Another "Anti-Gay" Crusader Falls Out Of The Closet

[Sampiro]

Hijack: There’s a Latin phrase that translates, very roughly, as “it’s a crime because the law says it is”- it distinguishes crimes like escort services from armed robbery and other acts that are crimes because there’s clear damage and a victim. Does anybody know what that phrase is?

[Steve_MB]

@joebuck20

Well the Rent Boy is talking now. And it seems that he did indeed do a tad bit more than “lift his luggage” - like for example the “long stroke.”

Oh, man, this story just keeps spawning new phrases…

Speaking of the story:

I do not in any way “hate” homosexuals, but I seek to lovingly share two types of messages to them

“Messages”… “Massages”… I guess he just got confused…

[Steve_MB]

@Sampiro

Hijack: There’s a Latin phrase that translates, very roughly, as “it’s a crime because the law says it is”- it distinguishes crimes like escort services from armed robbery and other acts that are crimes because there’s clear damage and a victim. Does anybody know what that phrase is?

malum prohibitum (as distinguished from malum in se)

[jayjay]

@Sampiro

Because they’re escorts, not prostitutes. You’re just paying for their time and company. Now if they happen to have sex with you while you’re paying for their time, well, no crime in that is there?

This. Dan Savage wrote a book called “Skipping Toward Gommorah” in which he undertook to write a chapter about each of the Seven Deadly Sins. He payed for several hours of a high-class Manhattan escort’s time (along with a bit of her also-escort boyfriend’s, separately) and the very first thing that she did when they met up was to tell him quite clearly that he was paying only for her time and company, and anything further that they got into was entirely a mutual and consentual act not covered under the payment.

If that’s standard at all in the escort business, then Rekers got the speech, too. I don’t know if it’s standard, though, never having contracted for or offered such a service.

[Sampiro]

@Steve_MB

malum prohibitum (as distinguished from malum in se)

Thanks.

[Sampiro]

@jayjay

If that’s standard at all in the escort business, then Rekers got the speech, too. I don’t know if it’s standard, though, never having contracted for or offered such a service.

I haven’t either (more because I’m usually either broke or stingy than for any moral problems with it- I think it should be legalized), but from those I know who’ve been on both sides of the encounters such up front disclaimers are usually reserved for first time customers, especially those you suspect of being an undercover cop.

If you’re wondering “If I pay this guy/girl $400 why should she put out?”, it’s because of repeat business. Most escort sites (gay and straight) have reviews and if somebody pulls that trick [no pun intended] word gets out not to use their services.

[Trion]

@Sampiro

Plus as long as there’s no violence or public nuisance escort services are so low pri to law enforcement. Computer dating is legal, sex with strangers is legal, paying people for their time is legal, everybody’s satisfied with the transaction usually, so why is the combination illegal and why other than it’s illegal should it be a crime? Better to spend time on drugs, violent crime, and other issues that present public danger.

So you’re saying that “You cops should be out catching the real criminals.” works for escorts, but not for me when I get a speeding ticket?

[Sampiro]

@Trion

So you’re saying that “You cops should be out catching the real criminals.” works for escorts, but not for me when I get a speeding ticket?

Perhaps the cop will let you work something out.

[Polycarp]

@Sampiro

Hijack: There’s a Latin phrase that translates, very roughly, as “it’s a crime because the law says it is”- it distinguishes crimes like escort services from armed robbery and other acts that are crimes because there’s clear damage and a victim. Does anybody know what that phrase is?

What you’re looking for is mala prohibita vs. malo in se – closely translated, “It’s wrong because it’s been prohibited” vs. “It’s wrong in and of itself.”

Consider a judge running for re-election who gets two large checks, one from corporation A for $2,500, no strings attached, and another from corporation B for $5,000, it being strongly implied that it’s in consideration of the judge ruling in corproation B’s favor in a pending lawsuit. The problem is that state law limits contributions to election campaigns from any given person, including corporate persons, to $1,000. Corporation A’s contribution is illegal only because it’s in excess of the maximum permissible amount under law. Corporation B’s contribution is illegal because they’re trying to bribe the judge to rule in their favor. It would be wrong under any circumstances.

ETA: And SteveMB posted the answer while I was composing this, then researching out, adding, and deleting some additional information not relevant.

[Trion]

@Sampiro

Perhaps the cop will let you work something out.

I see what you did there.

[Steve_MB]

From a 1996 study of the subject:

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35 ) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrightNShiny

My life sux. I’ve never gotten to spend a week in Europe with a twinkie.

Does Hostess even market in Europe?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sampiro

I love how in the above picture of HolyMan and RentBoy it blurs the latter’s face just under the shirtless full face pics. (He is cute for a twinkie, I’ll give HolyMan a couple of points for that.)

And spoken as a born and bred and slightly inbred southerner with many ancestors who came from South Carolina,

WHAT THE FUCK IS IT WITH SOUTH CAROLINA?

Stephen Colbert is from there (well, not ancestrally, but he was born and grew up there) and so did many other intelligent and or rational minded people, how is it that such a disproportionate number of loons are associated with the state? (It’s not even confined to white male evangelicals- there are black CONFEDERATE Civil War re-enactors there! Is it the heat and the swamp gas?)

I dunno . . . but South Carolinians (well, gentry-class white South Carolinians) were the most notorious “Fire Eaters” before the Civil War, Preston “Bully” Brooks" (who caned Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner half to death right on the Senate floor) was a Congressman from SC, and the SC was the first state to secede in 1861.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sampiro

While I don’t expect one of these guys once exposed to commit seppuku on pay-per-view (I wouldn’t watch but I’d have a tad more respect for them perhaps) it’s always amazing to me how they invariably- if married- go back to their wives and upscale houses and rarely even change their showtune and dance on the gay issue. Dobson will drop Reker like a hot potato but I’ve few doubts Reker will still be involved in many right wing homophobic organizations rather than just coming out and admitting his sins and trying to undo the damage he’s done (and by denouncing it he could probably undo at least some of it).

IIRC, both Jerry Falwell and Tammy Faye Bakker, near the end of their lives, apologized to the gay community, and they didn’t even have their own closeted secrets, so far as anybody knows; they just decided homophobia was wrong and gays are God’s children too.

But maybe that’s a lot harder to do, for an actual gay-bashing closet case.

[BrainGlutton]

@AClockworkMelon

Don’t forget that the COCK IS PERFECT.

It’s not like the standards of beauty are very high WRT cock . . . Can you say “last chicken in the shop”?

“The things that make babies are so repulsive that, were it not for pretty faces, the human race would die out.”

– Leonardo da Vinci

[levdrakon]

@BrainGlutton

It’s not like the standards of beauty are very high WRT cock . . . Can you say “last chicken in the shop”?

“The things that make babies are so repulsive that, were it not for pretty faces, the human race would die out.”

– Leonardo da Vinci

Was he talking about cock?

[Sampiro]

@BrainGlutton

IIRC, both Jerry Falwell and Tammy Faye Bakker, near the end of their lives, apologized to the gay community, and they didn’t even have their own closeted secrets, so far as anybody knows; they just decided homophobia was wrong and gays are God’s children too.

But maybe that’s a lot harder to do, for an actual gay-bashing closet case.

Tammy Faye was actually never homophobic; she had openly gay assistants at PTL and interviewed gay AIDS patients on her show without judgment or even reference to their lifestyle. Falwell’s unpology was acknowledging that some evangelicals were un-Christian in their attitude towards gays- he didn’t take responsibility himself.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@Sampiro

Perhaps the cop will let you work something out.

Chances for this increase dramatically if William Higgins is in the vicinity.

[Steve_MB]

More on Rekers’ views:

Rekers is best known for touting pseudo-science in defense of anti-gay laws. Riptide has mentioned him before when the State of Florida brought him in to testify in defense of the state’s gay adoption ban. However, much of his evidence has been debunked by mainstream science. It’s worth noting that Rekers doesn’t just dislike the idea of gays adopting children, but also thinks Native Americans and people who have had more than 18 sexual partners would make unfit parents.

[Autolycus]

Damn, I have a long way to go before I’m an unfit parent…