Pam’s already on the Larry Craig story, but I saw a Sensible Liberal meme boiling up on Matt’s blog that I thought needed addressing. Consider that Craig got picked up for sending cruising signals that would go without being detected by anyone who’s not aware of those signals, signals like foot-tapping, etc.
Now, common sense indicates that the officer in question is correct and Craig’s foot-tapping was a cruising signal, but surely tapping one’s foot isn’t a crime in Minnesota. Whatever Craig intended to do here, he doesn’t seem, in fact, to have done anything lewd. I suppose that Craig, wanting to keep this whole thing hushed up, wouldn’t have wanted to fight the charges, but it’s still hard to see how he could have imagined that it wouldn’t come out sooner or later.
That does bring up a whole host of questions, but I think the best place to address the is to look at Craig’s voting history and really soak in that this is a man who votes by the principle of no panty drawer unsniffed, no phone untapped, no surreptitious glances between young lovers (particularly of the same sex) unregulated. He must know at all time what you’re doing not only with your genitals but with your foot taps.
Is the foot-tapping law unjust? Absolutely.
Is it just for Craig to be hoisted by his own petards? Absolutely.
The unwavering support of Craig and those like him has created a situation where vice cops cruise Minneapolis airport bathrooms. Part of the problem with Craig fighting the law is that he can’t actually mount the defense that Matt’s implying here, which is to point out (rightly) that the law is unjust, because he believes in a world where it’s just to harass gay men for tapping their feet at each other.
The best way to handle this is to use it as a teaching moment. Trying to ban flirting and cruising in public places is Draconian to an extreme, a law that can’t even be obeyed by its most ardent supporters. The laws need to be overturned, but the people who pass them and then break them deserve everything that happens to them.
44 Responses to “When panty sniffing comes back to bite you on the ass”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Amanda,
I agree completely with what you say here. One thing for the discussion, though, is that we do need to be careful to keep separate the concepts of “legal” and “moral.”
The toe-tapping law would be legally unjust, but the petard hoisting is morally just. It’s a distinction I know that you make, but in a thread like this, it could get messy fast.
I object just as strongly to an asshole getting picked up in a police morals sting as to an otherwise unoffensive person being picked up — on principle. If, on the other hand, people like Craig are going to make it a crime, I can still take joy in seeing him caught in his own net, the moron.
This sting, though, still confuses me. Unless he actually whipped something out in front of the officer, or actually propositioned him for something illegal (and it better involve money), I still don’t see what the actual crime was. Do they really have laws that are effectively “intent to commit” lewd acts?
I suspect it is one of those situations where the law is absolutely invalid, but nobody legally or politically is willing to go on record opposing it, because it involves sex, like the stupid dildo laws in Texas.
LARRY CRAIG:
Our great Mikado, virtuous man,
When he to rule our land began,
Resolved to try
A plan whereby
Young men might best be steadied.
So he decreed, in words succinct,
That all who flirted, leered or winked
(Unless connubially linked),
Should forthwith be beheaded,
Beheaded, beheaded,
Should forthwith be beheaded.
And I expect you’ll all agree
That he was right to so decree.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right as right can be!
CHORUS
And you are right.
And we are right,
And all is right, is right as right can be!
Pish-Tush & Chorus.
And all is right as right can be,
Right as right can be!
LARRY CRAIG
This stem decree, you’ll understand,
Caused great dismay throughout the land!
For young and old
And shy and bold
Were equally affected.
The youth who winked a roving eye,
Or breathed a non-connubial sigh,
Was thereupon condemned to die —
He usually objected,
Objected, objected,
He usually objected.
And you’ll allow, as I expect,
That he was right to so object.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And everything is quite correct!
CHORUS
And you are right,
And we are right,
And everything is quite, is quite correct!
LARRY CRAIG AND CHORUS
And everything is quite correct,
All is quite correct!
LARRY CRAIG
And so we straight let out on bail
A convict from the county jail,
Whose head was next
On some pretext
Condemned to be mown off,
And made him Headsman, for we said,
“Who’s next to be decapited
Cannot cut off another’s head
Until he’s cut his own off,
His own off, his own off,
Until he’s cut his own off.”
And we are right, I think you’ll say,
To argue in this kind of way;
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right — too-loo-ral-lay!
CHORUS
And you are right,
And we are right,
And all is right — too-loo-ral, loo-ral-lay!
LARRY CRAIG AND CHORUS
And you are right,
And we are right,
And all is right!
Another interesting question is: who was complaining about excessive toe-tapping? Craig’s supporters in the KK-Kristian right?
And what if the toe-tapping signals aren’t really cruising signals, but some variation on the old “hippies smoking banana peels” gag? Kind of like the military investigators who heard about gays being called “friends of Dorothy” and started cruising gay bars asking whether anyone knew Dorothy’s last name…
I would like to respectfully disagree.
Long have I fought for the right, in the Marines, in college, in professional life, for everybody of every sexual inclination and identity to live alongside each every other in peace and unsegregated harmony.
Ain’t no law, and there shouldn’t be no law, against flirting or cruising in a public or semi-public place. I’m not going to join that “sensible” crowd that says “Teh GAY should just not kiss or hold hands or hug in public because it’s Teh ICKY.”
However, there are laws, and there should be laws, that aim to discourage, if not prevent, the kind of behavior I’ve been subject to in public places:
- having to hold the stall door against an aggressive and mistaken suitor in an O’Hare (!) restroom when I was 16, shouting “Get out!”
- Pulling up early Saturday morning to walk the dogs at Walnut Creek Park and stumbling along Joe sixpack getting blown by Joe 24-pack in the front seat of the Outback. (kinda rhymes.)
- Now, it turns out that this is “known” behavior in Austin, but I was unaware of it until I took the back way behind Pease Park going southbound one day with my daughter. (she was 1, not impressionable) and seeing two men sans trousers walking to their cars. Strange indeed, as they were both wearing nice shirts. I don’t go that way anymore, but is it inherent on me to modify my perfectly legal behavior? I’m not a wiltingflowerpearlclutcher who wants to enjoy my right to go to XXX viewing booths without being disturbed, but I really like driving to work any way I choose.
- Cruising at Gold’s Gym is okay, I guess, because I really ain’t stare-worthy. Cruising in the Gold’s Gym locker room is Teh Not Okay, and it’s just as unflattering to be flashed in the locker room as it is to be flashed on the street.
So, the arguments against foot-tapping laws are all well and good, I just want to make sure that laws against public lewdness and indecency with a child are protected accordingly.
Finally, I want to make sure that everybody understands that in NO WAY am I trying to minimize the experience of girls and women in public places and how phenomenally demeaning a walk down the street to school or work can be. Nor am I advocating special enforcement for sex crimes against boys and men over enforcement for sex crimes against girls and women. I just felt that there was an unexplored facet to this argument.
PS - I agree - foot-tapping is an unjust bust, but only in a legal sense for the rest of us, and not a Karmic sense for Larry Craig.
People should also be able to use the can without being (invasively) solicited for sex, or without having to deal with others using it for sex.
Apart from the signals of foot tapping, I’d like to see more people learn the meaning of the phrase “get a room,” or even “get in one of your cars.”
I think the foot tapping has been getting undue attention. The clutch action in the police report - which may not be the entirety of the evidence - is that he stuck his foot into the other stall and touched the police officer’s foot.
I’m kinda torn on this one, because on the one hand, Craig deserved to be outted in the worst possible way, due to his huge self-hating homophobic hypocrisy. I’m very pro outting as a political strategy when it comes to men like him.
However, laws like this as SPECIFICALLY used to target the LGBT community, and more particularly, gay men. Just like the ancient sodomy laws that remained on the books were used as justification to harass and dehumanise queers before Lawrence v. Texas rightly deemed such laws unconstitutional, these kind of public laws are used to victimise the already disempowered almost exclusively.
Nonetheless, merely saying that because it was just a proposition that “nothing happened” is not the right reaction I feel either. Women most definitely know that a proposition can very frequently end up as more than just “nothing happening”, as being an act of violence itself, even if there was no physicality involved in it, and I wouldn’t hesitate to conclude some men may feel victimised in similar situations from other men; cornered so to speak.
So, I tend to think I am hesitantly in favour of convictions such as this. Do I think this specific case against Craig is maybe a bit of a stretch? Probably. But I think the “nothing happened” yardstick is a potentially dangerous line to draw.
Let’s just watch ourselves about this “toe-tapping” thing. By saying things like “Craig got busted for toe-tapping,” we’re actually helping construct the winger storyline.
It’s true, the vice cop started the encounter by tapping his toe. But it’s not like he saw Craig tap his toe, then kicked in the door of the stall and put the cuffs on him. From the police report that Arun posted:
Yes, this is still short of actually giving the guy a hand job, but the report makes clear that Craig initiated contact and escalated the encounter.
I’m not saying this isn’t entrapment, or weighing in on the correctness of restroom vice stings. I’m just saying that “Craig got busted for tapping his foot” is as accurate as saying “I got busted for asking the time” when my query was actually an opening to request a dime bag.
Mark my words, you’re going to hear “Liberals think it’s a crime for conservatives to tap their feet” all over the noisemachine as this story plays out.
Maybe that’s what he plead to in order to keep other aspects of his behavior that day out of the official record. If he was nabbed for just tapping his foot, he would’ve fought it. Seeing the inconsistency of arguing for this kind of law and then fighting it tooth and nail is not a strong suit of the right. This will not be a teaching moment of any kind, unfortunately.
On second thought, don’t mark those words of mine. Reading Greenwald, it sounds like the right-wing windbags are too busy distancing themselves from Craig the Filthy Homosexual to bother claiming it’s a bum rap.
The question of whether hypocritically-gay public political figures deserve to be outed presents a strange confluence of conflicts.
On the one hand, I think people deserve to keep their sexual lives private, whether gay, straight or otherwise.
On the other, outing only has power so long as being gay is deemed somehow shameful. If people really knew how many people are gay, especially public figures they admire, would the idea of a person being gay lose its perceived “shame” in the U.S.?
Amanda,
To me civil liberties apply even to those who would destroy them, so while the heart agrees that people who make the liberty-violating laws and then break them deserve what happens to them, the head cannot agree.
blondie,
The closet is not a right. Indeed, the closet is not about individual privacy.
The closet is an oppressive institution that must be destroyed. It is the closet–and the practices that produce it–that says homosexuality is shamefull and must therefore be hidden. Hell, it was heterosexuals that produced the closet and insisted we stay in it. Fuck that. Smash the goddamn thing.
Cris:
It’s not. Entrapment is when the authorities induce someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed without the authorites’ actions. Clearly, Craig was there of his own volition and with the specific intent to troll for sex, and was just unlucky enough to proposition an undercover officer.
I believe the report also stated that Craig peeked into the stall numerous times. So it wasn’t just toe-tapping. The whole situation, not any one part of it, makes for the evidence that led to the charge Craig copped a plea to.
As to the question of whether or not public restrooms should be pickup places? I say no. Such places should not be used for sex, either solo or paired or groups. Why? First of all, most people (even horny gay men and schoolchildren and Congresspeople) would like to pee and poop without getting bothered by horndogs. And secondly, they’re toilets for everyone! I think sex in a car is okay (as long as you are parked with some discretion.) I even think a park blanket is okay, but not on a bare picnic table (unless it is your own, and again, with discretion.) Simple courtesy can avoid most of the problems.
The crime shouldn’t be public indecency but rudeness. Some sort of shaming should occur not because the person is gay, but rude. I’m not sure how to actually write laws that would get the worst offenders to stop, but I think the main point is that everyone should lighten up and whatever penalties should involve scrubbing toilets rather than jail time.
But when it all comes to the rubber hitting the road, the problem is the closet. No sane policy can change the fact that self-loathing losers cannot come to grips with reality.
Like most people here, I too am torn. Torn between delicious schadenfreude (a German dish I may not be spelling correctly) and a sense that this Craig bastard did nothing that should, in fact, be actionable in a court of law.
I’m going to call it sloppy police work — the cop should have held out for some bona fide “lewd” behavior. Even on that, I’m torn. I’d like to be able to take my kid to Reverchon Park (subsitute your town’s cruise spot here) without the fear of stumbling across scenes of public gay sex. Taxpayers pay for that park, dammit, and it should belong to all of us. Yet, the way the laws are structured seem nearly to make homosexuality itself illegal. And when they do bust cruisers, whom I find mildly objectionable, it’s tantamount to entrapment in my view — which outrages me much, much more than public gay sex. And when I talk to gay people who’ve been busted for Public Lewdness, I feel nothing but sympathy mixed with contempt for the cops.
So.
I think the great and unexpected tactic for liberals to take would be to leap to Craig’s defense. The Republicans won’t know what to make of that! Imagine Craig’s utter bewilderment!
Well, Arun, that’s the beauty of this bust–the wingers have created laws that violate civil rights, and one of their own gets caught up in machinery, evil machinery, he himself helped create.
The obvious progressive reaction, IMHO, is to say to him and rightists generally, that we think nobody should be arrested for this, therefore of course we support this individual bozo’s civil rights–along with all the other losers this guy was happy to see arrested. All or nothing is the only fair way.
Because being solicitous for one guy, just because he has power and influence, is the very opposite of the concept of civil rights; it is immoral in itself, and also the immorality of him walking while the others go to jail would greatly compound the evil and transform the already intolerable injustice of the rights-violating law into a plain tool of selective enforcement used to batter down those the authorities may dislike for quite other, non-actionable, reasons.
We have, of course, a lot of laws and “moral” rules of that type in this society.
Even more so, the fact that Craig presented his Senate business card and said “what do you think of that” means that he believes, specifically, in a world where most gay men can get harassed for cruising in restrooms, but not those who are very privileged.
it’s a hard knock life for Craig, isn’t it? i think what we’re forgetting is that the way these police and people like Craig do business, homosex is something that happens in public in male-only spaces. the same patriarchy that insists on having most of the world consist of those spaces is the one that provides cover to closeted gay men, ensuring that homosex and homophobia magically work in tandem to secure the patriarchy. it was so unthinkable to actually get busted until people like Larry Craig came along that people like him haven’t really caught up to how much homosex now takes place in private. people like him make laws that lead bathrooms to be one of the only places their old-fashioned closet-sex can take place, and forget that they set the trap all too well. i think it’s key to throw out the “foot tapping” story because it’s BS that he was busted for that, but i also think it’s sort of like disagreeing with what he says but defending his right to say it to argue that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for soliciting sex in public, under the circumstances. i mean they never even did the deed. it’s not as if he’s not gay just because he’s not successful in picking up the cop. but the story is all too common that he gets to write this off as a misunderstanding just because there isn’t a blue dress to prove something lewd happened. i say let him walk, on the condition that *everyone* who cruises gets to walk.
As people are saying here, he wasn’t arrested for toe-tapping. He wasn’t charged with “lewd conduct.” He was charged with gross misdemeanor interference to privacy:
It’s not in that linked article (and I haven’t found a source for it yet), but in Matt’s comments someone says that Craig was lingering outside of the officer’s stall for 2 minutes, looking in through the crack a few times. That was followed by him putting his foot and then his hand under the stall.
So assuming he was arrested for invading the privacy of someone in a bathroom, I wouldn’t have a problem with that conduct being illegal. I’d be pretty freaked out if someone was hanging around outside my stall, looking in, and putting his foot and hand under the stall. (However, I do have a problem with police wasting their time trying to catch people cruising for sex in bathrooms.)
Couple of things.
There is no ****ing way someone puts their foot up against another guy’s accidentally. No way. Men’s rooms are bastions of homophobic solitude where you stay as far away from everyone else, remain silent, and stare dead even in front of you. Lest you be thought of as having The Gay. There’s no way a homophobe like this wasn’t aware of the men’s room codes.
Back when I was a guy (and underage), I had some freako trying to pass notes under the stall door. It was a terrifying horrible experience and it should be a crime. I’m sorry if it happens to target men looking for sex with men, but picking up strangers in the men’s room is messed up. Go to a bar. Go to Craig’s List. Go to Bear 911. Go WTF ever. Come out of the freaking closet. It doesn’t belong in public.
The full description of this clown’s actions include peeking through the door, sticking his hand under, and so on. This is not just tippity tapping your foot to a happy tune.
He wasn’t “outed” for same sex partnerships or even adulterous partnerships but investigated for a long history of sexual predation (on minors) and for invasively soliciting unwilling partners.
Whether it’s same or opposite sex partners shouldn’t romanticize or excuse his behavior, nor should he get a pass because being a closeted gay makes him one of “ours”.
That’s ridiculous. I couldn’t care less about people’s private business, particularly sex between consenting partners.
I do care about the abuse of public resources: they belong to a wide spectrum of moral views and who should have equal access, Craig created a fraudulent “moral values” reputation both to access public resources and to use as an extrajudicial means to deprive others of basic human rights.
Take him the fuck down and hard.
serena kitt,
I hope I’m reading your comment wrong, but it appears you are woefully ignorant about how the cops have used public cruising areas to harrass and entrap gay men for decades. Your post almost makes it seem as though we were in some kind of consentual dance with the Pigs, when that was the furthest thing from the truth.
Echo, you missed the point. I’m not saying the law is just, that Craig should be held to account and liberals can use this case to point to why the law is unjust—even its supporters can’t abide by it.
What is the law exactly? And how are we defining “cruising” exactly? This discussion hinges on those two things.
Entrapment and arrest-for-flirtation is despicable. Usually, the cops wait for the fella to grab their crotch or something, but even that is blatant entrapment, since the cop is posing as a willing partner.
However, public sex, I think we can most of us agree, should be curtailed as much as possible. Please!
The biggest problem I have with most of this sort of sting operation - which this particular case and cop were NOT guilty of — is that the charges are generally public lewdness or the equivalent, but that the only people present are mutually consenting.
When a cop comes on to someone and they respond, unless there is a third person present, or the entrapee does not cut off the behavior when a third person shows up, it does not meet my definition of ‘public” in the sense that some unsuspecting and unwilling member of the public could get subjected to it.
If they wanted to set up stings with two cops, and only charge the people who acted in front someone who didn’t come on to him, then I would have less trouble with it.
This case, the cop was pretty clear to report that there were other people present. Not that some toe tapping in a stall should freak anyone out overly, but that is a different issue.
Well, here’s a copy of the police report, if people want to read exactly what happened.
After reading that, I think it’s bullshit that he was arrested and charged with a crime.
Excuse me, he wasn’t “toe-tapping”, he was tapping his foot against another guy’s foot. A guy who happened to be in the next stall. “Wide stance” my ass. It wasn’t like he was tappng his toe to his favorite song or anything, y’know.
And has anyone pointed out that your anti-spam code is really heard to read?
Oh, but I do agree with Amanda’s point. You reap what you sow.
Thanks to Raging Red for linking to the police report!
From that we see the officer intended to charge Craig with MSS 609.746 and MSS 609.72
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/?resultpage=2&
“Craig was photographed, fingerprinted, and released pending formal complaint for Interference with Privacy (MSS 609.746) and Disorderly Conduct (609.72) at 1305 hours.”
MSS 609.746 is here:
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.746&year=2006
I think this is the relevant part:
“c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.”
MSS 609.72 is here:
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.72&year=2006
which I don’t understand how it is applicable.
Not sure whether a comment of mine has been lost in the ether, so:
read the last sentence of the police report,
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/?resultpage=2
then
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.72&year=2006
and
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.746&year=2006
Amanda,
I was completely obtuse, my apologies.
Amanda wrote:
The unwavering support of Craig and those like him has created a situation where vice cops cruise Minneapolis airport bathrooms. Part of the problem with Craig fighting the law is that he can’t actually mount the defense that Matt’s implying here, which is to point out (rightly) that the law is unjust, because he believes in a world where it’s just to harass gay men for tapping their feet at each other.
And I partially agree. Just as as “tough on crime” signifies “tough on brown folks” in Wingnut Code, “tough on perverts” signifies “tough on Teh icky Ghey!11!!” in Wingnut Code. No illusions there.
But the law isn’t against tapping your foot at another man, the law is against solicitation of sex in a public place. A law I’m glad to have, that’s all my argument is.
It ain’t a perfect world, however, and the cops still bust men seeking gay sex in private businesses and even in private residences. That’s where it’s obvious that the law designed to allow us to crap in peace is being used to bust men seeking gay sex.
If we apply enforcement across all sexual preferences and limit it to truly public places, then the law is just, and should stand.
If we limit it to harass men seeking gay sex and expand the venues to everywhere they might seek it, then the law is unjust.
Hope I was clearer.
___
Mouse be with you.
Shorter Dana: The real bigots are people that are ant-bigotry. So intolerant of the intolerant. *tsk tsk*
Conservatives: Still think that “I’m rubber, you’re glue” is fucking brilliant.
Echo (and others), I’m sure the law is being misapplied generally, and in some cases rather than others. But really, I’m not a lawyer, but peering into a stall, repeatedly, and running your left hand under the right edge of a stall, would seem to fall under the definition of interference with privacy, if not disorderly conduct. Like I said, I have no doubts the application of the law is one-sided, but you have to have some legal remedy to the guy with binoculars standing on the sidewalk saying “But I’m just looking in her window from a public sidewalk! I didn’t DO anything!”
It’s a misdemeanor, with a fine as the penalty. The size deal it is would seem to be deducible by the fact that it was more than two months before anyone found out. It’s the homophobia of Craig specifically and the GOP in general that make this a political hoo-hah, and that’s their problem.
It’s a misdemeanor, with a fine as the penalty. The size deal it is would seem to be deducible by the fact that it was more than two months before anyone found out.
Well, is it a sex offense?
Amanda, was that comment for Dana for the other thread? I don’t see any of his jackbooted bigotry here.
Hi, Coin. I don’t think it is a sex offense, strictly. The circumstances under which it happened, though, point up the cul de sac Craig and the Republicans have built for themselves.
Put it this way: Being charged with disorderly conduct in a strip joint isn’t a sex offense per se. But Mitt Romney facing - hell, admitting - those charges would still have a lot of explaining to do.
It was. But he was touting a variation of the “liberals are so INTOLERANT” crap.
yeah, I saw it, and he was.
It’s amazing that he doesn’t get or care about how Craig’s actions–and those of the “good” people of Idaho, and “good” people like Dana–are making people’s lives worse.
MAJEff, I think I was agreeing with you. The closet is a fiction that has only the authority or power we, as a society, give to it. I wish we (i.e., the U.S.) could do like Carville suggested this a.m., –get past the “idiot culture wars” whose flames were fanned by Bush., et al., — stop worrying about people’s sexual lives, and focus our concern on things that should keep us from sleeping at night, like the fact that we’re using up our world, and what we’re not using up, we’re wrecking.
But, I admit, the small side of me titters at Craig’s comeuppence.
Maybe his tapping actually propositioned the officer in Morse code.
My God, how many gay sex scandals for the Republican Party does this make now? Is there a Republican out there who isn’t secretly thirsting for Teh Cock?
I don’t know where the lewd conduct story started but it is incorrect. Larry Craig was charged with a misdemeanor charge for looking at the undercover cop through the “crack” between the door and frame of the stall. He was also charged with disorderly conduct for loudly arguing with the cop when the cop wanted Craig to leave with him and Craig did not want to go. Copies of the arrest documents, interview transcript, other pertinent documents can be read here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html
I don’t know where the lewd conduct story started but it is incorrect. Larry Craig was charged with a misdemeanor charge for looking at the undercover cop through the “crack” between the door and frame of the stall. He was also charged with disorderly conduct for loudly arguing with the cop when the cop wanted Craig to leave with him and Craig did not want to go. Copies of the arrest documents, interview transcript, other pertinent documents can be read here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html
I read everyone’s comments and I didn’t see anyone mention the one thing my wife and I thought as odd.
Isn’t it disgusting to even think of having sex in a bathroom?
How gross!! For christ’s sake, what kind of a person would want to do anything like that next to a dirty toilet.
Yuck!!