So, we have a new line to add to the file labeled "Seriously?!?"-alongside Reverend Ted Haggard's "I bought the meth but didn't use it," ex-gay leader John Paulk's "I had to use the bathroom and had no idea it was a gay bar," Rep. Eric Massa's "I'm just a salty old sailor," and Senator Larry Craig's "I have a wide stance."
Now add Reverend George Rekers' "I hired him to lift my luggage."
As a co-founder (with James Dobson) of the conservative Family Research Council, a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and an author of numerous anti-gay works, Dr. Rekers is a major right-wing figure.
And so he did what any straight, family-oriented Baptist minister would do when looking for someone to carry his luggage on a ten-day European excursion. He went to rentboy.com and hired a prostitute.
I can't make this stuff up.
The Miami New Times broke the story this week, complete with details from 20-year-old blond Puerto Rican rentboy "Lucien's" profile: his "smooth, sweet, tight ass," his "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and the fact that he'll "do anything you say as long as you ask." These are important attributes for travel assistants, no doubt.
A blogger at Unzipped.net quickly uncovered the rentboy's profile, which identifies him as Boynextdoor/Geo and was purged of some of the earlier sexual content; the profile has since been removed from the site to protect the young man's privacy.
(Incidentally, we SHOULD protect the young man's privacy. 20-year-olds don't typically go into prostitution because it's the best among many excellent job opportunities.)
Lucien/Geo is the same age as a son that Rekers adopted four years ago, which might not be relevant were it not for Rekers' vigorous opposition to adoption by gays. Rekers testified in favor of nasty homosexual adoption bans in both Arkansas and Florida. Indeed, on the blog page where he repeats his lame luggage excuse, there's a link labeled "Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?" This leads to a page full of outright falsehoods, including:
"Large research studies consistently report that a majority of homosexually-behaving adults have a life-time incidence of one or more psychiatric disorders, while a majority of heterosexually-behaving adults do not suffer a psychiatric disorderâ¦. So my professional conclusion that homosexually-behaving adults should not be allowed to adopt children is based on research and logic."
And perhaps personal experience.
This is not funny. It is not even sad. It's disgusting. And I'm tired of feeling sorry for these people.
As the Gay Moralist, I like to give all people the benefit of the doubt. It's not a strategy so much as a matter of empathy. I was once a closeted homosexual conservative myself, and I came close to entering the Catholic priesthood. I often wonder whether, had my life gone slightly differently-different influences, different opportunities, different choices-I'd be missing truths that seem obvious to me now.
I even wonder whether I might have acted out sexually in inappropriate ways-hiring male prostitutes privately while railing against homosexuality publicly, or hitting on college seminary students (not children) in my priestly care. While I'm no longer a believer, the phrase "There but for the grace of God" still resonates with me.
I am not denying that we're responsible for our choices and actions. I'm simply saying that there are often mitigating factors beyond observers' ken. I don't know Rekers personally, and I can only make an educated guess at what demons he wrestles with.
But I know from hard experience that the best way to tame demons is to start being honest with yourself and others. That, instead of using self-respecting gays as a proxy for whatever internal foes you're fighting.
Unsurprisingly, not even Rekers' religious-right buddies are buying his "lift my luggage" line, or his more recent claim (in a message to blogger Joe.My.God) that he spent time with the youth in order to share the Gospel: "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."
Lift his luggage? Share the Good News? These lines make great double-entendres for late-night comedians ("Is that what the kids are calling it these days?") but they don't get Rekers a whit closer to addressing his real baggage.
11 Comments for “Rekers’s Rentboy”
posted by TS on
If as a moralist you are low on compassion for hypocrites, then as a rationalist be skeptical.
There are certain circumstances under which Rekers’ excuse is not completely unconvincing. Maybe the young man reached out to him. A rentboy, continually exposed to the worst elements of gay life. Maybe he had a religious upbringing. Maybe he was misled by his bad experiences into thinking that Rekers’s bull is the only escape from gay life.
Ok, ok. It’s probably what it looks like. Rekers is gay and tried to get away with a pathetic anonymous tryst with a 20-year-old Puerto Rican rentboy.
But still, these situations are sometimes quite ambiguous. God forbid I should ever be tapping my foot to a tune only I can hear in a public restroom next to an overzealous cop. I say we are much too eager to seize upon these examples of hypocrites, which do much to dramatize the absurdity of our opponents’ ideas.
We do this at the risk of forgetting that the vast majority of anti-gay people are not gay. Uneducated or change-resistant people (between them, the vast majority of the population) are repulsed by the idea of gay relationships due to the same biopsychosocial tapestry of reasons that make us attracted to gay relationships. We look a shortcut in mocking the hypocrites at the risk neglecting the only task that will ever secure lasting progress: convincing a majority of sensible people that how we live our lives is not wrong.
“One tends to rate hypocrisy as a worse offense than it is because it stinks in the nostrils.” -Rebecca West, a friend of Oscar Wilde.
posted by Throbert McGee on
While TS might be reaching a bit, I think the truth of the situation may lie between TS’s position and Corvino’s. After all, if you’re a rentboy at age 20, odds are you’ve got “pathetic baggage” of your own.
I also think it’s a point in Rekers’ favor that he was evidently very modest in his sexual expectations of the young man. He could’ve asked for a lot more than a sensual massage, and “Lucien” would’ve obliged, but apparently Rekers set boundaries during their homosexual contact. That in itself is a good thing, IMO.
posted by Bobby on
Throbert, why assume that rentboys have baggage? Rentboys are some of the nicest people you will ever meet, have you ever hired one of them? If you haven’t then you should talk to them or the people who have hired escorts like me. Escorts don’t care if you’re fat, old, ugly, hairy, republican, needy, insecure as long as you have the cash. Rentboys pick up the phone when you call them, or at least they call you back. Lucien has a beautiful body and a huge penis, that has value that normal men can’t appreciate. Maybe Lucien is doing this to pay for his college education, maybe he wants money, maybe he doesn’t want a dead end job at Subway. To understand escorts you have to understand ambition, because escorts are the ultimate in “I want money and will do anything to get it.” A friend of mine who’s not an escort tells me he doesn’t want to get promoted at work, doesn’t care about making more money, doesn’t dream anything beyond marrying his girlfriend and having kids he won’t be able to send to college.
Lucien is different, what would he gain by having some poor boyfriend around his age? Can love pay the bills? And how will Lucien feel when he finds out his lover has been cheating on him with other men?
Lucien isn’t the victim here, he got a free European vacation plus hardcash and all he had to do was massage some old dude. Lucien may not like the publicity now, but now that he’s famous other men are gonna want to hire him and you can bet his rate will go up. Who knows, maybe he’ll gain a full time job from a sugar daddy. Lucien isn’t ruined, he’s young, he has his whole life ahead of him.
What you need to understand is that this is a world that values beauty, yet beauty is only available to those who are already beautiful or have the personality to entice someone beautiful. Some men have neither looks nor personality, does that mean they don’t deserve to enjoy a guy like Lucien? Bullshit, if Donald Trump can marry pretty girls after enticing them with his fabulous lifestyle, I should be able to hire pretty bimbos as well.
posted by Claudius Vandermeer on
Good L-rd, Bobby, do you kiss your mother with those morals?
But I think Throbert and TS are right, or at least their hearts are in the right places–so is D. Link. It’s easy to excoriate the vicious, and yes, they deserve it; but from us? There’s too much identity politics in play, too much “well of course you’d say that.”
Compassion and humanity will get us (to such an extent as there is an us) much further in the world than righteous indignation. After all, that presumes that others see us as righteous in the first place: we have to get there first. There’s more power in gravity than indignation.
posted by Bobby on
“Good L-rd, Bobby, do you kiss your mother with those morals?”
—I just tell it like it is. I’m a realist, not an idealist. As for morals, this is the gay community we’re talking about, a community with members that routinely engage in threesomes, bathroom and park sex, visits to bathhouses, public nudity and masturbation at the Folsom street fair. The hiring of escorts is highly preferable over all that.
Listen buddy, I’m too old to believe in idealistic notions of sex, in a perfect world everyone would have a loving relationship, great monogamous sex, and plenty of happiness. Take idealists like Obama who think it’s the job of government to spread the wealth, to provide healthcare, housing, jobs and all sorts of things to the people.
I say, why not spread the sex? We don’t even need government to do it, just legalize prostitution beyond Nevada. Think about it, what is a better choice? Going to a bathhouse where you have to be almost naked in front of other men who don’t like you, or hire the cute guys you can’t get in the real world?
By the way, have you heard of Rent-A-Friend?
http://rentafriend.com/#whatis/
The latest trend is people renting friends for $10 an hour or less to do activities with. It’s emotional prostitution without sex, you’re basically getting paid to spend time with somebody.
So I say kudos to Reker’s escort, thank you for giving ugly men a chance to enjoy your beauty, thank you for not rejecting them, for not ignoring them, for not turning away from them when they talk to you. In my view, Lucien is a hero and I wish him nothing but the best.
posted by TS on
There’s too much identity politics in play, too much “well of course you’d say that.”
Well said, Mr. Vandermeer.
Re: Bobby. [Laughs good-naturedly.] I see your point. But I don’t entirely buy that most people who choose to go into prostitution are satisfied with the way their lives are going.
posted by Bobby on
“Re: Bobby. [Laughs good-naturedly.] I see your point. But I don’t entirely buy that most people who choose to go into prostitution are satisfied with the way their lives are going.”
—Interesting point, I don’t think ambitious people are ever satisfied, it’s that desire to get more out of life that pushes them to work harder or seek a different career. Why do people go to college, get an MBA, become a stockbroker? It’s obvious that they’re not satisfied with their lives, because if they were why would they need to bother doing things that will improve their lives in theory?
I also find it ironic that it’s “wrong” to enjoy sex with a prostitute yet it’s “right” to delight in watching the beecakes at Chippendales and Thunder from Down Under, Miss USA, Miss America, women and men who get paid to dance in cages in bars, the incredibly sexy people of Cirque du Soleil, and Las Vegas showgirls.
Lucien deserves a chance to make money just like all those people do.
posted by Claudius Vandermeer on
Ah, Bobby, it’s wheels within wheels with you, isn’t it?
At first I thought (hoped?) you were joking, and then it occurred to me that tut-tutting you might have seemed out of keeping with my “sympathy for the gentile” tack. Let me see if I can explain.
I’ve read some of your comments elsewhere on IGF and it struck me that at least some of your position on the Reker issue, and where it pushes you, springs from an old and enormous hurt. I can write this to you from a certain position of privilege–I’m a small-town academy sodomite, you’ve been put through the urban meatgrinder; that’s no small difference, is it? So take my dissent for what it’s worth, knowing that I’m aware of the experiential gulf between the ivory tower and Gomorrah. I write this primarily for unsympathetic eyes but also for yours. (Of course if he reads critically at all even the unsympathetic outsider will have realized by now that IGF is populated by queers with pretensions to being the moral minority anyway–so my droolings on the issue are probably pointless.)
That said, I quarrel with your worldview. You can imagine all the reasons: we come from a Calvinist culture, so the value you ascribe to youth, beauty and, of course, sex–well, from my perspective there’s no there there, if you take my meaning. You’ve heard the usual arguments (casual and especially commercial sex is degrading to both parties, dribble dribble and etcetera) I think it goes without saying that the galloping promiscuity vs. courtesan tack is a false dichotomy–if you think of one as vile then, for the same reason, both are vile and there’s no question of “better”–same with chippendale and whores. But that’s not my point here.
There’s no such thing as great monogamous sex–marriage is the least erotic thing on earth. (Here we agree, I bet.) And yet–and take this from a retired lothario now hitched to a man who is not only not particularly my type, physically speaking, but also fantastically, almost unbelievably retiring in the sack–this is an inevitable sacrifice. I (who eat men like air and like to wake up with bruises in the morning–it’s always the religious ones, isn’t it?) am tethered, G-d grant it perpetuity, to an economist with the sexual vitality of a 9th grader. And why tolerate this wretched state of affairs?
Well, it’s not wretched, at least sub specie aeternitatis. Man is mortal, a soul tethered to an aging sack of meat (than which nothing is more vile and corruptible). Why not spread the sex? Because I, at least, am a dying animal. I’m built for lovemaking now, but I won’t be in 10 years; after twenty the prospect starts to seem a little revolting. In this light it all seems like a distraction–the only thing I take with me to the mouth of death is my capacity to live in the abstract: I mean thought and its cultivation. This can never be taken from you, is never disgraceful, and though it mellows with age gives pleasure forever.
I think this is at least part of why your mention of Rent-a-friend made my guts curdle in horror. I smoke like a coal plant, stay up for days, run myself ragged, live on energy drinks til my heart palipates–old man death has my number! But death doesn’t scare me as much as my own dissipation. The last thing I want in my life is more distraction.
“I place the eternal before me–always,” says the psalmist, and there’s no need to take that religiously: haShem or the end of your fourscore years and ten (and the nothing ever after,) pick’em. That “always” is aspirational to be sure, but it’s jealousy of it that makes me anxious in the face of sex, money and entertainment. Imagine me quoting Ecclesiastes, any verse will do.
In any event, there’s nothing new here and you may have heard it all before–but it’s not a counterpoint I frequently hear myself, so such as it is I submit it to your judgment.
posted by Bobby on
Claudius, it’s true we come from a Calvinistic culture but that culture seems gone to me. Calvinists believed in hard work and that riches were a reflection of how much God loves you. Today we live in an entitlement society, Millennials were given trophies just for participating, people are more interested in pleasing themselves than in what other people think. How else could you explain the explosion of tattoos?
“I can write this to you from a certain position of privilege–I’m a small-town academy sodomite, you’ve been put through the urban meatgrinder; that’s no small difference, is it?”
—What is the difference? Today with gay.com anyone can meet anyone, of course, escorts are preferable because once there’s a monetary incentive you don’t have to waste 30 minutes talking to a guy that might reject you in the end.
“You’ve heard the usual arguments (casual and especially commercial sex is degrading to both parties, dribble dribble and etcetera) I think it goes without saying that the galloping promiscuity vs. courtesan tack is a false dichotomy–if you think of one as vile then, for the same reason, both are vile and there’s no question of “better”–same with chippendale and whores. But that’s not my point here.”
—Your point of view seems to be “sex is dirty in certain conditions.” I think sex is sex, and whether is dirty or not depends on whether you like the man you’re screwing.
“There’s no such thing as great monogamous sex–marriage is the least erotic thing on earth. (Here we agree, I bet.) And yet–and take this from a retired lothario now hitched to a man who is not only not particularly my type, physically speaking, but also fantastically, almost unbelievably retiring in the sack–this is an inevitable sacrifice.”
—Your experience with monogamous marriage does not reflect every single experience. It’s obvious that if your partner isn’t your type and if he’s not good in the sack then you’re not going to be in the mood for sex often. You know, some gay couples escorts to have threeways precisely for that reason, other men simply cheat on each other, either openly or behind their partners back.
“Well, it’s not wretched, at least sub specie aeternitatis. Man is mortal, a soul tethered to an aging sack of meat (than which nothing is more vile and corruptible). Why not spread the sex? Because I, at least, am a dying animal. I’m built for lovemaking now, but I won’t be in 10 years; after twenty the prospect starts to seem a little revolting.”
—That’s sad to hear, and untrue. Hugh Heffner is an old fart yet he keeps having sex like he did at 22. I know a 60 year old who’s able to get an erection without viagra (he’s a friend, not a sex partner), and when I used to go to bathhouses I saw plenty of men in their 50s and 60s. You’re always built for love making, did you know that STD’s are exploding among senior citizens?
“In this light it all seems like a distraction–the only thing I take with me to the mouth of death is my capacity to live in the abstract: I mean thought and its cultivation. This can never be taken from you, is never disgraceful, and though it mellows with age gives pleasure forever.”
—And how does one live in the abstract? By looking at others have all the fun? By going to the movies and seeing pretty people kiss each other? Some people are doers, not lookers. They like to do stuff, whether is sex, playing sports, working long hours, they are people of action.
“The last thing I want in my life is more distraction.”
—We are so different, the ONLY thing I want in life is distraction. As the nazis wrote at the gates of Aushwitz, Arbeit Mach Frei, “work frees you.” When you’re busy you don’t have time to worry about your problems, to get depressed, to feel lonely. For those who can afford it, hiring an escort is the ultimate distraction.
“In any event, there’s nothing new here and you may have heard it all before–but it’s not a counterpoint I frequently hear myself, so such as it is I submit it to your judgment.”
—I appreciate your opinions, I don’t agree with them, you’re coming at the issue from a very personal perspective based on what you need rather than what individuals need. You may not need sex, other people do. Not only they need sex, they need it with a certain type.
posted by Claudius Vandermeer on
Ah, Bobby. Now, this is getting so far off topic that I feel compelled to be brief, but if you’d like to take this further there’s contact information on my blog.
To a certain extent you’re right about the “prosperity church” element of Calvinist thought, but here I meant specifically the sort of, ah, productive anxiety of the doctrine of election–the idea that the the only way to determine whether one is elect or not is through self-scrutiny, searching out damning signs of degeneracy (and in so doing to guard against their occurrence–it’s a particularly austere kind of virtue ethics.) You still see something similar–and, I think, related–in contemporary environmentalist, organic/raw food, and racial sensitivity movements. This is all related to my point in that this concern with easy pleasures as distractions from first things has some clear-cut roots in the puritans and their Calvinist theology. (They get a bad rap, I think.) As for the entitlement society, well, “decline” is my favorite word in the English language.
As for the urban meat grinder, if you think I’m wrong, I’m wrong; I say this only based on your posts. This landscape of bathhouses and bars might as well be Mars from where I sit. In any event it seems to disagree with you.
Well, dirty? Far be it from me to talk about purity (I know I’m wilfully misreading you, forgive me.) In religious terms anything we do in bed is so fantastically prohibited that it’s not even a question of damage control–if your mindset is orthodox you have to accept the irremediable gulf between yourself and G-d and move forward anyway, shambling wreck that you are. I like to joke that I’d give anything to be frum… except what I won’t give. 🙂 To the point, though, this is less a question of dirtiness (it’s all dirty) than appropriateness–the heathen wrote “nothing too much” at Delphi for good reason, and this segues nicely to your 60 year old friend.
Let me escape the necessity of argument by just providing some comparanda–the amorous old man has been the butt of comedy from Aristophanes through Chaucer to Shakespeare and up to J. A. Prufrock, poor soul; contrast how utterly endearing we find cute old couples, even if the thought of their bedroom antics (if they exist) may make us a little sheepish. In any event my distaste for the notion of gerontological hookups may stem from the youth-and-beauty cult of the 60s (which chases you like an avenging fury, too, I think), but really, truly, honestly, don’t you prefer the thought of a retired gentleman reading to his nephews to the thought of him in a leather bar?
A personal note and then closure. No need to assume I don’t want sex, heavens no, I’m a raging beast of perpetual love-pestering. In fact, come to think of it, I think I’m the most sex-driven person I know. And yet this brings me to the most important point which is–unfortunately, since it’s such a banality–absolutely central here: a distinction between “need” and “want” absolutely must be drawn. I’m more willing to put things like tranquility in my surroundings, companionship, recognition and music in my “needs” category, i.e. things without which my better functioning is impaired–what I need is what keeps me operational and keeps me good. Wants include fatty treats, significantly more expensive clothes and, well, a personal harem would be a nice perk. (Again, calvinism: “most of the things you want are either frivolous or bad for you.” Ah, a man can change the climate but not his disposition.)
About the abstract–the things you mention are, as you probably know, exactly the opposite of what I mean. I’m also pretty sure I quarrel with the dichotomy between action and inaction–annotating a book or concentrating on a piece of music are actions to be sure. I mean that “live in the abstract” specifically in the sense of taking satisfaction in ideas and contemplative focus–like I said, this is totally secure against age, personal betrayal, penury, inertness and grimace.
So, as for a personal perspective–to steal your word, well, I’m an individual ain’t I? What I mean is that yes, of course, absolutely, all people thrive under different conditions–sometimes radically different. But I’m not sure anybody thrives under the conditions that follow from the worldview you’re propounding.
I should stop. Some brevity, eh? But yes! A gay-baiting miscreant has been caught out! There’s a topic at hand! I appreciate your engagement, by the way and do feel free to contact me if you’re yet filled with the spirit of contention.
posted by Bobby on
“As for the entitlement society, well, “decline” is my favorite word in the English language.”
—Well, we can’t decline paying taxes, social security and if the Republicans don’t get rid of Obamacare, we’ll get stuck with that as well. America surived pretty well without entitlements, in the old days, people used to help one another, now they expect the government to do it for them. But we’re getting of topic.
“To the point, though, this is less a question of dirtiness (it’s all dirty) than appropriateness–the heathen wrote “nothing too much” at Delphi for good reason, and this segues nicely to your 60 year old friend.”
—Appropriateness is defined in different ways. My 60 year old friend for example looks down at drag queens yet think there’s nothing wrong with having sex in a public park or bathroom. I on the other hand love drag queens as premier entertainers and comedians and HATE people who have sex in public.
“In any event my distaste for the notion of gerontological hookups may stem from the youth-and-beauty cult of the 60s (which chases you like an avenging fury, too, I think), but really, truly, honestly, don’t you prefer the thought of a retired gentleman reading to his nephews to the thought of him in a leather bar?”
—I don’t care either way, as long as he doesn’t hit on me. I realize I will be old someday, and when I get there I hope I can find some sexy seniors for fun, unless I have a full time boyfriend. I abhor the idea that we must all follow social conventions, in a capitalist society it makes no sense that some people get to have all the fun while others get to watch. How would you feel if you were told “you’re too old to fly first class” or “you’re too ugly to buy a Ferrari.” Well, I don’t like it when guys tell me “you’re too fat, too hairy, too old for me.” So, I either watch porn or perhaps I’ll hire a hooker (I haven’t paid for sex since 2003, btw). The issue is having the freedom to choose instead of being forced into a corner.
“And yet this brings me to the most important point which is–unfortunately, since it’s such a banality–absolutely central here: a distinction between “need” and “want” absolutely must be drawn. I’m more willing to put things like tranquility in my surroundings, companionship, recognition and music in my “needs” category, i.e. things without which my better functioning is impaired–what I need is what keeps me operational and keeps me good. Wants include fatty treats, significantly more expensive clothes and, well, a personal harem would be a nice perk. (Again, calvinism: “most of the things you want are either frivolous or bad for you.” Ah, a man can change the climate but not his disposition.)”
—Can’t you have it all? I’m sure your boyfriend could understand your need for sex within or outside the relationship. You’re right that sometimes we give up certain wants to fulfill more important needs, I gave up fatty foods to lose weight because that was more important to me than being fat. I gave up hiring hookers because it was an expensive enterprise, but someday I might be able to afford that expense again. Real companionship should not demand impossible sacrifices.
“I mean that “live in the abstract” specifically in the sense of taking satisfaction in ideas and contemplative focus–like I said, this is totally secure against age, personal betrayal, penury, inertness and grimace.”
—I see what you mean, I read books, I enjoy discussing ideas, thinking about the world around me. Yet I crave action, I can’t even stand to watch sports. My philosophy is: “if I’m not doing it, it’s boring.” Exceptions to that rule are usually movies and TV since I have no desire to be an actor and I’m not jealous of them, but I simply can’t stand watching Olympic athletes do things I could never do. The same with beauty, I can’t stand watching beauty, I have to own it, touch it, feel it, ravage it. When you screw somebody, you demystify his beauty, you take it out of the pedestal and make it real.
“So, as for a personal perspective–to steal your word, well, I’m an individual ain’t I? What I mean is that yes, of course, absolutely, all people thrive under different conditions–sometimes radically different. But I’m not sure anybody thrives under the conditions that follow from the worldview you’re propounding.”
—Forgive me, coming from the world of marketing I’m used to think of people as groups. In my industry we stereotype people, sometimes we say stupid shit like “young people care about the environment” just because 65% of them say they do. Yes, you are an individual, you don’t need hookers, but my argument is that a large number of individuals do need hookers, do need sex, do need to touch a body even if they have to pay for the privilege. Maybe when Rekers was 20 he wasn’t able to play with guys like Lucien, well, with a little money you can do what you couldn’t do at 20, is that so wrong?
I don’t forgive Rekers homophobia and his lies, I don’t forgive his hypocrisy, but I understand his sexual needs and frustration. Maybe someday he’ll develop a liking for men his own age, but for now he needs Lucien.
You know, being gay is more than marching gay pride parades and watching stupid gay romantic comedies like Trick. Gay life is more than gay bars, gay friends, gay literature and gay shirts. Eventually, you’ll need to screw somebody and hopefully it will be someone you like, if not, hire someone you like rather than attempt sex with someone you don’t.
Thanks for the conversation.