{"id":4080,"date":"2010-05-09T09:32:14","date_gmt":"2010-05-09T13:32:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4080"},"modified":"2010-05-09T10:39:58","modified_gmt":"2010-05-09T14:39:58","slug":"the-fabulist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/05\/09\/the-fabulist\/","title":{"rendered":"the fabulist…"},"content":{"rendered":"
Like many, I’ve been preoccupied by the story of George Rekers<\/font><\/strong> 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<\/a><\/strong>. The gay commenters have a similar way of talking about Dr. Rekers – a married bisexual man who hates himself<\/em> [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. <\/div>\n

In reading through his writing, specifically his Arizona testimony [rekers-think…<\/a><\/strong>], 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<\/strong><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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].<\/p>\n

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<\/strong><\/a>, is written about him [in the third person], but I’m sure he wrote it himself. His response<\/strong><\/a> to the Miami New Times likewise mixes first and third person in the same sentence:<\/div>\n