Gay Patriot Header Image

Surpris(ing Amount of) Buttsecks

Posted by V the K at 6:49 pm - January 10, 2017.
Filed under: Gay Culture

Piers Morgan is claiming that dead pop star George Michael had sex with over 500 men in the past seven years. (Hat Tip Steve) For all I know, Piers Morgan knows as much about George Michael’s sex life as he knows about the Second Amendment or keeping a cable TV show on the air. This is a salacious story, but I’m not really interested in debating whether it’s moral to have sex with a new person every five days. Spoiler alert: It isn’t. (OK, unless it’s an SCP situation where some innocent child somewhere in the world dies if you don’t have sex with a new person every five days.)

What I am wondering about his how many standard deviations from the norm is this behavior? I’ve never been in the mainstream of gay culture, so I have no idea what a normal amount of sex partners is for an average gay guy. Yes, there are ranges. There are chaste gay dudes, and at the opposite end there are guys who are like an all-night public bus — anybody can hop on for a ride any time. But maybe someone who is closer to gay culture can give me an idea of where the mean is. I hope there is no harm in asking.

Madonna just saw George Michael’s count and sniffed, ‘Amateur.’

surprisebuttsex-52798

Share

28 Comments

  1. Is Piers whining that he wasn’t on the list or not the only one on the list? Frankly, morals are important as a personal issue, but made public morals become such very – complex thing.

    Also – straights are also complex when we are talking morals. Frankly, this IS always the case with everyone. Someone did a study years ago of that highly moral population of puritan New England. Namely – dates of marriages and first births. There was a surprise in the number of oh so too early date of birth after the marriage. So, really – what is the debate here? Maybe – well – we all need to mind our own business.

    Comment by Martel's son — January 10, 2017 @ 7:02 pm - January 10, 2017

  2. It is what it is. I’m 56 and have had a lot sex partners in my life. I would guess north of 400. I’ve been out since the age of 20. You guys can do the math.

    Comment by Lewis — January 10, 2017 @ 7:09 pm - January 10, 2017

  3. I don’t feel comfortable with perpetuating rumours. If George Michael is on record for having 500 lovers, then, certainly, use that as a catalyst to have the conversation. But if he isn’t, it is his own damn business and not Piers Morgan’s (or anyone who reads/links him). But, this just proves people love gossip.

    That being said, it is each person’s own damn business. The “how many lovers is the acceptable number” conversation is worth having, because it doesn’t hurt to talk about it. What is “acceptable” behaviour? Does it matter to “fit” into the “norm”? What does it mean for society to be one thing or the other or something in between?

    Deep down, I’m guessing that plenty of people out there are judgmental of those who have, in their eyes, “too many” lovers (at one time or over history). I know I get judgy. But, then, as social creatures, we are socialised to think a certain way when judgment in instilled in us.

    We can only know what is right and works for ourselves. I’m pretty “chaste” for a gay man. But, then, it’s part of my nature (as well as social conditioning which I have less energy to fight the older I get).

    But, if we want to discuss a “healthy” society and “norms” that should be “encouraged,” then isn’t that applied socialism?

    At the end of the day, capitalism sorts everything out, right?

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — January 10, 2017 @ 7:17 pm - January 10, 2017

  4. Martel fils, that’s only surprising because our image of the Puritans as dour, joyless, judgmental people is largely a caricature created by 20th Century progressives like Arthur Miller. (20th Century progressives being joyless, dour, judgmental people themselves.)

    Comment by V the K — January 10, 2017 @ 7:18 pm - January 10, 2017

  5. George Michael wasn’t some random guy at a bar. (Or perhaps he was…) He was a public figure whose very public death (public in the sense that he was very famous) was made worldwide news for some days as well as the usual eulogies from those who shared his fame and/or those who see his death as an opportunity to gain more of their own. And so it is only natural to wonder the cause of death and whether his well-known lifestyle (rumors of his involvement in promiscuous sex and drug abuse were being repeated as far back as the ’80s) was a contributing factor. If his life and his career were “my damn business” because his music and videos were an inescapable intersection between his life and mine, then surely the circumstances of his death are not “none of my damn business.” The consequences usually associated with promiscuity and drugs should be a public conversation, one that involves some kind of judgment.

    Comment by Ignatius — January 10, 2017 @ 7:46 pm - January 10, 2017

  6. In many otherwise less-than libertine societies it was still acceptable and necessary to be sure that a couple were reproductively-compatible before marriage — which is a social construct and public covenant. An infertile couple was a tragedy for the entire community. Hence annulment for infertility; concubinage; plural-marriage; or an “accident”. Child adoption as we know it was a recent social phenomena, historically it involved a child-relative, not a stranger. Or an adult or in-law assuming the family business or land and titles…like the Spencers in Spencer-Churchill. (Although that was a special situation.)
    In the centuries before ” modern” medicine and an understanding of germ-theory it’s appalling to read the statistics of childhood deaths and deaths related to childbirth…even to the prosperous and high-born. Even in the early 20th-century, childbirth was highly dangerous time for mother and child.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 10, 2017 @ 7:47 pm - January 10, 2017

  7. What, there’s actually chaste gay dudes? Are you serious?

    Comment by pawfurbehr — January 10, 2017 @ 7:57 pm - January 10, 2017

  8. What, there’s actually chaste gay dudes? Are you serious?

    Well, I mean, there have to be, right?

    Comment by V the K — January 10, 2017 @ 8:03 pm - January 10, 2017

  9. I don’t think morality has to enter into to be judgmental about promiscuity since there are health consequences for promiscuous behavior.

    Comment by V the K — January 10, 2017 @ 8:04 pm - January 10, 2017

  10. At V the K. Oh, hardly. Having a family tree back to them that frequently found it far better to ‘re-locate’ to Nantucket, I find the modern leftist is a far better model for Arthur Miller. And I a descendant of Mercy Short of Salem 1692 flame. And a cousin who was Judge Hathorne’s wife, and well – etc., etc. They weren’t pure as the snow is drivel… :)

    They were quite human, but just with a taste for having a pr that might not match the story. And this is not my first time thinking of the modern leftist as such. They do it well.

    Comment by Martel's son — January 10, 2017 @ 8:21 pm - January 10, 2017

  11. In many otherwise less-than libertine societies it was still acceptable and necessary to be sure that a couple were reproductively-compatible before marriage — which is a social construct and public covenant.

    Indeed. While doing some genealogical research for a family reunion a number of years ago, my mother’s cousin discovered that their forebears in the late 1800s would copulate with prospective brides prior to any engagement or marriage to see if they were fertile and could produce children. This was in a family of German Catholics who weren’t exactly the Industrial Revolution equivalent of a “free love” society.

    I was stunned when I heard this, since it seems so antithetical to the background of the family (particularly when one of the people whom their descendants married—my grandmother—was the original prude). But when you needed warm bodies in the form of progeny to homestead and settle new lands and in an era where infant mortality was 50-50 at best, it does make sense.

    Comment by RSG — January 10, 2017 @ 8:24 pm - January 10, 2017

  12. Lots of giggles when doing family history RSG. We need morals, but we don’t self-selected moralists with far too much time to ‘give’ to other’s morals. People can lie. I had a grandmother who did about one of her grandfathers. Well – he got found out about having a mistress – and trying to leave ‘the county’ with her. Otherwise, a good guy – just a ‘little’ horny. Stories like the lead is just not important for anyone not directly involved to become all ‘high and mighty’ about.

    Comment by Martel's son — January 10, 2017 @ 8:48 pm - January 10, 2017

  13. Obviously, the biggest concern about promiscuity is the risk of contracting and then spreading STDs- at least, among homosexuals, since heterosexuals must also deal with the risk of creating children that they are neither willing nor capable of adequately rearing.

    We know George Michael liked doing it with guys, and had a thing for public sex. But unless he was cheating on his partner or had an arrangement with him, I assume that he was in a monogamous relationship.

    Comment by Sean L — January 10, 2017 @ 8:54 pm - January 10, 2017

  14. What, there’s actually chaste gay dudes? Are you serious?

    As with many elements of life, I find that it’s a world of extremes, with narrow bands of other practices and points-of-view in between. So that there is a fair amount of the gay male populace who will fornicate with anything that remains still long enough for them to do so. These are the people one normally hears about with 1,000 sex partners per year (a favorite bon mot of the religious right for several decades now) or who have every dating smartphone app and are constantly cruising for the next prospect (and often successful). It’s not a matter of looking for Mr Right, it’s a matter of Mr Right Now, or Mr Next.

    The other side of the coin are those who are looking but never finding because no one quite meets their standards and mama always told them they were better than the average dude down the street anyway and thus should never interact with someone beneath them. Should they be fortunate to find someone who meets their high standards (once every five years or so), and should the other person be lucky enough to be granted some sort of private physical contact with them, it will only occur with a full box of fresh condoms at hand, with the appropriate organ/s double-sheathed for fellatio (and possibly something else down the line), with surgical masks worn in a non-fetish capacity and only if both parties can prove they have been thoroughly cleansed with a Betadine solution or equivalent in the previous hour or so. After each party has gone their separate ways, at least one person in the transaction will hurriedly rush out for a complete HIV & STD screen and booster shots to any vaccinations for which they might be lacking.

    In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I’ve found that for every one of the former types, there are at least two of the latter types. The latter type doesn’t fit into any of the stereotypes within the LGTBQXYZ community nor in the larger mostly hetero communities. Their practices aren’t being done as some sort of fetish (no chastity belts or ball cages & locks), so it is of no interest to anyone who would write about them. [Since they do have a sex drive and defined attraction, one also can’t label them as asexual, which is the new transsexual.] These are the type of people for whom Internet porn was made for, since most of their lifetime sexual experiences will be of the solo variety.

    Comment by RSG — January 10, 2017 @ 8:57 pm - January 10, 2017

  15. Early Nantucket was originally part of New York, so it was a safe refuge from the religious authorities in Massachusetts…especially Quakers who were subject to execution for being members of the Society of Friends. One reason that so-many of the whaling skippers were Quakers a century-later.
    Both sides of my family date back to that period, My mother’s family descend from the Winthorps of Boston and the Williams who founded Rhode Island. My father’s family relocated from 1640s New Hampshire to the Province of Maine coast. It’s suspected they were on the wrong-side of the English Civil War to be safe in Puritan New England after they fled southwestern England. Some of the family relocated to Nantucket and the whaling industry. Nantucket, Cape Cod, and the Maine Coast fished, whaled and did a lot of business between them. That’s why it feels and looks different than Puritan and later Catholic Boston and the inland parts of Massachusetts; the same architecture, related families, even the same churches and accents to this day..

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 10, 2017 @ 9:12 pm - January 10, 2017

  16. @Ted B. – Without a doubt, we are distinct cousins. Tristram Coffin, Thomas Gardner, planter, and so forth were forefathers of mine. As well as Jeremiah Clarke of Rhode Island. I might be related to Anne Hutchenson – but data is weak for proving it. However, yes – Boston was interesting, and the Quaker just did not get along well in it.

    The Nantucket forefathers did buy it because it was at the times under New York control. Another forefather was the only vote against pushing Roger Williams out, and forefather Thomas Macy had his problem with Boston…

    I just never do care much for people wanting to have a ‘say’ over other people and their lives. It just seems to be …

    Comment by Martel's son — January 10, 2017 @ 9:56 pm - January 10, 2017

  17. The “just leave me alone“-gene in strong in my family.

    And from the Norwegian-side of my father’s family there’s a strong “flea-market” packrat-gene from the days of Viking pillaging of monasteries and market-towns. My aunt says our family motto whispers in Ancient Norse, “…who knows?, we might need that some day”.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 10, 2017 @ 10:51 pm - January 10, 2017

  18. I dunno — it’s possible that George Michael made the “500 men” as a quip (riffing on Lily von Schtupp, or whatever), and Piers Morgan took it too literally. Then again, if you figure about 52 Saturday nights a year, times seven years… sexual contact with 500 men is not physically implausible.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — January 10, 2017 @ 11:14 pm - January 10, 2017

  19. I wonder… GeorgeMichael was an admitted enthusiastic Cottager. British author, playwright and general naughty-boy Joe Orton was also. Personally I never saw the appeal.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 11, 2017 @ 1:34 am - January 11, 2017

  20. Personally I never saw the appeal.

    For those living in a less enlightened time, it was one of the few outlets available; though you are correct in that a certain amount of individuals actually like it, even today. For some, part of the attraction is that they may actually be caught, as the one-time Mr Panayiotou was. Likewise, I’ve never understood the appeal (or the protocol, for that matter). But it even seems to be popular among the college set on campuses in the current era.

    Comment by RSG — January 11, 2017 @ 3:51 am - January 11, 2017

  21. @ RSG: I chalk that up to what limited media some people have access to depicts public facilities as the default hook-up place.

    Comment by Sean L — January 11, 2017 @ 6:10 am - January 11, 2017

  22. it’s possible that George Michael made the “500 men” as a quip (riffing on Lily von Schtupp, or whatever), and Piers Morgan took it too literally.

    Hence my skepticism. Piers Morgan is an idiot.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2017 @ 8:36 am - January 11, 2017

  23. I guess CNN’s Richard Quest was unavailable for comment…

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 11, 2017 @ 4:43 pm - January 11, 2017

  24. A couple more thoughts: My lifetime total for “Number of Men” is skewed upwards by the fact that in my 20s and early 30s, I was a habitue of the “J/O Club & Circle-Jerk Party scene.” (I still approve of such things, but it’s been years since I’ve been a regular attendee.) At such events, it’s perfectly good form to engage in 45 seconds of French-kissing or nipple-nibbling with a total stranger while you play with each other’s sausage-and-potatoes. In other words, if it’s a large group, you might go to Second Base (briefly) with two-dozen guys in one evening.

    From a medical/epidemiological perspective, all this is relatively harmless. Crabs and genital warts and herpes can potentially be vectored this way, but for the most part, these aren’t serious, life-threatening diseases. (However, bi men should remember that a papilloma infection could have worse risks for your wife or girlfriend than for you.)

    On the other hand, I would accept the argument that overindulgence in such activity, as a replacement for trying to build a committed, monogamous relationship, could be spiritually and emotionally corrosive even though no physical harm is done. If promiscuous Surprise-Buttsecks might be likened to chain-smoking cigarettes or binge-drinking whiskey, promiscuous handjobs might be likened to eating too many gummi bears. There’s no particular risk to eating gummi bears, which are not technically toxic in any sense, but they’re not nourishing, either. You’d be better off eating moderate amounts of fresh fruit, so that you get some vitamins and fiber that the gummi bears lack.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — January 11, 2017 @ 7:48 pm - January 11, 2017

  25. Finally, I would add:

    Men in their 20s tend to have more energy than men in their early 50s, as George Michael was. So while it’s not implausible that G.M. might’ve averaged about 70 men a year when he was in his Wham! days, it’s less believable that he could still manage that number when he was past 45.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — January 11, 2017 @ 7:49 pm - January 11, 2017

  26. I can count on one hand how many guys I have been a bottom with but the first 2 years after I came out I had sex with 50 guys with a big drop off after that as I decided relationships would be a good idea.

    Comment by Steve — January 11, 2017 @ 8:25 pm - January 11, 2017

  27. I think we all have our own learning curve.

    Being out in a accepting society is a fairy new concept if you look at the history of being gay.

    But, it’s much easier to just judge out of context.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — January 11, 2017 @ 9:06 pm - January 11, 2017

  28. Thorbert, if you think gummy bears are safe, you have never heard of Haribo Sugar Free Gummi Bears. Read the Amazon reviews. But don’t drink anything while doing so. You may lose a keyboard.

    Comment by Juan — January 11, 2017 @ 10:20 pm - January 11, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.