Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), that is. He voted anti-gay by supporting the Clintons' Defense of Marriage Act and such, so there is rejoicing among the GOP-haters aplenty. But leaving aside the ongoing and endless debate over outing, it's interesting that no one, not even on the gay left, is even questioning why the state has a right to set up surveillance/sting operations in public men's rooms with the aim of prosecuting gay guys, closeted or otherwise, caught cruising.
More. A news blitz. The Task Force weighs in and does mention that police stings are a dreadful business.
Still more. Dale Carpenter asks:
Given the long history of police fabrication of evidence and entrapment of gay men in these sting operations, there should be no presumption that the officer's version of events is correct. But assuming for the sake of argument that Craig did everything the officer alleged, how was it the basis for a criminal charge that could get him a $1,000 fine and/or ten days in jail?
But get a load of some of our commenters defending police entrapment!
Yet more still. I'm away for an extended Labor Day weekend so haven't added much. Assuredly, Craig is no poster boy but a sad story of the closet (the near total lack of any sympathy for him, from left or right, is another story). Even so, here's a thought:
- A president is caught having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lies to cover it up; he finishes his term (and may yet return as president-consort).
- A congressman sends salacious e-mails to former pages now of legal age; he resigns in disgrace.
- A senator engages in the illegal activity of hiring prostitutes; he's finishing his term and no one is suggesting prosecution.
- A senator taps his toes in a men's room in a subtle signal only a fellow seeker would recognize and respond to; he's entrapped, charged with a crime and forced to resign in disgrace.
All together, guess which orientation is cut no slack?
173 Comments for “The Craig Story”
posted by Avee on
This guy was just tapping his toes! Still, even if he was doing more, the late, great New York activist Darrell Yates-Rist (does anyone even remember him?) once asked as I recall, “What business is it of the state if a man is using the facilities of a mens’ room to urinate or ejaculate?”
posted by Doug on
With all due respect, children use public restrooms and I don’t think it’s appropriate that they, or me for that matter, should have to see or hear 2 men having sex when they need to use the restroom. I’m a gay man and certainly not a prude but public restrooms are not the place for sex.
posted by Maybe... on
Because Lawrence v. Texas only applies to private sex acts. Public sex may be criminalized, and it should be. However, in this case, I’m not sure they had enough to arrest him (tapping your feel?!) – although the senator did plead guilty afterwards, so the issue is moot.
posted by Lori Heine on
I was just in a public restroom at that very airport last weekend. Okay, it was the womens’ instead of the mens’, but it is unfathomable to me that a sleazeball like Craig would find that an appropriate place for cruising anonymous sex.
There are families — including little kids — in and out of those restrooms at every hour of the day and night. Families, oftentimes, get flights at odd hours because they’re less expensive.
Of course there is a constitutional issue here. But Larry Craig is outhouse scum. As, in general, is the Republican Party.
posted by Jim C. on
it’s interesting that no one, not even on the gay left, is even questioning why the state has a right to set up surveillance/sting operations in public men’s rooms with the aim of prosecuting gay guys, closeted or otherwise, caught cruising.
Not true. Check out Talking Points Memo to name just one example.
posted by Jim C. on
That said, it’s a real treat to see Stephen Miller siding with the radical queer left on this one. Three cheers for public sex; unwitting bystanders be damned!
posted by Avee on
A public restroom is all about averting your eyes (and often ears) from that which you don’t want to see or hear, bodily function-wise. And if you actually read Steve’s blog, he takes a fairly consistent anti-state, pro-individualist/libertarian stance on most issues. So it’s the gay left that’s inconsistent based on partisanship, not Steve.
posted by Jim C. on
Avee, we’re talking about two different gay lefts. You’re talking about center-left Democrats like the folks at HRC or NGLTF. I’m talking about the real Left–the folks who prefer “queer,” think marriage is an assimilationist waste of time, and want to take sex out of the bedrooms to which it has, since the 1970s, been confined (think: Michael Warner).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Um….because public sex and lewd acts are illegal?
Totally disagree with you on this one, Steve.
posted by KL on
But North Dallas, neither of those actually happened here, unless you’re seriously arguing that tapping your foot suggestively and hanging around wishing for sex is a “lewd act”.
posted by Upstatedoc on
Maybe Craig shouldn’t have pled “Guilty” then two months afterwards if he felt it was just his ‘wide stance’ and his ‘just going to pick up a paper’ from under the stall. “I’m confused, I’m just an old man!’
The Idaho Statesman said they were ready to whip out their own much delayed expose. This little scrumpet is just the amuse bouche to a tasty takedown.
Me thinks you’d be railing against public sex (icky closted desperate guy act) rather than the police sting operation if there was a (D) instead of an (R) after the senator’s name.
Nice revisionism too on ‘Clinton’s DOMA’. He gladly went along, but that was a Newt and Barr special.
posted by Nick on
Again, you’re totally ignoring the truth. See, e.g., the Nat’l Gay & Lesbian Task Force statement on the issue:
?And by the way, why are Minneapolis tax dollars being used to have plainclothes police officers lurking idly in airport restroom stalls??
Please up the intellectual honesty of your posts. You’re doing us all a disservice.
posted by Bobby on
A bathroom is not a bathhouse, we need to get those perverts off our streets.
With gay.com, craiglist, bars, clubs, escorts, etc, there’s no need for anyone to have sex in public.
posted by Roy on
Indeed, a bathroom is not a bathhouse. There are places that are designated for such activities, and an airport restroom is not one of them. Although I don’t believe the officer had enough evidence to arrest him, the fool pleaded guilty, so that’s the end of it.
posted by Craig2 on
That said, it isn’t exactly hurting anyone, so is it a victimless crime? And you’re wrong about the gay left- see
John Greyson’s Canadian pro-
public sex documentary “Urinal”
for an excellent example…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Brian Miller on
Should sex in public places be illegal? Probably.
Was the Senator engaged in actual sex? No. He should have gotten a warning, unless he was actually engaging in the act, at which time his arrest is warranted.
Am I broken-hearted that his arrest has outed him as a total hypocrite? Not really. Republicans — especially anti-gay ones — seem to have a knack for condemning we gay folk who have sex only in private for “destroying morality”. . . while they’re out cruising in public parks, bathrooms at the Minneapolis airport, or other shall we say “inappropriate venues.”
I’d feel sorry for the guy, but it’s 2007, not 1977, and thus the premise that he cannot be an out gay guy out of fear is as out of date as the Ethel Merman Disco Album.
posted by Bobby on
This crime does hurt people. It’s not victimless. Nobody likes to be harassed.
From the Washington Post:
“The undercover officer was monitoring the restroom on June 11. A few minutes after noon, Craig entered and sat in the stall next to him. Craig began tapping his right foot, touched his right foot to the left foot of the officer and brushed his hand beneath the partition between them. He was then arrested.”
What if instead of having an undercover officer, Craig has harassed a normal person, how would he have felt?
posted by TJR on
GOP…Grand Old Pervs, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Ted Haggard. When are they going to stop being holier than thou moralists. Hypocrites.
posted by dalea on
Both squirt.com and cruisingforsex.com report that the Minneapolis police have been cracking down on this particular toilet since June. Acting on complaints from the public, particularly from people in need of facilities who walked in on sexual behavior. The tapping and hand were a motif in many of the sex events.
posted by JP on
I think the liberal gays are having way too much fun to defend the conservative “family values” hypocrite but you are right. We should complain when gay rights activists who cry foul or entrapment when they engage in lewd acts in public to defend the likes of Larry Craig even if this conduct should be left in the bedroom.
posted by Craig2 on
In the aforementioned Greyson documentary, there was attention paid to a rural Ontario name-and-shame campaign that published the names of convicted public
sex offenders, contributing to the later suicides of some of these men.
From a libertarian perspective, I suppose it isn’t tangibly harming anyone so it shouldn’t be banned. Shouldn’t we reserve
perjorative terms for those who really deserve it, like paedophiles or rapists?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Bobby on
Craig2, libertarian doesn’t mean you can masturbate in public, or urinate in the street, or smoke in the subway.
Some guys who like public sex will set up glory holes in their own homes and do you know what through strangers that show up. In fact, this is worse than having sex in a car at night (which is also illegal). The bathrom belongs to everyone, nost just sex perverts. And yes, I use the term “pervert” because someone who has the needs to have sex in public is a goddamm pervert.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Sorry, Stephen, but using taxpayer dollars to nab these losers is perfectly fine with me. As Bobby aptly points out, there are PLENTY of other venues to find sexual partners (even if you’re closeted) without having to resort to cruising in places not created for sexual activity. These pervs give all of us decent gay folks a bad name, and they should be actively shunned by us.
Upstatedoc, I know you don’t want to believe that wonderful, honest, upstanding guy, Clinton, was involved in DOMA, but pretending he wasn’t doesn’t make it true.
I’m just glad I don’t live in Idaho. They now have a choice between a hypocritical, closeted, sleazeball incumbent, a perpetual loser on the Democratic side, and two crazies on the Republican side. What a choice! Yikes.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Thanks to Jim C. and Nick for correcting Steve’s false statement that no one has questioned the state’s setting up sting operations. I was about to post the statement by Matt Foreman at NGLTF when I saw that Nick had beaten me to it. Steve, please post an update acknowledging that you were wrong. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Another thing Steve said that was misleading was his reference to “rejoicing among the GOP-haters aplenty.” Yes, of course, but conservatives have been just as bad. Go to National Review’s blog, The Corner, and scroll down to Tuesday morning’s posts by Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, the undercover officer did not “sting” Sen. Craig in the sense of provoking a crime that otherwise would not have happened. According to news reports, the officer was responding to complaints.
posted by John on
“GOP-haters”
Yes, of course they are. Because who could possibly have any problem with the corruption, graft, hypocrisy, and perversion of the systems of government perpetrated by the GOP for the last six years? No one really cares about that – they just like to hate.
posted by Tim on
Here in Georgia, it’s a crime to solicit sodomy anywhere, anytime, anyone.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because who could possibly have any problem with the corruption, graft, hypocrisy, and perversion of the systems of government perpetrated by the GOP for the last six years?
The problem is not that, John; it’s that your outrage is so, well, selective.
For instance, Nancy Pelosi screamed all the way through the 2006 election cycle that anyone who had broken campaign finance law, especially deliberately, was not fit to serve in Congress, should immediately resign, and if they didn’t, should never be allowed to hold leadership positions.
Oops.
But we know you don’t care about Pelosi’s corruption and blatant flouting of laws; after all, she’s not a Republican. After all, we can’t expect you to hold her to the same standards as you demand of everyone else, can we?
And the other point to be made here is that solicitation for public sex is a crime as well as public sex itself.
posted by Avee on
Richard, why such a nasty tone? Given that Steve has often had nice things to say about your columns, I can’t imagine how you respond to people who actually dislike you!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Avee, what are you talking about? If there’s a nasty tone, it must be in your head. I was entirely civil. Or do you regard any disagreement as inherently nasty?
Tim, if Georgia has a law that sweeping, I’d say it is unconstitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws. Of course, that doesn’t affect solicitation for sodomy in connection with prostitution, nor solicitation of a minor, nor sexual assault involving sodomy. But non-commercial sodomy between consenting adults is now legal throughout the U.S. as a result of Lawrence, so solicitation for that (excluding the other things that I mentioned) cannot fairly be criminalized.
posted by Roy on
But non-commercial sodomy between consenting adults is now legal throughout the U.S. as a result of Lawrence, so solicitation for that (excluding the other things that I mentioned) cannot fairly be criminalized.
Not quite. Lawrence v. Texas is a privacy case. So consensual non-commercial sodomy in the privacy of your own home is legal. Remember the facts of the case – the police busted in on a couple of guys in one of their homes. Non-commercial sodomy between consenting adults in public or – arguably – in places without a reasonable expectation of privacy may still be criminalized.
posted by Lori Heine on
“From a libertarian perspective, I suppose it isn’t tangibly harming anyone so it shouldn’t be banned.”
Craig2, this is carrying libertarianism a tad far.
We have to have laws in our society to protect children. Sure, the fundies have overused the argument — I know they push their kids at us all the time, and that they use “the good of the children” as a supposed rationale for trying to run our lives.
The fact remains that little kids do not need to be exposed to sex in public washrooms. For that matter, neither do adults who want no part of it.
If we allow civil society to go completely down the toilet, that’s when we really open the door to the American Christian Taliban. Excess breeds oppression.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
As a gay father of 2 boys, I appreciate the police sting operations aimed at closing down public sex in facilities, parks, trails, et cetera –just like I do when police cruisers hunt drunk drivers leaving bars at 2AM or speeders on the freeway from a hidden spot.
Sting operations are not immoral nor is the enforcement of those laws by the state; the immoral conduct in on the part of the sleazebags who engage in the conduct.
Those liberatarians who try to impeach the legitimate functioning of the police on these kind of stings are a quart or 2 low.
Entrapment is another thing entirely… but Craig has a long history of complaints and claims against him for this kind of conduct; he appears to be a sexual predator and like former Sen Mark Hatfield and current Senator Teddie Kennedy… once a predator, always a predator. I’m disgusted by his conduct… it ain’t no witch hunt.
I hope the Sen GOP leadership strips him of his post, publicaly encourages him to resign and works with the state GOP in Idaho to find an alternate to run against Craig if he’s foolish to run again.
posted by LeBain on
Here’s the liberal LA Times calling for exatly what Mr. Miller notes:
Get government out of the bathroom
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gillespie29aug29,0,1699515.story
posted by John on
NDT – Uh, sorry to dissappoint, but I am not affiliated with any political party or ideological agenda. I supposrt holding all public officials to the same account. If Pelosi broke the law she should be charged with a crime and prosecuted for it. And I have no doubt that when the Dems get majority power for a long span of time they too will give into temptation and corruption scandels will ensue daily. But we aren’t there are we? No, we’re in the middle of the non-stop Republican scandels from their disgusting abuse of power. The problem is the willingness to excuse it all by conservatives because party trumps nation everytime.
posted by Kewl on
It’s pretty scary when you can be arrested for tapping your foot. You don’t even have to engage in a sex act. And why do so many of you insist this is “public” sex? Jerking off in a stall is not “public” anymore than taking a crap in the same place is “public”. Now, if you pull your pants down, squat, and crap on the concourse, THAT would be public. The fact is you have an expectation of privacy in your stall that’s why they have doors on them. The the Sen. was tapping his foot meant he was looking for another willing partner not forcing himself on anyone and being very careful. And how do you prissy, self-loathing, Victorian queens know he wasn’t planning to take his catch elsewhere even more private? Then there are those of you who always pull the “children” out of your ass to explain why adult conduct should be criminal. I wonder how many children actually complained that they saw gay sex in the airport bathroom. I’m willing to bet it’s NONE and I’m pretty sure the adults that complained were going out of their way to find it.
Straight people have sex in public all they time–in cars, parks, stairwells, buses, elevators, you name it, and they hardly ever arrested. In fact, a couple of years ago a local radio station in NYC ran a contest for straight couples to have sex in public places and the most daring would win the prize. The winning couple was only arrested because they were caught humping in plain view at St. Patrick’s Cathedral at the lunch hour. Of hundreds of others who called in with their exploits and pictures to prove it none got arrested. Yes folks, it’s cool and funny when straight people do it, “perverted” when gay people do it. Just like it’s “hot” when girls tongue each other at award shows, MTV, or Spring Break for the pleasure of straight men, but gross when two guys do the same thing.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Roy wrote, “Non-commercial sodomy between consenting adults in public or – arguably – in places without a reasonable expectation of privacy may still be criminalized.”
You’re quite right. I sensed as I was posting that comment that I had left out something. “In private” was the part I forgot. Thanks for the catch. Back when we were pushing for decriminalization of sodomy here in D.C. in the early 1990s (which succeeded in 1993), we were careful to tick off the key attributes of the sodomy that we were legalizing: (1) consenting adults, (2) non-commercial, and (3) in private. Mind you, many of us felt that commercial sex ought to be decriminalized as well, but we didn’t want to muddy the waters with what we regarded as a separate issue.
posted by Bobby on
“It’s pretty scary when you can be arrested for tapping your foot.”
—No, it wasn’t just tapping the foot, he peeked into the other stall (peepin’ tom) and he inserted his foot into the other stall. And God knows what else is in the police report.
“Jerking off in a stall is not “public” anymore than taking a crap in the same place is “public”.”
—Look buddy, I don’t want to go into a toilet with spunk in the walls, the toilet seat, etc. And stalls are not that private, sometimes there is a gap in the door that lets you catch a glimpse of what’s going on inside even if you’re not looking.
“And how do you prissy, self-loathing, Victorian queens know he wasn’t planning to take his catch elsewhere even more private?’
—If he meets a guy at the airport bar, at the tarmac, or at the terminal, fine. But men generally don’t socialize in bathrooms.
“I wonder how many children actually complained that they saw gay sex in the airport bathroom.”
—My ex-psychologist has a 13 year old nephew and he told me the poor kid was propositioned by a bunch of perverts at a Sears bathroom. I’m sure it could happen at an airport.
“Straight people have sex in public all they time–in cars, parks, stairwells, buses, elevators, you name it, and they hardly ever arrested.”
—Neither of those places are as public as a bathroom, and sometimes the do get arrested. Besides, you’re watching too many movies. I’ve never seen straight people have sex at a bus, I’ve seen them kissing and touching, that’s the most I’ve seen.
“Of hundreds of others who called in with their exploits and pictures to prove it none got arrested.”
—Because they didn’t provide a complete address. Come on, dude, it’s not like the police pursues every single case.
“Yes folks, it’s cool and funny when straight people do it, “perverted” when gay people do it.”
—Not everything is a gay vs. straight issue. Nor should you justify bad gay behavior by pointing to bad straight behavior. Yes, sometimes it’s unfair, I hate it when a female teacher gets a slap on the wrist for seducing a straight boy. But I’m not gonna support pedophile teachers into the same-sex just because of female teachers get away with it. What me and other people support is getting tougher on the female teachers. Frankly, I don’t know any parent that would like to see their kid fucked by a teacher.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Kewl, please save the tiresome, “well, straights do it, so why can’t we” excuse. Sorry, but two wrongs still don’t equal a right.
“I wonder how many children actually complained that they saw gay sex in the airport bathroom. I’m willing to bet it’s NONE and I’m pretty sure the adults that complained were going out of their way to find it.”
I sure hope no children saw it, and yes, according to reports, there were multiple reports of cruising/sex in that restroom. Who cares who reported it? IT’S STILL AGAINST THE LAW.
“And how do you prissy, self-loathing, Victorian queens know he wasn’t planning to take his catch elsewhere even more private? ”
ROTFL! Yeah . . . I’m sure Craig really wasn’t cruising . . . maybe he really wanted to chat with this cop about the meaning of life or to discuss the economic climate in South America?!? BTW, if wanting some civility and class in society is “prissy,” then count me as a major priss.
posted by Kewl on
“Look buddy, I don’t want to go into a toilet with spunk in the walls, the toilet seat, etc.” –So hold it to your get home or bring Lysol, cause the seats are often full piss and shit spots, spunk is a minor annoyance by comparison.
“And stalls are not that private, sometimes there is a gap in the door that lets you catch a glimpse of what’s going on inside even if you’re not looking.”
–Hmmmm, if you can catch a glimpse of what’s going on inside even if you’re not looking you must be either the bionic woman or you are way too interested in what goes on beyond those cracks. Is there something you’re not telling us?
“If he meets a guy at the airport bar, at the tarmac, or at the terminal, fine. But men generally don’t socialize in bathrooms.”
–Really? I see guys in the bathroom discussing everything from sports to the “bitch” they’re trying to pick up. That sounds like an awful lot of socializing.
“My ex-psychologist has a 13 year old nephew and he told me the poor kid was propositioned by a bunch of perverts at a Sears bathroom. I’m sure it could happen at an airport.”
–No wonder he’s your “ex-psychologist” if he is discussing his 13-year old nephew with a nut job like you imagine what he is discussing about you to his other patients.
“I’ve never seen straight people have sex at a bus, I’ve seen them kissing and touching, that’s the most I’ve seen.”
–Well, Mary, that’s not my fault, maybe you should leave the convent more often and see the sights.
posted by Jim C. on
To my mind, Dan Savage gets it right.
posted by Kewl on
BTW, if wanting some civility and class in society is “prissy,” then count me as a major priss.” –And I’m sure you wear a petticoat and take a chaperone on your dates.
posted by Jim C. on
NGLTF, an organization I usually find pointless, makes a useful comparison:
Senate Republican leaders are calling for an ethics investigation into the Minneapolis airport arrest of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) in a ?lewd conduct? incident in a men?s public restroom. No such call was sounded by Senate GOP leaders following the scandal involving Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who last month admitted to ?a very serious sin in my past? after his telephone number appeared among those associated with a female escort service operated by the so-called ?D.C. Madam.? Vitter even reportedly received ?thunderous applause? from Senate GOP colleagues during a policy lunch held a few days after his admission.
posted by Jim C. on
Sorry: that should conclude —
useful comparison:
Senate Republican leaders are calling for an ethics investigation into the Minneapolis airport arrest of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) in a ?lewd conduct? incident in a men?s public restroom. No such call was sounded by Senate GOP leaders following the scandal involving Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who last month admitted to ?a very serious sin in my past? after his telephone number appeared among those associated with a female escort service operated by the so-called ?D.C. Madam.? Vitter even reportedly received ?thunderous applause? from Senate GOP colleagues during a policy lunch held a few days after his admission.
posted by Jim C. on
Well, Mary, that’s not my fault…
Ha! I’d heard about using “Mary” as an insult, but I’ve never until now seen or heard it. Isn’t it a bit odd to be using that word in that way AND calling the object of derision “prissy” at the same time?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Incidentally, Steve refers to “the Clintons’ Defense of Marriage Act.”
Yes, Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Yes, his operatives then boasted about it on radio ads on conservative Christian stations, and only yanked those ads when gay people started screaming bloody murder. As long as any partisans on the left are inclined to gloss over that sorry bit of history, or, worse, talk as if all the anti-gay actions were by Republicans, then by all means we should keep repeating it.
But, that being said and taking none of it back, it is ludicrous to mention ONLY the Clintons, as if DOMA was Bill’s idea (much less Hillary’s). He is responsible for what he did, and so are the Republicans, whose anti-gay record is much worse than that of their Democratic counterparts.
Let us excuse neither Democrats nor Republicans when they oppose our rights or pander to bigotry. But let’s also be clear-eyed about where the bulk of the anti-gay onslaught has come from in recent years. If perhaps blind partisanship from liberals justifies the same from conservatives or libertarians, that certainly doesn’t elevate the discussion.
It would be nice if Steve told us what he thought of Larry Craig, aside from the people who are celebrating his troubles (whom I have shown are not all liberals). Incidentally, the item to which Steve linked with the word “rejoicing” appeared to be a news story and not an example of such rejoicing. I am sure there are better examples out there.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
John McCain said on CNN, “My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn’t serve. That’s not a moral stand. That’s not a holier-than-thou. It’s just a factual situation.”
So every person who commits any misdemeanor should be drummed out of Congress? that seems a bit extreme. I am inclined to leave that to the voters. Felonies are a different matter, I would say, since they represent more serious crimes.
At least some of Craig’s Republican colleagues are calling for an ethics investigation, but many today are calling for him to resign. And he has reportedly been stripped of senior committee assignments.
It may be that Democrats are sitting back and letting the Republicans shoot down one of their own, but whatever the Dems’ motives, it is Republicans who are crying loudest for Craig to go, as far as I can see.
posted by Brian Miller on
it is ludicrous to mention ONLY the Clintons, as if DOMA was Bill’s idea
Had Clinton stopped the DOMA, would he have demanded credit for it? Of course.
So since Clinton was instrumental in the *passage* of DOMA, he must take equal ownership.
DOMA was certainly bi-partisan, but Clinton headed up the brigade that made it happen by signaling his intention to sign such a law long before Congress even presented draft legislation. That’s a green light and a “leadership” position on the issue if there ever was one.
Mix in Clinton’s suggestion to John Kerry that he support an anti-gay federal constitutional amendment, and the reality of Clinton’s policy legacy will be as a president who dramatically reduced the rights of gay and lesbian people through law — moreso than even George W. Bush.
posted by Lori Heine on
There certainly are troubling aspects to the fact that undercover cops lurk in public restrooms waiting for the sound of tapping feet.
However, if we don’t show the good sense to seek our encounters somewhere more private than airport bathrooms, we can expect only further trouble to come.
Most gay men, I am sure, know better than to do something like this in this day and age, when sex is so easy to find elsewhere. But closet cases like Larry Craig are always there to give everybody else a bad name.
Unfortunately, if all we can do is cry “foul”
about how Craig was nabbed — without acknowledging that (duh) people shouldn’t have sex in public bathrooms — we just play right into the hands of the homophobes, who claim that we are without sense as well as self-control. Do we have the “right” to have sex anywhere we want?
I don’t think straights do, either. And more than once, I’ve heard people tell those who let their libido get out of control to “get a room.”
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the gender angle in this whole kerfuffle.
If Larry Craig was instead Laura Craig, and was doing lesbian cruising in the ladies’ bathroom, it’s highly unlikely that she’d be arrested. And if she was, the chorus of condemnation would be mute indeed!
Why the difference in gender?
I find sex in public restrooms distasteful, but people sure seem more interested in homosexual male debauchery than homosexual female debauchery of the same caliber — and if you think there aren’t closeted political women cruising for sex in public places, you need to spend more time in the Washington gossip pool!
posted by Lori Heine on
I seem to recall, about a year ago, a famous woman being caught in a public bathroom with another woman, and a great, big ol’ brouhaha resulting from it. I don’t remember exactly who she was (maybe somebody else out there reading this does), but it seems to me she was a cheerleader for one of the NFL teams.
I must not get out enough, because I have been in an awful lot of public ladies’ rooms (being old, I have to go to the bathroom frequently), and I have never seen anything particularly interesting going on.
Maybe I missed the guidebook to all the happenin’ restrooms.
posted by Jim C. on
Brian asks: Why the difference in gender?
To which I respond, shamefully channeling Dan Savage (who I can’t seem to get enough of these days): Because there’s a difference in gender.
posted by Jim C. on
The real “kerfuffle” here isn’t gender, but age. I’m 29, and all my friends are either in their 20s or 30s. I know tons and tons of youngish gay men. And I’ve never heard of anybody — seriously, ANYbody — cruising for sex in public place. Sen. Craig is among a dying generation of gay men who didn’t and don’t know that a life of sexual pleasure, partnership, and family can all coexist. I pity him. And I see this event as one more piece in the archive of gay repression in the face of what Adrienne Rich nicely called compulsive heterosexuality. At the same time, I have to say to him and to folks like him: get over it, dudes. It’s 2007 already — find a good man and settle down!
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
“Had Clinton stopped the DOMA, would he have demanded credit for it? Of course. So since Clinton was instrumental in the *passage* of DOMA, he must take equal ownership.”
Brian, once again, you have a nasty little habit of often telling the truth.
“Unfortunately, if all we can do is cry ‘foul’ about how Craig was nabbed — without acknowledging that (duh) people shouldn’t have sex in public bathrooms — we just play right into the hands of the homophobes, who claim that we are without sense as well as self-control.”
Well put, Lori.
And lastly, poor Kewl, I guess when one has nothing intelligent to say, one resorts to immature personal attacks . . . Plus, not that it’s any of your damned business, but since I’m happily in a monogamous relationship with my partner, I don’t have to worry about ” . . . wearing a petticoat” or ” . . . taking a chaperone on my dates.”
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m still racking my brains to remember who it was they caught in that womens’ restroom.
I think she was an NFL cheerleader — so not actually famous. Though that seemed to be her fifteen minutes.
I seem to recall she got into a fistfight with the policewoman who busted her. There were photos all over the Internet of her sporting a black eye.
Does anybody else remember what I’m talking about? Or was it merely one of my fevered little dreams?
posted by Jordan on
Jim C., do you and your friends really talk about those kinds of anonymous sexual encounters? I would imagine that anyone who is cruising for sex in a bathroom probably isn’t bragging about it to their friends. Thus, you may not think it’s going on, but it is.
posted by crankyd on
Jim C., i’m in agreement with Jordan on this one…
from what i’ve witnessed first-hand (and NO, not like that!) guys of ALL ages cruise restrooms and parks, but yes, most of them tend to be middle-aged to older, and appear to be “Suburban Dad-types”. However, some of them appear to be”out-and-proud” homos of all ages.
But like Jordan says…who’s bragging about it?
Oddly enough, the last two times i’ve witnessed something happening, it was HETEROSEXUAL!
Two people entered the stall next to mine and “had at it”.
I assumed it was two men.
A late-20’s man and a early 20’s woman just strolled out of the stall casually, right in front of me while i was at the sink.
The other time, i happened upon a 30-ish straight couple who had just been caught going at it along a bicycle path. The police were questioning them. Uncomfortable!
Egads, i know the straights just love to follow us urbane and trendsetting queer folk…but they might want to rethink this one.
Hmm…maybe this says more about me and the places i frequent!
BTW? Applause to Dan Savage in his interview…he really hit the nail on the head.
posted by Roy on
The real “kerfuffle” here isn’t gender, but age. I’m 29, and all my friends are either in their 20s or 30s. I know tons and tons of youngish gay men. And I’ve never heard of anybody — seriously, ANYbody — cruising for sex in public place. Sen. Craig is among a dying generation of gay men who didn’t and don’t know that a life of sexual pleasure, partnership, and family can all coexist. I pity him. And I see this event as one more piece in the archive of gay repression in the face of what Adrienne Rich nicely called compulsive heterosexuality. At the same time, I have to say to him and to folks like him: get over it, dudes.
I agree. On a similar note… I almost feel that some of the older guys who had limited choices want to drag us back into the ghetto, because, I presume, they’re jealous that we can live so openly. I will have none of that.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian, I explicitly stated that Clinton should not be let off the hook for his role in DOMA. You are quite correct that he undercut opposition to DOMA by stating his intention to sign it. But the bill wasn’t his idea, and he had plenty of company in supporting it. He was President, of course, so his voice carried more weight. I specifically said that no one should be excused when they oppose our rights. My point was that Steve only mentioned the Clintons, which amounts to a partisan distortion of the history in question. Clinton was contemptible, there is no doubt. Come on, does that sound like a defense of the guy? Nonetheless, and while refusing to erase a single blemish on the Democratic side of the aisle, the Republicans’ record shows they are far, far worse on gay issues than the Democrats. That is not an endorsement of Hillary, by the way. I cringe at the thought of the Clintons back in the White House.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
My column on the Craig scandal appears in today’s issue of Bay Windows:
Larry Craig and the Pinocchio Syndrome
posted by Jim C. on
do you and your friends really talk about those kinds of anonymous sexual encounters? I would imagine that anyone who is cruising for sex in a bathroom probably isn’t bragging about it to their friends.
My friends aren’t the bragging kind. Bragging about anything is just obnoxious, don’t you think?
We do, however, enjoy talking about sex. A lot. Enough so that nothing’s being held back. Most of my gay male friends are in relationships. Those that aren’t have a variety of sexual lives, none of which involve cruising restrooms. Even my most promiscuous bud loves to wake up and have coffee with his hookup the next morning.
Of course, my friends are a small sample. If there’s a larger trend, it goes something like this: It is the older generations who are more likely to resist leading lives as openly gay men and, hence, who make up the bulk of those seeking out discreet spaces (as opposed to openly gay sexual spaces like bars) that allow for anonymous sexual encounters. Clearly, some out men also enjoy the risk and thrill of such a space, but if my hypothesis is right, they’re in the minority. Which means that as more and more gay men come out as teenagers, the number of folks seeking to have sex in bathrooms and parks will decrease. That’s why I still hold that the Craig story is about generational differences between gay men rather than some weird enforcement disparities related to gender.
We still live in a world where it takes real guts to live as openly gay men or lesbians. But it seems to me that the kind of choices Craig seems to have made are becoming rarer and rarer.
posted by Jim C. on
A thoroughly enjoyable column, Richard. Thanks for the link.
posted by John on
“But get a load of some of our commenters defending police entrapment!”
It’s only entrapment if you are coerced into doing something you would not have done had the police officer not instigated it. If you are the one instigating the crime, escalating the contact and making the intent to commit the crime very clear at every turn then how on earth were you entrapped??
posted by Tim on
The Governor of Idaho is “Butch Otter”.
Sounds like a character from a gay childrens TV show. Buttch Otter, Fem Flounder, and Donna Dyke.
posted by Brian Miller on
Come on, does that sound like a defense of the guy?
No, but I do think you’re too easy on him, Richard.
This is the face of Bill Clinton on DOMA that I remember:
CLINTON CHRISTIAN RADIO AD
TRANSCRIBED OCTOBER 14, 1996
“Protecting religious freedom. It’s the foundation of our nation.
“When the Justice Department went after a church to gather the parishioners’
tithing money, the government was stopped cold because President Clinton
overturned the government’s policy and protected us.It’s not the only time
he’s defended our values. Don’t be misled by Bob Dole’s attack ads.
“President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when
the mother’s life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the
inability to have another child.
“The President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and
school uniforms to teach our children discipline.
“The President enacted the V-chip to block out violent TV programs. His
crime bill expanded the death penalty for drug kingpins. Bob Dole opposed him
and is resorting to untrue negative attacks. President Clinton has fought for
our values and America is better for it.
“Paid for by Clinton/Gore 96”
If he was willing to brag openly about his support for the law and hold it up as proof of his “family values” cred, then he should reap the just desserts of that choice. That means not “going easy” on him.
You can rest assured that I wouldn’t do it for any other politician — and, in fact, my criticism of Ron Paul on the same basis has made me persona non grata in certain Libertarian circles as a result. Their loss. 😉
posted by Brian Miller on
‘m 29, and all my friends are either in their 20s or 30s. I know tons and tons of youngish gay men. And I’ve never heard of anybody — seriously, ANYbody — cruising for sex in public place.
As a 31-year-old myself, I second this!
Most people in my age group, in my experience, find the whole idea to be distasteful and disturbing.
That said, there’s also a cultural thing going on here — cruising for sex in public restrooms is much less accepted in the out community in the USA than in places like the UK (where it’s called “cottaging.”) My Yankee sensibilities were shocked by the frequency and persistence of such activities in our generation over there.
I *do* find it hilarious that many of the older liberal Democrat critics of the Republican slut-politicians are playing moral majority here. Many of them are HIV+ guys in their 40s and 50s whose most frequent insult towards myself, my colleagues in the Libertarian Party, and my counterparts in the Republican Party, is “you’re ugly, I’d never sleep with you” and talking about how “uptight” many of us are for criticizing unprotected promiscuous sex by HIV+ people.
One prominent left-leaning blogger, in particular, who is popular in the “bear” community, got quite nasty with me years ago — informing me that based on meeting me, he’d never “fuck” me. (His loss, my gain, gotta say!) 😉 He then talked about being HIV+ and how it hasn’t hurt his ability to get lots (and lots) of young lovers, and how I was a “straight wannabe” for sticking to my partner (and only him).
The same blogger is now clutching his pearls with a wrinkly hand and being shocked (shocked!) at the contemptible behavior of Craig — despite the fact that the same blogger probably indulged in that behavior (and worse) when he lived in San Francisco — picking up HIV in the process.
Nothing brings out hypocrisy faster than political expediency.
If the Log Cabin Republicans were smart about strategy (I know, that’s a big “if”), they’d point out this simple fact!
posted by Mike B. on
If your goal is “Forging A Gay Mainstream” then you shouldn’t condone cruising public bathrooms for sex.
posted by ETJB on
(1) The Federal DOMA was pushed by the GOP (esp.) its Presidential candidate (Bob Dole) as an election year issue.
(2) No one has the right to have sex in a public WC. I would rather not have or have children see people having sex (gay or straight) in a public place.
(3) Assuming what is being reported is 100% true then the Senator is either gay or bisexual. Norm Coleman (GOP-MN) has already called for the man to resign.
(4)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian wrote, “No, but I do think you’re too easy on him, Richard.”
How? I specifically posted at 4:40 p.m. yesterday (above), “Yes, Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Yes, his operatives then boasted about it on radio ads on conservative Christian stations, and only yanked those ads when gay people started screaming bloody murder. As long as any partisans on the left are inclined to gloss over that sorry bit of history, or, worse, talk as if all the anti-gay actions were by Republicans, then by all means we should keep repeating it.”
So I cited the offending radio spots before you did. I also readily conceded your point that he undermined opposition to the bill by announcing that he would sign it. But because I point out that others also deserve opprobrium, or because I point out the fact that Clinton did not originate the bill, that means I am being too easy on him? That’s nonsense.
In 1996, as a matter of fact, I posted a long list of Clinton’s anti-gay record as part of a “truth squad” effort in response to the much shorter list of complaints that were acknowledged by Clinton apologists like HRC. I have a long record of giving both credit and criticism where due across party lines. If you are prepared to dispute that, kindly provide evidence. But there are several pieces of mine in the IGF collection that prove my point, not to mention the several articles that I have written over the years for Log Cabin’s think tank, the Liberty Education Forum.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike B. wrote, “If your goal is “Forging A Gay Mainstream” then you shouldn’t condone cruising public bathrooms for sex.”
To be fair to Steve, he did not condone such behavior. He merely questioned the right of the state to set up surveillance operations in men’s room to police such activity. Disagree with him if you will, but do not attribute positions to him that he has not taken. Ask yourself this question: Do you honestly think that everything you disapprove of should be criminalized? Everything?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ask yourself this question: Do you honestly think that everything you disapprove of should be criminalized? Everything?
I think you’re missing the point of living in this country, Richard, which is that we can criminalize that of which we disapprove — provided we can gather the necessary critical mass of people to do it.
In this case, public sex in restrooms is not considered a Constitutional right.
The state of Minnesota, at the behest of its voters, has put in place legislators who enacted laws regulating and curtailing public sex in restrooms.
The police department responsible for the Minneapolis airport is carrying out those laws by use of a means of identifying those who are actively soliciting public sex in restrooms.
In short, I can’t find Constitutional, statutory, or other authority that says the police department shouldn’t arrest you for soliciting sex in a public restroom, and I can find statutory and other authority that says they should.
There you have it.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
No, ND30, you are (it appears, deliberately) missing my point. I did not say I agreed with Steve on the point in question. I merely pointed out that he had not condoned men’s room sex. And I did not make a general statement disputing the right of the state ever to criminalize anything of which the public disapproved. I specifically asked Mike B. whether he honestly thought that EVERYTHING he disapproved of should be criminalized. I repeated the word “everything” to make it clear what I meant. There is no doubt a long list of things that all of us would agree are rightfully criminalized. The question I was trying to get people to ask themeslves is whether they think that every single thing they disapprove of should be criminalized.
Please think a bit before you fire off a glib response. Are you familiar with Singapore? It is a crime to chew gum there because they don’t want people spitting their gum onto the sidewalk. I don’t approve of people leaving wads of chewing gum on the sidewalk, but I don’t think chewing gum should be criminalized on that account.
I am not a libertarian, but I respect and value libertarians for raising the important question of what the proper boundaries of government are. Let’s set aside restroom cruising for the moment. Surely there is something of some kind that you disapprove of but that you are not prepared to criminalize on that account.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s set aside restroom cruising for the moment.
No, let’s not, because I think this discussion can be ended very easily: do you agree or disagree that people should be arrested for having or soliciting sex in public restrooms?
posted by Ray Eckhart on
Echoing Jim C., Richard, thanks for the link. The tribute to Andrew Sullivan and Aaron Tone?s marriage was classy. Well done.
posted by Brian Miller on
The Federal DOMA was pushed by the GOP (esp.) its Presidential candidate (Bob Dole) as an election year issue.
Let’s ask Clinton/Gore 96 what they think of this:
The President signed the Defense of Marriage Act . . . President Clinton has fought for
our values and America is better for it.
Looks like the Clinton/Gore 96 campaign committee would frame DOMA as “President Clinton ‘fighting for our values’.” They certainly weren’t claiming, in their public advertising, that he was “forced” into it.
Now who should I believe — a Democrat apologizing for Clinton/Gore 96 later, or Clinton/Gore 96’s public, multi-million dollar statements on the issue?
because I point out that others also deserve opprobrium
Nobody’s arguing otherwise.
However, “the other guy did it too” is typically a tactic used to take attention off of the misdeeds of another. For instance, whenever the Republicans are criticized for their anti-gay stuff, they drag out Clinton and his DOMA support.
In both cases, the criticism is usually blunted — and unfairly so.
The primary leader who made DOMA happen in the United States is William Jefferson Clinton. The Republicans were bit players who made the bill appear only after Bill Clinton made it clear that such a bill would be welcome. Any Republicans in that position would have done the same thing that they did — it’s questionable that any Democrat would have done what Clinton did.
Considering that most gay activists are partisan Democrats, that should get more condemnation than Republicans doing the predictable — yet Democrats are always bending over backwards to defend Clinton.
I just don’t want you to allow their rhetorical flourishes to pop into your analysis, no matter how unintentionally.
Please think a bit before you fire off a glib response.
ND30, thinking before he fires? ‘Twould be a first! 😉
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND wrote: “do you agree or disagree that people should be arrested for having or soliciting sex in public restrooms?”
I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.
posted by Bobby on
Ok Kewl, I respond
“-Hmmmm, if you can catch a glimpse of what’s going on inside even if you’re not looking you must be either the bionic woman or you are way too interested in what goes on beyond those cracks. Is there something you’re not telling us?”
—Have you ever been seated in a stall and you can see a bit of what’s going outside through an open crack? Well, the stall doors aren’t exactly Fort Knox if you get my drift. I’m not interested, but I’m not blind either.
” –Really? I see guys in the bathroom discussing everything from sports to the “bitch” they’re trying to pick up. That sounds like an awful lot of socializing.”
—Dude, normally guys don’t even pee next to each other. If a guy is peeing on the far left urinal, I don’t stand next to him, I stand on the far right. Yes, I’ve seen guys talking on the phone, and friends having conversation, but it’s not normally done. It’s not like women who go to the bathroom to discuss their dates, or smoke or apply makeup or all the things they do there.
“–No wonder he’s your “ex-psychologist” if he is discussing his 13-year old nephew with a nut job like you imagine what he is discussing about you to his other patients.”
—You don’t know him, you shouldn’t be calling him a nutjob. Actually, you’d like him, he was a socialist and very pro-gay. Ironically, he wasn’t politically correct. When he lived in San Francisco, he caught two queers having sex in his front lawn. After telling them to stop, they ignored him. So he got some ice water and threw it at those dogs. They called the police saying they had been gay bashed, a lesbian cop showed up, and the cop told the two gay fornicators to get the hell out of there, and how lucky they are she wasn’t gonna book them for public sex.
“–Well, Mary, that’s not my fault, maybe you should leave the convent more often and see the sights.”
—As someone who didn’t have a car for 5 years, I’ve seen plenty of sights thank you very much.
Frankly, this is an issue I agree with Lori. While I’m not crazy about cops pretending to be hookers in a public street, when I go to the bathroom, I don’t expect to see sexual actvity. Even in a bathhouse people don’t have sex in the toilets. The worse I saw was a man washing his dick in the sink, which was pretty impolite if you asked me, but not as bad as having sex there.
They have sex in the steam room, maybe the pools, the rooms with all that leather gear, dark rooms, etc. So even the most promiscous gays you can find understand that a toilet is not a place to have sex with.
It’s about common courtesy, do you have any?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian wrote, “Considering that most gay activists are partisan Democrats, that should get more condemnation than Republicans doing the predictable”
A case can be made for that, but I prefer to let the chips fall where they may.
“– yet Democrats are always bending over backwards to defend Clinton.”
No, not always. This Democrat has been critical of Bill Clinton for the past 14 years, since he screwed us on gays in the military. But if I cannot point out that the Republicans are far worse on gay issues without being accused of thereby defending Clinton (even when I explicitly state that I am doing no such thing), then go ahead and erase my entire record and call me a Clinton flack despite its being plainly and laughably untrue.
posted by Brian Miller on
if I cannot point out that the Republicans are far worse on gay issues without being accused of thereby defending Clinton
The problem is that this is an incorrect statement. *All* of the Republicans are not “worse on gay issues” than Clinton. *Many* are worse, most are about the same, and a handful are better.
Clinton, overall, is atrocious on gay issues. His record is very, very poor — and if he was a Republican president instead of a Democrat, many gay Democratic activists would be using him as an example of a “bad Republican on our issues.”
go ahead and erase my entire record and call me a Clinton flack
It isn’t about you and your record — it’s about Clinton and his.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.
Not surprising.
Mind you, many of us felt that commercial sex ought to be decriminalized as well, but we didn’t want to muddy the waters with what we regarded as a separate issue.
Hence the blatant attempt to move the discussion AWAY from that topic (“Let’s set aside restroom cruising for the moment.”) and trying to equate public restroom sex to throwing gum onto the sidewalk. People may agree with you that every little thing of which they disapprove doesn’t need to be criminalized; however, they are not going to buy your argument that sex in public restrooms shouldn’t be. By avoiding that fact, you are attempting to catch them in “hypocrisy” (“you said that just because you disapprove of something isn’t a good reason to criminalize it”) and thus attempt to use “libertarian” as an excuse to justify your “libertine” desires.
posted by Mike B. on
Richard J. Rosendall wrote…
[i]”I specifically asked Mike B. whether he honestly thought that EVERYTHING he disapproved of should be criminalized.” [/i]
EVERYTHING?
And that’s an idiotic straw-man argument. I doubt anyone, not even the most hard-core Christian Conservative Moral Majority type, thinks EVERYTHING they disapprove of should be criminalized.
What we’re talking about here is cruising public bathrooms in search of sex with strangers and, IMO, I think it should be a crime and I’m glad it’s being enforced.
Richard J. Rosendall wrote…
[i]To be fair to Steve, he did not condone such behavior. He merely questioned the right of the state to set up surveillance operations in men’s room to police such activity.[/i]
Questioning the right of the police to enforce laws IS condoning the practice which you believe shouldn’t be enforced.
Once the legislature passes a law it’s not only the right of the police to enforce it, it’s their DUTY.
posted by Craig2 on
Lori:
I’m coparent of a fourteen year old daughter myself, so I hear what you say about kids being exposed inadvertantly to public
sex displays.
However, what about cases where elderly men feel rejected by The Scene? What about socially isolated or impoverished men who can’t afford the price tab at a gay bar or sex club? What about rural gay men who don’t have gay bars?
And what about public sex that goes on at night, when children are often inside doing their homework, watching television/
using the Net, or, for that matter, seeing whether they can beat one of their dads or mums at the basketball hoop above the garage?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, what about cases where elderly men feel rejected by The Scene? What about socially isolated or impoverished men who can’t afford the price tab at a gay bar or sex club? What about rural gay men who don’t have gay bars?
(shrug) As long as you’re willing to say that you have no problem whatsoever with an old man exposing himself and masturbating in front of your daughter because he has nowhere else to go thanks to all the reasons you’ve outlined, you’ve got an argument.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike B. wrote, “Questioning the right of the police to enforce laws IS condoning the practice which you believe shouldn’t be enforced.”
First of all, the way you say “enforce laws” suggests there is no room for disagreement on how to interpret the law. Have you looked up the law in question? It may be very straightforward and its intent crystal clear, but that is often not the case, and officers often have a great deal of discretion. In any case, I do not agree that opposing such police practices automatically means you condone whatever behavior they are arresting people for. And again, folks, I have not stated my own opposition to such police behavior; I am defending Steve here and trying to get some clarity in the discussion.
“Once the legislature passes a law it’s not only the right of the police to enforce it, it’s their DUTY.”
That’s easy to say, but the reality is not that simple. First, there is the question of how clear and specific the law is, as I just said. Second, unless a police department has infinite resources, it has no choice but to set priorities. It is perfectly legitimate to ask if there are no more serious crimes going on around Minneapolis than some obnoxious and tacky behavior in a restroom.
posted by Mike B. on
Do you have any evidence that the law is not straightforward and its intent crystal clear? Or, are you just trying to change the subject?
If the law in question was too vague then people would argue that point when they were charged with it.
Officers do have discretion, in the Craig case the officer could have cuffed him and put him in a cell, or he could have let him go with a verbal warning. He took the middle road and charged him and released him.
The police department doesn’t have infinite resources but in this case they had a sufficient number of complaints to set up the operation. It’s not like they’re conducting their sting in the bathroom of a gay bar on Friday at midnight, it was noon at the airport.
If you really want to “forge a gay mainstream” then you should be the first one to condemn the conduct of Senator Craig, not question the motives of the police who are just doing the job they were hired to do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is perfectly legitimate to ask if there are no more serious crimes going on around Minneapolis than some obnoxious and tacky behavior in a restroom.
That bathroom does not exist for the sole use of gay men. It is used by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people per day, including underage children and minors.
Now, you tell us, Richard, why you think it’s unimportant that children and minors be able to go into and use the restroom without having to deal with men masturbating, men having sex, or men soliciting them. Heck, tell us why adults should have to be subjected to that kind of environment.
posted by Jordan on
Personally, I just can’t imagine the need for hooking up in a bathroom, when the internet provides such a wealth of possible matches, allowing you to pick-and-choose as you please. Moreso for people in rural areas, I would think, as they have the same opportunities.
But it would seem to me that this behavior must be going on an awful lot to make the even plausible at all. Even if you assume that 90% of this is going on in 1% of the public bathrooms in the country, there still must be a hell of a lot of people who frequent these bathrooms to make the timing work out properly. Otherwise, how long would you have to wait, sitting on the toilet seat reading XY, before someone who even knows “the code” comes in?
posted by DragonScorpion on
“…it’s interesting that no one, not even on the gay left, is even questioning why the state has a right to set up surveillance/sting operations in public men’s rooms with the aim of prosecuting gay guys, closeted or otherwise, caught cruising.” ~ Stephen Miller
This is disappointing to me. I think it is just this sort of perspective on such an issue that leads even moderate heterosexuals at times to believe {at least in part} many of the stereotypes against us.
As has been pointed out, it is illegal to engage in sexual activities in public places and should be, if for no other reason than because children use public facilities and shouldn’t be exposed to sex acts. Of course not only for the sake of the youngsters but I think most of us adults don’t really want to see it either, same-sex or opposite sex.
How often do we talk about the government not criminalizing what we do “in the bedroom” but now we think we have some sort of right to do it in public? This is unacceptable to me and I take a libertarian attitude to government when it comes to social issues, like not criminalizing prostitution for instance.
Furthermore, I don’t really see this as an attack on gays, if there were incidents of heterosexual men soliciting sex from females in public restrooms I would hope law enforcement would try to do something about it…
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike B., you are the one who raised the subject of enforcing the law. It is not for me to do your homework for you.
ND30 wrote: “Now, you tell us, Richard, why you think it’s unimportant that children and minors be able to go into and use the restroom without having to deal with men masturbating ….”
I never said I thought any such thing. You persist in attributing views to me that I have not stated. It is sad that I cannot point out that Steve’s statement did not condone bathroom sex, without being accused of condoning it myself. You, sir, are intellectually unscrupulous.
If anyone wants to know what I think of Senator Craig, you can check out my column on him, a link for which is provided above, and which was published here on IGF earlier this evening with a punchy new title thanks to Jon Rauch. I use words like “sleazy” and “pathetic.” Does that sound approving? I am not sure whom you think you are impressing, ND30, but you would be more impressive if you responded to people’s actual arguments instead of to straw men.
posted by ETJB on
I said: The Federal DOMA was pushed by the GOP (esp.) its Presidential candidate (Bob Dole) as an election year issue.
Your reply : Let’s ask Clinton/Gore 96 what they think of this:
That was not the point. Clinton/Gore opposed gay marriage in both 1992 and 1996. However, they did not want to push for a mean-spirted DOMA act. It was the GOP that pushed for DOMA and made it a campaign issue that Clinton/Gore had to reply to.
If Clinton had not signed it, he would have lost the election and the only viable alternative was Dole.
Dole not only pushed for DOMA, but said that it did not go far enough. Dole opposed Federal gay rights legislation and probably would have made the Supreme Court more hostile, give the opportunity.
I am certainly not “apolgozing” for Clinton/Gore, simply pointing out some facts. (1) GOP made DOMA a campaign issue and (2) Clinton in 1996 was still better then Dole.
The fact that you rush to treat a political party ad as being the gospel truth, says plently about your understanding of American government.
I did not argue, “the other guy did it too”. But Mr. Miller talks about “Clinton’s DOMA”, when it reality it was “Dole’s DOMA”.
“Republicans are criticized for their anti-gay stuff, they drag out Clinton and his DOMA support.”
Yeah, Clinton supported DOMA, but which ‘family values’ party pushed for DOMA in time for the election? Who said that it did not go far enough, and opposed gay rights every chance he got?
Should we celebrate Clinton’s opposition to gay marriage? No, but we should be mindful of the political reality.
The Republicans controlled Congress after the ‘Contract With America’. Mean-spirited gay-bashing was certainly tasty for the electorate and the GOP went with it. The Democratic Party leadership was not going to push for a DOMA bill, and Clinton was happy with the laws as it was.
However, once the mudd had been slung by the GOP, Clinton had a choice; sign it or lose the election. Gay voters had a choice in 1996; Clinton or Doe. It is not pretty, but it is how the system works, until we get a new one.
Clinton was better then Dole on gay rights in 1996. He was probably the first sitting president to show any support for any gay rights issues. Does this excuse him or the party for criticism? No, but American politics is about picking the lessor of the two evils.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Richard J. Rosendall | August 30, 2007, 6:17pm: “It is perfectly legitimate to ask if there are no more serious crimes going on around Minneapolis than some obnoxious and tacky behavior in a restroom.”
It is indeed a very good question. As a taxpayer, I don’t like the idea of a police officer sitting in a bathroom stall all day long in the hope that some hypothetical man will show up and tap his foot. Unless there is a huge budget surplus or absolutely no crime in Idaho, I don’t see what justifies such a peculiar allocation of resources. Except, perhaps, the desire of the police to focus on law enforcement that doesn’t require moving around.
posted by ETJB on
“*All* of the Republicans are not “worse on gay issues” than Clinton.”
The GOP Party is (overall) certainly worse the then Democratic Party on gay rights issues. Moderate Republicans pretty much lost all their clout within the party at the federal level in 1980 and at the state level, except when it is needed to win (i.e. Arnold).
“Clinton, overall, is atrocious on gay issues.”
He supported the ENDA, HCA, high levels of AIDS/HIV funding, equal opportunity within the Federal civilian government, and appointed fair-minded judges who helped to give us Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
Shall we compare that with Bush sr. or Dole? I know that you dont want to go back into the Reagan. 🙂
posted by Lori Heine on
“However, what about cases where elderly men feel rejected by The Scene? What about socially isolated or impoverished men who can’t afford the price tab at a gay bar or sex club? What about rural gay men who don’t have gay bars?”
Those are tough questions. I agree there need to be more options for gay men — and for lesbians, as well. As a recovering alcoholic, I simply cannot be in bars. Even in 2007, in a large city like Phoenix, there are very few other places to meet eligible women.
Maybe a situation like Senator Craig’s will spur some constructive dialogue about this in our communities. Even many rural areas now have organizations that help same-sex-oriented people to connect. I don’t happen to personally know much about them, but I have read articles about them and I know that they are there.
Obviously there need to be more of them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If anyone wants to know what I think of Senator Craig, you can check out my column on him, a link for which is provided above, and which was published here on IGF earlier this evening with a punchy new title thanks to Jon Rauch. I use words like “sleazy” and “pathetic.” Does that sound approving?
We are all aware of the fact that you can criticize Republicans, Richard.
What we want to see is whether or not you are “intellectually honest” enough to answer whether or not you disagree with arresting people who solicit and have public sex in bathrooms.
Furthermore, given that you allegedly consider it “sleazy” and “pathetic” to solicit and have sex in public restrooms, please state publicly that gay people who do so are sleazy and pathetic as well.
You persist in attributing views to me that I have not stated.
That is because you refuse to state ANY views. You simply sit there and spin and try to avoid answering the question of whether you agree or disagree with arresting and punishing men who solicit and perform sex acts in public bathrooms.
posted by Mike B. on
> Richard J. Rosendall
“Mike B., you are the one who raised the subject of enforcing the law.”
Yes I did and instead of admitting that it’s the duty of the police to enforce the law you spun off on a tangent about whether or not the law is “straightforward and its intent crystal clear”.
> Richard J. Rosendall
It is not for me to do your homework for you.”
MY homework?
Wrong again.
YOU are the one who is raising the question about how the law is worded so then it is YOUR responsibility to support YOUR argument with some shread of evidence.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that supports your argument?
ANYTHING AT ALL???
No, you don’t.
You’re just grasping at straws.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, it is a bit ridiculous for you to say that I refuse to state any views, just because I do not dance to your tune. One view that I stated is the one you quoted earlier in your post just now. Another is that you are intellectually unscrupulous. Other people reading this can see that for themselves.
My views about arrests in such situations would depend upon the particular circumstances. If someone were soliciting for sex to occur elsewhere, it would be one thing; if the solicitation were for sex to occur right there, it would be something else. If the person were entrapped (that is, if the alleged crime would not have occurred except for the undercover officer soliciting it), I would have a problem with it; but if it were not entrapment (and it does not appear to have been entrapment in Craig’s case), then I would not be as troubled. I know from accounts of Park Police entrapment of gay men in a wooded cruising area in Virginia that police can be overzealous. I have little sympathy for the men who put themselves in that situation, but that doesn’t mean I condone overzealous police work, which raises civil liberties concerns. You can insist that everything be black and white, that there are two and only two stark “sides,” and demand that people take one side or the other. I see no reason to join your posturing. Personally, I often say “a pox on both your houses.”
I certainly do not think of all police and all police enforement as being uniform. I have worked quite amicably with D.C. police for the past decade, from beat officers to members of special units to the top brass. There are wonderful officers and terrible officers and everything in between. I generally get along quite well with police and have a great deal of respect for what they have to go through. But I am also a strong proponent of oversight and accountability, and I do not take the position that whatever the police do and however well or poorly they do it, however well or poorly focused a particular operation, they are automatically right. Sen. Craig, of course, gave up the right to challenge the circumstances of his arrest when he pled guilty. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
posted by Bobby on
“However, what about cases where elderly men feel rejected by The Scene?”
—Those rejected elderly men reject other men, including elderly men. Eventually there is a point where a gay man must wake up and say “wait a minute, I’m too told for gay bars, I’m going to do something else with my life.”
“What about socially isolated or impoverished men who can’t afford the price tab at a gay bar or sex club?”
—I was a poor college student, I was able to afford a drink or two. In fact, many gay bars don’t have cover charges and have 2 for 1 specials. That’s how they get money, they get you drunk so you spend more..
” What about rural gay men who don’t have gay bars?”
—They can drive to the city, meet online, or even meet in straight bars, it happens.
“And what about public sex that goes on at night,”
—What about it? It’s still illegal. And children can still be exposed, if it’s a highway bathroom, and a family is travelling at night, they could be exposed.
This is what I think. Leave the hookers alone, leave the gay bars and gay sex clubs alone, patrol the rest rooms.
Heck, maybe what we should do is come up with a new gay bar: we’ll call it “Bathroom,” and that’s what it will be, a giant bathroom with 200 stalls, 200 sinks, and a big dance floor. All the tea room perverts can come there and have a good time.
posted by ETJB on
Case in point; North Dakota and all of west-central Minnesota had one gay bar; in Moorhead, MN. It closed down a few months ago.
Yet, the first time to shoot for is a community center or even a web page or something. The technology has to make it easier to start up some type of social club.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You can insist that everything be black and white, that there are two and only two stark “sides,” and demand that people take one side or the other.
That is because, Richard, my homosexuality does not require me to solicit or have sex in public parks or restrooms, nor has it ever.
Therefore, even if an officer solicits it, I would say “No”, and walk away (and have, given that I used to live close to Reverchon Park) because it’s wrong to solicit and have sex in public places.
Furthermore, do you scream “entrapment” every time the police set up a prostitution sting? They too “solicit” it by putting an officer in provocative clothing, having her walk the streets where prostitutes could be expected, and allowing her to act like one.
posted by BobN on
If it were the true intent of the police to merely stop this behavior, putting a sign on the restroom, informing users that it was under surveillance due to reports of lewd conduct would surely do the uh… trick.
posted by Brian Miller on
That was not the point. Clinton/Gore opposed gay marriage in both 1992 and 1996. However, they did not want to push for a mean-spirted DOMA act.
Good Lord, the spinning from Democrats on this is dizzying.
Fact: Bill Clinton pre-emptively announced that he would sign an anti-gay marriage bill BEFORE ONE WAS EVEN PREPARED.
Fact: AFTER Bill Clinton made this announcement, Congress (and politicians from both parties, including “liberals” like Paul Wellstone) rushed to produce a bill for Clinton to sign.
Fact: Clinton proudly signed the bill in a public signing ceremony.
Fact: After the bill was signed, Bill Clinton (and Al Gore) campaigned on their support for the DOMA and claimed “leadership in defending our values.”
Stop the spin, please. DOMA was an initiative spearheaded by Bill Clinton and supported widely within the Democratic Party.
posted by BobN on
DOMA vote roll call
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml
posted by BobN on
Can’t easily find the Senate roll call. 85 for, 14 nay (ALL Dems), and 1 not voting (also Dem).
posted by Mike B. on
Richard J. Rosendall wrote…
“My views about arrests in such situations would depend upon the particular circumstances. If someone were soliciting for sex to occur elsewhere, it would be one thing; if the solicitation were for sex to occur right there, it would be something else.”
What, exactly, do you mean by “one thing” and “something else”?
That soliciting a stranger for sex should only be a crime if you intend for the sex to occur right there on the spot?
That’s ridiculous. Straight men don’t like getting hit on by other men. Every time it happens it makes them that much more uncomfortable around gay people and it makes them that much more unlikely to treat them with equality and respect.
You’re not doing the gay rights movement any favors by condoning this behavior.
posted by MMMM on
Mike B. >>> A straight man can say “No” as easily as the rest of us.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, I have not screamed anything. This discussion board is silent. Nor have I written anything that could reasonably be described as the equivalent of screaming. You are the one who has tried to ratchet things up. As to prostitution, I think it should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. As to what you do or don’t need to do, good for you. But the way you say that implies, in your typical unscrupulous and sleazy way, that others of us do need to solicit sex in men’s rooms, etc. I guess you can’t refute my arguments, so it’s easier to mischaracterize them and engage in a cheap smear. Frankly, trolling men’s rooms looks better by comparison.
Mike B., let me repeat: I have not condoned such behavior. I have described it (specifically Craig’s instance of it) in a published article as sleazy, and described him as pathetic. But if the only acceptable discussion of the top requires participants to engage in some kind of contest to see who can express the most outrage and disgust, then go ahead and mischaracterize my position. As to soliciting people for sex to be committed elsewhere (that is, in some private place), it may be offensive but that is the sort of area where social opprobrium is more appropriate that criminal sanctions. Shall we proceed to criminalize every tacky pick-up line that is unwelcome?
Why exactly do some of you insist that there are two and only two options: (1) to advocate criminalizing something, or (2) to condone it. Come on, surely every one of you knows that it is perfectly possible to be offended by something without on that account believing that the police should be involved. In Sen. Craig’s case, the reports are that the undercover cop was responding to complaints about goings-on in that men’s room, and Craig appears to have made his overture unprovoked, so this doesn’t appear to be a case of entrapment. But I could be wrong.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
MMMM, that is exactly right. Of course, a lot of people think they have a right not to be offended.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But the way you say that implies, in your typical unscrupulous and sleazy way, that others of us do need to solicit sex in men’s rooms, etc.
That is because it is true, Richard — repeatedly.
I am willing to state flatly that it is wrong because I do not care about pandering to the impulses of people who use homosexuality as an excuse for doing it.
You spin and make rationalizations for why having and soliciting sex in public is a good thing when gays do it. Furthermore, your refusal to condemn gay people who do such things stands in stark and hypocritical contrast to your self-righteously calling Craig “sleazy” and “pathetic”.
Finally:
Come on, surely every one of you knows that it is perfectly possible to be offended by something without on that account believing that the police should be involved.
Everything is possible when you don’t offer specifics.
But in this case, there is a specific, and it is people soliciting and having sex in public restrooms and places that are frequented by children and adults, gay and straight.
In addition, as Mike and I have both pointed out, the only way to stop this behavior is through enforcement of the law and peoples’ realization that, if they are caught, they will be punished.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
More dishonesty and unscrupulousness from ND30. If any reader needs me to explain it to them again, they have not been paying attention. You are behaving like a scoundrel, sir.
I will respond to just one of your falsehoods. You wrote, “You spin and make rationalizations for why having and soliciting sex in public is a good thing when gays do it.”
I have said no such thing. Again: when you so brazenly mischaracterize what I wrote, whom do you think you are impressing? You must have a very low opinion of the average reader’s intelligence.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Richard, when confronted with clear examples of openly-gay men engaging in sex in public locations, you attempt to spin away by attacking me personally.
I would simply show the readers this; notice how Richard can immediately brand Larry Craig as “sleazy” and “pathetic”, but has nothing to say and no condemnation to offer for proven examples of openly-gay men who have sex in public locations.
posted by Mike B. on
Richard J. Rosendall wrote…
“As to soliciting people for sex to be committed elsewhere (that is, in some private place), it may be offensive but that is the sort of area where social opprobrium is more appropriate that criminal sanctions.”
Usually social opprobrium would be more appropriate but in cases like this, where apparently numerous complaints were made, you can’t fault the police for enforcing the law.
Questioning their right to do so is just stupid.
posted by Brian Miller on
Can’t easily find the Senate roll call. 85 for, 14 nay (ALL Dems), and 1 not voting (also Dem).
Yep, a majority of Senate Democrats and a super-majority of Republicans. So let’s go all out for the Democrats, they just LOVE us.
Incidentally, marriage equality took a step forward in Iowa with a successful lawsuit in Polk County (the county where Des Moines is). The Polk County attorney, an elected Democrat, has decided to appeal the ruling throwing out the state’s anti-gay marriage law to the state supreme court.
He declared that “with all due respect,” marriage isn’t for gays.
Oh, and he ran unopposed.
All these apologies people keep giving for Democrats isn’t resulting in Democrats stepping up to the plate and defending the rights of gays and lesbians — rather, it’s giving them a green light to keep on violating them, while saying “Republicans are worse.”
Today’s decision by Polk County’s Democratic county attorney is just the latest example in a long line of betrayals that will soon be 2 decades in the making.
posted by Brian Miller on
Richard can immediately brand Larry Craig as “sleazy” and “pathetic”, but has nothing to say and no condemnation to offer for proven examples of openly-gay men who have sex in public locations.
I’m certainly willing to describe both groups of men as sleazy and pathetic. You can add “hypocritical” to the mix as well, since a lot of the Democratic partisan gay activists clucking their tongues in the blogosphere can often be found cruising for sex in restrooms, parks and clubs — and bragging about how liberated they feel when they do it.
posted by Brian Miller on
To clarify, by “both groups of men” I am referring to closeted Republican legislators and openly gay partisan bloggers who both troll for sex in public places.
And I am not including anyone who posts on this site in my list of partisan Democratic bloggers who are clucking their tongues at Craig for doing what they do every day.
posted by Mike B. on
MMMM | August 31, 2007, 1:35pm | #
“Mike B. >>> A straight man can say “No” as easily as the rest of us.”
Sure they can but do you think that makes it OK to make unwanted sexual advances in a public place, like an airport bathroom?
What’s the logic behind your statement, that as long as someone can say “No” then it’s OK to ask them questions which they find offensive?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, no sane and reasonably aware person could possible read all of these posts and conclude that it is I who am personally attacking you, simply because I call you on your unscrupulous behavior in this discussion. In any case, I am not clear on why I need to prove my bona fides by condemning various things.
Mike B. wrote, “Usually social opprobrium would be more appropriate but in cases like this, where apparently numerous complaints were made, you can’t fault the police for enforcing the law.”
And I didn’t fault the police for enforcing the law in this case. Craig appeared to be soliciting for sex to occur right there. I have no problem with arresting people for that, aside from the question of law-enforcement priorities and entrapment issues (and I have already stated that the Craig case does not appear to have been a case of entrapment).
Mike B., addressing MMMM, wrote, “What’s the logic behind your statement, that as long as someone can say ‘No’ then it’s OK to ask them questions which they find offensive?”
I would say no, it’s not “okay,” but as I have said, everything that I don’t think is okay should not necessarily be criminalized on that account. I don’t like people smoking in public, but I do not think the law should go so far as to prohibit it, except perhaps in enclosed places like restaurants. There are gradations in these things, and different circumstances and methods of approach can make a big difference. A proposition could be relatively polite and respectful or extremely crude; it seems excessive to criminalize mere solicitation for an act which (if done privately and non-commercially by consenting adults) is perfectly legal, barring aggravating circumstances.
It occurs to me that I have a boring existence in comparison to all the people being described who are allegedly having so much sex in rest rooms. I haven’t done a survey, but it has been a long time since I have witnessed any such goings on. I will say this: in cases where actual children are exposed to public sex, as opposed to hypothetical children, I would have no problem with the miscreants being charged with gross indecency or whatever. But if the men in question are indeed caught having public sex (as opposed to merely soliciting), that is properly a crime in its own right and can be prosecuted anyway.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, no sane and reasonably aware person could possible read all of these posts and conclude that it is I who am personally attacking you, simply because I call you on your unscrupulous behavior in this discussion.
I particularly enjoy, Richard, how you haughtily state that anyone who disagrees with your perception is neither “sane or reasonably aware”, since it is not “possible” that anyone who is could NOT agree with your take.
The simple fact of the matter is that you hypocritically call Craig “sleazy” and “pathetic”, but studiously ignore and refuse to do the same when confronted with examples from your own “community”. Fortunately, I (briefly) had a major professor in college who did the same thing when he was shown examples of his incorrect statements, so I am used to this and recognize it for what it is.
posted by Mike B. on
“A proposition could be relatively polite and respectful or extremely crude…”
True, but most straight men find even the most polite and respectful proposition from another man to be repulsive and extremely offensive.
Someone who’s traveling through an airport, visiting a park, or stopping at a wayside rest off the highway, should have the right to use the bathroom in peace without being propositioned by strangers, no matter how polite and respectful that stranger may be.
posted by MMMM on
Mike B >>>
Yes, it is a nasty cruel fact of life that – in your words – it is “OK to ask (someone) questions which they find offensive,” including sexually explicit propositions. In fact, it is just as certainly OK for straight men as it is for gays.
All those straights out there right now telling gays to “suck my dick” – or worse – whether verbally, non-verbally, or otherwise, can enjoy that freedom just as much as gays who effectively say the same thing in the same or different setting. Moreover, I will defend the freedom of all the dozens of straight men who have made sexually obscene propositions to me in my life to do so again, and also the right of all the hundreds of thousands who do so everyday to other people in public and otherwise. And while I’m at it, I will extend the same freedom to gays! It’s morally crass and unkind, but not illegal, because there is no right to bear no offense.
In the meantime, if we don’t like what we heard, we can all say, “No.” In the process, we might learn the best lesson my mother ever taught me: get over it.
But you, who won’t or can’t get over it, want to claim a specious right for straight men to be sweetly and perpetually unoffended by and protected from unwanted homosexual advances. (I suppose you would protect them from those advances from other straight men too, right?) Here you are venturing deep into moral totalitarianism, and you are arguing for more that any self-respecting straight man would argue for himself. I think he’d tell you, “No thanks, buddy, but I’ll handle this one myself.”
As for public sex acts, indecency laws already protect the public. The key to improving public conduct is education and equal enforcement of obscenity laws. The word “equal” is key for GLBTs.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “anyone who disagrees with your perception….”
To the contrary, you have disagreed not with my perception but with your blatant mischaracterization of my statements. It would be refreshing to see you conduct a serious and respectful discussion instead of all this hyper-aggressive posturing.
Mike B., do you really think this is a widespread phenomenon? And how does the fact that straight men are offended by come-ons justify criminalizing those come-ons?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
MMMM wrote in response to Mike B., “you are arguing for more that any self-respecting straight man would argue for himself. I think he’d tell you, ‘No thanks, buddy, but I’ll handle this one myself.'”
Exactly.
posted by Craig2 on
Lori:
To be honest, I think lesbians handle ageing better than gay men do. At least lesbians acknowledge the possibility that one will grow old. Moreover, as a coparent with a teenage daughter, I agree with you about the pub scene. Fortunately, my local city has an LGBT community
centre, quite fully used.
Still, though, what is there for groups of gay men in some remote areas other than the public sex ‘option?’
Although, granted, that wasn’t what happened in the context of a certain US Senator recently…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Mike B. on
MMMM wrote…
“But you, who won’t or can’t get over it, want to claim a specious right for straight men to be sweetly and perpetually unoffended by and protected from unwanted homosexual advances.”
I’m not claiming the right NOT to get hit on in a bathroom just for “straight men”, it should be the right for EVERYONE.
What gives you the right to bother people who just want to use the bathroom for it’s intended purpose?
This is the kind of behavior that leads to hate crimes.
MMMM wrote…
“(I suppose you would protect them from those advances from other straight men too, right?)”
If a man is hitting on another man he’s not “straight” in any sense of the word.
MMMM wrote…
“Here you are venturing deep into moral totalitarianism… ”
Moral totalitarianism? That’s ridiculous. I’m in favor of two consenting adults doing what ever that want to with each other in private. The key words in that sentence are.. Adult, Consenting, and PRIVATE (not a public restroom).
Why do you think a gay person has the right to bother anyone, especially a stranger, who’s just trying to use a PUBLIC restroom in peace?
posted by Lori Heine on
“Still, though, what is there for groups of gay men in some remote areas other than the public sex ‘option?'”
Craig2, I’m not really certain what can be done about that. Maybe the Internet can help link people who otherwise would not be able to find each other.
I like small towns and rural areas, myself. But the very reason I won’t move to Howard Lake, Minnesota — our family “seat,” 40 miles from Minneapolis — is that it’s so far out in the boondocks. We got lost this summer every time we drove out there.
If I were a gay man (or a lesbian) out in the boondocks, I’m afraid I would strongly consider the possibility of moving to a better-populated area.
posted by Lori Heine on
Incidentally, from everything I’ve heard about Minneapolis, it has a vibrant gay and lesbian downtown scene. It’s a very cultured city, and pretty progressive politically.
Senator Craig’s problem wasn’t that he lacked options for meeting gay men in Minneapolis. It was that he was too closeted to risk making the scene.
posted by Mike B. on
Richard J. Rosendall….
“do you really think this is a widespread phenomenon?”
Apparently in some locations it’s widespread enough to be a problem. The Airport Police in Minneapolis got enough complaints that they setup their sting operation and arrested over 40 people including the Senator.
“And how does the fact that straight men are offended by come-ons justify criminalizing those come-ons?”
The fact that “straight men” are offended has nothing to do with it. ANYONE should have the right to use any public facility for it’s intended purpose without having strangers making unwanted sexual advances. What is it about that sentence that you don’t understand?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike B., it is you who appears not to understand. It is quite tiresome to see this repeated reaction to anything other than complete agreement as necessarily and automatically constituting “the opposite” point of view. Excuse me. I haven’t seen anyone CONDONE gross and crass restroom behavior. If that’s how you insist on reading it, you are not understanding.
First of all, I made the point that there is a whole spectrum of possible come-ons to try to get you to see that we are not talking about something uniform and monolithic. Of course at some point someone may cross the line and deserve to be arrested for gross indecency, but for ANY proposition of any kind, details unconsidered? Come on, that is just excessive. And I see no logical reason to limit it to bathrooms. If I am sitting on a bench in the train station and somebody sits down next to me and says quietly, “Wanna fool around?” do you really think that it would be better to have him arrested than just to say “get lost”? I am NOT saying that nothing ever justifies an arrest, I am just trying to get you to recognize that NOT EVERYTHING justifies an arrest.
posted by Mike B. on
> “I am just trying to get you to recognize that NOT EVERYTHING justifies an arrest.”
Who said it did?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Several of your statements above give the clear impression that any unwanted come-on of any kind deserves arrest. Is that not your position?
posted by Mike B. on
Several messages up I said…
“Usually social opprobrium would be more appropriate…”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike B., do I really have to quote back to you all your touchingly solicitous defenses of the delicate sensibilities of heterosexual men who need the police to protect them from tacky come-ons?
posted by Mike B. on
Richard J. Rosendall ….
Mike B., do I really have to quote back to you all your touchingly solicitous defenses of the delicate sensibilities of heterosexual men who need the police to protect them from tacky come-ons?
What an idiot.
All am saying is the right of someone to take a crap in peace supersedes your right to hit on them.
posted by JimG on
Mike,
You are correct, somebody should be able to use a public restroom in peace. But when that doesn’t happen, I cannot see it as a criminal offense. Inappropriate, yes. Criminal, absolutely NOT! And why has this man had his entire career blown to smithereens?? Did he lie, cheat or steal? Did he assault, batter, rape? Molest? Commit fraud? Embezzle? Did he swindle? No. He made an inappropriate sexual advance. He should have been told to cool his jets and get out of there or he would be cited. The punishment definitely does NOT fit the “crime”. What he did was stupid (especially for an elected official) and he will have to pay those consequences. But for him to now be held up as a pariah but a collective society (us) who allow a overly sexualized media to keep us all in a state of constant semi-arousal, and then come down SO HARD on someone for attempting to have sex (not murder, not mayhem) but sex, is in some ways the most shameful part of this entire matter.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It would be refreshing to see you conduct a serious and respectful discussion instead of all this hyper-aggressive posturing.
And it would be refreshing to see you actually make a stand on an issue, such as the examples I presented of gay men having and soliciting sex in public restrooms on multiple occasions.
posted by Mark on
The police officer who arrested Craig claimed that Craig was deliberately “peeping” into his stall through the crack. One can argue whether this should be a criminal matter, but certainly a person ought to have some expectation of privacy when using a public restroom. Certainly I never deliberately stare through the cracks of a bathroom stall at another person.
posted by Lori Heine on
There is a very interesting article in the current issue of Lew Rockwell.com detailing the many ways Senator Craig himself contributed to the “Sovietization” of our police authorities and criminal justice system.
It can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/roots1.html
Perhaps the best way to make sense of all this is that God has a sense of humor. And She is pissed.
posted by Lori Heine on
Sorry, I am very elderly, I learned all I know about the Internet from the typing courses I took in high school in the late Seventies (on a manual typewriter), and I do not yet know how to link.
The web address worked for me.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike B. wrote, “What an idiot. All am saying is the right of someone to take a crap in peace supersedes your right to hit on them.”
If what I have actually written is wrong, there should be no need for you to throw out an obviously false insult or suggest that I am hitting people in restrooms. You know that was contemptible and unscrupulous. So let’s see: You object to other people’s objectionable behavior while behaving objectionably yourself. Does that remind us of anyone?
ND30 says that I haven’t taken a stand because I don’t answer the way he wants. His idea of a devastating riposte is to repeat the word “spin” over and over again, as if repeating a falsehood makes it true.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Lori, thanks for that link.
On a different note, conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer on this week’s “Inside Washington” on PBS made a nice statement about how good it is that things have improved for gay Americans over the years (in contrast to the squalor of the present scandal), which was welcome considering that so much of the discussion this week has given the impression that being gay means cruising restrooms.
posted by MIke B. on
Richard, why do you keep defending the people who lurk in bathrooms? You’re not one of them, are you?
I’m glad those 40 people got arrested in Minneapolis, I hope you’re next.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30 says that I haven’t taken a stand because I don’t answer the way he wants. His idea of a devastating riposte is to repeat the word “spin” over and over again, as if repeating a falsehood makes it true.
And you realize, Richard, that it is quite obvious that every time I present clear and referenced examples of gay men having sex in public restrooms, rather than condemning it as “sleazy” and “pathetic”, you try to change the subject and attack people like myself and Mike B. who staunchly oppose soliciting for sex and having sex in public places.
That’s spinning.
Have some intellectual honesty and admit that you support public solicitation and sex.
Or are you terrified of exposing the truth about LGBTs like yourself, who lied and told the DC city government that they do not support public sex?
posted by Lori Heine on
While I’ve made it pretty clear that I do not condone sex in public restrooms, I am uneasy about the civil liberties ramifications of the Craig case.
If he managed to pick somebody up in the next stall (and he sounds like an old pro at this game, so I suppose he often did), would he have taken the prospect somewhere else — say a sleazy motel — for sex or would they have stayed there and done the deed in one of the stalls?
I must confess, I’m ignorant about all this. It simply isn’t a part of my social world, or an activity with which I’m at all familiar. So if these questions sound naive, that’s why.
From what I’ve been reading, it sounds like the police do employ undercover cops to sit on public potties awaiting hand-gestures and toe-taps from gay men looking to score. Who is paying for all this, anyway, and why?
I spent a good six hours in the Minneapolis airport this past August, waiting late at night for my flight. To keep my eyelids propped open, I visited the Starbuck’s station several times for coffee — necessitating numerous trips to the washroom. Again, there were many little kids running in and out of there, some with their mothers and some by themselves. I can’t imagine funny business going on in there without one of the kids or mothers complaining and an arrest being pretty promptly made. While I don’t approve of illicit sexual pickups, if all they’re doing in that restroom is making little signals to each other and then meeting elsewhere, why must the public pay for 24-hour cop coverage to crusade against it?
Is this a good use of our tax dollars? Moreover, is illicit sex between straight people being prohibited with similar vigilance?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
All together, guess which orientation is cut no slack?
Well, let’s look at some other examples.
— Congressman is accused of lewd sexual behavior and assault against staffers and lobbyists; forced to resign in disgrace.
— Congressman has “consensual” affair with 17-year-old congressional page; resigns in disgrace.
Meanwhile:
— Congressman not only solicits, but appears to facilitate operation of prostitution ring out of his apartment; not only does not resign, but is given high-level chairmanship position
— Congressman has “consensual” affair with 17-year-old page; does not resign and continues to receive support, fundraising, and committee assignments
The last two were gay (Barney Frank and Gerry Studds); the first two were straight (Bob Packwood and Dan Crane).
So which orientation is it that’s being “cut no slack”?
Furthermore, the problem here seems to be a belief that straight people would find somehow more acceptable an older person sending lewd and obscene instant messages to a teenage page, or soliciting sex in a public restroom frequented by unsuspecting adults and children, if it were involving opposite sexes, rather than same sex.
More likely, in my opinion, is that most gays think straight people accept public sex and lewd messaging in the same way that they do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can’t imagine funny business going on in there without one of the kids or mothers complaining and an arrest being pretty promptly made.
Which, as was mentioned before, was why the police officer was in there in the first place. People had been complaining.
Moreover, is illicit sex between straight people being prohibited with similar vigilance?
Well, the job is a little easier there, inasmuch as it’s very difficult for a man to go into the womens’ restroom, or vice versa, in the first place without creating a HUGE outcry.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “That’s spinning.”
My avoidance of your brand of cartoonish starkness does not constitute “spin.” It is pretty clear to honest readers that I have been stating my honest views, however muddled you may find them. If you can’t abide nuance, too bad.
“Have some intellectual honesty and admit that you support public solicitation and sex.”
1. Solicitation and sex are two different things, and lumping them together is unhelpful even if one favors criminalizing both. Every wrong thing is not the same. Sound law must make distinctions.
2. I have tried to illustrate how broad the term “solicitation” is, and the wide spectrum of actions that it covers. On the mild and polite end of that spectrum are behaviors that, even if deemed inappropriate and offensive, most people would not think should be criminalized; on the other end are behaviors that most people would agree SHOULD be criminalized. While I believe that intellectual clarity and constitutional protections must be considered and not just opinion polls, I believe that carefully drafted policies combined with alert oversight could arrive at a sound policy that passes constitutional muster.
3. I do not support public sex. Kindly cite evidence that I have ever done so. Neither, however, do I support police operations that entrap people. (And please pay attention. I did NOT just assert that Craig was entrapped; there is some disagreement over whether he was, but as I have already stated, my sense from what I have read is that he was not entrapped, and as has been pointed out, the police were responding to complaints.)
“Or are you terrified of exposing the truth about LGBTs like yourself, who lied and told the DC city government that they do not support public sex?”
Huh? What are you talking about? Your claim about my being “terrified” is obviously more posturing, since however wrongheaded I may be (and your knocking down straw men does not illuminate in this regard), I can hardly be accused of concealing my views given how prolific I have been as an activist and a published writer. Aside from that, there is something obscene about your glib and ill-informed disparagement of gay rights activists who have done as much as I have in their communities to defend and advance the rights of GLBT people as much as I have over a period of many years. Incidentally, all of my writing and activism have been done under my real name, which all by itself shows that I have more guts and honor than an anonymous sniper than you.
I have seen your type before: somehow you believe that sneering, posturing, misrepresentations and accusations substitute for substantive argument and entitle you to set aside or ignore the record.
Your tone and argumentative approach are extremely ugly, ND30, and I think it is hypocritical to make a lot of noise about public decency while behaving so indecently and unscrupulously as you have in this discussion.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Pardon me, that should have been “an anonymous sniper than you” (in reference to ND30).
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Oops, did it again. My bad. Should have been “an anonymous sniper LIKE you.”
There. I have admitted a mistake. I am sure that ND30 will now respond in kind and acknowledge misrepresenting my statements. Or not.
posted by Bobby on
“why must the public pay for 24-hour cop coverage to crusade against it?”
—First of all, it’s not 24-hours, those operations are only a few hours long. Secondly, this is just like traffic cops. If a highway has no cop present, pretty soon people start speeding up, all the way to 120, maybe more. So once in a while you’ll see a cop, to make sure people follow the traffic and try not to do more than 80 or so. The point of doing this is to discourage illegal behavior.
It’s the same at football games, if you don’t have a lot of police present, fans might start destroying private property after the game.
That’s why cops need to go to the bathroom, if they don’t, we’ll end up with orgies and God knows what.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have tried to illustrate how broad the term “solicitation” is, and the wide spectrum of actions that it covers. On the mild and polite end of that spectrum are behaviors that, even if deemed inappropriate and offensive, most people would not think should be criminalized; on the other end are behaviors that most people would agree SHOULD be criminalized.
Unfortunately, you refuse to state which behaviors you would ever consider criminal.
Please state whether or not you would consider a gay man soliciting a child for sex in a public restroom to be criminal.
Please state whether or not you would consider a gay man repeatedly soliciting unwilling straight men for sex in a public restroom to be criminal.
Because your behavior regarding solicitation is similar to this:
I do not support public sex. Kindly cite evidence that I have ever done so.
I have given you not one, but two opportunities to demonstrate that in regard to other gay people, and you seem completely unable to do so — despite your instantaneous claim that former Senator Craig was “sleazy” and “pathetic”.
Again, you claim that there are criminal and inappropriate behaviors that you oppose, but when given the chance to demonstrate the fact on clear examples, you cannot.
And finally:
Aside from that, there is something obscene about your glib and ill-informed disparagement of gay rights activists who have done as much as I have in their communities to defend and advance the rights of GLBT people as much as I have over a period of many years.
Such as the “right” of GLBT people to solicit and have sex in public places without any fear of interference or enforcement of laws, obviously.
Your cluelessness on those matters is quite hilarious; you never seem to have realized, for example, that employers do not want people who insist on soliciting customers and other employees for sex or having sex in their public restrooms. That becomes especially amusing when you disparage as advocating limits on sexual behavior that any public or workplace has to be “touchingly solicitous defenses of the delicate sensibilities of heterosexual men who need the police to protect them from tacky come-ons”.
Incidentally, all of my writing and activism have been done under my real name, which all by itself shows that I have more guts and honor than an anonymous sniper than you.
Ah yes, the, “I can’t explain myself any other way, so I have to disparage you because you use a pseudonym” argument.
Given the insults you hurl at those who would dare argue against your support of public sex and solicitation, do you particularly blame people for using pseudonyms?
And furthermore, do you honestly believe that your use of your real name should shield you from criticism and make your statements correct, while the use of a pseudonym should do the opposite?
posted by Antaeus on
I used to be unsympathetic to Richard R, who, to his credit, posts using his real-life name, simply because we disagreed from time to time. But viewing the gross and vindictive attacks and insinuations from ND30, I consider him a brother, valiantly withstanding opposition from unbalanced personages from any and every political persuasion. ND30 reminds me of an Inquisitor, using “righteousness” to satisfy his lust to see everyone on the pyre. His credo seems to be “balance is pursuit of justice is no virtue, and zealotry in pursuit of vengeance is no vice!” SiCKO
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Antaeus, that is more than a bit ironic, given that that’s Richard’s problem; too many “brother relationships” made with too many people with too many different goals in the name of “unity”.
Basically, Richard’s problem is that, in the name of “gay unity”, he finds himself defending those who solicit and have public sex, because he dares not do otherwise.
In my opinion, those who use their homosexuality as an excuse for soliciting and having public sex are criminals and should be investigated, prosecuted, and punished to the fullest extent of the law. I owe them nothing because they are gay; I identify far more closely with those that say that sex and solicitation in public places are unacceptable, and that being gay does not make you incapable of controlling your sexual urges or preventing yourself from soliciting others for sex. Furthermore, I do not believe that the police are corrupt or discriminatory and I fully support them doing their jobs, as they clearly are when they arrest those who are soliciting and having public sex.
But Richard can’t say that.
He cannot say he supports the police because he would alienate the members of his “coalition” who believe that police are antigay.
He cannot say he opposes public sex by gay people because he would offend the members of his “coalition” who think it’s their right to have sex wherever and whenever they want.
He cannot oppose gay men making unwanted solicitations of straight men because he would offend the members of his “coalition” who think it’s their right to say whatever they want whenever they want without consequences.
All this he does in the name of “gay unity”, mind you.
Personally, I think we would be much better off finding common cause with the vast majority of Americans who think public sex is wrong, who think unwanted sexual solicitations and advancements are wrong, and who support the police and their enforcement of the law, versus pandering to the needs of an immature and sexually-irresponsible micro-minority in the name of “gay unity”.
But that would be too assimilationist and heterosexist, and heaven knows, we can’t have that.
posted by cls on
To say no one is questioning it indicates a lack of reading on your part. It simply isn’t true.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Antaeus, I hope you have the sense not to rely on ND30’s representations of my positions.
ND30 now claims that I take (or fail to take) stands based on a call for “gay unity,” which he just made up. I have been criticizing the gay left for my entire career as an activist, which goes back more than a quarter century. To cite but one example, I publicly criticized the long and silly lists of demands prior to various gay marches on Washington. That is obviously not the action of someone who avoids criticizing anything or anyone gay in the name of unity. ND30, again, whom do you think you are impressing with this nonsense?
Since in fact I have responded to a lot more of ND30’s points than he has responded to mine, I am not going to bother addressing most of his latest points, which he is just recycling. But a few of his comments are so absurd that I cannot resist.
For one thing, when challenged to cite evidence that I support restroom sex, ND30 links to Bay Area Reporter articles that have nothing to do with me. What he is saying is that if I do not give him assurances that he finds satisfactory, I am therefore guilty of whatever it is he is demagoguing about. I have been participating in a discussion set off by Steve’s posting about the Craig affair, but ND30 prefers to turn this into a trial against me. Is this reasonable or honorable?
ND30 writes, “He cannot say he supports the police because he would alienate the members of his ‘coalition’ who believe that police are antigay.”
Amazing. In fact, I specifically cited my extensive work with the D.C. Police. Permit me to give a few examples: I served on the citizens’ advisory committee that assisted in the selection of a new chief of police in 1998. I currently serve on the Community Policing Task Force of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Seven years ago, the group in which I have long been active, GLAA, supported the establishment of MPD’s Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU). GLAA has given our Distinguished Service Awards to both GLLU and former police chief Charles Ramsey, who at our awards ceremony last April said that I have more integrity than anyone he knows. When a police chief publicly says that about you, then you can tell me I don’t support the police. Give me a break. Speaking of GLLU, the lieutenant currently overseeing it couldn’t have a more solid relationship with me. He pissed off the police chief several years ago by going to the city council about a violently homophobic master patrol officer who had threatened and assaulted gay officers. The lietenant had gone to the Council because MPD was not taking proper action against the out-of-control MPO. I defended the Lieutenant to the hilt at a public meeting attended by key officials, thereby putting the chief on the spot. The lieutenant was not punished. Just a few months ago, when the new chief proposed to decentralize the GLLU (which was stronly opposed by the gay community and would have impaired its effectiveness), I led successful organizing efforts to resist that decentralization. When you have taken the lead in defending police officers and a police unit, then you can accuse me of not doing so energetically enough.
Once again, ND30, you deflect my perfectly reasonable criticism of your hiding behind a pseudonym, while persisting in your false claims that I have not taken a sufficiently clear position. I have put myself out there time and time again, not just opposing discrimination but working constructively with public officials (including the police) to advance the common good, while you snipe anonymously from the sidelines. What’s really amazing is that I bother responding to you at all.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, Antaaus, thank you for your most recent posting.
As to the original topice of anti-gay hypicrisy, solicitation etc., William Saletan has an interesting piece in today’s Washington Post:
Hypocritical? Don’t Ask.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Just to clarify, it was the proposal to decentralize the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit that was stronly opposed by the gay community, not the unit itself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What he is saying is that if I do not give him assurances that he finds satisfactory, I am therefore guilty of whatever it is he is demagoguing about.
LOL…..try actually giving an assurance before you accuse me of failing to find any of them satisfactory.
The reason for citing the BAR articles is simple; it demonstrates that you cannot condemn or oppose public solicitation and sex when it’s gay men doing it.
When you have taken the lead in defending police officers and a police unit, then you can accuse me of not doing so energetically enough.
Except when you accuse them of being “overzealous” and practicing “entrapment” of gay men who are soliciting and having sex in public places, it seems.
I do defend police officers and units — against gay men who are demanding special treatment and who claim the police are “discriminating” when they arrest gay men for public sex and solicitation.
That is advancing the “common good” — by integrating gay people into society and providing reassurance that gay people will follow the same laws as straight people. I support the WHOLE police department and their enforcement of laws, not the tiny fraction that you do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, just to emphasize my point, again the BARarticles, which demonstrate the following:
1) Gay men are soliciting and having sex in a public restroom and locker room
2) This is to the extent that men are regularly sitting in cum and other fluids that have been left by people engaging in sex
3) Men are having to avoid an area to which the membership for which they pay entitles them to use due both to the uncomfortableness of the situation and the exposure to body fluids
4) The health club manager is reduced to begging men not to do something that is a) against the law and b) completely unacceptable in their membership contracts because he is afraid of being boycotted or having charges of “discrimination” and “sex-negative” being thrown at him.
5) The gay city Supervisor makes excuses that being aroused in public restrooms and steam rooms happens to everybody and blames “married Marin husbands”.
And here we have Richard unable and unwilling to make condemnation one, even though he was quick to criticize Larry Craig’s actions, far less worse than this, as “sleazy” and “pathetic” (which they are). Instead, he spins on and on and on about how “not all actions should be criminalized” or whatever else to avoid dealing with these specific actions.
posted by Brian Miller on
Then again, the “moral condemnations” demanded by Republidrones such as yourself, ND-30, have no weight anyway. Your constant demands for “condemnation” from everyone you disagree with are hilarious — it’s almost as though you exist to do nothing other than pass judgment on those who refuse to pass judgment on others.
Is the behavior, as chronicled, undesirable and nasty? Yes. So is the Republican Party, though, and I’ve never seen you go so campily over-the-top in demanding a condemnation of *that*.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian: Exactly.
ND30: Yawn.
posted by Lori Heine on
I must say, at this point in the slugfest, that I do respect ND30 and believe him to be an upright, decent and honorable man. Although I frequently disagree with him, I agree with him often as well.
But ND30, one of the ways I chiefly disagree with you is that, in your desire to prove that some gays meet a stringent standard of moral behavior (a standard to which many straight Republicans pay no more than the cheapest lip-service), you largely seem to end up attacking a good many of us.
I don’t believe that Brian, Richard, Bobby or a great many others who post on this board are immoral people. But from time to time, probably each one of us has failed to clear whatever particular hurdle you have set up.
I didn’t repudiate marauding lesbian gangs with spray-painted pink pistols vehemently enough to suit you. The fact that the reason I didn’t was because I believed (as I still do) that it was largely a fabrication in the first place doesn’t seem to matter.
Don’t you see that the conservative stick-up-the-butts you are so eager to impress really don’t care? A lot of them absolutely refuse even to consider that we might be decent people. Not because of all the evil leftist gays out there having public sex and spewing body fluids everywhere, but simply because of their own closed (and often very dirty) minds.
I don’t regard those people as worth converting. I know the difference between sincere, honest and fair-minded people and people who are dead-set against giving us a fair break.
I say this not to attack you, ND30, because I really don’t want to do that. The reason I’m telling you this is because you are indeed a fine communicator, and you do have the opportunity to make a difference. I just think that right now, a lot of the time you are spinning your wheels.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Don’t you see that the conservative stick-up-the-butts you are so eager to impress really don’t care? A lot of them absolutely refuse even to consider that we might be decent people. Not because of all the evil leftist gays out there having public sex and spewing body fluids everywhere, but simply because of their own closed (and often very dirty) minds.
I don’t worry about them, Lori.
I worry about the people who aren’t them, but who are disgusted by the fact of people having public sex, making unwanted solicitations, and leaving cum and body fluids all over in a public restroom/locker room.
This is where long explanations of, “well,we don’t want to criminalize everything” and “straights shouldn’t get upset over being solicited” fail.
This is where statements like, “Well, it’s undesirable and nasty, but so are Republicans” not only misses the point, but insults at least half, and quite often more, of them.
What I have stated — this is wrong, it needs to be condemned and stopped, and the police should be supported in their enforcement — is exactly what appeals to “sincere, honest, and fair-minded people”.
posted by Bobby on
“Don’t you see that the conservative stick-up-the-butts you are so eager to impress really don’t care?”
—I’m not eager to impress anyone but myself. That’s the test of true ideological freedom.
“A lot of them absolutely refuse even to consider that we might be decent people.”
—You’d be surprised, Anthony Verdugo, director of the Christian Coalition in Florida, was quoted saying that most gays are against public sex. He didn’t have to do that, it certainly doesn’t help his own cause, but he had the decency to admit that not all of us do these things.
I don’t think we should give gays who do bad things a break. When Christians do bad things, they get no breaks, many times they lose everything. At Liberty University a student can be expelled for having sex, getting pregnant, smoking a cigarrette, doing drugs, etc.
Craig is now finding out that it doens’t matter how many years he was a republican, or how he voted the way he was supposed to vote. He betrayed the principles of the party, so now the party turns their back on him. Frankly, Craig should have been a democrat if he wanted to have bathroom sex. Democrats didn’t turn their backs on Barney Frank after the hooker scandal, they didn’t betray Bill Clinton after Lewinsky, or screw that pervert with the 17 year old page. Why? Because democrats have a mentality that none of them can ever be wrong, that only republicans can be wrong. But republicans aren’t that clueless, if one of them betrays our values, he’s immediately an outcast. And that’s the way it should be.
posted by S. Leonard Scheff on
Since the Supreme Court held that sex between consenting adults couldn’t be a crime, one adult asking another to have sex is protected by free speech. Obviously the “Invasion of Privacy Statute” was chosen to get around this. If the cop had not given some sign that he wanted to continue the dialogue (foot tap) there would have been no continuation and thus no invasion of privacy.
If two men were waiting for a flight and decided to knock one off in a stall in a restroom would it be disorderly conduct? They have disturbed no one, except some one who might choose to look in the stall. Would this be invasion of privacy?
Finally I doubt there are any other non-violent misdemeanors that police mount undercover stings for.
posted by Dalea on
Bobby sez: But republicans aren’t that clueless, if one of them betrays our values, he’s immediately an outcast. And that’s the way it should be.
And how will you react when the Republican party starts purging gay people directly?
posted by Lori Heine on
“But republicans aren’t that clueless, if one of them betrays our values, he’s immediately an outcast.”
Oh, like Newt Gingrich, who’s still being floated as a possible presidential candidate for the GOP?
Yeah, we all know how morally upright old Newtie is. What a slimeball. He’s the man who stood up and told America it didn’t have enough shame.
posted by Hank on
Bobby, ever hear of a guy named David Vitter?
posted by Mark on
Here’s the bottom line: laws against “solicitation” (except for adults soliciting minors) have no place in a free society. However, such things as indecent exposure (in public) and invasion of privacy are more serious matters. Laws against foot tapping signals are ridiculous, but not laws against deliberately “peeping” at people in toilet stalls or having sex in exposed public areas.
But of course, private property owners should always have the right to make rules for their own property.
posted by Jason on
he wasn’t arrested for tapping his foot.
What he did was:
-Using the space between the door and frame, he peered into the officer’s stall.
-Entered the stall next to the officer and placed his bag down in front him (a classic maneuver of those preparing to have sex in a stall)
-Tapped his foot.
-Stuck his foot under the stall into the Officer’s stall.
-Stuck his foot far enough under the stall to touch the officer’s foot.
-Stuck his hand under the divider, into the Officer’s stall and made gesture’s toward the door.
Now in over 25 years of traveling and using public restrooms I have had men peek into the stall to see if someone is in there. They apparently don’t know that if they look down and step back far enough they’ll see feet. I have not, however, had someone stick anything into my stall, let alone twice.
If someone had done everything the senator had done, I’d be more than a little suspicious.
Additionally, if you’ve read any gay erotica with the toilet room theme (I’ve stumbled on some, yes) you’ll note that Craig did all the things done by someone asking for sex in a bathroom. It’s as if he had a story with him and was acting it out.
The police have to do something if there are complaints. How would it look if someone had been gang raped or sexually assaulted in the men’s room after the complaints had been filed? Then we’d all be talking about how the police don’t take complaints seriously.
It’s also being overlooked that Craig took a MONTH to plead guilty.
It would have been entrapment if the police officer had been making all the moves and then arrested the senator when he came over to the officer’s stall to have sex. It’s entrapment if the police entice you to commit a crime and then arrest you. The only way this could be considered entrapment is if they use the defense, “Your Honor, the Officer is a hot piece of ass, who could blame the senator for wanting to break off a piece of that?” I doubt it would work.
posted by Lori Heine on
There, see, Jason describes what happened in a way that makes sense of the whole exchange. Now I understand better why Craig was arrested.
I don’t think we lesbians have any little code of bathroom signals like that. I’ve certainly never heard of such a thing with us. As a WNBA season ticket holder, I certainly have ample opportunity to be in the same public restroom with a lot of dykes.
There are also a lot of little kids in there, and at the risk of sounding sexist, I would hope most women would have better sense than to try any hanky-panky in a place like that.
If anybody peered into my stall while I was in there, I would probably confront her and demand to know what the hell she thought she was doing. There certainly wouldn’t be anything sexy or romantic about the exchange.
posted by Bobby on
“And how will you react when the Republican party starts purging gay people directly?”
—There are openly gay republicans in public office, and not just as staffers.
As for Newt Gingrich never did anything perverted. It’s not a indecent to get a divorce even if your wife is in the hospital.
“If two men were waiting for a flight and decided to knock one off in a stall in a restroom would it be disorderly conduct? ”
—That’s just great. So everyone can do whatever the fuck they feel like doing, with no limits. So if I want to fuck on the beach? Sure, I can do that. And if I see a sexy guy and want to masturbate instead of waiting until I’m home, no problem. Who cares if anyone sees me? It’s only natural. Just like I’m sure it’s nice to use the bathroom while two horndogs are having sex in the stall next door.
A public bathroom is not a private place! This is common sense! I can’t believe some liberals here are actually defending what Craig did. What Craig did is indefensible, I don’t care if he’s a republican, a democrat, or whatever. I don’t care if he resigns and we lose an important pro-gun vote. What the man did was evil, unbecoming of a public servant or even a normal civilian, it was indecent, disgusting, immoral, sickening, loathsome. Frankly, I wish he could have gone the route Ted Haggard took. Maybe Haggard used drugs and hired a hooker, but that’s a lot more respectable than harassing people in the bathroom.
Seriously people! Some of you need to have a stranger flash his penis at you, then you can tell me how much you like public sex.
posted by ETJB on
I think people of all sexualities and political backgrounds can agree that no one should be having sex in public. Period. We can also agree that what the Senator did was really stupid and that many public figures do really stupid things, especially in our 24/7 news-entertainment era.
Yet, the debate is what happens when people ask for sex (or a date) in public, but intend to engage in the act in private?
Do we assume that everyone who makes such a solicition in certain public places (bathrooms, parks, etc.) is planning on having sex in public? Or do we assume it only when it involves men or women or gays or straights or Democrats or Republicans or Independents?
posted by Bobby on
“Do we assume that everyone who makes such a solicition in certain public places (bathrooms, parks, etc.) is planning on having sex in public?”
—Part of the problem specially among guys is that the bathroom is a very intimate speak. A guy might be urinating with his dick exposed, and then he’s asking me for sex. You can see how I would feel uncomfortable. As a gay man, I would not want to be aroused in a public place by another gay man. So I cannot imagine how horrified a straight fellow would be.
Now, if someone is in a public part and solicits someone for sex, that’s not criminal unless he takes off his pants right there. I think undercover cops wait for you to make a move. Like hookers, it’s not illegal to talk to a hooker, you’re only breaking the law the moment you offer money.