Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
While reading about another anti-gay republican politician caught with his dick in the man-shaped cookie jar, it leads to a terminology question....

When Rep. Curtis was seen in an adult book store stall with his penis in another man's mouth, he was "receiving oral sex". When Rep. Curtis paid $1000 to Cody Castanga to do him bareback (because the good state legislator doesn't like the feel of condoms), it was Cody who was "receiving anal sex". In both cases, it was Representative Curtis's penis in an opening in another man's body, but in one case he was "receiving" and in another case, it was the other man who was "receiving"?

That doesn't sound consistent to me.

  • 1

"Receiving" makes it sound more passive on his part, like someone presents you with an unexpected cookie.

(Deleted comment)
i think the idea relates to who is "doing" something vs. who gets "done-to". in fellatio, the owner of the penis passively receives what the fellator does to it. in anal sex, the owner of the penis actively does something to the orifice of the recipient. (it's unclear from the wording of the article just who penetrated whose anus.)

From the articles I've read, the stories are:

Curtis (Rep) claims that he met Cody (Escort) and gave him $100 for some non-sexual purpose, after which they went to the hotel and had anal sex with Curtis catching. He told police that evidence of this could be found in the used condom with Curtis's DNA on the outside and Cody's semen on the inside. Then they went to sleep, and when Curtis woke up, both Cody and Curtis's wallet were missing. Since then, Cody contacted Curtis, saying that he knew who Curtis was, had his wallet, and for $1000 he could have both his wallet back and his silence. Curtis left $200 (all he had) at the hotel desk for Cody. That's when Curtis called the cops and admitted the whole story above. Cody called back and demanded the remaining $800, and the cops set up a sting and grabbed the bag man, who turned on Cody.

Cody tells it differently. They met in an adult toy shop, the $100 was for sex, and afterwards Curtis asked to pitch without a glove. Cody refused, and Curtis started negotiating, with $1000 being the final agreed-upon agreed-upon price. Afterwards, Curtis admitted to Cody that he only had $200 on him, and gave Cody his wallet as collateral on the remaining $800. Cody admitted that called demanding that he wanted the remaining $800, and did threaten to reveal all if he didn't get it. But the $800 wasn't for return of a stolen wallet and silence, but rather the agreed-upon payment for services rendered. He also added the details that they watched gay porn while at the hotel.

(BTW, the operator of the adult toy shop corroborates some of Cody's story. Curtis was known there, had admitted to being gay and married, was known to be a cross-dresser, and had been caught receiving a blow-job from another man in one of the stalls. But the news report doesn't state if the shopkeeper knew of any particular arrangement between Curtis and Cody.)

well, if Curtis was penetrating Cody, then Curtis wasn't "receiving" anal sex, he was performing anal sex, and referring to Curtis as the one who "received" sex in both cases is incorrect.

Both of them agree that when they went to the hotel, Curtis's colon contained Cody's condom-clad cock. So as a result of that very alliterate activity, Cody performed, and Curtis received.

...so Curtis expressed a desire to penetrate Cody's anus sans condom, after they'd done it the other way around? never mind, i really don't want to know that much about it...

Technically, Cody claims Curtis expressed a desire (backed by an offer of payment of $1k) to penetrate Cody's anus sans condom after they'd done it the other way around (with condom), but Curtis has denied this allegation.

okay... the way i see it, when the Honorable Representative Curtis was being fellated, he was receiving oral sex; when he was being anally penetrated, he was receiving anal sex; but if he had tried some bareback buggery, he would have been giving anal sex. all while wearing women's clothes and watching gay porn. (cue "The Lumberjack Song"...)

Edited at 2007-11-19 09:14 am (UTC)

In ancient Rome, being the recipient of homosexual fellatio was considered far less of an offense. Calling someone an "irrumator" (giver of fellatio) was a much greater insult that calling him a "fellator." I might have the Latin terms reversed, but the concept of giving fellatio being more of an offense than receiving is accurate. I'd be willing to bet that viewpoint still holds.

shitfire, a man ain't a queer if he likes gettin' his cock sucked - he's only a queer if'n he sucks cock.

There should be a redneck font, with backwards "S" and "E" and gratuitous and incorrectly used apostrophes...

alas, i have next to no artistic talent, and no clue as to how one goes about designing a font. but you're right - such a thing should exist ;-)

feel free to steal it - i did ;-)


You have to check this out from Little Britain.
The skits with him are hilarious.

"The man-shaped cookie jar?" Bwahahahahahah!
I have a problem with the hypocrisy of all of these "not-gay" public officials who, when they get caught with their dick in a politically-incorrect place, immediately come up with some wild-ass explanation that nobody with half a brain could possibly believe. I don't care at all what any two (or three, or twelve) consenting adults do with their various bits and pieces, but for pity's sake, don't stand on a public platform condemning people for things you yourself are doing.
Then again, maybe they're against gay marriage because they think it might cut down on their chances to score a quick hummer in the public loo. You know, if all those gay guys get married, then there won't be any extra to go around for those not-gay politicos who just want to have unmarried sexual activity with members of their own sex.

I don't see any hypocrisy in Curtis (or any other "not-gay" public official) coming up with some wild-ass explanation as to why they were doing what they were caught doing (and for the record, Curtis didn't lie about receiving anal sex from Cody, or at least both of their stories and presumably the physical evidence match along those lines. He may have lied about paying for it, however). Rationalization is not hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy in my mind is publicly condemning homosexuals and then privately hanging around adult toy shops in womens lingerie catching quicky blowjobs in the stalls from other men before taking one back to his hotel to ream him up the ass.

No, it's not the excuses I find hypocritical, it's the public political stand of being against gay rights and in some cases homosexuality itself, while privately using their privates for things that I'm pretty sure count as being homosexual activities.
As to the excuses being "rationalizations," doesn't that imply that there should be some rationality in the excuses? Because I'm not seeing any...LOL.

  • 1