Demonization
Jason Kuznicki on Aug 29th 2007
In the words of Andy Towle, the misinformed demonization begins. The Larry Craig story has everyone talking about anonymous gay sex, and here’s ABC News describing how gay men find it:
Over time, people familiar with cruising told ABCNEWS.com, gay men began using a codified system of signals to indicate to others that they were interested in sex. In an effort to curb lewd acts in public — or as some gays argue, in an effort to persecute gay men — undercover police began sting operations in places known for sex soliciting and employed the same codes.
“Tapping of the foot is pretty standard for men who cruise in toilets,” said Keith Griffith, owner of Cruisingforsex.com, a Web site on which visitors post locations popular with men looking for anonymous sex.
“They will usually go to the stall at the far end of the strip of toilets. They will see each other and usually decide to go someplace else. The vast majority have no interest in being seen. They may be meeting in public locations, but they will be as discreet as possible,” Griffith said.
Now, honestly, I’ve known for years that this goes on, as I think most gay men do. Participation? Um, no. Here are some quick observations.
First, not all gay men do this. Just the risk-seeking and self-destructive ones.
My guess is that overwhelmingly, gay men look for sex partners in gay bars, gay chatrooms, and gay social functions. In these places it can be ridiculously easy to find a partner — sometimes without even trying or wanting one. It’s either that, or we are introduced by mutual friends, which is how I met my husband. All of this is rather like… um… gosh, I dunno… the way straight people look for sex partners?
The only gay men who avoid these perfectly legal and inoffensive paths are those who fear being out even more than they fear being arrested. An arrest can be covered up, sometimes. A life partner can’t be — and, weirdly, some people are scared to death of the life partner option for just this reason.
But let’s consider the worst-case scenario of actually looking for a sex partner in a restroom. If the sex is between consenting adults, and if it’s ultimately done in private, then I have a hard time seeing cruising as a crime. A moral failing, sure. A crime? No.
And even if the sex does happen in public, surely this is one of the most minor infractions around. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone sees four feet under a stall instead of two? It’s less permanent than graffiti and possibly less upsetting. Get over yourselves.
Now, of course, if the owner of the place doesn’t want it going on, then it’s certainly wrong. But let’s get a sense of proportion here.
What the Larry Craig story tells us is that one very lonely old man finally got caught doing something he was widely rumored to have been doing for years. It’s mildly offensive to public order, but indicative of a pretty deep lack of self-respect, particularly when coupled with all his family-values posturing. It’s sad. It’s shameful. It’s also pretty small, in all senses of the word.
The story is only important because it allows voters to judge his character a little better, and presumably character is still important to voters. So — do you really want a Senator who would “protect” traditional marriage for straights, but who would try to use his privileged position to get away with anonymous public sex? Wouldn’t an openly gay man actually serve his constituents a lot better, all other things being equal?
Filed in The Boudoir
I don’t see that Craig tried to use his public position to get away with anything. If anything, his public position was an impediment. He quickly plead guilty, hoping that everything would disappear. Were he not a public person, it probably would have.
In other respects, I agree with your sentiments (and your assertions of fact). And it is all very sad on several levels.
Let me also point out that there are different levels of not being “out.” Some public figure gay folks are more or less comfortable with who they are, except they don’t want the public to find out for a variety of reasons. They are “out” to themselves and certain people and groups, but not the public at large. Mark Foley went to gay bars, had partners, and the people who knew him well knew he was gay. Plenty of masculine handsome movie stars like Rock Hudson are “closeted” in this sense.
The closeted men like Craig and until recently McGreevy, who troll around for public sex in bathrooms, are closeted at a deeper level. They are still living in denial and couldn’t bear the thought of stepping into a gay bar because psychologically that’s a step towards admitting you are gay.
I don’t see that Craig tried to use his public position to get away with anything. If anything…
Read the arrest report. He directly asked the cop if being a U.S. Senator could help him any.
He also came back just a few days ago and said he regretted pleading guilty, and thought it would help ‘it all go away’. I don’t know what he was thinking. Of course, this was after it all finally became public.
My issue with this guy is the whole voting against gay marriage and gay rights while hiding his true nature, as was mentioned in the blog. That and his whole “I AM NOT GAY” statements just yesterday or the day before. He was pretty angry about it.
I agree with Jason’s portrayal of Sen. Craig as a lonely old man. However, I disagree with his statement that an openly gay man could serve his constituency better. His constituency does not think that traditional marriage aught to be changed to accomodate gays. A hetrosexual man who is honest in his personal and public life will serve that constituency far better. It is also why I believe Sen. Craig should step down.
Rich
JK: “Read the arrest report. He directly asked the cop if being a U.S. Senator could help him any.”
I hadn’t seen that in the reports. Even so, he is not using his office in the same sense as someone hitting on his subordinates or otherwise using his office or staff; it was a last-ditch effort.
[...] The “Expectation” on the part of the gay community, if Mr Kuznicki is such, is that Mr Craig is a repressed homosexual … and at the very least, the public should be informed, i.e., he should be outed, as a public service to educate the public at large. Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost raises another interesting possibility, and as I, and I venture few others as well, haven’t sorted out the implications I thought I like to do that here. Here’s the possibility, that is, that Mr Craig is being truthful when he protests that “I’m not gay.” For details, as well as the connection for the title phrase “Silence of the Lambs” delve below the fold. [...]
I agree with Jason’s portrayal of Sen. Craig as a lonely old man. However, I disagree with his statement that an openly gay man could serve his constituency better. His constituency does not think that traditional marriage aught to be changed to accomodate gays.
Well, yes. But I was posing only two alternatives: an openly gay man and a closeted one. A heterosexual who despises gays probably is more representative, but that wasn’t what I was asking about.