Too Good to be True
Oh how I love it when anti-gay Rethuglicans get caught with their pants down. Well, he didn’t exactly get caught with his pants down, but he did squeeze the Charmin.
An Indiana state Representative, who recently voted for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, has been accused of using Craigslist to offer an 18-year old male $80 for “a couple hours of your time tonight” plus a tip “for a really good time.”
The Indianapolis Star obtained e-mails sent from Rep. Phillip Hinkle’s (R) publicly listed personal address, responding to a Craigslist posting by Kameryn Gibson that said “I need a sugga daddy.” Gibson told the Star that the post was in the “Casual Encounters” section under m4m, or men for men. He used his sister Megan’s e-mail address — and she later sent the e-mails to the Star.
Rep. Hinkle claims to be a “fit 170,” but I don’t know too many guys with double chins who are fit. But then again, who am I to judge? And he said he loves to “get and stay naked.” He went on to tell his new found friend that if he wanted to spend the night, he wouldn’t give him anymore money but would give him a “free breakfast and maybe late night snack.” OK, now I’m even grossed out.
The Star reports:
The young man told The Star that they met, but that he tried to leave after the man told him he was a state lawmaker. He said the lawmaker at first told him he could not leave, grabbed him in the rear, exposed himself to the young man and then later gave him an iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet.
So, he thought he could buy his silence with an iPad, a BlackBerry and a C-note. Guess he didn’t realize that a person has to eat.
Megan Gibson told the Star that later that evening she went back to the JW Marriott to show Hinkle’s daughter the e-mails. She soon after received another phone call from the woman claiming to be Gibson’s wife, who offered her $10,000 not to tell anyone. Still another call came from Hinkle himself later, and she told him what she had told his family members. “You just ruined me,” she says Hinkle responded.
Hinkle did not deny the e-mails in response to the Star’s request for comment, but said: “I am aware of a shakedown taking place.” He did not elaborate on what “shakedown” meant, nor did his attorney.
So let’s add Hinkle to the list of Rethuglican sex offenders.
Tags: Homophobia, Republican Hypocrisy
Repeat of comment on Friday open thread:
Unless I see stronger evidence that he was vicious about his homophobia, I’m more inclined to see this as a tragedy.
Think of him not as a hypocritical Republican but a closeted gay man who, by adopting the guise of a conservative politician (there really isn’t any other kind in Indiana; see Bayh, Evan), thought he had found the perfect hiding place.
But he was elected back in 2000. As his state and party got more and more deranged/conservative, he realized he couldn’t get away with just expressing distaste for homosexuality — he had to attack it and vote to “save marriage,” or it would raise questions.
He clearly was conflicted — why would he tell the young man he was a state lawmaker? If you read the story, it’s pretty clear his wife was aware of his orientation.
Sorry, but I think it’s the tragic story of a man raised in a time and place that forced him into the closet, and the self-destructive way he got out.
His pick up lines are terrible.
Nothing hypocritical about it; he voted against same-sex “marriage,” but he didn’t want to marry the guy; he just wanted some extracurricular fun. 🙂
Sorry, Geezer, I don’t find this tragic at all. It reminds me of former GOP Congresman Bob Bauman, who got arrested in 1980 for soliciting a 16 year old male prostitute in downtown DC and then blamed it on alcoholism. Yeah, Bauman eventually came out, but he did so “full tilt boogie.” He was at the clubs every night and was a troll. He thought he could impress the guys he hit on by telling them he was a former Congressman. I should know – he tried picking me up at Tracks in 1987. Thank G-D I have better taste.
Nope, this guy gets all of the ridicule he deserves, as does any other anti-gay politician, D or R.
I agree with Geezer. This is a tragic story. It’s simplistic to think that this case and others like it are merely cases of lying and hypocrisy. It’s also about the struggle of denial to oneself. By voting against homosexual rights, these lawmakers are not merely providing themselves cover but are trying to “decide” against their orientation and to drive it from themselves. While I don’t think that it’s wrong to out such politicians, I see no reason to gloat over the exposure.
Walk a mile in my shoes, Dana, and you’ll think differently.
Dana and Geezer, I think your compassion is misplaced.
This isn’t about him being gay; it’s about prostitution and abuse. I’m pretty sure even gay people know the difference between right and wrong. Would you have the same compassion if he had been caught paying an 18 year old girl for sex, and grabbing her and pressuring her to continue after she had changed her mind? I think in that case you’d be condemning him, and you’d be all over the women’s rights and abuse angle. You would probably even call it sexual abuse, if not rape.
The sudden outing makes it interesting politically, but does not really change the nature of his offense.
Well said, Puck.
He’s just another right-wing would-be rapist. The fact that he is also gay (or bi) just makes him a hypocrite.
While i do feel some sympathy for these guys (also M-bach’s husband) and i hope one day they accept themselves and find peace.. i dont think it is appropriate for them to be crafting legislation and passing laws. They always seem to take their self-loathing out on the populace… a populace that doesn’t hate themselves and shouldn’t.
An iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet?
Wow, talk about inflation!
A Duncan yo-yo, an Etch a Sketch and a Sawbuck has kept me quiet.
[I still have the yo-yo]
“Would you have the same compassion if he had been caught paying an 18 year old girl for sex, and grabbing her and pressuring her to continue after she had changed her mind?”
A quite different situation than the one we’re considering. Or are we pretending that an 18-year-old male couldn’t defend himself against a 60-something?
“I think in that case you’d be condemning him, and you’d be all over the women’s rights and abuse angle. You would probably even call it sexual abuse, if not rape.”
No, actually, I wouldn’t. I see nothing wrong with prostitution per se, so I don’t judge him on that. As for what allegedly transpired, I don’t see how you could call it assault. Given that the prostitute had agreed to be there in the first place, it’s doesn’t seem to qualify as an unwanted sexual advance. So no, I wouldn’t be the least bit outraged.
But of course you miss the point I was making — a whole lifetime of pain, lying and self-delusion led up to this.
I would even go so far as to say your self-righteousness is misplaced.
“This guy gets all of the ridicule he deserves, as does any other anti-gay politician, D or R.”
I don’t take much solace in that, MJ. It seems to me that much of the ridicule in these cases is based on revulsion toward homosexuality.
Is it really any surprise that people who have been taught since childhood that homosexuality is perhaps the biggest sin short of murder find themselves, when the have such urges themselves, turn into self-haters? That so many of them find positions in churches that put particular emphasis on this “sin”? That, having hidden their true nature for decades, they get more and more reckless, eventually destroying themselves by doing things that almost inevitably lead to disclosure?
The simple fact that there are so many of these cases in the past few years indicates to me that this is not a few isolated cases. I think there are thousands more men like this in positions of similar power, in both the public and private sectors, and the only possibilities they have for the future are that they will never be able to admit the truth, or that they’ll do so after self-destructing.
Maybe I’m just soft-hearted, but that seems ineffably sad to me.
The hypocrisy is what always stuns me.
But, like the Geez, in the end [no pun intended] these guys end up looking like pathetic people with deep, deep psychological problems they’ve never faced.
Just sad creatures.
“As for what allegedly transpired, I don’t see how you could call it assault. Given that the prostitute had agreed to be there in the first place, it’s doesn’t seem to qualify as an unwanted sexual advance.”
a prostitute had no fewer rights than your sister, daughter, wife etc…
Geezer – remind me never to be in your presence – if you think the fact that I agree to be (in this case) in a hotel room with you gives you the right to fondle me or have sex with me – guess again. Even if you think that is the understanding.
ANYONE at ANYTIME can say “NO” and that is when it stops – all of it, the touching etc… once one party no longer consents its OVER!!
if one of the parties continues, at best it is offensive touching/assault at worst, sexual assault.
and if you have any questions about that – touch me and see what happens. You will understand really fast what assault looks like.
🙂 no offense meant
“a prostitute had no fewer rights than your sister, daughter, wife etc…”
Nice theory, but in practice, if you’re in that hotel room because I paid you to be, and your complaint to the police boils down to I grabbed your arm when you tried to leave with my money, good luck on the witness stand.
“ANYONE at ANYTIME can say “NO” and that is when it stops – all of it, the touching etc… once one party no longer consents its OVER!!”
Why, what happens then — the unicorns arrive?
You are aware, I hope, of how many times this line of reasoning has been used to frame innocent people. My problem with your reasoning is that you’re clearly more sympathetic to one side of this he said-she said scenario than you are to the other. In short, you’re a hopelessly biased witness.
“Geezer – remind me never to be in your presence”
Not a problem.
“if you think the fact that I agree to be (in this case) in a hotel room with you gives you the right to fondle me or have sex with me – guess again.”
I cannot imagine any circumstance whatever under which I would fondle or have sex with you.
“and if you have any questions about that – touch me and see what happens. You will understand really fast what assault looks like.”
I have no intention of touching you, honest. I don’t know what you’re upset about, but when a hooker agrees to a tryst and then tries to back out of it, I’m not surprised the guy made a last-grasp effort to salvage his night of fun. You can spin that into a sexual assault if you like, but I don’t think you’re going to have much luck with a jury.
Geezer, Gibson said he changed his mind before any money exchanged hands. So NO does mean NO.
And stop trying to defend this lowlife rethuglican schmuck. He’s not innocent in this; he’s a pathetic hypocrite. He is worthy of being made fun of, of being ridiculed, and being the subject of news articles and talk shows. Whether he is a self-loathing closet case is beside the point – he has done things to take equality away from a minority and has been exposed. He deserves everything he gets.
And I see you don’t even comment on the fact that his family tried to bribe Gibson and his sister with $10K to keep quiet. And then asshole says he’s being shaken down. Sorry, no sympathy here.
I know where he can find “SYMPATHY”
its in the dictionary, right between “SHIT” and “SYPHILLIS”
If you are stupid enough to pay a hooker for sex, and the hooker runs out with your money (you dont get the sex) and you go to the cops….well, the laugh is on you. You had attempted to commit an illegal act, you can not be rewarded for doing so, so the cops won’t help you and may charge you, after they are done laughing.
on the other hand, you force someone to commit a sex act, whether you paid them or not – well hommey, you are screwed. That is any level of rape charges or sexual assault. No one will be laughing.
you must not have much experience around rape/S/A victims…or up on the current standards for charging/prosecuting/trying same. Those standards have changed a lot over the past 20 years, Do try to keep up.
” hooker agrees to a tryst and then tries to back out of it, I’m not surprised the guy made a last-grasp effort to salvage his night of fun. ”
this statement and frame of reference alone tells me all I need to know about you and your “proclivities” regarding sexual encounters. Ever hear of date rape? the above sounds like a justification of it.
I suppose you also think dinner and drinks, maybe a movies entitles to to what – cop a feel, a blowjob, or “around the world”? wonder what you consider to be a fair price?
you started down a very slippery slope…..and I’m not a witness for anything. Most moral people understand that you dont touch someone, or fondle, kiss, feel up whatever, someone without their express permission.
and you didn’t have to be so terse just coz you got your feelings hurt 🙁
My feelings aren’t hurt.
“this statement and frame of reference alone tells me all I need to know about you and your “proclivities” regarding sexual encounters. Ever hear of date rape?”
Read it again. The key word is “hooker.” A tryst with a hooker is not a “date.”
“you must not have much experience around rape/S/A victims…or up on the current standards for charging/prosecuting/trying same. Those standards have changed a lot over the past 20 years, Do try to keep up.”
I do keep up. Please refer me to the recent case in Delaware in which someone was convicted (NOT pleaded out) for something as dubious as grabbing someone by the arm. Please.
If, by “not much experience,” you mean “unlikely to believe the victim’s story just because she or he claims to be a victim,” then yes, I don’t have much experience.
“I suppose you also think dinner and drinks, maybe a movies entitles to to what – cop a feel, a blowjob, or “around the world”? wonder what you consider to be a fair price?”
I have not “dated” in the sense you mean since I was a teenager, 35 years ago. Back then, there was no implicit bargain in place based on expenses paid, at least not in my demographic. That became common in the ’80s, IIRC.
“Most moral people understand that you don’t touch someone, or fondle, kiss, feel up whatever, someone without their express permission.”
Do your dates sign release forms? I agree with this statement. It’s just that from what I read — and it was a couple of days ago now, so forgive me if I’m not getting this straight — there was an at least implicit understanding of cash-for-sex from the first.
I read with a skeptical eye. I get suspicious at the notion that young Kam decided he didn’t want to have sex only after learning grandpa was a state legislator. It doesn’t sound like a likely stumbling block to me, considering what went before and came after. Now if he wanted to say “No way I”m kissing a disgusting old man,” I’d believe it.
No, the old man shouldn’t have grabbed the kid’s arm. But I’m giving a bit of a pass to a guy watching his life circling the drain right after the john has been flushed, so to speak.
MJ: No defense intended. Sympathy toward the guilty isn’t allowed?