was later proven false? And why wasn’t Lucas arrested and charged with filing a false police report?

      Personally, and I hope you are reading this Michael, since you love nothing more than hanging around blogs looking for your name to be mentioned, if you were going to call the cops on me, I would have given you a reason to do so, more than just words. I think it’s about time someone put you in your place.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      That there is such a market for video of an underage boy getting barebacked is deeply disturbing. It doesn’t change the fact that Lucas is a plastic publicity whore douchenozzle.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx
      REBELComx

      Question: Did Brent Corrigan win any awards for the movies he filmed while underage? No? Well then that argument is irrelevant. The guy has done lots of movies within and outside of Cobra after coming of age, and as was stated, he started his own company. Unless these people are praising Corrigan for his work when he was underage (which was what…5 years ago?), Michael Lucas is just blowing smoke out his ass, as he often does. How many awards did Traci Lords win throughout her career? Lucas is just following Madonna’s rule – no such thing as bad publicity.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gurlene
      Gurlene

      You hit the nail on the head about the low’s the porn industry has reached. And these are the stories that have been published.

      I sat back and watched when I was at a club how a VERY FAMOUS LATIN THUG PORN STAR

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gurlene
      Gurlene

      You hit the nail on the head about the low’s the porn industry has reached. And these are the stories that have been published.

      I sat back and watched a few years ago how a VERY FAMOUS LATIN THUG PORN STAR got extremely nervous/visibly uncomfortable when a group of black, very thuggish looking men entered a porn convention here in NYC whom no one seemed to recognize and wondered then was this a Biggie/Tupac/Suge Knight scenario about to unfold right in front of my eyes. It seems I wasn’t the only one there who noticed it either.

      I would not be surprised the stories that are waiting to be told in regards to the back scene stuff that went/goes on in this industry.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ogre
      Ogre [Different person #1 using similar name]

      “That there is such a market for video of an underage boy getting barebacked is deeply disturbing.”

      I blame the Eastern Block. One of my old fuck buddies used to work in a porn shop during the late 80’s to mid 90’s, and he said it was shocking how much porn was coming from places like the Czech Republic with boys who were NOT 18 having unsafe sex. At one point he refused to carry, or order for customers a particular title which had a cast who he truly believed were children, with the “star” of the movie looking no more than 12 years old, with all the obvious bodily traits that all 12 year old boys have. What bothered him more, was how many men–and some women–came in looking for those types of movies.

      And I agree with what REBELComx wrote. Mind you, if Corrigan knew what was going on, he had a responsibility to tell the cops. But if he was investigated and the police and prosecutors didn’t lay charges, then clearly he had nothing to do with the murder. He’s making porn as an adult now, not as an kid.

      Lucas is clearly a degenerate, even by porn standards, who has to make more and more extreme videos to keep his viewers happy. And how much respect can that douche have for other people, if he thinks it’s hot to piss on his models, and fart in their faces? That is demeaning and shows the contempt he has for people who are not Michael Lucas.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ggreen
      ggreen

      It’s a good thing the gay porn “industry” produces and pays for it’s own award show because no one else would. The big name porn studios are nothing but meat grinders. Pumping out the same old tired crap with different faces every other month. All the while charging double or triple the price of heterosexual porn (which is a whole lot hotter and better made). All gay porn is 100% formula 0% erotic. From Hot House and its Circus performers to Chi Chi La Rue and her droid and drone sexless sexbots. PU

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Puck
      Puck

      Brent Corrigan is legal now. If you look at the story, he was pressured and coerced into the porn industry by an older boyfriend who was buddies with cobra, they did not protect him as they should have. He grew up realized what they did and came forward. Letting people know the shady side of the porn industry. Since the scandal I don’t watch COBRA videos, no matter who the actors are. He should be applauded, since than he claims to have cleaned up his act, stopped doing drugs and started his own company. He constantly blogs about his models, and like chi-chi la rue, take efforts to make sure their protected and not being abused. (not referring to the bareback sex he seems to like, I don’t approve of unprotected sex, condoms are hot and really sexy). He should be applauded not booed.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @Puck:

      If he is promoting bareback sex as sexy, he still deserves to be booed.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      Wow. Where to begin?

      The first exposure to the gay community? I would hope not. First exposure to gay sex, maybe. Which brings us to Corrigan and the bareback video market generally.

      I really do believe that the industry is out of hand. The condom policy was adopted not only to protect the actors, but also to protect viewers who apparently have a hard time distinguishing fantasy from reality. In the fantasy world of porn, no one pays for HIV medications or suffers from the effects of the virus.

      So why are bareback videos being promoted within the industry? That is a valid question.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gurlene
      Gurlene

      Mr. Lucas is showing signs of a man who is clearly doing to much meth or whatever. His outbursts border on the idiotic but this is one I am glad he made and even applaud him because of where he was when he made it.

      There is much more to this story/industry waiting to be told. Unfortunately for Lucas it is his outburst, not his films, that are getting attention. I saw his work and I am not impressed at all.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Gurlene: Perhaps Lucas would be best served if he would keep his mouth shut when it came to politics. He’s a bit of a reactionary and I’ve been unimpressed with his ventures outside of pornography and his criticism of drug use and unprotected sex (which I think are very responsible).

      Nevertheless, what he said, while true, is overshadowed by his delivery.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles
      Charles

      Mr.Lucas should stick to only having his mouth open when,, Well you can fill in the blanks on that one.
      And even that I find as boring as hell.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      This entire situation is hilarious. Brent is legal now, having turned a bad situation into a positive (and lucrative) one. And this is not because I love Brent Corrigan, which I SO do.

      But …

      Lucas is clearly sipping haterade, as he watches his own youthful beauty fade in the rearview mirror. Typical aging DIVA drama bullsh*t. Nothing new here.

      My advice to Mr. Lucas is to make headlines for something good for a change, instead of hating on a kid who must remind him of himself in years past, which, only makes him look like a frightened sissy douchebag. Pull it together Michael, there’s nothing sadder than an old out of touch Queen still pining for one more close up.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Well, I think he’s cute. :/

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Taylor Siluwé: Did Lucas become rich and semifamous by making bareback pornography? Because my criticism isn’t related to Corrigan’s past, underage performance, but the promotion of bareback videos.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      By the way Queerty, this layout is MUCH better than that hot mess you had before. Much better organized.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff
      Jeff

      Corrigan is about as sleaaaaazy as they come. I mean Lucas is no prize but considering Corrigans past and and contridicting statements. “I was 18″ and then it was “I was 17″

      Corrigan also astated that he was sleeping with, Bryan Kocis, and that he was afraid the business relationship would end unless he maintained this sexual part of the relationship. so obvioulsy if he wasn;t with his “older” bpyfriend at that time and was willingly sleeping with Kotis for the money and th filming.

      Not all 17 year olds are innocent (See Beau Bredlove) and I doubt he was then and I doubt he is now.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Michael Lucas is an example of a self-made man, someone who lives by his own, rigorous code of morality and believes that he benefits everyone when he brings attention to it. Lucas rightly believes that underage models and bare-backing have no place in gay porn. One of the messages of PISS! is that safe can be sleazy and that overwhelming power can be displayed without putting the models at risk. He does not do bareback porn. He does not use underage models. He’s self-righteous, but not a hypocrite.

      Did he do this to get publicity for himself? Of course. That’s his job. He knows that he also did it on a way that will benefit Corrigan, someone he genuinely feels that the industry has abused.

      Michael Lucas is smarter than you. And richer, more handsome, and better hung. Probably more moral as well.

      Gee, why are these comments filled with hostility?

      Mar 30, 2009 at 11:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • allstarecho
      allstarecho

      I’ll take a barebacking from Corrigan over one from Lucas any day.

      Yes, Corrigan did some barebacking and yes, he was under 18 when he first started. However, he wasn’t being awarded for those days. He was being awarded for his latest work. So Lucas should have kept his mouth shut or at least kept it on his agenda topic rather can calling out a single person, in this case Corrigan.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Milly Ways
      Milly Ways

      Brent Corrigan blogs like a fucking tween. At least Lucas uses grown-up words and doesn’t pepper his aw-shucks missives with winky emoticons. I don’t care for Lucas’ persona or his politics, but I find him much more tolerable than some fawned-over man-child who built his small empire on a foundation of criminal deceit and never repaid his debt to society. And Lucas’ story does seem more plausible. It seems more likely Brent’s BF flipped out than Lucas would just invent shit out of nowhere. He may be a hot-air balloon, but I don’t think he’s an out-and-out liar.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ogre
      Ogre [Different person #1 using similar name]

      “It seems more likely Brent’s BF flipped out than Lucas would just invent shit out of nowhere.”

      Odd that Lucas would accuse another person of threats of violence, when Lucas has a violent past himself:

      http://tinyurl.com/cw5djd

      “He may be a hot-air balloon, but I don’t think he’s an out-and-out liar.”

      Well, he has started feuds with Andy Towle, David Hauslaib and Queerty’s previous editor, Andrew Belonsky; all of which were based on lies and perceived disrespect.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RS
      RS

      @ChristopherM: He’s not promoting bareback sex. Brent did bareback with Cobra when he was 17 (and there’s a reason we don’t allow 17 year olds to legally sign contracts) and 18. Cobra was making and promoting the barebacking; Brent was just a kid being used by older people who should have protected him. He quit Cobra and now only directs, produces, and appears in porn using condoms, and has been extremely vocal about being very anti-barebacking.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Coin Slot
      Coin Slot

      The hostility in the crowd for Mr. Lucas was not based on the premise behind his points, it was based on the premise behind his persona — that he has the right to once again try to dominate his peers with overbearing and self-serving lectures. Everyone in the business knows that Brent was irresponsible and stupid at 17 (we all were), and that the producer (Kocis) was a pretty pervy guy, and everyone in the business who’s anyone goes to great lengths to comply with the law (and stand up to barebacking in the face of a considerable financial burden, since too many outlets promote it at the expense of the safe studios). Its like Rachel Getting Married. Where the one overbearing person tries to ruin the wedding for everyone else. Send her ass back to rehab and get on with the show.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      ALeX:

      I don’t know what sort of porn Lucas is famous for, I don’t happen to own any. However, we all know the dangers of barebacking, I myself have written about it in the porn industry ad nauseum. However, I’m tired of that now; I won’t beat my head against that wall anymore. For whatever reason, bare back porn turns people on – they buy it, download it, steal it, whatever, but you can’t keep people away from it.

      Hold your nose in the air with Mr. Lucas if it makes you sleep better at night. But I live in a world where people do what they want when they want, and deal with the consequences. Why don’t you also go around snatching cigarettes out of peoples faces? Maybe they know not what they do.

      So, who in this day and age doesn’t know of the dangers raw sex? Next subject.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dgz
      dgz

      “the industry… still has a lot of maturing to do.”

      wow. look how far exhibitionist prostitutes have fallen. color me shocked and appalled.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ogre
      Ogre [Different person #1 using similar name]

      After reading Corrigan’s blog entry and following a link posted by one of his readers, it appears Corrigan won three awards and was apparently popular with the crowd, while Lucas took home one award and was booed by the crowd. Could that have anything to do with Lucas’ temper tantrum? On top of that, Lucas wasn’t suppose to be on stage, but walked on uninvited to give his little speech. The more I read about this man, the less I like him. But then I guess my opinion doesn’t matter because I’m not hung like a horse–with a face to match.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Collins
      Patrick Collins

      Dear Japhy:

      Thanks for the coverage about Michael, and I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to say hi to you at the party. However, there are a few of points that are incorrect, and I like to clarify them:

      Michael Lucas and his partner Richard Winger left the party immediately after the incident occurred, around 2a.m. PST. (he was not “in the V.I.P. section until the event’s close.”), and went to their hotel room. When they arrived, Michael contacted the police to report the matter. There are numerous witnesses to the threats made against Michael, along with police reports documenting Michael’s communication with them.

      Thank You!

      Patrick Collins
      Publicity Director
      LucasEntertainment.com

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @RS:

      Well that is excellent to know. Clearly I’m not up on my twink porn (give me a man that looks like a grown-ass man any day!). ;-)

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      Unless of course that grown-ass man is a racist publicity whore douchenozzle like Lucas, of course.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      “Honestly, we could care less…”

      Look, it’s COULDN’T care less, not COULD care less. I know it’s minor, but you’re a writer, you’re being published on the internet, come on.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @fixator: Though Lucas might have his own hidden agenda he was correct in voicing his concern. Brent Corrigan seems to be an unsavoury character indeed and the fact that people go totally gaga over him is most disturbing.

      Michael Lucas’ tenuous relationship with the truth is well established. He’s a known liar and an obvious attention whore (and a douche bag). Watching this aging queen trying to take down a hotter, younger actor is eating a plate full of discomfort with a side of pity. It’s like the soap opera scene in Mommie Dearest. Ugh. And, dude, that you believe a word of what Michael Lucas says does not speak highly of you.

      And for Brett Corrigan being an “unsavory character,” you obviously haven’t met him. I have. He’s a nice kid. He’s unfailingly polite and I haven’t known him to say a mean word about anyone.

      Maybe you shouldn’t judge people based on scraps of information on gay gossip blogs.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      Why is Michael Lucas even talking about Brent Corrigan? Brent Corrigan is none of his concern and Brent Corrigan’s business and awards are none of his concern.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dewayneinsd
      dewayneinsd

      The point is Michael Lucas attacked and harassed Brent Corrigan, His behavior was the REPREHENSIBLE act of a desperate wretched aging queen.

      A man with an arrest record for assault!(Chelsea Voice report last year)

      Brent Corrigan did nothing wrong and in fact tried to diffuse the situation by leaving the afterparty.

      As for the reason GayVN gave for pulling Brent as a presenter..
      You haven’t heard anything from NakedSword or GayVN because no accepts any responsibility for GIVING that order.

      In any event it was disregarded in the organizational mess known as GayVN Porn Awards.

      The whole thing would have been forgotten if not for Lucas’s Infantile outburst but what should we expect from a man who Makes a living Pissing (LITERALLY) on people!

      Fine USE of a Law Degree Michael Lucas!

      Michael Lucas is an infant child I despise now and who I despised LONG before anyone Heard of Brent Corrigan.

      Lucas is a Public Bilious Boil on the Gay Community people like him make most straight people think..

      Thank GOD I was not born Gay!

      He is a Public Disgrace!

      BTW I am enjoying the four days till this blows over to the HILT!

      After all people thought I was going Soft on Michael.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      oh, ish.
      this is all too much porn for me.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 2:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      I posted this elsewhere – regarding Michael Lucas and his crusade to rid the world of child porn (which I agree with):

      Then maybe Mr Lucas needs to go after the predators rather than the victims. He might get more support.
      Again: Cobra took advantage of a teenager. FACT, not opinion.
      This teenager decided to not be a victim and has turn his situation around to be positive.
      Again: Do some research. The details are public.
      Why people are so lazy when it comes to fact checking so they can form their own opinions is beyond me.

      And in regards to why Brent didn’t call the police at age 17 (Craig is the person I was responding to):

      Craig – Imagine being 16 again. Imagine having your mother, as Brent said his did, relocate you to a new city and then abandon you.
      Quote from Brent:
      “[My boyfriend] introduced me to a lifestyle that wasn’t very fitting of a 16-year-old. He was nothing but the worst influence on me. But I thought this is what gay people did. I didn’t know that most of the gay community isn’t into drugs and being evil to each other; that there is a side of the gay community that actually takes care of each other.”
      I took this from Wikipedia but it came from an interview.

      Craig? Were you, honestly, THAT SMART at 16? Were you so free willed that you didn’t cave to peer pressure? Cos if you were, you were a rarity. People older than that make stupid decisions and have poor judgment. There were his so called FRIENDS leading him on. He later made new friends, realized what he was doing was wrong and got the fuck out of Dodge.
      Jesus… you act as if he actively sought out his underage career in porn to be cool or something.
      Traci Lords DID seek it out (and I adore her… but not for that). She moved on and has had great success.
      That’s the difference:
      Traci LOOKED for it.
      Brent was PUSHED into it.
      I know nothing I say is going to change your mind. I’m not writing anything that isn’t public knowledge.
      What I did was do a little research to look into a story I found interesting and discovered things are not always what they appear.

      And to FIXATOR (post number 1):
      You wrote, “Brent Corrigan seems to be an unsavoury character indeed…”
      Unsavory? Really? Where is that coming from?
      I don’t personally know him (I’m guessing you do? You obviously have information to share from personal experience??) but his public persona has never been anything other than charming and professional. Please explain when he displayed unsavory behavior. I think it would be news to a lot of people.
      I mean, if the real Brent is unsavory, it needs to be unveiled (in very much the same way Michael Lucas displays unsavory behavior as a way of living… documented FACT, not personal OPINION.

      To Queerty: Love ya… mean it!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy
      andy

      Corrigan is bad news, that much is clear to any reasonable person following Queerty. I wouldn’t trust a word that kid says. The other guy, michael, I admire for saying the obvious to a room full of people that needed to hear it, even knowing he would be booed.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      Andy:
      “Corrigan is bad news, that much is clear to any reasonable person following Queerty. I wouldn’t trust a word that kid says.”

      And you’re basing this on what? Does Queerty run ongoing commentaries about the “unsavory” antics of “bad news” Brent? REALLY? I read the site on a regular basis and somehow have missed this.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      Why are you people taking sides? It’s much more enjoyable to watch two idiots savage each other, kind of like Rosie and Trump.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      “Why would the gay porn industry rush to embrace a star who made his fame through underage porn?”

      Urgh, he was a kid….? Running away from an abusive home…?

      Woah.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob Lablah
      Bob Lablah

      @Jeff: Well said. However there are those out there who are clearly defending him (sean Lockhart/Brent Corrigan) down to his soiled BVD.

      For a complete report on the trial go to http://www.handjtrial.blogspot.com and there is the entire case from jury selection to verdict.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @JimmyD:

      Finally a voice of reason!

      This is insane right? I feel like I’m in twighlight zone! But maybe its cause I’m from Europe and NO ONE is a virgin after the age of 16….it’s rare…

      But what I find sooo weird is that, erm, isn’t well know that middle america red knecks are like really homophobic and kick so many of their kids out?

      Aren’t a major percentage of these gay pornstars from not so happy homes and starving for attention?

      Isn’t there gay movie after gay movie of how Gays always feel like misfits and when they are young they get easily lead into drugs and prostitution?

      Isn’t the reason why their was such a high level of chrystal meth was because of a lot of self hate from Gays who wanted to feel more comfortably sexually?

      I just don’t get the posters who can be so mean to a kid who was CLEARLY abused by an older guy. I don’t CARE how much he thought he knew. He was a run away.

      If this was Europe, I could see why posters are so warped and the article is too but I thought in America things aren’t that easy? And you don’t get as many benefits or support if you are poor?

      Maybe I’m wrong.

      Off with his head!!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LD
      LD

      This is hysterical: a trivial posting about feuding porn celebrities gets more attention than one on (insert relevant social or political issue here). Nice.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      LD: Gee… and yet you’re posting here as well…

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jack Scribe
      Jack Scribe

      Cheese ball vs. slime ball. You decide where to pin the tag.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      Am I the only person who thinks Michael Lucas is sort of the (openly) gay Kanye? I mean, the only time we ever see or read anything about him, it’s because he’s said something moderately to grievously stupid, or otherwise gotten involved in one shitstorm or another. Does he have any friends? Maybe he views everyone as a future enemy, for those times when the publicity starts to dry up. Honestly, picking on Corrigan…someone really needs to get a life. I haven’t seen any of Lucas’ movies, but my opinion is that if they were any good, he wouldn’t need to engage in his bitter shenanigans to get attention from the media.

      As far as the underage issue with Corrigan…people really need to lighten up. It was years ago, and it was obviously a case of coercion plus bad (typical teenage) judgment. If you still want to crucify Corrigan after all this time, I think you’ve probably got some issues of your own to work out. The fact that Corrigan took a bad situation and managed to turn it to his advantage says a lot about his resilience, resourcefulness, and, dare I say, courage. All I see in Lucas is a bitter, aging queen who is not nearly as intellectual as he thinks he is.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      vernonvanderbilt: I agree. I mentioned stupid/poor teenage behavior in one of my (many) posts above.
      Thank you for posting an opinion rather than some one-line snarky comment. Makes for more enjoyable reading.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @JimmyD: No problemo. I was actually consciously echoing some of your sentiments, because I agreed with you and felt like it would be helpful to have another voice backing up the good guys.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      I’m not totally familiar with this issue, but I did have a couple of thoughts reading the article and posts:

      First off, discounting someone’s opinion because of poor writing or spelling skills – does this mean if someone is illiterate s/he has no right to an opinion at all?
      I read the Lucas/Diesel feud too, and Lucas may have been a bit better spoken, but it was like tying a ribbon around a rotten fish. The man was a hypocrite. At least Diesel was direct and honest.

      Second thing – putting down Lucas for piss and fart porn. It may not be your cup of tea, but it obviously gets some people off, so please be respectful of other people’s kinks. After all, there are enough prudes who think we are all going to hell.
      As long as everyone is an adult and nobody is getting fingers ripped off (and getting paid) it’s not really anyone’s business. IMHO.

      That said, I don’t really think it was a class act for Lucas to do what he did. It also wasn’t very good optics, since he should have known people would suspect him of just being jealous and trying to upstage.

      If he was so concerned about the underage issue why did he wait until the award to raise it? No matter what he says, it seems like he is pinning all this on Corrigan’s fortunes.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @vernonvanderbilt:

      The gay Kanye, that’s perfect!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      I thought Kanye was the gay Kanye

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lana
      Lana

      I think the self rigorous tone of ML’s press release and the heated discussions in its wake are just symptoms for a very sensitive subject (sex with minors) he finds a very elegant solution for: just prosecute the (former) minor with relentless hatred. Indeed the best solution for an industry of adults!
      It would be good to start a more general and responsible discussion on the subject. I would like to throw in some considerations.

      Never ever forgive a 17year old for endangering the industry! Just ponder that in your head for a moment. I know its “ad hominem”, but if ML has happened to grow up in Russia (I don’t know) I wonder which misdeeds of his teen years could haunt him to this day. If one happened to know.
      Actually after Kevin Clarke’s great and profound statement on dewayne’s blog http://dewayneinsd.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-bryan-of-luzerne-county.html I have not so much to add to BC’s individual case. Of course it’s the reasonability of the adult producer in principle to make sure an ID is correct.
      But obviously the issue is a lot broader than that, juridically and even more so ethically; one has to start a public discussion on it; as the relentless hatred directed towards Corrigan is nothing but a symptom. We all know that abused children and minors feel a deep shame and GUILT for what has been done to them. It often takes years of therapy to cure them from this horrible emotions. Considering this one has to see how perfidious it really is to put the blame, the whole blame for “sex with a minor” on the minor. I heard a rumour the other day that a 15 year old girl who sent a picture of herself in a bikini on a mobile phone has been accused for “sex with a minor”. So the crime of “sex with a minor” becomes actually the crime of “sex of the minor”. Does anyone have the moral sensorium to see how insane that is? To prosecute minors for a dangerous tendency of society that is obviously spreading? It sounds like those pederasts who blame a 5 year old girl for having been seduced by her.

      It seems to me that accusing someone for the misdeed of forging an ID is just a symptom of an industry who actually wants to go on exploiting people undisturbed. After all morals and the legal system are not the same. Mixing both up has always been hypocrisy. The legal system has to work with formal criteria. The protection of minors is a major ethical issue, no doubt. To fix the age of protection by the end of age 18 is a legal consensus. It changes with country and culture. If I am not mistaken heterosexual marriage is allowed at an age under 18 even in the West, and not considered rape (to me it comes at least close to it, specifically with a much older husband). Where morals and legislature clearly overlap is the question of abusing one’s authority in relation to a person who cannot yet make clear decisions for him/herself. One might argue that with the wide spread immaturity of a lot of twens and even thirtysomethings in our society the age of protection could be raised to 35. But that joke is just showing that formal legal criteria do not necessarily match the moral ones that change in each individual case.
      The issue gets worse and even more complicated if one mixes up the moral necessity to protect underage persons for their lack of accountability with the question if said persons have a sexuality of her own. Ever since Freud we know that also children, let alone teens possess their own sexuality; that in fact makes protecting them even more urgent. To blame the minor for the appeal he/she has on the adult also can mean to once again deny him/her his/her own sexuality.

      I personally think that ML’s unforgiveness is neither about morals nor law but business. He even says so himself: “I’m not about to stop any time soon. I think Mickey Skee asked me about the point of forgiveness for Corrigan. Not in my case, as I’m a producer and a company owner.” http://www.lucasblog.com/index.html

      If it were not so it would be clear that what has been abuse for a 17 year old stays abuse for an 18 old – morally, not legally.

      There is an amazing scene in Lucas’ rip off of Fellini’s classic “La dolce Vita”. A friend who we just saw having sex with a very young looking man in a pink shirt approaches our hero, the cynical society reporter played by ML in desperation as he has been accused of “sex with a minor”. He asks for help. Lucas just mumbles if the boy is the one with the pink shirt and his friend answers, no, he is 19. Then Lucas just walks off coldly.

      Apparantly Lucas wanted to have BC for that film (and probably that part); so his claim that he never even talked to him might be not quite true.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ogre
      Ogre [Different person #1 using similar name]

      “please be respectful of other people’s kinks”

      No.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Z reveals
      Z reveals

      Meowww! Bitches are in mud fight!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Ogre:
      You’re free to make your own choice… but then you won’t have much of a defense when people start calling you a degenerate.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      There is something weird to me about praising Corrigan. We have a kid who lied to get into porn when underage, and was sleeping with the owner of the company, who knew he was underage, to make sure he would still be cast in barebacking movies. I don’t know it just seems a bit off to me. If we want to look at it as child abuse it is sad that he is still in the industry and getting praised for it, and if we don’t look at it as child abuse then it is just another opportunistic douche who is willing to put another person and company at risk by breaking the law to make money and is getting praised for it. But hey, it’s porn we are talking about, anything goes.

      I agree with no.50, it just wasn’t a classy thing for lucas to say at that moment, there are better venues for it.

      And although there are a ton of haters on this blog, you can make mine Michael any day of the week.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric Matthews
      Eric Matthews

      @Landon Bryce:

      Always the humble one, aren’t you Michael…I mean Landon?

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      If Corrigan did do bareback porn and now condemns it, Lucas was in the wrong. That said, he, ChiChi LaRue and Will Clark have all stuck their necks out condemning bareback porn and I think they are all three to be congratulated for it.

      I agree w/Alec, that people get their sexual fantasies from porn. In this one case, I do believe in self-censorship. Even aside from that, it puts the actors themselves at risk. I can’t understand why people would pay to watch that and then put down a snuff film. It’s the same thing. You’re watching people literally destroy themselves and each other for your gratification.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @strumpetwindsock: putting down Lucas for piss and fart porn. It may not be your cup of tea, but it obviously gets some people off, so please be respectful of other people’s kinks.

      I reserve the right to mock people for peeing on each other or sexualizing farts.

      Really, strump, I doubt your average piss-queen’s feelings will be crushed by reading a snarky word or two in the comment thread of a blog post about porn stars. I would think they’d be used to a stream (HA!) of insults by now.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yikes!
      Yikes!

      @fixator: How the hell do you know what Brent’s “unsavory behavior” is? Maybe you make that assumption from his barebacking videos…lol Although I found it quite savory! ;p

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Ogre:

      Ow.

      Why??

      Who cares…

      As long as it’s legal..

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @hardmannyc: I agree w/Alec, that people get their sexual fantasies from porn. In this one case, I do believe in self-censorship.

      As long as it’s the only censorship.

      Even aside from that, it puts the actors themselves at risk. I can’t understand why people would pay to watch that and then put down a snuff film. It’s the same thing.

      I think Every Poolboy’s Dream is just a little bit different from Faces Of Death.

      ;-)

      You’re watching people literally destroy themselves and each other for your gratification.

      Hasn’t porn always been thus to some degree?

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwbcubed
      jwbcubed

      Is it me or is this whole article/discussion just irrelevant?

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Tim in SF:
      “I would think they’d be used to a stream (HA!) of insults by now.”

      NOO!!

      I should’ve felt the punch line when I started reading your paragraph!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill in PDX
      Bill in PDX

      To the haters: and I agree with no 58 Eric that Landon does seem like a sock puppet responder. I do not think Lucas is classy at all and I do not know either Brent C or Lucas but I do admire the Kid Brent for finding his way and surviving. A lot of young gay men especially cute, androgynous ones are prey to older men’s fantasies and exploitation. I know first hand. I had to run away at 16 too for several months due to home pressures and being a very obvious androgynous looking and acting small boned gay boy. Hitchhiking I would get hit on a LOT and walking down the street I would get followed for blocks to sleep with someone for money. I was offered easy money easy drugs easy sex and rich men offered to take care of me.

      This was the early 80’s and porn was not as available or lucrative(before DVD or online )but I bet I would have gotten into it too. I needed the money and I was in California also. I am now a successful businessman and home owner and have a great job and many wonderful non exploitative friends…. Do not judge a kid for trying to get by. Even our punitive judicial system expunges records of misbehavior and illegality after a person turns 18. Even manslaughter and grand theft is forgiven. Brent hasn’t killed anyone or robbed anyone. He f-d up. It happens to kids and adults trust me on that one. You get stuck on the street and 16 or 17 and see how many great wonderful healthy decisions you would have made with the wrong guidance. The person who say Brent blogs like a tween. I have a lit degree in French and English and I believe that he writes well, especially considering he has never had the opportunity to attend a University. Because of my background, I amy very conscious of the exploitation of young people and would never get romantically or sexually involved with anyone under the age of 25. I know how women feel when they are catcalled or harassed and I know why Brent C felt he had to do what he did…. I do not Understand the antics that Lucas engages in, though. It just seems tacky and immature. He can use his blog or interviews he grants to expound on his distaste for Brent C or he can STFU. Can you imagine someone running the stage at the Academy awards, Grammies or Nobel to take the stage like that. No, I can’t anyway. I would have cut his mic……

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      Even aside from that, it puts the actors themselves at risk. I can’t understand why people would pay to watch that and then put down a snuff film. It’s the same thing.
      I think Every Poolboy’s Dream is just a little bit different from Faces Of Death.
      ;-)

      I think there’s a great deal of difference between a porn movie and a snuff movie. If you don’t, we definitely disagree.

      You’re watching people literally destroy themselves and each other for your gratification.
      Hasn’t porn always been thus to some degree?

      No, I actually think good porn is life-affirming. Certainly it’s sex-positive, when it’s done responsibly and well.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      “I reserve the right to mock people for peeing on each other”

      Don’t knock it ’till you’ve tried it. I thought it was icky, too, until a super-hot guy took me into the bathroom. I’m still not “into it,” but under the right circumstance, it can add another dimension to the whole night.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      LOL @ Tim in SF

      Fart porn mocking should come naturally. LOL

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tavdy79
      tavdy79

      Obligatory cheap shot:

      One is forced to wonder whether or not Lucas was actually acting in Dangerous Liaisons, or whether he was just being himself…

      Mar 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      Lana: Well put.
      And I’d forgotten about Lucas saying “I’m not about to stop any time soon. I think Mickey Skee asked me about the point of forgiveness for Corrigan. Not in my case, as I’m a producer and a company owner.” http://www.lucasblog.com/index.html

      Because a real professional does not forgive?
      I wonder what ML has done in his past that he may regret or would be punished for if it came to light. Unless he was the perfect kid, which I doubt, because that’s literally impossible. Maybe his anger comes from something that happened long ago as a child in Russia. Many times people profess to HATE in one something that they detest in themselves.
      None of us here will ever know and Lucas is too full of himself to ever have a respectable, honest conversation about anything.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      If Mr. Corrigan has stopped doing bareback scenes, more power to him. In that case, I don’t know what Mr. Lucas was going on about.

      On the other hand, I find it amusing that we’ve decided that the age of consent laws (and in paricular, the pornography age restrictions) have transformed Corrigan into a victim in anything other than the strict legal sense of the term. Would what happened have been perfectly acceptable if he had been 18? Of what significance was the birthday? He was 17, not 13 or 14.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      #57 – Steve: You’re not reading the posts that came before yours.
      16, stupid, peer pressure, being lied to. He didn’t set out to lie his way into porn. He was talked into it. He was told that fake IDs were common in the industry. IF you did a little research, this is all very public knowledge… because Steve, at 16 you never did anything stupid.
      #64 – jwbcubed: You just contributed nothing to the discussion.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      #72 – Alec: Not only did he stop… as soon as he realized what was going on he got out. The bareback stuff was through the sleazebags at Cobra. I have yet to hear Lucas call them out.
      I said it before: Go after the predator rather than the victim.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Bill in PDX:

      Thank you.

      I won’t pretend to have those experiences to the fault but I’ve had some that were not nice and I really regret them but I know if they ever come out here, I would be called everything under the sun, even though I was young and deeply insercure with family/personal issues which I NEVER chose BUT inherited because someone person (mum/dad) decided to have kids…(not being the fit…but blah,blah…)

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Tim in SF:
      The extension of that logic is that we should just be used to verbal abuse and we have no reason to complain when people call us fucking faggots.

      And while I wouldn’t say piss is a kink of mine I’ve tried and enjoyed it. Does that make me a degenerate?

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @JimmyD:

      “Go after the predator rather than the victim.”

      Exactly.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill in PDX
      Bill in PDX

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): You are welcome. It is the old proverb.. walk a mile in my shoes…..

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Well in many (most?) states Corrigan would have been able to consent to sex. The only thing prohibited (in most states and federally) would be filming it. Which is why I find the talk of victimization and abuse so revealing. I don’t really consider an 18 year old’s decision to do porn any different from a 17 year old’s decision, as an ethical matter. Legally, of course, it is a different matter and for all I know the National Center for Missing and Exploited children has included Corrigan’s early films in their database of known victims.

      A lot of gay porn uses male models between 18 and 19. Porn that is also very successful. Same with straight porn; the “barely legal” market is huge. Yet few people seem very concerned with that, or age of consent laws that set the age below 18.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @JimmyD:

      I read everything that came before it, and I think you should reread what I wrote. I don’t care what he does, it is more about rewarding it. Therein lies the problem for me. If it was underage abuse, awards condone the abuse. If not we are rewarding poor choices as a minor. I did plenty of stupid things at 16, but I am not getting many rewards.

      I also do not believe everything he said. At 16 people told me I could buy alcohol, and I did, but still knew it was wrong.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Steve:

      But thats YOU.

      And good for YOU!

      But we’re not all like that. Give ME a fucking break because I turned my life around from being fodder to you judgemental assholes.

      I’ve achieved so much but your the kind of people who drag someone back down to depression because you;re assholes.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Steve: He is receiving awards for his adult performances, though. I mean, he could easily have become successful if he had waited a year, in any event. As long as it isn’t bareback and (obviously) isn’t underage, I don’t think he is being rewarded for it.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Alec:

      I’m actually watching an economical juggernaut with the UK and the US about the car industry!

      So my mind is mush..

      BUT I agree eith that point, having come/being/living in the UK… we had relationships with like older guys…it’s no big deal…someone is just sexy..

      BUT we’re not the US, a fundementalist right wing community that can’t handle gays…

      Mar 30, 2009 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      83 (well 84, now) responses to a posting about a bitch fight between two porn stars! No s&#t?!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan
      Jonathan

      Folks:

      First: Lockhart was 17. That’s still a kid. Adults have a responsibility to look after kids, not to fuck them and film it. Actually, they have an obligation not to fuck them, period.

      I don’t really care if Lockhart “connived” his way into anything in porn. Kocis was an adult (40ish) and an experienced porn producer. I don’t believe for a second that he was deceived. He knew or should have known that Lockhart was underage. And he knew or should have known how to check. That he didn’t speaks volumes: It’s called willful blindness (and as a legal matter it’s as good as actual knowledge).

      Second: Lockhart has been very vocal since getting out of his situation with Kocis about safer sex. He explicitly and strongly condemns bareback porn. The porn he makes now is not bareback.

      Third: Lucas condemned Lockart, but not Kocis. That also speaks volumes. From where I sit, Lockhart was at worst a victim, and most likely just a kid.

      Folks: The message here is that we as a community have an obligation to gay youth. To protect them. To shelter them. To make it easier for them to be who they are than it was for us.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Michael:

      Is is really as simple as you make it??

      Again, I’ll moan about it BUT I must be the only MBA student who is constantly told he won’t pass unless he looks @ PESTEL.

      Political, Economical, Sociological, Technological, Environmetal and Legal issues that affect ourselves and the world…

      So y’know, the “bitch fight”, is pretty valid to the male gay world..

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Jonathan:

      “Folks: The message here is that we as a community have an obligation to gay youth. To protect them. To shelter them. To make it easier for them to be who they are than it was for us.”

      You’d think and hope.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan
      Jonathan

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): That so many of the folks here have a hard time seeing that is really disheartening.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      #80 – Steve: He wasn’t being rewarded for what he did 5 years ago. He was being rewarded for what he did in the past year.
      I know you know this but I really hope you don’t believe a person should never be recognized for an achievement EVER because of something they did in their past. Nobody would ever win an award if that were the case.

      Plus… again… what he did, he was coerced into. YES, he could have said “No” but AGAIN he was a stupid kid who wanted to be part of something.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      #80 – Steve:
      You’ve set yourself as a good example.
      You bought alcohol when you were 16… even tho you knew it was wrong.
      Perhaps you should not be allowed to buy it now?? That’s idiotic.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JimmyD
      JimmyD

      #85 – Jonathan:
      THANK YOU! You GET IT!

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Jonathan: The law varies with respect to consent. In MI, for example, the sex would have been legal; filming it would not have been. They were in CA as far as I know, so it was illegal.

      I’m not much older than Brent, and when I was younger I definitely took advantage of our liberal age of consent laws. I don’t think I was victimized. With respect to filming or any visual record, of course, the law draws a very bright line at 18.

      I actually think it is very telling that there is this outpouring of concern because Corrigan (or Lockheart, as it were) was 17 at the time. An 18 year old is essentially in the same place, realistically. I don’t really think anyone that age is ready to make pornography, and certainly not bareback pornography. My impression at first from this article was that Corrigan had continued to make bareback films after reaching “adulthood” and, if that were the case, I would think it irresponsible to reward it. The bareback pornography market, and this promotion of unsafe sex in general, is a step too far. With younger men it is simply unconscionable.

      People seem to be confusing legal and ethical issues here. Lucas was out of line this time (as he can be often; see, for example, his irresponsible statements on a variety of issues). However, I agree with him 100% when it comes to both drug and bareback culture in the gay community. And he is the person who should be carrying that message forward, because the last people I want delivering the responsibility message to gay men are heterosexuals who promote high risk behavior at every turn through their own actions.

      We should be doing more to promote healthier behavior among younger gay men. But that seems to run against the bareback sex and drug use that a significant minority of gay men demand.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lana
      Lana

      Alec (No. 92) !
      Just to set this straight once and for all: Brent Corrigan did ONLY film bareback porn when he was with COBRA, NEVER when he filmed for Falcon, his former website brentcorriganonline or his own company Prodigy Picture (so not since 2006). As a logical consequence of ths fact he was also not given an AWARD for bareback porn (as he, see the above, did not produce any)
      So please stop making comments on the hypothetical worth or lack thereof of bareback porn as in this case it simply DOES NOT APPLY.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron J.
      Aaron J.

      I can’t believe HARDMANNYC has been pissed upon! :0 I think it’d be nice for the two seconds before it turns cold and smells like piss. I’d probably only do it if I were in the shower.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      I am still amazed at how many people continue to “support” Brent Corrigan, or, in his own words, “take care of me”.

      Let’s be very clear here – Brent Corrigan wanted to get into the porn industry – he wasn’t forced or coerced or deceived. He knew exactly what he was doing then, what he was doing when he came clean about being underage, and what he is doing now. Brent freely and eagerly entered into porn. He was not coerced or taken advantage of in any way. It was Brent who first contacted Cobra.

      Say what you want about Bryan having to know Brent’s real age, but it is now a matter of public record that Bryan was unaware that Sean was under 18; it was Brent who forged the I.D; he testified under oath to this fact. Bryan was completely deceived by a lying, porn-hungry twink eager to escape his lousy home life.

      And keep in mind one thing – if Brent was forced into the world of porn, he wouldn’t have fought so hard to remain, and to continue to use a name that will forever be associated with bareback twink porn.

      Naturally, Brent’s supporters will dismiss this and anything else that has anything negative to say about their precious porn star, and bitter old queens will continue to vilify a dead man who was brutally murdered.

      No wonder so many people hate homosexuals.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Lana: I acknowledged above (another poster mentioned it) that he didn’t produce any as an adult. I assume that all of the bareback pornography he produced was when he was under the age of 18 as well? The timeline seems a bit confused, because by 2006 he would have been an adult, if he did bareback pornography then. In any event, would you care to address the other points?

      People seem to be fudging here with the timeline. Were any bareback videos produced when Corrigan was an adult? We all realize now that he was not given an award for a bareback film. Those films are still relevant to this discussion.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Rick: Did he testify to that effect? That seems to be a glaring omission here. He was very coy about this during his interviews with the press, at times suggesting that everyone just sort of “knew” that he was underaged. Additionally, he also claimed that he had a sexual relationship with the Cobra producer, and that he was drunk and passed out when it was initiated. So this seems to be a bit more complex.

      Still, it doesn’t change the fact that he was underaged when the films were produced, and that it is contraband.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      uhh… double standard. Traci Lords (never won an award, but was nominated) did most of her adult film career before the age of 18 (starting at 15 to be exact). now look at her.

      the fact is that it’s a shame, yes… but the person who should be bothered most is Corrigan. he made his choice… and now all the films that he did before the age of 18 can not garner any revenue. that is the biggest pisser of them all. it hardly made it worth doing.

      so he grew up, learned his lesson, runs his own company, and is probably a smarter person for it.

      I’M NOT SAYING IT’S RIGHT… i’m just saying that people can and do grow positively from negative experiences… and in this case Corrigan has. he may still have a lot to learn – but it was not Lucus’ place to call it out….. especially because SINCE the time Corrigan started, the porn industry has been more involved in stopping underage porn.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 8:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dane Anthony
      Dane Anthony

      Jonathan,

      Your remarks regarding the law, underage victims, and the predators who prey on the underage victims are accurate.

      For those arguing that the victimizer is Sean Lockhart, you are sadly mistaken. The law is designed in such a way that those least able to protect and defend themselves are under the aegis of the State.

      Bryan Charles Kocis and anyone associated with him as either an associate, business partner, investor, patrons with benefits have open files. Cases of this kind take time to amass with several levels of specialists contributing to charges.

      That brings up the current discussion of a gay adult film producer who “staged” an altercation with the boyfriend of Sean Lockhart. This alleged altercation is first brought to the SFPD’s attention. Eventually, the SFPD catch up with Sean and his boyfriend. In the meantime, a tip by the complainant is made to Jason Sechrest who has a blog. Sechrest’s blog is supposed to be an adult entertainment news blog which implies that Sechrest follows the journalistic standard of checking out stories before committing them to print. A bit later, Sechrest updates his blog in a new thread with, of all things, a Michael Lucas press release, which is not a factual news account or an update relying on statements obtained from third party eyewitnesses. Sechrest strictly relies on the Lucas issued press release. This, of course, suggests that the whole “altercation” was but a PR smear campaign, designed to injure Sean Lockhart and enhance the public image of Michael Lucas which smacks of premeditated harassment.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lana
      Lana

      Alec (96) !

      I assume the last bb film Brent was in must have been the notorious COBRA dvd “Take it Like a (first bitch, then bad) Boy” that was (at least in the process of release) titled, dubbed and provided with a cover meant to humiliate BC as Kocis and him already were having a fight back then. Clearly Brent was of age then, the simple indication being the blue star tattoo he had made when turning 18. The release date is 2006, the filming though could have been earlier. If I am mistaken and the last film was “Fuck me Raw” the same applies here (bb, Brent of age, humiliating cover and title)
      And here my knowledge that is solely based on web research, not on personal acquaintance stops. Why he agreed on making bb porn at this age I do not know. Brent has announced on his blog to retell the underage story once again; maybe this will also shed some light on the bareback question.
      You can just check out “A Siren’s Tale” on Jason Curious’ site and you will actually get the whole underage story well told by BC himself.
      And just to add one more detail: not ALL the scenes BC filmed with Cobra were bareback. The scenes with Brent Everett, for sure the most intimate and thrilling ones, were either always or more often then not with condom. Why this is so again I don’t know.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      Aaron: of course the few times I did it it was in a bathtub or shower! As I said, it’s not my thing, but with the right guy in the circumstance, it can add a little je ne sais quoi to the whole experience.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Lana: Okay, that makes more sense.

      I assume that there was an STD issue or an unknown serostatus at the time those scenes were filmed. That would explain the use of condoms, if they were trying to serosort (which, given the realities of HIV, is ridiculous; there’s no way they can do that with any reasonable degree of certainty unless the actors are positive).

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dane Anthony
      Dane Anthony

      “It was Brent who first contacted Cobra.”–Rick

      That would be incorrect. Chris Henriquez, Sean’s former boyfriend, wecammed a sleeping Sean and sent that feed to Bryan Kocis. That filming was done without Sean’s knowledge and consent. Presumably, Sean went along with this after waking up because it was something CH wanted him to do. At that time, CH lied and told Kocis Sean’s age was 17. Sean was actually 16. CH was legally an adult; knew what he was doing in broadcasting Sean’s image to Kocis. In effect Sean was set up for victimizing by his boyfriend Chris Henriquez and, then, further victimized by Bryan Kocis.

      Again, it is the responsibility of the producer to screen out underage models, not the model’s responsibility to do so. The 2257 law is quite clear on that point.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Dane Anthony: My understanding is that Corrigan/Lockhart has testified that he falsified documents for Kocis. As I understand it, there was no allegation that CH, who was aware that Corrigan was a minor, provided Kocis with that knowledge.

      The administrative regulations also certainly cover what satisfies the record keeping requirement. If Lockhart falsified those documents he has additional troubles (although I imagine the federal government will not prosecute him and, in any event, the statute of limitations is close to passing).

      Mar 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dane Anthony
      Dane Anthony

      Alec,

      Kocis gave money to Chris Henriquez and Sean Lockhart to obtain the false ID. Additionally, Sean has written that Henriquez controlled money earned by himself at that time. It was Henriquez who took Sean to a place in MacArthur Park, LA, California where ID’s were known to be obtained. In both the first instance of the photo shopped ID, Henriquez was present and active in manufacturing the ID. Henriquez was active in obtaining the second ID. This is in addition to Chris Henriquez webcammed the sleeping Sean and sent that feed to Kocis is well known.

      The law would not seek to punish Sean Lockhart. The adults, yes; the minor, no. In this particular instance, he was enticed by a known predator.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      Kocis gave money to Chris Henriquez and Sean Lockhart to obtain the false ID.” – Dane Anthony

      WRONG! Perhaps you should check the recent trial transcripts before you comment again. Sean Lockhart himself testified that he provided Bryan with the false ID, that Bryan did not have anything to do with falsifying Sean’s IDs. It was further testified to that the ID was verified by others besides Bryan and believed to be real.

      As for Sean being 16 when he was first “shown” to Bryan (and we only have Sean’s word for that, so I’ll take it with a huge grain of salt), Bryan did not film or webcam a 16 year old Sean. Like I stated, and again this is fact, Sean was 17 in February 2004 when he first filmed for Cobra. 8 months later, he turned 18.

      And if you think Sean was the prey, then the joke’s on you.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      @Alec – I have no idea if Sean was drunk when he and Bryan first had sex, but I do know that they were sexually involved with each other. And I do know that Sean’s former bf Grant Roy fucked Sean the very first time in a similar manner as Bryan had – Sean was naked, asleep, etc…

      You are correct – Sean’s first four Cobra films are child pornography, and are thus illegal. They were pulled from the shelves, which was probably enough to satisfy the FBI (Sean and Grant had filed a complaint against Bryan with the feds), and they decided not to bother following-up on Sean’s manipulative, self-serving complaint.

      Sean Lockhart could come across as the nicest sweetest guy in the world, and every gay guy (mostly old) would do whatever they could to get a smile from him, a hug, or more. But don’t think for a second that Sean Lockhart isn’t anything but a lying deceitful porn-hungry twink desperate for the gay industry to love him. I’ve yet to hear him say that he is sorry Bryan was murdered – he and Grant, despite what they did to help solve the crime, weren’t crying over Bryan’s death. And neither are some of Sean’s most ardent supporters.

      That says a lot about the current state of the gay community.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 11:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MadamAdam
      MadamAdam

      Michael Lucas clearly misplaced his anger over the judges at the Gay VN Awards. Instead of ranting over Corrigan, he should have questioned why a site like ChaosMen can win an award for best amateur site. Corrigan has wisely cleaned up his act and now performs only with condoms. Sites like ChaosMen, however, still promote the spread of disease by featuring bareback sex.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • owen
      owen

      I’m a little creeped out by how deeply people seem to feel about Brent. I don’t think the fantasy of boning Brent will happen by posting this sugary stuff about him. It’s porn, take it with a grain of salt, really.

      Mar 30, 2009 at 11:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KB
      KB

      The more porn coverage I see in Queerty, I less I want to visit this site. Not only am I not interested in porn (note that I am not judging those who enjoy it), but are these trifling rivalries or soured relationships newsworthy to ANYONE besides the parties involved? C’mon Queerty, you can do better than this, and we deserve better if you want to remain a leading source of quality information for our community.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 12:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dane Anthony
      Dane Anthony

      Rick–

      Bryan asked for an ID and provided money to obtain it. Read what I stated: Chris Henriquez webcammed Sean sleeping and sent that feed to Bryan Kocis. Henriquez also was proactive in the obtaining of the ID.

      Kocis, the ephebophobe, has the responsibility for ensuring the model is of age. He failed. Railing on a then 17 year old (Sean’s age at the time he first filmed for Cobra Video) makes you look like the jerk you are. The fact is Kocis was into preying on underage teen males. He very nearly went to prison for fucking and filming the 15 year old. He got lucky with a corrupt judge and got pled down to a year’s probation, meaning a criminal record. Kocis knew what he was doing and more importantly, so did the self-proclaimed personal assistant and Cobra model, Robert Wagner. Wagner was the witness for the questioned documents used for the 2257 requirement. It was also Wagner who stole the college letterhead that enticed Mrs. Lockhart, Sean’s mother, into giving permission to allow Sean to travel and live in Pennsylvania for the summer of 2004. Do understand that bad act was proactive on Kocis’ part, was premeditated and violated the Mann Act and Protect Act and other charges and also puts Wagner on the hook for the same offenses.

      Once again, the minor is not the problem. The adults who enticed him are. The statute of limitations is solidly in place. That is being pursued with vigor.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      Damn, in the straight world a story like this would interest about 1 percent of the population, in the gay world, well look at the numbercomments and clawing back and forth. You would think that this was as important as the economic meltdown and the war in Iraq. God, are we so low class that we give this shit 100 times the importance that it deserves? Its a shitty industry, just like organized crime, drug dealing etc. let them police themselves because they are all bottom feeders anyway.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 2:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dane Anthony
      Dane Anthony

      Michael yes

      One kid is victimized by a predatory shit, no matter his station in life, the moral fabric of society suffers. Can’t say I disagree on the brief list of major concerns you raise here.

      I would add another. Ex-Vice president Richard Cheeney is in for a world of hurt. He was the point man on an Executive Action team. The Spanish who have been upset about the death of their national, the UN ambassador who died in a car bombing in Iraq (he was more effective in his position than John Bremmer) are conducting a major war crimes sweep. Aides to Dick are in their gunsights. Frankly, I hope they succeed. Dick wanted lots of surveillance, not on foreigners, but citizens and for dubious reasons. I see Neo-Con and think Neo-Nazi in business suits. Yep, why fight a war in a 3rd world toilet which is tightly controlled by a manipulative, but effective dictator who was one of that nation’s regicides? That hanged dictator helped brutally murder his king, the queen and their children. Literally, death by a thousand cuts and mutilated the corpses: beheaded them, cut off the hands and feet. That hanged dictator was good for business. Ask yourself who benefited from war? Haliburton, KBR, and a raft of other companies that get rich off of other peoples’ misery. KBR electrocutes servicemen and servicewomen with its piss poor electrical wiring in shower facilities it installed. And that is but the tip of the sand dune.

      You whine about a guy who got suckered by a predator into adult film while underage. Yep, will be pursued. It’s major case crime. Their are adults getting rich off the exploitation. That is not tolerable and never will be.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 2:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Monica Roberts
      Monica Roberts

      I have “spent” over $17,000 getting my black penix and scrotums snatch off and (partial payment)fees to Kentucky Fagit Ministries

      so this is just warnin’ yuuneess-7

      Mar 31, 2009 at 2:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike80
      mike80

      They are a cool man. we all love them. there are so many fans of them. and they set up the groups related to stars. you can even check out their sexy and beautiful photos, videos and blogs on
      agelesskiss.com

      Mar 31, 2009 at 4:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      @ggreen: These things you say are true!

      Mar 31, 2009 at 4:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      @KB: When has this site ever been considered quality anything? High school students could produce a better site than this. This is just swamp journalism at best.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 4:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Insideguy
      Insideguy

      My God what is going on here. No one seems to know the real truth. Michael Lucas tries to set himself as the all knowing Wizard of Porn, he lures men into doing porn while railing against such things as sex with underage boys being lured by others. No one who enters porn is safe from these cash-crazed predators. The term “self-made millionaires” in this case seems a total oxymoron. Made by endangering the lives of others is far more accurate. No one is right in this case. The porn indutry claims to be misunderstood and really a caring close knit family. Events like this prove they are not.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 4:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      @Jonathan: Hey everyone, this gentlemen is a fine example of what gay ADULT sounds like. It is time more of us start choosing to grow up. When we do, we will win the respect we need and our rightful place in the world.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 4:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John K.
      John K.

      Isn’t the whole purpose of having laws against underage porn and sex in general to protect the child who is considered not to be mature enough to make such big decisions about sex? Obviously Corrigan did not do the right thing by lying about his age, but how can we say he is too young to have sex/do porn and at the same time hold him responsible and call him things like “fawned-over man-child who built his small empire on a foundation of criminal deceit and never repaid his debt to society.” Now, this is the first time I’ve heard about this feud or these things about Corrigan, and I personally will not be following this story very closely, but it just seems to me that a lot of people here are blaming the victim. And if we are to have underage sex laws, then we must consider Corrigan the victim and not the perpetrator.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @John K.: That’s actually a good but complicated question. While Corrigan is a “victim” in the strict, legal sense of the term, he also committed a criminal act himself (and essentially testified to that effect) by falsifying the documents. Additionally, minors who produce child pornography have been charged with production, distribution, possession, etc. of child pornography; usually as juveniles.

      Finally, there’s a need to sort out the difference between the child pornography laws, which cover 17 year olds (in most states, and at the federal level) and the age of consent laws. For example, in Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 16 (I assume, however, that Kocis produced his films in CA, where the age of consent is 18 but where it is only a misdemeanor if the minor is within three years age difference of the adult; either way, if Kocis had sex with Corrigan in CA he would have been guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, subject to prosecutorial and court discretion). In effect, then, in many jurisdictions he is a “victim” in theory only of the recording (which he could not consent to), and not the sex.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 12:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John K.
      John K.

      @Alec: You are certainly right that it is an interesting question. And it’s one that I’ve thought a lot about as a law student who has done some criminal defense work and has been exposed to several cases in which underage kids are treated as both victims and perpetrators.

      My own opinion is that we do indeed want it both ways. Obviously, falsifying documents is a separate issue. But, when it comes to age of sexual consent versus age of porn consent, I think the problem is the lack of consistency. The teen is old enough to decide to have sex, but not old enough to decide to have sex on camera? Why the difference in the first place? I mean, I obviously see the reason, which is that there could be more far-reaching personal consequences from doing porn, like having future employers not hire you, so they are to arrest underage kids who do child porn and put them on sex offender registries for the rest of their lives? We’re going to treat him like he should know better than to have sex on camera, when he’s allowed to have sex off camera? This is the problem with paternalistic laws in the first place. If the law is for his own good, then why are we going to hold him responsible for breaking it, and then punish him for it?

      Bottom line is that we need to seriously revisit our thoughts about age of consent laws for both sex and porn in this country. Again, I’m not saying they are bad; I think they are absolutely necessary. But the inconsistencies are devastating. In New Jersey, a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old can have sex, and it is not illegal, even though the age of consent is 16. This is because there is a 4-year age difference requirement for the act to even rise to the level of a crime (this age difference requirement does not kick in if the victim is under the age of 13). However, in Georgia, Genarlow Wilson served 2.5 years of a 10-year prison sentence for getting a blowjob when he was 17 from his 15-year-old classmate. There are cases where two 17-year-olds are indeed charged with distributing child porn because they taped themselves having sex and one of them emailed it to the other. I’m sorry, but that is madness. Even crazier are the cases where two 15-year-olds have sex in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16, and then they are both victims and both perpetrators. How can we consider these kids too young to consent to sex, but not too young to commit a sex crime? Either they know what they are doing when it comes to sex or they don’t. We can’t continue to have it both ways. These kids end up on sex offender registries for the rest of their lives. And maybe that’s it. Maybe we just have to eliminate juveniles from sex-offender registries, at least unless their crime was violent and would have been a crime anyway if they were an adult. Bottom line, we have some draconian, reactionary laws when it comes to this issue, and we have to rethink them, and rethink how we think about them. The demonization here of Brent Corrigan is just one of thousands of examples.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John K.
      John K.

      Again, I don’t want this to be read to say that age of consent laws are not desirable or necessary. Kids need to be protected from predatory adults. I’m simply talking about the way these laws actually affect the kids themselves: how we think about them and their actions, and how they actually get caught up in these sometimes poorly-worded or poorly though-out laws meant to protect them, but actually ending up criminalizing and stigmatizing them.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @John K.: Ah, you have much to look forward to in the world of criminal practice. :-)

      There is a potential lack of consistency problem. But as you already point out, the potential harm is different. I’ll add another layer: the bright line rule helps curb the production of other forms of child pornography that involves even younger actors. I’m not very familiar with the administrative regulations in place for adult pornography producers, but it appears that they rely on state-issued documents (including driver’s licenses) as proof of age. Setting 18 as the limit could theoretically make it more difficult for falsified documents to be used to allow filming of younger actors below the age of consent. Additionally, it might prevent undue influence on the part of an authority figure, including parents, teachers, pastors, etc. In any event, the laws in question will certainly pass the rational basis test.

      As far as the registries, I think that is something of an open question. For example I think the two 17 year olds in question (I believe that was the FL case) were not required to register, in FL; on the other hand, other states might require them to register, and registration changes so frequently (and often with retroactive effect) that it is a precarious situation for them, in any event.

      Obviously, these laws weren’t intended to cover people on the cusp of adulthood. Our primary concern with child pornography is prepubescent children (and you need look no further than the typical offender profile, at least at the federal level, to see that the Justice Department is not nearly as concerned with minors who are Corrigan’s age; in my old office, my colleagues would say that, as a practical matter, that’s usually treated like adult porn). State prosecution is different, of course; and all too often these cases involve overly vindictive parents, in my opinion.

      I don’t think it is fair to demonize Corrigan, but I also have a hard time seeing this as a black and white case of victim and predator. The falsification of documents is a major cause for concern; if that was widespread, what would have been the impact on the adult film industry? Do people who look at pornography check the records to confirm that “barely legal” is still, in fact, legal? I somehow doubt it.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Larry Lufkin
      Larry Lufkin

      The posts listed here are certainly varied in the writers’ thinking. For me, I fail to understand why a teen does not have to be a certain age in order to reproduce. If a teen is able to reproduce, then the teen should no longer be considered a minor but a parent. Probably the age of 15 is more logical if there needs to be a specific age for a teen to no longer be considered a minor. But what do we consider a 14-year-old that reproduces? I guess in a perfect world, one would take a test to be considered an adult. I feel than many writers here might fail the test. Just my thoughts.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John K.
      John K.

      @Alec: I see your point about the proof requirements. I also didn’t mention that the age of consent becomes 18 in NJ if the relationship is one where one person is in an authority position over the other, so a coach or teacher would be guilty of sexual assault if he or she had sex with a 17-year-old player or student. Right, and my point was never that these laws were unconstitutional; I believe they’ve already been upheld numerous times. My point was just that they are inconsistent and require us to expect immaturity and maturity from underage teens at the same time.

      Yeah, I’m not a big fan of our ex post facto jurisprudence in this country. The overly technical definition of “punishment” the Supreme Court had adopted allows the feds and the states to basically put whatever restrictions they want on registered offenders after the fact. I think there is a case now in NJ where an offender is challenging a local law that says he can’t live within however many ft. of a school, and it was passed while he was living within that distance and it’s forcing him out of his house. Some of these laws basically force these people to move out of town because schools and parks are located so closely to each other. Now, it’s one thing for real predators to have to deal with this (I still don’t like it in that situation, but I’m not losing too much sleep over it), but when it’s these kids who just end up on the registries for stupid stuff, it really upsets me.

      Oh yeah, these cases absolutely seem to happen because of vindictive parents. The funny thing is that they, like most people I think, have no idea that underage kids can get caught up in stuff like this. If everyone knew what was going on, I don’t think we would have laws like the ones we have. The problem is, no politician is going to get elected saying he’s going to reform these laws. I can see the campaign attack ads now: a politician voting to exempt teens 16 and under from sex offender registration turns into “So and so voted to keep sexual predators on the streets with no one watching them.”

      Yeah, the falsifying documents is a problem. Which brings me to probably the biggest problem I have with these laws, at least in NJ: mistake of age not being a defense. I could ask for a birth certificate, driver’s license, and passport that all say someone is 18, but if he turns out to be 15, I’m going to jail (I believe there are mandatory jail terms too). I think that is just outrageous. I mean, I understand the reasoning behind it in most cases, not wanting to have to put the victim through a cross examination about whether he or she lied about their age because you know it would come up in EVERY case. But, it seems to me that blocking out the defense for those cases in which it actually DID happen is wildly unfair.

      You mentioned about viewers of porn checking the records, which brings me to my final point: simply viewing something should never be illegal. Yes, if I seek out child porn and pay for it or download it purposely, or obviously if I’m selling it or distributing it, fine, arrest me. But, if I visit a free site that has illegal pictures on it for all to see, the government should not be able to charge me.

      So, you seem to be an attorney yourself. Did you work for the Justice Department or do you do defense work (or other)?

      Mar 31, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @John K.: Ah well this is refreshing! Type of conversation one hopes for but seldom gets here!

      A few states, including MI, where I now practice, have the exceptions in place for authority figures. I also didn’t mean to suggest you thought they were unconstitutional, just noting that the too often bare bones rational basis test is a worthless avenue of attack. Personally, I’m a big believer in rational basis with bite and I’d find them unconstitutional, which explains why I will never be an appellate judge!

      Our laws on “children” (and here we’re discussing 15-17 year olds, who are “children” only in some hypertechnical sense of the word) are deeply….problematic, I guss? Inconsistent is perhaps the best word for it. I find it hilarious (or sad) that we’re willing to give them the highest culpability (constitutionally, that is) for murder, but not for the vote, or the ability to enter a contract, or what have you. You can void a contract but not an act of passion? It just seems absurd, on many levels. What’s funny is that I suspect we all recognize it to be what it is, but we’ve developed, within the legal community, a set of bizarre rationalizations to justify it.

      Re: Ex post facto. I lose sleep over it either way. I always remind myself that the rationalization for these laws are broad enough to encompass a variety of offenses, some of which I would no doubt be “guilty” in a factual, if not legal, sense. But my opinions on the registries seem to be an outdated relic at this point. They’re here to stay for the time being.

      One thing I have always found interesting when dealing with people who find themselves subject to the registries (or criminal law generally) is that they believe themselves the exception to the general rule. They’re not opposed to laws for those dangerous offenders; they just got a raw deal. Part of it is simple rationalization, but another part of it runs deeper; they just don’t comprehend that the laws they have been endorsing for so long have damned them. I’ve noticed it more with DUI and drug cases, but it is also present in sex offense cases.

      I have a major problem with the statutory rape laws. I think as a practical matter it needs to be a jury question, but really, if a 15 year old offers you a piece of identification, and you testify to that, or someone else does, that should be a credibility issue for them to decide. That’s why “Corrigan’s” case is so troubling. Of course he could pass for 18 when he was 17, and we’re playing with fire if we say otherwise. To do anything short of that permits the 16 year old fake ID compiler to circumvent the actual spirit of the law.

      As for “simple viewing,” we’ll have to disagree. “Viewing” in the context of child pornography can and does usually include looking at a link. Obviously, they must “knowingly” view the link, but I don’t actually have a problem with someone who knowingly clicks on a child pornography link being convicted of child pornography. I do think the penalties should be reduced, and I don’t think registration should be mandatory for child pornography alone, but I think the law serves a purpose. To do otherwise would probably circumvent any attempts to prohibit it.

      And finally, defense, not Justice. Although I have worked and continue to work with the Justice Department on the opposite side. They’re a bunch of buggers (and not in the good way) and I don’t recommend working with them. :-)

      Mar 31, 2009 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spunky714
      Spunky714

      One look at the pictures accompanying this post tells you everything you need to know. Lucas looks stylish, edgy, adult and sexy. Corrigan, by contrast, is giving you the finger, the fuck you sign, this gesture of gross disrespect, with a facetious smile, showing off his jailbait-like goods.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      Hmmm … what an interesting observation, Spunky.

      I’m sure when Brent took that picture, he had this very post in mind.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Spunky714: Actually, I’d say Lucas looks like a sleazy gay porn star and Brent looks like a real person. Maybe that’s just me.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lana
      Lana

      Ad 128, 129
      Come on, why do all you guy post here without a real clue about what you are talking about. The Brent Pic is as old as maybe 2006 if not older. Just blame the queerty site for choosing such an old pic. Go over to Nakedsword and check the pics of the gayvn event. The ones from the “red carpet” are quiet interesting. http://www.thesword.com/index.php/skintrade/2357-gayvn-2009-the-red-carpet-fashion-glamour-gay-lebrities.html, scroll down. These fotos do tell a story. Brent stands there in between those two men, Grant and his current BF, who are both a lot taller than him, but sort of touching/grabbing him in a strange manner that seems both protective and possessive. If you need food for speculation or random judgments based on a single photo at least choose more recent material if you please.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      Lana: Two observations after seeing those pictures

      – I feel even more in Brent’s corner after seeing those two guys with him

      – and Michael Lucas looked like someone shipped him in from Madame Tussauds’.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • miss green
      miss green

      first of all .. Brent Corrigan was a kid when i made thos bareback movies. And kids make mistakes! Should he be punished for years and years to come for that?! He is a damn good pornstar and director! Hope he stays in the biz!!

      Apr 3, 2009 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John K.
      John K.

      @Alec: Regarding laws against viewing child pornography, what I meant was that if I am not aware that there is child pornography on the link that I click, I should not be guilty of viewing it. I must admit I do not know if there is strict liability for these laws as well, but when we talk about “knowingly” clicking a child porn link, does that mean you knew the link had child porn on it, or you knew you were clicking a link? In other words, does “knowingly” apply to the attendant circumstance (there is child porn behind the link) or the action (clicking the link)?

      Apr 6, 2009 at 1:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith
      Keith

      PORNS A VERY DIRTY/SHADY BUSINESS…PERIOD.

      Apr 6, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Photobrad
      Photobrad

      I went to a GayVN “Award show” once as a guest of a porn-review magazine editor. It was the most self-congratulatory pile of shit I’ve ever witnessed where the ‘message’ (if there was any) was “we’re so great for making this ‘art’ and getting people off, and oh yeah, AIDS is bad, don’t catch it.” I left early (mostly because I couldn’t get into the restroom due to all the sex going on in the stalls) and went home to shower with steel-wool Brillo pads to get clean.

      Apr 9, 2009 at 3:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeWayne
      DeWayne

      well now aren’t you a self-riotous spic n span precious thang now!

      Just make sure you didn’t pleasure yourself in that shower that’s Immoral and you wont get your little Golden Halo!

      You got the wings that’s for sure all the better to fly above all those you look down on!

      Apr 9, 2009 at 8:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @Photobrad: Hmmm…. someone sounds a wee bit frustated.

      You didn’t get any Brad? Did all the big nasty porn boys ignore you? Awwhh, poo, it’ll be alright. Next year, dress like your loaded, they’ll be all over you.

      Apr 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill
      Bill

      Sounds like he pulled a Kanye

      May 23, 2010 at 1:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MattGMD
      MattGMD

      Brent Corrigan gets my vote. Lucas should continue producing and when tempted at least limit his contribution to voice-over from behind the camera.

      Mar 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FunMe
      FunMe

      Who cares what Lucas “thinks”. He’s just another sleazy aging gay producer who just wants a little attention.

      I mean he’s gone pyscho with his selfish membership in GoProud, the CONservative organization who works against the GLBT community. Way worse than the Log Cabins.

      Mar 13, 2011 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • thirdwaver
      thirdwaver

      Brent is not famous because he was underage when he started. He’s famous because he’s one of the hottest bottoms on the planet. There’s nothing wrong with rewarding him for work he does while legal. How far do we take this? Should actors not accept Academy Awards if they were ever caught drinking underage? Please.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      So there’s a catfight between a gay porn personalities. What are we to glean from this?

      Mar 27, 2011 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      Since GLAAD and the WWE are such good buddies, maybe these two intellectual giants can settle their dispute in a cage match at Wrestlemania.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Melvin Melgar
      Melvin Melgar

      Hello, my men, Use condoms, please. HIV and Aids is not funny. Think about it. Okay. Have fun and enjoy. Condoms are better. Aids is not a funny thing. Do not play with it. Live long and enjoy and have fun for sex is good! Condoms!

      Mar 31, 2011 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      Who wins in the Jeff vs. Alex dispute?

      Alex Thinks Jeff’s Too Slutty To Be A Gay Leader

      Apr 1, 2011 at 4:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • asdfasdf
      asdfasdf

      “Brent is not famous because he was underage when he started. He’s famous because he’s one of the hottest bottoms on the planet. There’s nothing wrong with rewarding him for work he does while legal.”

      lol too true

      By this lucas’ guys reasoning, corrigan should never be awarded for anything just because of corrigan’s past. sorry, but that’s discrimination.

      i would like to see corrigan act in more non-porn roles though. he has a very interesting face. it’s one of those beautifully average faces, which is sort of strange. sort of like what’s-her-face…the female lead in the Devil Wears Prada.

      Dec 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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