INDIANA State GOP Rep Busted In Craigslist Gay Hooker Scandal

[Lucky]

Well, we did have a pretty good discussion on the subject. The pros and cons were well-stated. Ultimately, what we think is of no relevance as we don't get to decide what happens to the case.

[TampaYankee]

Well, we did have a pretty good discussion on the subject. The pros and cons were well-stated. Ultimately, what we think is of no relevance as we don't get to decide what happens to the case.

I find any discussion on this site about escort and client responsibilities quite relevant for newbies and, based on comments expressed herein, for older hands too. That goes for clients and escorts.

[Guest gcursor]

THE FOLLOWING is a piece of fiction. It is not meant to represent any people in real life nor is it meant to imply anything. This piece is simply designed for satirical purposes only.

Here's how I think the letter would go...

Hello:

I know that many of you have heard about a scandal involving me and an escort from Craigslist. Although I have been on Craigslist many times, I would like to say that I DID not do anything wrong!

First of all, although I own a pda. I DO not know how to use it! My secretary takes care of all that. SO it was a bit of a shock when I found out that an email had gone from my PDA! Of course, I can't judge the people in my office or the lives they lead so there's nothing more to be said.

Second of all, I did go to a hotel and stay the night (I had to clear my head). I thought that it was room service when I heard the knock at the door. I rushed to the door and found some stranger. I thought it would be polite if I invited them in. As we were talking, he said that he was looking for somebody by the name of "Sugar Daddy" and I said I wasn't familiar with that person. Unfortunately when I said this, I saw what I thought was a bug on the bed. I jumped up startled and my towel dropped to the floor and I stumbled into the young man accidentally grabbing his behind. The young man was so startled (as was I) and he ran into the bathroom.

Finally, somebody arrived for the young man and she said that they had no money. Further she stated that they weren't sure if they were going to be able to eat this week. Since they were constituents of mine, I felt obligated to help the both of them out. I gave them a few electronic devices and some money saying that I hoped they would vote for me in the next election. They both then left my room.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is all about. This is truly a misunderstanding of great proportions and I know that people will eventually see this incident for the set of innocent misunderstandings that occurred.

yours truly,

[Guest hitoallusa]

Those who have sensitive information should be careful when they are with non professional escorts who are hired by a third party to extract info from you. Any random info you give to them useful for their employer. I am not sure how many of you guys heard of voice or phone seducing. Some security firms hire people who are good at it at conferences. Like wise a person who can extract info from high profile clients is highly valued by people who want to infiltrate a certain organization. If you have sensitive info then keep it to themselves. I rarely give out any info to any escorts. There are many other ways you can protect your info. Most escorts are professionals but it takes only one non professional escort to bring down the reputation of others.

[Lucky]

I would also like to reject the zero sum attitude expressed or implied in some posts that if you find fault with the escort then you actively support or passively lend support to or otherwise excuse the legislator. That position is simply bogus and totally without merit, and lends no support to any arguments advanced in this thread, IMO.

Well, reject it then! If a party making an argument can make you feel lacking in your own point of view, then he is only using a standard debating tactic. Don't sucker into stuff like that! It's the job of the other point of view to undermine your argument, and one thing he is going to do is try to undermine your faith in your own argument. If he can make you feel guilty for not supporting the kid, then he will. It's you that has to not let him do that.

[Guest CharliePS]

Well, I go away for a few days, and look what I miss! Since this thread has pretty much run its course, the only thing I would add is that I agree that one of of the things I expect from a professional escort is discretion. I don't expect it from an inexperienced teenager who advertises for a sugar daddy on CL. From the latter I expect behavior that is emotional and unpredictable, and a mature legislator should have enough experience and common sense to expect the same. It sounds like he brought his problems on himself, and I don't mind watching him writhe.

[Guest Anton]

Hi KYTOP,

So is it ok for an escort to out his client because he does not agree with someone's politics?

I'm afraid that my answer to your question is a big YES. In my opinion this is about much more than just "not agreeing with someone's politics".

The background of what I just wrote is found in my post from June 2006. The post was my answer to a question from Tom Isern : http://www.message-forum.net/showthread.php?43966-SHOULD-we-out-them&p=398726#poststop .

As as result of that thread and other, related threads, someone else hit the nail on the head when writing : "You can't expect the protection of a group you are threatening". (I searched for the location of that specific remark, but I couldn't find it.)

In my eyes Caeron said the same with "But when your choice includes attacking our community, our community does not need to offer you anything, including discretion".

I think that those phrases also answer the question "Where do you draw the line for privacy in escorting?" In short my answer is : Don't attack or threaten us.

From that point I don't agree with TotallyOz when he writes "An escort's job is to be discreet. That is important no matter who the client is". The reasons for disagreeing are in the post I just linked to. Hey OZ, I'm an independant service provider and I write my own Terms and Conditions.

Just my two cents for a lively debate.

With best intentions, Anton.

[MsGuy]

In my opinion this is about much more than just "not agreeing with someone's politics".

Just my two cents for a lively debate.

And my two cents makes four.

Back in the bad old days when these rules were formulated, the sine qua non of any social gathering of homosexuals was 'discretion'. Outing someone was not just an action against an individual, it was a serious attack against all in that it undermined the necessary trust that made possible the creation of a social space for Gays to meet.

Times change. Now days, it's far easier (& safer) for gays to create and defend a social space for themselves. So the rules about outing are being weakened. They never were carved in stone for all time, they were a product of their times.

Gray heads like me are still uncomfortable with forced outing of gays by gays but I suspect we're just going to have to get used to it.

[Guest Anton]

Times change. Now days, it's far easier (& safer) for gays to create and defend a social space for themselves. So the rules about outing are being weakened. They never were carved in stone for all time, they were a product of their times.

True. Even in the jurisprudence the "Sine Qua Non" has been abandoned over here and replaced by the theory of the "Reasonable Accountability".

However, in general my "rule of thumb" is still that if anyone should know that a certain guy (or gal) is gay, it's up to the specific person to inform others, not me or anyone else. But I have exceptions, like when someone's threattening or attacking us.

Are we at six cents total?

Sincerely, Anton.

[Guest DarnTop82]

I didn't realize that Gibson is black until I saw the interview. A tiny bit of added interest in conservative Indiana. The anti-gay lawmaker goes for black teen boys...hmmm?

See? This is where I jump in. Just because a person is "conservative" that is the same as being prejudice? Really? Stereotype much?

[TampaYankee]

... As as result of that thread and other, related threads, someone else hit the nail on the head when writing : "You can't expect the protection of a group you are threatening". (I searched for the location of that specific remark, but I couldn't find it.)

In my eyes Caeron said the same with "But when your choice includes attacking our community, our community does not need to offer you anything, including discretion".

I think that those phrases also answer the question "Where do you draw the line for privacy in escorting?" In short my answer is : Don't attack or threaten us.

I agree with the general principle you are espousing:'You can't expect the protection of a group you are threatening.'

That being said, I take exception to your identification of wronged groups in this case. If he had been outed by a 'member of the gay community' I would be ok with it. He is harming the gay community and a member of the gay community is drawing attention to the Rep's hypocracy.

OR if he had outed the escort to law enforcement or even to the pubic then I would be ok with the escort outing the Rep.

So if the 'gay community' is harmed it is ok for the gay community to to defend itself.

If the escort community is harmed or a single individual of that community then it is ok for that community or member to defend itself or himself.

It is not ok to mix communities in this principle. Again, not for the sake of the Rep. but for the sake of the escort member and community.

[TampaYankee]

See? This is where I jump in. Just because a person is "conservative" that is the same as being prejudice? Really? Stereotype much?

Nope it is not. However, sterotypes are often based on signficant correlations. It is true that most prejudiced identify with conservative groups. You may wish to deny that but stats do not lie on this.

So while all cows have four legs, not all four legged animals are cows. Many, probably the vast majority of conservatives are not prejudiced but that does not refute the facts that most prejudiced identify with and particpate in conservative groups.

In the end it matters little to minority groups whether they suffer at the hands of the truly prejudiced or because of someone's idea of good politics or good business or some other reason. A number of politicians that are not individually prejudiced people but nevertheless play to 'issues' that appeal to the predjudiced because it is good politics.

One need only look at McCain's 180 on immigration reform or Oren Hatch's 180 on the Dream Act which he originated as a concept and legislative bill in years past. Other examples are found in the myriad of legislative actions from GOP Governors and Legislatures tightening voter restriction that happen to target the minority communities more than general communities. The examples could go on and on...

[lookin]

Personally, I enjoy being discreet. Folks sometimes share things they might not otherwise, since they know it won't go any further. As posted above, if I were an escort, discretion would be part of the package of services that I would offer. My only qualification would be to prevent violence or other serious crime. If I knew Hinkle's record, I'd have been tempted to give him a piece of my mind, but I don't think I'd have outed him.

That said, I'd never tell an escort how to run his business or his life. All I'd hope for is an honest answer to the question, "Are you discreet?" (Assuming I ever asked it, which I haven't so far.)

Doesn't mean I wouldn't hire an escort that answered, "No" or "Usually" or "Sometimes". It just means that I'd be less forthcoming. (Would that be fifthcoming? Or thirdcoming? )

Not to put any escorts on the spot, but how do you think you would answer the question: "Are you discreet?" Would you qualify your answer, even if it meant the possibility of losing a client? And if you didn't qualify your answer, would you stick to it?

[Lucky]

I only hire escorts who can wear the badge!

[Guest hitoallusa]

Are we going to have a gay version of "The Help: Masturbatory Technician" by Anonymous ? Then I hope I'm not Miss Hilly.

[Guest DarnTop82]

Nope it is not. However, sterotypes are often based on signficant correlations. It is true that most prejudiced identify with conservative groups. You may wish to deny that but stats do not lie on this.

So while all cows have four legs, not all four legged animals are cows. Many, probably the vast majority of conservatives are not prejudiced but that does not refute the facts that most prejudiced identify with and particpate in conservative groups.

In the end it matters little to minority groups whether they suffer at the hands of the truly prejudiced or because of someone's idea of good politics or good business or some other reason. A number of politicians that are not individually prejudiced people but nevertheless play to 'issues' that appeal to the predjudiced because it is good politics.

One need only look at McCain's 180 on immigration reform or Oren Hatch's 180 on the Dream Act which he originated as a concept and legislative bill in years past. Other examples are found in the myriad of legislative actions from GOP Governors and Legislatures tightening voter restriction that happen to target the minority communities more than general communities. The examples could go on and on...

Okay. Prove your statement that " most prejudiced identify with conservative groups". What empirical data do you have to justify making that assumption? Funny, you immediately use "statistics" to defend your claims, yet not only do you not cite your sources, but you use "statistics". We all know they can be skewed or downright changed to fit the interviewees agenda. Here, Il give you some. The majority of people on welfare for more than 5 years are black, so most black people are on welfare. See what I did there? For every lunatic associated with the Tea Party and the GOP, I could point to a thousand Black Panthers, or Union Thugs or Acorn members, or insane terrorist environmentalist groups that you liberals/Democrats have. Funny, for a person who has always been a defended of not stereotyping and being fair to all, you sure like to toss that away when it benefits you.

Assuming you are a white guy, which I am sure, I find it funny that you speak for us "minorities". That is racist and prejudice in itself. It's as if you are a racist yourself, but you have yourself convinced otherwise by taking up the "poor minorities" causes. You seem condescending and arrogant. You know nothing of what we go through or live with on a daily basis. Stop acting like you do.

Mccain? Really? Mccain isn't one of us. He is about as one of us as Lindsay Grahm. McCain is a failure. Don't even bother to bring up the Dream Act.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I don't think it's polite to accuse someone as a racist based on a post. I am not sure why such a strong statement is necessary.

[Guest Anton]

Hey TY,

I wonder if you read my post too fast, so let's take a look at the facts.

Phillip Hinkle is a representative and state lawmaker from Indiana. When he told Kameryn Gibson he was a lawmaker and when showed an ID with his name, the young man wanted out of there. Hinkle demanded Gibson to stay and "do what we need to do" while Gibson clearly didn't want that anymore.

We hadn't mentioned them yet, but the first group we are talking about is the Gibson family. The story doesn't tell us if Gibson is gay or not, but the story suggests he's not. Neither Gibson, nor his family seem to be affected by Hinkle's anti-gay attitude, but affected they were: Hinkle wanted a family-member to do things that the guy clearly didn't want. Kameryn Gibson's sister had the right to stand up for her brother and reveal what had happened as she was his sister.

Then there's the gay community. If someone from the gay community had revealed what had happened, that had had my support as well. Phillip Hinkle had been threatening the gay community with his anti-gay campaign, which gives the gay community the right to defend themselves by revealing who Hinkle actually is. That Phillip Hinkle was demanding from Gibson to stay and "do what we need to do" while Gibson may not have been gay and not affected by Hinkle's anti-gay campaign doesn't take away the fact that the gay community had nevertheless been attacked by Hinkle.

Then there's the escorting community. Kameryn Gibson was escorting and Phillip Hinkle put him into an unwanted situation. Hinkle wasn't outed by "Gibson the escort" or another escort, but if I'm right by his sister. If Hinkle was outed by Gibson, it had had my sympathy as well. Hinkle was trying to force the escort to stay and "do what we need to do" when the escort wanted to leave as soon as possible.

The fact that we can distinguish three groups of communities (who each may have been attacked or threatened by Hinkle in a different way and who each may have their own reasons to out Hinkle) doesn't mean that communities are being mixed.

On top of that I think that one community can come to the aid of another community and I see nothing wrong with it. It actually happens all the time and all over the place. It's every community's own choice to do so or not.

With warmest regards, Anton.

[Lucky]

Anton, thanks for joining in and adding to the conversation. I/we appreciate it, and would hope to see you here more often.!

[marcanthony]

Assuming you are a white guy, which I am sure

one of the problems with our broken country right now is the incredible, emotional divide in perspective and at least part of that is attributable to so many people being "sure" about "assumptions", which seems to me is an oxymoron, but nevertheless incredibly prevalent.

Sincerely,

Someone who actually knows TY personally and knows his ethnicity (not an assumption)

[Guest DarnTop82]

I don't think it's polite to accuse someone as a racist based on a post. I am not sure why such a strong statement is necessary.

Eh, I am sure it is safe to say that someone is racist based off what they write. The statement was necessary, and I explained why it was. If you are confused still, there isn't much I can do for ya.

[Guest EXPAT]

An article from yesterday's Indianapolis Star

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110824/LOCAL1804/108240311/Hinkle-paid-young-man-80-encounter

[Guest hitoallusa]

What I can't understand is that how a young strong 18 year old can be held against his will by such an old guy. Why did he have to call his sister in the first place? If it was a set up then who is behind it? I don't believe those two kids and something fishy is there. Should I play Darby Shaw and write a brief about it. Let's call it, The Republican Brief. I will get back to you all. If I get killed or attacked or threatened or my car gets exploded then you know who to contact.

[Guest EXPAT]

What I can't understand is that how a young strong 18 year old can be held against his will by such an old guy. Why did he have to call his sister in the first place? If it was a set up then who is behind it? I don't believe those two kids and something fishy is there. Should I play Darby Shaw and write a brief about it. Let's call it, The Republican Brief. I will get back to you all. If I get killed or attacked or threatened or my car gets exploded then you know who to contact.

If you remember the original story, Hinkle went and picked up the kid and brought him to the hotel. So he called his sister to come and pick him up. He could have just left and called from outside the hotel room I'm sure, but I doubt that we will ever know the correct story.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Both parties are trying to avoid any criminal charges so it's very difficult to know who's telling the truth.

If you remember the original story, Hinkle went and picked up the kid and brought him to the hotel. So he called his sister to come and pick him up. He could have just left and called from outside the hotel room I'm sure, but I doubt that we will ever know the correct story.