Things aren’t looking good for Richard Curtis. The Columbian newspaper obtained a police report detailing the Republican’s tryst with 26-year old Cody Castagna and, well, it’s pretty damning:
The police report contains an account of how Curtis allegedly donned women’s clothing, red stockings and a black sequined lingerie top before engaging in a sex act at the store. He continued to wear them throughout the night under his clothing.
Castagna, meanwhile, came out to tell his side of the story. He alleges Curtis offered him $1000 for sex, but Castagna reportedly feared being – um – stiffed, so he stole the wallet. He also says that he’s getting the short end of the stick:
I feel that, honestly, I’m being wrongly accused and that (Curtis) is using his power to take it off of him and put it on me. He has completely changed what actually happened and turned it around for his favor.
Curtis also told Castagna that his wife knows all about his man loving ways, but chooses not to partake. What a party pooper!
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
My understanding of the true right is that it always had a libertarian contingent. Goldwater was such a conservative.
In Canada, the Progressive Conservatives, absorbed by Alliance , neocons, to form the new Tories, had several such libertarians.
The US social theocons made the down low more difficult for the self-loathers to stay in the party, unless they were Log Cabin and out.
One more example of self-loathing homophobic gays who engage in inappropriate secretive behaviours to satisfy their libido while destroying human rights for their fellow human beings, and living with a beard.
I think this is more that simple denial of ones own sexuality and self loathing. I think it is easy to get distracted by the “titillating” nature of this particular “offense” and miss the broader pattern at work here. This is contempt for the common man. This is arrogance and feeling above the law. Lets not forget that politicians of all stripes, genders, ethnicities, party affiliation, and sexual preference often engage in behaviours that are forbidden to the “little guy.” (us) Bribe taking, squandering public resources, human rights violations, war crimes, theft, insider trading, fraud, lying under oath, etc., etc., etc.
This is more than self hatred, folks. This is at best antisocial behaviour and possible even sociopathic behaviour practiced at an institutional level. Decide for yourself.
Everybody has something they’d prefer not be exposed in public. In a society with a free press, those who are in the public eye, such as celebrities and lawmakers, must assume a much higher risk of having this happening.
Regarding sex scandals that involve conservative male politicians, when you look at this type of case, is clear that they have two interrelated social aspects to them. The first, and the most obvious of course, is the blatant personal hypocrisy, that everybody notices. It is hard to accept the apparent incongruity of a socially conservative politician who actively opposes and works against the very thing he himself is, and the things he does in his own private life.
The second, and less obvious, element is the original catalyst for this internal conflict which helps explain â€“ though not to excuse â€“ this kind of extreme personal and social juxtaposition. But, at some early stage in their lives, each for his own individual reasons, these men formed a dysfunctional psychological compromise between who were on the inside and who they were expected to be – stemming directly from the pressure of their community’s social values and the expectations placed upon them by their family and community.
Instead forcing themselves and everyone around them to come to terms with this inherent conflict, some of these men came to the only real solution they deemed possible. Rather than running the risk of alienating those who they were close to, and who they cared a great deal about, they opt instead to separate their lives, and attempted to live both, simultaneously.
From their perspective, this was the only â€œrealâ€ answer to an â€œimpossibleâ€ situation. Because he felt he could not be both who he was on the inside and the type of man he was expected to be, he became the man everyone wanted him to be in public and even in his private life as well, and kept the other one hidden â€“ to find brief clandestine moments in his life where he could express who he is on the inside.
There are people who have little sympathy for a person who leads such a duplicitous life, especially for some whose decisions affects the progress and well-being of others like him, but many of those people will never have to face this kind of situation personally â€“ of having to choose between who you are and who you are expected to be. Things have changed, and being gay is much more acceptable these days, but it in many areas it remains a social and religious taboo.
There is a difference between sympathy and justification. For older homosexual men, things were a lot harder than it is now. Not too long ago during the 1950’s, it is an exaggeration that if you were straight but divorced you were often viewed by others in your community, both by your friends and your neighbors, as a convicted criminal. You were looked at as if you were a murder. Now try to image how you would be seen as a homosexual â€“ something considered to far far worse? Many of us can barely withstand the public criticism of not wearing the right type of clothes or driving the right car. I wonder how many of us could stand up against that kind of social condemnation?
Regardless of how you feel about the choice some these men have made, and the dysfunction and uneasy personal contortions that are forced to live with as a result, none of us can say that we have not made any choices that had adverse effects on others as a result. The best solution, is to remove the stigma that lead these men into thinking that they didn’t have any other option â€“ not simply out of pity but because it is right thing to do for us all.
The truth is, no one should ever have to feel they will not be accepted for who they are as person â€“ and that goes for all those things about ourselves we cannot change, not just sexual orientation. Instead, let’s think about changing the one thing we know we have the power to change â€“ our opinion about those who are not exactly the same as us and are a little different. Rather than passing another moral judgment of condemnation on someone’s mistake, let’s try to remedy the problem by going the root. I sincerely doubt things will ever change if all we do is pass out more scarlet letters.
I met cody about 7 years ago and he is a TOTAL HUSTLER and a CRYSTAL METH ADDICT. I think he tried to scam tyhe wrong person. Throw him in Jail. He did this same thing to a friend of mine years ago. i watched him do it.
Dr Brian Atra
Fortunately, we enjoy a legal system where one is to be presumed INNOCENT unless proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I would like to see more written within those guidelines.
Cody, if you find this, get in touch with me.
I think I can help.
Dr. Brian Atra
Dr Brian Atra
And regardless of what others have said, even the mug shot is a nice photograph.
Comments are closed.