Sunday, July 30, 2006

George's Cruising Antics

(Getty Images)
One of the things I like about George Michael is that, whether I agree with him or not, he is honest and direct and fairly intelligent. Every so often however he says things that make me think "Oh don't be silly!"
This past week has been one of those times.
It wasn't the actual fact that he has been caught cruising again (although obviously that is not something, gay or straight, I approve of. He has done it before, plus I am aware that he and his partner have an open relationship). Plus I share his anger at his accusations of entrapment. From what we hear and read about the paparazzi, they must have been tailing him for weeks hoping he would make that mistake, and with regards to his arrest eight years ago, I do think that the police, in general, seem to be more interested in arresting consenting gay couples rather than consenting heterosexual couples who have sex in public places, when both are illegal in many places.
No, what did irritate me was the defence he made this week when he stated that

"A very large part of the male population, gay or straight, totally understands the idea of anonymous and no-strings sex..."

Erm, I'm male and I don't understand it!
I mean I can understand why some people are promiscuous, why some have affairs, why some have a lover as well as a partner. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. For example, when I was twenty-two I got slightly drunk with a friend one evening and we ended up having a protracted snogging session. If it wasn't for the fact that both of us felt somewhat responsible, in spite of the drink, and had a conscience about sleeping around, what happened would have very easily turned into a one night stand.
But I find anonymous and no strings sex a bit difficult to understand, particually with the dangers involved. It's bad enough some parks complaining that they find things like used condoms near bushes during the day, it's the fact that people can get into real dangerous situations, and for that I just wish George would wise-up a bit.

14 comments:

Andrea said...

"d. It's bad enough some parks complaining that they find things like used condoms near bushes during the day"

The 2005 Tory candidate in Finchley & Golders Green wanted Stonewall to pay for the cleaning costs of Hampstead Heath.

Paul Burgin said...

Well I think that is the fault of individuals rather than Stonewall

Andrea said...

well, yes, naturally. It's not that Stonewall should pay for sexual activities of other people

Another point about your main entry:
"For example, when I was twenty-two "I got slightly drunk with a friend one evening and we ended up having a protracted snogging session. If it wasn't for the fact that both of us felt somewhat responsible, in spite of the drink, and had a conscience about sleeping around, what happened would have very easily turned into a one night stand."


I think that one night stands (with people you know or at least spend an evening together) are not the same of George Michael's cruising/cottaging experiences. It's not actually anonymous sex IMO.

Paul Burgin said...

I appreciate that. I was simply trying to point out the differences between cruising and other promiscuous activities

Andrea said...

Ah, ok, I think I've misunderstood you. I thought that you were placing your near experience in the same league of George Michael's anonymous activities. But it seems you wanted to do the opposite (placing it among the things you can at least understand).
Sorry.

rosegenie said...

I don't understand George M's casual attitude either!!! :/
It makes me feel sad that some people don't seem to think of sex as having any value - glad to see that u share my views Paul! :D

Paul Burgin said...

Well we would be in a spot of bother if we didn't ;)!

ben said...

I think that we miss the point and George's antics don't help shed any light on why many gay (and ambiguous) men go cruising. If your not out (for whatever reason) what other option do you have? Historically cruising has developed because of how society views gay-men. If they can’t be open about their sexuality, then what other option do they have?

Paul Burgin said...

I see your point Ben, and at the risk of appearing patronising I do empathise, but a) it still doesn't help the situation or it's morality b) It doesn't alter the fact that hooking up with a stranger, gay or straight, can be potentially dangerous c)Society has changed a bit, so if gays want to hook up with someone without coming out, there are other places and oppurtunities to do so without the need to go cottaging and d) in George Michael's case, he is already in a relationship

My own attitude to this incident is not jumping up and down and finger pointing, but rather a genuine and slightly bewildered sense of "Why do people need to do this? Is it worth it?" etc..

Lola said...

i don't see why casual sex acquired via the medium of a park is any more immoral than casual sex acquired via the medium of the internet...

do you not think there's a case that we all set our own morals on this sort of thing? if you enjoy no strings sex then fine, if you don't, then don't go and try and pull in a park....

i'm just not sure that other people's sexual habits and preferences are any of our busines...

Paul Burgin said...

I get your point, what I am trying to say is that I don't agree with promiscuity per se, although I can understand it. But I understand couples who have a sexual encouter who at least vaguely know each other, rather than a sexual encounter that starts less than five minutes after the people concerned have met.
I also agree about being nosey about this etc.. but my point of argument was George Michael saying that every man understands this! I'm a man and I don't understand it, plus if casual pick ups were my thing, gay or straight, I would forever be fretting in the back of my mind about my personal safety

Lola said...

yes true

but each to their own!

rosegenie said...

I think if we all set our own morals, the world would become quite chaotic (as it often is in modern society!) I think morals are there to guide us to minimise the complications of life as much as possible, for ourselves and those around us :)

Paul Burgin said...

True indeed