the fabulist…

Posted on Sunday 9 May 2010

Like many, I’ve been preoccupied by the story of George Rekers and the disconnect between his years of work in the anti-Gay movement and his hiring a male gay escort to travel with him on a European sexual massage vacation. Thus far, the media focus has been on whether he did it or not. There seems little question about that now. There were some interesting facts from the trip. Dr. Rekers mostly stayed in the hotel room while on the trip itself. He is a married man who was traveling without his wife. The sexual activity involved long nude messages without sexual climax. Now, there is a report from 18 years ago of a similar massage encounter with a paid gay escort – Chaz. The gay commenters have a similar way of talking about Dr. Rekers – a married bisexual man who hates himself [using this designation as if it is some kind of known ‘type’]. I don’t know if this formulation [hates himself] is their interpretation, or in fact, true.

In reading through his writing, specifically his Arizona testimony [rekers-think…], he has a particular way of thinking about homosexuality in making his argument against allowing gays to be adoptive or foster parents. What it comes down to is that he thinks that being around openly gay people is bad for children because gay people have a greater instance of instability and it confuses children in their own gender identity development. His examples have to do with children being exposed to the "gay lifestyle."  He uses a phrase "homosexual-behaving adult" a lot. He also declares with conviction that children in gay households are more likely to be abused. Dr. Rekers has been saying these things for well over thirty years – most of his professional career. Likewise, the heavy overlay of Christian morality is apparently lifelong.

The simplest explanation for the seeming paradoxes in Dr. Rekers’ life is that he is a man with homoerotic impulses who does not want to be identified as homosexual and who was possibly sexually molested by a man when he was a child. And that his adult behavior is a complex compromise formation. He is a married man with five children. In his mind, he is a champion of keeping children away from homosexual adults. He seems to think if you are not a "homosexual-behaving adult," you are not gay. And his trysts with young gay prostitutes involves "massages" without completing the sexual act, ergo "not sex." When he says, "I am not gay," in his convoluted way of thinking, he means it, as in ‘I am not a homosexual-behaving adult’ [my guess that he was probably molested is based on his conviction that a foster child  is in danger of being molested in a gay home, though it’s possible that it’s his own impulses that he’s worried about].

Viewed as a ‘case,’ Dr. Rekers is more than simply a hypocrite. There are so many very odd things in his way of communicating, over and above his attempts at denial. For example, his web site, Professor George, is written about him [in the third person], but I’m sure he wrote it himself. His response to the Miami New Times likewise mixes first and third person in the same sentence:
  • Did Dr. Rekers in fact hire you to lift my luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so myself since I had surgery?
  • Did you in fact lift my luggage during the trip each time it was necessary, or did Dr Rekers lift his own luggage during the trip?
Even more peculiar, In that same response, he answers for Lucien:
  • Did you in fact lift my luggage during the trip each time it was necessary, or did Dr Rekers lift his own luggage during the trip?
    We agreed that my travel assistant did in fact lift my luggage each time it was necessary, that I did not lift my luggage, and my travel assistant did all the lifting.
  • Did Dr. Rekers hire you as a prostitute for the trip?
    We agreed that I hired him as a companion and to help with luggage, and that I did not hire him as a prostitute for any sexual purpose.
Rekers’ claim was that Lucien had called him, and asked for questions to remind him what to say. Rekers said he asked Lucien to email him the answers. As he didn’t get a response, he answered for Lucien. What’s even stranger is that Rekers might think that anyone on the planet would believe this pitiful attempt to cover-up the truth.

The same thing is apparent in his expert opinions. The published document from his Arkansas deposition has a number of scientific-ish studies, which he cherry picks and distorts to support his thesis. But the peculiar thing is that it is also filled with a number of unsupported conclusions – assertions that would seem unsupported to a scientifically naive reader. His lawyer must’ve realized that and stopped him from saying them in court. The Judge in one of the cases said, "Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. … the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy." Quite a strike-down.

"I just stay in the background," said Rekers when confronted by Lucien about his Ex-Gay advocacy. But that’s not just what he says. This background designation is in many reports about Rekers:
For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes.
One wonders why such a grandstander who writes his own grandiose bios would stay in the background. It’s easy to postulate that it’s one of the ways he stays "in the closet." But I suspect it’s bigger than that. Dr. George Rekers is a fabulist. He’s not only distorting science to fit his conclusions or inventing excuses to cover-up his sexuality, he’s creating himself in his own image. I’ve never seen an academic sign every letter "distinguished professor." Likewise, equating himself with Jesus strikes everyone as bizarre:
"Like Jesus Christ, I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them."
"Like John the Baptist and Jesus, I have a loving Christian ministry to homosexuals and prostitutes in which I share the Good News of Jesus Christ with them."
In reading over the things Rekers says, I can’t find anything that I believe. I think that’s what holds my attention to this story. What I’m suggesting is that this little rent-boy scandal has exposed a man who is living a made-up life. I would venture the guess that if anyone bothers to thoroughly investigate Dr. Rekers’ credentials and claims of accomplishment, they will find any number of fabrications and distortions as unsupportable as his "science" and his lifestyle. Dr. Rekers strikes me as more than just a "liar," he is a "lie." None of his colleagues have rallied to his support. I expect that they already know that he’s not quite right, and are positioning themselves as far away as possible…


And, frankly, I think it would be worth the effort for the gay activists to fully vet all of Dr. Rekers’ claims and credentials. If I’m right about him [that he is a global prevaricator], it would highlight the lack of scientific integrity in the whole anti-Gay movement…
  1.  
    May 15, 2010 | 2:41 AM
     

    […] in the future." This man is a very strange speaker, as I’ve mentioned before [the fabulist…]. I still can’t put my finger on what is is. I mentioned his speaking in the first and third […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.