George Michael Caught Cruising for Sex Again

Some homosexual individuals blame the practice of gay cruising, i.e., seeking sex partners in public places, upon limited opportunities for gays to meet in private. This notion is incorrect, and a good example is that of singer George Michael. George Michael is not someone who needs to look for men in public places; given his status, he can have plenty of men brought to his home or a motel/temporary accommodation and enjoy their carnal company in private. Yet, he was arrested for exposing himself to an undercover cop in a California restroom in 1998. He still hasn’t changed, as the following report shows.

GEORGE'S SEX SHAME (images at link)

By Neville Thurlbeck (23rd July, 2006)

MEGA-RICH pop superstar George Michael this week sank to new levels of depravity—trawling for illegal gay sex thrills in a London park.

News of the World investigators caught the singer red-handed and red-faced as he emerged from the bushes after cavorting with a pot-bellied, 58-year-old, jobless van driver.

When challenged George, 43, was wild-eyed and trembling. Trying to hide his face under a baseball cap, he screamed:

"I don't believe it! F*** off! If you put those pictures in the paper I'll sue!"

Minutes earlier the one-time heart-throb had been lurking in the shadows at the notorious homosexual pick-up spot on Hampstead Heath.

George is a man with the world at his feet. He's on the brink of a lucrative 50-concert comeback tour, which sold out in half an hour.

Yet he ignored all the risks and dangers to pull seedy Norman Kirtland.

The pair kissed and groped each other before going even further. It was all in a public place and totally illegal — just like the day in 1998 when George flashed at an undercover cop in a California park toilet.

After the shock of being confronted by us, George stumbled to his flash Mercedes coupe, retrieved his keys from their hiding place on top of the rear wheel and roared off into the night — back to his world of showbiz, celebs and glitz.

Meanwhile his new buddy Kirtland crept from the undergrowth looking sheepish and rushed to his Ford Transit van. As he opened the door a grubby, stained mattress was clearly visible in the back.

We later tracked him to his home 60 miles away—a squalid flat in Brighton, East Sussex.

Looking gross and dishevelled, Kirtland answered the door naked — pulling on grimy shorts as he invited us in.

The contrast with George Michael's opulent, high-roller rock lifestyle was stark.

George, whose family is Greek-Cypriot, has amassed a £70million fortune from sales of records including I Want Your Sex and Careless Whisper. He owns a £5million London town house and a £4million Beverly Hills mansion.

Kirtland's dingy place just off Brighton seafront, was littered with rubbish, dirty crockery and filthy laundry. His only companion is a 20-year-old cat.

He told us: "I don't even like George Michael. And I didn't recognise him immediately.

"He sort of came up and got close. He looked kind of brown so I said to him, ‘You're not totally English, are you?'

"I told him I'd come all the way up from Brighton and he said, ‘What? Isn't Brighton good enough for this sort of thing?'

"I told him it's highly dangerous at 2am. You'd get your throat cut.

"He told me I could contact him on the Gaydar website and we just started kissing.

"He did it very well. That was one of his major points. Then it was fondling and mutual pleasuring. It wasn't full sex but it was fantastic."

Kirtland's confession then took a bizarre twist as he bragged: "There's a secret that I have which no one knows about. It's a personal thing.

"Most people pull away from it. But George actually seemed to respond.

"When we'd finished he said, ‘I've got to go. I've got to go somewhere and chill out.' And that was that.

"OK, I admit I was there for sex. But I'm astonished a man as famous as George should even think about doing it. It's potentially so dangerous."

George's night of shame began just after midnight on Tuesday when he took a short drive from his Highgate house to the Hampstead home of long-term lover Kenny Goss.

Five minutes later he drove to the nearby heath and spent two hours prowling around before hooking up with Kirtland.

When confronted by our team, a shaken George desperately tried to justify his sordid secret quest for cheap, risky thrills, which friends fear is spiralling out of control and threatening his destruction.

In a sweat, the ashen-faced singer declared: "Are you gay? No? Then f*** off! This is my culture!"

Then he claimed: "I'm not doing anything illegal. The police don't even come up here any more.

"I'm a free man, I can do whatever I want. I'm not harming anyone."

But George's worried pals say the former Wham! frontman is the one being harmed.

After the California cottaging scandal, George escaped a six-month jail term but was sentenced to community service plus sex therapy to curb his habits.

It obviously hasn't worked. In February this year he was cautioned by police for possessing cannabis after being found slumped in his car by London's Hyde Park Corner at 1.50am.

Weeks later we snapped him driving erratically and he appeared to fall asleep at traffic lights.

One friend said last night: "We're really concerned. It's long been known he's a heavy cannabis user but we're beginning to fear the pot may have affected his mind. He's lost his judgment. He must seek professional help or things could end very badly for him.

"He's just asking for serious trouble. One day he'll be attacked in one of these dodgy late-night encounters.

"It's so sad to see a talented guy wasting himself like this."

Posted by Admin on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 in Sexuality
(13) CommentsNotify othersPermalink


Well Erik Holland, since you appear to have so much interest in the sexual behaviour and mis-behaviour of others, perhaps you would like to tell us about your own sexual misdeeds, if any? Please don’t forget to omit all the nasty, unsavoury details.

Posted by Raot on November 18, 2006 at 06:21 PM | #

Oh I’m sorry, that last post included a typing error. I meant, please don’t forget to include all the nasty, unsavoury details, he he.

Posted by Raot on November 18, 2006 at 06:24 PM | #

If what he was doing was so ‘great and wonderful’ as all homosexuals claim it is, why didn’t the lame bastard just fess up?  And its funny to no end to see homosexuals who love to push their brand of morality and decency and tolerance, but whenever one of them gets busted acting like they are (outside of the packaged images) then they have the nerve to get ticked-off and defensive. 

They do love nasty details don’t they?

I agree with Freud regarding homosexuality.

Posted by POTUS on December 04, 2006 at 02:24 AM | #

Potus: I am not sure what idea of Freud you are talking about.  Freud proposed multiple possible pathways to homosexuality, and one of them was innateness.  Of course, his notion of homosexuality representing arrested development stuck around for quite a while in psychoanalysis.  If this is what you are referring to, then there is certainly support for abnormal developmental processes leading to homosexuality, though traditional psychoanalytic ideas are not supported by modern evidence.

Posted by Erik on December 06, 2006 at 05:55 AM | #

Some gays seek out hidden anonymous sex because they don’t have publicly sanctioned ways to get it like heteros do. Most don’t hook up in bathrooms, though. Just because one rich guy bucks that trend doesn’t invalidate the millions of other individuals who do the best they can in a world that hates them.
Straight guys have an entire world culture set up to promote marriage and monogamy, yet you’ll find them hooking up with tramps in bars, strip clubs, online personals and anywhere else a woman will do it. Even with all of society pushing “the sanctity of marriage”, more than half of those end in divorce. Who are the real dogs here?

Posted by Crandall on February 07, 2007 at 09:27 AM | #

Crandall: Your explanation for gays seeking public sex, namely lack of alternatives, has been refuted; see two passages quoted from gay historian Rictor Norton on this page.  Nobody is claiming that all heterosexual men are saints; some such men are into deviant sexual practices, but a quick perusal of medical literature will reveal much higher rates of venereal diseases and HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM).  Note that the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. did not originate among female prostitutes, notwithstanding their extreme promiscuity.  I doubt that the rate of divorce among heterosexual couples approaches 50% in the U.S., although it is substantial.  However, homosexual relationships are far less stable than heterosexual relationships.  Even if we take the 50% figure you quoted, monogamous long-term-stable relationships are rare among homosexual men, but not uncommon among heterosexuals.

Posted by Erik on February 11, 2007 at 08:50 AM | #

I think it’s incredible that so many people target the few homosexuals that commit acts the heterosexual community feels are morally beneather them.  However, when anyone famous in the heterosexual community acts in a similar or more heinous manner it is considered no big deal, just momentaryily good press.  Why doesn’t all the world feel every teenage girl is like Paris Hilton?? Well, your making the same assumption in comments posted about the homosexual community.  And who says there are no stable relationships amongst homosexuals?  I know many gay/lesbian couples that have been in very happy relationships for many years (me being one of them).  The AIDS epidemic may not have started with prostitutes, but it didn’t take long for the majority of AIDS cases to switch from the homosexual community to other “populations.” Please, don’t try and state that heterosexual couples have monogomous stable relationships.  If you think they are less likely to cheat on their spouse because they are straight, then you must truly live with your head up your ass!!

Posted by Robert Williamson on March 04, 2007 at 05:34 PM | #

Robert: The point of the entry is not to extrapolate from the particular to the general, but to illustrate an example that undermines a common excuse given for “cruising”; other evidence is cited to back up the example chosen.  Cruising for sex is not unusual among men who have sex with men (MSM).  Nobody is saying that there are no stable relationships among homosexuals or that all heterosexuals have monogamous stable relationships.  However, there are certainly homosexual vs. heterosexual average differences with respect to stability and extent of monogamy:

In a pioneering study of a non-clinical sample of 312 men, comprising of 156 male-male couples from Southern California, mostly San Diego, the authors noted that “many of the values and practices that are cornerstones of heterosexual relationships are absent in male couples.” For instance, only 7 couples in the study “considered themselves to have been consistently sexually monogamous throughout the years of their relationship.” Additionally, the authors pointed out that “Sexual exclusivity is not an ongoing expectation among most male couples.” [Ref: D. P. McWhirter, A. M. Mattison, The male couple: how relationships develop (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1984.]

The study above is by no means a fluke.  Numerous studies since then have reported that homosexual men in stable relationships are more likely to get infected with HIV than sexually active homosexual men not in a stable relationship!  Examples: (Lancet 1989;1(8628):42.), (Genitourin Med 1990;66(6):423-7.), (Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995;115(13):1638-41.), (Aids 2003;17(7):1029-1038).  How is this possible?  This is so because homosexuals are more likely to indulge in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with their stable partner than with a casual partner, and homosexual relationships are often open, i.e., if a homosexual contracts HIV infection, he is more likely to infect his stable partner during UAI than a casual partner during protected anal intercourse.

Compared to exclusively heterosexual individuals, the higher prevalence of venereal diseases among MSM and even women who have sex with women is, along with other evidence, proof of their greater promiscuity. 

Here is data from a sister-control study: in a sample of 184 sister-pairs, where one was a lesbian and the other heterosexual, the heterosexual women had been in their current relationship for 11.40 years on average, whereas the lesbians had been in their current relationship for 6.87 years on average, even though the lesbians and the heterosexuals were age-matched (Ref: Rothblum ED, Factor R. Lesbians and their sisters as a control group: demographic and mental health factors. Psychol Sci 2001;12(1):63-9.).

There is simply no way that homosexual relationships are anywhere close to heterosexual relationships with respect to the extent of monogamy and stability.

So the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. has switched from the homosexual community to other “populations”?  No community in the U.S. is as badly affected as MSM are.  Several MSM also have sex with women, and this is more so in the African-American and Hispanic communities to which the AIDS epidemic has been slowly spreading, i.e., the source of the problem in these ethnic communities disproportionately remains the MSM community.  When HIV entered the U.S., i.e., the late 1960s, Americans were overwhelmingly white, and there is still no HIV problem for heterosexual white Americans.

Posted by Erik on March 06, 2007 at 09:30 PM | #

I think the real reason George Michael cruised (an activity I find deplorable and rather frightening) is because, at his core, he’s a very unhappy and lonely person.  These traits, apparently fairly common to pop stars (hello, Britney) lead to self-destructive behavior, including random sex, drug use, and other assorted winning activities.  These things, of course, are not exclusive to the gay ‘community’, as many straight people also go to the meat markets in bars and ‘hook up’.

So, the excuse that there is no other outlet for gay men is total BS, just as that excuse doesn’t wash for straight people.  Decades ago, it may have seemed this way true for homosexuals, but it really boils down to a matter of perception.

Having never cruised in a park (or, well, *anywhere*) nor used an illegal drug in my life, George Michael is not exactly a spokesperson for my ‘struggles’.

Interesting site, Erik.

Posted by Jeff on March 16, 2007 at 06:18 PM | #

ERIK: I find it incredible that people make general comments and conclusions about the “gays” when making a reference to studies and statistics that are over 10 years in the past.  10 years ago the homosexual community underwent many hardships to try and function in a “normal” society without being discovered.

You stated that in a study performed in “1984” the conclusion was that of the 156 m-m couples only 7 considered themselves to be “consistently sexually monogamous.” You neglected to stated the same reflection of the study for the m-f couples.  Why is that?  You also stated that the authors in this study make the notation that “Sexual exclusivity is not an ongoing expectation among most male couples.” You have to take location, time, and the exception that this study was not one that could lend a generalistic view to all homosexuals of the time frame for this study.  I would also assume there to be some bias from the authors themselves.  I am reluctant to take the outcome of any study into “evidence” when the outcome only states one side of the equation without representation from the other side to show difference or similarity for support.

You then go on to state that the instance of newly infected HIV individuals is higher among m-m couples than from homosexual single men.  Again, you simply state the studies involved without the clarification of a biased or unbiased nature of these studies.  You also neglect to reflect whether these studies were a true randomization of the population, which I doubt they were.

You then go on to state that the prevelance of STD’s smong gay men is higher than any other population, how can you make a statement like that?  Where is the proof in that? 

Then you go on to state a “sister” study where one was a heterosexual and the other was a homosexual.  You again neglect to state the supporting facts of these studies.  What was the background of these individuals?  What was the sampling rate?  What was the age difference in the sisters?  It would also be nice to state something about the person that was conducting the studies and who the financial backer of the studies were. 

You then go on to state a general term that homosexual relationships cannot meet the stability of heterosexual relationships.  Again, you are making a statement without any unbaised statistics to back you up.  For you to make such an ubsurd statement shows a lack of educational support for your mental process.

Your statements that the HIV epidemic has not been a factor to any other population than homosexual males is absurd.  You have stated the HIV problem “the source of the problem in these ethnic communities disproportionately remains the MSM community.”

Just to give you a little statistical evidence that the problem is far more than merely MSM. 

“Women now account for one-fourth of all new AIDS cases in the United States. The share of AIDS patients who are black and female will continue to rise, and the trend is strikingly visible in Southern states. In Mississippi, 28.5 percent of those reporting new HIV infections in 2000 were black women. In Alabama, the number was 31 percent, compared to 13 percent in 1990. In North Carolina, it rose to 27 percent from 18 percent. “The HIV epidemic in women initially centered on injection drug- using women in the urban Northeast, but now centers on women with heterosexual risk in the South,” CDC researchers wrote in a March article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The complexities of daily life keep women from getting tested for HIV, although they are aware that it is heterosexually transmitted.

You can look at any statistical report made by the CDC on their website

Some statistics from their statistics for 2005:

59 in 100,000 are black
19.8 in 100.00 are hispanic
8 in 100,000 are indian/alaska native
6.3 in 100,000 are white
4 in 100,000 are asian/pacific islander

Increase of 17% in females and 16% in males

An incerase in heterosexual makes that were in the category for high risk sex and the same increase for the same category for females.

61% MSM
18% IDU
13% High risk heterosexual sex
7% IDU and high risk hetero sex

72% High risk heterosexual sex
26% IDU

You can see from these simple statistics, done by a reputable governemnt agency without bias, that the instance of HIV infection has indeed spread to more than the homosexual community, and has also jumped to heterosexual women.  For you to attempt to classify this as solely a homosexual STD that is only spread to heterosexuals because of homosexual contact is ridiculous.  HIV has become an epidemic in many 3rd world countries where the prevelance of HIV is spread by heterosexual contact, not homosexual. 

Minority groups, the lower socioeconomic classes, etc… are all becoming increasingly suseptible to the spread of HIV and that has nothing to do with them getting it because of someone who is Homosexual. 

Studies have shown that before HIV cases came to the United States, they were already developing in the 3rd world countries.  The medical workd just didnt know what the disease was at that time, just like they didnt know what it was when it first started here in the US. 

Your statement that there is still no HIV problem for heterosexual white americans is absurd.  There are in fact white heterosexuals with HIV, and their prevelance has to do with their socioeconimic environment.

Posted by Robert Williamson on March 20, 2007 at 08:17 AM | #

JEFF:  I agree that cruising is not a glamorous act, whether done by homsexuals or heterosexuals.  Their is by no means a way to say either side has a corner on the market in this area. 

I agree that in today’s world the need to cruise by gay men as their only outlet for sex is BS.  However, I want to make sure people understand the continual harrassement gay men were exposed to in the 70’s 60’s and before.  Gay men had to lead a duel life.  On one side they had to play straight just to funtion in society, and to be with another man it had to be completely hidden from society.  This was what led to the need for “cruising” during those times.  Most often at the risk of beatings, arrest, public humiliation.  Only in the larger cities were there places secretly available that gave an outlet where cruising in a public place was not needed.  However, these places were always raided and shut-down when the authorities found them.  When these places were shut down, men had to return to public places for cruising.  If the police were to have left those establishments alone, the need for public cruising would have went away.  More than just sex went on in these establishments, they afforded a place with a speck of safety to meet other men.  The establishemnts in this category were, dinner clubs, bars, bathhouses, etc… Only the bathhouse was basically for the sole purpose of sex.  Dinner clubs and bars were meeting places where men could mingle together behind closed doors, without persecution, and without prejudice.  However, the Stonewall riot also shows that no matter how much we had tried to be respectful and conduct ourselves behind closed doors, authority has always found the need to throw us back to the street as nothing more than second-class citizens.

Thankfully, in todays world, the persecution of homosexuals is truly a thing of the past.  Sure, there are some areas of the country (mostly the more rural) where this still occures, but at a far less degree than in the past.  Because of this, the amount of people that participate in public cruising (in areas open to the general public) is almost negligible.

Granted, cruising continues to happen in bars and on the internet, but to try and state this is a homosexual issue is ridiculous.  Homosexuals act no different in bars and on the internet than heterosexuals do.  To express that heterosexuals do not cruise the bars or the internet is laughable at best.

Posted by Robert Williamson on March 20, 2007 at 08:39 AM | #

Jeff: Why should an unhappy and lonely person be prompted to seek anonymous sex in a public restroom?  If you were to ask people at random if in their estimation sadness and loneliness can be ameliorated by anonymous sex, most will disagree.  Some people resort to sexual activity to reduce tension and stress, others to drug abuse, and so on, but it is the physiological make-up that is to blame, and the anomalous physiological outcome is more common among homosexual and bisexual individuals.

Robert: 10-year-old studies are not necessarily irrelevant; relevance is decided by context.  I have not neglected the comparison with male-female couples in the 1984 study.  I have already quoted the authors, “many of the values and practices that are cornerstones of heterosexual relationships are absent in male couples”; look up the book for comparative data.

Regarding the sampling of the studies cited, I am not here to spoon feed you.  Look up the citations yourself.  The HIV-related studies span over 10 years and cite data from the U.S., the Netherlands and Italy, all showing the same picture that the 1984 study by McWhirter and Mattison showed, namely that open relationships are the norm among homosexual men.

If I have to cite evidence for a higher prevalence of STDs among homosexual men, then I don’t believe you should be commenting here because just about everyone known this and you are either too ignorant for rational debate or a deliberate annoyance.  The STD evidence is cited within this site.  It is your responsibility to read the site and literature cited before coming up with criticism or else don’t waste my time.

Nowhere have I stated that “homosexual relationships cannot meet the stability of heterosexual relationships.” My argument, extensively backed by numerous studies, is that homosexual relationships are less stable than heterosexual relationships, on average.

By no means have I argued that “the HIV epidemic has not been a factor to any other population than homosexual males.” I stated that no community has been as badly affected by HIV as MSM.  To point out my supposed folly, you cited CDC statistics, but appear oblivious to the fact that [for many years now] similar statistics from the CDC have been cited within this site.  What you have neglected to observe is that the “heterosexual problem” is primarily limited to the Third World population in the U.S.  The African-American community has been slowly catching up to their African counterparts.  Presently, the majority of HIV infections among American women are occurring among African-Americans.  The link to the CDC data within this site cites evidence for a higher prevalence of homosexual behaviors in the African-American community, especially the down-low lifestyle.  It also cited evidence that a number of cases of “heterosexual transmission of HIV” do not involve heterosexuals.

Of course, there are white heterosexuals with HIV, but the typical non-IV-drug-using white person who is a heterosexual and whose partner is also a non-IV-drug-using white heterosexual is at so low a risk of getting infected with HIV that from an epidemiological perspective, it is appropriate to say that there is no HIV problem for a community comprising of such individuals.

Several MSM also have sex with women, and this is more so in the African-American and Hispanic communities to which the AIDS epidemic has been slowly spreading, i.e., the source of the problem in these ethnic communities disproportionately remains the MSM community.  When HIV entered the U.S., i.e., the late 1960s, Americans were overwhelmingly white, and there is still no HIV problem for heterosexual white Americans.

In your reply to Jeff, you have stated that cruising is almost negligible among MSM today because of the relative lack of persecution compared to the past.  How wrong you are!  I have been hit on by many MSM in public places and there are numerous reports every now and then of MSM arrested for public lewdness.  Once again, the notion that homosexual men have been driven to seek sex in public restrooms (margins of society) because of anti-gay persecution has been abundantly refuted by plenty of historical data.

Posted by Erik on May 09, 2007 at 12:11 PM | #

If a straight guy knew they could get a blow job from a woman in a public place.. most would go.  It’s only a gay issue because women don’t think like men when it comes to sex.  And not all gays “cruise for sex"… and most that do are married or in the public eye.  So sad.

Posted by drew on November 05, 2007 at 01:59 PM | #

<< Back to main

Blog navigation

Latest comments by...

  • Michael in Welcome!.

  • paris sportifs in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.

  • Alison in Restroom (Public Toilet) Maintenance: How to Protect Them from Homosexuals.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Dave in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Salata in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.

  • Rain in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Rain in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Nick Jones in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Nick Jones in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Akea in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Concerts torrents in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • barbie games in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.