Is PrEP the New Plan B for HIV?

michaellucaspinkJust a few days ago, porn impresario Michael Lucas (pictured) caused shockwaves within the gay community when he came out as an HIV negative man using the HIV drug Truvada for PrEP, short for pre-exposure prophylaxis. The idea behind PrEP is that taking the drug on a regular basis has been proven to significantly reduce the likelihood of HIV infection in its users, and can be as much a part of the safer sex conversation as regular condom use.

But should it be? A monthly dose of Truvada can run anywhere between $1,000 and $1,300 a month. That price alone makes PrEP unattainable for the average, non porn-king gay although there are assistance programs to get the drug for high-risk individuals who can’t afford it.

Though Lucas claims that none of his friends who are on Truvada for PrEP have experienced any major side effects, the fact remains that Truvada is a major medication to be taking into the body. Also it’s not very likely to hope that high-risk individuals who are experiencing one too many condom “slip-ups” can be tasked with the responsibility of taking a pill a day, seeing as how missing a dosage reduces PrEP efficacy.

Some will undoubtedly take this news as an excuse to ditch the condoms for good, undoing years of education about safer sex practices that focus on condom use. Others will either keep on using condoms or having bareback sex, whatever their sexual practices may be.

What is undeniable is that the PrEP program is shifting the conversation about HIV prevention and education in a major way.

So the question remains, Queerty readers: Should PrEP be seen as a sort of Plan B for HIV, meant to stem infection without the use of condoms or should it be seen as a last ditch effort, second only to regular condom use and safer sex education?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #hiv #michaellucas #prep stories and more


  • Jeton Ademaj

    PrEP is not for everyone, but it indeed works very well. condoms work very well for many, but NOT for most…most men of any sexual orientation use condoms intermittently at best. Dawn Smith of the CDC demonstrated very clearly this past March that intermittent use of condoms produces very little protective benefit. even when used with religious adherence, which only a tiny minority of men ever do, the protective benefit of condoms is only ***70%***, NOT 99% or 95% or 81% (all figures that have been previously claimed for condom efficacy).

    face it, all of you finger-waggers and sanctimony high priests: the advice you’ve been dispensing with a flair of moral superiority all these years was never very effective!

    furthermore, PrEP is now covered by many insurers, and more will do so because PrEP is far cheaper than a full HIV regimen PLUS the extra medical costs that occur. here’s a list of some insurers covering it now: http://myprepexperience.blogspot.com/p/truvada-track.html

    lastly, the idea that “people who wont use condoms regularly wont use PrEP regularly” is simply bogus, because PrEP does not grossly diminish sexual pleasure and sexual function the way that condoms do for many users.

    if you like condoms, GREAT, stick with them. if NOT, PrEP may be right for you. PrEP now is like 1980’s boomboxes…in a few years PrEP will be like modern ipods, with long-acting injectables and other formulations making it easier.

    The Age Of Chemoprophylaxis is indeed here.


  • dwndckd

    @Jeton Ademaj, your comment is the type of “BS” that stupid people will believe and end up as a welling participates… In short, it’s called being ill-responsible. You provided bogus statistics arguing against the use of condoms. What you are saying is no different than what the “Bareback Brotherhood has been saying for a while now.” The only difference is that you are attempting to legalize your claim… “Condoms is only ***70%***, NOT 99% or 95% or 81% (all figures that have been previously claimed for condom efficacy).” I tell you what—point me to those studies?!?! Oh, and your statement, “PrEP is not for everyone, but it indeed works very well… condoms work very well for many, but NOT for most…most men of any sexual orientation use condoms intermittently at best.” Really, where did you get the “BS?” I’m a heterosexual male and guess what– I use condoms [rubbers] every time I screw and I am sure that you don’t speak for every other male out there. So, as far as, “condoms work very well for many, but NOT for most,” who might they be? Additionally, insurance companies are not “all” accepting PrEP; that is—unless you know something that the general populous doesn’t know… Lastly, I would really like to know where you received your fact/statistic, because they by means add up…. “FUCK SMARTER! FIGHT HARDER! FIGHT AIDS! ACT UP!!” Per your comment—this sentence that you wrote does add up… If you want to fight AIDS, be responsible—not stupid!!!

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @dwndckd: yawn/meh. u can do better, by which i mean WORSE, than that. 3/10…and the 3 is only for length.

    Dawn Smith’s 2 studies (one on rates of usage over time, the other on efficacy of risk reduction over time) were presented on March 5th, 2013 at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). there is much debate as to the “MEANING” of the numbers (such as whether condom-use itself induced risk-compensation and/or disinhibition), but no debate as to the numbers themselves. perhaps you’d like to offer some high-pitched analytical critique?

    rate-of-condom-use studies are numerous…go find them. since 1988, gay men have rarely exceeded a 50% rate of INTERMITTENT use, and hetero men a 25% rate of intermittent use. hell, the 2011 George Mason University study of some 15,000 MSM respondents nationally found that SIXTY-SIX PERCENT of MSM had NOT used a condom in their last anal-sex encounter.

    your writing is really shrill…almost like a man denying himself basic human pleasure for decades. connection? of course! ;-D

    i may have to join that “Bareback Brotherhood” thread on Queerty awhile back, just for the psycho laughs…but for the primary psycho doing his cyberstalking thing: this is my real and actual name. feel free to “report” me to whomever, and…deleted. why violate Queerty’s rules on personal attacks when scoffing at you all is easy enough?

  • dwndckd

    @Jeton Ademaj, two points of interest:- First, as I suspected—your response is as weak as your initial comment. I listed several sources that I used for my PhD. Regarding this subject… As such, I invite your attention to the listing below.
    1.CDC. Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 1999.
    2.CDC. Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2002.
    3.Hatcher RA et al. Contraceptive Technology, 18th rev. ed. New York: Ardent Media, 2004.
    4.Holmes KK et al. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2004; 82:454-461+.
    5.Hogewoning CJA et al. Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Cancer 2003; 107:811-816.
    6.de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. New England Journal of Medicine 1994; 331:341-346.
    7.Wawer MJ et al. Declines in HIV Prevalence in Uganda: Not as Simple as ABC. Presentation at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, February 22-25, 2005, Boston, Massachusetts; http://www.retroconference.org/2005/CD/Abstracts/25775.htm; accessed 3/2/2005.
    8.Walboomers JMM et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. Journal of Pathology 1999; 189:12-19.
    9.Weinstock H et al. Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2004; 36:6-10.
    10.American Cancer Society. What Are the Key Statistics about Cervical Cancer? Washington, DC: The Society, 2004.
    11.Winer RL et al. The Effect of Consistent Condom Use on the Risk of Genital HPV Infection among Newly Sexually Active Young Women, presented at the 16th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, July 10-13, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    12.Baldwin SB et al. Condom use and other factors affecting penile human papillomavirus detection in men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2004;31:601-607.
    13.Chin-Hong PV et al. Condoms Prevent Incident Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection in Men: the Explore Study, presented at the 16th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, July 10-13, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    Second, regarding your comment, “your writing is really shrill…almost like a man denying himself basic human pleasure for decades. connection? of course! ;-D” Well, if I weren’t a heterosexual—per your tone, I would possibly consider the aforementioned comment an invitation….smile….

  • Jody

    If the iPrex study results continue to be replicated elsewhere — that a 92% reduction in risk for HIV acquisition was found in participants with detectable levels of Truvada versus those with no drug detected — then yes, this is a game changer.

    It means that a pill taken as easily as a morning vitamin, workout supplement or energy booster, can provide nearly the same (perhaps even greater) protection than a condom.

    Yes, there are still unknowns, things like the actual effectiveness rate, long term health effects and compliance level, but unknowns were there during the earliest studies on condom effectiveness in preventing HIV infection. This would mean, though, that people would essentially be able to have all the protection of a condom and all the pleasure of going without.

    It’s incredibly exciting news.

  • dwndckd

    @ Jody… Minus the spread of other Sexually Transmitted Diseases, minus the cost for those who cannot afford it, minus the, “effectiveness rate, long term health effects and compliance level,” as you pointed out… But why bother with those annoying little facts, or with the consequences of an individuals’ actions… WoW!

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @Jody: i would note that among the subset of iPrex subjects that achieved that “92% reduction in risk” figure, the average adherence was about 50%…and the observed efficacy is fairly in line with what is known of achievable Truvada drug concentrations in the male genitalia and rectal tissue with THAt threshold of adherence. IF that correlation sustains itself at higher drug levels, than indeed 95% adherence or better (not missing more than 1 dose out of every 20) would produce HIV risk reductions well in excess of 99%.

    i myself have not missed a dose since i started HIV meds in 2004, and in 2008 i greatly intensified my own regimen specifically in response to the Swiss Statement about undetectability = negligible transmission risk.

    bluntly, far less anxious and worrisome “bareback” (*normal, natural*) sex is a FANTASTIC incentive for treatment adherence.

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @dwndckd: ooof…a verbose troll who’s new to trolling. ah well, let me help u out:

    ur assorted citations have refuted nothing i’ve stated. if this is how you argue generally, i hold little hope for your career in science. the FDA approved Truvada as PrEP for precisely the reasons i’ve stated herein, and they roundly rejected the cheap emotional misdirection folks like you presented at the hearings (most on the payroll of Mike Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation).

    now would be your cue to switch from a scientific posture to that of a screeching protestor: “THE FDA DID IT FOR THE ‘ALMIGHTY DOLLAR’, MAAAANNN!! THEY TOOK PAYOFFS FROM BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA!!!!!11”

    as for your comments to Jody…other std’s are just not as a big a concern as HIV, sorry. the WORST of the others, HPV, is not particularly preventable by condom usage anyway. feel free to delete several of your citations based on THAt fact alone. ;-)

  • Jody

    @dwndckd: Those aren’t annoying facts. They exist even now.

    But “regular” STDs are far less of a problem for folks than HIV.

    And yes, the cost of Truvada is a concern. But it’s a rapidly decreasing one with the coming ACA implementation.

    As for your last comment, looking at STDs as “punishments” is asinine, an outgrowth of the superstitious ignorance fueling homophobia, sexism and fear of the mentally ill. That punishment / sin idea is also what made it so damn hard to prevent the disease from spreading so rapidly in the first place.

  • dwndckd

    @Jeton Ademaj, “a verbose troll who’s new to trolling;” “THE FDA DID IT FOR THE ‘ALMIGHTY DOLLAR’, MAAAANNN!! THEY TOOK PAYOFFS FROM BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA!!!!!11, …”std’s are just not as a big a concern as HIV, sorry.” WoW! First, I’m not sure if you were referring to the act of “cruising,” or if you are teasing me- to spark a reaction. I tell you what… After four years it took to earn my PhD, two years to earn my Master’s… I yield to your expertise… LMFAO!!! Please—proceed…

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @dwndckd: that’s twice now that u’ve hoped i was making a pass at u. i’m not…unless u post ass-pix AND i like them. until then, get a grip on urself — in whatever way will foreclose ur distraction. :-)

    i remember what it was like being a young condom-nazi myself. one is never quite sexually fulfilled, and the frustration seeps out in all directions. no wonder condoms never became the panacea for HIV-prevention.

    As the great Jim Eigo likes to remind me, condoms-as-safer-sex started out as wonderful community empowerment, with Richard Berkowitz, Michael Callen and Dr Joseph Sonnabend publishing “How To Have Sex In An Epidemic”. eventually, and unfortunately, the messaging for safer sex got taken over by the haughty, the preppy, the boy-scout-wanna-bes, and the sexually neurotic. once that happened, condoms-as-Prevention would forever become a mere Tactic masquerading as a Strategy.

    thankfully, the prevention arsenal is expanding…and we get the theater of all those sanctimonious boyscouts barking and baying at the moon in lament.

  • QJ201

    Coming soon in Lucas Productions:

    All our models in our bareback scenes have been taking PrEP for a month before shooting as a safeguard against HIV.

    I mean Lucas has been DYING to find a way to do bareback porn and “save face.” His performers already do everything but BB, cue open mouth feeding cum shots.

  • Tackle

    @Qj201: funny that you say that. Lucas did a partial/kinda bareback scene with Matthew Rush. Lucas put the head of his BARE dick in Matthew’s ass, like Michael Brandon was famous for doing.. Going in and out, teasing Matthew’s hole ,before the condom came on. Yes I can see Lucas entertainment going that way. And Lucas should stop beating around the bush and just admit he barebacks.

  • Fawkes

    Michael Lucas is a genuinely disgusting human being. Anything he pushes is immediately questionable. People need to do their research before they start taking his and pharmaceutical companies’ word for this.

  • gaymaniac


    I am going to stick to my latex fetish and Mr. Lucas and all the rest can go on their vacation in bareback ‘wonderland’. History shows what happens with medications that are dumped on populations for prophylactics and not vector directed. We have resistant TB, resistant gonorhea, MRSA infections. There are two classes of drugs that end up useless after some time-antibiotics and antiviral medication. Truvada is in the 2nd class. Bacteria and Viruses become resistant and the once-promising drug Truvada will end up like Penicillin(against Syphilis with no side effects-now ineffective), because idiots have decided, they should be used as vitamins every day. After Truvada ends up in the trash, companies will come up with something new and this time it will cost 2500 $-not 1300$. So go on and bareback all you want-I would be damned to pay such money every month because of a problem that someone is having with wrapings. As for insurance-look at Europe(or Ryan/Republican budget): When deficits are high, free and affordable healthcare ENDS pretty quickly.

  • Kangol


    “But “regular” STDs are far less of a problem for folks than HIV.”

    According to whom? When I go to my health provider, I see signs warning about a rise in syphilis, including drug-resistant syphilis, among gay men. I see pamphlets about the risks of oral and anal cancers from HPV. I see a video urging people to be vigilant about getting proper treatment for chlamydia, gonorrhea, parasites, and other STDs/STIs.

    This expensive PrEP treatment may work well; I don’t know, but is it anywhere as effective as proper, regular condom use? And does it protect at all against the STDs/STIs I list above? No. Please link to the PrEP studies so that we all can read them. That would be great.

    Also, we have an idea of what the long-term effects of latex use are on most of us. But what are the long-term effects of Truvada? Also. do we even know if Truvada advocates have any financial or other ties to the company producing the drug? Are they funding the studies on its effectiveness? I’m not saying they do or they are, but please, let’s be as transparent as possible, provide links to the studies, be very clear with people, and then we can talk about this as a reasonable option for men having sex with men.

  • craigers

    Ok, first, some people need to chill with the comments. Wow. Second…$1300 a month? Why are we even talking about this? It’s not an option for anyone except that annoying 1% who have 30% of the country’s wealth.

  • Jody

    @Kangol: It comes down to what kind of risk you want to have. If you want zero risk of ever contacting and STD, then never have sex. It’s a simple as that.

    If you want to have sex, you have to manage your risk. Syphilis is out there, there has been a spike in infections in the big cities and it is harder — though not impossible — to treat. But with 55,000 new cases every year, your personal risk of actually catching that STD is fairly low.

    Oral and anal cancers from HPV are a risk. The 100% proof way to not catch them? Don’t have sex. Better is to actually take the HPV vaccine, which all but blocks it. If you don’t do that, only have oral and anal sex with a condom. I’m not sure what the point is of having oral sex with a condom, but there you go.

    Tenofovir and Emtricitabine, the active drugs in Truvada, have both been in use since 2006. There are studies on the long — to date — side effects of both drugs. Emtricitabine has very few. Tenofovir has more and more serious ones, but they happen in a small percentage of people. It’s why you need a doctor to monitor your body while you are on those kind of drugs. Thank goodness everyone is getting access to ACA next year.

    I’m not a doctor. I used to be AIDS / STD / Health / Sex Educator back in the 1990s, when I was working on my first masters. I still follow this stuff as a result. know how difficult it was to get people to use condoms consistently then, at the height of the AIDS epidemic. To have had a daily pill that blocks HIV cold, a “molecular condom” always there to protect you, even if you aren’t smart, sober or able enough to protect yourself, would have been a revolutionary tool. So I’m incredibly, incredibly hopeful about Truvada. No one should need to fear death over engaging in one of the most wonderful things life has to offer: sex.

    http://www.prepwatch.org is a great resource for keeping up with the latest clinical developments regarding PrEP.

  • Jody

    @craigers: More and more health plans are covering PrEP. It cheaper to stop it with Truvada than it is to treat it with everything else.

  • the other Greg

    It’s true that trying to run other people’s sex lives is tough work.

    Pope Jeton is oblivious to the irony that he’s doing this far more than those he’s accusing. He’s quick to criticize the supposed “condom Nazis,” but he sees nothing wrong with being the self-declared gay sex policeman, ordering everyone how to properly have gay sex, and pontificating about what’s repressed and what’s “natural.” Sound familiar? – it’s essentially the same thing the religious homophobe sex cops do!

    At least the real pope was elected by… well… somebody or other. When did we vote to have Pope Jeton run our sex lives? (Was there another candidate? I want a recount!)

    At least Dr. Jeton has let up a bit on the neo-Freudian psychobabble that anyone who doesn’t bareback is “sexually repressed,” etc. – although he still can’t help throwing that in from time to time. This does not help his PrEP argument. If someone were to suggest that anyone who likes barebacking must have a sh*t fetish, Jeton probably wouldn’t like it. (I threw in the “probably” because ya never know, it’s as good an explanation as any for his obsession!)

    To anyone reading this who’s relatively new to gay life: Selfish bastard tops come up with all kinds of creative excuses to bareback. It supposedly “feels better,” blah blah blah. PReP is yet another excuse (albeit one more elaborate, expensive and pompous than any heretofore), and any benefits it has can be seen as afterthoughts to the original excuse.

    If you’re on the bottom it feels exactly the same either way! – with or without a condom. Don’t fall for it. If you want to find out what getting fucked is like, find a nicer guy who’s not too fucking selfish and lazy to put on a condom. And notice the comments of dwndckd and others above that HIV is not the ONLY thing to worry about.

    And if you find out, after some experimentation, that you’re just not that into fucking and you really just like oral sex – or for that matter, mutual masturbation or whatever plain-vanilla sex that Pope Jeton would declare boring – there’s nothing “wrong” with you and it doesn’t mean you’re sexually repressed. (It might, however, mean that Jeton has a sh*t fetish, but hopefully you won’t run into him!) Other people can mind their own fucking business about YOUR sex life!

    (Funniest comment here: Jeton Ademaj saying “this is my real and actual name.” WTF? – did Jeton’s parents lose a Scrabble tournament to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s parents?)

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @the other Greg: nyuk nyuk nyuk, look who’s feeling defensive about their neurotic fear of a complete sex life. it took long enough, but 30 years of tyranny from the Buttfucking police is now over, and the sex cops are in a tizzy.

    one glaring lie he tells: that condomed-dick feels the same as natural dick for bottoms. it doesn’t, not even close…unless you’ve numbed your ass with novocaine or something similar. don’t believe me? check the comments on this Huffington Post story about a Trojan Condoms-funded study claiming that there’s “no difference”. men, women, tops, bottoms…everyone knows there’s no comparison between real and rubber.


    i never understand why people try this argument, they always regret it. at least condom-nazis tend to try to shut down the argument itself, saying that it’s unfair to tempt condom users with “forbidden” fruit.

    leave it to someone too neurotic for buttsecks to pretend that it feels the same, real vs rubber.


  • Jeton Ademaj

    @Kangol: being properly and fully adherent to PrEP will provide far better protection from HIV infection than proper and adherent use off condoms, all other factors being equal. over 99% for PrEP versus about 70% for religious adherence to condoms…

    furthermore, 50% adherence to PrEP provided 92% protection, and close to NO protective effect from intermittent use of condoms. 50% adherence to PrEP is BETTER than 80% adherence to condoms when it comes to preventing HIV.

    cold facts.

  • the other Greg

    @Jeton Ademaj: Maybe you posted the wrong link by mistake? I really appreciate your refuting your own comments with THAT link!

    The HEADLINE says: “Sex With Condoms Just As Satisfying As Unprotected Sex, Indiana University Study Finds.”

    Further down: “According to the news release, the study also found that men showed “no significant difference” in maintaining erections with or without condoms, and women couldn’t tell whether a condom was lubricated or what material it’s made from during the act.”

    “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the use of condoms reduces the risk of contracting and/or spreading sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.”

    So… thanks!

    Are you SURE you don’t just have AIDS dementia? :)

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @the other Greg: :-D !

    uhm, fool? as i stated, the study was fund by TROJAN CONDOMS, and MOST of the 700+ comments from REAL people express laughter and incredulity at the totally unsupportable story headline.

    aaahhhh…why am i complaining? go ahead, tapdance some more. you always provide new material when you do. ;-)

  • the other Greg

    @Jeton Ademaj: Oh, I get it: studies sponsored by Trojan are bad, but studies sponsored by Gilead the maker of Truvada are totally believable and objective?

    One of your legitimate points about PrEP in recent weeks (one I’d been unaware of) is that it’s good for certain sero-discordant couples. Fair enough, and since I’m in such a relationship, I brought up the discussion. But we agreed the Truvada rigamarole sounded pretty convoluted and we’re fine with condoms.

    We have a “monogamish” relationship so if I were really curious to try it (barebacking as a top), I could. Yeah, I’ve never done it even once. OK, maybe I’m a BIT curious. But the sort of bottoms who advertise to get “bred” bareback – ugh, they probably wouldn’t interest me much. Any guy I meet in a bar, or even at a peep show, is going to want me to use a condom. They always have, and I’ll be shocked if anyone ever asks me NOT to. The only guys who suggest that are the very occasional tops who want to bareback me; the vast majority of tops whip out a condom immediately without comment, and no one who wants to be on the bottom ever suggests barebacking. That’s a top thing to suggest, not a bottom thing.

    If you and the commenters on that link imagine they can tell the difference, on the receiving end with or w/o a condom – gee, that impresses me about as much as the guys who are sure they can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. I’ve done it often enough to realize I can’t tell the difference, and I’m pretty sure you’re just imagining it. However, I’m not the self-appointed Gay Pope trying to run other people’s sex lives – you are!

    You DO have some legitimate points about PrEP, and your case would be more effective if you would focus on those and drop the insulting neo-Freudian gibberish. You employers at Gilead might even give you a bonus!

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @the other Greg: i have never received a penny from anyone for any of my HIV advocacy, with the sole exception of working for AIDSWALK NY for 3 weeks in 2008.

    i would be happy to cease commenting on your hilariously limited sex life if you would cease initiating attacks on me that necessitate response. i think we both know you cant do that, so stop bitching.

    since u cant tell the difference even between Coke and Pepsi, let me explain it: Pepsi is MEANT to be sweeter, in all forms, than Coke in all forms. Pepsi is overwhelmingly preferred by those who SIP their soda, and Coke is overwhelmingly preferred by those who gulp it. this is ancient food science.

    no wonder u cant tell the diff between raw n rubber!

  • Robyn

    Why is Queerty giving this admitted Log Cabin Republican gay porn king any space online? I am ashamed of his politics. He may produce high quality adult entertainment, but he is a money whore, that is all, the gay male equivalent of Jenna Jameson.

  • the other Greg

    @Jeton Ademaj: Heh, this is a new experience. Most of my entertaining fights in Queerty comments have been when I make fun of the monogamy freaks. (One guy a month ago, perhaps a time traveler from the 19th century, actually used the word “cuckolded”: I had to look it up.) I’ve often defended bathhouses here, to the horrified shrieks of the monogamists. I’ve had sex with over a thousand guys (lost count) and have been called a slut, but I’ve NEVER been accused of having a “limited sex life”! Gosh, suddenly I feel so… virtuous. “Like A Virgin.” Thanks, I guess!

    Re: Coke/Pepsi – soda unfortified with alcohol seems rather pointless to me, I’m not a Southerner, drink maybe 3 sodas a summer so I’ll have to take your word for it.

    It’s cute how you refer to your “HIV advocacy” – sounds like you’re advocating *for* HIV rather than against it!

  • the other Greg

    @Robyn: Yes – Lucas has a regular column in the Advocate (or did a couple of years ago) which is exactly why I came over here, to get the f*ck away from him! Anything he says is suspect.

  • the other Greg

    Again, I’m putting this message up mostly to any recently-out guys reading this who are a little intimidated. Don’t let Pope Jeton scare you!

    So there’s an occasional “bareback nazi” who’s sure there’s only one way to do gay sex right. So what.

    The varieties of sexual turn-ons are vast. Why expect that every gay guy would be equally excited by anal? I don’t know why anyone would that, any more than expect that every single person in the world would be equally excited by the same food or movies. Sex interests are even more personal.

    Sometimes it could be a purely physical phenomenon – maybe a guy has a prostate gland 1/4 of a millimeter different from where Jeton’s is, so he just ain’t feeling it the same way Jeton does. It might have nothing to do with the psychological stuff he imagines, “sexual repression” & all that.

    Anyway, “psychology is mostly a bunch of bullsh*t” (quote from Jon Stewart, Ivy League psychology major) which I guess explains why it’s so endlessly seductive to certain amateur cranks.

    Oral sex is a lot of fun and is generally a lot simpler and easier to do than anal. There’s no reason this simple fact should upset any gay guy’s sense of decorum and propriety. (Eek!) Also, like it or not, at this point in history c*cksucking happens to be a lot less risky than anal. This will figure into some guys’ plans.

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @the other Greg: nah, doofus…i’m advocating for a full sex life SANS hiv. having that hiv-free FULL sex life is now easier than at any time in the last 30 years.

    guys like you magically forget that all this talk of “the varieties of sexual turn-ons are vast” only works when you’re NOT using that vast variety of turn ons as an express substitute for a complete sex life. you SHOULD have been finding a way to evangelize oral, and bdsm, and “erotic touch”, and all that other namby-pamby bullshit WITHOUT directly linking it to DEATH. “learn how to enjoy never fucking or getting fucked, HERE, learn how to do ‘watersports’ (ick) INSTEAD….OR DIE IN HORROR!!1!”

    alas, that approach was always doomed…and the jig’s up for neurotic boyscouts trying to ensure that ONLY neurotic boy-scouts survive the AIDS Plague.

    yes, there really ARE nutjobs who eroticize the virus itself, and a larger group who just give up caring, and a still larger group who just love “risk”. THAT’S why i finally got super-active, because head-cases like you have proven the DIRECT ENGINE for creating nutjobs like THEM. no one was giving guys like you the public smack-down you desperately need…until now.

    pucker up! ;-)

  • the other Greg

    @Jeton Ademaj: Hmm… I really don’t recall anyone in the ’80s/’90s saying “learn how to enjoy NEVER fucking or getting fucked” etc. – condoms don’t preclude any of that – or advocating watersports as safer sex! Uh… I suppose it is, weird that your mind went there, but nobody said that. Agree with you about the “ick” there, but one could ask why is your shit fetish any better or more “natural”? :)

    And you lump in bdsm, of all things, with “namby-pamby bullshit”! Obviously bdsm has nothing inherently to do with the condom stuff, it could be conducted with or without anal sex of either type or any which way.

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @the other Greg: well, given your general ignorance about sex (and even soda pop!), you might be forgiven for missing all the activist exhortations to de-eroticize anal sex from the mid 80’s on…no matter, you’re still here prattling about “shit fetishes” ***in an obvious attack on REAL, UNFETTERED AND UNVULCANIZED anal sex**.

    meet the new neurotic boyscout douchebags, same as the old ones. check your software, douche-bot…reprogram yourself. ;-)

  • dwndckd

    @ the other Greg, it is useless to reason with someone who chooses not to see reason, but insists on propagating harmful and misinformation. My heart goes out to those persons (young, old, or whomever) that may have the misfortune to come into contact with “aforementioned” individual.

  • Jeton Ademaj

    @dwndckd: English isn’t your first language, is it?

  • dwndckd

    @Jeton Ademaj, actually English is my first language. However, I can understand why it’s difficult for you to comprehend (let’s just say that it isn’t that raw action in which you are accustomed). But hey, if you are able to speak Hebrew (the old tongue), maybe you and I can communicate a little better…

Comments are closed.