Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Pam Spaulding (who is here in Austin and I hope I get a chance to meet her) has the story of a man in Massachusetts who had a business teaching men how to cross dress.
Several years ago, he started offering a service for straight men who liked to cross-dress, tutoring them in makeup skills while videotaping them, and the client could then take the instruction video home to use in private. After putting an ad in the Boston Phoenix:"Curious about cross-dressing? Professional makeup artist, totally non-sexual video instruction. Totally discreet."
Brian booked over 39 appointments the first week @ $300 a session. Eventually he received a call from a man staying at the Copley Plaza hotel (right next door to Brian's studio), who was southern, very nervous and worried about discretion. And the story goes on from there...
And here's what the man told Mike Signorile on his radio show:
"He [Helms] picked out this big black beehive wig and I did the instruction and gave him the tape, and the next morning when I picked up the paper, I saw that Jesse Helms was in Boston staying at the Copley Plaza , and I am telling you that it was him." Brian was so worried about repercussions of the client/Helms getting paranoid about the whole matter that he shut down his service.
He doesn't have any real evidence for it; the videotape was given to the client. But I certainly wouldn't be shocked to find out it was true. Roy Cohn, anyone? J. Edgar Hoover? I still crack up at the thought of what Bill Hicks said Jesse Helms:
Anyone that far to the right is hiding something. When he dies, they're gonna find the skins of small children drying in his attic. And you'll see his wife on television saying things like, "I always wondered about Jesse's collection of little shoes."
Politics
Comments
"...neigbours of the deceased, said he was a quiet man, with a fabulous collection of, what seemed to be, calf-skin high heels. They were shocked when they heard the news about what Mr Helms made his shoes out of..."
Remember, you heard the news report here first. :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2008 9:56 AM
Here's a man who is likely to be deeply frightened and confused by his desires. He's takes these first tentative steps toward exploring his feelings and getting in touch with himself. He makes himself vulnerable and reaches out to a stranger for help, a stranger who promises discretion and presumably deals with many others in similar situations. What does that stranger do? He breaks his word, betrays the man's trust, and goes to the press. Fuck you Brian in Massachusetts, you insensitive ass.
Coming to terms with feels that so much of society says are deviant or perverse is hard enough. That's doubly true when your entire support structure of friends and relatives are some of the most ardent supporters of such notions. The last thing a person in that position needs is to be exposed before they are ready.
I understand there can be some positive outcomes from such revelations. Foremost it adds anecdotal evidence to the theory that homophobia is often driven by repression. But such minor benefits do not outweigh the damage done to person in such a vulnerable emotional state, nor does it override a person's obligation to be true to their word.
Make fun if Mr. Helms if you want. He deserves it for his stance on so many issues. But in this particular story I say Brian is the real villain.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 18, 2008 10:30 AM
Sorry, replace homophobia with transphobia.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 18, 2008 10:37 AM
Wouldn't be surprised if it were true, indeed. However, as funny as it is that this has been released to the public, I don't think this Brian fellow understands what "totally discreet" means...
Posted by: Beowulff | July 18, 2008 10:37 AM
Honestly, Abby, the need for discretion stops on the day of one's death, or perhaps until one is interred. This fellow kept Helms' little secret for as long as the man was alive. It may have been out of respect, or out of fear of Helms' power -- it doesn't really matter, though.
The simple fact of the matter is that it can't hurt Helms now. Hell, it even humanizes the man just a little bit. Can't join in on the condemnation, I'm afraid -- Jesse Helms is dead; let's find out what the man was really like, above and beyond the racist jackass we all saw.
Posted by: G Barnett | July 18, 2008 10:42 AM
Perhaps Brian thought it meant being completely seperate from, having an absolutely measurable position (relative to something else), boy was he dissapointed when he found out than Mr Helms actually meant "totally discreet". ;) DJ
PS I smell a load of masculine bovine scat, and seems to be eminating from this story.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2008 10:55 AM
Abby,
Exactly so.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 18, 2008 11:02 AM
Man is my face red. I really need to start getting more sleep. I actually forgot Jesse Helms was dead. That does have a significant impact on my little tirade. Everything I said about vulnerability and the need for privacy is completely out the window. I still don't think Brian is absolved of his responsibility to keep his word. But I can at least see an argument that a greater good may be served. I here by downgrade my "fuck you, you insensitive ass" to a mere "tisk-tisk." Sorry.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 18, 2008 11:08 AM
Not only is Brian the real rat in this instance, we've no real proof his claim is even true. Isn't it mighty convenient that he doesn't have the evidence? Even if true, the fact that Helms is dead doesn't make Brian any less an a-hole. Um, if he's selling total discretion, I don't think the customer thinks that means it's okay to tarnish his memory when he's gone.
Posted by: T's Grammy | July 18, 2008 11:13 AM
it's funny, i sort of agree with the sentiment against Brian--i think it's best to keep it private. However, paradoxically, If Brian is just making it up as some sort of guerrilla mind game and tweaking the conservatives and helping us remember how often hypocrisy is exposed in such cases-- I'm TOTALLY for it. weird. But I'd be happy if the meme were so saturated that everytime we heard homophobic and sexual orientation bigotry issuing from someone, that the default assumption was that that someone was probably hiding something. I think that would tend to decrease the power of that kind of hate speech.
Posted by: tbell | July 18, 2008 11:25 AM
Here's hoping that, should this story be true, some person with a sense of justice (and humor) manages to locate a certain videotape and release it onto YouTube.
Until such evidence surfaces, this story is just a "wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but it probably isn't" rumor.
Posted by: sinned34 | July 18, 2008 11:39 AM
Attention people, attention!
Scat of Masculine Bovines Alert Klaxon has already gone off. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2008 11:43 AM
Abby, I disagree completely, utterly and entirely. Helms wasn't just any repressed crossdresser, he was a leader of a movement that has done real and extensive harm to other people like himself. That level of hyprocrisy is inexcusable. Good for Brian for exposing this.
If it is true, of course.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 18, 2008 11:46 AM
Uh, Helms is dead. How long is confidentiality due him?
Posted by: Nemo | July 18, 2008 11:51 AM
Whoops, posted without refreshing first.
Posted by: Nemo | July 18, 2008 11:52 AM
I guess we can file this in the same place as the affidavit-attested testimony of a career prostitute turned political candidate who swore she saw George W. Bush (known as "Lips" in his college frat) performing fellatio on a (now dead) Congressman in a coat closet.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 18, 2008 12:12 PM
Thanks Ginger, nice to know George W Bush has the "suck o' death". That image is gonna haunt my nightmares tonight! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2008 12:24 PM
So you also believe Larry Sinclair, who claims to have smoked crack and had sex with Barack Obama?
Jesse Helms was a racist SOB and I'm glad he's dead and buried. But just because he was an SOB doesn't make stupid second-hand rumors true.
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | July 18, 2008 12:28 PM
Abby Normal:
Let us compare two people rumored to have skeletons in their closets. Let us, for the sake of argument, call them Junderson Caper and Shmessy Crelms.
Junderson is a major national news reporter and is widely rumored to be gay. He refuses to comment on his personal life because he believes that there are details within (the rumored gayness or other issues, whatever they may be) that would affect his ability to get interviews and do his job if they were publicly acknowledged. But he has never shown any indication or advocacy of condemning or shunning gay people. He may remain in the closet, for the stated reasons.
Shmessy, on the other hand, is a nationally-recognized politician who has made a career out of condemning gay people, non-white people, non-Christian people, and pretty much anyone who isn't like him. He has a secret too -- sometimes he wants to be a girl, just for a little while, not forever. But yet the legislation he has fought for over the years would condemn people who do that, and if it was anyone else, he would publicly rejoice in their humiliation, even while wearing a lacy black thong under his business suit. He deserves to be publicly humiliated. (And since he's imaginary, we can pretend he isn't dead like Jesse and embarrass him all we like.)
The only downside to this is that there's no proof. That I'm not too comfortable with. However, the fact remains that if Helms indulged in behavior that he himself condemns, it's a damn shame he died before he could be publicly shamed for his hypocrisy.
Posted by: Brian X | July 18, 2008 1:26 PM
But I certainly wouldn't be shocked to find out it was true. Roy Cohn, anyone? J. Edgar Hoover?
FYI, while the notion of J. Edgar Hoover being a cross-dresser has entered the public consciousness as absolute fact, it's actually based solely on a single source that's even sketchier than this one.
The only downside to this is that there's no proof. That I'm not too comfortable with.
Yeah, there is that little detail...
Posted by: JSinger | July 18, 2008 1:52 PM
I am on the fence about whether or not this information should have been released. While Helms is dead, his family and they have a right to a certain amount of privacy.
What I am disturbed about is that the general reaction to this will be "snicker snicker Helms, snicker a cross - snicker- dresser"
While I think that the hypocrisy of these people should be held up to the light, it actually is not funny to be gay (Larry Craig) father of a black child (Strom Thurmond) or even a cross-dresser (J Edgar Hoover and Jesse Helms(?))
The humiliation should come from the hypocrisy NOT the behavior.
Posted by: Nicole | July 18, 2008 2:00 PM
I think that, for most people and particularly the folks here, that's where it does come from. The reason that such figures become objects of ridicule when this sort of information surfaces is because of their stringent opposition to what they themselves turn out to be or do, not because they do it.
Posted by: Julian | July 18, 2008 2:06 PM
Nicole - I had a perfect civil (and extremely informative) converstation with two people on this blog on the subject of cross dressing (amongst other things). No insults or snickering occured. We just talked. I have no problem at all with cross dressing, I just don't have the desire to do it myself (plus I don't have the legs for it).
The whole point of this story (if true*) is that Jesse Helms was (again if true) a raging HYPOCRITE who happened to be a cross dresser. -DJ
*But I doubt it. The timing is very suspcious and then there's the totally lack of evidence. Show me the evidence and I might believe it, maybe.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2008 2:24 PM
This guy has exactly as much credibility as the guy who says he did meth with Obama (before having sex, naturally).
There's no way to confirm Brian's story - it's not falsifiable.
There's no independent corroboration of Brian's claims -the results haven't been reproduced.
This is a science blog?
Posted by: dave | July 18, 2008 2:29 PM
Just another thought before the flaming commences -
This isn't insulting to Helms as much as it is insulting to transvestites.
Posted by: dave | July 18, 2008 2:39 PM
As a lifelong North Carolina resident I followed Helms's career for three decades. This is about as credible as the "Clinton Chronicles" and psychic John Edward. Helms was a racist and a Pinochet fan, but not a cross dressing closet case. Even the most despicable deserve fair rules of evidence or does their detestability automatically make the allegations true?
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 18, 2008 3:12 PM
Jesse Helms spent his life publicly persecuting gays and trans people. His lack of integrity affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in extremely concrete ways - job losses, families torn apart.
He was also an unrepentant and overt racist. Let's imagine he had a thing for tall lean Black men, but in all of his public life used his power to attack them, diminish their rights, and flagrantly abuse them en masse in all policies he supported...Is there some universe where this doesn't count because "The man has issues...." No, there is not.
Or let's say all his life he worked against abortion, but paid for 6 women to have them, would that be fair game? Of course it would. So why do we make a special case for playing dress up? We shouldn't and it's our baggage not his that makes this complicated for some reason. Why are people here sooo concerned about his 'vulnerability'...He was not concerned about yours.
He is absolutely in life and death a fair target as abusive hypocrites always are.
That said, without proof, this is just juicy rumor - much like the 'whitey' video that likely does not exist, but that the Faux News people get so worked up about.
Posted by: Cityzenjane | July 18, 2008 3:16 PM
Yes, this is all assuming Brian as telling the truth. I don't take that for granted. But there's not much to talk about if we assume he's lying. So for the sake of a potentially interesting conversation I'll ignore that possibility for now.
I see the point about hypocrisy and there being some value of exposing it. My issue with Brian is that he gave his word and then broke it. Condoning such behavior just because it produces a result you approve of is an "ends justify the means" argument I don't agree with in this case. I put high value on honesty and personal integrity. Would anyone disagree that Brian's actions lack those qualities?
Were Helms alive what would be the likely effect of Brian's actions be? I think that for the most part such a revelation won't sway anyone's opinion on the subject. The haters would keep on hating and the tolerant wouldn't become more effective. It's also unlikely this would slow down Helms crusade. Most probably it would only serve to make him feel threatened. His likely response would be to ramp up his rhetoric, offsetting any gains the tolerance side scores.
Weigh the dubious gains against the psychological harm that can be done by outing someone who is not ready and to me the best choice is clear. I may not have liked Jesse Helms. In fact I despised him. But he was still a person. To do him harm I would need a good reason and I just don't see scoring a minor political point as good enough.
Then there's also the slim chance that by allowing him to explore his feelings he might come to accept them. I believe his crusade against "deviants" was primarily an external projection of his internal conflict. If the internal conflict ends then so does his need to persecute and oppress. That is where I see the true victory.
Now that he's dead, I have no qualms about outing him. Obviously there's no mind to harm and no chance he'll have a change of heart. So all that remains is distaste for Brian's choice to break his word.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 18, 2008 3:16 PM
He gets none of my respect, even in death.
HOOAH!
Posted by: asdf | July 18, 2008 5:07 PM
The total lack of evidence and actions inconsistent with motivations (Why would the guy shut down a legal business because a politician who would have everything to lose by drawing attention to his awareness of the business's existence be afraid of said politician doing so?) makes the story not only unlikely to be true, but, like the Larry Sinclair accusations, irresponsible to propagate. Have some standards people.
Posted by: MattXIV | July 18, 2008 5:11 PM
Unbelievable. I really don't know much about Jesse Helms, but posting on the internet what is at best a rumor about the guy seems a little like a cheapshot. Ed, you even admit that there isn't evidence, yet you post it anyway. Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if somebody on some internet site somewhere posted unsubstantiated and very unflattering rumors about you. You guys can really be a pathetic bunch on this site. Truly classless.
Posted by: mroberts | July 18, 2008 5:13 PM
Personally I have a difficult time getting too concerned over a possible breach of etiquette designed to incriminate Jesse Helms. The man was scum, regardless of how he may or may not have dressed in private.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 18, 2008 5:17 PM
$300 a pop? 39 bookings after the first ad? I've just added a new business to my portfolio.
Posted by: Spike | July 18, 2008 5:31 PM
Abby Normal wrote "I believe his crusade against "deviants" was primarily an external projection of his internal conflict. If the internal conflict ends then so does his need to persecute and oppress."
I disagree. Helms was a good ole boy from the small town of Monroe, NC long before it became a bedroom community for the greater Charlotte metropolitan area. His insular worldview was small town South pre-1940. Helms didn't like homosexuals for the same reason he did not like hippies and civil rights activists. They were people he believed to be totally other from what he believed. No internal conflict over repressed desires. The assumption that every homophobe must be a closet case is a question begging assumption. Some heterosexuals are homophobes without any internal conflict the way that other people can be anti-semetic without being self-hating Jews.
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 18, 2008 5:40 PM
You stay classy, leftwingers
Posted by: ToddonCapeCod | July 18, 2008 7:02 PM
This story reminds me about some of the controversy that surrounded the Oliver Stone film JFK. Much was made of the conspiracy theory that was layed out in the film. But the real icing on the cake was that Oliver Stone portrayed the right wing conspirators as "faggy" cross-dressers. So the message there was that if you want to really nail a right winger all you have to do is imply that they are a closet homosexual. Whats even better of course is when indisputable evidence and/or an admission is brought forth (ie Ted Haggard). Because in that situation said right winger suffers the ultimate humilation. Ah yes it is really fun when people you dont like suffer.
Posted by: Cheddar | July 18, 2008 7:14 PM
I remember MAD Magazine once depicting Jesse Helms as a cross-dressing prostitute (alongside Orrin Hatch selling porn out of his trench coat) in a portrayal of right-wing congressmen needing to find new jobs, and man, this puts that in a whole new light.
Posted by: Turcano | July 18, 2008 8:05 PM
Oliver Stone's JFK showed the conspirators as gay cross dressers because the real Jim Garrison liked outing homosexuals and he based his prosecution of Clay Shaw on Shaw supposedly being homosexual.
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 18, 2008 9:33 PM
"You stay classy, leftwingers."
Because rightwingers always refrain from publicizing damaging but evidence-free rumors of their ideological opponents (rolls eyes). Guess ToddonCapeCod is too young to remember "The Clinton Chronicles" or Rush Limbaugh reading a rumor on his radio show that Vincent Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 18, 2008 9:35 PM
That is an excellent and important point Bill in NC. I fully agree that one need not be a closet case to be anti-gay or anti-transvestite. However, as I stated in the first paragraph of the post you quoted, for the purposes of this conversation I'm treating Brian's revelation that Helms was a closet cross-dresser as true. My intent is to explore the the ethical implications that follow from that premise. It's purely hypothetical.
If you think Brian is full of shit and that Helms never explored transvestitism, I'm certainly not going to argue with you.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 18, 2008 10:08 PM
I can't see Helms stepping foot in Boston.
Posted by: Jon H | July 18, 2008 10:32 PM
Also, Helms was in poor health when he left the Senate in 2003, and had both knees replaced around 2000, and by 2001 he was relying on a motorized scooter to get around Congress.
The supposed incident happened "several" years ago, but under any reasonable definition of 'several' I don't think Helms would have been in the physical condition required for a jaunt up to Boston and learning to walk in high heels.
Posted by: Jon H | July 18, 2008 11:37 PM
Psst. He's dead.
Posted by: pough | July 19, 2008 1:39 AM
Dead or not, it's missing the point to portray the outing of Craig, Haggard, etc. as simply "making them suffer." The point is that these people have been making others suffer for what they themselves have been doing in private-- and which isn't wrong in the first place. It's exactly as if, or should be as if, I revealed that a senator who had been campaigning for years that playing basketball is a sin and should be illegal is actually a secret basketball player. Then imagine that the preacher or legislator in question proclaimed that he was only playing basketball because of a drug addiction, or because of alcoholism, and you will see this ridiculousness for what it is.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 19, 2008 1:57 AM
"Unbelievable. I really don't know much about Jesse Helms, but posting on the internet what is at best a rumor about the guy seems a little like a cheapshot."
Strictly speaking, of course, this is not "as best a rumor", it is at worst a rumor. At best, it is the public avowal of a first-hand witness, who waited until Helms was dead before he broke his promised silence.
Now, cross dressing is not homosexuality per se, but....
Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1996, Vol. 105, No. 3,440--445
A small study ( n= 64) out of the University of Georgia utilizing penile engorgement measurements while viewing pornography whose abstract concludes: "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
IF this is true, then one may feel justified in looking at the most ardent and public homophobes with a jaundiced eye. Maybe. :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 19, 2008 11:35 AM
At risk of becoming highly unpopular around here, I say GO FOR IT.
Jesse Helms was not a private citizen who merely inflicted his vomit on those immediately around him. He was not a George Wallace who eventually saw the errors of his ways and made a real and heartfelt change, and was properly forgiven his past trespasses by none less than the family of Dr. Martin Luther King. Jesse Helms was an unreconstructed, unrepentant bigot of the worst kind, who inflicted his twisted hatreds upon millions of Americans via his power in the Senate.
One example I will never forget: After President Clinton attempted to desegregate the military to allow gay soldiers to serve honestly, Helms famously said that "I would advise the President not to visit any military bases in my state. I couldn't vouch for his safety if he did." That's a thinly-disguised call for military mutiny and assassination of the President. The man should have gone to prison for that one, just as anyone else would for threatening the life of an elected official.
As far as I'm concerned, Helms was and is a fair target for any form of counterattack that is not a violation of criminal law.
That would include bird-dogging him to catch him doing anything that could be used to embarrass him or subject him to prosecution. That would include blowing the whistle on anything he did that was even in the slightest way hypocritical. And that would also include spreading whatever information was available in order to put him to disgrace and put his memory to disgrace.
Was this a sketchy rumor? Fine. Spread it anyway, with appropriate disclaimers that it may only be a sketchy rumor.
Helms' grave site deserves to be saturated with urine, feces, and vomit, to the point where the stench drives people away. His memory deserves to be saturated with every foul word he ever said or foul deed he ever did, to the point where that stench drives people away. He deserves to go down in ignominy and disgrace, and his supporters deserve to be shamed and shunned until the day they repent or the day they drop dead.
As for his family, on one hand they deserve the compassion that's due anyone who was not a direct perpetrator, analogous to the compassion deserved by the families of convicted murderers who spend their lives locked up behind bars.
But on the other hand, they were his enablers because they did not stop him, and for that, they at least deserve to be pursued by the bad memories of the evils he did.
No excuses for him, no excuses for his evil deeds, and no wiggle-room for notions of propriety or restraint against waging the verbal and historical war against his legacy. Period.
Posted by: g347 | July 19, 2008 11:58 PM
Re JSinger
The fact of the matter is that J. Edgar Hoover was gay and this was known back in the Roosevelt administration. It was well known in Washington that he was living as man and wife with his deputy, Clyde Tolson.
As an aside, in the 1960s Hoovers' FBI was investigating New Jersey Congessman Cornelius Gallagher, who was later involved in the ABSCAM investigation in the 1970s. Gallagher told Roy Cohn, who was also gay, that if Hoover didn't lay off, he would go on the floor of the House every day during the time set aside for speeches and present evidence as to Hoovers' homosexual predilections. Needless to say, Hoover backed off and the investigation was canned.
Re Bill in NC
Clay Shaw was gay and was into some rather deviant sex practices. However, Mr. Shaw was also a decorated intelligence officer during the Second World War (it is my understanding that he reached the rank of major), unlike draft dodger Garrison. So much for the notion that gay men and women can't serve their country in the armed forces.
Posted by: SLC | July 20, 2008 3:45 PM