Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Michael Lucas: Gay bareback porn is hotter and I don’t use condoms with my HIV positive partner

  • Robert

    What a total scum bag.

    • Serkan M

      I totally agree. What a vile human being. All for money.

      • Jesus_Mohammed

        Indeed! Lucas demonstrates his low level of integrity very clearly with the line, “In the end, this is a business, and we can’t afford to ignore what consumers want from porn these days.”

        He’s effectively saying, “My priority is making money regardless of any of the negative effects of my money-making schemes!”

        • Steven Gregory

          Insurance should be required. Traditional filmmakers can’t order dangerous stunts without insurance.
          Require ongoing insurance for at least the KNOWN OUTSIDE INCUBATION PERIOD for
          HIV, which is nine years. I bet Lucas and other porn tycoons would change their tune about condom use in a flash.

          I’m sick of porn makers blaming “consumer demand.”
          Consumers don’t like to use seat belts or headlights, but that hasn’t hurt car sales.

          To Lucas and his ilk, porn actors are DISPOSABLE, throw-aways, beautiful garbage to be used and discarded.

          • Christopher in Canada

            You quote the incubation period, which refers to the median progression of infection to full-blown AIDS in a non-medicated patient, and is c1998 publication. This is moot in the age of antibody tests, which show up poz or neg within 90 days. HAART therapy, initiated once the patient is confirmed positive, overwhelmingly halts the progressive nature of the infection. Again, I’m sorry to rain on your post, but the information you are quoting is incomplete. A far as the discussion being about porn, and not interpersonal relations (as you allude to one of my earlier posts), well, you blew that out of the water earlier when you inferred that poster AGREED was not attractive enough to have random sexual encounters. What is he to think should he read your response to his opinion? Does he deserve this cruel treatment? And, what would you do if you should meet him and he turn out to be the man of your dreams? And what would you do if he were to tell you that yes, he’d like to get to know you better, but wants to take things slow and learn more about the wonderful things you are before he gets into YOUR pants?
            I think the real conflict we are all having is the fact that porn, be it filmed using actors or drawn like a Tom of Finland cartoon, shows a fantasy world where everyone gets who and what they want instantly and without struggle. Alas, reality is full of rejection, mind games, insecurities and humans… who are more than caricature or simple physique and deserve to be treated as the beings with hearts and minds that they are. None of us gets to control what we look like – be it a muscular brunette on a tricycle like me or a gorgeous smiling blond like yourself. However, we can expect, somewhere along the way, to be seen and recognized for who we are on the inside, as people, with all our foibles, as much as we hope to be noticed by what genetics or workouts have given us on the outside. That applies to all of us, whether we are executives, farmers, or porn performers.

          • Steven Gregory

            You are bizarre. Get off my leg little dog.

          • Christopher in Canada

            And your true colours are now showing. I fail to see anything bizarre about what I wrote, it’s an honest opinion, based on research and current fact. Why are you suddenly trying to pull rank on me by referring to me as a “little dog”? You are not superior, you merely have a differing opinion on this matter than me, and your manner is nothing less than dismissive and rude. And, tell me, what are we to infer from your comment to AGREED insinuating that no one would want to have random sexual encounters with him, or words to that effect? These are your words – the onus is on you to explain them, if not to me, then to him. Spin them all you want – they currently have a negative connotation, whatever you tell yourself in the mirror.
            For all you know, he may be my best friend.
            Detroit – ah, memories – I went to Windsor for university there back in the 80’s, and got lost in Detroit so many times – THAT is a different world! Menjo’s, Backstreet, etc… freeways without overhead lighting, stop lights that no one stops at…

          • Steven Gregory

            You’re also a creep

  • Serkan M

    So his justification for making bareback porn is that he wants to increase his pocket lining, instead of promoting responsible attitudes in society.

    I hope he can say that to the face of parents, friends, brothers and sisters or the family who have had people that have died from HIV.

    • Steven Gregory

      He donates heavily to the Republican party, supporting conservative politicians who support Israel’s occupied territories.

  • James!

    $$$$$$$ and he doesn’t have the balls to tell the truth. We are teaching the next generation how to die a painful death we must be proud

  • Timb

    Sad, very sad. I work with young LGBT people and always promote a safer sex message. As an teenage growing up in the 80s I wouldn’t want any young people today to have to go through what some of the guys had to go through back then. HIV is still not curable. It is due to this sort of ‘publicity’ that makes the safer sex message hard to get through to today’s young people. Of course, we are not just talking about HIV either.
    Potentially all the excellent work done by many people and agencies over the last thirty years will be undone.
    Sad, very sad.

  • Lee W Dalgleish

    I’m sorry but what a stupid man… Actually, no I’m not sorry. He is a cretin. Yes there maybe better medication/treatment now but that doesn’t mean you should be lazy and not use protection. Absolutely ridiculous. You still run a risk… Especially if the person who is barebacking hasn’t been completely honest about their viral load.

    Ugh he has really pi$$ed me off

    • naoma

      TALK ABOUT stupid! Gay sex without condoms with HIV partner. Lots of luck.

    • Steven Gregory

      He’s a greedy Republican donor and hardcore Zionist.

      • Paul

        What’s wrong with being a Zionist? I’m a Zionist and am pretty liberal.

    • William

      “You still run a risk…” So what? By being alive we are running risks the whole time by doing things from driving to sports. Barebacking does not seem significantly more dangerous than Nascar racing for example (especially with the reduced likelihood of transmission when viral loads are undetectable). Surely whether someone takes a risk about what they do with their own body should be up to them? Russian roulette is not analogous with barebacking because for those who are able to get the medication HIV is no longer a death sentence. (If you get shot in the head healthcare is very unlikely to save you).

      • Lee W Dalgleish

        I don’t really see the point of your argument. Why add to the risks we face in life? Seems like a rather stupid outlook if you ask me. If they want to take the risk with their own body, it’s NOT just them who is affected. And even if HIV treatment is better now, why on earth is that an excuse to be stupid and go bareback? I just can’t and won’t agree with your comment

  • Shorny

    His choice.There are many more far more worthy people promoting safe sex. He’s right about HIV not being the death knell it was but it’s still a nasty disease to have. Getting hissy over what a porn star says is ridiculous. Just don’t watch his films.

    • dd

      Pretty stupid comment, don’t you think? I might not be watching his films – what about other people who are who might not know any better?

      • Shorny

        No – it is not stupid. Nor am I taking to insult for lack of knowledge. I was a Nurse in the HIV field in the 80’s and nursed my fellow dying gay men to death. The choice and knowledge there is now was inconceivable back then.Read smc’s response. Pretty balanced and knowledgeable. Like I say, getting hissy over a porn star is ridiculous. And other people (in the UK at least) should know better – even if only for the risk of other STI’s and unwanted pregnancy.

        • Robert

          Of course it matters what he says. This cretin is not just a performer but the owner of one of the biggest gay porn brands in the world. The whole point is that kids dont know better because they get virtually no sex education and gay sex is completely left out. And calling him out is not being hissy.

          • Shorny

            And calling what I say stupid? Just what experience and knowledge do you actually have? Did you read smc’s comment? And the emphasis that you put on a porn star’s contribution to sex education is well, more hissiness. It’s down to parents, family, schools and Gay lobby groups and all of us to get involved.

          • smc

            I’m afraid the knee jerk all sex without condoms argument just doesn’t hold anymore.

            Your reaction and the reaction of others on here is a product of the dis-information we have all be subject to from the health profession.

            Its the same stigma and dis-information that has prevented gay people from donating blood.

            There is risk in every last thing we do. We need correct and honest information to allow us to determine risk and to manage it.

            We live in an age when those who want to find out can find out, and we do find out. The myth of cross infection with multiple strains of HIV has been exploded, it has been shown in trial after trial that those with undetectable viral loads do not infect others, and the longer this practice of scaring us with what might (but really never will) happen is an appalling practice.

      • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

        If they are watching his films, they are required by law to be over the age of 18. In which case, they are responsible for their own decisions, just as every other adult is.

        • Dazzer

          Um, yeah. Because no one under the age of 16 ever watches porn watches porn and no one under the age of 18 ever performs in porn (cough Brent Corrigan).

          Yeah, kids breaking the law by watching porn never happens…

          I know this for a fact because the Easter Bunny told me…

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            So now it’s also his fault that people underage might see his films too?

            It’s not enough that he’s now responsible for the choices of other men, he’s now also a surrogate parent and has to bear the responsibility of underage people seeing his movies and being “influenced”!

            This is about the adult world, this is about the choices adults make and the desire to blame someone else.

            If people are going to continually attempt to distract from the debate here with rhetoric and straw-man points then there’s really no reason to continue.

            This is NOT ABOUT who watches porn, who is responsible for that or the actions of those impressionable people. That’s an entirely different debate that we would probably all agree on (the parent’s being responsible).

            This is about one man and the media he creates being a scapegoat for the poor choices of other adults, and no matter how you try to twist that it all comes down to the same thing – it’s irrational and illogical to blame someone for the choices other ADULTS make.

          • Dazzer

            He’s not being made a scapegoat. He’s being called out for being a hypocritical waste of oxygen who gives out misinformation to people who either don’t know better or don’t have the critical faculties to educate themselves.

            And no, this isn’t just about adults. This is about adult gay men taking the responsibility to properly educate younger gay men – or even boys (but not in a paedophile way) – about gay sex because they simply don’t get that education anywhere else.

            Parents, schools, peer groups, churches, doctors, mass media and the rest of the world don’t teach anyone about how to have gay sex. There are some sites on the internet that are invaluable, but they’re not easy to find if you’re just starting out.

            In the absence of any other agency helping young gay people, it behooves adult gay men to provide an accurate and informed education for our younger selves.

            Lucas is providing misleading information about PrEP and viral loads. If you use his information in specific instances, then he is 100% correct. However, he’s talking about optimal situations and I’d hope that most people here would agree that most people don’t lead optimal lives.

            The second you put Lucas’s arguments in the context of the general sex lives of gay men – his arguments are shredded by common sense and logic.

            We’ve known since 1624 when John Donne wrote: “no man is an island” that responsibility can be collective and not just an individual matter.

            I really hate to say this, but your argument is specious. In fact, it’s not even an argument. You’re making excuses for the man

  • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

    I have no great problem with any of this.

    • smc

      I’m with you mate.

      The article is anything but neutral reporting with the nonsense at the bottom tagged on. The Partners research undertaken here is not the first such research, it is research that has been done several times before and always with the same result. The first studies showed this several years ago, and health professionals have probably known for years longer that the risk of transmission can be considered to be zero when on meds, complying and with an undetectable viral load.

      As long as the studios are checking to ensure everything is as it should be then I don’t see there is the great problem everyone is getting upset about.

      As for other infections – our forced condom use was always always required to protect us from HIV, not that threat is reducing, another reason is cooked up. Other infections should be picked up as part of the rigorous health checks the actors are subjected to.

      In any event there is a huge assumption that the actors will be sero-discordant, if they’re not, I anticipate another reason being cooked up for them needing to use condoms with each other.

      • Dazzer

        First, you’re making a massive assumption about what testing is done to porn actors – and over what period of time.

        Several porn actors have said that the ‘testing’ is minimal in many studios and completely absent in others.

        Take, for example, Trenton Ducati barebacks for Lucas Entertainment. In an interview about why he decided to go down that route, Ducati discussed the medical testing – which was mostly for HIV – and mentioned that the the actors shared their sero-status. No other tests were mentioned.

        I can see that you don’t like condoms – and that’s entirely fine for you. However, porn is where the vast majority of gay men still get their ideas about sex, and pretending that there needs to be an ‘excuse’ for condoms sex is patently ridiculous.

        The HIV rate is increasing among gay men. The idea that there are magic pills that protect from HIV is only partly true and rely heavily on the user taking them correctly.

        However, they are more expensive than condoms and the whole population ends up paying via National Insurance for the healthcare of people who believe that their own health is not one of their primary responsibilities as a human being.

        And I’m not blaming people who have HIV for their status, unless they deliberately contracted it. However, with idiots like Lucas out there promoting unsafe practices, it doesn’t make it easier to get a safe sex message across.

        • smc

          Its not that I like or don’t like condoms, however the number of uninformed comments on here is shocking.

          For example, my understanding is the Mr Lucas generally makes films in the US, so all the comments on here regarding cost to the public purse don’t really relate.

          Lucas has I would imagine made an informed choice – the comments on here are exactly the opposite.

          Anyone with an undetectable viral load will not transmit the virus – why is that so difficult for so many on here to accept?

          • Dazzer

            One of Lucas’s recent films actually was made in London. But that’s neither here nor there. In the US the public purse argument still applies because unsafe sexual practices put up the price of insurance premiums.

            People pay for others’ behaviour.

            Also, while I agree with you in general about transmission rates when someone had an undetectable viral load, everything is dependent on the individual’s behaviour and his general health.People have to extremely committed to lifestyle choices and drug regimens to obtain an undetectable viral load. And they’ve got to keep at it to maintain that status.

            Managing HIV is not easy. It takes massive commitment and I am constantly impressed by men whose viral load becomes undetectable because that speaks highly of their character. I’m not sure I could do it if I were in that situation.

            I apologise for inferring and then stating that you’re anti-condom. It was wrong of me.

            However, what increasingly frustrates me in this whole situation is that the arguments are becoming binary.

            You’re either for or against condoms or for PrEP.

            Essentially, there needs to be far greater education for gay men about gay sex – but the only outlet we have for education is gay porn. And people like Lucas are intensely divisive on a whole range of topics, but when he’s giving false and misleading information to the young people who view his product, it peeves me massively.

            We have to find new ways of communicating and informing younger gay men. In this case, Lucas simply peeves me beyond any sensibility because the information he’s putting out simply isn’t right unless one can put it in the context of far more information.

          • Shorny

            “but the only outlet we have for education is gay porn” Are you serious? There is family, friends, school, Government, Education Policy, Gay Lobby groups and you and me. Advise me exactly what your contribution is or are you going to leave the responsibility to Michael Lucas?

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            The most disappointing thing about this debate (aside from the deliberate attempts to derail the conversation and accuse people of wanting to somehow destroy safe sex education entirely for daring to disagree) is the notion that no one is responsible for their own actions.

            I just don’t understand this mentality of everything being someone else’s fault. I was raised to take responsibility for myself and my own actions and behaviours. I was never given the option of saying “a movie made me do it!”

          • Jesus_Mohammed

            OK, BlokeT, good that approve of people needing to take responsibility, but does that exclude taking responsibility for your fellow human-beings? Not at all.

        • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

          Having worked with several US adult media businesses, you are reaching back a long time to be making those claims about testing. The laws in most states of the US where adult studios operate DEMAND regular testing, and DEMAND that a record be maintained of when this is done, who does it, what the results were etc.

          As I mentioned elsewhere, why is it this mans “responsibility” to “make” others have safe sex?

          Do you also think that a TV character should never get drunk to prevent viewers from getting drunk? Should all actors who simulate drug use on screen be attacked because they’re “encouraging” drug use?

          People make their own choices, casting blame on others for those choices is pathetic.

          • http://artium-elegantium-studium.webs.com/ Xavier Radic

            Well said ‘Bloke Toys’. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and free to make their own choices. Sad to see here, but ‘Porn’ of any sort is neither life or reality, but seemingly chosen as ‘reality’ by most comments here. Do your own research thoroughly and feel free to make your own opinions, without ramming them down onto everyone else. Democracy and freedom to choose. Perhaps people should consider our ‘families’ who live under threat of death, just for being Queer of any sort, evidence not always necessary either. Try to have some intelligence without patronising others. Take care because with others reasoning, we might become alcoholics by watching Coronation Street or Eastenders xxxx

          • Dazzer

            That’s just a logic-less argument to make.

            People make decisions based on the information they’re given. If they’re given bad information, they make bad decisions.

            When EastEnders or Coronation Street do full-on gay sex scenes, get back to me and we can discuss whether they’re good, bad or influential.

            And please don’t talk about Democracy as a reason to promote bad arguments. The second you start removing information from the electorate, you get a dum electorate who make increasingly bad decision and weaken democracy as a consequence. Please see George W Bush and the Tea Partiers – the polyester Taliban – for reference.

          • http://artium-elegantium-studium.webs.com/ Xavier Radic

            Thankyou Dazzer…?? or who ever you are for misinterpreting what I said, Don’t assume anything. Goodbye & Goodluck. xx

          • Dazzer

            I am myself and always have been. I have been commenting on this site for a long time.

            The last time I commented this much was during the House of Lords marriage equality debate, during which I confessed an internet crush on another commenter and have felt embarrassed ever since.

            However, I saw a lot of people I loved or liked die during the 1980s and feel it’s important to take a stand.

            Good night to you, good sir, and good luck to you also. Either in the Lottery tonight or the one on Friday.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            “People make decisions based on the information they’re given. If they’re given bad information, they make bad decisions.”

            No one here is saying that the information should not be there.

            The debate here is about one man being blamed for the poor choices of others. No one here has said anything about denying access to health information, and no sensible person would.

            There is a WEALTH of information out there regarding safe sex, do you think kids don’t know what condoms are or what they’re for? Of course they know. Adults absolutely know what safe sex is about.

            The notion that seeing one bareback movie might suddenly FORCE twenty gay men to throw out their condoms, and therefore the creator of the movie is evil, is absolutely ridiculous.

          • Rehan

            with others reasoning, we might become alcoholics by watching Coronation Street or Eastenders

            I don’t think that’s a good analogy: soaps seldom glamorise alcoholism or make it look fun (usually they make it seem pathetic). Indeed, if they did, they’d come in for exactly the sort of criticism Lucas’ new stance is generating, and rightly so IMO.

          • http://artium-elegantium-studium.webs.com/ Xavier Radic

            You missed the point, read from the beginning. Stop assuming and presuming like so many here. Goodbye & good luck… with your IMO’s xx

          • Rehan

            I was referring solely to your misguided analogy.

          • http://artium-elegantium-studium.webs.com/ Xavier Radic

            Thanks for being patronising and selective. Goodbye and good luck. xx fin

          • Rehan

            Too kind, but I can’t equal you in either respect.

          • Dazzer

            Well no. The only state that demands testing is California. And in response to that law, several porn studios moved to Nevada where there is no such requirement. Corbin Fisher, anyone?

            Also, there’s precious little policing of the law even in California. Lucas Entertainment is based in New York, where there’s minimal protection of sex workers. I’ll give Lucas props for actually having some form of testing of his models, but it’s not top-of-the-range stuff.

            And while I agree that in a heterosexual society, parents, schools and peers should be providing information to gay youth about how to have safe and wonderful gay sex, the simple truth is that most gay men still get their education from gay porn.

            In heterosexual society, people get to make informed decisions because they’re given information (and in the UK it’s pretty terrible information given the number of teenage pregnancies we have here). But please point me to the places where gay men get to find out that information. Yeah, we’ve got Channel 4, but it never gets explicit, and never quite gets it right because of the broadcasting regulations.

            I will happily up-tick most of your comments here, BlokeToys and I will happily endorse the quality of your products, but on this you are just plain wrong in fact and morality.

            There’s nothing pathetic about it.

          • Serkan M

            The problem with the responsibility argument is that, your assuming everyone has the same level of knowledge in life or that we are all as informed as each other and the truth is we are not.

            These kinds of selfish attitudes have done our society no good. We no longer care about our actions on others and I don’t see that as correct.

            Whether you like it or not, we do all have a responsibility to each other in a little way. Each of our own actions affect someone else.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            No, I don’t assume that everyone has the same level of knowledge, just as I don’t expect everyone can drive to the same standard, or handle the same amount of alcohol as someone else, or can juggle fire…

            The fact is that you are attempting to make the world absolutely 100% safe for every single person within it, and that is never going to happen. There are risks in every day life that everyone encounters, we all have to make decisions for ourselves.

            Is it sad that some people make terrible decisions? Absolutely! But does that mean that the entire world should conform to a belief to mitigate against those few people making those bad decisions? No.

            Knives kill people every day, so should we ban the use of all knives in case someone uses one irresponsibly? How about in music, art, cinema… should we censor everything just in case someone incapable of making a right choice is “influenced” into making a bad decision?

            There is only so much people can do to educate others about things, once the information is there, they have to be left to make their own damn choices.

            You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. What people here seem to be suggesting is that we then knock the horse out and shove a feeding tube down its throat.

            As I said above, people will always make bad choices, that will NEVER change. It’s great that people work to get the information out there and try to help people (we do this ourselves and promote safe sex and the safe use of toys and products at every opportunity) but you cannot ever stop people from making those bad decisions, and they are the ones to blame for making those choices, no one else.

          • Serkan M

            So whats the answer? Just let people go and destroy themselves…because with our increasing HIV rate among gay men that is where we are heading.

            We all have a responsibility to, yes ourselves, but also to each other. We are all connected whether we like it or not. We should all be working together. Even if that means looking after our friends, telling our families and so on.

            People will always make bad choices, of course, it’s how we learn. But if we can help prevent people from making these choices that could lead to horrific consequences then why not help?

            Knives do kill, but luckily the figures are small. Music etc can cause other issues, but they are not so strong in their affect. But HIV is increasing and I do not want to see people around me suffer if I can do something about it.

            Responsibility is a 50/50 split.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            The answer is to not blame everyone else for the choices people make.

            Education should continue, health services should be spread far and wide, everything should be done to educate and prevent infection, and to encourage the use of protection.

            But, and this is the vital point to this entire debate that people keep seeming to miss, no one else is responsible for it when a man or woman decides not to use a condom.

            Michael Lucas is not responsible.
            A rapper is not responsible.
            A lame comedian is not responsible.
            Your partner is not responsible…

            If a person chooses not to use protection, they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves.

          • Serkan M

            See…I agree with that in principle, but I just don’t think it is as black and white as that really.

            There can be so many factors that lead to unprotected sex, such as lack of education, peer pressure, social attitudes.

            But, yes ULTIMATELY, responsibility relies with the individual, but the situation (as every situation in life) is always complex.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            So it seems we agree in many respects.
            The fact is, and this may seem a little defeatist, we cannot force everyone on Earth to make good choices. The education is out there, there is a wealth of information about safe sex, and even though there can always be more, there has to be a point at which we admit that some people are going to make bad decisions no matter how much we try to educate them responsibly.

            That’s the point here, people will make bad decisions, it’s not the fault of anyone else but the person making that decision.

            We can’t say that someone contracts HIV not knowing it exists, this is not rational. We can’t say that someone contracts it because they saw a video on the internet and were convinced into unsafe practices. It’s still no one else’s fault but their own. They know the information, they know the risks, and they take the chance anyway. It is therefore their fault when they contract something as a result of it.

            Do we blame MTV and Jack Ass every time a kid breaks his arm while his mate films him doing some kind of stunt? No, it’s the kids fault for being stupid. You can educate that kid about the risks, but some people are just not going to listen.

            Again, it doesn’t mean people should not try to talk sense into them, it just means that no one else is to blame for that decision.

          • Jesus_Mohammed

            WRONG. Very wrong. There are 1000s and 1000s of young people who this very night will be responding to the massive media urging that continually strikes them to go out and party, and party means getting legless and going for the pleasure, hell for leisure. You know what I mean. BUT every single one of those young people will have sat through a Safe Sex session or class and in the sober light of day totally agreed that they must take responsibility. But when the drink, the drugs, the pulsating music, the sexy party atmosphere hit, then all those resolutions are thrown to the wind.

            You need to acknowledge that there are people, like Michael Lucas, who run parallel businesses for money. They run dance clubs and saunas and sex-clubs and porn cinemas and they manipulate their patrons for MONEY. They addict them to the endless pursuit of hedonistic pleasure. They don’t take responsibility for the health of their fellow human beings. In fact, they couldn’t care less! They can be called evil.

          • Rob

            Exactly, how can more impressionable gay men be expected to take responsibility every time when they are so ruthlessly pursued, seduced and exploited by greedy pink capitalists like Lucas?

          • William

            Are they “bad decisions”? For the consenting individuals who bareback they may value this activity more than others and so decide the risk is worth it for them. Why is the decision “bad”? Is someone deciding to take the risk involved in going driving or playing sport “bad” because it is not a risky choice I would make?

        • Shorny

          So are you expecting a Porn Director/Actor to educate? Maybe a miniscule amount. You could contribute more.

          • Dazzer

            Yes, I expect it.

            I’ve met several porn actors and porn producers in my life and they’re not all seedy scumbags.

            I’m not going to insult someone for doing or producing porn.

            Im merely saying that if they are gay and dealing with porn, they owe a responsibility to everyone else who is gay and consuming porn because they’re a part of the overall gay population.

            So they owe a responsibility to the younger generation just as much as me when it comes to educating younger gay men.

            You have a problem with educating people?

          • Shorny

            Of course not. I’m saying their input does not compare to the input of family, friends, school, government, gay lobby groups, the media and you and me.

          • Dazzer

            OK, when did your mum and dad tell you about how to have safe sex?

            And if they were too problematic, when did your school tell you how to have safe gay sex?

            OK, let’s make this easy, when did your peer group tell you how to have safe gay sex.

            Obvs, I’ll need names and addresses of all these amazing people who educated you about safe sex because otherwise I’ll be giving you a crazy old-fashioned look over the top of my glasses.

            You say you’re a nurse – and I respect that. I’m not, but I sometimes work with young people dealing with their sexualities.

            It’s not easy. It’s bloody difficult.

            But you have to keep on pressing the safer sex message because if you don’t, the alternative is to condemn someone to a life of constantly taking drugs that diminish their ability to be as free as anyone else.

      • Shorny

        Agreed. I’m astonished at the lack of knowledge and experience being shown by some commentators.

  • Anthony

    Selfish and stupid

  • Dazzer

    Michael Lucas is an utterly repellent human being. He’s also a hypocrite because as recently as 2011 he was saying that he was disgusted by fellow porn producers who viewed their product as mere fantasies without acknowledging the educational aspect of it for young gay men.

    Also, STIs are about more than simply HIV. There are antibiotic-resistant strains of syphilis and gonorrhea on the rise in the gay population and condoms – while not 100% effective – cut the risks of contagion tremendously.

    • Rob

      Thoroughly repellant. He also defends Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians, so obviously the sanctity of human life does not feature too highly on his list of priorities….

      • Steven Gregory

        He likes to go abroad and round up beautiful local men in financially depressed regions all over Europe and the Middle East.

  • m antony

    Lucas’ attitude has always been a bit smug. And if course with just a touch if his important he really is.
    I could understand his comments if he was some naive 20 year old. But he’s an older man who really should know better. Guess money is the most important thing to him.
    In the US, they will shut down as porn studio if performers end up testing positive after bareback scenes. I can just imagine the hysterics Lucas would make if it happened to him.

  • Pablo

    His business is obviously losing money. Desperate loser.

  • E

    I have no trouble with the HIV transmission. I wouldn’t take the risk, I would strongly advise not to take the risk under any circumstances, but really… I just don’t care.

    But I do find condomless sex repellent.

  • Arr U. Gaetü

    What about…
    Chlamydia
    Gonorrhea
    Herpes
    Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
    Genital Warts
    Trichomoniasis
    Chancroid
    Hepatitis
    Lymphogranuloma Venereum (LGV)
    Molluscum Contagiosum
    Mucopurulent Cervicitis (MPC)
    Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID)
    Syphilis

    Yea, let’s bareback. Load me up with diseases!

    • Christopher in Canada

      You could always take the time to get to know your partner…

      • Agreed

        A concept that doesn’t seem to fit in well with the sex-obsessed society we have these days. Random sexual encounters should REQUIRE no protection, just for karma’s sake.

        • St Sebastian, the Humanist

          ‘A concept that doesn’t seem to fit in well with the sex-obsessed society’ – I agree with this part of your statement, BUT ……

          ‘Random sexual encounters should REQUIRE no protection, just for karma’s sake’ – this is just mean spirited, each to their own and live and let live – it has a karma of its own.

        • Steven Gregory

          Bu||sh!t
          “Random sexual encounters” are not invalid, or won’t anyone have them with you? You’re trying to make a moral pronouncement, and it’s ugly.

          • Christopher in Canada

            Normally I enjoy your posts, but this one is out of character for you. You are insinuating that AGREED is unattractive, and you are holding up random sexual encounters as a measure of that assumed level of attractiveness. THAT is ugly, not his opinion. It’s also immature on your part. Disease may not honour trust, but lovers should. If you are having sex with people you do not trust, that is your prerogative. Cover yourself with as much literal or figurative protection as you can, should you choose to run in that circle. You’ll need it. Now, ask me how I know… and I will make you very wise.

          • Steven Gregory

            Christopher in Canada: Please reexamine what has happened here: I did not mention anything about ‘Agreed’ being unattractive, nor did I mention anything about random sexual encounters being a measure of attractiveness, but you interpreted my statement that way and attributed both to me.

            As for my sexual partners and our level of trust, I worked for six years in the Detroit Health Medical Center’s Infectious Disease Clinic: is there something about communicable disease you think you can teach me?

          • Christopher in Canada

            You can quote complete information for starters. Misrepresenting medical research only spreads fear. You are on the defensive, which I understand and am sorry for. I agree that personal levels of trust are up to the persons involved, but your comment to AGREED was open to interpretation, and why else would someone accuse someone else of others “not having {random sexual encounters} with him” anything less than a supposition on his appeal? Tell me your intent – I’m all ears. As well, speaking as a long time AIDS Buddy and ACT/ Metro Central YMCA Positive Living volunteer, I would hope that your employment experience has hopefully taught you to be a little less judgemental of others. Would you have called me a “little dog” if I were in your office or at a conference and were debating you? I repeat – no one is forcing these porn actors, nor indeed, anyone else, to have any sex that they do not want to have. I stand by my points, including the one about porn being nothing more than fantasy. As well, I would hope in the future that when someone disagrees with a comment you make, and chooses to call you out on it, that you think for a moment about them maybe NOT being out to get you to simply to embarrass you or negate you, but to get clarification on the intent of your remarks. Words are deeds – E.M. Forster

          • Steven Gregory

            Stalker creep

          • Christopher in Canada

            Wow. Reduced to name calling.
            Someone got to you long before I did! What a shame.

          • Steven Gregory

            Stalker creep

          • Christopher in Canada

            Let it go, Steven. You need never worry about my engaging you in conversation ever again.

          • Steven Gregory

            Stalker creep

          • Paul – Canada

            @Agreed appears to be passing critical judgement on the sexually liberal, I gather that Steven @disqus_HCNicr8T8y:disqus is retorting by sarcastically suggesting that Agreed merely said such out of jealousy and spite due to not getting any. Did I misunderstand?

      • Steven Gregory

        The discussion is about PORN. What kind of social interaction do you suggest? Disease does not honor “trust.”

      • Paul – Canada

        Apparently 90% of straight men admit to cheating when asked in an anonymous survey, I can’t imagine the gay world… I just use condoms 100% of the time, peace of mind etc

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Insane, irresponsible, sending the wrong message and fodder for the homophobes.

    • Christopher in Canada

      I think the homophobes are too caught up in their own world of birth control and responsible parenting, or should be!

  • Daniel

    It’s his opinion; one that I disagree with. Safe sex is more than just prevention of HIV transmission. There are so many other infections transmitted via sexual contact; and it’s naive and downright irresponsible for a porn producer to advocate unsafe sexual contact.
    Recent controversies in the porn industry have shown that testing and “safeguards” in studios are ineffective and only as good as the point at which the test is taken.

  • john lyttle

    Am I the only person on this thread thinking ‘Zooolander’ ?

    • Dazzer

      His nickname is ‘duckface’

      • Rob

        Too right, he has a deluded sense of himself to be starring in his own movies, let alone producing them. Still, guess it saves him an actor’s fee…

  • ian123

    Just the sort of stuff the homophobes love to hear.

  • Tom Cotner

    This man’s ideas and comments are pitifully sad. If he had lost a brother (as have I) and/or hundreds of friends to this scourge, I seriously doubt he would be so cavalier about it. The problem is not so much as whether he gets HIV or not – but whether he promotes unsafe sex for those who have not lived through this plague as we older folk have done.
    I couldn’t disagree with him any more.

  • Rob

    So will Mr. Lucas pick up the tab for courses of PrEP and PEP which,
    let’s face it, are not cheap so that his customers can watch his
    bareback productions? I hope his and other such similar studios are made
    to pay towards the public cost of treating the fallout from the unsafe
    sexual behaviour his work is influencing and encouraging. Survey after
    survey shows that bareback porn incentivises risky behaviour. What a
    shameless, opportunistic individual for selling out because the market
    demands it. Has he no public conscience about the messages his work will
    send out or the consequences of his actions? And on the same day that a
    report shows that hiv individuals suffer far greater risk of heart
    disease than neg people….

    • Rob

      PS: It is a very disturbing trend nowadays that those in positions of influence are vocalising highly irresponsible and reckless rhetoric. I was stunned to read an editorial in a recent edition of Boyz that argued in favour of bareback porn becoming the norm, of de-stigmatizing it and even implying that studios who still insist on rubbers are somehow living in the past. The editorial actually stated; “Even as the demand for bareback porn grows massively some gay men are still reluctant to take an HIV test. If you are on treatment – like many who work in bareback porn are – YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PASSING ON THE VIRUS”. How irresponsible and outrageous a statement is THAT? However did it ever get to statements like this and Michael Lucas’s when all should be being done to prevent HIV – not encouraging its further spread.

  • MileHighJoe

    so gross

  • Lion in Winter

    Don’t want sex without a condom? Then don’t have it! No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to do anything you don’t want! Jeesh, so many people here assume that people can’t make their own decisions. What is this, religious proselytization? Everyone has a brain, and is allowed to use it.
    If everyone used a condom every time, then no babies would be born – ever think of it from THAT perspective? Just because a man is gay does not mean he’s transmitting AIDS – or are you buying into the myth of gay promiscuity? How about getting tested regularly and being proactive about your own status and behavior?
    Sometimes I think that the prime reason neg people scream about forced condom use is so that they can go to the baths and recreate the ’70’s.

    • baananan

      “neg people scream”
      funny, it’s usually the positive people that are screaming about how they’re discriminated against because they don’t like to use condoms and be safe……….. rather like you

    • St Sebastian, the Humanist

      “the myth of gay promiscuity’

      Wow, are you kidding me? I’m not personally promiscuous, but I accept the reality that a substantial percentage of gay people are promiscuous.

    • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

      Hear hear!

    • MJ

      Like YOU have any credibility.

  • Craig Y

    I am strongly disappointed in Michael’s decision. I used to respect his principled decision to stand for safe sex within the adult erotic entertainment industry but this news reflects nothing more than irresponsibility and heedless risk taking when it comes to gay sex.

    • Shorny

      He is moving forward with information. Called progress. I don’t agree with what he is promoting but his science is arguably correct.

      • Jesus_Mohammed

        You credit the man with an appreciation of “science! LOL! He certainly is completely unaware of the psychological effects of the scenarios constantly portrayed in bareback porn, and Psychology is just ONE branch of science!

  • Glen Hague

    This person is just a seedy pornographer who is only interested in profit. He is totally irresponsible and obviously is completely indifferent to how many impressionable young men will be influenced by his view and end up contracting HIV. Why is your newspaper giving him free publicity?

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      Where is the personal responsibility? Why is it the responsibility of someone else when someone makes a bad decision?

      I didn’t have anyone to blame when I started smoking. I have no one to accuse of being responsible for the time I thought riding in a shopping trolley down a hill would be fun.

      We are responsible for our own actions and behaviors, and calling this man a “seedy pornographer” doesn’t make your argument any stronger, it just makes you look like a hand-wringing prude.

      • Dazzer

        You sell adult sex toys. If you sell one with a defect that causes harm, you have to face the civil and possible criminal consequences of that action.

        The responsibility is entirely YOURS.

        If you promote unsafe practices in the use of your product, you will face consequences. You can’t rely on ‘Buyer Beware’ as a defence in English and Welsh law. The responsibility to provide a safe product is yours and no-one else’s.

        Personal responsibility is entirely central to this debate. To be responsible, you have to be able to discern falsehoods. If you sold a buttplug that penetrated the anus wall, and didn’t disclose that, you would be selling a false product. You’d be prosecuted for it and I hope you’d be punished for it.

        Not every man or woman who comes to your site knows how to use your products. You have to educate them. you can’t mislead them and – to an extent – you have to educate them in how to use the products you’re selling.

        You give false information and you suffer for it. You’re arguing that Lucas should be treated by a separate standard in law. Buyer beware is no defence for you in law, why the hell should it be a defence for Lucas?

        I have zero problems with pornographers (and have had sex with a number of them), but this isn’t about pornography, this is about truth in advertising.

        Lucas is promoting an unsafe sexual pratice, the potential response to which isn’t even available in the UK at the moment.

        Your argument, Sir, is daft.

        • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

          With all due respect, this is nothing like selling a faulty product. The law is incomparable.

          It would be more accurate to compare your belief with that of any other media. For instance, if someone tries to recreate a scene from Backdraft, is the writer of that scene responsible? Are the actors responsible? The broadcaster of the movie?

          This is fantasy, media, art. You cannot blame an art for or what it depicts for the actions of all Humans who encounter it.

          Just as Marilyn Manson could not be blamed for Columbine, or a Hollywood movie blamed for the latest American shooting, a pornographer or a performer cannot be blamed for the actions of someone who sees a movie and makes a bad choice.

          The actions of entirely free people cannot be policed by a minority who want to control the lives of others, people have always made bad choices, and they always will. If we attempted to mitigate for every single bad decision anyone ever attempted to make, the world would be a ridiculously bland place.

          • Dazzer

            Your argument only works if there is a free market of information about gay sex education.

            Blatantly, there isn’t.

            If your mum and dad told you about how to have responsible gay sex or your school told you how to how to have responsible gay sex or your peer group told you how to have responsible gay sex, then I apologise.

            But that didn’t really happen, did it?

            Libertarian arguments arguments don’t work in this situation. Arguments about communal responsibility do.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            I was taught to have safe sex, this was not about gender. Do you think that only homosexual people contract sexually transmitted diseases?

            Sexual health and education should be directed at all, not just one group. Sex is the same no matter the genders of the partners, and to suggest different is a little baffling.

            Do you suggest that all gay people put their fingers in their ears and sing a happy tune to themselves when sex education comes up?

            This debate is not about education when it comes to safe sex, this debate is about one man and an art form being blamed for the poor choices of other adults.

            No one has argued AGAINST education here. The debate is not that we need less or more education (clearly, we always need more education), the debate is about one man being blamed for the bad decisions of others, simply because of the media he creates and his own personal actions.

            This is absolutely no different to anyone else in any industry being blamed for the behaviours of their audience.

            Again, this has nothing at all to do with education. You could drum this into people all their lives and there will STILL BE people who make bad decisions. Nothing is going to change that. You can’t then blame someone else for the decisions all those people made, because he makes movies, or writes music, or publishes books.

          • Dazzer

            Just on a general level, I disagree with your argument that art cannot be education.

            If you examine your own argument here, I suspect you will agree with me.

            Can some porn be an art form? Yes. Is all porn an art form? No. Is all porn an offering of information about sex – well, yes.

            You only have to look at the debates going on in Parliament about porn and the objectification of women to see that there is a debate to be had.

            But there are absolutely no debates about gay porn and the objectification of men coming from any of the gay MPs in Parliament. And I suspect there never will be because gay porn is especially useful to gay men. It’s where we get our sex education.

            For all the good work of the Terrence Higgins Trust and any other HIV organisation, I’m pretty sure that more gay men will watch porn. And if they see condomless sex with no consequences, then that’s a bad decision to make.

            At the very least, if Lucas believed in what he was saying and being responsible, he’d be having actors taking their Truvada on a regular basis before having sex or he’d make sure their were scenes of his neg actors taking their meds (and include the effects of those meds on some people). Lucas is being disingenuous. He will spout off in public about his concept of responsible sexual behaviour, but he won’t actually include them in his films.

            And yes, there will always be a proportion of any population who make bad decisions irrespective of what education is available.

            However, this isn’t an argument about personal responsibility, it’s an argument about communal responsibility.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. Art is subjective, always has been and always will be. I studied art for several years and know that there is a massive conflict when it comes to public opinion, but in academic terms anything that is “created” to express something is art.

            I would also disagree that porn is educational. It’s not intended to be such, it’s intended primarily to be a fantasy and form of entertainment, not unlike all other cinema outside of documentary film-making. The last Star Trek movie was not supposed to educate the audience about space exploration, it was entertainment based on fantasy.

            I have been involved in a debate about the adult entertainment business recently, in response to a group of radicals who claim to be “feminists” spreading propaganda about the women in the business and trying to sensor adult entertainment. There is a lot of debate to be had about all of these subjects, but too many people seem incapable of doing it with logic and reason. The debates I have seen have spiraled into some pretty bizarre accusations (as we’ve seen here from some).

            I have yet to see any evidence that what people see in adult media significantly affects perceptions or their actions, just as I have yet to see evidence that a horror film makes people kill, or that assault in violent videos encourages people to attack each other.

            I personally have no doubt that SOME are impacted by what they see, but this is a minority of people, and there is no evidence to support it conclusively. Basing a ban or restrictions on freedoms to choose when only a minority are impacted is nonsensical. It would be like outlawing all knives from use by the public because of the minority who hurt themselves or others.

            I entirely agree that it’s a bad decision to have unprotected sex. I think any sane person would agree. I agree that there needs to be continued efforts to educate all about the facts and realities.

            What I don’t agree with (and what several others have tried to ignore) is that this mans actions and opinions cannot be blamed for the irresponsible actions of others. This all comes down to personal choice. Unless you propose to make all unprotected sex illegal, all over the world, whether it’s on video or not, the argument against this man is pointless.

            I have no problem with people calling him irresponsible and stupid for his actions and opinions, and I have no problem with people hating bareback porn (I personally have no opinion on it). What I have a problem with is people casting blame where it doesn’t belong.

            Blame the people who make poor decisions. Don’t blame someone else for allegedly “making” or “convincing” people to do something irresponsible when it’s not their job to babysit the Human race.

          • Dazzer

            You make an interesting argument. However, it’s inconsistent.

            In your first paragraph you say that anything is made is ‘art’ and that it’s a subjective choice. Hence DuChamps urinal, etc.

            But then you go on to say that porn cannot be educational because it’s fantasy. You can’t have it both ways. If you say porn is an artform, I can make exactly the same argument that, in part, porn is educational.

            Your first argument dismisses your second.

            Also, I’m not proposing banning bareback sex. In the right context it is perfectly fine. I’ve done it myself and I’m not decrying it.

            That said, I’d be interested to see what the reaction would be if a major British gay porn provider decided to go bareback.

            Apart from the ammunition it would give to the homophobes, I can see the possibility of gay MPs introducing legislation to ban it.

            The debate here isn’t really about Michael Lucas. Very few people here are supporting him. He’s not a nice man and a lot of evidence suggests that he is justifying a commercial move by spouting some medical quackery that falls apart once you look at the wider context.

            Instead, it comes down an argument about individual freedom versus communal responsibility. And while we can disagree about art and education, I suspect that we can agree that at its most basic, gay porn is information.

            Chastising someone for giving out bad information is not babysitting. In the UK we all pay for the NHS. The NHS is not a babysitting organisation, it recognises that we all have a responsibility for our own health – and the health of others. That’s why smoking was banned in pubs, there are debates in Parliament about the proper labelling of food, wearing seatbelts were made compulsory, etc.

            If someone is actively promoting an unhealthy lifestyle and wrapping up in inadequate information, then we don’t just have an opportunity to castigate him – we have an active responsibility to do so.

            However,

          • Rob

            (Before you get excited, my finger slipped and that mark in your favour was an accident.) I truly cannot work out whether people like you programmed to think the way you think – which just about numbers everyone in the London men’s HIV sector with their upside down thinking, back to front rhetoric and inside out logic – are truly delusional or just plain dangerous. Or both.

      • Rob

        “Where is the personal responsibility? Why is it the responsibility of someone else when someone makes a bad decision?”

        Oh please, not THAT old canard. But what influenced you to smoke in the first place, eh? You saw your friends smoking, and in the absence of decent public health information warning you of the consequences you decided to light up for the first time? Or was it an advert on TV for Marlboro Lights, which have since been banned, incidentally, due to the public health risk they fueled – much like bareback porn will eventually be banned when the shlt truly hits the fan and the tax payer bill for meds becomes totally unsustainable.

    • Shorny

      “This person is just a seedy pornographer who is only interested in profit”
      Duh!
      What are you doing to promote and educate kids about safe sex?

      • Glen Hague

        Having lost someone very dear to me to this awful disease, having lived through that awful time when it was an automatic death sentence and every sniffle or cough caused panic and anxiety, it makes me very angry when I see someone like this justifying his decision to put people who work for him at risk just to make money. If he was a mine owner who didn’t care about safety standards, would people be defending him by saying it was the miner’s choice whether to work for him or not? It is an employer’s duty to make sure their staff work in the safest possible conditions.
        Also he is preaching this through this newspaper and this CAN influence some people to try bareback sex. After all the work of the various organisations to promote condom use and safer sex, and considering the numbers of people who have died or who are having to cope with this dreadful illness, it’s like spitting in their faces, in my opinion.

        • Rob

          And it is not just the people who work for this vile excuse for a human being who are at risk, Glen. His work is sending out a green light to impressionable gay men to abandon condoms, or at least legitimizing and normalizing risky behavior. Sick.

  • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

    While I personally don’t agree with his opinions, I am more shocked about many of the responses on here attacking him for his own personal choices, and attempting to blame him for any future instances of infection.

    Why is one man suddenly being held accountable for the decisions of others? Why are people attacking one person for making a poor choice, and holding him up as some kind of scapegoat for the bad decisions of others? His decision doesn’t affect anyone else, and the decisions of others have no bearing either.

    Millions of people all around the world have unsafe sex every day, is it all his fault when they choose to take that risk, just because he runs an adult studio?

    Be responsible for yourself, if you take risks because “someone on the TV did it” then there is a much deeper problem going on.

    • Rob

      Because he is going to use his position, and the power it gives him, to allow his “personal” choices to influence some/many of those who watch his movies into abandoning safer sex procedures, that’s why, and all for profit. How do you possibly justify that?

      • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

        I support personal choice and responsibility. You don’t get to blame someone else for your own bad choices.

        Adults watching his movies should KNOW BETTER, that’s the point.

        Influence is a dangerous thing to claim. If you watch a horror film, are you then “influenced” to kill?
        If you watch Trainspotting, are you “influenced” into taking drugs?

        People make bad decisions, lay blame where it belongs; with them. Not someone else who has no influence over the decisions another adult makes.

        • Rob

          I truly cannot work out whether people like you who are programmed on your diversity courses to think the
          way you think – which just about numbers everyone in the London men’s
          HIV sector with their upside down thinking, back to front rhetoric and
          inside out logic – are truly delusional or just plain dangerous. Or
          both.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            You’re not making much sense. Just thought you should know.

          • Rob

            To someone who is so back to front in their thinking that is hardly surprising. Just thought you should know.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            Just to confirm, you think that adults are not responsible for their own choices and actions, and that other people in the media, or business, or just generally in life, can be blamed for the poor choices you make.

            You also seem to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with you on this is trying to “destroy safe sex”.

            Just so we’re clear.

          • Rob

            Your twisted logic is clearly tying you up in knots. Fail.

          • Dazzer

            Can I just be clear here, BlokesToys, do you think responsibility is merely an individual responsibility? Do you not accept the concept of collective responsibility?

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            My actions and behaviors are MY responsibility, as are yours. Nothing will change the fact that you are responsible for it when you don’t wear a condom. No one else is forcing you to make that decision, you are making that decision for yourself.

            I have no doubt that there is a level of collective responsibility, but this lies with education, not inflicting blame on others for the irresponsibility of people they don’t even know.

            Responsible actions would be to increase education, increase the reach of healthcare systems, increase the funding of charities and organizations, not to start blaming one person for “making” other people do things that they never “made” anyone do!

            It’s really simple, this guy is not forcing anyone to make any bad decisions. Adults are not children who need to have their hands held and told not to cross a busy street without looking both ways. There has to be a level of common sense here where people are blamed for their own mistakes.

          • Dazzer

            Yes, it is really simple.

            This guy is wrapping up a commercial decision in largely worthless propaganda for a drug that is expensive in America and unavailable elsewhere.

            I totally agree with you about the importance of education and how vital it is that it be increased. However, we don’t have it yet. And when someone from the gay population anywhere is advocating unhealthy practices, he should be called out on it.

  • Denis

    The one thing that seems to be missing from these comments and Michael Lucas’ statements is the reality of living with HIV and it treatments. I know from the experience of my friends lives the day to day effect of having to taking medications to maintain these undetectable viral loads. The side effects that they go through albeit not the same for all of them are seriously debilitating to say the least, sometimes several days of diarrhoea, peripheral neuropathy, body fat wastage of the face, extended stomachs and a whole batch of awful symptoms……condomless sex has a price and it is not an easy one to live with….PLEASE we all need to think very carefully before going down the bareback route, and I’m well aware it’s choice we all make for ourselves. I watched too many friends pass away before the combination treatments that we have available to us these days came along to forget the heartbreakingly awful way in which they wasted away. So in the memory of all that have passed away let’s look after ourselves and each other.

  • Charles

    This story is quite old and although I do not agree with Michael Lucas, I think one of his point of views is being lost in this debate.

    Many gay men are choosing not to use protection for some or all of the time. Mr Lucas believes that taking a tablet a day minimises the risk to such a degree that he is willing to give up using protection.

    Is that better than having sex without condoms and taking no tablet, increasing the risk of HIV. Does stopping HIV overtake the issues of taking regular medication as prevention?

    • R

      “Mr Lucas believes that taking a tablet a day minimises the risk to such a degree that he is willing to give up using protection.”

      That is his choice if he wants to live with the potential consequences and doesn’t give a fig about the cost to society that his recklessness may/will cost. But he is also choosing to use his power to play God with the influence he has over his customer base, some of whom will follow his selfish example based on the same reasons he gives. Unsafe sex is simply NOT acceptable in this day and age whatever the tired excuses based on “effective” drug treatments may be. Everything has a cost, and only yesterday a new study found that men on hiv drugs are more likely to suffer heart attacks as they get older besides a multitude of other potential ailments and life-threatening conditions. (Again, damn, I flagged you up by mistake – can we have the old rating system back please Pink News).

  • sbd

    Michael Lucas in 2011: “I chose early on to follow my ethics and always promote safe sex in my films. Those who produce bareback movies don’t like that I so vocally condemn what they do. I actually think that their argument that bareback movies don’t do harm because “porn is just a fantasy” is dangerous bullshit because porn does strongly influence community norms.”

    Michael Lucas in 2014 (in the Queerty interview): “I don’t think that men go to porn for life lessons. They just want to get off. And we want to help them.”

    We get it that you’re a sell out, Michael. But why the flip-flop regarding the influence of porn on viewer behavior? Or did that also somehow change due to the advent of PrEP?

    • Dazzer

      Thank You!

      Michael Lucas is getting a divorce from his husband, the sugar daddy who bankrolled his site for so long.

      Lucas is now out on his own and has to make money so he starts promoting condomless sex to make money on his site.

      The hypocrisy dark force is strong in this one, Luke

      • Rob

        Thanks for the insight, Dazzer. Explains everything and shows the sub level of human being this depraved being really is. Devoid of conscience and soul, Lucas will reap what he sows.

  • apostleshadamishe

    AMBUSH CURES HIV/AIDS

    Apostle Shada Mishe

    apostleshadamishe@gmail.com

    Sir / Madam,

    For the past 12 years I have been studying and researching Ambush, a Palm plant extract that is effective in curing HIV.

    Name of Plant; Palm

    Name of ingredient: Ambush

    Molecular weight 640 (similar to the sequisulfides)

    Where found: In and around the areas of South Florida where uranium waste was dumped in the 1920’s from the nuclear programme that has now leaked out into the water system. A specie of the PALM plant has picked up this waste to be the valuable AMBUSH.

    Chemical compd; Uranium isotope (cus.n) Grayish white soft metallic compound NOT found in chemistry books.

    Uses: Antiviral DRUG..Ambush

    Found to “KILL” the HIV virus when given in a dose of 60 ml three times daily for 21 days at a known concentration.

    Mode of action.. Ambush kills the HIV virus by causing the viral shell to rupture . In the lymph system Ambush produces “natural radioactivity” that “kills” the virus that ‘hides’ in the lymph system . This crosses the blood-brain barrier since the ‘patients’ claim that they are able to see,hear and think more clearly after taking Ambush.

    Viral Loads…This decreases from 100,000 to ‘undetectable’ in 21 days….. but I have had patients VL go to ‘undetectable ‘ in 5 days.

    SIDE EFFECTS / EFFECTS
    1. After 5 to 7 days of treatment, patients MAY complain of HEADACHES.
    2. After 5 to 7 days male patients experience an increase in erection.
    3. Stool becomes soft and REGULAR
    4. Patients c/o being WARM in the trunk area mainly at night when lying down.

    Toxicology……Before administering to any person a complete toxicological analysis was done to include, arsenic, barbiturates and NO KNOWN poisons or harmful substances to mankind were found.

    Systems/Organs

    Skin…becomes clean, smooth and free of eczema or other say they have small eczema patches in the first week that go away by the third week.

    Excretion
    Since this is a very LARGE molecule it is excreted relatively unchanged via urine and feces.

    SEROREVERSION
    After 149 days the patents revert to being HIV NEGATIVE after finishing a course in Ambush hence no one goes public to say they WERE HIV positive.

    Pharmacology of Ambush on the GUT of an end stage AIDS person.

    It is known that late stage AIDS patients posses a high level of the virus in the GUT which should include the entire GI tract from stomach to rectum. Here the virus is found in the lining and this is difficult for ARV’s because these are the areas needed by the ARV’s to enter the blood supply. There is not a high enough blood level returning back to the stomach lining hence the virus remains in high concentration.

    This causes the person’s appetite to decrease which causes a spiraling downhill of the body.

    When Ambush is taken in the liquid form, it is slightly basic and forms a stable compound in the acidic stomach.The Ambush compound is close to the stomach lining to exert the “natural radioactivity” effect which kills the virus in the stomach. Here the entire mid section feels very warm and sometimes feverish. The infected stomach lining with the dead areas is then passed out as a black slime in the stool. This usually happens about day 4 while on an Ambush regime of 60 ml three times daily for 21 days, wherein the person has a large bowel movement.

    After the bowel movement, the person becomes extremely hungry and eats TWO to THREE times a normal serving. Here I usually recommend cornmeal porridge with butter or cooking oil as a prevention against malnutrition and add a daily multivitamin. By day 10 the stomach has recovered and the person eats normally.

    More info is at http://www.ambushcuresaidsfree.com or
    http://www.youtube.com/user/apostlemishe?feature=mhee

    THE CHALLENGE

    The challenge is to find a Virologist, or Biologist of HIV Researcher who is willing to put some Ambush in a Human culture medium infected with the HIV virus, incubate with proper controls and report their findings to the world.

    Thank you for your interest and we will be happy to send you samples and answer any and all questions.

    Apostle Shada Mishe
    apostleshadamishe@gmail.com
    Dallas Texas,
    1-972 294 5161

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      Someone needs to report the above snake-oil salesman!

      • R

        Guess he takes the pressure off you then as you were the only snake oil salesman up until he chanced upon this debate!

        • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

          What are you talking about?

          You need to grow up, this is good debate about one man being “blamed” for the actions of others. Distractions and personal attacks show you up as being weak, and a little fanatical.

          • Rob

            Fanatics are those who spout insanely dangerous, mindless rhetoric based on an extreme minority viewpoint. That would include you, then.

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            Says the guy now attacking me for daring to have an opposing view.

          • Rob

            How am I attacking you? I am only suggesting that your argument has as much validity in a sane, compassionate world as Mr. Snakeoil but you are free to make it nonetheless, no one is stopping you. I just don’t want to have to pick up the bill for other people’s willful recklessness when they view Mr. Lucas’s new range of bb porn, that’s all. And not just the opposing view but, thankfully, a – still – extreme minority view judging by the comments and ratings. That is cause for hope at least.

      • JackAlison

        praise the lord!!!
        lol

  • Alexandre Santos

    I agree that bare is hot, BUT we all know the risks involved in unprotected sex, he is deluding himself, not surprise that drug-resistant virus have already started to appear, soon will be back in the 80s.

  • Jess

    Bareback = Disease loving individuals.

    Normally I don’t wish death upon anyone, but lets hope he can see what its like going through the pain of aids/diseases sitting in a hospital while life is playing russian roulette with this.

    Bareback is rotten anyways. Its like injecting someones syringe in you.

    • Jess

      But thank GOD I’m anti anal!

      • Christopher in Canada

        One wonders what it is that you actually do… if anything! I can’t see the difference in using one end of the digestive tract sexually as superior to using the other… or preferably, both, as glasses that are half-full do not interest me. Neither one of us has to worry about being saddled with the other in this life, thank the universe. Watch those teeth!

    • Dazzer

      How wrong are you?

      For a lot of people barebacking is great – also, it can be safe.

      Both – or all – the people having sex need to be fully informed about their sero-status and the risks they are taking.

      But shaming people for going bareback when they do it responsibly is just an exercise in shaming another member of the human race. It rarely achieves anything.

      Outside of a committed relationship where I have been convinced of my boyfriend’s monogamy (and we got tested before to make sure we were both HIV neg) so we just had sex when and where we wanted without condoms, I have only barebacked twice in my life.

      Personally, I don’t get the hatred for condoms. They’ve never added or detracted a thing from my sex life. But barebacking in itself is not a problem so long as all the parties concerned are informed and educated.

  • JackAlison

    Things have changed in HIV transmission and the studies coming out from all over the world are showing a large segment of gay people having natural condomless sex. Many comments here are bleak unscientific extremes of reaction. I start to feel sometimes that if HIV disappeared many people would have nothing to scream about. The strategies of disease management have also changed. I think the community has far more worrying things to focus on like the health debilitating degree of drug usage which is NOT getting better any time soon and this largely plays into the mix of having sex without condoms. I also see an alarming trend of ignorance and beligerance for merely questioning the HIV options others might take. I take particular exception to words such as “denialist” I would remind readers that many common diseases were often unsolved for long periods of time because the accepted norms, rules and paradigms could NOT be questioned. In most cases it took one or two mavericks to go against accepted wisdom to have the eureka moment. HIV is a highly complex disease and a very elusive nut to crack. Research and cure will hit brick walls unless some real thinking “outside the box’ begins. On a monetry level I am extremely suspicious of a multi billion dollar AIDS industry that is sucking up massive amounts of health dollars and seems very slowly to be able to manage it but not cure it, whatever the “it” is. I also have questions about that too.But shrill hysterical screaming and name calling helps no one.

  • Keith,.//

    Debased unclean and dangerous behaviour is ‘highly’disproportionate amongst homosexuals. The subject of the article is logically therefore representative of the common homosexual morality.
    Just take a look in your nearest public toilet or or sauna.
    http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crime/ex-vet-convicted-over-man-s-extreme-sex-session-death-1-6538105

  • Keitth

    Debased unclean and dangerous behaviour is ‘highly’disproportionate
    amongst homosexuals. The subject of the article is logically therefore
    representative of the common homosexual morality.
    Just take a look in your nearest public toilet or or sauna.
    http://www.shieldsgazette.com/

  • Dermot Mac Flannchaidh

    Insane. People can be repeatedly infected by even just-slightly-different strains of HIV, even if they already are HIV positive. It’s a rapidly-mutating virus, which is also why the human body is so vulnerable to it without adequate treatment and prevention of additional infection.

  • Keith,.//,

    Debased unclean and dangerous behaviour is ‘highly’disproportionate amongst homosexuals. The subject of the article is logically therefore representative of the common homosexual morality.
    Just take a look in your nearest public toilet or or sauna.
    http://www.shieldsgazette.com/

  • Lasair

    Making condom free porn as a business leverage option is a bit like weapon trade with some dictatorship – legal perhaps, profitable as well, but hardly right…

    People make bad decisions often enough on their own, without being encouraged by what they see “in the movies”. While I can’t fault his logic (or his balance sheet for that matter), I’d rather not see another company saying “bareback is ok”.

    Let’s be reasonable and not let the virus mutate any faster, would we?

  • LeNairXavier

    My problem with gay media is that it repeatedly has me wondering…

    WHY do you keep giving this kept hypocritical pimp a platform to spew and “justify” his stereotypical porn industry mental and emotional instability???!!!

    His stand on barebacking is not my issue. For I have long said that barebacking is a matter of choice. My issue with Michael Lucas here is because is that this is YET ANOTHER time that he flip-flops his position on an issue because like a common pimp, he doesn’t foresee making money if he doesn’t. So like most in the porn industry, he keeps one of the stigmas alive that made me leave the industry…

    People in the porn industry CANNOT be taken seriously.

    • Dazzer

      Agreed.

      But there are some pretty interesting discussions about ethics going on in this thread.

      It’s not just about Lucas *cough* *spit*, it’s about ethics and responsibility – both individual and communal.

      Also, because this is a mostly British/European site, we have a different philosophy about individualism versus social responsibility to that found in the US. So it’s an interesting debate.

  • john c

    Viruses mutate and resistance to treatment is created when different strains of the virus are allowed to mix. HIV+ actors (and those whom they encourage) will bareback with oneanother, creating a human petri-dish that fuels viral resistance. When a resistant strain gets loose and the drugs fail to work… what then?

  • Concerned

    What a disgusting, negligent and stupid thing to say. This man’s comments will cause so much harm in the gay community that I can’t believe it. It seems he has a short memory of the devastation of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases have caused.

    PinkNews: be responsible and put links to resources where his idiotic beliefs can be disproved for those who might buy what he’s saying.

  • RobVancouver

    I am surprised by the strongly worded negative reactions on this article. Although I don’t think it is wise to message barebacking is ok, there are many diseases out there, not just HIV. The fact of the matter is, HIV is NOT the same disease as it was even 5 years ago. It has become a chronic disease, much less problematic than say having a cold sore, although the medication is a lot more expensive of course. It is time to discuss the merits of changing the safer sex messaging to reflect this truth before ever more people are going to turn away and barebacking becomes the norm.

  • noma

    May I say you are an idiotic prique. HIV? Indeed! Pass it on.

  • Paul

    I despise Michael Lucas!!

  • Steven Gregory

    He’s unsafe with an HIV+ sex partner, so he feels comfortable asking models to do the same. “I like to play Russian Roulette, so I feel comfortable handing the pistol to porn models. Will he split the money with them? Of course not.

    He obviously won’t stop himself, perhaps someone else will stop him.

    • Johnny

      He says his current partner is HIV+. How do we know he really is? It could all just be a bit of spin. I think Mr Lucas’ aim is to make money regardless of the truth.

  • temirzhan

    Hypocritical Judas. If you were really principled, you would have foregone profits for your principles. Oh no. It’s easier to adapt your morals than lose some shekels.

  • Matthew Black

    For an educated man he his acting stupid. He should be more responsibe and wear a condom.He should have more respect for himself and his models.

  • http://cumtemple.org Frater Seed

    I think it’s laughable that so many commenting here are expressing such outrage about this post.

    Morons like these should consider the following points …

    1. The Porn industry has no obligation to abide by prudish and puritanical standards of anyone, let alone a minority of men who want to impose their values on porn. It’s the PORN industry. Not public health service advocacy.

    2. Most of us prefer Bareback sex, and far more practice it than are willing to admit. Including the most vocal of safe sex prudes who tend to be flaming hypocrites.

    3. Did I mention it’s PORN? We watch porn for fantasy. For the ideal. To expect it to reflect reality is silly. To demand it conform to your, ultimately arbitrary, ethical standards is downright absurd.

    4. The actors in porn are grown ups. They can make their own choices. You’re not their mom.

    5. You too are a grown up. You can make your own choice not to buy or watch Bareback Porn if find it so offensive.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all