Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/9/10 10:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/9/10 06:26 PM, poxpower wrote: I guess to you that's not gay enough to qualify.

Coming out usually works for me. Otherwise, it's like fli said; he's a guy who fooled around with another guy, but is still straight.

If he had fooled around with another guy, HES NOT STRAIGHT.

At 5/9/10 11:58 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 5/9/10 10:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/9/10 06:26 PM, poxpower wrote: I guess to you that's not gay enough to qualify.

Coming out usually works for me. Otherwise, it's like fli said; he's a guy who fooled around with another guy, but is still straight.

If he had fooled around with another guy, HES NOT STRAIGHT.

Naw he could be, people experiment and what not. Hell, he could always claim he was doing research into what homosexuals are thinking during sex acts so that he can provide them better therapy.

At 5/9/10 09:45 AM, Proteas wrote: Telling and showing me how I'm wrong is one thing, sitting there laughing about it and acting like I'm here for your amusement? If it's not trolling, it sure is annoying.

Then don't act oblivious to the facts. If you'd come in here with something more reasonable like Ytaker pointed out, you probably wouldn't have been put in that situation. To me it's not trolling if it's a hell of your own making.

Beyond the 10 day Europe trip, the only facts regarding this case are circumstantial at best, one man's word versus another.

No, there's also my question of "ok, if you're just looking to save souls here, why do you not just go to the site, click the first name, on the first page, and work on down? Why do you go to page two, scroll down some, and THEN you pick your 'soul to save'?" Because that to me adds credence to the whole "because you were looking for a male prostitute to take on a vacation with for purposes one would traditionally use a male prostitute for" I mean, we don't convict in the legal system based on "dead certainty" we convict on "beyond a reasonable doubt" or by "perponderence of the evidence". I think we have perponderence here, and I think beyond will come when Rekker comes out with his tearful confession as to his confused sexual identity or the abuse he suffered as a kid, or whatever he and his spin doctors will decide is the best way to go. Just like every other person who's been in this position previously.

Rekers is saying one thing, Lucien is saying another, neither man's story is in agreement with the other but everybody is jumping on the "OMG it's another hypocrite" bandwagon.

Because the evidence seems to back Lucien, it's not as simple as "one guy is saying one thing, another guy is saying the opposite".

Last I checked, you couldn't convict a man of a crime based on hearsay testimony without corroborating evidence.

Which they have, but you want to ignore it and act like it's not "good enough" when it's plenty good enough and this is the EXACT kind of evidence that has brought down others in the same situations before.

That's what I've taken issue with in this topic.

And to me it's baffling because you keep trying to insist the evidence is no good when it's plenty good and it leads me to wonder what would happen if this was someone on the left in this situation. Because sorry but, to me this looks like a conservative being pissed off that the left is getting a kick out of laughing at another hypocrite on that side of the fence.

An old man visits a homosexual escort website, requests the services of one of the male prostitutes, takes the prostitute on a 10 day trip to europe and people actually have doubts on what happened?

Wow...

Even his excuse was dumb as hell. "I had surgery and couldn't lift my luggage." Okay, well, why did you hire a gay escort to do this for you? Like, what sense does that make? Hire a prostitute to carry your stuff? Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that this is the real story, he's still a fucking moron because I'm sure it's expensive to have a sex worker carry your junk on a 10 day tour and it's so risky for someone like him to even think about doing something like that in the case that the press would get involved (and it did.) If it's the noble case of "trying to save a soul," was it necessary to take him on a vacation for two in order to do that?

Even if you fully believe Reker's story on why they did what they did it still sounds so stupid. This is one of those cases where the excuse is truly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, completely less plausible than the implication. I mean, say Obama hired a stripper, would you really believe that he only wanted her to do some odd jobs around the office? Couldn't he have, you know, hired someone with those credentials?

At 5/10/10 12:22 AM, MrHero17 wrote:

At 5/9/10 11:58 PM, bcdemon wrote: If he had fooled around with another guy, HES NOT STRAIGHT.

Naw he could be, people experiment and what not.

Experiment, ok sure. Does a 10 day European Gaycation qualify as an "experiment" though?
Most experiments are done in controlled areas, labs, offices etc. Not hotel rooms.

At 5/10/10 02:27 AM, Yorik wrote: I mean, say Obama hired a stripper, would you really believe that he only wanted her to do some odd jobs around the office?

I think the only reason someone is defending Rekers is because he's a Republican. So if the tides were tuned and it were a Dem such as Obama, then that same someone would be very critical.

At 5/9/10 10:12 PM, Proteas wrote: Coming out usually works for me. Otherwise, it's like fli said; he's a guy who fooled around with another guy, but is still straight.

He hired a male prostitute for a 10 day vacation.
"Yeah, but that don't make him gay!".

I suppose......

I mean, straight guys regularly hire male prostitutes.....

wait, what?

And you actually wonder why I'm laughing at you?
Do you bother to read your "possibilities" before posting them?

Next up: The flying pink elephant could have hired the hooker. I mean, who's to say right? Not like I can prove that there wasn't a flying pink elephant! See? Reasonable doubt.

At 5/10/10 12:22 AM, MrHero17 wrote: Naw he could be, people experiment and what not.

His college days are over.

He hired a male hooker for 10 days. He's 61 years old, outspoken anti-gay activist.

He needed someone to carry his luggage. Obviously, the most logical choice is to hire a male prostitute to fulfill that role....

Yeah, I can totally see where you guys are coming from. Totally not gay. Perfectly logical, sensible conclusion that when you want someone to carry your luggage, you hire a male hooker.

Which reminds me, does anyone have the number for the National Guard? I need someone to cut my lawn.

At 5/9/10 10:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/9/10 06:26 PM, poxpower wrote: I guess to you that's not gay enough to qualify.

Coming out usually works for me. Otherwise, it's like fli said; he's a guy who fooled around with another guy, but is still straight.

Alright, Proteas, lets say we grant you that. Rekers is totally strait and just wanted to see what it would be like to fool around sexually with another man. Otherwise, he's totally strait.

Now, doesn't that leave all of the anti-homosexual activism he's participated in for the last few decades in a burning heap? From his perspective (and that of his colleagues) homosexual acts are forbidden sins. He's been fighting against these activities since long before many of the users here were born, including me. Where is his credibility now? Where does he really stand? How can he possibly continue doing what he does after this? Will anyone ever take him seriously when he tells people how evil homos are?

Reker has basically all but confirmed the age old adage that homophobes tend to be closet homosexuals. Even you can admit that he is clearly bi-curious at the very least. It's all still a sin in the eyes of the Lord. And he's not like, a poor misguided soul who never knew any different, he is well informed of the contents of the bible and he still commited these acts anyway. Seriously, I believe Jesus basically says in one of the gospels that sinning occurs in the mind as well as in your actions, so even having thoughts and urges of doing these things is sinful. Reker actually participated in at least a little of what might be argued as "foreplay," which is far enough to qualify, right?

The fact is, we don't care if he's gay. He can have all the gay bondage sex that he wants as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter to me. What we can't get over is how he actually thinks that what he did is sensible - (still assuming that he is telling the truth) that he hired a gay prostitute as a baggage carrier and took him on a 10 day vacation with a side mission of saving his soul amidst accepting naughty-region massages from him - and that, amazingly, some people actually believe that all of this is reasonable and logical.

lol imagine that, a young gay couple (journalists for the Miami New Times) are the ones who snapped the photo of Rekers tending his own luggage. They caught wind of Rekers adventure from Jo-Vanni (Rentboy) roommate who has access to his email account. The roommate told the couple that Rekers was on a gaycation with a rentboy and when they would be returning, the rommate wanted to expose Rekers for what he really was, a homosexual who is married and cheating.

Who's going to be the first to say that these young journalists blackmailed Rekers and when he didn't buck up, they exposed him? Probably the same people who defend these closet homos.

Proteas... seriously man? Is someone holding a gun at your head and forcing you to write these replies ?

Having had a few days to chill out, I will now respond and hopefully try to explain myself.

At 5/10/10 12:29 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Then don't act oblivious to the facts.

So what are the facts in this case?
- Rekers was photographed in an airport with a male prostitute, check.
- The prostitute went on a trip with Rekers in Europe for 10 days, check.
- Rekers (or someone associated with him) hired Lucien, check.

That's it. No one can confirm or prove that Rekers is gay, and the gayest thing that Lucien can say about Rekers is that he was paid to give him a nude massage, which is kind of odd considering that most massages you pay for at a resort are done in the nude anyway.

No

I was referring to the issue of "what actually happened," as in, wether or not what Lucien said actually happened.

I mean, we don't convict in the legal system based on "dead certainty" we convict on "beyond a reasonable doubt" or by "perponderence of the evidence".

I'd believe that statement if it wasn't for the fact that everyone here is "dead certain" that this guy is a closet homophobe.

Which they have, but you want to ignore it and act like it's not "good enough" when it's plenty good enough and this is the EXACT kind of evidence that has brought down others in the same situations before.

All I wanted was proof that this guy was the exemplification of the closeted gay homophobe stereotype that everyone in this topic kept claiming he was, that's all. I said that on page one, I kept repeating it throughout this topic, and that's all I want now. The only thing to come out of any of this is that this guy's credibility is shot all to hell now, and no-one will take his statements on homosexuality seriously ever again.

me to wonder what would happen if this was someone on the left in this situation.

You know what would happen in this situation; I'd post a topic with a little smiley face sticking it's tongue out showing how the democrat in question had been brought up on criminal charges relating to his sex scandal (like most other democrats in that situation), I'd chuckle a bit and rightly claim a double standard on this forum for people ignoring it -- which you stated and no-one has contradicted you about it being largely populated by left wingers like they would if I said it was -- and then it would proceed to either be (a) completely ignored with a shit-ton of views, (b) a few people would show up and say "so what" and then try to derail the topic to a discussion of republican sex scandals like this, but no one would bother defending the dem in question and the topic would quickly descend into 2 page oblivion.

Because sorry but, to me this looks like a conservative being pissed off that the left is getting a kick out of laughing at another hypocrite on that side of the fence.

And? Am I not allowed to be pissed over something like this?

Proteas, I grant that it's theoretically possible that absolutely nothing happened and that it was just a big misunderstanding, but like....

....ANYBODY with a brain would instantly know that if you are an anti-gay activist, going on a 10 day trip with a famous male prostitute is not a very good idea. If that by some freak accident happened because of a secretary that booked from the wrong website, why not just like, make some precautions?

Why not just make a short public statement that it was a screwup before the trip? Why not write a letter explaining the awkward situation? Why instead keep it secret and then give a vague last minute explanation that he needed help to "carry his luggage"?

It's just so weird. It's like the global warming scientists who sent those email saying that they were talking in secret code or that they were just playing doctor.

At 5/14/10 12:54 PM, Proteas wrote: Having had a few days to chill out, I will now respond and hopefully try to explain myself.

mmmkay.

So what are the facts in this case?
- Rekers was photographed in an airport with a male prostitute, check.

Which begs the question "why are you with a male prostitute if not to partake of said male prostitutes services?" because the photograph and the accompanying story makes it quite clear this wasn't a simple chance meeting.

- The prostitute went on a trip with Rekers in Europe for 10 days, check.

See above about "why does a prostitute go on a trip with someone unless they are a client partaking of services?"

- Rekers (or someone associated with him) hired Lucien, check.

Rekers hired him. Rekers has said he hired him. This is when people start to get aggravated with you because Rekers has admitted to this and yet you still act like there's a possibility a staffer hired him. Rekers did, let's please accept this and move on ok?

That's it. No one can confirm or prove that Rekers is gay,

This is a good point. But I think there's ample proof he's at least a bisexual.

and the gayest thing that Lucien can say about Rekers is that he was paid to give him a nude massage,

Here we go again with omitting portions of the story, Lucien SAID he gave Rekers a nude massage that was sexual in nature. That he manipulated and touched Rekers's penis and anus in a sexual manner. Again you leave facts out where it's convenient to your point.

which is kind of odd considering that most massages you pay for at a resort are done in the nude anyway.

But do not traditionally involve contact with the genitals of the client. Not to mention why would someone have a male prostitute (who they know at this point to be a male prostitute) give them a massage unless it is in the interest of fulfilling some sort of sexual gratification?

I was referring to the issue of "what actually happened," as in, wether or not what Lucien said actually happened.

Ok.

I'd believe that statement if it wasn't for the fact that everyone here is "dead certain" that this guy is a closet homophobe.

I'm at least "dead certain" the guy is a bisexual. That he hired a male prostitute for his sexual needs and has been a hypocrite for years because he condemns behaviors he himself acts upon. That is my issue and where the lols come in.

All I wanted was proof that this guy was the exemplification of the closeted gay homophobe stereotype that everyone in this topic kept claiming he was, that's all. I said that on page one, I kept repeating it throughout this topic, and that's all I want now. The only thing to come out of any of this is that this guy's credibility is shot all to hell now, and no-one will take his statements on homosexuality seriously ever again.

Yep, and good for that. Although that's not "all you've wanted" as you originally argued we don't know if this happened and you've been making some pretty baseless arguments as to how this could all just be a big misunderstanding.

You know what would happen in this situation; I'd post a topic with a little smiley face sticking it's tongue out showing how the democrat in question had been brought up on criminal charges relating to his sex scandal (like most other democrats in that situation), I'd chuckle a bit and rightly claim a double standard on this forum for people ignoring it -- which you stated and no-one has contradicted you about it being largely populated by left wingers like they would if I said it was -- and then it would proceed to either be (a) completely ignored with a shit-ton of views, (b) a few people would show up and say "so what" and then try to derail the topic to a discussion of republican sex scandals like this, but no one would bother defending the dem in question and the topic would quickly descend into 2 page oblivion.

Possibly, and again I will agree it's not "fair" but I still have a hard time seeing why an internet forum (which is not a news organization) that is full of people who basically just spout opinions and what not, should have to be "fair". It seemed to me you were arguing like people need to be, and to me I don't see where they NEED to be, but yes, they probably SHOULD be.

And? Am I not allowed to be pissed over something like this?

For the right reasons, sure. But I think you're pissed off at the reaction of people and not that this guy is an embarrassment to himself, to his movement, and to those who might share similar political views.

At 5/9/10 11:58 PM, bcdemon wrote: If he had fooled around with another guy, HES NOT STRAIGHT.

and if I fooled around a woman, I wouldn't be straight.

sexuality isn't JUST the MECHANICS.
There is the social and individual construct of the mind too.

It's hard to think about sexual identity not being solely as a thing based on sex. There are cultural implications-- I mean, what if two men fell in love and never had sex? Would they be not gay because they've never had sex? Or, what if he sleeps with a woman? Would that make him straight? (Look at Roy Cohn in Angels in America if you have a chance.)

But let me say that I didn't say George Reker was gay or straight as that detail doesn't have any importance to me... it's his colorful history as anti-gay advocate.

Either way, it doesn't matter...
He's anti-gay advocate.

If he's gay... it's bad.
If he's straight and slept with a man... it's still bad.

At 5/15/10 05:58 PM, fli wrote:

I mean, what if two men fell in love and never had sex?

Gay

Or, what if he sleeps with a woman?

Bi

Well that was easy.

At 5/14/10 02:10 PM, Drakim wrote: It's just so weird. It's like the global warming scientists who sent those email saying that they were talking in secret code or that they were just playing doctor.

And like the guys who sent those e-mails, who's to say this guy gives a shit enough about public opinion to give us an explanation of his actions?

At 5/15/10 12:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which begs the question "why are you with a male prostitute if not to partake of said male prostitutes services?" because the photograph and the accompanying story makes it quite clear this wasn't a simple chance meeting.

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but... a prostitute will do anything for money, even if it's not sexual in nature. I knew a guy who hired a hooker once a week every week for a month to help him clean house because he was too damn tired from work to do it himself and to cheap to call up Merry-Maids. Yeah, he'd get some sex as part of the deal, but his primary concern was getting the dishes done, getting the carpets vacuumed, windows washed...

Rekers hired him. Rekers has said he hired him. This is when people start to get aggravated with you because Rekers has admitted to this and yet you still act like there's a possibility a staffer hired him. Rekers did, let's please accept this and move on ok?

... yeah... and Obama is actually the guy responsible for the new national healthcare system we have, and not the senate and congressional democrats who authored and passed it, but I'll just ignore that and move on.

Here we go again with omitting portions of the story, Lucien SAID he gave Rekers a nude massage that was sexual in nature. That he manipulated and touched Rekers's penis and anus in a sexual manner. Again you leave facts out where it's convenient to your point.

I'm leaving it out because it's an Allegation, a statement based purely on on ONE MAN'S WORD that cannot be conclusively proven. There's no blue dress in any of this, there's no video taped evidence that such a thing happened, there's no witnesses to these two holding hands in public or doing some other gay thing. Until such a time as Rekers confirms the statement as truth, that's all it will be, an allegation... or one man's word against another.

And besides that, I seem to remember this big thing that happened back in the 90's that had the legal definition of sex to not include any non-penetrative act... and if having a guy play with your junk makes you gay, then there's a fair number of us here who qualify as gay for the simple fact we've had a physical for work.

TURN YOUR HEAD AND COUGH...

I'm at least "dead certain" the guy is a bisexual.

That would imply that he has an active or continuing interest in having sex with both genders.

For the right reasons, sure. But I think you're pissed off at the reaction of people and not that this guy is an embarrassment to himself, to his movement, and to those who might share similar political views.

That's played a large part of it, I'll admit that. Mainly because of the issue of PROOF. Everybody just starting yucking it up and laughing about it before all the evidence was in, which to me, is just stupid. And there's still no evidence that he's gay. Hypocrite? That remains to be seen. Moron? Definitely.

There's also the other thing; laughing about it doesn't accomplish anything besides mindless entertainment and adding to your post count. So what if this guy is gay or bisexual? He started an organization and helped do research into human sexuality that will forever fuel the religious right's war against homosexuality. Even if his organization disowns him and the religious right distances itself from him for this, it won't matter, because they're still going to use his work to further their own ends.

So in the end, it becomes a hollow victory for the left.

At 5/16/10 12:53 AM, Proteas wrote:

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but... a prostitute will do anything for money, even if it's not sexual in nature. I knew a guy who hired a hooker once a week every week for a month to help him clean house because he was too damn tired from work to do it himself and to cheap to call up Merry-Maids. Yeah, he'd get some sex as part of the deal, but his primary concern was getting the dishes done, getting the carpets vacuumed, windows washed...

But he still got sex...so even if I grant your premise that there was another primary reason, even by your example sex was still part of the transaction so...this proved what exactly?

... yeah... and Obama is actually the guy responsible for the new national healthcare system we have, and not the senate and congressional democrats who authored and passed it, but I'll just ignore that and move on.

That has nothing to do with anything. Rekers SAYS HE HIRED THE GUY. If Obama said "I am solely responsible for healthcare reform" and no other evidence to the contrary presents? Guess what, I'll take Mr. Obama at his word. Another ridiculous example.

I'm leaving it out because it's an Allegation, a statement based purely on on ONE MAN'S WORD that cannot be conclusively proven. There's no blue dress in any of this, there's no video taped evidence that such a thing happened, there's no witnesses to these two holding hands in public or doing some other gay thing. Until such a time as Rekers confirms the statement as truth, that's all it will be, an allegation... or one man's word against another.

Never mind what common sense and logic would dictate as being more likely then not to have occurred....

And besides that, I seem to remember this big thing that happened back in the 90's that had the legal definition of sex to not include any non-penetrative act... and if having a guy play with your junk makes you gay, then there's a fair number of us here who qualify as gay for the simple fact we've had a physical for work.

Oh come on, there's a huge difference between a physical for work and the contact being alleged here. Again you're just being preposterous again and thinking it's somehow clever. You know damn well it was an act that was sexual in nature just like Clinton knew damn well getting a BJ was still cheating and sexual just as much as fucking was. It's just that he was a popular president so people didn't really care.

TURN YOUR HEAD AND COUGH...

This argument is funny...just not for the reasons you think it is.

That would imply that he has an active or continuing interest in having sex with both genders.

And I'm satisfied this is evidence of such. I highly doubt this is the first time he's sought the company of another man, and probably won't be the last now that he's resigned his post and will retreat back into "private" life.

That's played a large part of it, I'll admit that. Mainly because of the issue of PROOF. Everybody just starting yucking it up and laughing about it before all the evidence was in, which to me, is just stupid. And there's still no evidence that he's gay. Hypocrite? That remains to be seen. Moron? Definitely.

How is he not a hypocrite though if he's engaging in sexual intercourse with a man? That is a homosexual act from someone who rails against homosexuality and built a career railing against it.

There's also the other thing; laughing about it doesn't accomplish anything besides mindless entertainment and adding to your post count.

As opposed to the real and meaningful shit we're doing on this forum? Come on dude. That's all ANYTHING being posted here does, increases post count and entertains ourselves and or others. This is what I was getting at earlier when it seemed to me you were acting like this forum should have some sort of political "balance" why? This is NOT serious business, this is NOT a serious news organization or any such thing. It's a community of individuals who are seeking to be entertained and choose to be entertained by posting on a forum, in this section, in threads like this.

So what if this guy is gay or bisexual? He started an organization and helped do research into human sexuality that will forever fuel the religious right's war against homosexuality. Even if his organization disowns him and the religious right distances itself from him for this, it won't matter, because they're still going to use his work to further their own ends.

They will, and that is to me part of the lol and the "oh fuck you guys" in all this. That they will use the work of a disgraced homosexual basher to further bash homosexuals and perhaps drive other folks like Rekers, or Larry Craig, or the anonymous bi's or gays out there who think they have to hide what they are because it's "wrong" or "evil" or "sinful".

So in the end, it becomes a hollow victory for the left.

Or maybe it's just something that's loltastic to some of the members of this board and you're doing too much "internet is serious business". It could be that too couldn't it?

At 5/17/10 12:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: But he still got sex...so even if I grant your premise that there was another primary reason, even by your example sex was still part of the transaction so...this proved what exactly?

If all this guy wanted was sex, why not just hire a hooker when he was in Europe, hm?

Oh come on, there's a huge difference between a physical for work and the contact being alleged here.

Is there? Because the way I'm seeing it argued in this topic, if another guy plays with your junk, you're gay regardless of the reasoning behind why it's done. Hell, you're gay whether or not there's any evidence to show that you actually are gay.

How is he not a hypocrite though if he's engaging in sexual intercourse with a man?

... intercourse?

What part of the described act in question involved penetration, thus constituting sex as legally redefined by democrats? Or better yet, of all the hings Lucien could have said about what went on, why did he describe what is technically considered an act of frottaging instead of just saying "I had sex with George Allan Rekers?"

Or maybe it's just something that's loltastic to some of the members of this board and you're doing too much "internet is serious business". It could be that too couldn't it?

Then by all means, keep laughing. But at the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything. The religious right has cut this guy loose, and it won't be to long before they find somebody to replace him.

At 5/17/10 10:33 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/17/10 12:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Oh come on, there's a huge difference between a physical for work and the contact being alleged here.

Is there? Because the way I'm seeing it argued in this topic, if another guy plays with your junk, you're gay regardless of the reasoning behind why it's done.

It's been a long time since I had a physical but I certainly don't remember the person performing it "playing" with my junk. I don't know what your doctor told you was standard procedure during a physical but if he performed a "long stroke" -- a complicated caress "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks", then I think you have a pretty good basis for pressing sexual harassment charges.

At 5/17/10 01:24 PM, lapis wrote: It's been a long time since I had a physical but I certainly don't remember the person performing it "playing" with my junk.

Of all the things I've said in this topic, the first thing you speak up about is me using a euphemism instead of medical terminology? Really?

At 5/17/10 02:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/17/10 01:24 PM, lapis wrote: It's been a long time since I had a physical but I certainly don't remember the person performing it "playing" with my junk.

Of all the things I've said in this topic, the first thing you speak up about is me using a euphemism instead of medical terminology? Really?

Yes. Because what you apparently consider to be just an euphemism is the fatal flaw in your analogy. Male prostitutes indeed do play with your junk, doctors don't. Your analogy is strikingly relevant in one sense: you seem to be playing off the dick massaging as non-sexual, but you know as well as I do that if a doctor pulled the same crap during a physical he'd get sued.

I mean, I'm only posting here to tell you, as one hombre to another, that I think that your analogies are starting to reach the point of absurdity. No, a doctor touching your privates during a physical is not the same as a hired male prostitute massaging your dick and anus. Come on. I decided not to comment on your example of the friend who hired a prositute to do his housekeeping (and, coincidentally, to have sex with her from time to time) but I can't keep silent any longer.

At 5/17/10 10:33 AM, Proteas wrote: What part of the described act in question involved penetration, thus constituting sex as legally redefined by democrats?

Ah, good old "no homo" logic.

At 5/17/10 03:29 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Ah, good old "no homo" logic.

Hey. It's only gay if you make eye contact.

At 5/17/10 03:25 PM, lapis wrote: No, a doctor touching your privates during a physical is not the same as a hired male prostitute massaging your dick and anus. Come on.

*shakes head*

I know there's a difference between what a doctor does and what a prostitute does, lapis, you don't give me enough credit. You missed the point entirely, my friend.

Sexuality, as pointed out by fli, is not set in stone or demonstrated through actions, it is based on lifestyle. Fli has had sex with women, but he isn't straight, and he's involved in a steady non-sexual relationship with another man and yet is gay. I wish I could find the topic where we had the big discussion on straight people being bi-sexual or gay based on their thoughts and intentions even if they never actually had intercourse with the opposite sex.

of which, strangely enough, it was another case of me-against-the-rest-of-the-forum because of the idea that you're a greedy pervert if you're bisexual and that there was no way you could be "wired" to be bi-sexual, but we'll just leave that for another time.

Anyway, there has been an underlying logic throughout this topic that states Rekers is gay based on not only (1) getting a nude massage from a man but (2) supposedly getting an erotic genital/anal massage/caress from the guy as well. Again, action, not lifestyle is being used to determine this man's sexual nature. You have no history on this guy by which to determine his sexual nature, just this one incident IF it actually happened.

But if actions and not intentions (key word here) determine one's sexuality, are we (and I mean straight males reading this) not guilty of being homosexual for having had a doctor at some point give us a physical?

You, however, decided to attack me for how I said what I said in the analogy instead of addressing what I said.

At 5/17/10 04:02 PM, Proteas wrote: I know there's a difference between what a doctor does and what a prostitute does

You do? What's the difference, then? You get bonus points for using the words "actions" and "intentions" in your answer.

At 5/17/10 04:31 PM, lapis wrote: You do? What's the difference, then? You get bonus points for using the words "actions" and "intentions" in your answer.

It was an appeal to ridicule, lapis, get over yourself.

Sigh. So you don't understand the difference, then. You at least do agree that when a doctor gives a patient a "long stroke" or a female patient a breast massage he's likely to get hauled to court, right? And that this is because such an action is considered sexual, right?

The action performed was of a sexual nature, and typically sexual actions and performed as a result of sexual intentions. Your clear distinction between actions and intentions is invalid, as a lot of actions are inherently linked to certain types of intentions. If someone greets me then I can greet him back or slap him in the face. My action to a large degree displays my intentions. Is it possible for me to have friendly intentions and still punch him a bloody lip? Is that really the kind of semantics that you wish to argue here?

Reker had no medical reason to have a guy touch his penis whatsoever, and the nature of the touching as described by the prostitute are such that they would be deemed sexual in any other context, such as a physical. After all, that's what you hire prostitutes for, you know. To perform acts of a sexual nature. Doctors aren't hired to perform sexual feats - they touch your penis because of medical reasons and if there is no reason (his actions) to suspect that he's getting a kick out of it then there's nothing sexual about it - even if the doctor is actually a stealth homo, but does anyone care in that situation. That's the difference between a doctor and a prostitute. Not the intentions, but the actions that are associated with intentions.

I'm going to bed, to not have my penis touched by a male prostitute

At 5/17/10 05:06 PM, lapis wrote: Sigh. So you don't understand the difference, then

I've already responded to you on the matter, and I'm not saying anything else with regards to it because it's a clear effort on your part to frustrate and piss me off by ignoring what I said and acting like I'm stupid. You can continue in this vein if you wish, but I will not respond to you.

The action performed was of a sexual nature, and typically sexual actions and performed as a result of sexual intentions. Your clear distinction between actions and intentions is invalid, as a lot of actions are inherently linked to certain types of intentions.

Can you read minds?

Because if you can't, then you don't actually know what his intentions were. He could be gay, he could be bi-sexual, or he could be straight and just wanted a cheap thrill thinking no one would ever know about it.... assuming it actually happened.

At 5/17/10 05:51 PM, Proteas wrote: Because if you can't, then you don't actually know what his intentions were.

Usually the best way to figure out someone's intentions is to measure their reactions.

He could be gay,

Possibly. Hiring a male prostitute for a "long stroke" would certainly fit the picture.

he could be bi-sexual,

Possibly. Although I would expect a bi person to have a history of this sort of behavior. Doesn't mean there isn't one (and one wonders how he heard of "Rentboy.com" if this is isolated), but so far we just have the one case.

or he could be straight and just wanted a cheap thrill thinking no one would ever know about it....

Possibly, although he's well past his college experimentation days, you think?

Besides, you really think that a board member of NARTH, and a man, professor, and pastor who has for several decades advocated that homosexuality is destructive and sinful would want cheap thrills in the form of MALE PROSTITUTION?

I expect a guy like him to bang nasty hookers off the interstate, run dog/cock fights, gamble, drink profusely.....you know, the type of "cheap thrills" most straight men with power are documented to do.

He chose a MALE PROSTITUTE for his cheap thrill. Something that goes COMPLETELY counter to his entire persona and character.

Next you're gonna tell me Ghandi was into torture.....

assuming it actually happened.

I think that's well beyond question at this point Proteas. The emails would have to be fraudulent, the picture of the rentboy NOT carrying luggage would have to be staged, the rentboy's profession would have to be fake, and given Rekers' behavior and reaction it would be a pretty big leap to say "maybe it didn't actually happen".

Again, it really comes down to how stupid you believe Rekers to be. If you believe that he hired him to carry his luggage, you believe that Rekers thought the most logical choice for a travel companion was a MALE PROSTITUTE.

If you believe that all he wanted were massages, completely non-sexual, you believe that Rekers thought the most logical choice for a masseur was a PROSTITUTE. Does the rent boy even have masseur training? Is "Rentboy.com" what you find under "masseur" in the phone book?

I only really see two possibilities:
1.) Rekers is covering up for something. And there's a pretty logical conclusion as to which skeleton one would want to keep in the closet in this situation.....

2.) Rekers is telling the truth. And that would make him a complete idiot. How do you mix up "masseur" for "MALE PROSTITUTE"?

Besides which, his excuses are constantly contradicting themselves.

On the one hand, it's an innocent mistake.
"The statement says, "Dr. Rekers found his recent travel assistant by interviewing different people who might be able to help, and did not even find out about his travel assistant's Internet advertisements offering prostitution activity until after the trip was in progress."

On the other
"I confessed to the Lord and to my family that I was unwise and wrong to hire this travel assistant after knowing him only one month before the trip and not knowing whether he was more than a person raised in a Christian home,"

......So did he know him before hiring him or not?
Apparently he knew him for a month.
But didn't know who he was......and didn't clear up what the MALE PROSTITUTE'S role in the vacation would be for that month.

Again, which is it?
Did he know him, or not?
Again, either he's lying through his teeth, or he's a complete moron.

Proteas, your "double standard" idea is garbage. By comparing Rekers to liberals caught in sex scandals, you completely miss the point. The problem wasn't that he hired a gay prostitute. The problem is that he devoted his entire career to opposing homosexuality, and then hired a gay prostitute. If liberals did all they could to make life miserable for gay people, and were caught with gay prostitutes, THEN you would have an accurate comparison. But last time I checked, homophobic bigotry was a conservative thing.

As for trying to pass off scrolling through a male prostitution site to find a prostitute, who admits to sex acts with Rekers, to hire for a 10 day trip through Europe as some kind of misunderstanding - you are in denial. This kind of evidence would more than pass for a conviction in court (see every prostitution sting ever).

At 5/17/10 10:33 AM, Proteas wrote: If all this guy wanted was sex, why not just hire a hooker when he was in Europe, hm?

Because he's an anti-gay activist and if he wants to have gay sex with a hooker he needs it to be discreet and the risk of getting popped to be low. Much less chance he figured he'd get popped for using an internet site and taking a hooker along with him that he could try and pass off as a staffer vs. going out and trolling the red light districts. Surely this occurred to you as well? Cause it took me all of a minute.

Is there? Because the way I'm seeing it argued in this topic, if another guy plays with your junk, you're gay regardless of the reasoning behind why it's done. Hell, you're gay whether or not there's any evidence to show that you actually are gay.

Riiiight, that's exactly what's been argued. You're just being absurd now and you know it. If a guy is touching your junk in a SEXUAL manner, yes, that would make you gay or at least bisexual. That's what's being alleged here. World of difference between a doctor touching your junk to check for disease or problems then a prostitute touching it. Any reasonable person knows that.

... intercourse?

What part of the described act in question involved penetration, thus constituting sex as legally redefined by democrats?

I used the wrong word obviously. Mea Culpa. I should have said something more along the lines of "sexual contact" or "sexual massage".

Also I don't see where democrats "legally redefined" sex. I doubt there are divorce cases going on now where the man is able to successfully argue he didn't commit adultery because "I never had intercourse". So right now it looks like we're one and one for using improper terminology. :)

Or better yet, of all the hings Lucien could have said about what went on, why did he describe what is technically considered an act of frottaging instead of just saying "I had sex with George Allan Rekers?"

I think now you're taking a slip of the tongue from me and turning it into a much bigger mountain that it should be. But then again, I could see how you thought I was serious there too, so again I'll offer a mea culpa.

Then by all means, keep laughing. But at the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything. The religious right has cut this guy loose, and it won't be to long before they find somebody to replace him.

Yep, but in the meanwhile, we can have some fun at his expense :)