Now that Senator Craig is resigning, it’s time for everyone to pull up a chair and start talking about all the double standards that have been exposed by this little bathroom sex incident. First, the double standard of David Vitter vs. Larry Craig—even though the former’s crime was arguably worse than the latter’s (hiring a prostitute is both legally and ethically more suspect than simply signaling that you want sex-between-equals), Craig was pressured into resigning when Vitter wasn’t. But of course, homophobia couldn’t possibly be the reason, right?
A GOP leader Sunday denied a double standard in pushing Sen. Larry Craig to resign after a sex sting guilty plea, while remaining silent over GOP Sen. David Vitter’s involvement with an escort service.
A senior Democrat said a double standard by Republican leaders is exactly what occurred.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., the Senate Republican campaign chairman, said Craig “admitted guilt. That is a big difference between being accused of something and actually admitting guilt.”
I find it interesting that Republicans try to deny homophobic motivations in an atmosphere where they still run on undisguised homophobia. Being against same-sex marriage and for sodomy laws is to homophobia as opposing the CRA is to racism—definitional, really. I can see a day down the road after marriage equality is the law of the land where Republicans move to Phase II of homophobia, where they do what they do with racism now and pretend that they gays are just oppressing themselves, but we’re not quite there yet. They’re fooling no one with the “we’re not homophobes” line.
Anyway, the “Vitter didn’t admit it” hedge is a lie. The situations are basically the same, with the men caught in the act and an admission-through-denial. The only difference is that Vitter got outed after the statute of limitations ran out.
But in this case, it seems that it’s not just homophobia feeding the double standard—it’s plain old partisanship, too. As the article notes, Vitter would be replaced by a Democrat and Craig with a Republican, so the Republicans have to hold onto Vitter so as not to lose a seat. Still, when it comes to the rabid base, it’s clear that homophobia is the selling point for the double standard.
A more interesting double standard issue cropped up at LGM, after Scott linked to this post where the blogger points out that the idea that vice cops need to sit in bathrooms to prevent harassment doesn’t hold up, unless you think that men and men only deserve protection from harassment, because what Craig did to that cop was nothing compared to what women put up with from men on a daily basis in terms of public abuse.
Given the constant, daily harassment women endure (come on now, don’t tune out; stay with me, here) — harassment that makes us compress our daily activities into daylight hours, that circumscribes where we go, who we go with, and even what we wear; intrusive harassment, ruin-your-day, make-you-feel-powerless/angry/depressed harassment — the overzealous prosecution of the toe-tapper really pisses me off.
Which led to an interesting thought experiment on LGM—if tapping your toe in a bathroom is a crime, shouldn’t harassing women be a crime?* It makes more sense to make harassment illegal and to enforce it than this toe-tapping crap for a number of reasons:
- Harassment of women is more common.
- Harassment of women has a specific victim, whereas the toe-tapping thing at best has inadvertent ones (people who stumble across you fucking).
- Harassment of women is a hate crime that makes women as a class fearful of going into public alone.
- The consenting adult issue is a non-issue with harassment, since women are not generally consenting to having guys scream at you from moving vehicles or from the sidewalk while you try to ignore them and hope they leave you alone.
- Vice cops could pick up harassers without any semblance of an entrapment issue, since actively trying not to get harassed has no bearing on whether it would happen to you.
The last one is interesting, because even though the cop in the Craig case didn’t entrap him by legal standards, he did so by any measure short of the strictly legal one.
That said, what results! In minute, choreographic detail, Mr. Humphreys (who died in 1988) illustrated that various signals — the foot tapping, the hand waving and the body positioning — are all parts of a delicate ritual of call and answer, an elaborate series of codes that require the proper response for the initiator to continue. Put simply, a straight man would be left alone after that first tap or cough or look went unanswered.
Why? The initiator does not want to be beaten up or arrested or chased by teenagers, so he engages in safeguards to ensure that any physical advance will be reciprocated. As Mr. Humphreys put it, “because of cautions built into the strategies of these encounters, no man need fear being molested in such facilities.”
Mr. Humphreys’s aim was not just academic: he was trying to illustrate to the public and the police that straight men would not be harassed in these bathrooms. His findings would seem to suggest the implausibility not only of Senator Craig’s denial — that it was all a misunderstanding — but also of the policeman’s assertion that he was a passive participant. If the code was being followed, it is likely that both men would have to have been acting consciously for the signals to continue.
The only argument for busting men soliciting gay sex in bathrooms but not men who harass women in every other way is basically that gay sex is wrong and women who go out alone deserve it. It’s interesting to read at LGM all the various ways that some male commenters try to establish a legal and moral standard that wouldn’t allow for busting men soliciting consensual encounters in restrooms but would allow men to harass women, but they can’t really find one outside of “gays are gross/women shouldn’t be allowed outside without an escort anyway”. Public nuisance? Harassing women is far more of a nuisance, unless you think that women’s feelings shouldn’t matter when defining “public nuisance”. One commenter in desperation just denies openly that women get harassed that often, which may be true if you never leave the house without a male chaperone, a standard I thought Americans should be past in the 21st century.
Scott did a follow-up post commenting on the silly desperation that drives the attempts to preserve a double standard without admitting that you want to preserve a double standard. As expected, the double standard fans continued to seek ways to live in denial.
*It bears mentioning that almost no one who participated in this thought experiment, including myself, thinks cat-calling should be a crime due to logistical and free speech issues. Still, it would be nice if the cops bothered to stop men who follow you around hoping you’ll wander into a secluded spot.
71 Responses to “Double standards”
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>
Why can’t men and women have as simple signs as men and men?
Something else I talked about recently on my Lycos blog. The GOP is the party of double standards.
Amanda — you and Pamela need to keep reporting on the hypocrisy in the GOP and their blatant failure to call for the resignation of Sen. Vitter.
Why can’t men and women have as simple signs as men and men?
Because too many men already argue that no means yes. Imagine what they’d do if they were allowed to interpret hand gestures as invitations to sex.
Arun, I’d read that article from the NY Times. Maybe out gay men have an easy time of it, but the closet cases bathroom dance is extremely complex, far beyond anything I’ve seen straight people have to suffer.
One other side of the double standard is that Craig’s replacement will be appointed by a Republican governor; Vitter’s replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor.
Richard,
If the GOP was actually about “family values,” Vitter’s replacement will be appointed by a Democratic governor.
Of course, we already know the answer to that one.
No, the only convoluted difference available here is that Craig pled guilty and Vitter just admitted his guilt in a press conference.
Ah, well it makes no difference anyway. Whatever he said can be understood as, “It’s homophobia/partisanship but I’ll never admit that, so fill in your own bullshit.”
I too have feelings of disgust for this whole debacle and feel that the cop, if the sexes were changed, would be accused of entrapment.
I also find it offensive when homophobes start to bellow about how tough they’d be if some gay man ‘came on’ to them.
It is disgusting because such bloviating and braggadocio upholds the standard that the assaulted is responsible for the assault at all times; that only the whimpy and powerless (female) would ever not be able to defend themselves.
Which of course illustrates how clueless the majority of men are about actual sexual harassment or abuse and also how they wish to keep responsibility squarely with the victim, not with the abuser.
But back to Craig, he wasn’t abusing or threatening anyone and I am still incensed that his “courtship” behavior, which women are expected to tolerate and welcome in far more offensive and aggressive fashion, is seen in this instance as cause for arrest.
Of course, to preserve face, Craig won’t challenge that, as his career has always been, let suffer a million after him so that he may enjoy his privilege.
For that offense he deserves no mercy.
Why can’t men and women have as simple signs as men and men?
Out gay men have very clear, simple signs for one reason: the norm is that if a man doesn’t immediately return your interest, you leave him alone and move along.
Which is not to say that stalking and harassment are unknown among gay men. But unlike with heterosexuals, there is no social convention that one type of man initiates and the other must be passive, or that if you’re cruised, you have a moral obligation to “be nice” and gently turn the other person down. There’s no notion that a man who says no is rude, selfish, a frigid jerk, or a tease.
In other words, we’d need an utter absence of straight-male entitlement for het cruise culture to develop. I’m not waiting underwater.
Let’s have another look at that Vitter press conference already.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601348.html
For whatever Vitter admitted, he did not admit to any crimes. Vitter’s whole press conference boiled down to “This is a private matter between me and my wife, this is none of your business, go away and leave us alone.” I know you’re thinking, what the hell did he think that this was all about anyway, but for as much detail as he included, he could just as well have confessed to porking Barbara Bush. It’s a classic non-confession confession, designed to give an appearance of humility and contrition where there is none.
Now, as for Craig, there is no doubt in my mind that, had he pled not guilty, his Republican cohorts would have backed him up to the hilt, just as they did last year. They probably would have turned it around as some sort of liberal persecution of upright, outstanding citizens in their most private moments. Evidence be damned, it would have been a tribal thing.
What made it no longer a tribal thing was that Craig copped a plea. The Republicans can overlook any amount of wrongdoing, as long as you care enough to put forth some cock-and-bull story to cover your ass, but admitting guilt is unforgivable. So we have a rare situation where a Republican leader is giving us the straight-up truth. Sleeping with whores, looting the treasury, politicizing all facets of goverment, outing CIA agents, all fine. Admitting guilt, absolutely unforgivable.
Has anyone done a sociological experiment tracking reactions to being cruised, and to persistent crusing edging over into stalking.
It woud be nice to know is there a scienfitically tested brushoff lines, dress, or rituals.
My persona worries are now dropping to 0, but I have a daughter who’s just started college so I worry.=
As a society we want to be able to empty our bowels in peace, without having people have sex in the next stall. And that was the next move in the Senator Craig-airport cop ritual mating dance. I did not realize this right away, but, being ignorant of the conventions of anonymous restroom sex, I went to Dan Savage’s Savage Love web site. A post Dan made to the Slog Blog linked to this website, from which I quote.
http://wockner.blogspot.com/2007/08/10-million-americans-know-better.html
Larry Craig sat down on a toilet and subtly tapped his foot several times and waited to see if the guy on the other side of the partition subtly tapped his foot in return. This is precisely how T-room cruisers communicate to each other that they’re there to hook up rather than use the facilities.
Larry Craig then took his hand, palm upward, and ran it along the bottom of the stall divider so that the individual on the other side of the partition could see Larry’s fingers making an inviting “come hither” gesture. The police report says he did this three times.
This gesture has a precise meaning and is universally understood in the men’s-room cruising scene. It translates, “Get down on your knees and place your penis underneath the partition so I can touch or fellate it.”
Personally I can’t see the need to have sex in an airport restroom open to males of all ages. There are gay bars, bathhouses, bookstores, etc. We know the participants in that particular restroom weren’t discreet, because the police stakeout was in response to the complaints of other restroom patrons. Which of the women here would want to have to explain to her small son what, precisely, those men were doing in that rest room?
Let’s have another look at that Vitter press conference already.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601348.html
For whatever Vitter admitted, he did not admit to any crimes. Vitter’s whole press conference boiled down to “This is a private matter between me and my wife, this is none of your business, go away and leave us alone.” I know you’re thinking, what the hell did he think that this was all about anyway, but for as much detail as he included, he could just as well have confessed to porking Barbara Bush. It’s a classic non-confession confession, designed to give an appearance of humility and contrition where there is none.
Now, as for Craig, there is no doubt in my mind that, had he pled not guilty, his Republican cohorts would have backed him up to the hilt, just as they did last year. They probably would have turned it around as some sort of liberal persecution of upright, outstanding citizens in their most private moments. Evidence be damned, it would have been a tribal thing.
What made it no longer a tribal thing was that Craig copped a plea. The Republicans can overlook any amount of wrongdoing, as long as you care enough to put forth some cock-and-bull story to cover your ass, but admitting guilt is unforgivable. So we have a rare situation where a Republican leader is giving us the straight-up truth. Sleeping with whores, looting the treasury, politicizing all facets of goverment, outing CIA agents, all fine. Admitting guilt, absolutely unforgivable.
I’ve been cruised, and it only takes an “I’m not interested” to get most gay men to back off. I made the mistake of saying “I’m not gay” which often led to some sort of feeling in many gay men that I was playing hard-to-get. This led to a little game of “Are you really not gay or just trying to make me pursue you in a less obvious way?” on the part of the instigator. (I am not attached to that term, and “agressor” has negative connotations, any suggestions?) I had to be blunt, almost rude at times, but I’ve never felt like I was in any danger saying my denials. And that was true even when an overly agressive guy was dead certain I was gay just because I smiled at him as he smiled at me. I’ve also had someone tell me what my handkerchief meant in the colorful and left-or-right pocketed hanky codes, but I told him it meant I had allergies and was too old to wipe my nose on my sleeve.
As to the question Doctor Science brings up, there is no universal way to not get hit on or to get the point across that someone isn’t interested in someone. Bluntness generally works, but in so many situations there is a question whether or not someone is or is not worth the time of day. Any opening of conversation, dancing, sitting at the same table or whatever can be misconstrued by a suitor. Entitlement is something jerks may have up to their gills, but there’s no sure way to separate the jerks from the gentlemen in the short time it takes to respond to “Is that seat taken?” I guess you can tell your daughter to be prickly and distrustful to all men to avoid any problems, but that’s probably not the best idea for other reasons.
kate:
Nope. Still not entrapment.
It’s very simple, folks:
An undercover cop solicits you == entrapment.
You solicit an undercover cop == not entrapment.
I’d be creeped out getting eyeballed through a crack in my bathroom stall door, followed by a foot and later a hand groping under the partition regardless of the gender doing it. (YMMV on whether persistence past the no thanks stage is harassment.)
I don’t know whether these initial details factor into the entrenchment of positions on this, but what struck me about the GOP Craig vs. Vittier double standard was the element of the Dog that Didn’t Bark.
Namely, what happened to the Rethugs’ Doublest Double Standard of All: the DeLay/Libby standard for politicians that media, opposition party and public STFU until the scumbag was convictged of a crime?
Never mind the Old Skool rulez of the mere appearance of impropriety that were in place before the Bush Cheney Gang literally took office. For DeLay the bar kept getting moved past actual guilt, and for Libby it went beyond to include complete exhaustion of the appeals process.
Wouldn’t the position on Craig and Vitter — or any Rethug doing the recourse for Me but Not for Thee thing they do — equally welcome the public trial in the full light of day that the psychotic Commander in Chief of the War on Whatever tried to deny to millions with a magical swipe of his Law Disappearing Executive Crayon??
The double standard will continue to exist as long as women refrain from engaging in anonymous restroom sex.
“Namely, what happened to the Rethugs’ Doublest Double Standard of All: the DeLay/Libby standard for politicians that media, opposition party and public STFU until the scumbag was convictged of a crime?
Never mind the Old Skool rulez of the mere appearance of impropriety that were in place before the Bush Cheney Gang literally took office. For DeLay the bar kept getting moved past actual guilt, and for Libby it went beyond to include complete exhaustion of the appeals process.”
Don’t forget Haditha.
Even though the evidence is clear that the soldiers broke the rules of engagement in firing at unarmed children, we must hate John Murtha for daring to bring this up, and smear his miltary record! And the troops are innocent until proven innocent!!
As a society, Hector, we want women to be able to walk around in peace even if they aren’t chaperoned by men.
Agree? Disagree? Do you think that cat-calling, stalking, and barely concealed threats of rape are good ways to control unruly female walking?
An undercover cop solicits you == entrapment.
You solicit an undercover cop == not entrapment.
I don’t think that Craig would have an entrapment case, but it’s interesting to note that the gay bathroom dance is pretty delicate and if the cop hadn’t signaled back, Craig almost surely would have stopped. The cop solicited him back, I’m sure of it, and didn’t report his signals in the report.
It woud be nice to know is there a scienfitically tested brushoff lines, dress, or rituals.
According to the article, if you’re approached by a gay man in this circumstance, yes.
For women, however, giving a man a brush-off is often taken as an insult and therefore a reason to escalate the harassment.
I think the difference is few cat-callers actually are hitting on you. That’s the cover story, sure. In theory, the groups of guys that yell “Cunt!” at you on the sidewalk are hoping you’ll go, “Heeeeeeeeey” and jump in for a gang-bang. But it’s a pretty shallow cover story. I think they cat-call, stalk, and harass because they get off on your fear.
And women know this, which is why the only two reactions that you want to give are ignoring them and confronting them, two ways to signal that you are not afraid. Unfortunately, you often have to give them the reaction they want—fear—in some cases, as we all are no doubt aware.
Hector, we want women to be able to walk around in peace even if they aren’t chaperoned by men.
I don’t disagree with this. But the way that many women dress communicates a different message (I’m not saying they’re the only ones approached, but … just sayin).
Oh, so women are asking for it, Libertarian?
Lib,
I don’t care if a woman goes naked except for Day-Glo body paint arranged in arrows and wiggly rays centered on her breasts and pubic area, I still wouldn’t assume she was “saying” I, or anyone, thereby had a right to approach her in any way but politely. She would in no way be waiving her right to turn down anyone and everyone.
Under those circumstances I’d think it perverse if she objected to being looked at–politely and respectfully. (If she did, I’d wonder if some kind of political guerilla theatre operation were going on–and comply with her wishes, probably by leaving in something of a snit.) But the message “look at me, aren’t I beautiful to behold” doesn’t elide into “you have physical access to me.” Period.
The same goes for everyone else of course. A gay guy displaying the hanky code or whatever those kids are doing these days does not thereby agree to have sex with the first cruiser who comes along, even if said cruiser is displaying the complementary codes.
Um, “Libertarian,” aren’t I making libertarian points here? Why would you say otherwise?
It’s times like these that I can hardly believe just how uncivilized America can be.
Even IF a woman’s style of dressing were intended as an invitation,why would a man presume that invitation was directed at him in particular?Oh,right:Because he’s the center of the f#*king universe!Silly me,I forgot…
Not to mention that the average person, but let’s limit it to women, who dresses to impress, look fabulous, or even dress inticingly with an eye toward getting invitations that they want to get is probably not going to be overly upset by doubletakes, smiles, polite nods, or other civilized responses.
To take Mark Foxwell’s point just a little bit further, there is also a big difference even when the point was “look at me, aren’t I beautiful to behold” between “so admire me and politely enjoy what you see” and “behave like a drooling animal.”
“She obviously wanted attention” may be true, but it doesn’t follow that all forms of attention are appropriate, or that the inappropriate ones are her fault.
Ellie,
Not to discount your “be creeped out by somebody eyeballing me” point, but again, with the way bathroom cruising generally works, someone’s first pass of “eyeballing” usually takes the form of a quick check that would be easily taken as a “is somebody in the stall” (and while it might be assumed that looking for feet would be easier, it doesn’t seem that odd).
Chances are it was preceded by a feet check - and by golly, there are feet, but no pants around ankles. So realize that the quick check establishes that there is a guy sitting on the john without having his pants down.
It is extremely likely that the cop did NOT have his pants down around his ankles, making the idea that perhaps he was a person in the restroom for something other than “innocent” activity far more likely.
So the dance began.
People react in horror and creepiness based on the concept that somebody was going to barge in and assault them, so they need protection. But the truth is that a whole lot of “just slightly unusual” cues need to be sent and responded to before it gets anywhere near something blatant.
All the guys who say they have never been cruised in a restroom may well not have, but they also may well have, and not sent or responded to any of a number of cues, which would have shut everything down instantly.
It is incredibly unlikely that Craig just sat down and started fumbling under the divider wall. The cop had to do quite a number of things first. It’s why they need to do the sting operations, rather than just stand outside the door and take complaints from the citizenry about the solicitations.
That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but let’s make judgments about what really goes on, not about the scare stories.
Then again, maybe Craig WAS that stupid. We don’t and won’t know from the reports or media coverage.
/Harassment/ Libertarian. Not eye contact, not an exchange of words, not being looked at. Harassment - how does dressing in a certain way waive anyone’s right to harassment?
Libertarian makes an excellent example of one reason straight men are so freaked out by the mere thought of a gay man hitting on them. Sexual advances are something aggressive, and the person receiving them invited them, or at least deserves them. So a straight guy like Lib. can’t imagine what they might possibly have done to deserve this horrible attention.
ploeg, what made it ‘not a tribal thing’ is that it was gay. Remember Ryan? He was forced out because he admitted he did something perfectly legal–taking his wife to swingers’ clubs–which is Icky and Gross by GOP standards. Whereas paying for sex a la Vitter, hell, it may be illegal but that’s just good ol’ red-blooded manhood.
Amanda — I can see how being hit on is annoying, threatening, and even degrading. However, it is a different kind of annoyance from people having sex in your restroom. I found out after visiting Dan Savage’s Savage Love page that the next step in the ritual would have been a sex act right then and there. On his home paper’s blog (the SLOG), Savage posted a link to a seasoned cruiser’s description of how cruising works:
http://wockner.blogspot.com/2007/08/10-million-americans-know-better.html
The law is designed to prevent sex acts in public places open to males of all ages, not to prevent straight men from being hit on. If you were flying with a little boy to visit Grandma, how willing would you be to send him into this restroom? Look at your illustration: he could easily see one man kneeling on the floor of his stall. How would you explain to him what those men were doing? We know men were not discreet in that restroom, because patron complaints motivated the stakeout.
I think the difference is few cat-callers actually are hitting on you. That’s the cover story, sure. In theory, the groups of guys that yell “Cunt!” at you on the sidewalk are hoping you’ll go, “Heeeeeeeeey” and jump in for a gang-bang. But it’s a pretty shallow cover story. I think they cat-call, stalk, and harass because they get off on your fear.
Where does the line on free speech come in, then? If their point is to make the woman afraid, is that any different than yelling “Nigger” at an African-American? And how do free speech rules handle that situtation?
I just realized I have no clue about where “free speech” applies when the speech is a) targeted at an individual and b) designed to intimidate. Can anyone enlighten me?
Still, Hector, even if you think it’s too extreme to wish for a future in which there would be no shame attached to sex acts as such and therefore there would be no problem explaining it to the boys (but then, in such a future, people probably wouldn’t seek such encounters in the furtive semi-privacy of restrooms anyway, so that problem would be pretty much solved)…
Still, if it isn’t homophobia and the denunciation of gay sex as such that is the agenda here, why not simply empower the police to issue tickets and orders to immediately vacate the premises to people they catch making such public nuisances of themselves? The ticket might be something kept confidential or dischargable by something analogous to traffic school–but used as evidence for strict penalties if an individual is caught a second time.
In security, the idea is to detect, report, and deter, not to “root out the bad guys.” One seeks to change the situation and dynamic so people don’t do things that violate other people’s legitimate interest–in private security, to discourage people from violating one’s property rights. Police of course have a more active function. But if what is desired is to end the nuisance with minimum violation of people’s rights, deterrence is better than being punitive. (Another good idea–providing alternative public or private space, by not being homophobic snoops for instance.)
My views are broadly libertarian, small-l; my wedding was essentially a LPMD mafia wedding eight years ago and I remain registered Libertarian in MD. But I disagree with and disassociate myself from the “Libertarian” above.
If a woman is wearing a sign that states, in English, “Harass the living hell out of me now, PLEASE!” then I guess fine. That sign has never been printed or sold. A woman wearing clothing to make herself look attractive or to be fashionable or for whatever other reason may perhaps be inviting a look at her sartorial splendor, but not a threat or intimidating leer, least of all a grope. To pretend otherwise is to rationalize predation under the tired, weary, childishly inane “B&&&& had it coming.”
Amanda’s point is excellent about the pervasive harassment of women being no different or even morally much worse than the distasteful sight of watching other people engage in relations. I would rather my 4-year-old son walk in upon two adults having sex, even in a toilet, than upon a low- or high-grade sexual predator. Seeing other people having sex, while quite distasteful, is nowhere near the damaging event to children that sexual predation is, even if the bathroom mortifies their fathers or mothers.
The next time Amanda smacks the shit out of a libertarian unprovoked as she is wont to do, she gets a get out of troll free card from me, because “Libertarian” absolutely has it coming here.
Mark, maybe every airport should be required to have a gay bar. Or at least put a sign on the restroom door, to give people notice of what might go on, so they can pick another restroom if it would bother them.
I don’t know why this is a misdemeanor and not an infraction, but apparently Craig has had restroom sex before: the blogosphere was agog last October after someone claimed to have had sex with Craig in a restroom in DC’s Union Station.
When looked at from the point of view of someone invested in the sex-role status quo, there’s really no hypocrisy in calling for Craig to be punished more than Vitter. This is a mindset that defines sex as a Superior penetrating an Inferior. “Sex between equals” is essentially the freakiest thing they can imagine, whereas prostitution fits their framework just fine.
Hector,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t it been established that most child molesters know their victims? And taking into consideration the rules of cruising posted on your link invalidates the concept of a ‘drive-by’ molestation.
I think the hypothetical little boy is safe from general cruising found in airport bathrooms. However, you might want to keep an eye on his ‘funny’ uncle though.
Sorry for the repeat post. I thought the first one must have been rejected for being too explicit.
I argued on LGM that “the idea that vice cops need to sit in bathrooms to prevent harassment” is not quite correct. The cop was there to discourage sex in the stalls. I agree that the harassment of women is worse than sex in public but I still think that LGM’s cry of gender double standards is a weak argument. The GOP’s double standard is obvious.
Tea room sex will never go away as long as there is a closet. Many closeted men are unable to incorporate entering a gay bar or taking a man to a motel room with their self image. However, quick anonymous oral sex or masturbation is easier done and “forgotten.”
I argued on LGM that “the idea that vice cops need to sit in bathrooms to prevent harassment” is not quite correct. The cop was there to discourage sex in the stalls. I agree that the harassment of women is worse than sex in public but I still think that LGM’s cry of gender double standards is a weak argument. The GOP’s double standard is obvious.
Tea room sex will never go away as long as there is a closet. Many closeted men are unable to incorporate entering a gay bar or taking a man to a motel room with their self image. However, quick anonymous oral sex or masturbation is easier done and “forgotten.”
Sporadic, I never raised a concern about children being molested in a restroom, just what they might see there.
I argued on LGM that “the idea that vice cops need to sit in bathrooms to prevent harassment” is not quite correct. The cop was there to discourage sex in the stalls.
And this is best accomplished by a cop trying to convince someone that he’s interested in a quickie and then arresting him because…?
No. In fact, that’s a very, very good comparison.
And this is best accomplished by a cop trying to convince someone that he’s interested in a quickie and then arresting him because…?
Hmm… What would be some alternatives? video cameras in each stall? Probably not a good idea. How about, in each stall, you hang a picture of Jesus looking sorrowful, perhaps making the “shame, shame” gesture with his fingers?
That’s how vice works. When you want to bust Johns, you have a policewoman pose like a hooker. When you want to bust gamblers, you make bets and take bets.
The same thing they might see if mom and dad aren’t careful about locking the door.
The same thing they might see if mom and dad aren’t careful about locking the door.
What parents do in the privacy of the home is no concern of mine. On the other hand, what people do in a public restroom when I have unwisely eaten too many jalapenos is my concern.
Straight people do have an elaborate set of sex-invitation signals. They may be less “secret” than that of gay men, since open heterosexuality is legally and socially acceptable, but they definitely exist. And the definition of a harasser is someone who chooses to continue giving attention when the signals are not there.
I know damn well what I’m doing when I give a man a slightly-longer than usual sidelong glance, when I smile at him and look away, when I then run my hands through my hair and turn away from him. Cautious, non-asshole, non-”Nice-Guy” men need a few more signals, but they know very well that their approach is invited, and that they can continue their series of gestures, postures, etc. without bothering me. To many straight people, this dance is so ingrained it’s subconscious, but the rules are well known and dangerous to ignore.
Hmm… What would be some alternatives? video cameras in each stall? Probably not a good idea. How about, in each stall, you hang a picture of Jesus looking sorrowful, perhaps making the “shame, shame” gesture with his fingers?
Surely I can’t be the only person who’s ever been in a restroom with an attendant?
That’s how vice works. When you want to bust Johns, you have a policewoman pose like a hooker. When you want to bust gamblers, you make bets and take bets.
Fair enough. What you’re interested in is bagging and shaming public sex participants. Which is fine and all, but drop the Who Will Think Of Teh Children business, because if you cared about that, you’d at least consider posting a security guard or attendant in the men’s room, which would actually prevent the activity until word got out that this venue is off limits.
You really need a better way to send a fresh captcha besides expecting the reader’s browser not to clear forms during a page reload. That’s not standardized behavior.
How about the people who want to get in there to take a crap, but find the stalls all occupied because they’re being used for sex?
Restrooms are a limited public resource, and they’re put there - with public money - so that people can expel wastes. They’re not motels. People need to get in there and get out so that others can use the facilities.
The use of the stalls for sex prevents their legitimate use. And if a few closeted Republican types who don’t have the courage to buck their party’s ass-backwards sexual attitudes get caught up in the dragnet, I don’t give a shit. Serves them right for being assholes. I could care less about their “personal struggle” with their sexuality, because it’s a struggle they’ve created and are perpetuating by their own actions.
It’s not the 70’s anymore. People don’t need to be using public restrooms for sex. Didn’t the activists accomplish that, at least?
For the moment, but not if the people who vote like Craig have their way.
Surely I can’t be the only person who’s ever been in a restroom with an attendant?
Sure, the night of my senior prom. I didn’t really see the point of paying a guy to hand me a towel and brush off my lower back.
I also find it odd that the people opposed to paying a cop to sit in a restroom and wait to be hit on, see no problem paying a minimum wage worker to peer under stall doors in a restroom all day.
And, like Chet, I don’t see why, four decades after Stonewall, gay guys have to go to public restrooms to have sex.
If their point is to make the woman afraid, is that any different than yelling “Nigger” at an African-American?
I think there is one distinction (among several) to be made between public racial harassment and public sexual harassment…and that is the higher level of tolerance, acceptance and even encouragment of sexual harassing behaviors.
While I have no illusions that public racial harassment does not occur, it also carries the possibility of dangerous retaliation in a way that public sexual harassment does not.
“Them’s fighting words” is rarely the response of women subjected to overt public sexually-based bullying, and it rarely inspires bystanders to action.
I also find it odd that the people opposed to paying a cop to sit in a restroom and wait to be hit on, see no problem paying a minimum wage worker to peer under stall doors in a restroom all day.
I don’t see how pay has anything to do with it. It seems to me that people are simply arguing that there’s a difference between trying to prevent sex in bathrooms and trying to punish people who engage (or attempt to engage) in it.
Posting a cop outside or having an attendant makes it unlikely that someone will even try to initiate sex in the bathroom. Everyone gets to use the restroom, no one gets arrested, and there’s no unfair or unequal enforcement because there’s no enforcement period. It’s preventative.
Posting an undercover cop doesn’t stop people from trying to have sex. It only punished them for doing so, making it punitive.
That’s the difference, not who they’d rather pay.
Oh sure! Because we live such an open and tolerant society that gay men (not to mention women, bisexuals or transgendered folks) are fully accepted
Also, most out gay men do not cruise bathroom stalls or public parks.
a difference between trying to prevent sex in bathrooms and trying to punish people who engage (or attempt to engage) in it
I cannot imagine the cost of providing monitors for every restroom in America. People like Senator Craig are just going to have to get used to behaving themselves even when they think no one is watching.
Toilet Cupids are acting as if it’s unreasonable to expect people who like toilet action to respect a limited resource for use by all ages, and even more outrageous for parents of minors not to want their kids to have to deal with toilet raunch.
The notion that condoning untrammeled toilet sex somehow makes up for social injustice is ridiculous. There’s an abundance of places where two consenting [whatevers] can go for sex.
Subjecting people who haven’t consented to participate in sex (even by non tactile voyeurism) is a form of harassment.
How about instead grown up adult people make respecting public spaces the DEFAULT, instead of demanding authoritarian surveillance or human monitors as behavioral restraints to keep a communal space comfortably available to all who use it?
Your position that it’s a stretch for people not to want minors in their care to have to deal with toilet sex is blinkered and misguided. It’s not the minors that should be put out cause the adults can’t control themselves.
And why should people already being deprived of a shared resource by adults incapable of self-restraint also have to pay extra to have this respected “until the word got out”? I’d rather see the funds going towards keeping public spaces clean and safe.
I’m cool with surveillance and attendants only if they’re funded with the fines collected from people who abuse shared public spaces.
Jeez, get a room, a car, go to a club with nooks and crannies and give people the option NOT to have to “share” in that poignant piss-colored Kodak moment.
I cannot imagine the cost of providing monitors for every restroom in America.
Good thing I never said that would be needed then, huh?
Please explain to me what the big difference in cost/time is between a police department sending a plain clothes officer to a “problem” bathroom and sending a uniformed officer to that same bathroom? Hint: there isn’t any.
The difference is that the first allows people to solicit sex and then punishes them afterwards. The second negates the need for punishment by making it difficult for the solicitation to happen in the first place.
The second is clearly the better solution if you’re genuinely concerned with people being inconvenienced by public sex. The first makes more sense if your actual goal is to punish the dirty queers.
The difference is that the first allows people to solicit sex and then punishes them afterwards. The second negates the need for punishment by making it difficult for the solicitation to happen in the first place.
Right, but there’s a legitimate state interest in actually catching people engaged in misbehavior, not just using the stern gaze of authority to make bad behavior be done somewhere else.
For instance, that’s the reasoning behind “To Catch a Predator”-type stings; it’s better to arrest a pedophile caught in the act, because then you know he’s not off assaulting children somewhere you aren’t watching.
Please explain to me what the big difference in cost/time is between a police department sending a plain clothes officer to a “problem” bathroom and sending a uniformed officer to that same bathroom? Hint: there isn’t any.
You’re right that there may not be a difference. Indeed, a plainclothes undercover officer might be even more expensive. But they don’t provide the same benefit. The uniformed authority figure keeps one restroom safe from toilet action. The plainclothes officer keeps dozens safe, because you never know where he’s going to pop up next.
Your position that it’s a stretch for people not to want minors in their care to have to deal with toilet sex is blinkered and misguided.
It may be useful at this point to review what I actually said. This is not my position. My position is that there are better and worse ways to prevent toilet sex, and that posting an attendant is a better way than sending in undercover tempters.
I cannot imagine the cost of providing monitors for every restroom in America.
Can you imagine the cost of installing systems and private guards in every retail store in America to prevent shoplifting? ‘Cause, check it out. If you think it would be cheaper and more effective to send in undercover cops to catch them in the act, run the numbers and show your work.
But we’re not talking about every restroom in America. I can name at least a dozen where it’s not an issue, and you probably can too.
What do you think would be more effective prevention?
If I see a police car parked alongside the interstate, I slow down till I can no longer see it in my rear view mirror. If I get a ticket for speeding, I slow down for months and months.
Similarly, if someone looking to hook up in a restroom sees a cop/guard/guy handing out towels, he’ll just go to the next one on his list. If he gets busted for attempted sex, he’s going to refrain for a good while.
and
Let’s see, you want the utmost respect for your attitudes about toilet sex while sneering at the slightest mention by others that their right to unimpeded, fair access to the same space includes the (apparently ridiculous) wish that their kids not have to deal with the sight or the goo of public toilet sex.
The latter are actually entitled to safe, clean facilities without being forced to navigate around public sex. The toilet traders are not entitled to impose their menu of sexual activity on non-consenting people who need to use the public facilities.
Maybe you should read what I wrote. Expecting grown ups to respect the shared nature of a common space — rather than be a jerk about parents and kids using it — is the most cost effective and sensible solution of all.
Next on the list of practical assurances would be to make those who can’t control themselves, or who refuse to respect the space, to pay to keep it safe, clean and user-friendly for those who actually have been put out.
People who simply need to go to the bathroom shouldn’t be burdened with the concern that by doing so, they’re inconveniencing those who want to abuse the space for sex.
This whole trip of pretending the toilet traders are the injured parties here is BS.
Get
A.
Room.
How often does this really happen? I don’t hang out in men’s rooms, and the only sex I’ve run into in a women’s room was het sex, and that was at an over-21 venue.
Anyone care to quantify?
Ellie,
Lovely nuanced take on all the issues.
Hector: Actually speeding is a pretty good analogy. Its consequences can be much worse than anything associated with bathroom sex, but somehow we manage to live with the knowledge that we can’t prevent it altogether (at least not at a cost we’re willing to pay), and therefore dedicate our efforts to reducing the harm it creates. Making sure that bathroom sex doesn’t occur in bathrooms where children are likely to be (by making them unwelcome places for sex, by, say, posting an attendant) doesn’t keep the sex from happening, but it can move it to a location where it does less damage.
And somehow we manage to pursue this “harm reduction” policy with respect to speeding without anyone arguing that it’s equivalent to abolishing speed limits and traffic control devices and lane markers and just allowing anyone to drive wherever they want. It’s almost like sex makes people lose their reason.
Ellie: I haven’t said that sex in public bathrooms should be allowed; I don’t think it should. I haven’t said I’m fine with children seeing strange adults going at it; I’m not. In fact I’m arguing for a solution to the problem of bathroom sex that I think is more likely than sting operations to prevent it from happening in the first place. Which will have the collateral benefit that children won’t go into public bathrooms and see adults being arrested for lewd behavior, which strikes me as a bad idea. I wasn’t snarking because I disagree with you about the problem; I was snarking because I agree with you and you’re angry because for some reason you think I don’t.
zuzu,
It is really vanishingly rare in actual experience. I DO know and recognize the signals, and I’ve only been cruised maybe a total of 3 times in my life. If it has been going on in restrooms where I was doing my business, the folks involved were suitably subtle about it.
Second, while I am not an expert, it is my understanding that the vast majority of cruisy bathrooms are in out of the way places and generally only get cruisy in off-hours or off days. (Hence the common “park bathroom” or “rest stop” idea).
It honestly surprises me that a men’s room in a busy airport ended up being one of the places, but then again, as I said, not an expert. And if a rest stop is anonymous, an airport would be even more so, since you could be from or to anywhere.
Even the guys who are into it have to go out of their way to find these places (though apparently, the Internet makes it easier - both for the tricks and the cops, I guess.)
And somehow we manage to pursue this “harm reduction” policy with respect to speeding without anyone arguing that it’s equivalent to abolishing speed limits and traffic control devices and lane markers and just allowing anyone to drive wherever they want.
You’ve never heard the term “speed trap”, then? Apparently you’ve never been pulled over by an unmarked police car, either.
Seems to me, though, that we pursue exactly the same strategy against speeding as Minneapolis was against bathroom sex, because the principle is the same - you get more effect from catching and punishing a speeder than you do from just the appearance of authority.
You’ve never heard the term “speed trap”, then? Apparently you’ve never been pulled over by an unmarked police car, either.
Nope! Never have, and I speed on a regular basis. I suspect that the police are picking and choosing, ticketing only the most egregious and life-threatening offenders. And they’re certainly not sneaking into people’s cars and covertly checking their speedometers.
Hogan: If you would cruise over to cruisingforsex.com, and look up the Minneapolis airport restroom, you would see from the comments that the airport first tried stationing a security guard outside the restroom, and only later tried police stings. So apparently guards are insufficient deterrents.
I suspect that the police are picking and choosing, ticketing only the most egregious and life-threatening offenders.
Your jurisdiction may vary, but I have a $375 ticket for doing 59 in a 55 that begs to differ.