joepaternocoach: gay or not

Showing posts with label gay or not. Show all posts

Saturday, May 8, 2010

European Gaycation

I'm always suspicious of people who are really adamantly against something. I don't care what the something is, but the more that someone is against it, the more that there might really be a completely different story lurking behind it.

That's sort of the case with a one George Rekers. According to the

Miami New Times, in 1983, Dr Rekers, along with a one James Dobson, "...America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group." He has also "...published papers and books by the hundreds, with titles like Who Am I? Lord and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality." I'm sensing a theme here. In addition to those qualities, "Rekers is a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization that systematically attempts to turn gay people straight." Ah, yes! The gay-to-straight camps! Sure. I've heard those are really productive. Uh-huh. Whatever. You have a pretty good idea of what kind of a guy this Dr. Rekers is, right? Vehemently anti-gay. Hmmm.

So, I don't know, call me crazy, but I guess I just find it odd that someone who is SOOOO anti-gay would hire an escort through something called Rentboy.com to "carry his luggage" for him during a ten day trip to Europe. Wait. He what now?

That's right. Mr. Rekers, who claimed to have some sort of surgery at some point in the recent past, said that he could not carry his own luggage on his trip. Thus, he did what anyone else who couldn't carry their own luggage would do. He went to straight to Rentboy.com, a site which makes you ascertain that you're 18 or older in order to enter the site. I didn't know that you had to be over 18 just to have someone carry your luggage.

That's probably because Rentboy.com is not exactly a baggage handling website. Granted, I'm sure that Mr. Rekers wanted to have his package handled, that isn't really in question at this point. But what I am saying is that when you click on the button that says that you're 18, you're taken to the main page of the site which is headlined with "Welcome to Rentboy.com - The world's largest gay escort and massage site." Escorts AND massages? Does anyone really just go for just the massages? Seems to me that'd be like offering hookers AND shoe shines. Who is going to go just to have their shoes spiffed up a little bit?

Now, I can't show you ALL of the Rentboys on Rentboy.com because I'm not all that comfortable with posting pictures of partially clad (ie, no pants) young, hardbodied men here. Not that there's anything wrong with that! (The partially clad part is what I'm referring to. I'm pretty sure that there IS something wrong with the whole Rentboy.com dealio.) I'm just saying that I'm trying to keep this a family friendly site. It's hard to claim to be family friendly if your readers are looking at a schlong. But I will show you a picture of the 20-year old that Mr. Rekers chose to accompany him on his European gaycation. Meet "Lucien". Behold!

Yeah, he appears to have all of the qualities that I look for when searching for an appropriate baggage handler. Shirtless. Underaged-looking. Wispy hair. Forlorn eyes. Yep. He should be able to lift Mr. Reker's sac, er, sack with no trouble a'tall!

I noticed on the site that you can "Find Boys" and when you click on that arrow, your choices are "Rentboy, Sugardaddy, Masseur or All" All? Not all-in-one, right? I mean, you can't have a Rentboy AND a Sugardaddy be the same person, right? A boy and a daddy? That seems wrong. Not impossible, but just a bit wrong. Regardless, I did notice that there wasn't anything there about hauling large objects for short distances. That was noticeably absent. It's hard to imagine that Mr. Rekers would go to Rentboy.com to find someone to suit his baggage carrying needs. Has he not heard of bellhops? Hotel staff? Drivers?

There are a number of flashing ads on the site which offer various services and devices for personal use. None of them seem to involve traveling or luggage. I see no mention of Samsonite, TravelPro, Tumi, Delsey or the like. Even under the "Resources" column, there was nothing like that to be found. No, instead it reads "Check out these links if you are looking for professional assistants, post a personal ad or simply try to get off." Sure. I can see where Mr. Rekers would have mistaken that for "I can't lift this, can you?" Uh-huh. Seems reasonable.

Now, Mr. Rekers seems to be in full damage control mode and has even posted a statement at the top of his own website, professorgeorge.com, that reads in part "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. There was nothing inappropriate with this relationship." Uh, yeah. Now...what now?

Look, if you're going to be a closeted homo, that's your deal. I don't care. Be in, be out, just be you and just happy. That's my motto. But if you're going to be in, please don't be disparaging to those who are out. And, for the love of God, if you're caught going on vacation with a Rentboy, please don't insult the intelligence of everyone having to hear about this story by coming up with a scenario in which he's only there to carry your freaking luggage. And please don't come up with this ridiculous story AFTER there is a picture of you which seems to show you handling your own luggage whilst your Rentboy, Lucien, stands there and waits for the elevator. Behold!

I mean, really now. Are we supposed to just believe any of this stuff that he's telling us to explain why this dude went with him on vacation? Because none of that really bodes well for his story. Not that there was any part of his "I can't pick this up, I need a semi-clad, muscular, 2o-year old, male prositute to lift it for me" story that WAS boding well, I'm just saying.

more less

Thursday, April 22, 2010

To Gay Or Not To Gay?

In what may be one of the odder lawsuits that I've heard of, we have three bisexual men who are suing a national gay-athletic organization for telling the men that they're not gay enough to participate in their Gay Softball World Series. Or something. It's hard to say. But it's odd.

Here's the scoop: According to the Seattle Times, "Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ...played on a team called D2 that qualified for the 2008 Gay Softball World Series". First of all, what is a D2? How is that the name of a team? Do they play against R2? I don't get it. But here's what I really don't get: According to the article, "Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay." Um, wait. What now?

Called into a conference room? What the what? Asked "personal and intrusive questions"? Like what, exactly? Look, I don't know about the straight guys that you know, but the straight guys that I know are not going to be posing as gay or bisexual in order to play on a gay softball team. They're just not. If they're going to play softball at all, they're going to be playing on a straight team or, at the very least, a team that doesn't care. There aren't a lot of guys looking to sneak into the gay softball world just for a chance at winning some trophy. There just aren't.

It says that they asked "questions". Plural. Why would you need more than one? That one being, "So, ever done it with another guy?" Because in my book, if you're a guy and you've willingly had sex with another guy, you're gay enough for me. Again, I know a lot of straight guys and there aren't any of them that are going to actually have sex with another guy, let alone admit to it, solely for the purpose of getting on a gay softball team. They're just not going to.

Now then, "The alliance's rules say that each World Series team can have no more than two heterosexual players." That's what it says. What it doesn't tell us is why. It's the GAY World Series. Heterosexual players aren't very GAY! And also, "At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs was told: "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series." Um, no. See, if you're allowing two heterosexual players per team, then that, by definition, IS a bisexual world series! I'm beginning to wonder if the folks in charge of this Gay World Series thing are aware of the definition of gay. 'Cause it kind of seems like they're not!

What the guys want out of the lawsuit is "$75,000 each for emotional distress. They're also seeking to invalidate the alliance's findings on the men's sexual orientations and to reinstate D2's second-place World Series finish." That's right. They somehow were allowed to compete in the World Series and then I'm gathering that they lost and that's when they decided to strip them of their losing title. Place. Thing. Something. I don't understand any of this. But I do think I understand that they don't need $75,000 for emotional distress. Seriously? $75,000? There's no emotional distress is being told that you're not gay enough. Now, if you were a straight guy and were told that you weren't straight enough, that might cause some emotional distress! (I kid. I kid!) That just bugs me.

And maybe this is why it bugs me. "The men also are asking the court to toss out the alliance's rule limiting the number of straight players on each team." Toss out the rule? Limiting the number of straight people? But it's the GAY AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION that sanctions the GAY WORLD SERIES! It's right there in the name! GAY! You don't need to have a RULE limiting the NUMBER of STRAIGHT people! It's limited in the name ITSELF! GAY! What is so hard to understand about that? Are there no straight softball teams in the Seattle area? I know the folks there are kinda wispy and all, but I highly doubt that none of them are straight.

The article goes on to point out that "Hypothetically, that could mean a team of all-straight people could form, but "it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen." Yes! That WOULD be unlikely! Why? Because, AGAIN, it's the GAY softball league! Why would straight people WANT to play in it?! I don't understand any of this. It makes no sense. If the guys are gay and are upset because they couldn't convey their gayness to the point where it was believable, that's one thing. But if that were the case, why are they all upset that there is a limit to the number of straight people on the teams that are for GAY PEOPLE?! None of this makes a lick of sense. I'm going to go watch hockey playoffs.