*All Rights to American Idol 2010 and Fox*
Here, today, I dedicate this song to George Reker, co-founder of NARTH, an organisation designed to turn gay men "straight", who protested vehemently AGAINST gay men being parents, or 'rents of boys (or girls), in Florida. Reker was less outspoken about his "firm" belief that homosexual males are FOR rent as boys, for men. I hope this is clear.
The Gospel According to George Reker:
Gay men ought not be parents of boys who go on vacations together as a family. Reker ought to be able to take a rentboy for sexual massage on a vacation without his family.This is, really, how many White Conservative Christian Men practice "family values". More on this matter of only one small part of him being vertical with the prostitute, and the rest of him being straight with the press, later in this post.
What's, NARTH, you ask? Oh, that's the National Association for Research and Therapy of Heterosexuality. I mean Homosexuality. Sorry. I keep forgetting what it is that Wise(-ass) Christian Conservative White Men are for and against. I mean politically they lean against gay men, but personally they also lean against gay men. So, as you can see, it's kind of confusing.
The very popular and enjoyable song above was written and performed by Larry Flatt, a former Civil Rights Activist who clearly has his act together and ready for the road in a way that George Reker never will. It is reported that Flatt has been grossly exploited by those who have sought to profit from his song. From
The song was first performed at the ninth season of American Idol auditions where the song became a viral hit. Platt's former manager Jason Mills released the studio version of the song, without him even knowing. The single version of the song was released on February 4, 2010 by American King Music for MP3 download. Jake Records also entered negotiations with Larry Platt to produce a single of the hit song, but the parties were unable to reach agreement on a deal.  It was reported that Platt's former manager also gave the song to radio stations without his permission stating that the song "is a promotional and not for profit."
And speaking of the reported and exploited, it occurs to me, as I'm sure it does to a few of you readers, that "rentboy" is both a better and a more demeaning term to use for someone than "prostitute". It has some indication of there being a human being in there, what with "boy" being part of the term and all. But, then again, it's a boy. A child. So, not so good a term there. Why the term isn't rentman has a lot to do with men's sexually political desire to possess those they fuck around with. And nowhere to be found is the term rentwoman.
"Prostitute", perhaps due, in the West, to the overwhelming sales of a paperback called the New Testament Bible, is fused with the gendered being named "woman". Hence the need for the term, "male prostitute" (kind of like "male nurse" except the expectations by the men who get their services are different). How many times have you heard the term, "female prostitute"? Yeah, this may be the first time I've heard it too. But whether a rentboy or a prostitute, the person is assumed to be for men and "for rent". Which tells you a lot about what can happen to someone. Or, well, it should. It should tell you that "renters" of "the rented" get what they want, and get to demand what they want because they paid "for you" to "do what they want". Sometimes, as in the case with Reker and the Rentboy, George made "Lucien" sign a contract about exactly how much time he'd spend giving him a massage each day (and hour), and how many hours in a day they'd spend together (eight).
I'm sorry, what?
The New Testament Bible?? You've not heard of it? Oh, sorry.
It's a quasi-biographical novel of sorts, about a man named Jesus. It was co-penned by several men who never knew the guy (no, really--they never met him!), so it's filled with lots of rather bizarre, conflicting, and mythic stories about Jesus, who did exist but not exactly in the ways and to the length of time (that time period being eternity) that some of his "mythographers" proclaim. When Our Lorde writes an auto-"biomythography" about herself--who IS someone she knew in person--she therefore has some authority to write accurately about the subject of the book. And so we can trust in Her, Our Lorde to have some integrity about what is written. Not so with biomythography that is written by those patriarchal dudes who never once, twice, or thrice sat down with, broke bread, and interviewed the subject of their book--or even saw a YouTube video of him speaking.
And while on the topic of who he was and wasn't, despite depictions like the one just below, Jesus was a very non-white Jewish man of Central Asian and/or Northern African heritage, who stood with the oppressed against State tyranny. He stood with the oppressed, yes, that's right. With folks like prostitutes and people who would now be termed gay men and lesbians, and the rest of us. Reker, by all accounts, is a man who "lay down before the prostitute as one would lie with a woman", with "woman" back then often meaning... you guessed it... "prostitute".
Those were the days of fiercely organising and institutionalising patriarchal power in religion. And, Mary Magdalene, who, despite what many allegedly smart Christian men will tell you, was not a prostitute, she was, rather, a central Apostle in Jesus' life, and wrote a Gospel, herself. From a book all about The Gospel of Mary of Magdala:
In the brief text, the male apostles are afraid and despondent after Jesus' post-resurrection departure, so Mary tries to cheer them by revealing some of the esoteric teachings that Jesus imparted to her alone. But the teachings cause discord, as Peter and others refuse to believe that Jesus would have given such "strange ideas" to a woman. ("Did he choose her over us?" a petulant Peter asks.From *here*:
She is the Savior's beloved, possessed of knowledge and teaching superior to that of the public apostolic tradition. Her superiority is based on vision and private revelation and is demonstrated in her capacity to strengthen the wavering disciples and turn them toward the Good.Newby (Century One) Christian menfolk decided, for entirely political reasons--and because they were jealous and pissed, that she shouldn't be included in the New Testicle, I mean Testament (same root, you know), because, well, she KNEW Jesus--some say "biblically", and they didn't know him at all, in any way, shape, or form. HER story would show up theirs to be FILLED WITH LIES.)
Irony was never so horribly ironic as it is in these male supremacist hymns (hims) of hypocrisy.
I hope the difference between Reker and Jesus is clearer now, with regard to their views of homosexual men. But let's have a bit of a refresher before we go on. Jesus stood for them, and would have supported them being parents. George lay down next to a rentboy, but would not stand with a gay men being the rents, especially of boys. (White Preachy Conservative Christian men are so confusing, and confused.)
And, also in review, Jesus didn't look anything like this, ethnically, but he did look like this politically:
[this image is from a webpage that is linked to below]
And he didn't condemn those who The Oppressive State condemned. And he was against State Tyranny. And he wasn't all lovey-dovey. Ooh. Another pun. (Dove: symbol of Peace, as Jesus is sometimes thought to be. Work with me here people.) He was angry, furious even, at least at times. You don't believe me? Well, read this book, by a Christian White Man. Jesus was outraged with what the Roman Empire, or Empire, was doing, and he spoke out against it. Yes, that's right: AGAINST Empire, you know, the way Sojourner Truth did. And Harriet Tubman. And Andrea Dworkin. And Andrea Smith. And Dr. Marimba Ani. Robert Jensen does it too, and also his unrelated colleague, Derrick Jensen. Check out THEIR testaments.
Jesus behaved much more the way all radical human rights and non-racist, non-misogynistic environmental rights activists do than the way most Conservative Christian activists do. I've read up (a whole lot) on what he did and didn't say, and did you know that Western Christian scholars conclude that he may only have said three things, three passages, that are in the New Testament, and that all the other stuff were "words put in his mouth"?! Yup. Read all about it: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/.
Yes, that's right. It's a Christian site. Not ALL Christians just read one book and call it good news.
But, back to Reker and the Rentboy. "Rentboy" makes him sound, you know, like a child, which raises disturbing issues about men having sex with boys, with any children of any gender, as white men, especially, are want to do. Because they are inhumanely yet institutionally entitled, they don't just want, they do. White men will travel to the farthest and nearest ends of the Earth to put their dicks into or on children. Seriously. And are white men stigmatised for doing this? Only if they're gay. The het men get off, so to speak, scott free.
Ah, to be an unstigmatised white het guy who abuses children without care, who will know a fiery hell for all of eternity, let's hope and pray. Economic privilege helps of course, but in the West, the wealth is concentrated disproportionately into the dishonorable hands of white men, but of course not most white men. Capitalism sees to that. Let only the few know of wanting for nothing, so sayeth the Corporate God of Greed.
Reker, though, was among the elite, the most privileged. As a Western wealthy white heterosexually-identified man, he has what is termed "disposable income". And with his charitable money did he feed and clothe the poor? Not exactly. This (self-)Righteous Christian Who Preaches Against Homosexuality was, instead, caught paying for his sins with his pants on the ground. Since, amusingly, in the UK "pants" means underwear, our new song lyric works well as Reker's anthem on both sides of the Puritan-and-Slave-transporting pond. In either place, Reker is butt-naked, with only his ifs, ands, and buts-filled protestations of innocence with which to cover his jiggly bits and pieces. Surely the man with the
But alas, do you hear it? Another voice harks yonder. A voice that knows what secrets Reker keeps hidden under his oily skin.
Yes, the prostitute has now spoken out, to respond to what Reker has said while lying in so many ways about trying to bring Jesus to this troubled very young man. Well, if Reker calls his greasy straight dick "Jesus", then maybe that's true. But I don't think that's what George wants us to believe about him.
George Reker has revealed himself to be no preacher of any Gospel worth uttering, let alone a Savior of Lost Souls. He is only that which Jesus most despised: an Empire-worshiping, oppressively bigoted, blasphemous hypocrite.
Here's a part of this story about "Lucien" speaking out about his time with Reker. This next portion is from the same place where I found that image of the White Jesus, *here*. Following that, Lucien speaks on video, and I offer up what may well be the moral to this story.
Here's a link to what "Lucien" the prostitute has to say to CNN's Anderson Cooper, who is gay, out, and has a boyfriend whom Reker would find unfit to raise a boy. I found this video clip *here* on Towleroad. I am impressed with Lucien's generosity of spirit towards a man who condemns him and the rest of us unrepentant gay men to Burn in Hell for All Eternity. (Ah, but is there any room left in hell, what with the white het men who enjoy their evil-doings unpunished till death?)
Perhaps it is Lucien, the socially ridiculed soft-spoken one, the one with whom Jesus would have stood, not laid down, who will succeed in spiritually transforming Reker into a compassionate human being. Reker, to date, has adequately demonstrated (or is it demon-straighted?) he only has cold cash and a corrupt soul to offer Lucien.
Revealed in the opening and closing of today's story, it is Larry Flatt and Lucien with some goodness of being and wisdom to share.