There's something about a boy wearing nothing but socks... or nothing but socks and shoes... makes me WET. :D

I personally think you look stunning! I have never seen a bad photo of you. In fact, I have often thought to myself that I wished I were more suited for porn just so that I could have a chance to work with you!

Michael
You're FABULOUS,DELICIOUS, CHARMING, LOVELY, SEXY and HOT HOT HOT.... You know just how to make me weak in the knees.
WOW!!!! Wonderful.
Christine from Brazil.

It's just bad lighting in the New York Magazine photo. You in just socks, shoes and sock garters - some of the best photos ever!

Dear Michael:

That photo in New York Magazine wasn't merely selected from a group of pictures; it was manipulated to show you in a poor light.

The writer of the article has a depreciating, skeptical, cynical view of you, your products, and your success. I don't know him at all so can't comment on whether it is a case of sour grapes.

However, look towards the beginning of the piece where in talking about how you avoid sun to protect your skin he says that you have "a vampiric aversion to the sun to match his Count Chocula voice." That phrase is visually echoed in the vampiric quality of the photo.

I'd very much like to know if the writer would recommend to readers that they seek out sunlight, and then back up his recommendation with up-to-date scientific information about the role sunlight plays in causing melanomas. Every dermatologist I have ever heard speak on this subject has advised people to stay out of the sun, to use sunscreen and hats with visors for walking down the street, et cetera, et cetera. Yet this New York magazine writer had to call your aversion to sunlight "vampiric."

The writer gives himself away entirely in these phrases: "New York may be in the middle of a Hollywood moment, but when it comes to the X-rated-movie business, the city will never rival the Valley. We have few porn kings living among us, much to the chagrin of just about no one."

If, for an article about you, New York magazine could not find a writer without a holier-than-thou prejudice against adult entertainment, that says a lot more about them than it does about you. This is an instance of rank, unforgivable hypocrisy. Avenue Q has been playing for years, and has toured, with a song titled "The Internet is for Porn." There are umpteen studies by psychologists and psychiatrists in support of the idea that pornography can play a positive role in adults' lives. Erotic entertainment gay, straight and beyond is sold heavily throughout the city and at that, there are more NYC internet purchases of it than there are point-of-sale, store-based purchases. I for one refuse to believe that all those NYC consumers of erotic entertainment come from outside the ranks of New York magazine readers.

So how is it possible for New York magazine to run a portrait of you without acknowledging one positive aspect of the availability of erotic entertainment, the high quality of your films, or the satisfaction viewers have from seeing them?

A magazine profile of an entertainer with a following should not be a press release for the entertainer, yet neither should it be a snide, nasty attack on that entertainer from a writer with zero knowledge of what has made the entertainer popular among his followers.

I mean, I for example am not a particularly big fan of the rapper Snoop Doggy Dog but were I writing a piece on him for a publication that didn't generally feature his type, instead of seeking out his enemies for comments the way the New York magazine writer sought out Ethan Hawk, I would talk with people who enjoy your films and communicate their enthusiasms to my readers. It is actually possible to do that as regards erotic entertainment . . . without being at all inappropriate for a mainstream magazine . . . if a writer has the talent for doing so.

Another thing I'd like to know is why the writer quoted Ethan Hawk's slighting comments about Dangerous Liaisons but not a single enthusiastic review of your groundbreaking film. There's no evidence in what he wrote that he watched it. He says nothing about the keen interest and admiration it aroused among connoisseurs of gay erotic entertainment.

If the New York magazine writer had troubled himself to give a balanced, informative account of your career and activities in New York City, the magazine's readers would have been better served.

Woah...not only was the lighting in that photo incredibly bad, but it looks like they had a 10 year old retouching it. Whoever retouched your face did a BAD BAD job of it. It literally looks like a bad painting than a good photo considering how heavy handed the retouching is.

Of the photos you posted, however, clearly the best one is the fourth one down. Awesome pose, great lighting...perfect.

Les photos sont très belles.

Excusez-moi mais i'don't speak english

You're the best actor

Kiss
Jeff

well congrats Mr. Lucas. Interesting article. Love the picutes!

hi michael - bianca looks great in the photo and so do you. but you definitely look much better in person even in our bad hallway lighting. congrats on all the recent p.r.!

WOW ...Micheal I just received the New York magazine today in the mail.....the photo looks nothing like you...and the article, " what did you do piss off Mr. Van Meter....Im absoultly sure you are a much nicer person than the article leads anyone to beleive....I guess even a writer for a national magazine...can slight someone who dosn't derserve it...all in the name of jealousy... Keep up the good work, your an awsome guy....

very cool article!!! hot pix too :)

Don't let the fuckwads get you down.

When's the last time anybody with a life read a New York magazine feature article from beginning to end?

Every time I've tried I've gotten a headache and the feeling that I was being afflicted with the mental equivalent of constipation.

One of their main faults is that they want to project an ultra-hip image AND be the keepers of more traditional culture; I think it's the fucked up mess it is because they're basing their writing on what they wish they were, but aren't, and what they think their readers want most, but don't.

If a person can't find better writing in New York City they aren't looking very hard.

On the contrary I feel that if anything the article will feed your ego. Though do not take that the wrong way. Clearly you are a flamboyant [not in the general gay sense] decadent, grand and elegant person so I actually think the article portrayed a very realistic picture of you. It is not negative, it is real. I must say you're quite fascinating. Therefore people are bound to misunderstand you.

There is one thing I have to disagree with though, nobody can top Fellini's masterpiece.

New York Magazine - WOW! Great job Michael. Whether the article was positive or negative, how many Gay Porn Stars ever get profiled in New York Magazine. Keep having, stirring the pot and enjoying yourself.

Love your site!

The only reason I bought the magazine was for the article about you. And it was a fun, bitchy read. And I am sorry, but the Count Chocula-reference WAS funny - AND the fact that you used it as the title of this post speaks well of you, IMO.

I do agree though it was a disappointing picture of you. Obviously they could not post a fully nude shot of you, but very few men, whether in movies rated "XXX" or "G" look as good as you do in designer clothes, so they really missed a good opportunity to showcase some great shots.

LOL, I have to ask, what the hell did you do to piss off Owen Hawk? Now he came across as very petty and jealous.

I have to agree with you, the photo is not flattering. C'est la vie. We all know you look much handsomer than that.