I’ve been gone for two weeks, and now i come back to this. Not Jio-vanni, but the whole George “Family” Rekers (say it quickly) schtick. (A RARE true double pun I’m quite proud of). I hope i have the time and energy to write on this. This is a subject I’ve been a burnin’ for.

Unfortunately, I don’t know whether to tell the jokes or write a serious polemic. OK, just one. When they make the Hallmark Channel movie of this, will they call it Broken Back Mounting?

Regan’s comment grabbed me:

“…that marriage and monogamy aren’t the goal of gay people, but through activity like this, are validating the suspicions and stereotypes instead.”

Here’s what I think: of course they’re going to do it… because that’s what the do. They start with a premise: either I hate gays, or my religion tells me to hate gays but I’ll call it love so it’s ok, or, as I suspect with “Family” Rekers, “I smell an opportunity here, and since I have no integrity anyway, why not get rich”.

(It is, BTW, a very common syndrome: witness Wall Street, Faux News, your average congressman, and a host of others. but more anon).

No matter what WE do– no matter how good, how noble, how generous, how loving– it is going to be turned upon us. Becuase it really isn’t about us, it’s about them, and that is what they do. I’m surprised that they haven’t stumbled upon and exploited the advantages of turning on and devouring thier own at all times — the Ted Haggards, the Mark Foleys, the Larry Craigs, a good portion of the Catholic priesthood– whatever. Bill Donanhue tried it with the pedophile scandal, but he is such an idiot that no one took it seriously, except for the people who believ what he does. It’s where that belief in redemption always gets in the way of practical politics. It’s why Ted Haggard can start another church of the Holy Flamer.

So many examples of the basic prejudice being the motivator here. We say we want children. They say to molest and convert them. We say we value marrige. they say only to destroy it. We say we are Christians. they say we have corrupted their churches. There is no winning with them, and there is no good will.

All of course, evidence be damned. And that is the clue, because reasonable people look at evidence. If i told you your partner was sleeping with george Clooney, you would probably demand evidence. Evidence is the last thing they are concerned with.

And thus they should be the last thing WE are concerned with. They are an enemy, but i don’t really care what they think, because i already know that they are bigots. I would rather we put our attention on the real enemy, which as I have often said, is not the bigots, but the closet. There are a lot of people who are merely ignorant, sometimes even flat out stpuid, but they are not bad people.

And those are the people who mattter.

And you accuse us of not getting you? Who said anything about the greater gay good?

Your comments illustrate your willingness to read between lines that aren’t there. That’s probably why you get such hostile responses, you do more accusing than you do making points.

Actually, the agreement is not binding since it was for an illegal act (evidenced by the nude sexual massages).

From a legal perspective, where is the line drawn between defending yourself and breaking a “confidentiality agreement?”

I seems to me, as someone who is woefully ignorant of the law (at least in this situation), that Jo-Vanni’s statements have all basically been in response to Rekers’ statements. Jo-Vanni did not leak or break the story, and seemed not to have any comments at all until late in the life of this story, after the numerous and conflicting explanations offered by Rekers, many of which involved apparent lies in regard to Jo-Vanni and how they met, when he “discovered” Jo-Vanni’s profession, etc etc etc.

So, is the agreement so binding that he should have no recourse to defend himself from those lies? Or should (and does) the validity of the agreement become null and void when one party breaks it? It seems to me that it’s Rekers who should be held accountable for breaking the confidentialiy LONG before Jo-Vanni.

The fact that there is even the possibility of Jo-Vanni being sued for “breaking the agreement” is extremely confusing to me.

Has anyone even considered that Jo Vanni might be quite happy to offer his services? And if so, why not. He’s clearly not filled with all this superstitious self-hatred and shame about one of life’s most wonderful pleasures. Get off your high horses.

Unless he is a secret member of the KKK or something, it makes no difference that we know nothing about Mr Roman’s life, other than this truly heroic deed, which potentially puts him at great risk.

I salute Jo-Vanni for exposing one of the most appalling characters of the religious right. For those who value reason, truth and dignity, this is the happiest day since the death of the unraptured, chinless Jerry Falwell.

Seriously, I am considering writing to the National Secular Society here in London, as he deserves to be nominated for the ‘secularist of the year’ award.

That you lack any sympathy for the situation because you’re so preoccupied with judgement.

Who said I lacked any sympathy? And what exactly is my “judgment?” All I’ve done is ask questions, not make declarations. It’s everybody ELSE who has made declarations, mostly against my character for failing to take something at face value for the sake of “the greater gay-good.”

I’ve asked legitimate questions, all of which people seem to read as “HE’S A DIRTY DIRTY GAY BOY WHO HAS DIRTY SEX FOR DIRTY MONEY, ABANDON HIM IN THE STREETS!” Wrong.

Maybe people are so pre-occupied with their own groupthink and politically-correct “gay liberation” theology to see that. Maybe it’s a generational thing. That I can buy.

And if he decides to move on from the escort field, I’m sure he’ll be able to find a job somewhere. Dunkin’ Donuts, for example, is NOT that selective when it comes to who they hire. Maybe he can get work study at his college.

..oh, and since I’m on welfare, managing an expensive chronic illness, and work an $8/hr, 40-hr a week job with a 1.5 hr commute each way, I do kind of “get” that we’re in an “economic pickle.” ..But it IS turning around.

I’m not even going to comment further. Not even if people DO decide to climb down from their soapboxes and get over themselves.

Oh dear, do I really have to point this out?

You don’t know if Lucien had planned to retire today, tomorrow, next week, next year, or never. Perhaps his Reker’s money paid his rent. Perhaps not. Perhaps he’s been saving some of that money up from his tricks, perhaps it’s all been toward school and his bank account is dry. Ever been on your own and faced with suddenly being jobless? It’s not fun.

Ever stop to think that the reason he’s an escort is because he can’t get a different job? Or that his bills (he’s a college student after all) are such that a different job won’t cut it?

You don’t know if he has loans, if his family might normally help but is now so embarassed by the scandal that they’ve disowned him.

You also seem to be missing the point that we’re kind of in an economic pickle.

I’m a well-qualified college GRADUATE and I’ve been barely employed as a temp for the past two years (when I got laid off by 2 different employers within six months of each other) Now is not a good time to be unexpectedly unemployed, especially if you’re knee deep in scandal.

In a word. DUH.

“He’s going to college, yes?”

Yes, and the key word is “going” as in present tense…and escorting was paying for it. But that job is poof, gone. How’s he going to continue going to college if he’s unemployed and can’t pay tuition? To say nothing of the fact that his school might just frown on a student working as an escort, especially with the scandal it might bring to them.

“I doubt he’s going to college so he can climb the corporate ladder of escorting. Maybe he can get a job closer to the field he is studying. It might not make as much money as prostitution but it IS a job.”

Who exactly is going to hire a publicly scandalized ex-prostitute right in the middle of the scandal itself? I’m pretty sure Dunkin Donuts isn’t interested.

“Your application looks great, mister…hey what a second, weren’t you on CNN last night? Nevermind we’re going with another candidate”

The fact that I had to explain all of that to you, to me, just shows how far gone you are on this subject, that you can’t even comprehend the basics of the situation he’s in. That you lack any sympathy for the situation because you’re so preoccupied with judgement.

The issue here is the slut-shaming, which, to draw another parallel, is often the response you get from anti-choice men when dealing with women who exercise their reproductive choice, and from more conservative men and women in response to rape victims.

The fact that we’re having this conversation is a bit silly, honestly.

“I doubt he’s going to college so he can climb the corporate ladder of escorting. Maybe he can get a job closer to the field he is studying. It might not make as much money as prostitution but it IS a job.”

Yes, but it’s not your place or my place to pass judgment on his choice of work.

As to a couple of Regan’s points:

“I]t’s something the gay community, like blacks, can’t afford to indulge. Our respective communities are often accused, (and discrimination justified by) what appears to be a mercenary/recreational attitude about sex as it is.”

“Can’t afford to”? The greatest market for prostitution in this country is among straight people, first of all. The only difference is that some within the gay community are more willing to be honest about its existence, rather than pretending, as so many straight people do, that it doesn’t happen, just as…

“hat marriage and monogamy aren’t the goal of gay people, but through activity like this, are validating the suspicions and stereotypes instead.”

Some in the gay community are more willing to acknowledge that infidelity and non-monogamy are decidedly NOT the purview of the gay community, but rather are practiced by LOTS of people of all sexual orientations, but are more honest about the fact that some people choose relationships which are not monogamous, instead of, again, slut-shaming those who do so as a way of making ourselves feel better than someone else.

Again.

We’re placing the kid on a pedestal because he did something worthy of that pedestal. But that’s not even really what we’re doing…we’re trying to rally support for a kid who put himself on the line in order to corroborate the reports in the media which are serving to knock down a particularly contemptible pillar of the anti-gay/ex-gay movement.

It is beyond me why any would feel the need to make that support hinge on whether or not we get to shame the slut to someone’s satisfaction. And trying to throw his line of work under a rug is beyond silly, because it’s precisely BECAUSE the kid was in this line of work that Rekers is being taken down in this way. If Jo-Vanni had been his barista, rather than a hired escort, I daresay George Rekers would still be sitting pretty.

It would appear that you would want to shove Jo-vanni into a closet. What are you ashamed of.

right, because short of glorifying his line of work, it means you want to make buggery illegal. Please. That line of “logic” insults your intelligence.

Evan, my comment about Enron wasn’t related to sex workers. It was a response to your accusing me of bigotry-by-proxy. People are allowed to be skeptics.

As for “never being able to work as an escort again,” well, can’t he find work in another field? He’s going to college, yes? I doubt he’s going to college so he can climb the corporate ladder of escorting. Maybe he can get a job closer to the field he is studying. It might not make as much money as prostitution but it IS a job.

Regan makes a lot of great points nobody is talking about. These in particular:

[I]t’s something the gay community, like blacks, can’t afford to indulge. Our respective communities are often accused, (and discrimination justified by) what appears to be a mercenary/recreational attitude about sex as it is.

That marriage and monogamy aren’t the goal of gay people, but through activity like this, are validating the suspicions and stereotypes instead.

I think it’s sad that such a beautiful boy with educational goals in mind is going this route in the first place. That he sold himself to someone icky like Rekers.

And, that Rekers, doesn’t think any more of young gay men than that they should serve him in this way.

I have gotten treated very abominably in all kinds of situations because of what too many men think they are either entitled to, or how little they think of women beyond a piece of meat.

And since I’m a female, and females being the most obvious victims of sex work and sex worker’s, I would rather look at the subtext of it and look at the real harms, than being so disconnected as to think that the only reason it’s not encouraged, is because it’s illegal. It’s illegal because it’s really not a GOOD thing, or a NEUTRAL thing for people to take for granted.

people can call me a self-loather, a closet-lover, a bigot, anti-equality, or anti-sex, but they’re not going to change my opinion or skepticism of so quickly placing a person we barely know on a pedestal.

This tendency is on full display in the Tea Party movement, freaked out as they are that a poor single mother might get to see the doctor before they do.

Jo-Vanni doesn’t need to do anything to earn our support or prove his worthiness. He’s already done it, by putting himself on the line once he realized the nature of the client who had been outed.