Lucas Lascivious

Foe of moderation, champion of excess

Month: March, 2013

The Most Caustic Questions I’m Asked as a Gay Man

“Why do gay people have to act so gay?”

First of all, you’re using the word ‘gay’ to stereotype gay men as all being Cher-loving, hip-swishing, limp-wristed, lisp-having queens and gay women as being Home Depot-obsessed, flannel-wearing, Lillith Fair-attending dykes. Being gay doesn’t determine our personalities, it’s simply establishes what sex we’re attracted to. Secondly, it isn’t gay people who have made our sexual orientation a public matter, it’s been straight people.

“I don’t mind gay people, I just don’t wanna see it.”

I don’t particularly care to see you and your 300-pound wife publicly displaying your affection for each other either, but I deal with it because, hey, you’re in love, so who am I to inveigh that? I don’t know many people whose humanity would tell them that love is wrong, so when you’re perturbed by two people of the same sex harmlessly expressing their love, it’s not necessarily because you’re bothered by the adulation itself, it’s because you’ve been instilled with the belief that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural in some way, which is a scientifically unfounded notion.

“Do you know…?”

Yes, there are an estimated four million citizens in the U.S. who self-identify as LGBT and we all know each other.

“Are you the female or male in the relationship?”

Last I checked, males have penises and females have vaginas, meaning male-on-male relationships would be comprised of two men and female-on-female relationships two women. By asking this question, you’re not only ignoring the obvious biology of the situation, but assuming that in all relationships each partner should be expected to adhere to an inane gender role that’s been set forth by society, so you’re being doubly ignorant.

“Can you hook me up with _________________?”

Do I look like a walking eHarmony billboard? No, I cannot hook you up. How about instead of going through the gay guy, you grow the balls to ask a woman out on your own?

“Why do you have to be gay?!”

While I appreciate the fact you find me to be the perfect man, I am not interested in your vagina whatsoever. I may motorboat you on occasion, but rest assured it’s completely platonic.

When did you first realize you were gay?

Though the concept of sexual orientation is a bit too complex to comprehend at birth, I can securely say I was born gay, and came to realize I was once the concept of sexuality hit at about age five.

“I have nothing against gay people, but…”

If you have to include the conjunction “but,” then you obviously do have a stigma that’s prominent enough to make you feel as though you have to issue the public statement, “I have nothing against gay people, but…”


The Devolution of Safe Sex

As of late, I’ve been seemingly bombarded with an influx in guys who, at the start of a conversation that’s obviously meant to be the preface to sex, blatantly ask, “Do you bareback?” The question almost makes me feel priggish. “No, never,” I answer, thinking it should be axiomatic that I practice safe sex. I kept thinking to myself, though, “Is barebacking making a comeback? Did I miss something?”

Well, as it turns out, it is, and it’s not even purely American: the UK, France, and Australia have all seen a rise in bareback sex and concurrent increase in HIV rates. The number of gay men who engage in bareback sex is hovering around 50 percent at present, which to me is an unfathomable number. Of that 50 percent, young, gay black men are significantly more susceptible to HIV/AIDS, because, as Kevin Frost, CEO of amfAR, explains, “Young gay black mens’ sexual behaviors are no different than young gay white men’s, but there’s so much more background HIV in that population that a single encounter for a young gay black man puts him at much greater risk.”

Recently a survey of Grindr, Scruff, Manhunt, Growlr, and other gay social apps conducted by New York’s non-profit Community Healthcare Community revealed that, of the half of respondents who admitted to having regular bareback sex, 84.6% claimed they did so because “with condoms it does not feel the same,” while 73.8 % blamed “impulsive sexual behaviors.” The survey also found:

  • Respondents were sufficiently knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. 80.9 percent of respondents knew that HIV is transmitted through “unprotected anal sex, vaginal sex, and–less frequently–oral sex.”
  • A majority of respondents (68.1 percent) were afraid to be infected or reinfected, believe people should be more concerned about the epidemic, and view it overall as a serious issue.
  • A majority felt that AIDS is a “somewhat serious” problem for people they know (52.5 percent), while 29.4 percent considered it to be a serious problem.
  • The vast majority of respondents considered barebacking (defined as unprotected anal sex) dangerous and believed barebackers are informed of the risk.

Of course, this is only a small sampling of the gay community, but clearly the education is there. People know about the intricacies, effects, and consequences of HIV/AIDS, so why do people still insist on engaging in unsafe sexual practices?

But homosexual men aren’t the only people at risk. According to findings recently released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), poor heterosexuals are seeing a rapid surge in new HIV infections, with African-Americans, crack cocaine users, and those who trade sex for drugs experiencing the highest rates of infection.

While some think the introduction of new methods of prevention and treatment–such as Truvada and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)–when educating people about HIV/AIDS will curb the ascending HIV/AIDS numbers, even when integrating those types of means condoms are still espoused as the primary modus operandi when engaging in sexual acts with strangers and/or casual acquaintances. Supposed discomfort be damned, I would much rather protect myself for the few minutes (if you’re lucky) sex consumes than live with what is for at least the immediate future still an incurable disease.

Why Open Relationships CAN Work

If you know anything about me, you know I’m an impassioned supporter of open relationships, particularly in the case of gay relationships. I was reading an article recently that proposed the following argument:

You would assume that what you have is enough to make it work, but when you feel like you need more than what you have, it borders problems. You and your partner risk the trouble of falling in love with someone else, having chemistry he might prefer over yours, or risk putting the whole relationship out to dry.

While I can’t say much for the grammatical astuteness of the argument (maybe English is their second language?), you get the gist of it.

Here’s the thing: people in open relationships are not in those types of consociations because they feel unfulfilled in their primary relationship, they’re typically doing so purely for purposes of practicality.

One has to understand that the term ‘monogamy’ can be broken down into both social and sexual monogamy, with social monogamy, what I usually refer to as ’emotional monogamy’, meaning you are socially connected to someone–like a husband, wife, spouse, life partner, etc.–and sexual monogamy pertaining to the person(s) you are having carnal relationships with. These relationships are not circumferential, they are entirely divergent. An overwhelming majority of the world’s species are non-monogamous, more prominently sexually non-monogamous, but unfortunately, because we do live in a feudalistic society, we’ve been engrained with the belief that they are one in the same, making it difficult for most average people to differentiate between the two.

Aside from the psychological aspect of monogamy, there is also a chemical aspect. Many neurochemical factors–oxytocin, opioids, stress hormones, and dopamine, among others–affect a variety of social behaviors, monogamy being non-exempt. Without getting too heavily scientific, based on the most current research, a combination of neurochemical conditions and genetics bequeath the reality that, though social monogamy may be attainable, sexual monogamy often times proves to be quixotic.

By and large, the longer the span of time we’re with our social partner, the less sexual we become, which is what usually causes us to act on our innate sexual sensibilities, or “cheat.” The predominant worry seems to be that if someone is sexually non-monogamous, somehow they’re going to become socially non-monogamous as well. But just as we have a neurochemical disposition to be sexually non-monogamous, we have certain biological determinants that leave us with the desire to subsequently continue to be socially monogamous (corticoliberin, for example).

From a personal perspective, I knew going into my first two relationships that I was absolutely not equipped to remain sexually monogamous, and, with guidelines regarding safe sex outside of the relationship set, was upfront about it. In both instances, the lack of sexual monogamy bolstered our relationship as a whole, both sexually and socially. Definitely sexually. Then, just for the hell of it, I decided to give a relationship where I was both socially and sexually monogamous a go as my own sort of social experiment on myself. I’m here to tell you that I can firmly and undoubtedly say that I am absolutely not outfitted for sexual monogamy. It essentially cemented what I already knew: a person can be socially and sexually monogamous, but it’s not empirical. It’s the same concept as “ex-gay” therapy. Almost all “ex-gays” will tell you they still have homosexual desires, thoughts, and tendencies, they just don’t act on them, which is an unnatural suppression of an inherent biological factor they deem to be factitious. Ironic, isn’t it? The same holds true for sexual monogamy.

Pragmatically speaking, not everyone is going to understand the concept of open relationships, because people don’t always want to accept logic. That’s why things like religion exist. With that being said, it’s incomprehensibly doltish to assume that someone acting on congenital psychological and biological antecedents is doing so because they’re unhappy with their partner or they hanker to be promiscuous.


My Issue with Sex and the City

I was a little late to hop on board the Sex & the City train, mostly because it came out in high school when I was still trying my best and failing miserably to stay in the closet, but once I started watching about halfway into season six, I was immediately hooked. I can still sit and watch marathons of the show, quoting lines all the while. Yes, I’m one of those people.

As I’ve been making my way through all of the seasons again lately, though, I’ve found certain elements irk me. Granted, the show did a lot in the way of portraying women in a more realistic light than most of its predecessors in the way of blunt conversations concerning promiscuity, STDs, cancer, the LGBT community, etc., not to mention setting fashion and cultural standards, but I take issue with shows in general that portray women constantly feeling as if, no matter how successful they may be as individuals, their life remains incomplete without a man.

I think the only fair portrayal came in the form of Samantha, who may have proven far more sexually unbridled than the other three main characters, but also maintained a few extended relationships–including one with a lesbian–that were decidedly more established than her other erotic jaunts, because she was depicted as not only having the ability to participate in one-night stands, but also romantic relationships.

The rest, however, were persistently delineated as being brooding, single women. Carrie was constantly fawning over Mr. Big, Charlotte was always rushing to get married as soon as possible, and Miranda was being perpetually rejected by men who couldn’t handle her professional success and tendency to be overbearing.

Clearly everyone would like to find someone to love, yet their fabulous jobs and social lives, the overlying theme always seemed to be their quest for it. Even Miranda felt substandard, when she should have realized that any guy who’s intimidated by something so insignificant as a woman’s professional success is himself an insecure, moronic misogynist. With a show that reached such a broad audience of women, one would have hoped that it wouldn’t rely on the same old romantic clichés that we’ve seen for decades in sitcoms and films that feature supposed independent and powerful women who still feel incomplete without the companionship of a man.

Regardless of my “rah-rah feminism” argument against the show, I will say that, especially given it was the late-90s and early-2000s, it did still do a lot in the way of social issues, while also maintaining its comedy without coming across as making light of very serious situations; for that, it still maintains my respect. Furthermore, I understand that it’s a television show. If all of the characters had the same personalities, it wouldn’t have been nearly as relatable to its capacious audience, and subsequently wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. Even as groundbreaking shows like Girls are gaining heat, sweeping awards shows, and garnering a huge audience, Sex & the City remains the standard.

The Case for Singledom

Whenever I explain to someone that I’m “single by choice,” the presumption seems to be that I’ve been fucked over in so many past relationships that I’m now bitter about the concept altogether. The reality is, while I have admittedly had some sour relationships in the past, I’ve concurrently had some really great ones.

My choice to be single springs from the fact that I’m not willing to settle. In the past, I’ve jumped into relationships prematurely just because I felt a little lonely and thought another person would fill that singular void. Based on my past indiscretions, though, I’ve found those relationships generally only made the loneliness worse. It took me a long time to figure out that you have to solve the loneliness within yourself by yourself before you can truly be happy not only as an individual, but also in a relationship. I blame society for espousing the idea that one must be attached to another to attain happiness. Well, no, some of us are perfectly content acknowledging that we are individual entities.

I’m now at a point where I’m completely happy with myself, which makes me ripe for a relationship.

With that being said, I’m a lot to handle. I don’t believe in sexual monogamy (I refuse to adhere to the feudalistic belief that we as humans hold some form of ownership over another human being, when in fact we’re inherently sexual beings not hard-wired for monogamy), I’m an alcohol aficionado, I don’t like cuddling, I’m congenitally emotionally unavailable for the most part, I think the concept of marriage is stupid, and I’m incredibly selfish. All of these attributes seemingly make me a terrible boyfriend candidate, and in the past I’ve tried to change these elements of myself to suit the desires of other people, which in turn only made me miserable. I’ve come to realize that I need someone who will accept these qualities, rather than someone who would expect me to change to suit their expectations.

Aside from that, every time there is a guy I actually have a romantic interest in, I think to myself, “There are an estimated nine million gay men in this country alone. There has to be someone better-suited for me out there.” Maybe that’s my own narcissism, but it’s also a very pragmatic way to look at things. I’m 25. I have much life left to live, many other places to visit, and many more guys to meet; thus is the reason I keep my options open. I find it incredibly depressing when I talk to people who complain that they can’t get a date or don’t have a boyfriend or aren’t married. Why should you feel as though any of those are necessary for happiness? Can’t you just be happy without co-dependence?

To everyone who feels as though they’ve found the love of their life, more power to you. I’m not pessimistic about finding a “special someone,” but I believe when I do find that person, I’ll know, and up until now, that person hasn’t crossed my path, nor do I think it’ll occur anytime soon. Until that happens, I’m very much blissful in my singledom, because I’ve come to revel in my independence, and don’t feel that I need another person to enhance or “complete” me. You enjoy being tied to someone you’ll be fucking for the rest of your life–“the rest of your life” meaning until you absolutely cannot bear them anymore, so another year or two–and I’ll continue enjoying being young, single, and fucking big-dicked guys with eight-packs.

Faultline, Brian Molko, Françoise Hardy – Requiem for a Jerk

The Seven Types of Guys My Panties Drop For


Ah, the mystic ginger. Most people essentially treat them like vampires: pale, soul-eating abnormalities who never see sunlight. Shine a light on them and they’re like the living dead, fleeing from any source of light. I don’t know what it is about gingers that attracts me to them in particular. I have two theories: it could either be because I like that they’re sort of the societal underdogs, or it could just be that when I pull their pants down, instead of seeing plain old black pubes, there’s a pop of color, which I as a visual person aesthetically appreciate.


Yes, we all know hipsters can be completely obnoxious, with their music snobbery and paradoxical “individualist” attitudes (while subsequently going out of their way to fit into the hipster culture), but there’s something about them that still makes my dick hard. It’s like taking the physique of a twink, throwing in some killer sleeves (instead of, say, a tramp stamp, as twinks are apt to get), and possibly a few piercings (bonus), but, unlike a twink, there’s no false sense of privilege to roll your eyes at.


When I say “druggies,” I mean those guys who like drugs, but not so much that it’s destroying their lives… meaning not completely addicted, but on the cusp of full-blown addiction. I’ve always said that if you look like you’re just coming off of a 10-day heroin binge, I’ll most likely sleep with you (after a quick scrub-down, naturally). Maybe it’s the self-destructive nature of it all, or maybe the emaciation that usually goes along with heavy drug use, or maybe just a combination of both, but limp dicks be damned, I still find them sexy.


This is perhaps the fetish I’m most confused by, as I’m a staunch atheist and as such pretty oppugn when it comes to religion, but the stereotypical Jewish guy is an automatic turn-on to me. I can, quite literally, spot a Jewish guy, practicing or not, from across a room. There’s just something about a man with a kippah perched on top of his Jew ‘fro that makes me want to go down on his kishka.

Deaf Guys

The sad thing about deaf guys (and gay guys with so-called handicaps in general) is that a lot of guys readily write them off because of their disability, when in fact some of the most beautiful guys I have ever met, both externally and internally, have been deaf guys. Physicality aside, I find that their perspective on the world tends to be completely fascinating, so while I may want to sleep with them, a little introspective conversation never hurts. Plus, as a linguistics nerd, I get the added bonus of learning American Sign Language… or at least the key phrases: “Pants down,” “You. Bed. Now,” etc.

Basically Any European

Western and Eastern Europe offer two very different male varieties. I tend to lean towards Western Europeans (ironic given my general distaste for American West Coasters), mainly because even if I don’t understand them, I know enough about Romance languages to vaguely translate what they’re saying without taking away from the allure of someone that barely speaks American English, but also because six of the top ten positions in the list of ‘Best Lays of My Life’ go to Western Europeans (and two of those times I topped, which, if you’re even faintly familiar with me, you know is a rarity). The statistics do not lie.

UGA Frat Guys

Let’s just put it out there. Every frat guy in Athens is at least a little gay. I think I’ve slept with more “straight” guys in Athens than gay guys. Driving through the UGA campus is a veritable buffet of hot ass. UGA guys are in a league all their own: the shaggy hair, the preppy attire, the almost ungodly amounts of alcohol they can consume. They even manage to make croakies, those stupid ropes you attach to your sunglasses and hang around your neck, look good, and that, my friends, is truly a feat.