My 2 Cents on Craig
Jonathan Rowe on Aug 31st 2007
What interests me most about the Craig affair is the disconnect between his social identity and his sexual orientation. When Senator Larry Craig announced to the world that he is not and never has been gay, I don’t think he was trying to purposefully deceive the public. And yes, I do believe that he attempted to do what he was accused of doing. Nor do I believe Craig’s sexual orientation to be “heterosexual” in the sense that Mark Olson and Joe Carter intimate.
Carter cites an interesting research paper on the matter which finds:
[M]ost tearoom participants (a) communicate through non-verbal gestures and seldom speak, (b) do not associate outside the tearoom or attempt to learn one another’s identity or exchange biographical information, (c) do not use force or coercion or attempt to involve youths or children, (d) are primarily heterosexual and married…
I haven’t looked over the paper in detail; but I can pretty safely assert that the majority of men who seek anonymous homosexual encounters in public places like men’s bathrooms are not “primarily heterosexual” in their sexual orientations. No doubt there are men who are “primarily heterosexual” who have the capacity to enjoy and do partake in homosexual behavior. Richard Posner philosophizes about such men in his book Sex and Reason. And he notes that some rational reason in a cost/benefit sense invariably exists for men to engage in this behavior (like, for instance, women aren’t available on a navy boat, prison, all boys school, or in a culture where women are sequestered and horny men are in need of release). Huge risks attach to engaging in anonymous sex in public restrooms. Perhaps a primarily heterosexually oriented man who is a “loser” with no reputation to protect and otherwise can’t find women for sexual release, but has some incidental homosexual orientation, might participate in such tearoom behavior. Given the costs associated with Craig’s behavior — in his case huge costs, including loss of a Senate seat and destruction of valuable public reputation — it makes no sense whatsoever that to conclude Craig is more attracted to women than men and would engage in such behavior.
But it may well be true that most men (I think certainly a huge percentage of them) who engage in tearoom behavior are married and have a “straight” social identity, but a primarily homosexual orientation.
My own suspicions tell me there are two types of homosexual men who engage in this behavior. The first is really sleazy types for whom I have no sympathy, out gay men perfectly comfortable in their homosexual identity — the types who brag about such behavior on cruising websites. If you are promiscuous, you can always go to a privately owned gay bath-house or hook up online and have sex in the privacy of someone’s home.
However, the other type — the profile which Larry Craig perfectly fits and so did Gov. McGreevy before he came out — are homosexually oriented men who are so far in the psychological closet that they haven’t even admitted to themselves they are homosexual. It’s psychologically easier for them to cruise in public toilets. Stepping foot in a gay bar is a mental step towards embracing a gay identity, or admitting to yourself that you have a homosexual orientation; you are pretty much signaling you are gay to other gays in a social venue where the gay subculture congregates. The public toilets make it easier on your mind to pretend you are still straight and live a double life.
I do feel sympathy for these people and think they are victims of the type of society the Family Research Council or Concerned Women for America want to implement or bring back.
It helps here to distinguish between identity and orientation, and the terms “gay” and “homosexual.” Craig is one of many homosexually oriented men who are not “gay” in terms of chosen identity. To some extent, being “gay,” as an identity, is a matter of choice. A homosexual orientation, however, is not a matter of choice; it is a state of being.
That Mr. Craig purposefully chose a “straight” identity yet for all these years and at the age of 62 well after a man’s libido has waned, couldn’t help himself in the tearoom I think is damn compelling evidence of the unchosen, unchangeable nature of the homosexual orientation. If you don’t give male sexuality a healthy outlet for release (like marriage) it will rear its head in ugly places.
That said, I also endorse the notion that sexual orientation (still unchosen and unchangeable) exists on a continuum. Whatever the problems with Kinsey’s research, he was right in this regard. The existence of say a Kinsey 5 (a man who is fully attracted to men, but slightly attracted to women) or a Kinsey 1 (a man who is fully attracted to women but slightly to men) may give the appearance of “fluidity,” or meaningful choice, in sexual orientation and identity; but such is, in my opinion, illusory. A Kinsey 5 (probably McGreevy and the other gay men who have married women and fathered children) may be able to “get it up” in the short term with a woman, but cannot flourish in the long run in such relationships.
Filed in The Boudoir
Sexuality is a very complex matter. You treat risk as a negative. For many men, it seems to be a positive. Part of this analysis must include the many married men who engage in high-risk sex with women. (Sex in the office can destroy a career. Sex with prostitutes risks disease and can destroy a career.) I think we can safely assume that Craig’s attraction to men is more than slight, but we may not know enough to determine his primary orientation. If there were more of a culture of anonymous hook-ups with women, he might have been attracted in that direction.
I say “might” because it certainly seems possible that Craig (and maybe most tearoom participants) seek that outlet as a bizarre response to repression. But it seems just as possible that many (or even most) are attracted by its risky or transgressive nature. It does not seem likely that most are primarily heterosexual; Joe Carter’s argument is interesting, but the research he quotes does not seem to support any definite conclusions about orientation.
Jon,
What you haven’t addressed (at all I think) n this is the notion that risk may very well be the primary draw. There is no corresponding “heterosexual” risky option available. The researchers note, that while the social acceptance of homosexuality has risen, there is no indication that “tearoom” activity levels have waned. One would expect that activity would be affected by the trend.
That gives lie to your notion that these participants (like Mr Craig) may actually (necessarily or even primarily) have a same sex sexual orientation.
On the other hand, I can also see why members of the gay community, having struggled with “coming out” might wish to see or project a similar narrative (with different outcome) on those like Mr Craig. That is, he is gay but choose instead of “coming out” a heterosexual sexual identity but resort to homosexual liasons as driven by orientation. But that narrative fails to explain why as availability for anonymous or relational encounters with far less risk are more and more publicly and easily accessible that the behavior hasn’t moved to those avenues. Thus, I’m just not sure the data proposed, if accurate, support your particular explanation.
That is, it may be that the reason he “cannot flourish in the long run in such relationships” is that he needs to engage in risky (sexual) behavior. His primary “sexual orientation” might involve risk. What other consensual, risky behavior is left? For myself, I have failed to imagine or come up with a risky heterosexual option. Perhaps Mr Craig’s imagination has failed him in this regard as well. I think the rejection of risk requires a more obvious counter-example such as that. After all, infidelity is increasingly given a pass, I think it unlikely that it would lose him is position and job like this has.
Mark,
It’s certainly possible that the risk element is part of the sexual orientation of Craig and others like him. Though there are indeed risky heterosexual options. He could always, instead of hiring high priced call girls and meeting at fancy hotels, which I’d imagine is par for the course for many Congressmen, get a cheap hooker and a cheap room. Some female prostitutes, if you pay them enough, will probably have sex in public places.
…
But that narrative fails to explain why as availability for anonymous or relational encounters with far less risk are more and more publicly and easily accessible that the behavior hasn’t moved to those avenues.
Well, in some sense the behavior has moved to those places. Before the 1960s, I understand it was much harder for gay bathouses and gay bars with backrooms to flourish. The liberalization of sexual mores combined with the ability of the gay subculture to be more open indeed did lead to more gay sex in privately owned “less risky” places.
In terms of the tearoom stuff not being on the wane, I’m not sure if I trust the data. But clearly that stuff still goes on. As I noted, I think a great deal of the participants are indeed out gay men comfortable in their sexual identities (the types who brag about such behavior on cruising websites). And a great deal of them are closeted married men with a homosexual orientation but not a gay identity (what I think Craig is). It might be easier to come out now; but for a strong number of gay individuals, all of whose parents expected and raised them to be heterosexual, it’s still not easy to accept. I don’t fully understand it myself. It’s a combination of the person and the social environment. I have liberal parents and came out in the mid 90s and had panics attacks, severe depression and had to go on anti-depressants. Even though I think that homosexuality is a neutral trait like handedness, I generally don’t discuss my personal life with someone unless I’m very close to them or otherwise have a good reason.
David Brudnoy, one of my libertarian idols, former columnist for National Review and Boston Talk Radio host, who died in 2004 at 64 came out in his early 20s at Yale. He was not “out” in the open; you couldn’t be back then. Rather he was out within a secret community, and lived, as everyone in that community did, a double life. In his very honest autobiography (he was very honest about his sexual encounters when he knew his conservative friends like William F. Buckley would be reading and reviewing his book), he notes not a shred of psychological problems, no depression, no nothing. In fact he looked upon his days of sneaking off to gay bars and living a double life with fond memories as “fun.” This really ticked off some leftist gay activists who read his book. And I understand why. Larry Kramer also went to Yale around the same time as Brudnoy and was driven to suicidal depression from having to live a double life. I don’t doubt both of their experiences as authentic. It’s like, everyone who fights in war will be affected in some way. But some folks who witnesses the horrors can still pick themselves up and get on with their lives with peace of mind, others, they never leave the war or otherwise long suffer with post-traumatic-stress.
This phenomenon has way too many complicated social factors for an easy answer. For instance, no doubt after the late 60s promiscuous gay subculture sexual behavior increased (which reached its peak in the 70s and early 80s before AIDS); but the emergence of a gay social identity/out social group has not led to more individuals practicing homosexuality, just more hyperpromiscuity among a certain subset of gays (many of whom tragically died of AIDS).
Some scholars convincingly argue the gay social identity resulted in fewer individuals practicing homosexual sex. And that’s because up until a recent point in history, it was not understood that “gay” is an identity or “homosexual,” a state of being (or a homosexual person, as a noun). Back then, a man could enjoy a homosexual act and still think of himself as “heterosexual.” A man who is exclusively or primarily attracted to other men is not, I would argue “heterosexual.” But a man who is primarily heterosexual, incidentially homosexual I think does fit well with a “straight” social identity.
It all depends on drawing social lines, and how we define things. The gay social group is probably no more than 3% of the population and the men and women who constitute such, are, for the most part between 3-6 on the Kinsey scale (with “6″ perfectly homosexual, “3″ perfectly bisexual). Well, there also exists the other half of the Kinsey scale, from 0-3, full of folks who are primarily heterosexual incidentially homosexual. Their exact numbers are unknown; but they may make up a greater percentage of the population than those in the gay social group. And they identify and feel most comfortable with their “normal” heterosexual identities. As they should; after all, they are primarily heterosexual.
The way it works today, any admission of involvement with or enjoyment of homosexual activity gets on placed in the “gay” or “bi” box. And that’s a status that many Kinsey 0-3s don’t want. Hell it’s a status that many Kinsey 3-6 don’t want either.
But the bottom line is I’ve read some compelling evidence that before the sexual revolution more “straight” masculine men (they were called “trades”) partook in homosexual sex than they do today, because they could do so and still understand themselves as “normal” heterosexuals. The attachment of a “gay” or “bi” identity with any known homosexual behavior is enough to keep more of these otherwise “straight” guys away from more experimentation with homosexual sex.
The men with whom the “trades” of old often had sex — the “fairies” (real homosexuals, who invariably played the passive or female roles in the sexual act) — probably did understand they they were of a different “species,” but social science just hadn’t yet caught up to their self understanding.
I’m going off on this tanget simply to illustrate that sexual orientation/behavior/identity are complicated things. And there are just way too many variables to come forth with a definite answer to odd facts like why are lots of married closeted men still having sex in public restrooms when it seems as if its easier now more than ever before to come out.
Though, Occam’s razor tells me my instincts on Craig are right: He is a homosexually oriented man who psychologically has not accepted this and has never embraced any kind of “gay” social identity.
Jon,
It’s certainly possible that the risk element is part of the sexual orientation of Craig and others like him. Though there are indeed risky heterosexual options. He could always, instead of hiring high priced call girls and meeting at fancy hotels, which I’d imagine is par for the course for many Congressmen, get a cheap hooker and a cheap room. Some female prostitutes, if you pay them enough, will probably have sex in public places.
How realistically transgressive/risky is that? One might recall that Bill Clinton got to be President having such behavior basically public knowledge. He lost neither of two elections nor his marriage.
Try this. It seems to me, both hypothesis are actually possible, if not likely. That is, Mr Craig (and those like him) may be either homosexually oriented but not internally accepting this or heterosexual having a strong desire as well for risky/transgressive sexual encounters (but still requiring consensual activity which excludes rape).
If the second is a distinct possibility, how do you (as hilzoy for example does) validate the choice to out him as gay? Is “outing” a politician because he has supported legislature the gay community opposes OK even if the politician isn’t gay?
Try this. It seems to me, both hypothesis are actually possible, if not likely. That is, Mr Craig (and those like him) may be either homosexually oriented but not internally accepting this or heterosexual having a strong desire as well for risky/transgressive sexual encounters….
Back to Occam’s razor. Both sexual orientations/conditions are within the realm of possibilities in human nature. The former, it seems to me, is far more common than the latter.
Update: If I need to explain this a little more. No doubt some men do have a sexual orientation that entails the need to take risks for release; but I’d imagine it’s relatively rare in human nature that such need would lead a heterosexually oriented man to seek homosexual sex, simply for the purpose of risk. However — and this just illustrates just how much more we need to understand this complicated issue in human nature — I suppose Craig well could be predominately heterosexual, incidentially homosexual, one of those men from .01-3 on the Kinsey Scale, coupled with a strong need for risk taking sex. I don’t think any Kinsey 0s (that is, perfect heterosexuals) seek homosexual sex or even have the capacity to enjoy it. Yet, I do believe that many “straight” men do have the capacity to enjoy homosexual sex. And that’s because what could be a huge % of predominately heterosexual, straight identifying men in any given population (perhaps as much of 1/3 of men in the overall population) have some kind of bisexuality in their orientation and or behavior. Yet, while not being part of the 3-4% of “gay or bis” who make up the gay social group in Western societies and who I imagine are from 3-6 on the Kinsey scale.
Jon,
Well, to hold that the risk/transgressive heterosexual is one is less common rejects data suggested by the study cited.
But am I to intimate that “outing” is OK, because you estimate that a preponderance of those who undertake such activities are gay you may therefore out Mr Craig as gay with no other proof. Is this a statistical ethical judgement, that is, if the “percentage” is below a given threshold, then “outing” a person as homosexual is OK?
Outing is a harm done to a person. You are indicating this is OK, if his behavior is one practiced by what(?) less than 25% heterosexuals? Where’s your cutoff? What if you are wrong and the study is right, that is that it is actually more likely than not that the supposition that he is gay is wrong, is “outing” then still in the cards? If so, why? How do then feel about the false positives?
Honesty — I’ll let people draw their own conclusions. If he doesn’t accept the gay social identity, fine. I’m perfectly open to the notion that “straight” men with predominatly heterosexual orientations may seek homosexual sex. I’m perfectly fine with putting the facts on the table (i.e., this is what Craig was seeking and has done) and letting us otherwise discuss and ponder the proper definitions and understandings without jumping to “categorizational” conclusions.
Plenty of conservatives have noted that a man who seeks homosexual sex is not “straight” or heterosexual. I’m willing to accept that “straight” men do have homosexual sex for a variety of interesting reasons. But before Craig’s encounter, it was my understanding that straight men had gay sex because of the unavailability of women (or of women willing to do what the men want them to do), the gender to whom they are more attracted.
Have you corresponded with these conservatives who insist that no “straight” men seek out homosexual sex? Clayton Cramer for instance, who insists that it’s only “gay activists” like me who posit the notion that a man can do what Craig is accused of doing and still be “straight.”
It’s interesting because attitudes like Cramer’s are the very reason why as “gay” became known as an orientation and social group, as opposed to “homosexual” as only a behavior, arguably fewer “straights” (that is men predominately heterosexual in their orientations and comfortable with a “normal” social identity) are willing experiment with homosexual sex because they don’t want to be tarred with “gay or bi” label.
Before gay liberation more straight men were willing to have gay sex because doing so didn’t sacrifice their “normal” social identity; they could, like the huge percentage of heterosexual men who had homosexual sex in Ancient Greece, have some homosexual sex at some point in their lives, while living most of their lives as normal, married, satisfied heterosexual men.