Another Homophobic Hypocrite Outed.

By now just about everyone has heard that George Alan Rekers hired a RentBoy called Lucien to accompany him on a ten-day trip to Europe. He claims that he did not realize the young man was a prostitute, and hired him to help carry his luggage. This is a patently ludicrous defence if one takes even a brief glance at Lucien’s profile(NSFW) or the Rent Boy website (n.b., explicit sexual imagery) from which Rekkers admits having hired Lucien. Moreover, Lucien has told the press he gave Rekkers nude massages "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks."
In case you’ve been in a medically induced coma since the beginning of the month, Rekkers is a psychologist and anti-gay activist, co-founder of the Family Research Council, and of NARTH, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. He is a practitioner of conversion therapy, a pseudo-scientific religious conversion “cure” intended to change homosexuals into heterosexuals.
He is famous for charging state’s attorneys extortionate fees to testify that gays do not make good parents, and should not be allowed to adopt, because they are more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, and emotional problems. But then again, he’s also claimed that Native Americans make unsuitable foster parents, because they are at a high risk of alcohol abuse and psychiatric disorders. He has testified that the Boy Scouts of America should be allowed to exclude homosexuals, and has generally done everything within his power to pathologize homosexuality and justify discrimination against gay people. He has written a book, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity in which he advises parents that they can prevent their children from becoming homosexuals if they punish early signs of behaviour that does not conform to the child’s gender. He has also advised parents that “Biblical spanking may cause temporary and superficial bruises or welts that do not constitute child abuse.” Under intense and repeated criticism for his misuse and distortion of psychology, Rekkers has resigned from American Psychiatric Association.
So, what makes a virulent, anti-gay extremist want to take a 20 year old male prostitute with him on a ten day overseas vacation, and pay him for nude erotic massages?
The easy answer is that he is a hypocrite. And of course, his behaviour is blatantly hypocritical. Another answer that many people have proposed is that Rekkers, and all those other “Christian,” right-wing, anti-gay haters are “closet fags.” The Miami New Times, whose journalists were the first to uncover and report the Rekkers story, included him in a list of Top Ten Outed Right-Wing Homophobes. Also on that list are Richard Curtis, Republican member of the Washington state House of Representatives; Bob Allen, Republican member of Florida House of Representatives; Glenn Murphy, Jr., Chairman, Young Republican National Federation; Roy Ashburn, Republican California state senator Edward L. Schrock, Virginia Congressman; David Dreier, Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives in California; Larry Craig, U.S. Senator from Idaho; Mark Foley, U.S. Representative from Florida; and Ted Haggard, evangelist. When readers commented on names left off the list, the authors answered that it had been difficult to choose only ten. One can understand why Dan Savage pointedly asks, Is Every Right-Wing, Anti-Gay Christian Bigot Sucking Off Rent Boys?
However, in a very thoughtful essay, True/Slant’s Ethan Epstein writes, When people ...charge that Rekers is “gay” or a “fag,” they are engaging in a form of identity-imperialism that they typically detest. And he has a point. We generally uphold people’s right define their own identity: of transsexuals to identify with the gender they experience, mixed race people to identify themselves as they will, and we are increasingly resisting pigeon-holing men who identify as heterosexual, but have occasional same-sex encounters as “gay.” We refer to them as men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM.)
There is a danger, and a disservice to the gay community in pigeon-holing George Rekkers as a “closet gay.” True/Slant’s Laurie Essig writes, it’s so NOT funny because this feeds the stereotype that all homophobes are actually closet cases. This actually happened recently at a local college when homophobic incidents were attributed to someone who is probably actually gay.
Personally, I don’t believe that Rekkers has earned the right to be called “gay.” He has done everything he can to make life miserable for same-sex oriented people, to de-legitimate the concept of gay identity. To “accept” him as a gay person devalues the very idea of “gay.”
How then are we to make sense of this person, of who and what he is?
Ironically, an answer is suggested by Rekkers own supposed profession. Psychologists have long known that when a certain characteristic is intolerable to a person, they will develop a reaction formation against that way of being. Motivated by this defence mechanism, a person will develop the opposite trait(s) to an exaggerated degree. For example, if a man resents his child for limiting his freedom, or for coming between himself and the child’s mother, he may develop into an overly solicitous and over-protective father. He defends himself against the possibility that he might be a “bad” father by becoming a “super-dad,” to assure himself that he is a good father and a good person.
Now, think about what happens to a child growing up in a homophobic* world. All children are exposed to all of our cultural dialogue. That is to say that children who have a homosexual orientation learn all of the negativity, the loathing, the contempt for homosexuality, AND they believe it to the same extent that most other children do. As difficult as coming out is for most gay people, the most difficult person to come out to is oneself.
And some cannot do that. Some cannot bear the thought, nor even the suggestion, that they might be a “loathed and contemptible” homosexual. To a person like Rekkers, raised in an ultra-conservative religious environment, where even the most righteous people stand on the brink of Hell, the idea may be so intolerable that, not only must they never admit it, even to themselves, they must negate it, make it impossible. By becoming the exact opposite, the complete antithesis of ‘a homosexual,’ he preemptively defends himself against any hint that he could ever possibly be homosexual.
But there is no perfect defence, and our real self, our true self, keeps demanding the right to exist, to live our own lives, as we truly are. And so, Rekkers is not a “closet gay.” He was not in the closet. He was in denial that the closet even existed.
We will go on hearing stories of these homophobic hypocrites unwittingly outing themselves. Because we will continue to produce more Rekkers, and Haggards, and Foleys, and Craigs, et al., unless and until we choose not to.
Choosing not to requires speaking out against homophobia every time we encounter it. When you see a gay stereotype on TV, name it as such. When you hear anti-gay sentiments, speak up. Ask your children not to use the phrase “that’s so gay” as a pejorative. Insist that your school board's sex ed curriculum teaches the facts, not some religion's belief, about sexual orientation. When you encounter someone who says that all gays are going to Hell, ask them where those who disobey the injunction to “judge not, for judgement is God’s” will be going?
We must stop producing more Rekkers, who visit untold misery upon others in service of their own denial. We must stop making homosexuality such a terrible and intolerable identity that countless young people kill themselves every year rather than accept themselves for who they are. And make no mistake, through action or through inaction, it is we, you and I, who are responsible.

________________________________

* And please, no quibbling over whether anyone is “afraid” of homosexuals. The word refers literally to ‘fear of homosexuality.’ But even that’s too literal, as phobias can be expressed as aversion or even as disgust.

Hannah Montana and the Female Eunuch

(originally posted July 23, 2008)
Earlier this year a furore erupted in the media when fifteen year old entertainer Miley Cyrus posed for some fashion photos in Vanity Fair magazine. The photo that caused the stir was a classic “draped nude” portrait. Very little skin was actually visible, but the appearance of nudity beneath a cloth was apparently enough to throw self-appointed “morality” watchdogs into a panic.
And as usual, the media entered “feeding-frenzy” mode.
Widely reported was the fear that her photographs send a harmful message to young girls, making Cyrus an unfit role model for young women. Try as I might though, I can’t find many specific statements about what that “bad” message might be...except for Dr. Robyn Silverman’s Powerful Parent Blog, where she warns parents that their ‘tween daughters may “show up to playtime loosely wrapped in their Beauty and the Beast bedsheets...”
However, while the Cyrus photos appear to have raised more concern than they warrant, a question that hasn’t been asked is, what message does the alarm over the photos send to young girls?
It seems to me that the message being given to young girls everywhere is clear, specific and destructive: that in order to be considered good, acceptable, admirable, and worthy, a girl, a young woman, must remain completely sexless. That girls who, like Miley, even hint that a sexual being lies beneath the coverings has done something bad, unacceptable, and shameful.
A girl does not have to be very old, nor very sophisticated, to understand that her parents and the talking heads of alleged grown-ups on TV feel that Miley has been bad. And Miley’s widely publicized apology, her embarrassment, her tears, her reportedly feeling ill at a subsequent concert all reinforce the message: girls are not supposed to HAVE any sexuality. Not only must they not openly display it, they must never even hint at it. Bad things happen to those who do, and people will stop liking them.
Even her supporters urge others not to condemn this teenager for having “made a mistake.”
Hinting that you may be a sexual being is a mistake? Apparently it is in 2008.
The TV talking heads bristle in outrage over the fact that the person in these photos “is only 15.”
News flash: Human beings, males and females both, are sexual beings from before birth until the day they die.
As a sex therapist, I see many adult women, married, or in committed relationships, who are very conflicted about their sexuality. Is it any wonder?
The prescription is that a girl, a woman, should not be sexually active until marriage, that she should “save” herself for her husband. Then, all of a sudden, her husband (ideally a virgin himself) will “awaken” her sexuality, and she will suddenly go from a person who has denied even the possibility of having sexual feelings, who has been trained from toddlerhood to say “no, no, no”, to being a fully sexual being who moans “yes, yes, yes.”
Fairy tales like this keep my profession going and provide me and my colleagues with an income.
But the cost in human anguish and misery can be staggering.
Is it any wonder that women are conflicted about sexuality, when the media continually indulges in its insidious game of set ‘em up and knock ‘em down with young female celebrities? To be acceptable as celebrities, even the most timid or plain females are required to be sexualized, made-over, enhanced...their sexual appeal must be hyped to the max. But then, to be an
acceptable role model, they must be “pure.” And when young women who must be both “sexy” and “pure” make a personal decision regarding their own sexuality, be it starring in a film with “adult themes,” posing for pictures, or becoming sexually active, the media fall all over themselves to denounce her. She is now part of the morality play known as “fallen woman,” and is gleefully branded with today’s updated scarlet letter...no longer an “A” for adulteress, but an “S” for slut (or should that be an “H” for ho?).
We’ve seen that again and again. Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears publicly took virginity vows. They were then dressed by their handlers in the sexiest and most revealing outfits available. The Swift Report tells of rumours that her handlers may have pushed Britney Spears into marrying in order to boost her slumping record sales.
According to market research, CD choices are increasingly shaped by the morality of the female artists, with teenaged girls saying they prefer to buy music by female artists who put off sex until marriage. This is resulting in pressure on struggling record labels to keep young starlets chaste—or quickly marry them off.
Notice that these categories allow for no middle ground. A young woman cannot be a “little bit sexual.” Only two states for young women are recognized. More recently, some pictures of Cyrus at a sleep over with friends were posted on the internet. One photo shows Cyrus and a female friend in chaste cotton nightgowns leaning against each other while sitting on the floor, mugging for the camera. The person who posted the photo has superimposed the word “slut” on it.
And if even hinting at your sexuality makes you a “bad girl”, well why not go all the way? The notion that you may as well be hung for a sheep as a goat makes sense to many teenaged minds. Having been branded a “bad girl, dismissed as a “slut,” many of our “fallen” female celebrities spiral out of control.
I have to wonder how many young non-celebrities put themselves at risk using the same logic?
Back in 1970, when I was about to graduate high school, Germaine Greer published, The Female Eunuch, the book that changed the way the world looked at women’s sexuality and the way women looked at themselves. Greer wrote, "Women have somehow been separated from their libido, from their faculty of desire, from their sexuality.”
38 years later, that situation persists. Rather than relenting, the focus has shifted to younger and younger women. Girls in many high schools today are subjected to pressure to take a “purity pledge,” a pledge to remain a virgin until she marries. As Marshall McLuhan noted, the medium is the message. What message does the very name of this phenomenon convey? Purity equals sexlessness. Therefore, any girl who is sexual is impure, flawed, dirty...a slut.
And, of course, there is the unspoken but ever-present expectation that the natural outcome of any young woman reaching adulthood is marriage, undoubtedly followed soon afterwards by motherhood. Nearly half a century after the emergence of second-wave feminism, the gender straightjacket is alive and well and invading your daughter’s bedroom!
There is, on the part of many adults, an unhealthy, unsavoury fascination with young women’s hymens. A question we need to ask ourselves as a society is this: should we allow their obsession to be passed onto our daughters as focus for anxiety, for self-loathing, for self-neutering?