Would You Out Scott McClellan?

[PacNW]

In the wake of the Gannon/Guckert scandal, some speculation is that G/G got his press credentials in return for sexual favors for White House insiders. Press Secretary McClellan is one name that has come up. I know nothing about the truth to these stories, and am only using him as a recognizable figure to ask some questions.

 

Escorts, if McClellan had been a paying customer of yours, what would it take for you to go public with that information? Is it the right thing to do to expose closeted Republicans' hypocrisy? Would you do it for $50,000 from the National Enquirer? To get your face on TV (think of the free advertising!)? Because he never left a tip?

 

On the other hand, what are some of the reasons you would *not* do so? Because discretion is a standard that's important to you to live up to? Because you would get a bad business reputation for not being discreet? Would you be afraid of legal repercussions? Outing is an invasion of someone's privacy, and even well-known people have a right to privacy?

 

Or anything else pro or con.

[Guest zipperzone]

I'm not an escort so this reply is not strictly what was asked for in the question.

 

But yes - I would love to see Scott McClellan outed (if he is in fact gay as suspected) for no other reason than the whole motley crew deserves it for their unbelievable show of hypocrisy.

[Apex_Rob]

Naw, I wouldn't. I've never outed a client or anyone else. I think being out is a personal choice and I only have the right to make that choice for one person. Me. *shrug Just my opinion and easily worth whatcha paid for it ;-)

 

-Rob

[joel304]

Is it right? Probably not. Would I love to see it done?? FUCK YES!!!

[noviceny]

I offer this opinion. I believe that all honest work is intrinsically valuable and good. By honest, I mean people who do the work that they have been contracted to, whatever that work may be. Of course, the work can not be intrinsically evil (like taking a life).

 

Next, because of the honor that work bestows on us (I could go on in greater detail, but dont think anyone is up for that), we are (or should be) bound by certain job related ethics and conduct. It would seem to me that one of the ethical obligations of the work of an escort would be discretion and a duty to protect the identity of their clients. Of course, if ya dont take your job seriously or it just a way to make money (and this can apply to any job) you really dont feel bound by anything.

 

Finally, I would think that you would not be able to break your code of ethics, based on your personal feelings or inclinations. That exactly why we have codes of ethics. Many will say, "well there are really no code of ethics for escorts." Well they may not be written, but I would offer that certain ideals that are shared by every serious person in the business, would be thought of as an ethic of the profession.

 

It is nobody's right to out another...

[HotdadENYC]

I wouldn't personally out someone or recommend to anyone else to do it. Living a life where you can't be free about your sexual proclivities is bad enough; having to exist in the Bush White House, under those conditions, is probably tantamount to being in hell.

 

The hypocrisy of Scott's colleagues notwithstanding, he doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat. Besides, if we look hard enough, there might be other reasons to criticize or humiliate Scott. Maybe not.

 

In my experience, ethical behavior is never 100%. Some people have a little ethics, some people have a lot, some people have none. Some have ethics when its convenient; some drop their ethics when it proves to be profitable (financially or otherwise). I've given up trying to decipher why certain people act a certain way in certain situations.

 

Having said that, I would be very concerned about any escort (or client, for that matter) who thinks its OK to out someone and would admit to doing it. Public figure or not.

 

hd NYC

[noviceny]

Very good HotDad,

 

totally agree with everything you said

[HotdadENYC]

Back at you, my beloved partner in crime !

 

 

hd NYC

[FLJohn]

>I wouldn't personally out someone or recommend to anyone else

>to do it. Living a life where you can't be free about your

>sexual proclivities is bad enough; having to exist in the Bush

>White House, under those conditions, is probably tantamount to

>being in hell.

>

>The hypocrisy of Scott's colleagues notwithstanding, he

>doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat. Besides, if we look hard

>enough, there might be other reasons to criticize or humiliate

>Scott. Maybe not.

>

>In my experience, ethical behavior is never 100%. Some people

>have a little ethics, some people have a lot, some people have

>none. Some have ethics when its convenient; some drop their

>ethics when it proves to be profitable (financially or

>otherwise). I've given up trying to decipher why certain

>people act a certain way in certain situations.

>

>Having said that, I would be very concerned about any escort

>(or client, for that matter) who thinks its OK to out someone

>and would admit to doing it. Public figure or not.

>

>hd NYC

 

Good for you. I still think ethics SHOULD mean something.

>

[noviceny]

Just thought of something else, and since I must post any thought that comes in to my head, here goes :

 

I was just thinking who am I to expose someone's hypocricy ? Damn, I wouldnt want to be exposed for all the things that I have done wrong. There is definitely a demonization that occurs among us, and is directed toward everyone in the Bush administration. Now dont get me wrong, I have some real problems with a lot of "policies and procedures" in the White House, but I will not pretend that the Democrats are the saints that we paint them to be.

 

Some may say that we dont paint the democrats to be so saintly, but I would offer that when we call one side "The American Taliban" the other side looks pretty good !!! I have said it before and will say it again : If we are casting stones (and sometimes we have to when we live in the real world), we better make sure that we come correct with our own shit, and realized that we can be just as (or maybe a bit less :-) ) intolerant, prejudice and self-absorbed as the next (wo)man.

[Guest zipperzone]

>I wouldn't personally out someone or recommend to anyone else

>to do it. Living a life where you can't be free about your

>sexual proclivities is bad enough; having to exist in the Bush

>White House, under those conditions, is probably tantamount to

>being in hell.

 

It may be hell but it's a hell of his own choosing.

>

>The hypocrisy of Scott's colleagues notwithstanding, he

>doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat. Besides, if we look hard

>enough, there might be other reasons to criticize or humiliate

>Scott. Maybe not.

 

I don't see that he would be a "scapegoat" I don't believe for a NY minute that if he is gay or bi, that it is not known to the White House as it would have been discovered by background checks that the CIA/FBI would have done on him before he was hired. That being the case, then Rove, Bush and the whole crew would be aware of it and would have condoned Scott using the escort for their own purposes.

 

So by outing Scott, he would not be a scapegoat as it couldn't be a surprise to his bosses. What it would serve to do is to expose the duplicity, corruption and hypocrisy of the whole Lavender Hill Mob!

 

Not that WE need anymore proof of that, but it might turn on a light bulb in a few right wing Christian minds........ or not

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Character Actors

 

>

>

>Escorts, if McClellan had been a paying customer of yours,

>what would it take for you to go public with that information?

 

Not applicable. The trust of a client, even a client who merely contacted me and never actually hired me, or a former client who no longer hires me, is something I take very seriously and would not violate.

 

>Is it the right thing to do to expose closeted Republicans'

>hypocrisy?

 

There are possible circumstances under which hypocrisy can be exposed. However, the circumstances presented do not offer such, at least for me.

 

>Would you do it for $50,000 from the National

>Enquirer?

 

$50,000 is nothing when Bill Gates makes that in less than one minute.

 

>To get your face on TV (think of the free

>advertising!)?

 

You can eat worms on Fear Factor if fleeting fame is all you seek.

 

>Because he never left a tip?

 

If every client who did not leave a tip had to suffer some form of consequence or another, there would be very little repeat business for nearly all escorts.

 

>On the other hand, what are some of the reasons you would

>*not* do so? Because discretion is a standard that's important

>to you to live up to? Because you would get a bad business

>reputation for not being discreet?

 

Discretion is the better part of escorting. A good escort has character and business ethics are a part of that, whatever form they may take. This is another element of what signifies the distinction between an escort and a street walker like Divine Brown.

[HotdadENYC]

Zipper, I can't possibly agree with what you have to say on THIS post.

 

Scott's ability (or inability) to do his job should be the central issue in the WH, not his choice of sleeping partners. We've had enough slander in this country wherein gay men are purported to be less effective at their jobs, because of their private indulgences.

 

On another note, if you think the FBI/CIA are REALLY good at THEIR job, I have a neighbor named Bernard Kerik who might want to disagree with you.

 

hd NYC

[pierrot]

I'm not an escort either, so of course this is not the answer you seek. But I just wanted to add that I think an escort who reveals this kind of info about someone in the Bush administration is asking for trouble. That's a nasty bunch of people there, headed by the chief scoundrel Karl Rove, and if you think they're going to let some little gay escort embarrass them with no repercussions, you can change your name to Pollyanna. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Jeff Gannon. But they got themselves into that one. Notice the Bushies have managed to keep the gay escort part of that story out of the mainstream press. They are powerful and ruthless. I wouldn't advise crossing them without some big guns in your corner.

[taylorky]

>I'm not an escort so this reply is not strictly what was

>asked for in the question.

>

>But yes - I would love to see Scott McClellan outed (if he is

>in fact gay as suspected) for no other reason than the whole

>motley crew deserves it for their unbelievable show of

>hypocrisy.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

as hard as this is to say *gulp* i have to agree with the zipper.

 

of course like zipper i too am not a hustler,but felt compelled to respond.

 

i as a gay man would have no problem exposing fruits that help the right wing in the jihad against gay people...much like the jews that hepled the nazis in their attempt at "the final solution" both group are despicaple traitors to their people and cowards of the highest order.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Zipper, I can't possibly agree with what you have to say on

>THIS post.

 

Then in this instance I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

>

>Scott's ability (or inability) to do his job should be the

>central issue in the WH, not his choice of sleeping partners.

>We've had enough slander in this country wherein gay men are

>purported to be less effective at their jobs, because of their

>private indulgences.

 

You're missing the point. It's not Scott's professional skills that would be under attack, or his sexuality. It is the entire duplicity of the whole rotten crew that would be outed. If Scott falls by the wayside, so be it. It was his choice to be a party to the whole scheme and he should have realised he was playing with fire.

>

>On another note, if you think the FBI/CIA are REALLY good at

>THEIR job, I have a neighbor named Bernard Kerik who might

>want to disagree with you.

 

Well they are very obviuosly NOT very good at their job. Or maybe they were good at their job and Rove & Co chose to ignore them for their own purposes. We'll probably never know.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Notice the

>Bushies have managed to keep the gay escort part of that story

>out of the mainstream press.

 

Well, not quite. Anderson Cooper on CNN was pretty direct in his questioning and this had to have been seen by millions of people.

 

>They are powerful and ruthless. I

>wouldn't advise crossing them without some big guns in your

>corner.

 

You got that one right. Could end up with another "Dorothy Killgallen" type of episode. Remember her?

[noviceny]

>much like the jews that hepled the nazis in their attempt at "the final solution" both group are despicaple traitors to their people and cowards of the highest order.<

 

Or maybe they were just scared...doesnt make them right...just makes them scared

 

>If Scott falls by the wayside, so be it. It was his choice to be a party to the whole scheme and he should have realised he was playing with fire.<

 

Yikes !!! Very "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one " Was it Neitzche, Marx or Spock that said that ?

[noviceny]

...or Machiavelli ? I always get them all mixed up, except for Spock.

[taylorky]

>

>Or maybe they were just scared...doesnt make them right...just

>makes them scared

>

 

my family suffered greatly during the holocaust,my grandmother being the only member of the family to survive the camps,she also was scared...but never a traitorous coward.

 

being closeted and discreet is one thing,but being a tool of those that oppress you and attempt to deny you the same privileges as any other american makes you a coward a dispicable coward.

[taylorky]

well yur close...it's "the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"

 

ya have to love the pointy eared one.

[noviceny]

>my family suffered greatly during the holocaust,my grandmother being the only member of the family to survive the camps,she also was scared...but never a traitorous coward.<

 

Very very sorry for your family and their suffering

 

 

>being closeted and discreet is one thing,but being a tool of those that oppress you and attempt to deny you the same privileges as any other american makes you a coward a dispicable coward.<

 

I guess I still dont understand what this guy did...he was an escort...then he became this press guy for the White House who set them up with the questions that they wanted to answer...is that right? I dont think Im right, cause once again, I didnt do my reading...actually I did but I dont think I followed it

[BewareofNick]

>Good for you. I still think ethics SHOULD mean something.

 

Too bad most Repiglicans don't.

[Doug69]

>being closeted and discreet is one thing,but being a tool of

>those that oppress you and attempt to deny you the same

>privileges as any other american makes you a coward a

>dispicable coward.

 

THIS . . . from a person who supported a Presidential candidate, John Kerry, who OPPOSED allowing gays to marry, SUPPORTED a constitutional amendment in Mass. to prohibit gays from marrying, and said during the campaign that his views on same-sex marriage were EXACTLY THE SAME as the Republicans' views.

 

Hey, you capo, what were you just saying about gay people who support those, like John Kerry, who "attempt to deny you the same privileges as any other american."

 

I think you said it "makes you a coward a dispicable coward" (illiteracies in original).

 

I couldn't agree more.

[taylorky]

not gonna work lil' dougie.nobody falls for your shit esay.