Porn Stars Samuel Colt and Chris Porter Cause Controversy on Out.com
By: Joe Thompson
1.17.2012
Adult stars Samuel Colt and Chris Porter met in 2010 on Twitter, then started hooking up after running into one another at personal appearances. Now the two men are boyfriends and living together, which isn't an unheard of situation among gay porn stars. So what's the fuss about?
Last week Out.com ran an interview with the two where they discuss their meeting and how they define their own relationship. It starts with Porter describing the duo having sex with another couple at Folsom Street Fair. Colt continues the story by saying, "It was romantic, it really was. We had anonymous strangers abusing us, but we were having an intimate moment." Hard to understand? Colt explains, "The heterosexual view of being faithful is so outdated. We don’t have to have sex only with each other to be faithful. I’m completely faithful to him, emotionally and with my heart. I can still get gang-banged and want to go back home to him."
Porter continues with, "We didn’t want monogamy. We knew that wouldn’t work. We’re both horny all of the time. We have rules. We don’t hook up with someone if we’re in the same city without the other one being involved. But if he’s out of town, I’ll hook up with someone. I’ll call and be like, 'Is that OK?' We’re honest and communicate."
That concept has created a firestorm among gay men on both Out.com and the fashion mag's Facebook page. Some readers support their relationship however they define it, others take issue with the article's "Monogamy Redefined" headline, some agree that as gay men we have a right to redefine the rules that straight society has put upon us, and still others think that these guys and their public behavior are giving mainstream gays a bad name. Obviously there's no answer to this situation, but it has opened up an amazing dialogue among readers. Check out some of the Facebook notes below, then read the whole article on Out.com and sound off in the comments section.
Main image: BeautifulMag.com
Comments
tHOSE OF YOU WHO JUDGE ARE FULL OF IT. A RELATIONSHIP IS DEFINED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THAT RELATIONSHIP AND NO ONE ELSE. iF YOU WANT TO BE ONE ON ONE THAT DO THAT. iF YOU WANT TO BE OPEN THEN SO BE IT. iN THE MEAN TIME DON'T BE SO QUICK TO JUDGE. WHAT IF YOU WERE ABLE TO JUMP 30 OR 40 YEAR FROM NOW AND SAW THESE TWO GUYS WERE STILL WITH EACH OTHER ? HOW WOULD YOU LABLE THEIR RELATIONSHIP THEN? tO MANY STRAIGHT PEOPLE INSIST ON ONE ON ONE AND LOOK WHERE THIS GETS MOST OF THEM. MANY WIND UP SEEPING AROUND. AT LEAST THESE GUYS SET UP A SPECIAL BOND ONE WHICH CAN LAST THE TEST OF TIME BECAUSE IS IT FOUNDED IN HONESTY AND TRUST. SO BEFORE YOU JUDGE TAKE STOCK OF WHAT YOUR WANTS AND NEED ARE THEN GO FROM THERE.
Free books on programming
http://bookgrill.com/?getei.html
Get free books
Download books in PDF format for free
http://bookgrill.com/?getej.html
Download here free books
Isn't that a requirement for a porn star: doing something controversial? Porn stars need a lot of attention.
I guess I need a lot of attention because I am replying to my own comment. But, what's annoying is that everyone thinks gay men are horny jackrabbits who can't make a commitment. So it doesn't seem that "rebellious" to have an open relationship and be gay. You couldn't pass a law demanding gay men be monogamous, but it would be nice if more monogamous gay male couples got some attention too.
BENJAMIN
The discussion has nothing to do with the choices they've made - its that they are trying to create false labels for their choices to 'soften' them - at the end of the day not only lying to everyone in their article/interview, but to themselves as well.
Call it what it is - but it isn't faithful or monogamous that's for sure.
Good for them. The sooner people get over the fact that we don't all think the same way the better for all of us. They are adults and they have the right to be respected for their choices and obviously they do care about each other.
again it s probably been said before..they are porn stars....usually people go into porn because of sexual molestation as a kid...and /or extreme insecurity.
Many of us enjoy being with one person. I ve seen these so called open relationships...dare looking at one with the other getting jealous...need I say more?
I want to hear what arguments go on behind doors with these two nutty nellys.
Anonymous: It doesnt have to be defined by us - they've defined it themselves - and improperly, using words that have nothing to do with their behaviour.
Actions are stronger than words.. and their actions have nothing to do with monogamy or being faithful.
Why does the relationship have to be defined for everyone anyway? I hope it makes us 'mainstream' gays happy to organize everything in a known category.
RE: RON IN MAINE
Agreed.
The off-screen words and behavior of porn stars usually have little instructional value. Porn stars perform sex acts, in front of a camera, normally with no strings attached. The concept of porn star monogamy seems, well, a little nuts. Once monogamy is tossed out the window, it's a slippery slope into anything goes, as in animal in heat. I'm LTR-oriented and I hope other LTR-oriented guys don't expend much energy on porn star issues.
Let's not pretend that because you go home to the same guy every night that you are "faithful". And please don't call it "redefined monogamy". You can't redefine a constant. That's like saying "let's redefine scotch tape - now it's a flash light".
These two porn actors are involved in an open, fuck-who-you-want relationship because they're horny. If they experience bondage and humiliation together as a couple, that just means they happen to be in the same general area when they dropped their pants. I find the comparison to monogamy offensive. I really don't care what they do. I'm not envious and don't ever want a relationship like that. Just leave me out of it and don't pretend to represent all gay people as some perverted off shoot of acceptable relationship behavior. I don't believe these two gentlemen were worthy of a published interview. What exactly are they offering to the world that is some teachable moment.
Going from the other comments, I realise now it true what they say about moral outrage: it's 2% moral, 48% outrage... and 50% envy.
Monogamous relationships can be wonderful, but all too often the sexual monogamy is enforced by one or both parties out of insecurity and possessiveness.
The venom being spat out at two guys who have the nerve to not be sexually monogamous and (the horror) are actually happy about it is a bit disappointing. If anyone should be keeping an open mind about what constitutes a valid relationship, it's us.
There is such a thing as emotional monogamy. You can be emotionally monogamous to one person, and have sex with another. How this relationship runs its course is the same as any other's. People come together and break apart for many reasons. I wish them the best...and don't have the right to define how they structure the parameters of their sex life, or love.
Gay straight or bi words have the same meanings. I have seen too many relationships break up over sex however so if their situations suits them more power to them but don't try to redefine a word to support your actions. In my opinion call it what it is a nice relationship with a bit of a freaky side.
Wow, now we're getting gay commenters crying 'won't somebody think of the children?!'. What these two guys are teaching gay youth is that relationships, just like people, are diverse. The terms on which they base their relationship are clearly not for everyone, but if they love and support each other above all others who's to say they're not committed? I've had casual sex that meant little more than physical pleasure and release once or twice behind bf's back when medication killed his libido. I never stopped loving him, even when I had a good time with a stranger, and I never wanted anyone else to cuddle up with in bed at night. My sense of love and commitment to him didn't waver. The meaning of monogamy can be slippery - it can be defined as remaining married to one person or as remaining in a sexual relationship with one person. These guys have defined it their way for themselves and I'm glad we live in a society where they're free to do that.
I chalk it down to being none of my business.
They are not faithful to each other. They can sleep with anyone they want. How could they even NOT be faithful? lol. Stupid fags...no wonder the world hates us. Nobody likes stupid people.
I know they don't promote reading in schools anymore, and certainly not vocabulary, but please SOMEONE tell me that they understand what the word monogamy means. For Christ's sake, you all need to look it up. They just don't want to feel like whores so this is what they tell themselves to make them feel better. At best they are fuck buddies who cuddle when the other is home. Stop kidding yourselves and certainly stop trying to kid us. Just cause you didn't finish 8th grade English/Grammar doesn't mean we all didn't.
Aren't Porter and Colt just roommates who have sex with one another and lots of other guys? And thats Okay. But its not a real love affair. If you are romantically in love with someone your committment to that person should be complete. You give yourself emotionally, sexually, spiritually and completely only to your lover.
The "heterosexual view" of monogamy is the same as my view on monogamy. I am sick of gay men using the word "commitment" and "monogamy" when most don't actually understand the word.
If you are having sex with other people as well as your partner then that's OK but don't call it commitment or monogamy.
If you want to sleep around with lots of people then that's OK but be man enough to call it what it is !
ALL of the people I know in open relationships - gay & straight - are all very weak people who are afraid to be alone. They want to be able to sleep around with no responsibility but they have to have a fall-back person just to make sure they don't ever have to go home alone. This is not what all gay people want !
I have to disagree, Just because you don't agree with the "conventional" definition of monogamy doesn't mean it is outdated. It simply means that your idea of a relationship is different. For me, I want the conventional. The sad part is everyone trying to deprive me of my civil rights is using your story and as the norm for gay relationships and I respectfully have to say it is not the norm, at least for the gay men and lesbians I know. So live your life as you wish but don't demean or undermine what the rest of us want.
THIS IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT US TO GET MARRIED, EXACTLY THIS!
Porn actors are fooling themselves thinking they can have a "relationship" with another person; in or out of the business. What they have is an excuse to have sex with as many people they want and have NO real passion for life or others. Let's see what happens when they are ready to retire and realize their behavior & choices have left them all alone.
I find it kind of hilarious that they pit the definition or the comparison of the behaviour against heterosexuality - the words 'monogamous' and/or 'faithful' are not 'heterosexual' words - they are behavioural words - and they span all of humanity with the same definition regardless of sexual orientation, religious belief, creed, etc.
Feel free to behave how you like - just don't try to make your choices another gay rights or liberation issue - they're just trying to find justification through attempted activist comments.
These guys don't need to justify their choices to anyone - just to themselves - but it's wildly apparent they haven't justified it to themselves by trying to gain public approval by the methods I described.
Please! They so convince themselves of what the meaning of "faithful" is. Just another example of what is wrong with being gay is. You can't satisfy each other so you both look elsewhere while you play house. And porn actors (putting it mildly) are nothing more than prostitutes. If you want STDs and AIDS, go for it. It's your life and you will age. The party will end. Grow up already.
So...Samuel Colt is what...12 years old? He doesn't look old enough to tie his own shoes, let alone have an opinion. LOL
porn stars need love too, lol;-) call it what u like its all lust, sex and the moment and all that good stuff, just don't put r/ship all over it... Who cares, did not get me in an up roar I like SC...
Live ur life just don't call it something call it what it is for now....
Peace
At least the article doesn't have the audacity to call this type of relationship "monogamous" like many men do online. Many of these men online seem to think the definition of monogamy is being in love with one person but having sex with multiples of others. It is so hilarious (or sometimes sad) when I read an online profile of one person of a couple (or a couple) who define themselves as "monogamous" but are looking for sex elsewhere. I just don't get it.
Considering thier line of work and the state they live in I think it's understandable. I know little about football, but I know you're supposed to care about the team not just yourself, and within that team there are some you might have to care about more than others, like the quarterback or the kicker. It may not be the same dynamic, but as a former slut, I understand the relationship.
There are people in every state who want a real relationship & commitment. Don't assume people in so-called "liberal" states all want to sleep around. That's a lazy stereotype created by the right wingers who hate us.
This isn't redefining monogamy.
First of all, I applaud them for being honest. I hate it when people, gay or straight, swear that monogamy is the only way then screw other people behind the others back. I don't think I could be as open as they are. Honestly, I would not want to see another guy with my boyfriend, but that is just me. Second, I think a conservative person who reads or hears about this would definitely use it against us. "They just cannot keep their hands off other people" type thing. Even though the person who would say that might not be as honest with themselves as they could be. I just wish everyone could realize that if you want monogamy, fine. If you don't, fine.
If you break up the ACTUAL word monogamy...they are everything BUT monogamous. What they have already has a term. It is called an open-relationship. And you can't have an open relationship and still be fully committed because your penis/butt hole is not fully committed to that one person. They need to stop kidding themselves and insulting the gay world and the life choice of monogamy and shut up.
Well I say who cares? It is there relationship. If they are happy and love each other in their own way, let them. Whatever. I think they mean their lives are monogamous. People people... you complain way too much
This type arrangement is not so uncommon among porn stars gay OR straight. As long as they are not trying to define "monogamy" and relationships for the REST of us I don't care what they do. They are the ones who have to live with each other. As for me and my guy we are keeping it to ourselves in our OWN bedroom- just the TWO of us!
These guys know what works for them, they're not pretending or lying to each other, and, most importantly, not lying to themselves. To teach gay youth that gay relationships are anything but traditional would be a mistake. On the oher hand, to grow up with the comfort and knowledge that this kind of relationship is not only okay, but normal, will save a lot of lies, cheating, and heartache down the road for many men in our community.
These boys breed nothing but happiness amongst themselves...damn good fuck buddies if ya ask me ;-)
I think it is a travesty to teach adults, let alone children/teens, that this lifestyle is not only ok but normal as well. They are two adults doing what two adults are allowed to do but that does NOT make it "normal" in a gay or straight way. They think that by calling it monogamy that it makes it so. Well if things worked that way then im a millionaire and have the absolute perfect man. *looks around* Nope, everything is still the same. As is their fuck buddy relationship.
seriously! getting gang banged than going back to your man? thats gross! no man would like that. gay's like this give us a bad name. chris stop calling what you have with samuel a relationship it honestly not its called a bootycall.
What he is saying is that everything else is just a booty call, not his relationship. They are just removing the purely physical act from their commitment to each other. If you want to be defined only by whom you have sex with and not who you love then in your eyes they are sluts. If the emotional component of your relationship is more important than the physical urges then they have redefined monogamy in a way that works for them.
Look at it another way, would you break up with someone simply because you couldn't be physical with them anymore due to injury or disease? Doesn't that make you as shallow as Newt or Pat Robertson.
Best of luck to them
I wouldn't say I think it is ideal, but it is a hell of a lot better than pretending to be something you are not. This is who they are and if it works for them and isn't against a law etc, then it's really not for us to decide. I personally think that sex is one of the only thing that causes people to lie and be shady behind their loved ones backs and if they like to put it out there and let the rest of their lives define who they are as a couple (I think the rest of it is more important than the sex) then good for them!
Congrats guys, hope you are and continue to be happy. Enjoy your move and journey!
every relationship works in it's own way. Nice to read how two people love each other.
Post new comment