Alex Blaze

Castagna on Dan Abrams and Curtis the Prodigal Child

Filed By Alex Blaze | November 02, 2007 1:51 PM | comments

Filed in: Living
Tags: Cody Castagna, Dan Abrams, Pat Buchanan, Regulation of sexuality, Richard Curtis, Washington

Here's a video commenter Lucrece pointed us to on my post yesterday about Washington State rep. Dick Curtis's shenanigans. It's Cody Castagna, the prostitute and would-be blackmailer, being interviewed on Dan Abrams's Show along with Pat Buchanan and Laura Flanders:

OK, first, what bad liars! All of them! Curtis said that he gave $100 to Castagna as gas money (are gas prices that bad in the US now?) and that he was drugged into having sex with him; Castagna says that he didn't steal the wallet, rather he was given it by Curtis as collateral. Seriously, that's the best they could come up with? I almost feel like writing "Do over" on their papers and waiting until they come up with something better.

But back to my point yesterday about the regulation of sexuality here. I think this video highlights what I'm talking about. More after the jump.

It's satisfying for many of us to see someone who moralizes against non-normative sexuality be caught in such a compromising position. And it's great for partisan Democrats that the GOP has been that much more discredited (as if we need any more of these to show the moralizers for what they really are).

But does this hurt us queer folk more than it helps? A lot of the press coverage surrounding this has been in the "Kinky, sexy, gay scandal coming up at 6" vein. A lot of the blog coverage has been centered around "Hahaha, he had sex. With a boy. While dressed like a girl." And conservatives responded absolutely atrociously, forcing him to resign his office because of his kinky nature, gayness, and public attention around this. Washington state Republicans weren't thinking that he was a hypocrite or that he was a liar or that he wasn't living up those elusive family values. He was outed as gay and kinky, he was embarrassing them in front of their base, and they ejected him.

Pat Buchanan touches on this in the clip (of course defending the practice), saying that Curtis did the right thing, and he wasn't talking about lying or hypocrisy. And that's the way this, like all the gay sex scandals in the GOP, is being spun and will continue to be spun: at least he's a sinner who admits it and steps down. Even Dan Abrams said that he was "exposed as both a homosexual and a hypocrite." Homosexual first, hypocrite second.

That's what I mean when I refer to the regulation of sexuality happening here. We may want him to resign for whatever substantive reasons, but the reality is that he was pushed out because he was gay.

And what we're seeing here is par for course for regulation of sexuality. People don't actually follow the rules and keep their genitalia under control, they need the affirmation and connection their bodies long for, so they violate the rules and then lie about it. We queers know that's the best you can hope for when you tell people to only fuck in certain people in a certain way, but that's not the most mainstream idea in the US right now.

What if we can approached Richard Curtis as not a hypocrite but as a prodigal child?

But seriously, Curtis gave his wallet to someone he just met as collateral? That's the best he could do? I can tell we're not dealing with the Brain Trust here.


Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | November 3, 2007 12:14 PM

Alex,

I would more sympathy for Curtis if he had not voted against LGBT civil rights legislations. He voted against non-discrimination and domestic partnership bills.

Its one thing to be closeted about having sex with men and wearing women's lingerie, but its an entirely different thing to vote against LGBT legislation while having sex with men and wearing women's lingerie.

I sympathize with those who don't feel that they can live their lives openly and honestly. I do not have sympathy for those who vote against us.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | November 3, 2007 7:08 PM

I sympathize with those who don't feel that they can live their lives openly and honestly. I do not have sympathy for those who vote against us.

I don't have sympathy exactly, either, but I get Alex's point. We wouldn't cheer most people's firing for being gay, but we do cheer Republicans'.

My approach it to cheer his being found out as a hypocrite but make it very clear that I if he's going to be fired or resign at all, it should be for being a hypocrite, not for being gay.

I don't know why his positions on LGBT issues mean that we can't have compassion for him. I know that idea's been floated around the internets for a while, and in real life, all since long before my time, but I just don't get it. He doesn't support domestic partnerships, so he should lose his job for being gay? Is this just "We don't like him so he sucks and do whatever to him"? Or is it "He made his bed and now he can sleep in it"?

I don't agree w/ Rep. Barney Frank's most recent and visible position on a certain LGBT issue, but I wouldn't support a Republican challenger running against him and using homophobia for votes.