Nigel Campbell's picture

Gay Art Student Sets Date & Location To Lose His Virginity In Performance Art Piece

Back in October we reported on gay art student Clayton Pettet's plan to lose his virginity as part of a public performance art piece. The 19-year-old Brit has now locked in a place and time for those that are interested. (You may have to purchase a plane ticket!)

Attitude Magazine reports:

"...the performance piece will take place on the new date of April 2, at the Orange Dot gallery in Bloomsbury.

The piece, titled Art School Stole My Virginity, will see the teenager lose his virginity with a male partner before a selected audience of 150 people.

Contrary to speculative media reports, the performance will not be followed by a Q&A, but rather Clayton will invite the audience to ask themselves about the true definition of virginity after witnessing his performance."

So there you have it, look for Clayton's spring awakening in April in London! 

Attitude notes:

"Although the performance is live, there will be a follow-up exhibition lasting two days after the event with Clayton’s permanent work on display. This exhibition will be open to the general public on April 3, 4 and 5, and will not be ticketed."

Anyone heading to the UK for Clayton's personal artpop??


(H/T: NNNext)


teşekkürler iyi bir post Admin çok güzel bir dizi fragman izle

There needs to be a petition like seen on or a petition like ones on  We need to boycott it.  It's harmful to the gay community and in addition it's not art it's disgusting and slutty.  Someone create a petition and share the link with me 

Who are you to tell him he can't do it? He has the right to do as he pleases if he's not hurting anybody or breaking laws. There's nothing wrong with this. Don't like it? Don't pay attention to it.

Oh yes, because public displays of nudity and sexual activity, theres "nothing wrong with it." Its obvious his work is just not making it on his own talent or merit, so hes pulling some ridiculous stunt to get attention. Good job feeding the destruction of "art". 


It's the first of many words I could describe this.  There's not enough time or space.

It sets us back 50 years of LGBT progress, all to stroke the ego of some kid.  

"HEY ... we don't care how or when you lose your "virginity"."

WELLP, sometimes we're all the mayor of the footloose town (LET THE BOY DANCE!) and sometimes we're like 'live and let live'.  I don't know about 'setting back' anything, except maybe whatever the hell GOproud and the log cabin republicans do - no one seems to give a fuck that they are setting us back with what they do. No, it's the spectacles, the ones living their lives, being free, as they want to be, using their rights in whatever capacity they have, yeah they them those assholes flaunting their sexuality and freedom in front of others. C'mon man, you care too much about what hateful straight people think. Not straight people, hateful straight people. Straight people who aren't hateful will go "what? that's whatever, jeez" and think nothing of the fact that it's gay, straight, or a bi three way. It's sex in an art exhibit. It's been done before, trust me. he' sjust getting a lot of social media attention. Like we'll be talking about this after it happens or ever again. Hey look House of Cards is on netflix, shit I gotta work tomorrow early, my friend wants to go see a movie, i'm gonna call that guy i met last week. those are things that advance LGBT people, livign our lives without fear. I'm gonna live mine, and know that people fought damn hard for that dumb boy to do what he's going to do, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna condemn him for using his rights. 

Dan Radcliffe having a gay sex scene in Kill Your Darlings is art, has to be as it was part of a movie and movies are an art form; yet, this man's live performance is not considered art by some of you.  So the art form is in a "play" and live on stage and not on film.  Seems like it qualifies as art.  Now the quality of the art might be questionable, but he seems to be following the tried and true tradition of providing an "Artist's" statement as part of his performance. 

gusto ko yan ba


This is not art... 

This is a joke and this boy wants attention for it and to see if he can get away with it... The bigger question is that he is a vigin at 19 

mousepotatoe's picture

LOL Virgin sex? Entire show, 5 minutes woohoo! Long way to fly for that :)

Wow now isn't this raggedy ass blog, just packed with insightful, objective journalism? Nasty!

Gross. What kind of fucked up art school is encouraging this? Shit is not art but ego. Stories/Stunts like this are further promoting the idea that there is nothing sacred about sex for gay men and that we have no morals. Way to push the tides against us from within. When one of us does something extreme, we are all negatively affected. Sex is fine, but stop rushing to exploit it. Self-respect is a virtue, and any artist who codifies his/her reality knows self-respect is the foundation for all art.


All art is ego. It is the artist saying, "this is my view of the world." The other half of the equation is your ego, how do you interpret said view. There is nothing sacred about sex, it is a basic biological function. Morality should not play into sex other than where one decides to have sex (not in view of those who do not wish to view it) and with whom (consensual partners). My interpretation of your comments leads me to believe you are self loathing and think sex is dirty and gay sex is even dirtier.

Good job writing the least intelligent thing I've seen all day. Humans are a bit higher than mere biological functions. We created the basis of morality and reason, which no other animals have. Why shun what makes us shine in this world? How one chooses to have sex is one thing, but public displays are unnecessary and just raunchy. 

And no, art is not all "ego". Ego and self view is not the same thing. Pick up a dictionary, those words aren't even close.

Thank you very nice site

It is not anything new, gay porn is gay porn, however you package it - he's no artist, he may or may not be a porn star after he's had sex, but why does everyone assume he's going to be the passive partner - have I missed something?

I'm amazed you consider him to be no artist, when you haven't even seen his piece. It's funny how people adore judging before they even have anything to judge. Idiot.

Everyone acts like loosing your virginity is a big deal. I'm a 27 year old virgin, its torture. I envy him.

Art comes in all shapes, sizes and flavors.    Having sex as a "performance piece" and supposedly losing your virginity in the process will speak to a lot of many ways.    Personally, I would be disgusted by the self-interested element of this action...but intrigued by the kind of mind that would think of it and allow it to happen.   It's a shame that Clayton could not have thought of another way to express whatever he is attempting to express.   True genius is making your point without compromising yourself in the process.

well, I pass, I would not have him...he has already been tagged for life with that now he is going to get some old sod's cock up his bum...tastesless I say

Seems a little odd, even for art for art's sake. However to those who think that just because he's around artists and is gay, he must have already lost his virginity, authentic artists pay the price for their art, so he's probably for real.

Hey art comes (no pun intended) in many forms, so why not? Think about this , I know there are people who would like to stop this and I hope you don't succeed. When you allow any sort of censorship you open the door for all censorship, including the things you love in life

But this stunt isn't art.  It's just an attempt at publicity and attention.

If a pedophile wanted to have sex with a 3 year old in front of people, and the public stopped it, would it be censorship? NO! It would be the right thing to do.  Just like with this stunt, it should be stopped.  Anyone in their right mind would agree.

No, stopping the pedophile would be upholding the law because it would be rape.  This situation is not rape. It is not illegal. It is not even remotely close to being the same situation. And if you can't see that then you're a complete idiot.

What if the 3 year old agreed to it, and wanted to do it?  Then by definition it wouldn't be rape.  So according to you it would then be okay to allow the pedophile to have sex with the 3 year old in front of others?

I'm a complete idiot?  Really?  Did you even look at the post I was replying to?  He said any type of censorship would open the door for all censorship.  So according to him, censoring a pedophile having sex with a 3 yr old in an art exhibition would be a bad thing because it would open the door for all censorship.


Yes, by definition it would be rape. Age of consent and all that. Are we seriously having this conversation? What 2 adults decide to do is up to them and nobody else as long as they're not hurting anybody.

If you want to argue that point, fine, but don't do so with such a stupid example.

Not by definition, only by law.  Age of consent is all a matter of opinion.  In one country is may be 18 years old, and in another it may be 12.  In some countries homosexuality is illegal.

You're not even paying attention to what the main point was.  Censorship.  And the example I used proved my point.  It's just that some people don't understand how logic works.

Is this for a grade in a class? Sort of like a thesis? Truly I find it hard to believe that a 19 year old art 'student' (around other gay men) hasn't already lost his virginity.

Seriously? You think all gay men are whoring around? Not all gay men are sluts. When did you lose YOUR virginity slick?

Most gay men do sleep around do I see his point.  I'm gay myself so I know how it goes 

Sanctioned porn?

sounds like a budding slut in the making

Sounds like you're bitter. 

Not sure who I'm currently contacting but I would be interested in viewing this piece.

Can you at least email me details of the location and time if not a ticket itself?

Kind Regards

Stevie Martin

Add new comment