I have to plead a certain naivet� about this business of restroom sex. I have never solicited anyone for sex in a public restroom; nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone ever solicited me. Should I be hurt that no one ever did? Aren't I attractive enough? Do I wear the wrong shoes? What am I doing wrong?
My discomfort with restroom sex, I suppose, is not so much moral as aesthetic. Public restrooms just don't seem very appealing places to spend much time hanging around hoping for sexual connections. The ambiance--the chemical and bodily odors, the noises, the bustle of people going in and out--doesn't seem very erotic. Maybe you get used to it. If you have enough sex in that kind of environment maybe you build up a conditioned response of finding it exciting. But I don't think that's a conditioned response I want to acquire.
Soon after I came out, friends took me to gay bars and told me about gay bathhouses. Those always seemed more attractive and convenient places to scout for sexual partners in the absence of a lover. And at bars and bathhouses if you failed to find a suitable partner, you could always socialize, get to know people, make friends, not just sit there idly on a hard bathroom fixture waiting for Mr. Anybody.
I had heard about this foot-tapping business (no one mentioned the playing footsie part) more than 35 years ago, but I guess I thought of it as something left over from the bad old pre-gay liberation days, something that would die out as people became more open about being gay and found more appealing places to meet other gay men.
But that sanguine view ignored a couple of things. 1) A lot of gay men live and work in locations that don't have gay bars or bathhouses. With them I sympathize. 2) And a lot of gay men remain untouched by the message of gay liberation. They are married with families, or in the closet at work, or adhere to an anti-gay religion, or refuse to acknowledge to themselves that they are gay. Some may even buy the religious line that homosexuality is wrong but find they cannot resist their "weakness."
If they get caught in a restroom or highway rest stop incident, they may vociferously deny they are gay, thus implying that hanging around restrooms or rest stops is what gay men typically do. In other words, if their circumstances inhibit self-acceptance and public disclosure, their behavior on the basis of those circumstances, if revealed, simply supports the religious right's propaganda that "the gay lifestyle" is lonely, seedy, and risky. Thanks for the great PR, guys.
Still, there do seem some openly gay men who enjoy hanging around restrooms or rest stops for just this sort of activity, or at least giving it a try when they have the opportunity. Maybe it is a kind of adventure. Maybe they enjoy the excitement of the uncertain possibility of sex. Behavioral psychologists tell us that the best way to reinforce a behavior is to provide intermittent rewards, not regular ones.
Yet I don't think that I have ever overheard any such communicative behavior or any sounds of sexual activity any time I have had to use a public restroom. That suggests that it is pretty inconspicuous. So where do these (alleged) complaints come from? No one who doesn't want to participate need respond to signals. They probably don't even recognize them as signals unless they are looking for them. And how is any third party harmed by any of this?
I am no fan of Larry Craig. But even if the arresting officer is telling the truth (and it is always wise to be skeptical of vice officers), I have a hard time seeing anything that happened as illegal. Homosexual sex is legal, after all. And people assume they have privacy in their stalls. At most Craig was sending an invitation to engage in legal sex.
Nor does anything that allegedly happened amount to "lewd conduct." Craig tapped his foot, then moved his foot to touch the other person's foot. But Craig moved his foot only because he had a foot-tapping response from the other party. Had the officer not provided that enticement, Craig would presumably not have proceeded. Where is the lewdness? No wonder that charge was dropped. And what was "disorderly" (the vaguest of all charges) about contact between seemingly consenting adults?
And, really, if public establishments seriously wish to prevent sex between men in separate restroom stalls, why don't they simply build the partitions all the way to the floor. That would be an easy way to end the problem!
16 Comments for “Seedy, but Why Illegal?”
posted by James on
The reason society has a hard time trusting gays with marriage and children is because it is impossible for gays to say “Sex with strangers in public bathrooms is wrong!”
This article is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the gay community. Gays have completely lost any moral compass if they can’t see that anonymous sex in public bathrooms is disgusting and vile. You can’t ask for the right to marry and adopt children with one breath and then defend cruising with the other.
posted by Dan on
I’m sorry, but James you are wrong. It is difficult to understand the complexity of sexuality in general, even more so to understand the sexuality of another person. What is wrong with the “gay community”, as you put it, is that there are no good institutions like marriage to encourage stable relationships. This is part of the reason SOME gay men may cruise for sex anonymously. They can not accept themselves because society at large tells them they are not worthy enough of a healthy relationship. Thus the prohibition against same-sex marriage. The other part of gay men cruising for sex is simply that they are MEN. Men are often promiscuous, gay or straight. Futhermore, heterosexual men would certainly be having sex in bathrooms with women if bathrooms were unisex. That’s just how men are. James, as laid out here, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sexuality including homosexuality. Examine this and you will see the truth in it.
posted by ETJB on
I do not think that anyone has actually said, “Sex with strangers in public bathrooms is not wrong!” I think people are saying that people should not be arrested for making a pas at some one (a consenting adult) in public.
Do you feel that you should be arrested everytime that you make a pass at a woman or man in public? Setting aside issues of sexual harassment.
posted by LeBain on
Sex in public anywhere is wrong. Flirting is not wrong. The bar for arrest in these cases must be actual lewd conduct or physical contact, not merely the suggestion. The cop should have had to seen skin or been offered money for sexual services to make an arrest.
If arrests for flirting, even creepy, disgusting flirting, were a crime, every hetero male who’s ever had a few drinks and hit on a woman at a bar would be jailed.
The thing straight males fear most about gays is that one might come on to them as aggressively as they come on to women.
posted by James on
In the first place, men are not naturally promiscuous. Wolves, elephants, dolphin, whales, gorillas, etc., are all monogamous and fiercely so. Men act promiscuous because that is what society tells them they are. But men, like most higher mammals, are naturally monogamous.
Gays have been able to create a subculture outside of society–there is no reason, no reason at all, why that subculture couldn’t be radically monogamous. The fact that we’ve been kept from marriage means we should have created something better, more loyal than marriage. They’ve just discovered a contract, an “affrement”, which men in the Middle Ages in France used to form lifelong bonds. Gays in our century could have done something similar–there was nothing to stop us from building a subculture around lifelong fidelity.
I do not have to support the choices of men who express their supposed victimhood by having sex in public bathrooms. I admire instead those like Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, or Susan B. Anthony, who bettered themselves in spite of oppression. Where is the gay equivalent of Frederick Douglass? Is he hiding in a bathroom somewhere?
posted by Dale on
For me, the core issue of the Craig debacle is not whether sex in public places is good or bad, or whether it should or should not be illegal. For me, the issue is whether it is a proper priority of law enforcement personnel to bait and entrap gay men. And should it be appropriate or legal for gay men to be arrested for merely giving coded signals of their interest in sex? In such sting operations as the one in which Craig was entrapped, the police often justify their activities by claiming they were responding to “complaints.” I’ve never seen them provide any documentation of such complaints, but even if there are complaints, is the bait and trap operation the best or only way to curb public sexual beahvior? Simple structural modification of the stalls can easily render them sex-unfriendly. If despite that sex in a public bathroom becomes so egregious that further action is needed to curb it, the simplest and most effective action is simply to hire a bathroom attendant. Has anyone ever heard of a notorious level of sexual activity going on in a bathroom with an attendant? An added benefit is that attended bathrooms are cleaner and better furnished.
I am personally delighted that Craig will be leaving the Senate and no longer trampling on the civil rights of gay men and women. He is a sleezy hypocrite who has caused much harm to many millions of gay men and women. But he did nothing, as far as I can see, to deserve arrest in that public restroom. He may well have been cruising there…I believe he was…but he commited no act there that is worthy of criminalization.
And as far as the general question of public sex goes, it goes on all the time, among straights as well as gays. Straight men have been screwing in the back seats of cars for as long as there have been cars. I have known straight men who took great pride in screwing in airplane bathrooms, until the bathrooms got too small for one person, much less two. And the only reason that straight men don’t screw in other public bathrooms is that there aren’t any women in the men’s rooms. I’m sure that some straight men have found a way around that though.
In the 1970s a psychologist named Laud Humphreys published a sociological study of men who have sex in public bathrooms. I don’t remember his exact statistics, but I do remember that the majority of such men were married, politically conservative, believed themselves to be straight, and sought anonymous gay sex in order to meet their drive for sex with men while isolating it from the rest of their lives. Sound like anyone you’ve heard of? Only a very small percentage of the men he studied identified as gay and sought sex in public bathrooms for the “thrill” of it. So I am offended by writers to this space who paint promiscuous and socially irresponsible portraits of the majority of out-of-the-closet, happy, well-adjusted gay men.
posted by Mark on
“And, really, if public establishments seriously wish to prevent sex between men in separate restroom stalls, why don’t they simply build the partitions all the way to the floor. That would be an easy way to end the problem!”
LOL, what would stop guys from cruising each other outside the stalls and then going in for a quickie!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James: “In the first place, men are not naturally promiscuous. Wolves, elephants, dolphin, whales, gorillas, etc., are all monogamous and fiercely so.”
Looks like someone has been reading conservapedia again. Really James, you can’t deny reality…no matter how much you would like to. Have you never watched the Discovery Channel?
posted by James on
So, your point is this: “Men are all dogs, it’s OK to cruise for sex in bathroom stalls, and BTW, we’d like the right to marry and adopt children.” Hmmm–what’s wrong with this picture?
Here’s mine: “We are all, gay or straight, created by God to live in faithful, monogamous relationships, and I think cruising for sex in public bathrooms is deplorable, immoral behavior. So, you see we share the same values, and far from wanting to destroy traditional marriage, I want to strengthen it by being included in it. I’d like you to help me gain the right to marry and adopt children.”
Which approach do you think will be effective?
posted by Jason on
“And, really, if public establishments seriously wish to prevent sex between men in separate restroom stalls, why don’t they simply build the partitions all the way to the floor. That would be an easy way to end the problem!”
Yes, making the stalls in which the sex will take place more private will undoubtedly lead to less illegal activities.
Rethink that one.
Craig was not entrapped. He instigated the situation. That would be like saying if an undercover cop on a prostitution sting replies to the suspect, she’s entrapping him.
Karsnia, the arresting officer is pretty cute, so the only way entrapment applies would be because the officer was too adorable. I doubt that will hold in court.
Whether or no the average man is naturally monogamous or not is irrelevant. Has anyone out there ever heard of something called “choice”?
We are not merely slaves to our desires. Every man who has sex outside his relationship (pre-approved or not) is in that situation, having sex with that person because he CHOSE to do so.
I will admit that we socialize men at a very young age, before they even know what sex is, that to be a man they should get sex as often as possible, with as many different partners as possible. Gays often wholeheartedly support this idea, with some vague notion of responsiblity, safe sex, blah, blah, blah, just have a good time.
And I’m all for having a good time. I just think that whatever we CHOSE to do, we shouldn’t scapegoat it to our “genetic programing”. Boys will be boys is a cop out. “Men aren’t born monogamous” is a cop out. None of us were born potty-trained either, yet we all manage not to pee all over ourselves when the time comes.
I’m a monogamous man. It’s a choice, one that came naturally to me, one that works for me and my partner. If it didn’t we wouldn’t.
If you’re up for an open relationship, then find one that works for you and your partner. If you’re happy, GREAT! Just don’t try to sell me on the notion that you had no choice in whether to be monogamous or not.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Jason: “Just don’t try to sell me on the notion that you had no choice in whether to be monogamous or not.”
Is anyone making an argument about this? Of course being monogamous is a choice. Maybe I missed something…
posted by Jason on
ColoradoPatriot,
You are correct, no one is making that direct point.
But that’s sort of the underlying point of bringing up whether or not we’re wired for monogamy or not. There are fundamentalists on both sides who argue that being genetically pre-dispositioned toward one or the other is a magic trump card.
It looked like the conversation was headed in that direction, so I wanted to bring up “choice” before we got too mired in what it is men are programmed to do or not do.
posted by Dale on
It seems to me that the question of whether we human males are or are not hard-wired for multiple partner sexual behavior is not irrelevant, as has been suggested. Social biologists maintain that the most fundamental drive of living forms, from bacteria to higher mammals, is the preservation and distribution of DNA. Our DNA biologically drives us to preserve it. Thus behavior that favors the preservation of our DNA will also favor survival of our species. Although there are animal species that are monogamous, the males of many more species behave in a polygamous manner, thereby serving to distribute the DNA pool as widely as possible. Those species that behave monogamously are the exception rather than the rule. There must be some survival advantage for those species that causes them to deviate from the more common biological model. The nature of that advantage is not always easily identifiable, just as the survival advantage for homosexuality is not easily identifiable. However we homosexuals do survive and persist, and so some biological advantage must exist for us. Although only a minority of gay men actually pass on their DNA through reproduction, it nevertheless seems conceivable to me that they would share the same genetic sexual drive to preserve DNA that their straight brothers have.
Of course, our actual sexual behavior is influenced by many other factors in addition to genetics, and we can exercise a measure of choice about the extent to which we conform to our genetic codes for sexual behavior or not. But gay men of ?faith? who choose monogamy (which, incidentally, includes me) must understand that God gave them their genetic codes, and if one accepts the premise that God ?don?t make garbage,? then to choose monogamy may demand justification, not the other way around.
One significant reason for choosing monogamy is that it favors family and social bonds and stability, thereby favoring survival of the species (by survival of the DNA pool). Inasmuch as we humans are pretty weak and slow creatures, and inasmuch as we have poor eyesight, hearing, and smell (compared to most other creatures), then social bonding and stability becomes pretty darned valuable as a survival trait. On the other hand, because gay people historically have been excluded from equal membership in many societies, it is perhaps not surprising that many gay men have failed to internalize the social standards of the wider society. Having been treated as outlaws of society, it?s not surprising that many behaved as outlaws from the standards of straights. If, in fact, we are programmed for polygamous sexual behavior, then those who seek multiple partners are behaving in a more natural, God-given fashion than those who do not.
Mind you, I?m well aware that there is no conclusive proof of any of this, but whatever good social and biological scientific evidence that exists clearly leans more toward genetic determinism of our sexual orientation and behavior than not.
I happen to be a faithful member of one of the major branches of organized religion, and I believe that the religions of the world serve some good social purpose by fostering social stability…at least potentially. But I am not blind to the many terrible injustices and atrocities that have been perpetrated, and continue to be perpetrated, by organized religions throughout the world in the name of God. And I would caution any gay person of faith to be exceedingly cautious about directing self-righteous sanctimony toward other gay people whose behavior may differ from his own. For it the latter who may, in fact, be following their God-given nature.
Times are changing. In fact, within the span of my life I have witnessed American social attitudes and values change from a past time when I was a felon by mere definition, to the present time when right to marry is a matter of serious social consideration. Many social institutions that once excluded gay people now welcome them, and there are many social options available today besides bars and seedy locales for furtive and momentary sexual encounters. Bit by incremental bit we are claiming our right to equal citizenship, and we will continue to move in that direction. However, not every gay man or woman has grown out of the outlaw model as fast as those who have led the fight. With time (probably beyond my own time), we will overcome, and all gay people will be able to take their places at the table of life. When that time comes, we will owe thanks to some pretty outrageous and courageous (and sometimes even obnoxious) leaders who carried the banner of justice proudly and without apology and fought the good fight for equality for however long it took. The road is bumpy, but the journey will be successful.
posted by Dan on
James, you have a misunderstanding of biological facts. Even though the mammals you listed tend to partner for life( dolphins have been shown to partner with females and males at the same time for life), most mammals do not. They are serially promiscuous. This is not to say humans should not aspire to monogamy, on the contrary we should. However, my fundamental point here is that it is not innate or natural to be monogamous. That is why institutions such as marriage provide a tangible benefit to couples (gay or straight). As for your statement regarding why gays have not built up a subculture of fidelity, the simple answer is that it was impossible. The very private and personal nature of sexuality resulted in its concealment. Add noxious religious obsession with sex and you’ve got a recipe for species-wide sexual repression. Gays built a subculture outside of society as a response to oppression from this very same society. But we do not exist in a vacuum. Because homosexuality was not regarded as “normal behaviour” until the 1970’s, it would have been essentially unattainable for gays to develop an institution of fidelity. Men having sex with men in bathrooms or other public venues is simply humans dealing with sexual repression from either society or from themselves. Change comes from within the system and from its members. The Frederick Douglas
‘, Rosa Parks, etc. are us. We are the heroes of the gay civil rights movement. And we are achieving a culture of fidelity from within the system.
posted by Anonymous on
“The ambiance–the chemical and bodily odors, the noises, the bustle of people going in and out–doesn’t seem very erotic.” You’ve just described gay bathhouses which you then say “always seemed more attractive and convenient places to scout for sexual partners in the absence of a lover.” Although of course, being the church lady that you are, you’ve never been to one, only heard about them: “Soon after I came out, friends…told me about gay bathhouses.” In other words, you are not only full of contradictions, you are also full of shit. Describing bathroom sex as “seedy” is only your value judgment. To paraphrase Woody Allen, “sex is dirty only if you do it right.” Please don’t describe others sexual practices as “seedy” as you clutch your pearls, it only makes you look dishonest and unqualified to write about something you know nothing about.
posted by ETJB on
Well, their was Harvey Milk as a notable gay hero during the late 1970s. Like Dr. King he was killed. Their certainly are gay heroes, but gay history is something that many people have a hard dealing with honestly.