George Alan Rekers | News

Second 'Rent Boy' Comes Forward, Claims Sex with Rekers

A second man, who goes by the name Chaz, is now claiming he was hired by Rekers for sex:

Chaz"In a city, in the USA, when I was in my 20’s, I committed the illegal act of prostitution with a man named George Rekers. To divulge more information regarding the time and place, at this time, would not benefit me, legally. I was sitting in my apartment, watching TV when my pager went off. It was a caller, responding to an ad I had placed in the escort/masseur section of a local gay magazine. The caller was George Rekers, and he told me his real name, a requirement I had for all of my clients who wanted “outcall” service, meaning that I would travel to their hotel for a “session”. If anything happened to me, the clients name and info would be sitting on my dresser for my roommate to find. Rekers was very specific about the kind of service he expected for the $150 he agreed to pay me. He insisted on only safe activity, and repeatedly asked me if I was “clean”, meaning disease free. I assured him that I was. 

ChazLucienRekers wanted a full body massage, and he wanted light, sexual contact. He referred to himself as being “very vanilla”, which I later learned means, no oral or anal. As an escort, I remembered clients like this the most because they are easy money. I fulfilled his request, and by the time I was finished, there wasn’t a single part of his body that my hands had not touched. He wanted a light tickling of his skin, just barely touching his skin, as I glided my fingers up and down his spine, all the way into his crack. He shivered with pleasure with every stroke. I wasn’t in the habit of asking my clients any personal questions. I did, however, answer several questions George had for me. He was very curious to know more about my porno career, which, he had not previously been aware of. When I explained it to him, he seemed repulsed when I got into the details of the oral and anal sex scenes. I sensed that George was struggling with his sexuality, but I had no idea that he was a monster, until now."

Chaz posted the second photo to show how he looked when Rekers hired him. Rekers apparently has a "type".

In related news, Lucien is apparently scheduled to be interviewed on AC360 tonight, on CNN.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. For Rekers, it was the closest thing to love...

    It's very sad, actually. He may be a "monster", but he's his own victim. We shouldn't forget that anti-gay bigots often aren't evil. They simply had been brainwashed into being Christians. It all should be blamed on religion. All this talk about "monsters" distracts us from the actual cause.

    Posted by: Eugene | May 7, 2010 6:32:14 PM

  2. The Florida Attorney General that hired Rekers to testify against foster children being able to be adopted by gays was none other than Bill McCollum-who is still Florida's AG. McCollum paid Rekers $120,000 for his "expert" testimony.

    Seems McCollum is currently running for Governor in Florida. The same McCollum that has joined the lawsuit against our government to block health care. What a guy. Evidently misusing taxpayer money to further his conservative agenda is the norm for that guy.

    Take a look at the hilarious comments being left on McCollum's Facebook page. He's trying to hide them by getting them erased as fast as he can-but the number of people still posting to his site is amazing.

    Posted by: Ann | May 7, 2010 6:33:42 PM

  3. This is pure speculation on my part. I have no substantial facts to support my thought beyond gut intuition. Where I felt strongly that Jo-vanni was on the level and honest about everything he said, this newcomer strikes me as a copycat opportunist.

    Perhaps it is in the carefully worded nature of his comments. Perhaps it is the length of time since his alleged experience. Perhaps it seems strange that Rekers gave his full name in an experience where, typically, anonymity is prudent.

    One can argue both ways, save that Jo-vanni was photographed in Rekers' company, his profile is online and verifiable, and Rekers was recorded on speaker phone begging Jo-vanni not to speak to the press. Jo-vanni can be checked out. This new one -- the jury is out.

    Posted by: Don | May 7, 2010 6:34:42 PM

  4. Who cares if the jury's still out, DON? In the court of public opinion, you don't need reasonable doubt, and the more whores that jump on the bandwagon in taking down this filth the better.

    Posted by: TANK | May 7, 2010 6:37:47 PM

  5. @Don

    Why would he want to out himself as a "rent boy"? That is just goofy. Rekers is a monster that hurt a lot of people throughout his pitiful existence. These are some of the victims speaking up and the last thing they need is more criticism, save that for the monster himself.

    Posted by: Rafael | May 7, 2010 6:46:10 PM

  6. @ann

    the way these republicans love to throw around money kinda makes one wonder who's really conservative.

    Posted by: alguien | May 7, 2010 6:59:02 PM

  7. These people who feel 'sorry' for Rekers are clueless of the facts. Do a google search and read about all the people this scum has hurt. Do you feel sorry for Jeffrey Damer because he was misunderstood?

    Posted by: patrick nyc | May 7, 2010 7:01:40 PM

  8. Does the Mann Act apply in the Lucien case? Lucien was after all transported across state lines and internationally for mean luggage lifting (Apologies to S. Carell)

    I seem to remember the Mann Act brought up with regard to Eliot Spitzer's transgressions with paid "escorts."

    18 USCS @ 2421 (1994) @ 2421.
    8/26/94 ***
    RELATED CRIMES @ 2421.

    Transportation generally
    Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or
    foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
    States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution,
    or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged
    with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned not more than five years, or both

    Posted by: Dave W | May 7, 2010 7:19:03 PM

  9. No Eugene. This anti-gay bigot is EVIL.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 7, 2010 7:21:56 PM

  10. and the plot sickens.

    Posted by: nic | May 7, 2010 7:26:36 PM


    Posted by: THE QUEENEN | May 7, 2010 7:31:47 PM

  12. @ patrick nyc

    Although I agree with you (I think Reker's destruction of so many innocent lives trumps everything else), there is, as always, a case to be made for compassion.

    The Reverend Jonathon Edwards makes one here:

    Posted by: Rascal | May 7, 2010 7:36:17 PM

  13. @ Tank and Rafael,

    Credibility is vital in a case like this. If "Chaz" proves to be a copycat opportunist, then he will have provided the Right with ammunition to dismiss Jo-vanni's words out of hand. As to why out himself as a rent boy?

    People do a lot of things for attention. In fact, I'm waiting for that attack to be thrown at Jo-vanni, despite how everything he said was backed up with physical evidence. The court of public opinion is fickle and unfair, as we all know.

    Posted by: Don | May 7, 2010 7:40:14 PM

  14. Condemning all Christians because of the acts of some Christians makes as much sense as condemning all gay people because of the acts of a few.

    Posted by: seattle mike | May 7, 2010 7:49:20 PM

  15. I understand your point, but vetting Chaz distracts from the scandal. You have to take Chaz at face value. But the Right has nothing here. We should be the ones launching TV adds across Florida denouncing the outrage. And then we should take a hard look at FRC and NARTH and bury them.

    Posted by: Rafael | May 7, 2010 7:50:20 PM

  16. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy Jesus denounced in Matthew 23
    1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.[a] 3 So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. 4 They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

    5 “Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels.[b] 6 And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. 7 They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi.’[c]

    8 “Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.[d] 9 And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. 10 And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be a servant. 12 But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

    13 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.[e]

    15 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell[f] you yourselves are!

    I sometimes get crap from other gay people because I'm study the Bible and consider myself to be a Christian, but its for people such as this that I'm working on becoming a minister and going to seminary. Someone has to be on OUR side to make this arguement, otherwise we continue to lose.

    People constantly bring up what the Bible says about homosexuality, but what was in the Bible was not the same was what we are today, in fact, what they are calling homosexuality, was more promiscuity in general.

    Either way, our children need to be protected from this pit of vipers that seeks to "convert" them. Jesus accepts us the way we are, its too bad so many christians don't.

    Posted by: Alfonzo | May 7, 2010 8:07:33 PM

  17. where there's smoke you know that this was not the first time rekers hired a "skycap". it seems funny that he would use a rent boy spot when he needed someone to carry his luggage. no offense to lucien but he doesn't
    like someone i would hire to carry anything.
    chaz is probably right about what happened.
    too bad no pictures to hang the bastard. he hurts people and deserves no sympathy. just redicule

    Posted by: walter | May 7, 2010 8:27:49 PM

  18. No, Don. Even if chaz were to turn out to be bogus (which I've no reason to believe), jo-vanni has this douche dead to rights with photo confirmation. And at this point, it's this whore's word against that scumbag rekers, and even a whore's word's worth more than his.

    Posted by: TANK | May 7, 2010 8:39:19 PM

  19. Let's be honest...this Chaz had no reason to come forward, especially if he left no clues, other than to "out" this closeted, self-hating homophobe, Rekers. I for one would believe Chaz over Rekers any day.

    And when's the last time a gay male prostitute was caught making things up? Remember Ted Haggard...Haggard fessed' up. Remember the state senator in Washington? Well maybe not but you get the picture.

    Posted by: Robert | May 7, 2010 9:45:41 PM

  20. Tank tops and everything. I love them all.

    Posted by: barney | May 7, 2010 10:45:50 PM

  21. I know Chaz and he lived with me during the time he says he met Rekers...He has no reason to lie about this ....I know it may seem like hes jumping on a bandwagon...but he is not. If he says he met him then he did...Chaz has a happy life now, away from the troubles of his youth... he has no reason other than the truth for blogging about Rekers...I think it's very brave of him to come forward and say what he went thru with this man.

    Posted by: Mark | May 7, 2010 10:46:34 PM

  22. Since Rekers supposedly adopted a 16 year old boy a few years ago, I wonder if that kid is the same "type" as Chaz and Jo-Vanni. Has Rekers ever been married?

    Posted by: Abel | May 7, 2010 11:09:36 PM

  23. I believe you and Chaz, Mark. Rekers have brought nothing but destruction to others, including the rest of us.

    Posted by: Gast | May 8, 2010 12:42:58 AM

  24. @seattle mike

    "Condemning all Christians because of the acts of some Christians makes as much sense as condemning all gay people because of the acts of a few."

    No, it makes as much sense as condemning all Nazis because of the acts of a few. Christianity, unlike homosexuality, is an ideology, not a personal trait. A pro-gay Christian is like a pro-Jewish Nazi. Sure, they don't hate gays/Jews, but they still promote the ideology that leads to bigotry.

    I mean, how silly would it be if a Jew said, "Hitler was wrong about Jews. But he was right about everything else"? ;-) Pro-gay Christians do the same thing. They don't hate gays, but they still believe that we should borrow our morals from an anti-gay book written a few thousand years ago, promoting it in the process.

    Posted by: Eugene | May 8, 2010 2:16:51 AM

  25. Or, put another way, eugene, most christians are antigay (the vast majority of them are, to varying extents, homophobic, and belong to faiths that actively promote and explain their homophobic beliefs; which is the vast majority of christian denominations), and given that there's no such thing as a "true christian" (a more meaningless term has yet to be invented), you have most christians promoting homophobia, while an extreme minority disagree with the majority on that aspect (weakly), but supports the majority in its overall beliefs in the supernatural with which they use to justify their hommophobia. This is tacit approval of the majority (defense of the mechanism by which they justify and explain their bigotry), and any attempt to discredit the reasoning of the majority is met with vocal opposition from the minority who insist that these beliefs are "sacred" and need to be respected...because they're more offended by criticism of those beliefs than they are the homophobia of their fellow christians (which directly entails that they have no moral ground on which to defend their belief in fairytales as it has no connection with concern for people's lives and how bigotry harms people). There simply isn't a powerful moderate voice in christian america, so for these so-called progay christians to castigate and denounce atheists or those who criticize religion for its bigoted beliefs (among other things) never exclusively condemn the religious right, and always couch such criticism in defense of faith rather than clear condemnation of religious bigotry (e.g.,"that's my personal jesus!"--well apparently it's not your opposition's personal jesus, either). It's like, as you alluded, a different take on mein kampf: it simply doesn't make a difference to the overall scheme of things. And that's why religious moderates (who never speak up against so-called extremists in any effective way if at the difference between them isn't nearly as dramatic as they like to say when no extremist is around. Hint: there's no such thing as a religious extremist just like there's no such thing as a true christian or true religion) are useless to confront so-called religious extremism...because they're more concerned with upholding the fairytale meme than they are with people's lives and the bigotry caused by accepting mainstream christian beliefs that harm moderate is that?

    Posted by: TANK | May 8, 2010 2:54:11 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Remembering the Upstairs Lounge: Artist Skylar Fein Resurrects a Tragic Event in New Orleans' Gay History« «