Putting the "ho" in Idaho....

[dsdrane]

Senator Craig.

Republican senator from Idaho.

Arrested.:eek:

In a men's room.:rolleyes:

Discuss.

:weee::shield:

[paul]

Senator Craig.

Republican senator from Idaho.

Arrested.:eek:

In a men's room.:rolleyes:

Discuss.

:weee::shield:


Yeah. the "discuss" was always one of my favorite events in the Olympics.

[dsdrane]

I always preferred the javelin, myself.

:D

[paul]

I always preferred the javelin, myself.

:D

:eek::lol::eek: or wrestling!!! (you do know how the ancient Greeks did that er, sport?)

Okay, whew, back to Craig.

I feel sorry for the guy. A classic closet case. I think restroom sex is the desperate act of a closet case...hidden and anonymous (unless you get caught).

[sailaway58]

Some times it might feel good to see someone fall that has stood against you but this kind of fall hurts everyone but the conservative right.
One more person to point to and generalize about you "deviant homos".
Like Paul I see this wounded man that has never accepted who he is. It's a sad story of a man's life.
It should be more evidence that orientation is not a choice but to the right it's just another pervert to come out.
Sad sad sad.
On the other had he may vote Democrat next time.

[dsdrane]

Some times it might feel good to see someone fall that has stood against you but this kind of fall hurts everyone but the conservative right.
One more person to point to and generalize about you "deviant homos".


Firstly, you bet your buttons it feels good. I feel bad for the man, but I feel much worse for the people he and his actions and words have hurt over his lifetime.

And I disagree with your conclusion that this will hurt everyone but the Radical Right.

Lewd behavior is lewd behavior and has nothing, ipso facto, to do with gay people or gay rights. I think it's especially poignant to remember that many (most? does anyone have stats on this??) times it is ostensibly straight guys -- married with kids -- involved in this type of public cruising.

This hurts the Right where they live: their values. Do they rally around the besieged Larry Craig or do they throw him to the wolves? The fact that they have to go through that thought process -- to the extent they are capable -- offers some chance, however remote, of growth.

[paul]

Some times it might feel good to see someone fall that has stood against you but this kind of fall hurts everyone but the conservative right.
One more person to point to and generalize about you "deviant homos".
Like Paul I see this wounded man that has never accepted who he is. It's a sad story of a man's life.
It should be more evidence that orientation is not a choice but to the right it's just another pervert to come out.
Sad sad sad.
On the other had he may vote Democrat next time.

Hiya Sailaway.

On the other had he may vote Democrat next time.[/

I won't hold my breath. Consider Ted Haggard. Repressed gays often go farther into the closet when some would "out" them. If you read the articles about Craig, he is in complete denial...at least in public. Voting is a matter of public record, so, like Ted I would see him increasing his efforts to 'prove' to everyone that he is not gay.

There is a reason that some gay people engage in anonymous sex. More than their not wanting others to know about their being gay, they don't want their own selves to 'know' it even more.

[Zerbie]

I'm with Paul on this.

It's very sad. Take the Ted Haggard's of the world - they are running so far and fast from themselves, I cannot even imagine it. I feel deeply sad for them, but at the same time, if they are standing against innocent people, then those actions must be stopped.

I can't say it feels at all good though, because that could easily have happened to any number of forum members, had we only been pushed past a breaking point and chosen differently in order to survive, psychologically.

[Emproph]

Discuss.
But the peach colored font is intriguing.

I sound like a shredded wheat commercial.

[dsdrane]

I can't say it feels at all good though, because that could easily have happened to any number of forum members, had we only been pushed past a breaking point and chosen differently in order to survive, psychologically.

However, I doubt any forum members have used their considerable political power to help unjustly malign and keep disenfrancised an entire group of American citizens.

[Dash]

The public fall of those who lord their dogma over society brings an auspicious confrontation with hypocrisy. As a fundamental moral hinge upon which the gates of justice turn, hypocrisy, and the response to it offers potential for veritable seismic shifts in the social landscape.

For me there is the potential for great rage as I consider the long denial of basic rights...the attacks upon our moral character...the long refusal to hear us...and the contorted logics applied against our cries for justice and mercy. As I consider the weariness of a long struggle to rise against adversaries who make it a life's work to press us down, seeing one more example of the hypocrisy that inheres in that dogma stretches my long patience painfully.

Sometimes, well beyond rage, hypocrisy's revelation inspires laughter...emotions stretched past safe limits are released in great guffaws of pent up relief. We laugh at their fall, for we can neither weep nor explode. Under normal circumstances, we would not rejoice in the fall of a closeted victim, but our joy to see the crumbling of that moral fortress from which so many missles have been fired upon us bleeds through the boundaries of our compassion.

The response of the fallen one to their own revealed hypocrisy ought to be humility and turning away from their hypocritical ways. Should they not embrace Truth...the feet at which every knee must bow? The false mask behind which they have hidden is ripped away. Will they take up the mask again, or will they accept that the face they own is the same as those they oppose? By means of a great pretense, they hoped to avoid the cruel judgment they rendered unto others, and now it has returned upon them. It is a moment of power when the Golden Rule speaks it's wisdom clearly to the oppressor.

The response of our adversaries? Well, by jettisoning the fallen one, they may try to hide the cracks in their moral fortress. More missles will be lobbed, and judgment will continue despite the loss of some moral high ground.

In the last year or so, however, I have twice witnessed a more remarkable response: the honoring of the hypocrisy of the hypocritical. The argument goes, "Even though they were not living the way they should, still they had the courage to stand up for what they believed; and thank God they did, for we needed their support. Lord willing, they will continue to support our cause." They imagine that it is not even hypocrisy. So long as the fallen one is loyal to the moral flag they fly in the face of society, any (even widespread) inability to live by its dogma is irrelevant.

Dogma is a tyrant that would oppress everyone...even (and perhaps especially) the oppressor.




(or something...):p

[u-dog]

Is Dash as a good a kisser as he is a writer? Cuz if he is? I ain't never feelin sorry for you again about ANYTHING.;)

Dash, that was beautiful !!! You are so eloquent it makes me want to cry.:'(

[dsdrane]

Is Dash as a good a kisser as he is a writer?

[Yes.]


:cool::D

[Zerbie]

Oh sweeties, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that as a criticism of anyone's reaction (goodness knows I'm falling off my own hinges lately and am full of bitterness over the things that are weighing on me.)

No of course I wasn't meaning to imply that anyone here has done such things to the community! I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that what I said could hurt or offend anyone here. :(

I wouldn't disagree with any of what you say. I see the charade too, and I'm angry at it too. I've also laughed when I've been sad or disturbed or surprised, at things that weren't technically "funny." There was even a time in my teens when I saw a movie with a lot of gay-bashing which upset me so much that every time it happened, my emotions erupted in nervous laughter, close to vomiting, and after the movie someone came up to me and glared, "Bitch!"

Really sorry, David and Dash. :'( I love both of you very much. :love::love:

[Emproph]

Like after a roller-coaster ride, or after laughing after a really, reeelly funny joke.
But this is more special, it's sickening in a very unique way.

[SNIP]
I have twice witnessed a more remarkable response: the honoring of the hypocrisy of the hypocritical. The argument goes,

"Even though they were not living the way they should, still they had the courage to stand up for what they believed; and thank God they did, for we needed their support. Lord willing, they will continue to support our cause."

They imagine that it is not even hypocrisy. So long as the fallen one is loyal to the moral flag they fly in the face of society, any (even widespread) inability to live by its dogma is irrelevant.

Dogma is a tyrant that would oppress everyone...even (and perhaps especially) the oppressor.




(or something...):p

-It compells me to love my enemy (ew gross) no surprize there.
-It does so in an entertaining way (is he alway this poetic David?) sickeningly sweet, too much candy, blah blah.
-But it's also presented in a way that is acceptable to me.And that's the part that bugs me.

I don't HAVE to accept anything about it, but by the time I got done reading that, I WANTED to accept it.

I wanted to feel good about them. And since I hardly ever ever do, this is what gives me an upset tummy..

He makes Luke 6:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:27&version=31) perfectly digestible...

[Dash]

Oh sweeties, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that as a criticism of anyone's reaction (goodness knows I'm falling off my own hinges lately and am full of bitterness over the things that are weighing on me.)

No of course I wasn't meaning to imply that anyone here has done such things to the community! I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that what I said could hurt or offend anyone here. :(

I wouldn't disagree with any of what you say. I see the charade too, and I'm angry at it too. I've also laughed when I've been sad or disturbed or surprised, at things that weren't technically "funny." There was even a time in my teens when I saw a movie with a lot of gay-bashing which upset me so much that every time it happened, my emotions erupted in nervous laughter, close to vomiting, and after the movie someone came up to me and glared, "Bitch!"

Really sorry, David and Dash. :'( I love both of you very much. :love::love:

Oh, lovely one! :love::love: I've been trying to shape these words since early this morning. Fear not! They were not written in response to your noontime post. I'm merely sorting through my own thoughts and conflicting emotions. My post may seem a bit forceful to you because I was working so hard to flesh out the brief, formless intuitions that I had.

I've been doing more playing here lately because it's been so much work to say something substantive. This post was no exception....and for that reason, I'm still evaluating the content....

:cool:

[dsdrane]

Oh sweeties, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that as a criticism of anyone's reaction (goodness knows I'm falling off my own hinges lately and am full of bitterness over the things that are weighing on me.)

No of course I wasn't meaning to imply that anyone here has done such things to the community! I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that what I said could hurt or offend anyone here. :(

I wouldn't disagree with any of what you say. I see the charade too, and I'm angry at it too. I've also laughed when I've been sad or disturbed or surprised, at things that weren't technically "funny." There was even a time in my teens when I saw a movie with a lot of gay-bashing which upset me so much that every time it happened, my emotions erupted in nervous laughter, close to vomiting, and after the movie someone came up to me and glared, "Bitch!"

Really sorry, David and Dash. :'( I love both of you very much. :love::love:

Oh gosh...now I'm the one who's sorry. No fear, Zerbie...I was neither hurt nor offended...no need to apologize at all.

My point, I guess, was a more general one to the "forum world" out there countering any "there but for the grace of God goes any one of us" conclusions that someone might take away.

I really do get the larger point about this being sad. It is. Larry Craig, and Mark Foley, and David Vitter, etc., etc., are indeed victims of larger social and cultural dynamics (they're depraved on account of they were deprived??), but, having hoisted themselves onto their own petards, they have voluntarily given up, in my view, any grounds for sympathy.

Either that or I'm hopelessly petty.

C'est la guerre!

[Emproph]

I'm really sorry about whomever it was..and whatever they allegedly didn't do..

You'll have to excuse my subconscious though, it seems to have a mind of its own..
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/jig.gif

[suzer1013]

For me, this doesn't feel good at all. I find no reason for rejoicing, and tend to agree with Sailaway on this.

This incident is just another excuse for the religious right to paint "homos" as predators lurking in bathrooms with only sexual deviance in mind. All the work we do to help people understand GLBT people are truly your neighbors, that we can have monogamous, loving and committed relationships, are destroyed when the media grabs a story like this and runs with it. If Sen. Craig is indeed a closeted gay man, I do have sympathy for him. And some anger as well. I don't know his record on GLBT issues, but if he has indeed voted against GLBT rights in the past, he has now further injured our community be embodying all that scares (whether it is rational or not) those who preach against homosexuality and gay rights.

I have seen men trolling public restrooms at rest areas on the highway. I know this happens. Whether these men are gay or straight, I don't know, and it doesn't matter to me. However, the anti-gay forces paint this as a gay issue, and it is difficult to change these stereotypes when someone like Sen. Craig fulfills the image for them.

My guess is he'll do a Ted Haggard and "repent" of his evil homosexual ways, claim he was tempted by "sin" and try the ex-gay thing. And then he'll find a different public restroom to troll - one that is a bit more secure.

This is sad all around. Sad for us, sad for him, and sad for our movement which tries so hard to escape damning stereotypes, only to have them reinforced in the media circus when someone in a high position (who should know better) falls into damaging behavior.

[Emproph]

(I'm blaming all of this on my subconscious..)

Title and videos courtesy Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/08/shockingly-he-d.html).

Larry Craig Statement
ZI6YEbSDpjQ
Very sad.

This is also not funny:
JF6eRIAA6mE

And neither is this hysterical:
8cQ3Y4OIhgU

[pnggrad79]

Lol, I thought it was funny. They are still criminalizing us gay people as if it is such a freaking shame to be gay. Hell, if it were Nate Berkus, it would be cool to be gay...that guy is beautiful....and I am a lesbian!!!:confused:

[Jamie McDaniel]

The events leading to sex at a public bathroom, I mean. I keep hearing about it, but I'm totally confused at how one would secretly communicate to a complete stranger a desire to arrange sexual activity in the public (!) bathroom. I can't even pee at a urinal in such a public place and others are able to negotiate and complete a sexual encounter?!

If I were the police officer assigned to bust lewd conduct in the airport bathroom, I wouldn't have a clue.

Well, apparently here's how. Last pages of the arrest report (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070828_Craig_Police_Reprot.pdf).

[Zerbie]

Well Jamie, I was gonna say, don't ya know? You lean your roller bag against the stall door. Then you tap your foot.

Honestly, I don't get it either. I would think there'd be so many other people wandering around, and, you know, pissing, I can't figure how sex could be happening at the same time! Apparently, it's quite common though, based on the amount of entrapments that have occured that way. I've often wondered how such sexual encounters initiate, and for that matter, how it is that they manage to secretly complete the mission with two guys locked into one stall. Like, no one would notice that??

[Kittredge Cherry]

Gay sex scandals have become way too common -- especially among conservative leaders who oppose gay rights.

I’m trying to do my part by offering to send a free copy of my book “Hide and Speak: A Coming Out Guide” (http://jesusinlove.org/hide-and-speak.php) to any U.S. Senator, including scandal-plagued Larry Craig.

Sometimes telling the truth is difficult, but living a lie is even harder. Senator Craig is just the latest example of an anti-gay leader caught in a web of lies about a secret gay life.

Former U.S. congressman Mike Foley and evangelical leader Rev. Ted Haggard officially opposed gay rights until recent gay sex scandals ended their public careers. They all might have prevented their scandals by following my book’s powerful program of self-acceptance and appropriate disclosure.

Mel White, founder of Soulforce, has endorsed the book. “How much suffering I could have avoided for myself and others if only I had read ‘Hide and Speak’ before blundering out of my own darkness into the light,” White said.

[dsdrane]

Thought this was especially germane:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-gay_b_62212.html

:cool:

[Daniel]

The senator has a way of repeating things, having used an identical MO in 1982.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html

A six-month probe into sex charges was launched by the House ethics committee. In December 1982, they exonerated those accused by Williams and Opp.

The committee chastised CBS's Ferrugia for planting "lurid tales of sexual misconduct and homosexual prostitution in the Congress" in Opp's mind. Opp declined to speak to the Statesman for this story; Williams did not reply to repeated inquiries.

Though his staff credits Craig for a cool head in 1982, he told the Statesman on May 14 that he panicked.

"I was scared, plain and simple scared," he said. "When you have somebody walk into your office and make that kind of allegation and tells me he's gonna go to print — and I'm a freshman congressman and go, ‘Oh my God!'"

Panic defense?

I saw this story discussed last night on CNN- 360 with Anderson Cooper (who was not there for some reason). Their approach to the matter was to have a psychologist on- Dr. Drew (hope I have the name right)- who has a program on sex on a cable channel. His comments about those who do not call themselves gay but have sex with men was perhaps the salient point. Thankfully, in the ensuing discussion, there wasn't any bashing of gay persons. The senator's actions are all too common in a society that tries to sweep sexuality under the rug.

[dsdrane]

Back in the day, I worked in the Intake Department at NYC's main AIDS-services organization, Gay Men's Health Crisis (or GMHC). My time there was in the early to mid-90s, when the disease was morphing from a largely gay, white and relatively affluent population into one also affecting women, straight people, people of color, drug users, and everybody in between. As a result, the intake process -- which you can imagine is a very intimate, delicate process, requiring all manner of sensitivity, privacy and discretion -- had to move beyond the binary approach of gay or straight, even past "bisexual" into the world of "men who partner with men", "women who partner with women", etc.

It was all about self-identification. And, even then, you could never be certain someone was being fully upfront.

Whether Sen. Craig is "gay" or not is a red herring. All we know is that he apparently has a thing either for public sex, bathrooms and/or encounters with men. Take away one aspect and the whole thing may not work for him. Who knows.

This is an opportunity, then, to have this conversation about the full range of sexual orientations -- plural -- and how a propensity for "lewd" behavior may have nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is gay or straight or something in-between.

[Daniel]

Whether Sen. Craig is "gay" or not is a red herring. All we know is that he apparently has a thing either for public sex, bathrooms and/or encounters with men. Take away one aspect and the whole thing may not work for him. Who knows.

This is an opportunity, then, to have this conversation about the full range of sexual orientations -- plural -- and how a propensity for "lewd" behavior may have nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is gay or straight or something in-between.

Interesting point. For guys like him, 'danger' may be part of the equation.

Another thought comes to mind here, and that is the discussion on another thread about social constructs regarding homosexuality.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3597

My observation is those who make the assertion that gay people didn't exist in ancient history have only to look at the behavor of persons like the Senator. It's not what you call yourself that's the issue. It's what you do. I believe this is why Gore Vidal was keen about making the distinction between homosexual and homosexualist. It's the difference between a noun and a verb.


http://www.nationalreview.com/king/king200408201145.asp


He practices his own form of political correctness. In the past he rejected "homosexual" as a noun and termed himself a "homosexualist." Now he prefers "same-sexualist" and shows his disdain for "straight" and "gay" by putting them in quotation marks. His preferred adjective is "homoerotic."

[Zerbie]

on the other board I post at (the singer forum,) someone posted quotes of Roy Cohn from "Angels in America." This scenario has been reminding me of the same.

[keltic63]

on the other board I post at (the singer forum,) someone posted quotes of Roy Cohn from "Angels in America." This scenario has been reminding me of the same.

we watched ch 4 & 5 of that movie last night. 1 more to go! incredible movie. loving it.

[andrewlittle]

... a lot of it very eloquently, but that never stopped me before from adding my two cents worth. Why should now be different.

In some respects I agree with Progo:
I've noticed that the media has made a big deal over these allegations and Craig pleading guilty. Frankly, I find the whole thing annoying because a) Everyone keeps debating about whether or not Craig is gay-the question is not whether he is gay, it is whether a 'lewd' exchange occured, b) it was always my understanding that lewd conduct was generally defined by conduct that is continued after the aggrieved party indicated that he or she did not welcome the advance, c) the nation has better things to worry about. Who CARES about this man's sexuality? Frankly, I don't, and think that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

What do you guys think?

Craig was caught by an undercover cop in a men's room. Why do you suppose the cop was there in the first place. While seeking a sexual encounter in a men's room is likely to be the action of a repressed person of virtually any orientation, the authorities undoubtedly place it in the category of deviant sexual behavior perpetrated by gay men.

Craig was caught in a net thrown out to catch gay men. Of the actions described in the file that Jamie attached, which are criminal? Putting a foot under the stall wall of a restroom? Making contact with another foot in another stall? Putting fingers or a hand under a stall and making a sweeping motion? In what way are these actions criminal, criminally intrusive or even constitute unwanted sexual advances?

The charges are "interferring with privacy" and "disorderly conduct". The charge in Minnesota, to which he pled guilty, was "disorderly conduct." This seems like a real stretch, to me at least, as there was no explicit offer or advance detailed in the report. The police officer even stated, "I recognized this as a sign used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct."

Craig acted in a way that the police believe is indicative of a certain kind of person. Is that person a gay person? From the reporting I would say, "Yes". They believe this is the kind of actions that gay men undertake to enter into indiscriminate sex. It is stereotypical - based on a distorted stereotype. There was no "offer" of a sexual act - no outright attempt to procure sex - simply gestures that the officer interpreted to be sexual in nature.

I fail to see the crime, except in the reporting that ties this behavior with being gay.

[suzer1013]

I believe that most municipalities have laws against having sex in public places (especially highly trafficked places). Do instances such as this target gay men? Yup. It would seem that sex acts between men would likely be the only sex acts occurring in a public bathroom. I've never experienced this (or even heard of) being a problem in women's restrooms, but y'all can correct me if I'm wrong.

If this type of public sexual activity had become a problem in that restroom, the police are acting lawfully in trying to catch the perpetrators.

It's all very stupid really. And I agree it's been blown way out of proportion.

Edit: Sorry, meant to say "would likely be the only sex acts occurring in a public men's bathroom."

[Zerbie]

There are SO many issues and angles here we could write a dissertation.

I don't know the law enough to say what constitutes disorderly conduct or interfering with privacy in a public toilet, but apparently, some reports say he gazed in between the crack of the door to see the guy inside in addition to the foot, and the hand waving.

What's at issue, MAINLY, would appear to be two things:

1, the (perceived or actual) INTENT behind these actions being deemed of sufficient consequence to be criminal AND blared by media far and wide, and
2, the question of entrapment. That one's complicated because I can see why it would be in public interest to arrest sexual activity in airport toilets (I mean really, ICK!), but otoh, as Andy alluded to but did not state outright, there are generations of history of gay men being targetted by law enforcement. I've read reports of guys in the 1960s being FOLLOWED by undercover cops from place to place, as the cops repeatedly make overtures to get a reaction so they'll have an excuse to arrest a homosexual man. To what extent is THIS sort of thing still a problem?

[suzer1013]

Now this really did make me laugh:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/local_news/epaper/2007/08/29/w1b_binocol_0829.html

Watch your "wide stance" gentlemen! ;)

Susan

[keltic63]

Craig was caught in a net thrown out to catch gay men. Of the actions described in the file that Jamie attached, which are criminal? Putting a foot under the stall wall of a restroom? Making contact with another foot in another stall? Putting fingers or a hand under a stall and making a sweeping motion? In what way are these actions criminal, criminally intrusive or even constitute unwanted sexual advances?



alright, I'm going to post here finally.

it isn't common behavior to set your bag on the floor in front of you when you use a public restroom stall?

I thought it was accepted behavior to run your hand along the bottom of the stall divider to "make sure that it's a clean restroom". When did this change?

A Wide stance? well, I suppose if you've been severly potty-trained as a child......

spreading out so that your foot touches the foot of the man in the next stall: if you get everyone lined up and connected, Applebee's will send you a coupon for a free meal, and Bill Gates will send you money. If you can lead the men in a verse or 2 of Kum By Yah, Powerball officials will hand you buckets of cash!

OK, that's out of my system.
the only things that indicate to me that he was looking for anonymous restroom sex (sometimes called Tea Room action) is peeking through the crack in the door, tapping his foot, which is a definite signal, and sliding his foot real close to the officer's foot, another signal that I've heard of. HOWEVER, these innocuous signals don't really prove anything, do they? there was no proposition, was there?

anonymous restroom sex: the acts of desperate men. Unfortuantely for Craig, there's more to this than just the disorderly conduct charges and the innuendo. I heard a report on NPR today that indicates he is most likely done as a Senator. Most telling, was the Traditional Values Coalition leader who railed against him on NPR today. They are feeding him to the wolves. So much for compassion for one of their own.

[u-dog]

I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this situation. I have no question that Craig has homoerotic desires and no question that he has opposed basic human rights for GLBT people.

But what has he actually done? played footsie? wiggled his fingers in suggestive ways? no doubt he wanted to make sexual contact with someone but was there a propostion made? if the other guy had not been a cop couldn't he just have ignored the wiggling fingers? moved his foot? told Craig to go to hell? where is the crime here?

Craig is being forced from office, not because he behaved inappropriately and NOT because he committed a crime. He is being driven from office because it has been discovered that he likes men.

I am really uncomfortable with that.

[Blockwell]

Call me ignorant, but I just don’t get how this works.

I am 47 years old and have been using public restrooms all my life. I don’t recall every coming across any sexual activity in a public restroom or anyone making a sexual advance. Maybe I am just too dense to get it when it occurs, I just don’t know.

I have seen holes between stalls where I assumed sexual activity had take place, but just what was going on with this incident with Senator Craig? If the cop had turned out to be a willing participant, where would go from there? Was Craig going to crawl under the divider? Were they going to meet somewhere else? When I want to use a stall I look under the door for feet, if I saw two pairs of legs I would certainly be suspicious. I just don’t understand what Craig was trying to achieve here?

Blockwell

[Steven E. Webster]

I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this situation. I have no question that Craig has homoerotic desires and no question that he has opposed basic human rights for GLBT people.

But what has he actually done? played footsie? wiggled his fingers in suggestive ways? no doubt he wanted to make sexual contact with someone but was there a propostion made? if the other guy had not been a cop couldn't he just have ignored the wiggling fingers? moved his foot? told Craig to go to hell? where is the crime here?

Craig is being forced from office, not because he behaved inappropriately and NOT because he committed a crime. He is being driven from office because it has been discovered that he likes men.

I am really uncomfortable with that.

U-dog,
You're aren't the only one--I think I was reading Andrew Sullivan's blog when I found a link to a blog that made very much the same points you are--just exactly what was "criminal" about Craig's behavior? I think one could make a case that Craig was trying to solicit sex from a stranger in a public place--but even so, as long as there was no coercion or assault involved and the object of his attentions had the ability and freedom to say "No, leave me alone" was what Craig did a crime? Was it even "disorderly conduct" (the charge he plead guilty to?)

I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't feel particularly motivated to defend Craig. But one has to ask whether some straight guy walking up to a stange woman in a bar and saying "Wanna f**k?" would have been charged with a crime. Seems to be just as "criminal" (or not) as what Craig did. Would the police be sending undercover agents into bars trying to bust such men for "disorderly conduct?" Should they? I don't know.

From another perspective, there were, no doubt, folks who found alot of this behavior going on in that particular bathroom and thought it was a nuisance. Senator Craig, a regular commuter through that airport, may have been one of the "regulars" in that particular "tearoom." I can't fault people who may have considered the "tearoom trade" in that bathroom a nuisance. Is the answer to their concern to bring in the police and the criminal law system? Again, I don't know.

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

...interesting news about the Senator from Idaho. Read it yesterday. My first thought was, accompanyied by a chuckle, another one bites the dust. Closely followed by the thought that if the idea of being 'different' (ie gay) as bad held by so many, this probably wouldn't have even happened. He could just be who he is.

The above thought process was closely followed by the thought, Sheesh, I had no idea there were secret bathroom sex solitation signals (say that fast 3 x), and then followed up with, ICK, sorry, I've NEVER been turned on in a bathroom, especially a public one.

My partner brought up the idea that perhaps the Senator is more turned on by the 'danger' of public bathroom sex and the possibility of getting caught. Hadn't thought of that myself. That would bring one to think that if that's the case, it truly isn't about not being able to come out of the closet. It's about having public sex with anyone, anywhere at the risk of being caught.

I don't feel sorry for him. But I do find it interesting, though not surprising, that his own people are ready to ditch him. I guess cause he didn't admit he was 'gay' and repent. It's been interesting to read everyone's thoughts on this. I say the only crime here that MIGHT have been commited is intent to commit adultery. The whole 'bathroom sex' set up by the PD is questionable at best.

My final thought on this - Can't say I'm displeased that yet another political figure who has opposed our fight for freedom and equality is outta there.

[Zerbie]

These last few posts bring up what I was trying to get at earlier. It seems to me that they criminalized an INTENTION. Isn't that the same crap the far right rails against, saying that the hate crimes bill (which actually DOESN'T penalize intentions but only violent actions) would do? Yet in this case, we're criminalizing an intention? :confused: I have a problem with that also, especially since it seems this sort of thing is only enforced against gay men. (that I've heard about)

And I too wonder about restroom stall sex. I wondered too if he was supposed to crawl under the divider!!!!! I have no idea!!!!! Ew.

[tdogg]

These last few posts bring up what I was trying to get at earlier. It seems to me that they criminalized an INTENTION. Isn't that the same crap the far right rails against, saying that the hate crimes bill (which actually DOESN'T penalize intentions but only violent actions) would do? Yet in this case, we're criminalizing an intention? :confused: I have a problem with that also, especially since it seems this sort of thing is only enforced against gay men. (that I've heard about)


Seems a bit self-serving for those on the wrong...er...I mean 'right?!!!

Yeah, the only crime here was not a crime actually, but the possible intent to commit adultery when his wife probably had no idea. She's the one who should arrest this man.

It does smack of homophobia (by the PD).

[dsdrane]

Craig is being forced from office, not because he behaved inappropriately and NOT because he committed a crime. He is being driven from office because it has been discovered that he likes men.

I am really uncomfortable with that.

Sen. Craig is being driven from office because he is a Class A hypocrite.

Sexual orientation completely aside, lewdness in a public space is obnoxious in the extreme.

I'm gay...gay as they get...and have been since 1988 (should I put that on my business card?) I'm also as pee-shy as they get. Any untoward distraction in the men's room -- where, let's face it: there are RULES that apply -- is enough to clamp down the free communication of...stuff.

'K?

I'm sorry, u-dog, but, crime or no crime, no one has the right to act skeevie in a public restroom. Period. And don't get me started on subjectivity, because we all know damn well what we're talking about.

Is it a crime...no. Is it fodder for sliming someone...you betcha, Buckwheat!

Harrumph!

[u-dog]

Sen. Craig is being driven from office because he is a Class A hypocrite.

Sexual orientation completely aside, lewdness in a public space is obnoxious in the extreme.

I'm gay...gay as they get...and have been since 1988 (should I put that on my business card?) I'm also as pee-shy as they get. Any untoward distraction in the men's room -- where, let's face it: there are RULES that apply -- is enough to clamp down the free communication of...stuff.

'K?

I'm sorry, u-dog, but, crime or no crime, no one has the right to act skeevie in a public restroom. Period. And don't get me started on subjectivity, because we all know damn well what we're talking about.

Is it a crime...no. Is it fodder for sliming someone...you betcha, Buckwheat!

Harrumph!

I'm not arguing that he's not sleazy. I'm arguing that sleazy isn't why he is being hounded out of office. he is being hounded out because he is percieved as being gay (whether that is true or not) The crime that he is guilty of is being a homo! if he had behaved in a sleazy way with a woman at a bar we would not be having this conversation.

[andrewlittle]

For the record, can anyone tell me where adultery is a crime in the U.S. It is grounds for divorce, but criminal? If adultery is not a crime, then intent to commit adultery isn't either.

Also for the record, I am sorry we're talking about Craig here. I would celebrate if he was voted out of office because of the obnoxious, two-faced sack of sh-t he has shown himself to be. But there is an ethical issue, here - one that transcends who and what Craig may be.

Making a sexual advance is not criminal - as long as it does not become forceful, or is repeated after being told, "NO". The first is rape or sexual imposition, and the second is sexual harrassment or imposition (depending on where you are).

If it is not illegal to make sexual overtones, unless being told to stop, why is it illegal to make foot and hand gestures in a public restroom. maybe we need to get past the ICK factor - now where have I heard that before - and look at the extent to which Craig's actions actually violated the law.

If he looked too long through the space in the door, or to many times, wouldn't that be akin to being a "peeping tom"? I know criminal charges are brought against peeping toms, but some I have heard about are trespassing charges. Is there a law against violating someone's privacy that way? In many states that have Peeping Tom laws, they have been challenged and even found unconstitutional because they are vague. The difficulty with them mostly revolves around proving intent.

Thsi boils down, it seems to me, to cracking down on the incidence of sexual encounters in public restrooms. But sex did not occur, nor was it even propositioned except by innuendo. Is innuendo illegal?

If Craig is guilty of a crime for intimating that he wanted a sexual encounter with a man in this way, would it not be a short step to making any sexual advance - explicit or not - from one man to another man illegal? Would a provocative glance, or a veiled remark in a more appropriate setting be less criminal. Could not an undercover policeman claim that a man offering to buy him a drink and remarking about his extraordinarily nice pair of pants be intending to solicit him for lewd purposes. To do that, it seems to me, the cop would have to prove the man intended to have sex right there in the bar or park or wherever. Why does the site make a difference?

Public sex or nudity is lewd. Overt sexual advances may be lewd depending on the circumstances (if not criminal). But to label the gestures of Craig as lewd would require being able define his intent. We may be able to guess at, and even poke fun of, his intent - but does that make his intent clear enough to charge him with criminal actions. And if it is, what other kettles of fish are opened in the process.

[Zerbie]

F

If Craig is guilty of a crime for intimating that he wanted a sexual encounter with a man in this way, would it not be a short step to making any sexual advance - explicit or not - from one man to another man illegal? Would a provocative glance, or a veiled remark in a more appropriate setting be less criminal. Could not an undercover policeman claim that a man offering to buy him a drink and remarking about his extraordinarily nice pair of pants be intending to solicit him for lewd purposes.



does that make his intent clear enough to charge him with criminal actions. And if it is, what other kettles of fish are opened in the process.

Thank you Andy. Exactly.
I doubt it's lost on you that the hypothetical offer to buy a drink is exactly what landed many men arrests in the days before Stonewall. But I thought we could stand to make the comparison explicit. While I'm utterly repelled at the thought of toilet sex, there is something pre-Stonewall about the entire image of an undercover cop lurking, just waiting to lure some guy. . . it sounds like a classic entrapment operation to me. And the point is, what? :confused:

Couldn't the purpose of retaining the decency of the public toilets be BETTER obtained by stationing a security guard right inside the door? Do we HAVE to have attractive male cops sneaking around as undercover lures??

[u-dog]

Thank you Andy. Exactly.
I doubt it's lost on you that the hypothetical offer to buy a drink is exactly what landed many men arrests in the days before Stonewall. But I thought we could stand to make the comparison explicit. While I'm utterly repelled at the thought of toilet sex, there is something pre-Stonewall about the entire image of an undercover cop lurking, just waiting to lure some guy. . . it sounds like a classic entrapment operation to me. And the point is, what? :confused:

Couldn't the purpose of retaining the decency of the public toilets be BETTER obtained by stationing a security guard right inside the door? Do we HAVE to have attractive male cops sneaking around as undercover lures??

or in this case male cops with attractive... feet?

[Steven E. Webster]

For the record, can anyone tell me where adultery is a crime in the U.S. It is grounds for divorce, but criminal? If adultery is not a crime, then intent to commit adultery isn't either.


In some states adultery is a crime punishable by imprisonment, but probably rarely if ever prosecuted. Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject (which also suggests that criminal laws against adultery may be unconstitutional):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Legal_penalties_for_adultery

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Thank you Andy. Exactly.
I doubt it's lost on you that the hypothetical offer to buy a drink is exactly what landed many men arrests in the days before Stonewall. But I thought we could stand to make the comparison explicit. While I'm utterly repelled at the thought of toilet sex, there is something pre-Stonewall about the entire image of an undercover cop lurking, just waiting to lure some guy. . . it sounds like a classic entrapment operation to me. And the point is, what? :confused:

Ditto on the toilet sex, but who am I to judge someone else's proclivities. And, yes, I thought that what I said might elicit some comparisons to the dark ages.

Couldn't the purpose of retaining the decency of the public toilets be BETTER obtained by stationing a security guard right inside the door? Do we HAVE to have attractive male cops sneaking around as undercover lures??

Actually, they could still use undercover, or rather in-stall, cops. If the agenda is to deal with lewd behavior, then deal with the lewd behavior. I can only assume that engaging in sexual acts within a toilet stall would be accompanied by the same sounds and distinguishing characteristics as sexual acts in other places - no matter how one might try to disguise them. I mean if the acts are obvious to those people who have complained, they should certainly be distinguishable to the sensory abilities of the undercover cop. So, sit and wait until it happens - then arrest them. To arrest someone because the cop thinks that the person intends for something to happen puts the cop in the position of being a mind reader - no matter how much the actions of the person may conform to some assumed pattern of behavior.

The contrarian in me wants to delve further, however. If a men's room stall represents private space which can be violated by a foot slid under the stall wall, why is sex engaged in that private space considered public and lewd behavior? If the stall is public, then how can someone else's privacy be invaded by the foot under the stall? There seems to be an inherent contradiction in this.

Ultimately, I still think affront should be taken by all people, even LGBT. The assumption by the police and the press seems to be that Craig is gay because he intimated that he wanted sex in a public place with another man. There seems to be a deeply seated, stereotypical assumption that this is a "usual and customary" behavior of gays. That is insulting in the least, and points possibly to a continuing effort to paint an unhealthy picture of gay men, and a willingness of the public to buy into that depiction - which, of course, has already been said.

[tdogg]

For the record, can anyone tell me where adultery is a crime in the U.S. It is grounds for divorce, but criminal? If adultery is not a crime, then intent to commit adultery isn't either.


Yeah, I know - I missed adding "crime to his wife only" in my first post, but corrected in my 2nd post. So, no adultery is not a crime, that's not what I was trying to convey. Only that, the only apparent wrong I see in this situation is that it appears Craig was attempting to have sex with another person outside of his marriage, and I seriously doubt his wife would be ok with that. Although, I guess, one never knows....

Now, if lewd conduct in a bathroom poses a danger to others, maybe that should be addressed. But I can't see how some perceived secret sex signals could be considered lewd at the point where Craig was charged. Probably need more facts before I could make an education opinion. My uneducated opinion is that maybe this sting was a 'homophobic' reaction.

[Daniel]

Curiosty is what killed the cat.....so I thought I would look up the definition of 'lewd' since its been used multiple times on this thread.

American Heritage Dictionary
lewd
adj. lewd·er, lewd·est
Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful.
Obscene; indecent.
Obsolete Wicked.

The great sin here seems to be the Senator's acting out his same-sex sexual desire in public.

I agree with Andy. We don't prosecute guys who proposition women after a few drinks. In our culture we pat them on the back the next morning at the water cooler. But a guy propositioning another guy? He gets put in jail for that. And if he picks the wrong guy, he can get killed.

You know, back before the Public Library was renovated here in NYC, I would go to the rest room, and while I didn't stumble into any activity myself, it was plainly clear that guys were waiting around for some action. The same with the sauna at the gym. And while I've never been comfortable with public sex per se, I agree with those civil libertarians who defend it. Why? Because I don't think anyone has any business prosecuting desire, especially same-sex desire.

Remember Hardwick vs Bowers?

[Zerbie]

Curiosty is what killed the cat.....so I thought I would look up the definition of 'lewd' since its been used multiple times on this thread.



The great sin here seems to be the Senator's acting out his same-sex sexual desire in public.

I agree with Andy. We don't prosecute guys who proposition women after a few drinks. In our culture we pat them on the back the next morning at the water cooler. But a guy propositioning another guy? He gets put in jail for that. And if he picks the wrong guy, he can get killed.

You know, back before the Public Library was renovated here in NYC, I would go to the rest room, and while I didn't stumble into any activity myself, it was plainly clear that guys were waiting around for some action. The same with the sauna at the gym. And while I've never been comfortable with public sex per se, I agree with those civil libertarians who defend it. Why? Because I don't think anyone has any business prosecuting desire, especially same-sex desire.

Remember Hardwick vs Bowers?

But Bowers v Hardwick is an entirely different scenario!! The UNBELIEVABLE thing about the Bowers case was that those two men were engaged in sexual activity in a private home. I don't see the comparison between this Craig case and Bowers.

The one thing common to both is a hefty dose of homophobia.

[Daniel]

But Bowers v Hardwick is an entirely different scenario!! The UNBELIEVABLE thing about the Bowers case was that those two men were engaged in sexual activity in a private home. I don't see the comparison between this Craig case and Bowers.

The one thing common to both is a hefty dose of homophobia.

For me the issue, whether it is private or public, is the prosecution - both legal and moral - of desire. In this case, same-sex desire.

Public sex, I would venture, it something that most people fantasize about during their young and crazy years. And I would bet my last dollar that they are quite a few folks here who took the risk. Can I see a show of hands please? :eek::lol:

What people are being arrested for is affronting someone's sense of morality. And rather than be involved in prohibiting sexual contact between people, we might be more concerned with their health and safety.

[Zerbie]

For me the issue, whether it is private or public, is the prosecution - both legal and moral - of desire. In this case, same-sex desire.

Public sex, I would venture, it something that most people fantasize about during their young and crazy years. And I would bet my last dollar that they are quite a few folks here who took the risk. Can I see a show of hands please? :eek::lol:

:sick: Ick!! No!!

Waita minute - does groping in parked cars count? :lol:

What people are being arrested for is affronting someone's sense of morality. And rather than be involved in prohibiting sexual contact between people, we might be more concerned with their health and safety.

I don't know that the toilet case is only an affront to morality - I would be quite uncomfortable trying to take a shit if two strangers were having sex 12 inches away. That's not a moral judgment, that's a matter of public comportment - where do we set the boundaries?

I'm with you on prosecuting desire. I think this case smacks of homophobia and entrapment in a few ways. But I also think toilets need to be available to people who need to pee and shit.

[Kittredge Cherry]

I can't help thinking of what Jesus said in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm):

“If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”

[wmanion]

Although, I believe that the senator was trying to have a quick hook up in the bathroom, the fact is that he was arrested on a perception and no actual facts of lewdness. Now, if he would have waved something besides his fingers at the policeman, then maybe they would have something to actually go on. I was also listening to a program tonight and they were talking about the senator's hypocrisy, by attempting to have gay sex, yet voting for all the anti-gay legislation. An individual in his defense asked, "Now isn't it quite possible that a person can be gay, yet still support the tradional family and marriage, thus voting to protect marriage?"
So the justfication begins. However, I can see this to an extent. I support family and marriage, what I do not support is inequality.

Bill

[Dash]

Mmmmm... lively discussion!

Reading y'all's thoughts has clarified something for me. See what ya think...

Whether Craig is gay or not is irrelevant.
Whether or not he engaged in criminal behavior is irrelevant.

What I see as relevant...

He is now perceived to be gay, and is receiving the very judgment and treatment that he and the anti-gay crowd wish for all of us. He has been saddled with the "evil gay" stereotype by conservative media and religious groups. He has perhaps suffered the entrapment and heavy-handed treatment that gay people have frequently received. He has become a victim of employment discrimination for his sexuality (or perception thereof) for his career is quickly ending. He has been outed unwillingly and his private sexual life has been made the object of the same kind of public scrutiny, debate and scorn that gay people often endure.

The moment is here for him to wonder..."Is this they way I would have gay people treated? Or people who are wrongly perceived to be gay?"

The moment is here for anti-gay folks to realize some things too... Anti-gay discrimination is alive and well among their ranks, though they might like to think we make it up. All the civil rights and civil protections that they refuse us by opposing hate crime legislation, employment and housing discrimination laws and such are suddenly lacking for a Senator of the United States.

All for a clumsy, crude, poorly timed sexual overture.

So you're right to be concerned about the injustices that Larry Craig is experiencing! They are the same injustices that we have faced for so long. They are the very same injustices that he himself helped to perpetuate over the course of his career.

[suzer1013]

I only have a short time at the moment to leave a comment, so I hope I can express this succinctly.

The police deter crime from happening all the time. Sting operations occur in the areas of prostitution and drug crimes. If a string of robberies have happened in an area, police will set up an operation to try and catch the perpetrators. There are certain behaviors that are indicia that a criminal act (in this case, there is a law against having sex in a public place) is about to occur. Detectives investigate people who are planning murder and they are charged with conspiracy or some lesser crime than murder. Does the act have to be fulfilled in order for society to prevent certain criminal behavior?

There are boundaries we have to abide by in society. If hetero prostitution was happening in a public restroom, the police would also be there investigating, say, a pimp who was soliciting business from that restroom. In fact, I'll bet that does happen. Though I wouldn't doubt that there is some homophobia attached to this, I just don't see it as strongly as some of y'all are making that case here.

I actually don't think Sen. Craig is gay. I think he would fit into the category in the Bible which condemns same-sex relations when it is "fornication" or unnatural. I do believe the Bible condemns that, while not condeming loving and committed relationships. It is an affront, in my opinion, for the media to equate what he did as being "gay", because the vast majority of GLBT folks I know seeking loving and committed relationships.

A public restroom is not a bar. Likely, the Senator did not want to be seen entering a gay bar where he could more easily solicit sex. A bar is a private establishment, and while I still find his behavior abhorrent whether it's a bar or a public restroom, there is a societal interest in keeping a public restroom safe for everyone to use without the concern of people performing sex acts in the stall next to us. There are SOME rules we need to follow to live together in society. He could have gone to a bar, or heck even on the internet, and meet someone to have sex either in the bar or some other private place, and that wouldn't have been against the law.

What would solve the whole problem is for men like Sen. Craig to NOT HAVE SEX IN PUBLIC BATHROOMS. Easy schmeasy. It's against the law, whether you're hetero or homo. As my high school principal used to say, "there is a time and a place for everything, and this is neither the time nor the place."

The inability of some men to keep their dicks in their pants escapes me -- that goes for hetero or homo -- I just don't get it.

Susan

[suzer1013]

In my haste, I forgot to make a comment about entrapment. My memory of that area of criminal law is dim, but usually entrapment involves the police actively attempting to induce criminal behavior. So, if this undercover police officer had approached Sen. Craig, given the appropriate "signals" of foot tapping, foot touching, wiggling his hand under the divider, or even verbally soliciting the Senator until the Senator agreed -- and THEN had arrested him, that would be entrapment. But it seems, according to the report at least, that Sen. Craig was the instigator. The police do nothing wrong if the accused is the party actively pursuing the activity. Other than the fact that this was an undercover cop placing himself in the right place at the right time, he did nothing (that we know of) to solicit the complained of behavior from Sen. Craig.

Hope I've explained that correctly -- I did no research, but that's my memory of what distinguishes police entrapment from a valid arrest in a sting operation. Some would argue that any sting the police are involved in is entrapment, but according to the law, the police are allowed to do this.

[Emproph]

And lying is dishonesty.

So let's forget the "gay." And let's forget the ADULTERY of pursuing gay while married. (though this has yet to be pursued..)

This is about evidence of lying, and I think the entire reaction to the anti-gay industry - all the time - should be about, or at least include, the lying aspect of their hypocrisy.

It is a breach of trust.

If you can't trust someone's determination of the importance of this matter, (as in "I'm not gay", AS OPPOSED TO "I've never committed homsexual ADULTERY") I feel that this is the most important way to determine whether someone can determine what is most important - or not.

The man is more concerned about being construed as gay as opposed to whether he's attempted to ruin the lives of his wife and kids! That ALONE makes him a liar. "I would never cheat on my wife" should have been the first words out of his mouth.

So if you want to get reeely convoluted about it, the man is anti-hisownfamily. Where's the adultery spin in all this?!

And therefore NOW I can feel compassion for the man. He's so (non-gay) hypocritical -- yet is responding to his gay hypocrisy -- that he's too stupid to be true, yet hasn't imploded the entire universe --- yet.

Again, Larry Craig is not the problem, he's just the latest example of evidence of the lying of hypocrisy.

[Steven E. Webster]

In my haste, I forgot to make a comment about entrapment. My memory of that area of criminal law is dim, but usually entrapment involves the police actively attempting to induce criminal behavior. So, if this undercover police officer had approached Sen. Craig, given the appropriate "signals" of foot tapping, foot touching, wiggling his hand under the divider, or even verbally soliciting the Senator until the Senator agreed -- and THEN had arrested him, that would be entrapment. But it seems, according to the report at least, that Sen. Craig was the instigator. The police do nothing wrong if the accused is the party actively pursuing the activity. Other than the fact that this was an undercover cop placing himself in the right place at the right time, he did nothing (that we know of) to solicit the complained of behavior from Sen. Craig.

Hope I've explained that correctly -- I did no research, but that's my memory of what distinguishes police entrapment from a valid arrest in a sting operation. Some would argue that any sting the police are involved in is entrapment, but according to the law, the police are allowed to do this.

Suz,
I understand what you are saying, I think. However, it seemed to me that this cop likely returned the Senator's eye-contact. The cop made note of seeing the Senator's "blue eyes" through the crack in the door. Eye-contact is a big factor leading up to this type of solicitation. Had the Cop been behaving like an ordinary rest-room user, he would likely not have returned the eye-contact and he would have "finished his business" expeditiously and left. Simply by hanging out in the restroom and stall, this cop was engaging in the very behavior that would attract sexual solicitation. And, surprise, that was the Cop's intent--to attract someone to solicit him for sex.

Legally speaking, (and I am no lawyer) your analysis, Suzer, might be quite correct, however.

I'm curious about how all this story got revealed to the press. I was kind of impressed that the Cops seemed to handle the Senator's arrest in a discrete manner. One serious issue concerning the busting of very closeted persons in public restrooms is the serious damage done to the person arrested---stories of subsequent suicides are not uncommon. When police act in a fashion that discourages bathroom sex, but does not destroy the lives of those arrested (or warned), I consider that a big improvement over cases where the names of all those arrested are published in the local paper.

Steven Webster

[paul]

I'd like to add a massive DITTO to everything Andy has said. Very evenly thought out and spoken.

The property management business and cleaning business is repleat with tales of the cleaning crew walking in on jimmy secretary and sally boss practicing their after hours wrestling moves on the office desk or in the elevator. BTW, speaking of "ick," did you know the average desk has more germs than a toilet seat? There's a happy thought. I'm sure no one here has ever played in the shower just a few feet from the toilet in their house.

Anyway, you don't find a whole arm of your local police force dedicated to busting jimmy and sally. I'd be willing to bet cha that the only reasons you don't hear stories of jimmy and sally in the restroom is because restrooms are not unisex. No, instead you hear 'funny' stories that are at worst embarrassing to the two who got caught. I have never, ever heard of the police being called in. It doesn't even occur to the management.

To me, this whole story begs the question: who in their right mind would want to have sex in a restroom at an airport? My off the cuff answer is: "no one." Okay, show of hands. Anyone here ever do something a little crazy when you were horny? You don't have to say what, but lets not be sanctimonious here. Don't mis-understand me, I am not advocating for restroom sex rights, that's not my point. There is more entrapment going on here than there is "lewd" behavior. Any you guys ever use a public restroom? Any of you ever witnessed "lewd behavior" going on? No? I haven't. And I don't think it's because it's not going on, but because I don't show interest. In other words, it's a bit more subtle than it's made out to be. The police officers are giving signals and showing interest, that's their job, make no mistake.

My point? Craig is out of his mind. He is in his 60's and has spent his entire life repressing his sexuality. I expect insanity from him. I repeat, I feel sorry for him. Yes, he is wrong in how he has tried to cope. Yes, he is going to reap what he has sewn (persecuting gays, loathing himself) all on his own, he doesn't need my judgement for him to suffer. Yes, he is my "enemy" and yes I "love" him. I can easily imagine the anguish he is feeling right now, especially being so alone...that's the worst, and we all know that pain. I hope he can find the way to be honest with himself before he dies.

[Kittredge Cherry]

Rev. Kittredge Cherry will be interviewed LIVE ON NATIONAL RADIO tonight about the Senator Larry Craig gay sex scandal!

The Alan Colmes Show: 8 p.m. Pacific (11 p.m. Eastern) Thurs., Aug. 30

Please call in with questions and comments at 1-877-FOR-ALAN (1-877-367-2526).

Colmes contacted Kitt today about her offer to send Senators a free copy of her book “Hide and Speak: A Coming Out Guide.”

You can hear “The Alan Colmes Show” on 80 radio stations nationwide and online at:
AlanColmesRadio.com (http://AlanColmesRadio.com)

Colmes is best known as the moderate liberal half of the Fox News Channel's political debate program “Hannity and Colmes.”

For more info, visit Kitt’s new blog, www.jesusinlove.blogspot.com/
(www.jesusinlove.blogspot.com/)

Rev. Kittredge Cherry is a lesbian Christian author who was at the forefront of the international debate on sexuality and spirituality as National Ecumenical Officer for Metropolitan Community Churches. She offers gay-friendly spiritual resources at JesusInLove.org.

Her books include "Equal Rites," "Jesus in Love" and "Art That Dares: Gay Jesus, Woman Christ, and More."

[Lek]

I would like to add a caution here about portraying, or perceiving, Larry Craig as gay or as a closeted homosexual. Situational same-sex sexual behavior is quite common and does not result in a homosexual identity. Public men's rooms are just one of many situations.

Sociologist Laud Humphreys did a landmark study of "tearoom" behavior in the 60s, published at Tearoom Trade. In his study, only 14% of the men identified themselves as "gay." Fifty percent were identified themselves as "straight."

Men who use tearooms have many different motivations for doing so, but it is not uncommon for these men to rationalize their behavior as not being unfaithful to their wives.

Like many here, I don't find anonymous sexual behavior in public toilets in the least appealing, but Humphreys did find that there are elaborate rituals involved, like the foot-tapping signal to ensure that these connections are with like-minded people and don't impose on others.

[Blockwell]

This has been a very interesting thread. I say that because I love threads where my preconceived opinions are challenged and I have to step back, take pause and do some soul searching.

My initial response to this news story was just, “Yuck! Yet another story for the religious right to point at as an example of typical gay male behavior.” But it is much more complicated than that; human sexuality always is. What humans (I think males especially so) find sexual desirable seems to be locked in a puberty and appears to be immutable. We as gays and lesbians are making headway in expanding what is acceptable to include adult same sex partners, but even the majority of us recognize that non-consensual and sex with children is unacceptable, so we still place some limits. I must also state that after reading all the posts, I am back to where I started.

The police were notified that sexual activity (or at least unwanted solicitation) was going on in that restroom. It is clear then that the signals used by these men to signal for sex is not as discrete as they would like; people are being offended by it. Public restrooms have an intended purpose and sexual activity is not one of them. If the danger of being caught is part of the sexual excitement for these men, then they are playing with fire and cannot blame the police when they get burned.

Blockwell

[dsdrane]

I'm not arguing that he's not sleazy. I'm arguing that sleazy isn't why he is being hounded out of office. he is being hounded out because he is percieved as being gay (whether that is true or not) The crime that he is guilty of is being a homo! if he had behaved in a sleazy way with a woman at a bar we would not be having this conversation.

The "crime" is that there was intent to engage in lewd behavior based on obvious and well-understood communication in a public facility. That's what cost him the $500 and a year's of probation.

The "crime" that is most likely costing his job -- by Republicans, remember -- is either that he's a sleazyball or gay or both. I have no doubt all issues are at play out there, and I'm, of course, not so naive to think that there isn't a huge helping of homophobia driving all this.

I think it's interesting to look at the David Vitter (R-LA) situation: on the one hand, he -- not yet anyway -- isn't being driven from office by his party. Wasn't he sleazy too? Surely. And his sleaziness was heterosexual, wasn't it? Yes...but it was also in private, or at least the private confines of a D.C. madame's establishment.

Which brings me to the private vs. public issue. Re: some guy hitting on a woman at a bar and some guy in a restroom, I have nothing to add to suzer1013; she hit the nail squarely on the head.

[rainbow7]

I apologize in advance if someone has already posted this. I heard this interview today and wanted to share it and I haven't read through to see if anyone else already posted it. Short on time but making an effort to stay connected!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14080775

Polly

[Progo35]

I agree with what's been said here. If, on one hand, Craig is gay, than it is sad that he would get into that sort of situation out of self loathing. On the other hand, I am not certain that he even intended to solicit sex. Maybe he dropped something, or was checking out a noise that he heard from the next stall? My point isn't to explain away the behavior if his intentions were to solicit sex, but I know from personal experience that nonverbal actions and communication are the easiest to misinterpret.

Frankly, I'm not sure what I would do or think if someone started acting like that in the stall next to me. Pesonally, if someone was literally peeking through the door, I would consider that a form of sexual crime in itself, perhaps constituting voyeurism. It's just dehumanizing to have your private parts stared at by anyone, anywhere, unless you gave them your permission to do so.

Since we're on the topic, would anyone like to specify what specific hand gestures mean in regards to soliciting sex? Because I know that aside from my basic instincts, I wouldn't know what was going on and would have difficulty responding. If someone wriggled their hand under the door it would freak me out but I wouldn't know whether that person was inviting me to have sex in a lewd manner or whether their fingers were cramped. On a pesonal note, I would think that this kind of awareness relates to safety. if someone were soliciting a sexual encounter, I would want to know about it, not guess.

It seems ridiculous to me to fire someone over something that small, but my point is that it is difficult for me to guess whether or not what he did had anything to do with sex.

[Daniel]

I was cleaning my desk this morning and came across some material I had printed out from White Crane Journal (online) that deals with 'Gay Shadow', a term found in Jungian pyschology. It brought to mind Mr. Craigs circumstances and the public's response to it, especially the passage below.


http://www.whitecranejournal.com/wc01116.htm

http://www.whitecranejournal.com/wc01115.htm

The Shadow is a term that is used frequently in gay spirit circles. It has a variety of meanings. With this issue of White Crane, we investigate some of these meanings.

The Shadow is a term from Jungian psychology that refers to the tendency of people to deny certain behaviors in themselves (because they think they're sinful, for instance, or embarrassing), and therefore become unconscious of how they sometimes still act out the behavior, but project it onto other people, interpreting the others' behavior as though it were motivated by what they are denying in themselves, and then often feeling compulsively angry, resentful or judgmental towards the others.

In a simpler way, The Shadow also just refers to the sides of ourselves we try to keep secret from other people, but are fully aware of, and may even be enthusiastic participants in. For a lot of gay men, for instance, interest in S/M sex, anonymous sex, promiscuity, public cruising, etc fall into this category. The Jungian idea, often embraced in gay-oriented and "new age" therapy and championed in gay cultural commentary, is that it is when all this stuff gets denied from consciousness that it can become compulsive and problematic. In therapy, meditation practice, and living fully actualized lives, people should let all this into consciousness in order to release psychic energy from it and so be able to choose or reject it consciously.


Yet another facet of The Shadow is the reality, obvious to gay men but compulsively opaque to most straight people, that the sexual sins that homosexuals get blamed for, especially child molestation and devaluating the family, are in fact behaviors of heterosexuals that the mainstream culture supports them in denying, like sexual attraction to their own children and loss of interest in their marriages. Their problems are projected onto us, the gay men whose lives are lived in the culture's Shadow. We get blamed for the culture's problems and laws get passed against us, but nobody actually addresses the real problems.

Another relevant passage.

Shadow as Internalized Homophobia

In the gay world, Shadow has another sort of meaning, parallel to the Jungian but with a different emphasis.Here it refers to so-called internalized homophobia, our tendency to accept the mainstream culture's disapproval of sex in general and homosexuality in particular and then to judge ourselves badly and repress our sexual feelings into unconsciousness so that we experience them as compulsions and uncontrollable urges. Such negative self-judgment results in depression and rigidity.

[Lek]

Frankly, I'm not sure what I would do or think if someone started acting like that in the stall next to me. Personally, if someone was literally peeking through the door, I would consider that a form of sexual crime in itself, perhaps constituting voyeurism. It's just dehumanizing to have your private parts stared at by anyone, anywhere, unless you gave them your permission to do so.

I'm with you on this. It's just creepy for me, personally. But apparently only certain toilets become haunts and certain stalls become "glory holed."

Since we're on the topic, would anyone like to specify what specific hand gestures mean in regards to soliciting sex? Because I know that aside from my basic instincts, I wouldn't know what was going on and would have difficulty responding. If someone wriggled their hand under the door it would freak me out but I wouldn't know whether that person was inviting me to have sex in a lewd manner or whether their fingers were cramped. On a personal note, I would think that this kind of awareness relates to safety. if someone were soliciting a sexual encounter, I would want to know about it, not guess.

That's why the "signals" are elaborate. One has to respond to it specifically. Wiggling your fingers under the stall wall isn't just to say "hello." If you tap your foot under the stall wall and the other person moves their foot close and taps, it is deliberate. It cannot be really be accidental. Men who come in and do their business and leave aren't bothered or are oblivious to the signals. The approach comes to men who linger.

God, I sound like an expert on this, but I did a research paper on it at university. As I mentioned elsewhere, only about 14% of the men using public facilities for sex are "gay." So, to me, it is primarily a heterosexual/bisexual male phenomenon and the behavior is intended to be completely anonymous and these men seeing it as getting off. This is one more piece of evidence that sexual behavior is a very fluid thing and why we need to be careful. A common, paranoid assertion is that just one homosexual experience can turn you homosexual.

Anyway, I'm very uncomfortable with the term "gay sex," which has been bandied about so much in the press and blogs. What goes on in tearooms (cottages) and public parks is homosexual activity and, to me, has nothing to do with "gay." But maybe that's just me.

[Lek]

I was cleaning my desk this morning and came across some material I had printed out from White Crane Journal (online) that deals with 'Gay Shadow', a term found in Jungian psychology. It brought to mind Mr. Craigs circumstances and the public's response to it, especially the passage below.


http://www.whitecranejournal.com/wc01116.htm

http://www.whitecranejournal.com/wc01115.htm

Thank you, Daniel. Fascinating stuff!

[Emproph]

I regret nothing:

Via Joe Brummer (http://www.joebrummer.com/WordPress/). A man dedicated to the relentlessness of non-violence:

Parody, "If you were gay it would be ok."
BHCrOtSzIBg
Thank you Joe.

And now this one's just a favorite of mine, but I'm evil. I'm no Joe Brummer...
xrBi2VOGZKc

[Jamie McDaniel]

Emproph, the videos you have selected above and the two earlier ones have been quite successful in injecting humor to this thread.
___________________________________________
|| (_) || :smashy: || :inspector: || (_) || (_) ||
||____||_____||____||____||____||

[Progo35]

Oh dear....
I just really wish that the US as a whole would focus on more important things than who had sex in a bathroom. It's not that I don't care about the moral turpitude of our leaders, but I'm not even sure what happened in the bathroom. Think of all the progress we could make as a nation if we weren't distracted by things like this. We could spend much more time addressing healthcare, poverty, education...it's just sad.

[Daniel]

Oh dear....
I just really wish that the US as a whole would focus on more important things than who had sex in a bathroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02macdonald.html?ex=1346385600&en=8fd55ca061e3439a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Here's one perspective, one which affirms my own position that criminalizing consensual sex serves no one but those who like to moralize. Yes. Public sex may annoy and upset a lot of people, but criminalizing it won't make it go away any more than prohibition made people stop drinking.

Op-Ed Contributor
America’s Toe-Tapping Menace

By LAURA M. Mac DONALD
Published: September 2, 2007
WHAT is shocking about Senator Larry Craig’s bathroom arrest is not what he may have been doing tapping his shoe in that stall, but that Minnesotans are still paying policemen to tap back. For almost 40 years most police departments have been aware of something that still escapes the general public: men who troll for sex in public places, gay or “not gay,” are, for the most part, upstanding citizens. Arresting them costs a lot and accomplishes little.

In 1970, Laud Humphreys published the groundbreaking dissertation he wrote as a doctoral candidate at Washington University called “Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places.” Because of his unorthodox methods — he did not get his subjects’ consent, he tracked down names and addresses through license plate numbers, he interviewed the men in their homes in disguise and under false pretenses — “Tearoom Trade” is now taught as a primary example of unethical social research.

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.

Mr. Humphreys broke down these transactions into phases, which are remarkably similar to the description of Senator Craig’s behavior given by the police. First is the approach: Mr. Craig allegedly peeks into the stall. Then comes positioning: he takes the stall next to the policeman. Signaling: Senator Craig allegedly taps his foot and touches it to the officer’s shoe, which was positioned close to the divider, then slides his hand along the bottom of the stall. There are more phases in Mr. Humphreys’s full lexicon — maneuvering, contracting, foreplay and payoff — but Mr. Craig was arrested after the officer presumed he had “signaled.”

Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him. If the police officer hadn’t met his stare, answered that tap or done something overt, there would be no news story. On this point, Mr. Humphreys was adamant and explicit: “On the basis of extensive and systematic observation, I doubt the veracity of any person (detective or otherwise) who claims to have been ‘molested’ in such a setting without first having ‘given his consent.’ ”

As for those who feel that a family man and a conservative senator would be unlikely to engage in such acts, Mr. Humphreys’s research says otherwise. As a former Episcopal priest and closeted gay man himself, he was surprised when he interviewed his subjects to learn that most of them were married; their houses were just a little bit nicer than most, their yards better kept. They were well educated, worked longer hours, tended to be active in the church and the community but, unexpectedly, were usually politically and socially conservative, and quite vocal about it.

In other words, not only did these men have nice families, they had nice families who seemed to believe what the fathers loudly preached about the sanctity of marriage. Mr. Humphreys called this paradox “the breastplate of righteousness.” The more a man had to lose by having a secret life, the more he acquired the trappings of respectability: “His armor has a particularly shiny quality, a refulgence, which tends to blind the audience to certain of his practices. To others in his everyday world, he is not only normal but righteous — an exemplar of good behavior and right thinking.”

Mr. Humphreys even anticipated the vehement denials of men who are outed: “The secret offender may well believe he is more righteous than the next man, hence his shock and outrage, his disbelieving indignation, when he is discovered and discredited.”

This last sentence brings to mind the hollow refutations of figures at the center of many recent public sex scandals, heterosexual and homosexual, notably Representative Mark Foley, the Rev. Ted Haggard, Senator David Vitter and now Senator Craig. The difference is that Larry Craig was arrested.

Public sex is certainly a public nuisance, but criminalizing consensual acts does not help. “The only harmful effects of these encounters, either direct or indirect, result from police activity,” Mr. Humphreys wrote. “Blackmail, payoffs, the destruction of reputations and families, all result from police intervention in the tearoom scene.” What community can afford to lose good citizens?

And for our part, let’s stop being so surprised when we discover that our public figures have their own complex sex lives, and start being more suspicious when they self-righteously denounce the sex lives of others.

Laura M. Mac Donald is the author of “The Curse of the Narrows: The Story of the 1917 Halifax Explosion.”

This article was on the same page.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02randal.html


Idaho’s Original Same-Sex Scandal

By SETH RANDAL and ALAN VIRTA
Published: September 2, 2007
Boise, Idaho

WHEN Senator Larry Craig faced the television cameras here last week and denied three times that he was gay, many Idahoans were reminded of a much older sex scandal, one that rocked the state’s political capital 52 years ago and made national headlines.

There are few in Idaho who have not heard of Boise’s gay sex scandal of 1955. And across the country, a generation of gay men grew up haunted by the publicity it engendered.

Larry Craig was a 10-year-old Idaho farm boy when the scandal broke, and he was a student at the University of Idaho in 1966 when John Gerassi’s book “The Boys of Boise” revived the controversy. Decades later, the wounds inflicted by it remain raw: a lawsuit involving news reports that looked back at some of the allegations made during the now-distant scandal went to the Idaho Supreme Court in 2000.

On Halloween night in 1955, when the scandal broke, Boise was a sleepy little city of fewer than 40,000 residents. It was the kind of town where everyone seemed to know everyone else, or at least worked with, or was related to, someone who did. So when three men were arrested for having sex with teenage boys, the story generated screaming headlines — above the nameplate — in the city’s evening newspaper.

The arrested men were no strangers to Boiseans. They were the salesman at the leading men’s clothier, the shoeshine man on Main Street and a warehouseman from a local family. Boise’s newspaper, The Idaho Statesman, responded to the arrests with a series of editorials demanding that prosecutors, the police and the community take action. The newspaper printed lines like “Crush the monster” and “This mess must be removed.”

“It did not seem possible that this community ever harbored homosexuals to ravage our youth,” the paper’s editorial page declared. The newspaper helped to ignite a witch hunt, in which many in Boise sought to rid the community of all of its gay men.

More arrests followed: a lawyer, a teacher, and most sensational, the vice president of the city’s largest bank. The roundup snared consenting adults as well as men who dallied with teens.

By the time snow fell, scores of men had been questioned. Sixteen were charged, including one who was hauled back from San Francisco, where he had fled when the scandal broke.

Of the 16 men who were formally charged, only one, the one who denied it all, who fought the case through a brutal trial, beat the charges. His steadfast denials, coupled with questions about the evidence against him, persuaded the jury to let him go.

The lesson of the 1955 scandal was clear: sexual misconduct — or even the mere perception that one is gay — could ruin a man’s reputation. But steadfast, straight-in-the-eye denial just might get him off the hook.

Today, Boise is the urban center of a metro area with a half-million residents. Boise’s gay life, compared with that in San Francisco or even Portland, Ore., is quiet, but it is active enough to support a community center, a drag court, three gay bars and a monthly newspaper. The city even elected and re-elected a lesbian to the State Legislature in 2004 and 2006.

But a half-century after the 1955 scandal, Larry Craig’s change of heart about his guilty plea for disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis restroom recalls the similar lament of the most prominent of the accused men, Boise’s bank vice president. “I pleaded guilty on the advice of my attorney because he stated with all the publicity and stink that had been raised, there was nothing else I could do,” the man later said. “I knew my life was ruined anyway and threw myself on the mercy of the court.”

Seth Randal is the writer and director of “The Fall of ’55,” a documentary about the 1955 Boise scandal. Alan Virta, the archivist at Boise State University, was the historical consultant for the film.

Last, but not least, here is a very interesting blog from Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/2/16954/08003


How We Might Be Enabling GOP Hypocrisy On Homosexuality
by tunesmith

Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:23:06 PM PDT

I came across the following line in an opinion column by Joan Walsh:

Buchanan kept insisting Craig wasn't a hypocrite, preaching anti-gay "family values" while cruising for sex in men's bathrooms; Craig actually believes those values, the conservative pundit contends, but is just having a hard time living them.

Buchanan's quote tracks exactly with what I think is a major misunderstanding between the conservative and liberal mindsets.

It's a different definition of hypocrisy. Liberals tend to believe that actions must align with values; otherwise it's hypocrisy. Conservatives tend to believe that it's only hypocrisy if they don't actually believe what they're preaching.

Liberal definition of hypocrisy: Say one thing, do another.
Conservative definition: Say one thing, believe another.

All these "wrong" things that society does in life - it's not so much that people do them that conservatives have a problem with. It's that people defend them as being right instead of wrong. It's a variant of love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin.

(I know I'm totally painting with broad brushstrokes with conservatives/liberals here but it's to be conceptual.)

I think part of the reason Vitter wasn't thrown under a bus, while Craig was, is that Vitter admitted and took accountability for his "wrongness", while Craig didn't (he never admitted personal demons in having gay urges). Now, there are a lot of homophobes in the GOP so it still might not have been enough anyway, but the point is that I think many in the GOP believe Craig is a hypocrite, GOP-definition.

So anyway, that's why I think the political arguments between liberals and conservatives get so easily hung up. No one even sees each other's points. In terms of the debate about homosexuality, the GOP believes that homosexuality is wrong. But the liberal side never quite takes it head-on and argues that homosexuality is right. They'll talk about personal choice and individual liberties, or that we should be talking about something else instead, but as far as the GOP believes, that's just avoidance, or liberals standing up for someone's right to act wrongly, free of government interference. So this will just keep going around in circles until the national debate eventually becomes about one side arguing it's wrong, and the other side arguing it's right, on equal footing.

This is why I think we missed an opportunity with the gay marriage debate when that crested back in 2003 and 2004. Here in Oregon, I was struck with how much of the debate was about legal technicalities - no one visible enough was standing up and saying that gay marriage was the right thing to do. If that is done, then it's far easier to shine a light on the actual bigotry behind the conservative argument. And the only way to shrink bigotry is to shine a light on it. Until that point, the "wrongness" of homosexuality is not being directly challenged enough, which only prolongs the kind of furtive "the behavior is wrong but my values are not" actions that we see coming from Craig and other closeted gay Republicans. In that sense, I think that liberals are partially responsible for enabling the kind of "hypocrisy" that we decry on the GOP side.

[rainbow7]

http://straightguise.blogspot.com/

Joe Kort is a therapist I consult from time to time. Here's what he has to say about Larry Craig.

p.s. I still don't know why my links don't work, but I'm pm'ing now for technical assistance!

Polly

[Daniel]

http://straightguise.blogspot.com/

Joe Kort is a therapist I consult from time to time. Here's what he has to say about Larry Craig.

p.s. I still don't know why my links don't work, but I'm pm'ing now for technical assistance!

Polly

Polly- thanks for this link, which worked fine by-the-way. Very interesting stuff!

~

I see that former governor McGreevey has addressed this situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090200889.html?sub=AR

[NathanATX]

Polly- thanks for this link, which worked fine by-the-way. Very interesting stuff!

~

I see that former governor McGreevey has addressed this situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090200889.html?sub=AR

I was really impressed by the authenticity of what he wrote. Then I was suprised at the very end. Did you read the last bit of the article?

The writer, a student at the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church in New York, resigned in 2004 after two years as governor of New Jersey.

Former Governor James McGreevy is going into the ministry.

[Daniel]

Did you read the last bit of the article?

Former Governor James McGreevy is going into the ministry.

Yeah. This news has been out (haha) for a little while now. I think I read about it at the beginning of the summer. I wish him well. Navigating seminary and church hierarchy cannot be a piece of cake. As you know more than anyone! ;):love:

[Daniel]

xTF-ibYPlRI&eurl

His main point, that the majority of openly gay men (I dare say you won't find women lurking in public bathrooms) eshew this kind of sexual contact, is one I agree with. No-brainer there. What Rick Sanchez doesn't seem to understand is what drives men like Senator (soon to be former) to haunt said bathrooms.

[BrentRichards]

Craig Begins Campaign to Save His Seat
By DAVID ESPO (AP Special Correspondent)
From Associated Press
September 05, 2007 5:04 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - To the dismay of fellow Republicans, Sen. Larry Craig launched a determined drive to save his seat on Wednesday, vowing to stay in office if allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.

Craig's campaign suffered an instant setback, however, when the ethics committee refused to set aside a complaint lodged against him. "Pending Sen. Craig's resignation, the committee will continue to review this matter," the committee's senior senators wrote.

Craig's decision to deploy his legal team marked a reversal of his pledge to resign on Sept. 30, and raised the possibility of a protracted legal and political struggle, much of it playing out in public, with gay sex at its core.

"I thought he made the correct decision, the difficult but correct decision to resign" over the weekend, said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., after he and Craig spoke by telephone. "That would still be my view today."

McConnell said Craig had told him he now intended to remain in Congress if he is permitted to withdraw his guilty plea by Sept. 30. "If he is unable to have that disposed of prior to Sept. 30, it is his intention to resign from the Senate as he expressed last Saturday," he added.

Here's some old country wisdom: Even an old dog knows when it's time to lay down and die.

[Emproph]

Snippet of Transcript (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/28/se.01.html) from Daniels video above:

SANCHEZ: How big a problem is this?

SAVAGE: Well, it is a big problem in the lives of a lot of the men who do it. It is not the problem in the lives of most openly gay men.

Invariably, when there is a bust in a public restroom where there is lewd activity going on, reporters are shocked to discover that the men who have been arrested are heterosexually identified, straight identified married men frequently and priests. Very rarely do you hear about openly gay men being busted in a place like that.
Which jives with another recent CNN clip.

Snippet of transcript (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/29/cnr.05.html):
MAJ. DARRYL TOLLESON, ATLANTA POLICE: We have arrested college professors, bank presidents, other CEOs. So we — it ranges.

LOTHIAN: And here’s another surprise.

TEWKSBURY: The research tells us that for the most part, we’re talking about men who were involved in some kind of long-term heterosexual relationship, frequently married, frequently with children.

I think it's good that this is getting focus, but I think Huffington brings up (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/in-the-age-of-terror-isn_b_62928.html) an even more important point, especially considering that Craig's bust was in an airport:

In the Age of Terror, Isn't Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?

In the consensus judgment of America's 16 intelligence agencies, the terrorist threat to our homeland is "persistent and evolving," placing our country (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/17/terror/main3065163.shtml) in "a heightened threat environment."
Given that chilling assessment, isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?

In addition, wouldn't a simple bathroom attendant take care of the problem? "Hey you guys, only one person to a stall!" There's probably many creative ways to handle the situation without the need to squander our law enforcement resources.

It reminds me of what John Stewart said about DADT issue at the GOP debate, "The only thing worse for these candidates than another terrorist attack would be a gay hero stopping it." http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

[Kittredge Cherry]

Hey, the 2008 Republican National Convention will be held in Minneapolis! Republican delegates who travel by plane will be walking past the now-notorious men’s room!

Republicans have a double-standard — gay allegations cause a crisis, while other misbehavior and crimes are excused.

Many heterosexual friends asked me to try to explain why a closeted gay man would vote against gay rights. I think that closeted gays tend to over-compensate by taking strongly anti-gay stands… hoping to throw all suspicions away from them. It also seems to be an expression of the internalized self-hatred that compels them to hide their sexual orientation out of guilt and shame.

After I posted my original piece offering a free copy of my book Hide and Speak: A Coming Out Guide (http://jesusinlove.org/hide-and-speak.php) to any US Senator, Alan Colmes of Fox News radio contacted me to do a live interview broadcast coast-to-coast. It went well — especially when a fundamentalist caller had to admit that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality.

[BruceChris]

In a series of increasingly bad decisions, which have lead to increasingly disastrous results, Senator Craig has apparently found the ultimate cure all: he is going to go back to court, and sue to have his political virginity restored. I cannot imagine that he can do anything except make his situation even worse than it already is.

I guess that I am sorry for the man, and I have difficulty understanding how a man with such incredibly bad judgment could ever have been elected to high public office. Of course us voters must carry our share of the blame, for electing him in the first place.

Peace, Love, and Much Sorrow, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

MINNEAPOLIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092800872.html) -- The infamous airport men's room where Sen. Larry Craig was arrested is getting new stall dividers that drop nearly to the floor to make it a less inviting spot for sexual liaisons.

I wonder how many heads put together it took to come up with that solution. Finally America is safe again...or at least it's airport bathroom's are from senators who are "not gay."

[Daniel]

I wonder how many heads put together it took to come up with that solution. Finally America is safe again...or at least it's airport bathroom's are from senators who are "not gay."

I doubt it. Guys will just develop a better form of tapping. :lol:

[keltic63]

I doubt it. Guys will just develop a better form of tapping. :lol:

and improved privacy!

[tdogg]

In addition, wouldn't a simple bathroom attendant take care of the problem? "Hey you guys, only one person to a stall!" There's probably many creative ways to handle the situation without the need to squander our law enforcement resources.


So, in Cuba the public restrooms have attendants, who hand you 4 squares of TP as you walk in. If you want more, you have to tip them. If you have the runs, you better have a lot of tip $$. Bathroom attendants might help, then again, depends on what they are 'attending' :lol::lol:

Stall walls to the floor, yes I could see where that would provide sufficient privacy! :p Great idea Minn.!!

[u-dog]

So, in Cuba the public restrooms have attendants, who hand you 4 squares of TP as you walk in. If you want more, you have to tip them. If you have the runs, you better have a lot of tip $$. Bathroom attendants might help, then again, depends on what they are 'attending' :lol::lol:

Stall walls to the floor, yes I could see where that would provide sufficient privacy! :p Great idea Minn.!!

Honestly though... what do super-dividers accomplish that a simple "no thank you" wouldn't do just as well for less money. Why dont we all grow up! (no offense T-dogg!)

[Daniel]

Honestly though... what do super-dividers accomplish that a simple "no thank you" wouldn't do just as well for less money. Why dont we all grow up! (no offense T-dogg!)

There is no greater danger than two horny men having sex in a bathroom stall. Next there'll be installing video camera's to watch....I mean...catch people.

For the public good of course.

[BrentRichards]

There is an old saying that "Locks keep your honest neighbors out of your house." Desperate people will always find a way around the "strictest" (or dumbest) attempts to control their behavior ... I have recently been learning about the wild things prisoners come up with to get around the strictures of prison life (in order to acquire weapons, drugs, etc ...). Dividers and policing are treating a symptom, not the problem ... I still believe the hostility of our culture toward homosexual behavior does more to drive the "bathroom sex" trade than anything else. Out gay men, as a rule, don't do this crap. Only those who still feel the desperate need to hide (those who still feel "locked up") do ... and lower dividers mean nothing to them. Waste of time and resources. Of course, we must be seen as "doing something" about this "menace," right? Yeesh.

[tdogg]

A problem is that people take less responsibility for their own actions, therefore the gov't feels they must take some responsibility. Then, people get more lax, the gov't takes up the reins and so on, and so on. The dumbing down of America... Will the day come when folks won't have to think for themselves at all???

I have to think, yes, we have more serious matters to address here than who is tapping their foot in a restroom stall. I have never walked into a public restroom and witnessed any sign of sex, but then again, I'm a girl so maybe I don't even know??

My sister, oh the Pentecostal conservative Christian one who cannot allow me and my partner around her children, once forced her nephew to use the women's restroom with her in tow. She was frightened of what might happen to him in the men's restroom, sheesh, they were in San Francisco after all and you know what horrid things happen there in the public restrooms of the theaters. :cool::eek::lol: This might not sound too weird, but the poor guy was TWELVE YEARS OLD! He was mortified (by her story I could tell), but in the end it was pee with me and the other women or hold it till you bust. I was in complete shock!

[Emproph]

The latest. (Thanks to BTB (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/)).

Judge won't let Craig withdraw guilty plea
Senator could appeal, or relinquish seat as he'd earlier stated

“Because the defendant’s plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied,” Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134202/
Wasn't it the appeal of a seat that got him into trouble in the first place?

[Emproph]

A few good zingers:

SNL - Really!?! with Seth & Amy: Senator Craig
zal8UnnzGiw

[keltic63]

This will set your toes a-tappin! :lol:


JWPTtJ-Z4lU

[u-dog]

thank you for that hearty laugh!!:lol:

[BruceChris]

It's been a little over a month and a half since the Larry Craig story broke, but somehow he manages to do something just often enough to get back in the news, again and again. I would guess that as long as he feels that he can somehow *clear his good name*, he doesn't really care how badly he ruins his reputation in the process.

I mean, everyone can understand it when someone shoots themselves in the foot, by mistake, but Senator Craig clearly has a full clip, and he's Still blasting away.

Pece, Love, and Sorrow, Bruce Chris

[antonyh]

It's been a little over a month and a half since the Larry Craig story broke, but somehow he manages to do something just often enough to get back in the news, again and again. I would guess that as long as he feels that he can somehow *clear his good name*, he doesn't really care how badly he ruins his reputation in the process.

I mean, everyone can understand it when someone shoots themselves in the foot, by mistake, but Senator Craig clearly has a full clip, and he's Still blasting away.

Pece, Love, and Sorrow, Bruce Chris

tis the gift that keeps on giving. hopefully he'll take the republican party with him LOL

[Emproph]

From JimK at TeachTheFacts (http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/10/new-gay-stereotype.html#comments) while he was looking up Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/youregrounded/TDB_Gaydar.gif

[dsdrane]

Yet another tidbit from Towleroad (http://http://www.towleroad.com/2007/10/washington-stat.html)....

:rolleyes:

[antonyh]

It looks like the Idaho Statesman has been doing a little investigative journalism into the sex life of Senator Craig. According to them:


One of a newspaper’s primary duties is to hold the powerful accountable and to give voice to the voiceless.

U.S. Sen. Larry Craig’s account of what happened in the men’s restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport has changed — whether or not he consulted an attorney, when he hired his attorney, whether he was handcuffed or not, where the piece of toilet paper was. His credibility also is in doubt because of his contradictory statements on whether he would resign.

Since his arrest and guilty plea for disorderly conduct, his statements that he has never had sex with a man, was never named in the 1982 congressional page scandal, didn’t know the “signals” gay men use to solicit sex, and was a victim of profiling have been questioned by more men who contacted us to share their knowledge of the senator.

As with our August report, we didn’t rush to print these stories. We’ve spent several months checking out the men’s backgrounds and details of their accounts. We believe it’s important for you to know what we’ve learned, and to hear the men’s own words at IdahoStatesman.com.


Here are the recorded statements by the cadre of men who have had sex with Senator Craig.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/226703.html

[Vanessa White]

I am thinking that what bothers me most about this ongoing emerging set of circumstances, is that those in the public eye really believe in their web of denial, that the truth will never come to light. I would much rather bear the uncomfortable nature of telling a hard truth from the beginning, then lying about a circumstance over and over and over again, in order to save oneself from bad consequences.

I know that his own internalized denial, fear, and homophobia play fully into this, so I feel for his process. But, we all have a choice in how we deal with our circumstances. :pray:

[Progo35]

The thing that really bothers me about all of this is that I really don't care about who Craig had sex with or when or why, and I don't think that its worth using the country's time and energy investigating all of it. It does bother me if he's been having sexual encounters with people other than his wife, but our country has more important things to worry about. And, I think that all of this has something to do with homophobia in our society...although I guess since Craig has made an issue out of opposing gay marriage, etc, it makes these allegations more significant. But, it kind of seems like one giant witch hunt to me.

[antonyh]

I know that his own internalized denial, fear, and homophobia play fully into this, so I feel for his process. But, we all have a choice in how we deal with our circumstances. :pray:

At one level I also feel for him. We genuinely live in a society that punishes you for coming out. There is a 'coming out' tax. It could cost you our job, your influence, your career, your place in the ministry, your family...a bunch of different things. Craig knows this and instead of coming out into the light of honesty, he would rather just lie and try to save what is already his. For him to come out into the open he is going to have to cast a truck load of lies off his back.

[dsdrane]

And, I think that all of this has something to do with homophobia in our society...although I guess since Craig has made an issue out of opposing gay marriage, etc, it makes these allegations more significant.

This story -- this legitimate and important story -- is not about simple schadenfreude (though there's certainly an element of that); it is about blatant and sustained hypocrisy by one of our country's leaders, a vocal voice for institutionalized and codified homophobia, and someone who is supposed to represent all Idahoans, including the gay ones who help pay his salary.

The fact that Sen. Craig is in public life is his choice. The minute he chose that path, he opened himself up to public scrutiny. And, in the public arena, you are not allowed to say one thing and do another...and then repeatedly deny it.

Additionally, this is not just about Craig. This story, I would wager, wouldn't have near the hype if it hadn't come of the heels of a jaw-dropping wave of other prominent Republicans falling from grace in similar ways.

The bright and bleaching light of reality needs to continue to be shined into these dark corners. It's not a witch hunt; it's justice...and long overdue.

[tdogg]

The thing that really bothers me about all of this is that I really don't care about who Craig had sex with or when or why, and I don't think that its worth using the country's time and energy investigating all of it. It does bother me if he's been having sexual encounters with people other than his wife, but our country has more important things to worry about. And, I think that all of this has something to do with homophobia in our society...although I guess since Craig has made an issue out of opposing gay marriage, etc, it makes these allegations more significant. But, it kind of seems like one giant witch hunt to me.

Just curious, is this how you felt when Clinton was investigated regarding the Monica Lewinsky (sp?) 'scandel"?

Personally, I agree with David. When one chooses to live in the limelight, one should not be surprised when the light shines on them in ways that might not be so welcome. If a person really wants their private life to be private, then they should choose careers in which that can happen.