Lucas Entertainment Bareback Model James Castle: “I’m A Porn Star, And I’m Living With HIV”

Posted September 9, 2016 by with 48 comments

porn-star-hivLondon-based gay men’s health charity GMFA has just released the below video, “Living With HIV,” to help reduce the stigma attached to people living with HIV. As seen above, Lucas Entertainment model James Castle appears prominently in the video, and he joins a small but growing number of gay porn stars who’ve recently opened up about their HIV-positive status.

With regard to Castle’s work as an HIV-positive bareback gay porn star (he’s appeared in at least eight bareback scenes and orgies for Michael Lucas), he says: “My status has always been asked outright, I’ve always given it outright. You get negative guys who are protected with PrEP, you get some studios that will only pair you with positive guys.”

While this video—and Castle’s honesty—is another good and important move in reducing HIV stigma, it also raises questions as to what role a bareback gay porn studio should (must?) play in preventing the spread of STDs and/or different HIV strains on set. As confirmed by multiple sources over the years, Michael Lucas’s bareback studio does not test its models for STDs or viral loads, and the studio obviously can’t prescribe or oversee models’ use of PrEP, so it’s not clear what, if anything, Lucas Entertainment does to prevent the transmission of STDs during filming.

Earlier this year, Michael Lucas was sued for allegedly desecrating a California mansion after illegally filming porn on the property and leaving the home covered in feces and syringes. The $500,000 lawsuit was eventually settled out of court, and Lucas Entertainment has since been filming primarily outside of the United States, including a recent shoot in a Mexican swamp.

  • Todd

    The unspoken part of his story is becoming HIV positive when Castle is likely younger than the AIDS epidemic.

    I wish him well though

  • iHeartJames

    Eh whatever I’d still let him fuck me raw and cum in my ass.

    • Oppen

      You make a compelling argument. I concur.

    • jviia

      upvotedd for making me laugh lol

  • nick

    “You get negative guys who are protected with PrEP”, really, so it’s a vaccine is it ?

  • AustinWilde

    The lighting in that video is horrendous.

    • McM.

      Looks like the consulted the lighting department from S01 of RPDR.

  • Dave

    The last paragraph about Lucas being sued for the Mansion Fiasco was not needed. The main focus of this story should be and must be the continued use of hiv-positive models in bareback scenes.

    • Zachary Sire

      Lucas being sued shows a pattern of recklessness and disregard for others. The lawsuit and all his other offenses are always relevant to any story on Lucas Entertainment.

    • Galaxy_Scribe

      If the models disclose, that’s entirely up to their partners

  • Scrapple

    I’m assuming that “there is no barrier” stuff was about positive and negative peoples, not about condoms. Still, it made me raise an eyebrow.

    If all the stuff about Lucas is true, I’m curious why Castle would shoot so many scenes there. If Lucas can’t make sure a shooting house is clean, I doubt he could keep on top of the health status of his various models. Sounds like James is ending out his porn career, so I guess this isn’t anything he’ll be losing much sleep over.

  • john

    i just cant..

  • Cosmic

    I just can’t watch bareback porn.

  • Zealot

    I may not be fully informed of what the current “stigma” are surrounding being HIV+. So please consider my comment with that in mind. I became sexually active at the mid point of the rise of HIV around 1982 (remember I live in middle America, so for a few years it was thought of as primarily affecting gay men in urban coastal areas). Stigmatization of those diagnosed with HIV ran the gamut from being shamed publicly, called names (“filthy”, “disease-ridden”, “whore”), losing one’s job, losing one’s place to live, having health insurance cancelled, and basically being made a pariah among other gay men. And by “pariah” I mean total isolation and loss of friends one had for years before. You could not find or receive any kind of health care, and the virus knocked you down so quickly that you could not do anything for yourself, from fixing a meal, to using the bathroom or taking a shower. Having HIV meant literally that you lost everything. You were left to die alone. Men diagnosed with HIV took their own lives rather than suffer the range of horrible opportunistic infections which decimated one’s health, looks, vitality, etc. HIV was the most wretched and horrid affliction because not only did it destroy your health…it destroyed your life. And it did it mercilessly and quickly for the most part.

    Having PrEp to lessen the risk of contracting HIV to almost 0 is certainly something to celebrate. And while “almost 0” is a good thing, it’s not 100% either– we already have at least one documented case in which a gay man on the PrEp regimen contracted HIV from failing to use condoms as a back-up precaution. The developers of PrEp stress that it is intended to be used as PART OF AN OVERALL DISEASE PREVENTION STRATEGY. I don’t see that being followed for the most part. What I DO see is PrEp being used as a convenient excuse to increase risky sexual behaviors (and that’s putting it as nicely as I could conjure).

    Because nothing is 100% we can be educated and informed about our own health; and we can take care of ourselves by using all the tools provided by scientific research– which I may add were paid for with the lives of hundreds of thousands of gay men from before the time we knew what caused HIV, how it was spread, and how to protect ourselves by use of condoms and safer sex practices.

    We know how HIV and other STDs/STIs are spread and we know there are ways to lessen those occurrences as well. I’ve heard all the bullshit about HIV being a “manageable” disease, blah, blah, blah. So does that make it something desirable to contract none-the-less? And what of other STD’s/STI’s? New strains of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea are on the rise. Yet, glorification to the point of a near religious experience is made these past few years of increasing practices of barebacking. So, is it me, or am I missing the stigma? Porn from the 80’s, 90’s and 2000-ands (at least mainstream porn) completely eschewed condomless sex and increased all our awareness of safer sex practices. Porn actually helped get that message to every nook and cranny of this country– that gay men could take charge of our own health and still be sexual beings. Sex was fun and playful, dirty and even raunchy, but it still contained the message that you play with condoms and you respected your partner’s health as your own.

    I don’t want to believe that we as a community loathe ourselves so much that we put our own health and well being on the line for sex without a condom. It’s ironic. The religious right is going about getting rid of us the wrong way. They should just chill out because before long, those of us who survived the first epidemic will die of old age and the rest of us will just take care of it ourselves. Lucas Entertainment who operates on a business model of not testing for STIs and pairing sero-discordant models should be ashamed, but I suspect those with no soul cannot feel shame. It really sickens me, but I’m no one (literally) and have no illusions of helping anyone other than myself. But it sure hurts to see my brothers and sisters with so little regard for themselves as to behave in this way. And back to the stigma thing….if the current stigma is anything worse than an occasional side-eye or whisper, well…..I can’t get too broken up about it. I’ve seen men pay the greatest price of all because of that stigma and I just don’t see that it translates to behavioral norms and behaviors in today’s gay sexual culture. Bottom line is– we’ve known too much for too long to continue acting like we do and expect anything other than the disdain of those who listened and heeded and survived.

    • McM.

      Act Up and other awareness groups approached film and magazine porn producers during the initial epidemic and implored them to feature condoms in penetrative sex scenes. That is how the change came about. From what I read after being informed how they impact the community many studios complied.

      However, I wonder if we are now dealing with a different dynamic in not only the gay community’s relationship with HIV, but in several porn studio’s relationship with the gay community. The first is obvious, but I doubt many people understand how you can produce gay porn and NOT be a part of the gay community. Where in the past it was absolutely necessary for producers to be within the gay community scout talent and keep up with general interests, it is now possible for studios to limit interactions with gay men to the occasional performer and digital communications for consumers. Their involvement in the gay community is only on the level of commerce. Though in the late 90s you could run into Blue Blake sitting in a bar chatting people up (I did in two separate major cities), or see this magical condom-fairy by the name of Chi Chi LaRue casually slipping colorful squares into people’s back pockets while moving from one end of a club to another. Or brunch; I saw her the next morning doing it at brunch. The point is, the ones who made and maintained the change to condoms in their films – they saw the impact of HIV/AIDS in the LGBT community and did not have this huge buffer or confirmation filter.

      • Zealot

        I would think Michael Lucas has been around long enough to have witnessed some of the first round of HIV and how it played out. Which makes him all the more irresponsible and culpable in my eyes. But I see your point. MEN.com does seem to be sticking to their condom-only format, but I wonder how long that will last? Like you, I’d prefer that the owners and producers of gay porn were more involved in our communities other than sponsoring booths and floats in parades. But I’m an old tree-hugger who believes social awareness is everyone’s responsibility and ignorance of what’s going on in the world around us is inexcusable. For example, how many voter registration booths have we seen at recent pride events?

    • Maximus

      Your perspective is entirely valid, but I would just like to point out that it only takes one misguided sexual encounter to contract HIV. Whatever stigma does continue to exist, I’m not sure that it’s warranted in the case of a man who made a miscalculation in a single instance of personal weakness. However, if a man contracted HIV due to a persistent pattern of risky, irresponsible sex—that was not the consequence of mental illness—then I say stigmatize away.

      • Zealot

        ….and in the interest of full disclosure I made a huge error in judgement and had unprotected sex with someone I thought was being monogamous with me in the early 80’s. Yes…I was naive and believed my partner’s lies, and for the next 6 months I sweated out a series of tests to find out and ensure I had not contracted anything, including HIV. Had I contracted it I would have had to accept the blame and consequences, along with the stigma. BUT I also would have fought as I ended up doing alongside friends who were HIV+ for more understanding, support and services– which as part of ACT-UP, we helped get. I would also have said to those coming after me, don’t make the idiotic mistake I made. To do just that I became an AIDS educator for the Tribe I worked with and helped start the first HIV support services in our rural area, including testing and distribution of condoms, educational literature and free needle exchange. I don’t wish HIV, or any STI on anyone as a result of something as joyful and celebratory as sharing sex with another human being. But unfortunately that’s the risk we face unless we become educated and protect ourselves. And manageable or not, being HIV+ cannot be seen as preferable to the alternative. While we should never stigmatize or alienate anyone with any disease, HIV included, we do need to draw distinctions between our errors in judgement, and learning from them; and running brainlessly toward risk without any preparation or sense of self-preservation. I just wish 30-some years of fighting, dying and suffering had brought our community to a different place than free-for-all unprotected sex and bug chasing and that ilk.

    • BlogZilla

      It was the AZT that knocked people down. Why anyone took that poison is beyond me. Read the label and you will understand how I feel. It is a DNA terminator

      • Zealot

        I can only say that people diagnosed with HIV or any of the associated opportunistic infections associated with it took AZT (as they would have done almost anything, including having their blood drained, heated, filtered and replaced) to survive. Yes, it was poison, but it was all we had. And we didn’t know any better. It was like being on the deck of the Titanic as it slid into the icy waters and someone threw you an anvil and said, “Here, this will save you!” I can’t think about those years without becoming overly emotional. Most of my dearest friends are now gone from this and I would give anything to have them back. If they had the miracle of PrEp and the knowledge to know that condoms and safer sex would have saved their lives, there would be no question about their decision– which is why watching people of any age/generation throwing away their health with both hands and thinking nothing of it infuriates me no end.

        • BlogZilla

          It infuriates me too. Many people are proud of being dumb, ignorant, etc. That’s just the way it is.

        • BlogZilla

          Oh gee, when someone constantly abuses their body and treats it like crap (no sleep, drugs and alcohol to oblivion, repeated bacterial infection s— perhaps many going untreated, abusing antibiotics), then when the chickens come home to roost, I’m supposed to believe they are surprised? Whatever happened to common sense and education? :/ A.I.D.S., as it was called back then, is nothing new. It is merely an acronym name of a condition?

          • Zealot

            YES! Where did HIV education go? So many battles fought to get HIV education everywhere from bars and bath houses to schools. And as for the rest…I still can’t wrap my head around why people treat HIV and other STIs like they’re no big deal. Get a shot, move on. Well, THOSE chickens are certainly coming home to roost.

    • The Porn Emperor

      Just a correction: the one case you mention of someone on PrEP becoming infected “from failing to use condoms as a backup”–the missing part to this is that this guy had the misfortune to run into a Truvada-resistant strain of HIV. So it was combination of circumstances that led to his infection, not a failure of PrEP. Condoms aren’t 100% either–I don’t know anyone who uses condoms with oral sex, and HIV has occasionally been transmitted that way as well. I had a guy cum in my eye once–no help from condoms there. We have to get away from dogmatically seeing condom usage as the goal, and focus on overall risk reduction using whatever method(s) one chooses.

  • Jonny Marzetti

    Of course Castle has performed bareback for a lot of other studios as well, including Kristen Bjorn. Part of Bjorn’s bareback disclaimer says, “The condomless scenes featured in this section are performed by actors who have been tested for HIV and other STDs.” Is it just me, or does that statement at least *imply* that only those who test negative will be used?

    • Audran

      I thought it just meant the models in the video know their status and agree to do what they do because i read that on another video with Rocco Steele performing bareback

    • McM.

      I used to think so, but then I got real.

      “Tested” doesn’t mean the studio did anything with the results. The notice is there to put the consumer and lawyers at ease, and as a CYA in case a performer comes after them.

    • BlogZilla

      Kristen Bjorn felt forced to allow bareback sex in his productions because 1. It is what many of his models wanted 2. It was competitively necessary.

      In the past he was adamantly against it, but truth be known, bareback porn sells tens times better.

  • sanfv

    “I’m a porn star and I’m living with HIV.”

    Little redundant isn’t it Mr. Castle?
    https://media0.giphy.com/media/l41YfnhA7QNddFD0Y/giphy.gif

    Queue hatemail in 5,4,3,2…

    • BlogZilla

      It is not redundant. Jeff Stryker was a porn star for many years and did not contract HIV, so did some other well known porn stars of the time.

  • Audran

    At this point, is there anybody HIV negative at Lucas entertainment ?

    • WhimsyCotton

      The camera men? The grips? The editors? mr. Pam? The cleaning lady?

      • Audran

        They often have some too

  • jimboivyo

    Reducing the stigma against HIV in our society is a noble and realistic goal. It’s actually happening. Reducing the stigma surrounding the pathogen known as Michael Lucas is unacceptable and irresponsible.

  • HoratioCaine

    there wouldn’t be stigma if these assholes had practiced safe sex.

    • Goodboy

      First off how do you know how they got it and second you do realize that holier then thou judgement can be aimed right back at you Horatio>

      • HoratioCaine

        it was either by having unsafe sex or sharing drug needles. since I haven’t done either and don’t have HIV I evidently qualify as holier than thou. you can shove your self righteous indignation where the sun don’t shine bub.

        • Goodboy

          Damn. You’re not only a judgmental jackass you’re dumb as hell. FYI. Here’s the dictionary definition dummy: “the annoying attitude of people who believe that they are morally better than other people.”

          Hmm..who does that sound like. Oh that’s right. Horshitio!

          • HoratioCaine

            he’s a whore. he got it from unsafe sex. it wasn’t a blood transfusion you mental midget. you will now feel the block you insufferable asshole.

          • BlogZilla

            Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Maybe he simply has better standards that aren’t self destructive. Morally better has nothing to do with it.

  • Xzamilloh

    I’m not gonna lie….while this is something that needs to be done, the style is terrible. This is like every other video with every other disease/malignment that has the happy music, people smiling, Sarah flying a kite on the beach with full on Hep C and herpes blaring, Paul’s doing cartwheels in the sand after having an epipen jammed in his neck because he had a reaction to shellfish, and some animated diarrhea bubble is following 50 year Sue around while she looks at him and says “Not today, Satan!!! Me and Gladys have shuffleboard!!”

    It’s too “extra” when it doesn’t need to be. You have HIV, you’re safe, you take precautions and you’re probably healthier than a good chunk of the HIV-negative demographic. But stop smiling… because HIV or not, your smiling is annoying and you’re not that damn happy!! NO ONE is that damn happy!! Stop throwing your fake happiness in my fucking face!!!

  • Pertinax

    Sunny and ‘ triumphant ‘ testimonies, but still a disease.

  • AussieB

    Im all for destigmatizing HIV but is it earth shattering news that a porn star is HIV positive?

  • Parker Lewis

    You would have to be as dumb like a trump supporter to have unprotected sex with someone you know is hiv positive, on prep or not.

  • DrunkEnough

    –enters thread, sees it became about negative guys justifying their desires to shame poz people–

  • sammy1023

    Is this article more about HIV positive porn stars or more about this sites owner’s hatred for Michael Lucas, since I’m sure many of us could name a half a dozen other sites that are probably filled with HIV+ actors?

  • BlogZilla

    Eve today, I can’t understand why having HIV is something to boast about.