I believe that in some jurisdictions, it is only a crime to "tap one's toes" to Cole Porter music.

Clearly no media outlet should be without a copy — especially Slate.com, whose editors revealed their cluelessness on the subject this week in a "real time conversation" rife with unintentional hilarity: "I can't believe it's a crime to tap your foot." "Can someone explain the mechanics of how two people are supposed to commit a sex act in a stall where legs are visible from the knee down?

Laughing my ass off at this and the knee-jerk lefties echoing Slate's sentiments on certain liberal blog comment threads.

It's a crime to solicit homosexual sex but not a crime to solicit heterosexual sex. Listen as a sexy woman walks by a construction site.

Thinking of Tucker Carlson, I wonder sometimes how a straight man would feel about the subject after he hit on a lesbian, thinking she was straight, and a couple of her butch friends came back and beat the crap out of him.

But what the post still has failed to clairfy for myself and sure many others, Is it a crime to make another man think you want to have sex with him?

I don't think I'm a whippersnapper and am not a blogger, just a commenter. I agree with the accusation that those suddenly outraged by the treatment of Craig's toe tapping are "johnny come latelies" (no pun intended) and that gay men have been victimized and targeted in this way for years.

However, I do have some qualms about public restrooms like those in an airport being used for sexual encounters (not that my qualms will change anything one way or another) -- I have a preteen son, who used to be a younger son, and I have taken him into airport bathrooms and, as he got older, allowed him to use airport bathrooms while I did something else just outside the door. The prospect that he might stumble across two adults, of whatever gender or orientation, having sex in that setting is unacceptable to me (I know, who cares?). I am not bothered by keeping public restrooms that serve children from time to time free of sexual activity. Toe tap away, but find a room or something, please.

"Thinking of Tucker Carlson, I wonder sometimes how a straight man would feel about the subject after he hit on a lesbian, thinking she was straight, and a couple of her butch friends came back and beat the crap out of him."

Excellent point. But I doubt the lesbian would need to get some friends to beat the crap out of Tucker. I'm sure she could handle him by herself.

It shouldn't be a crime to tap feet or do anything consensually that is out of public view. It isn't a crime to be a hypocrite, either.

However we should pass a law that when a person of authority gets busted, he admit what he did and show some humility. This is like Rush's being busted as a Vicodin addict. Is it too much to ask they drop the pompous right-wing idiot act?

I am honestly trying, but I can't get over the instinctual gag reflect I have in response to the charges (soliciting anonymous sex from a stranger in a PUBLIC BATHROOM? Grooooss.) to think about the laws. They might have intended to commit lewd acts in a public place, which I think should be illegal, but if they don't actually follow through... Again with the gross!

I mean, it obviously should not be illegal to solicit sex (no matter how ill-advised) if the parties involved are of age. But if they're going to go at it in the gross PUBLIC BATHROOM ZOMG then fine 'em and humiliate 'em, I say.

Why would lesbians find friends to beat up men who hit on them? Isn't the reason men beat up men who hit on them that they feel threatened by the implication they might be interested?

I have kind of a question. Can someone explain the mechanics of how two people are supposed to commit a sex act in a stall where legs are visible from the calf [knee? Who can see -knees-?] down?

Kate,

Where exactly do you imagine that men of Larry Craig's age are supposed to solicit anonymous sex with other men? And it *must* be anonymous, precisely because of people like Republican senators. Why do you think this whole subculture emerged in the first place? I agree that sex in a public bathroom is "gross," but if you had to choose between that and being shunned and rejected by your family, your community, and your entire society (as Craig no doubt feels he would be...if he could even come far enough out of denial to think about it), what would you do?

I want to know why Tucker was in that bathroom anyway,Was he trolling? did he not get payment for services rendered and that's why he turned to violence.Do we have a right to know how many gay men are elected officals.

The YMCA in DC is just west of Blair House, on the way to George Washington University - While the LBJ aide was well publicized in 64, I believe an Eisenhower aide was also arrested there in 58. Fair and balanced police work.

Since our pheremones don't work very well anymore, (thanks evolution), maybe we need to come up with a societal code system:

1. I'm hetero and I am willing to accept advances.
2. I'm homosexual and I am willing accept advances.
3. Leave me alone (the default)

So Craig goes to the number one (sorry, had to) gay sex bathroom in the state and starts foot tapping, foot rubbing, peeping into stalls, placing his hands underneath stalls -- running through all of these known signals to an undercover cop, indicating that he wants to have sex in a public bathroom. And Craig is the victim here? He and other gay men who do this are being "unfairly targeted?" I don't get it.

Is it a crime to say to a man in a public bathroom, "Let's have sex here in this stall?" Is anyone arguing that that is legal? Well, the officer judged that this is in fact what Craig was proposing to him in a non-verbal manner through the use of these commonly used "signals." Maybe the officer is simply wrong. Maybe he misinterpreted Craig's foot rubbing, peeping, and breakdancing in the next stall. All things considered, that seems highly unlikely.

And why are so many perverts in the GOP.Is it a triat you have to have to be GOP.

I'm mostly with you genevieve. I'm so straight that a) I've never heard of the foot-tapping before and b) I'm a bit befuddled at the mechanics of the thing, but I wouldn't care if a gay man came onto me. In fact, I'd be sort of flattered--I'm straight enough that I wouldn't mind the implication that I might be gay.

Frankly, I'd be far more threatened by a sexy woman hitting on me; in that case, I might be tempted, and I'm married and faithful. If Angelina Jolie started putting the moves on me (which is, you know, pretty likely) I'd run like hell. I probably wouldn't actually bash her head against a wall, but you never know. I guess that depends what she was wearing.

Sorry.
I am all for rights for everyone and by no means a prude.
But public bathrooms should be a sex-free zone. straight or gay.

What about airplane bathrooms? C'mon. Throw me a, er, bone here.

Isn't the key that he never engaged in the actual sex? I have no problem criminalizing sex in a public bathroom (or other public locations), but this didn't even come close. Similarly, I have no problem criminalizing the solicitation of minors for sex, but again, not the case here.

Whether you believe that having sex in a public bathroom is "gross" is your personal issue.

And, oh, protect the poor innocent children! Why is it that whenever someone mentiones gay sex, someone throws pedophilia into the mix?

What I want to know is this: Did the cop who arrested Craig get serviced before he arrested him? That's usually how entrapment works: the cop responds to the advance, gets his rocks off, then throws the faggot in the slammer.

I can't believe that in this day and age cops don't have anything better to do on the taxpayer's dime.

Your commenter is misplacing his outrage against straights who are only now expressing amazement over what will get you busted in a men's room.

All the foot-tapping and finger-fidgeting is by design intended to be secret. It's a way for gay men to communicate with potential partners without attracting the notice of the straights around them.

And now it's our fault that we didn't know about it?

>>Whether you believe that having sex in a public bathroom is "gross" is your personal issue.

This is reaching new heights of absurdity by the minute.

Just imagine what airport bathrooms would be like if travelling heterosexual men knew that by tapping one's feet they had a, say, 20% chance of receiving some random and mutually gratifying sex.

Gee, it's 20 years ago now that I decided to stretch a bit as a reporter and do a feature about gay life in the city I was writing in at the time. So I spent a few weeks talking to all kinds of folks, looking for settled couples, that sorta thing, and to balance it out, I went to a couple gay bars. It was an interesting experience that I commend to straight men.

Of course virtually all women -- straight, lesbian, nuns -- get hit on (odd locution) by men all the time.

But straight men almost never get hit on by gay men. In a happily not yet short life, I have once in a very great while(honest!) been hit on by (obviously) straight women.

It's DIFFERENT when a man expresses sexual interest in a person. For a man at least, it is unlike the benign erotic interest of a heterosexual approach: however subtle, it involves a much more invasive and aggressive vibe -- even for tops.

Throw in both psychological and legal repression, and never mind toe-tapping and tearoom signals: it's a wonder these guys aren't ALL nuts.

I don't think guys are famously touchy about being approached by gay men because of the implication they might be interested, exactly, but because of the nature of the approach itself.

Glenn Frankel did a really good piece on Brian Epstein, whom he considers the forgotten key to the Beatles' success. When he first saw 'em, they were a bar band. He took him to his Savile Row tailor, immediately doubled their cut from various gigs, got 'em their first British #1, and then booked 'em on Ed Sullivan.

He was gay, and waaaay in the closet, for good reason: it was illegal in Britain. Epstein would get beat up or arrested (handed out a lot of bribes to undercover cops) when he went cruising -- it was just part of the whole self-hate shtick; and then he offed himself, more or less on purpose.

It was really sad to read the piece, thinking (a bit optimistically) that if the poor guy had been born 45 years later he'd have stood a chance of living a happy life out.

That's what I think, looking at Senator Craig: maybe he's just pathologically jittery on the subj., but this can't be a happy moment for him. He's said himself that people hear his precise speech and the way he carries himself, and figure he must be gay -- and they've been saying that about him since college.

More straight reporters oughta walk a mile or two in those, er, loafers. I'm all for banning public (or semi-public) hookups -- but a lot of men have been busted for peeing while gay, too.

And I can't resist throwing in the best line I've heard yet about it: Craig is an advocate for guest workers, and the incident refutes his whole rationale -- cuz if there are US citizens who will do undercover gaybaiting work in the bathrooms of the Minneapolis airport, clearly there are NO jobs that Americans won't do.

And I just thought the poor fellow was tapping out S-O-S - Never should have called 9-11. The fire department breaking down the door with fire axes was a bit much.

Well, brian, the fact that your family won't like you if you announce you're gay doesn't give you the right to use public bathrooms for sex. Tough luck, and here's to you having a nicer family in the next life. As Ehrenstein says, get a room, fer' crissakes.

Having said that, I think anybody arrested in such a fashion who chose to plead not guilty, and demand a jury trial, while having competent counsel, would likely be acquitted. It's pretty hard, from what facts I've read, to conclude that it would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the people who are tapping toes and waving hands under stalls are soliciting to have sex in the stalls, as opposed to some other place.

Eazy, now that the code is public knowledge, the restrooms will be, erm, tapping.

It's weird: Men who don't identify as gay have sex with men all of the time, in all sorts of places, and this behavior is supposed to be so shocking? I don't buy it.

JeffreyK: It's shocking to men who don't identify as gay and -don't- have sex with men. To them, this is very new, and more than a little shocking.

If gays were to be allowed to have sex freely in airport restrooms, there are probably enough heteros with fetishes along those lines that pretty soon it'd take 10 minutes to take a leak, as you were running to catch a plane, for cryin' out loud!

These (gay) solicitation prosecutions are also a form of profiling, presumably protecting the rest of us based on the false assumption that any gay person is likely a raving sex fiend, unable to control their impulses, and likely to accost someone and commit perverted acts on their innocent body and soul, upon the mere sight of an open zipper.

I'm with Yep. The police have an obligation to maintain public order. People screwing in a public restroom is not particularly orderly. To suggest this is somehow a civil rights issue belittles the idea of civil rights. What right is being abridged, exactly? To paraphrase Samuel Jackson, whistling at a woman on the street and soliciting another individual for sex in a public facility aren't in the same ballpark; they're not even the same sport. While the whistling construction worker is certainly boorish, it's doubtful even he thinks he'll be having sex on the sidewalk (or in the HoneyBucket). Moreover, to equate Larry Craig's situation as a closeted gay man in 2007 with a gay man in the 50's is a stretch. Sure, anti-gay discrimination still exists. But today there are many other places he could have gone to find a partner that would have offered a measure of anonymity and discretion without having to resort to a tryst in a bathroom surrounded by travelers.

For the record I fully support gay rights and gay marriage and believe that there is reasonable case to be made that Craig was entrapped. However, people (gay and straight, male or female) do not have the "right" to have sexual encounters in public places.

What if this had been a public park instead of a public bathroom? I can't imagine that many of us haven't had sex in a public park.

Gussie, those men either live in a cave or refuse to honestly name what they experience. I mean, every men's locker room I have ever been in has been teeming with sexual interactions: flirting, touching, checking guys out. Male fraternity is inherently sexual. Just as long as you don't call it gay . . .

I dunno about accosting anybody, bob, but I'd say a guy in an expensive suit who gets down on his knees in a dirty bathroom stall, and sticks his johnson underneath the divider, in hopes that a complete stranger will latch on, is probably on one end of the spectrum, in regards to impulse control.

What's so public about a stall? This isn't about two people getting it on on a subway platform. Actually, there doesn't seem to be any actual sex involved in this particular case.

>>What's so public about a stall?

Ok, now your positions make more sense. You believe sex in public bathrooms should be legal. Sorry to say, 99% of the population disagrees with you.

When I read Slate's Fred Friendly Seminar on sex in the crapper, I had only one question: Where was Mickey Kaus?

What do you mean by "public order" exactly?

Yeah, gussie, and straights get ticketed with some frequency for having sex in their cars, for instance.

I couldn't care less whether 99% of the population disagrees with me. Furthermore, which hat did you pull that number out of?

Over ten years ago I was at the Denver airport waiting for a connecting flight when a Senator, who I will not name but was Republican, approached me and my associate and asked us for directions to the restroom. We looked up, saw the sign for the restroom and pointed in that direction. We then made comment to ourselves about how elites cannot even find a bathroom without help.

Since the Senator Craig episode has been revealed, I now have to wonder about this event in Denver with this Senator. Was he so stupid that he could not find a restroom in a busy public place, as I assumed, or was he trolling for a homosexual quicky?

I have read about HIV and homosexuality in S. Africa, where many authorities think sodomizing those below them on the organization chart is standard operating procedure. Both parties in this relationship do not consider themselves to be homosexual. After having this type of 'sex' they go home to their wives and that is why so many heterosexual women contract HIV. Having sex to demonstrate dominance is observed in nature, especially among mammals, and primates in particular. This 'tearoom' sex behavior is probably related to this hierarchical competition for authority within the group.

Even though sex, hetero or homo, is biological in nature, society and culture does place restrictions on it. Most people understand the need for statutory rape laws. Even though the person under the age of 18 is mature physically, we accept the social prohibition of having those over 18 pursuing them for sex. In this regard, I think prohibiting sex in public places is also a reasonable restriction on our biological urges. If homosexual men want to proposition each other, they should do it forthrightly, and not with toe tapping and hand gestures through gaps in stall doors, and they should not engage in the 'sex' act in public places, where children and others do not want to be witness to their sex making.

Hey, Jeffery, I feel the same way about paying Medicare taxes. D'ya' think that defense will work?

Here we go again: gay sex = pedophilia = HIV. Blah blah blah.

I see a zillion things I don't want to be witness to every time I walk down the street.

Craig was arrested not for soliciting sex but for something like "being disruptive." What is illegal about soliciting sex is asking for money, not the come-on. So - look at the actual charge - it was for public disruption (not the exact charge).

We can argue if that is a smoke screen for making gay sex illegal, but it does introduce a different set of issues. That when you are in an enclosed bathroom stall you have an expectation of privacy and that someone will not come barging in or otherwise intrude on you.

You have a right to be gay and have sex but I have a right not to have a persistant offer of it made to me in settings where I have indicated I want to be private.

kate:

I mean, it obviously should not be illegal to solicit sex (no matter how ill-advised) if the parties involved are of age. But if they're going to go at it in the gross PUBLIC BATHROOM ZOMG then fine 'em and humiliate 'em, I say.

I think sex in a public restroom can get you in trouble with the law, no matter your orientation.

But that's not the issue: Craig did not have sex in a public restroom. Neither did lots of gay guys who got nabbed for "lewd" behavior. Just some minor signal of desire is enough to get you arrested.

How the hell do the cops know that Craig, allegedly, wanted to have sex in the men's room? He could have been trying to hook up in the normal way. And even if he did want to have sex in the men's room, wanting to is not a crime -- he'd have to actually do it to commit a (minor) crime.

Were it a man/woman situation, there would be no charges filed at all, because there would have been no cop performing a sting. A man/woman sexual encounter would need to be in full-swing, with rocking stalls and screaming orgasms before anyone would think of filing charges.

And of course cops don't run any sting operations to catch hetero couples that might be thinking about having sex in public. Why not?

It's totally crap law enforcement.

Well, JohnN, I'm sure you know some women who could give you many tips regarding how to deflect unwelcome sexual advances that don't involve throwing someone in jail.

Entrapment is about controlling and punishing men's sexual behavior with other men. Things like "public order" and "protect the children" and "I have a right not to see it" are just smokescreens.

Your commenter is misplacing his outrage against straights who are only now expressing amazement over what will get you busted in a men's room.

All the foot-tapping and finger-fidgeting is by design intended to be secret. It's a way for gay men to communicate with potential partners without attracting the notice of the straights around them.

And now it's our fault that we didn't know about it?

I didn't know about it either. But perhaps Salon, before running the article, should have asked a gay man LC's age what the story was?

Jeffrey, look, you are free to diasagree with people all you want, but please don't imply that being unable to bang your partners wherever you choose is some sort of great impingement on civil liberties. It's a childish approach to a serious matter.

JohnN just said it, but it bears repeating:

Don't be misled by the term "soliciting." This is NOT a solicitation of prostitution.

It is not illegal to ask somebody for sex except in very rare circumstances. This should not be one of those circumstances.

Again, we are talking about soliciting plain old sex, NOT PROSTITUTION.

Public sex is a (minor) crime. Thinking about it is not, at least not in any sane legal system.

Oh, no, not childish!

Surely I'm not the only person out there who has problems with entrapment.

Law 101: Intent is enough to get you arrested for many things.

>>And even if he did want to have sex in the men's room, wanting to is not a crime -- he'd have to actually do it to commit a (minor) crime.

So, in other words, the officer would actually have to have sex with him before he could arrest him? Interesting legal theory.

Where exactly do you imagine that men of Larry Craig's age are supposed to solicit anonymous sex with other men?

Um, Gay.com? Craig's List? You know, as a favor from one Craig to another.

But seriously, who are these guys cruising in bathrooms? Don't they have computers?

Jeffery, I think it is far from established that Craig was entrapped, but in any case, that isn't what you objected to above. You objected to the notion that it could be made illegal for you to have sex wherever you wished. That's childish.

I have no doubt that police commonly entrap people in regards to this crime, however, and like I stated above, I think if Craig wasn't such a coward, he'd easily have won at trial. Opposing entrapment, however, isn't even close to saying that people should be legally allowed to use public restrooms for sex. Golly, what the hell would all the fleabag motels on Cicero Ave., down the block from Midway Airport, do, if such activities in airport restrooms were made legal?

You know, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care about what's going on in any stall but mine.

Also, I don't get why I'm supposed to expect the cops to throw any guy who makes a pass at me in jail.

Jeffery, it become your stall the moment you hold title to it or have a lease agreement. Until then, you are just a, er, squatter, and one who hasn't been there long enough to establish rights.

Speaking of Tucker Carlson, isn't wearing a bow tie in a bathroom a form of entrapment?

I see that the homophobic "Michael Buchanan" troll from yesterday who was gay-bashing by pretending to be a gay rights activist fighting for the inalienable right to have sex in public bathroom stalls has now morphed into JefferyK. *yawn*

Ben,

I don't know, maybe Larry Craig is quite adept on the internet. But as Ted Stevens proved, elderly men do not tend to be the most web-savvy. Even if he were, I doubt Craig was going to send a photo of himself to anyone online, for obvious reasons, yet few people are willing to hook up with someone with no knowledge of their appearance. And finally, remember that this is a long-standing custom for gay men to find willing partners in a way that was largely invisible to everyone else. They didn't have gay.com when Larry Craig was 25. All I'm saying is let's stop pretending that our society has given such people a lot of better options over the years. This could change if people like Larry Craig and the rest of our elected officials stopped passing and upholding legislation that continues oppressing gay people.

And as I noted yesterday, if a theoretically het Sen Craig had been in a unisex bathroom peering at a woman thru the stall crack, brushing against her shoe, and wiggling his fingers at her under the divider, he would have likewise been arrested for disorderly conduct, and rightfully so.

"Law 101: Intent is enough to get you arrested for many things."

No, it's not (says the lawyer). I can't think of a single crime which is based SOLELY on intent.

It is true that you don't have to COMPLETE a crime in order to be convicted of something. For example, attempted robbery is, almost by definition, an "incomplete" robbery.

But every crime requires intent and an OVERT act in furtherance of that crime.

The question in the Craig matter is whether foot-tapping qualifies as an "overt" act. I would argue that it is not. In fact, it is specifically intended to be ambiguous and covert. The person in the adjoining stall, if he isn't aware of the "code", simply isn't a victim of a solicitation.

While I think it's reasonable to be irritated at the ignorance displayed by all the "straight young whippersnappers," many of these people are genuinely appalled at the disparity in "solicitation" laws. The fact that they are late to the game is a really stupid reason to ignore their genuine - if new found - outrage. Personally, I don't think I am ignorant or indifferent to many gay issues, but I honestly didn't realize that there were different legal ramifications for a gay person propositioning another person than for heterosexuals. I am embarrassed to admit that, but that is where I was before Senator Craig came along.

While I am in agreement that public bathrooms should be left as sex free zones, I am completely willing to speak out against unequal legal treatment regarding the act of displaying interest in another person, regardless of sexual orientation.

Instead of using a lot of valuable energy beating up on the clueless liberals, those of you in the know might want to recruit them to your cause.

I honestly didn't realize that there were different legal ramifications for a gay person propositioning another person than for heterosexuals.

There *aren't*.

No one whether het, hom, or bi should be propositioning anyone in a public bathroom.

The things one learns. So, the women's bathroom at the MSP airport have stalls with walls to the floor. They are very private. The men's bathrooms are different?

Why is it that in the USA something like this causes moral outrage, and Larry Craig is deeply shamed, but politicizing the Justice department, invading foreign nations, lying to Americans, gutting the treasury and generally being an incompetent dickhead isn't shameful? Why can someone dress up in a costume, publicly declare "mission accomplished!" and four years later, come back for more funding for the "progress" we are making in that war and not feel ashamed?

The question in the Craig matter is whether foot-tapping qualifies as an "overt" act. I would argue that it is not.

Isolated, it probably would not qualify. Coupled with the peering through the stall door on one side and the finger waggling on the other, it most certainly does.

That being said, a good lawyer should be able to coach Craig on how to address each of those acts so that they all seem innocent and coincidental.

However, the prosecution could easily blow that out of the water by calling to testify the guys who have reported that they have previously had bathroom sex with Craig.

[Trolling Deleted]

The airport authorities had received complaints about the restroom, so some one was upset about what was going on there. I actually think the cop was probably going easy on Craig. He could have let the situation develop into a more overt offer and thrown the book at him; instead he cut it off early and hit him with a misdemeanor. It’s almost as if the all the cops wanted to do was to stop sex from going on in the bathroom. Craig probably could have gotten away with it anyway, if he had listed his profession as anything but senator no one would have cared.

Self professed non-gay guys like Craig having anonymous sex in public restrooms are pathetic. They can’t place an add on Craig’s List, go to a gay bar, or actually get a room because that would mean admitting they were gay.

All your toilets are belong to us.

re entrapment: I wish every Senator and Congressmen who uses their power to suppress homosexuality publicly while soliciting homosexual sex privately would be entrapped and "outted." Ditto married Senators and Congressmen who have affairs while denouncing adultery. The damage these hypocrites do!

Upthread, Robert makes an elegant suggestion: Since our pheremones don't work very well anymore, (thanks evolution), maybe we need to come up with a societal code system:

1. I'm hetero and I am willing to accept advances.
2. I'm homosexual and I am willing accept advances.
3. Leave me alone (the default)

I would add
4. I'm an effing hypocrite and ashamed of my sexuality

I recommend the following:
1. A ring on the right hand ring finger
2. A single gold hoop in the right earlobe
3. Neither of the above nor the following
4. An American flag in ones jacket lapel

So, in other words, the officer would actually have to have sex with him before he could arrest him? Interesting legal theory.

Think about it for a minute, and if you have a brain, you'll see my point, Jim.

This is akin to a thought crime. Yes, the cop would have to at least get well along the way to having sex with the guy for any crime to have happened here. I suppose getting the guy in the stall, motions to drop trousers, etc. would be enough in a more sane legal framework.

If you can't see the reasonable doubt in the criminality of a foot-touch, well, you aren't reasonable.

This is the tearoom trade of the comments threads. Everyone wants to comment but nobody's willing to say they're thrilled by the thought of mindless NSA sex. Add a glory hole and this tread would be a thousand comments long.

This thread that I ride on...is a thousand comments long...you can hear her whistle bloooow a hundred miles.....

You can read the Tea Room Trade online via google:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7DFsL3RrTpoC&dq

I don't quite follow the logic of Kevin's post, although it contains a lot of interesting information. The point of the first part seems to be:
* gay people have been prosecuted for the kinds of behaviors Larry Craig engaged in for a long time
* so, you should help us stop this persecution, especially if you're outraged at the arrest of Larry Craig for toe-tapping

The point of the second part seems to be:
* some gay men (often closeted gay men) really do use these signals to solicit sex, which straight people are hilariously ignorant of (why WOULD straight people know about it?)

But those two points are somewhat contradictory. Certainly most people would say that sex in public bathrooms is obnoxious and should be illegal. If actions such as bathroom stall foot-touching really are a very common and widespread precursor to sex, as the second point tells us, shouldn't those actions be illegal too? Does the cop have to wait for the fellatio to commence before intervening? Obviously the precursor actions shouldn't carry the same penalty as the sex itself, but it seems to me that some misdemeanor is appropriate, similar to a loitering law (which recognizes that loitering in certain locales is a precursor to crime).

On a marginally related note, I certainly don't buy the argument I've seen in some spots, that gay men only have sex in bathrooms because they can't have legal sex in public spaces like straight people do. By and large, straight people do not engage in oral, vaginal, or anal sex in public, and they are prosecuted when they do. I think that some gay men have sex in bathrooms specifically because they find the raunchiness of it thrilling (the same reason some straight couples have illegal sex in public).

I still think there is more to the "Craig incident" that we know about.

I have to admit I sure am learning a lot about this Not Gay subculture but I`m not really sure I wanted to know this much.

And as PTate in FR put it :

"Why is it that in the USA something like this causes moral outrage, and Larry Craig is deeply shamed, but politicizing the Justice department, invading foreign nations, lying to Americans, gutting the treasury and generally being an incompetent dickhead isn't shameful? Why can someone dress up in a costume, publicly declare "mission accomplished!" and four years later, come back for more funding for the "progress" we are making in that war and not feel ashamed?"

I have to agree & wonder about a group of humans that respond that way.

Misplaced concern to say the least.

"...Churches have given us great treasures. Whether that pays for the harm they have done is another matter." - Daniel C. Dennett

From the Smoking Gun: Craig, 62, pleaded to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge in August and was fined $1000 and sentenced to ten days in the Hennepin County lockup (though the jail time was stayed as long as the politician keeps clean for a year).

Just so you know what the charge actually was, there seemed to be some confusion.
Carry on. But in a good way. Whatever way that is. Well....you know...

Should it be illegal to invade someone's personal space in a public restroom?

That's the question. Not that men shouldn't be able to solicit each other for sex - that's between two consenting adults.

But in Sen. Craig's situation one adult did not consent. That's what was disgusting, rude, and illegal about his behavior.

Wolf-whistling on the street is annoying enough, but that isn't the same as someone reaching into a toilet stall while you have your pants down.

For those who think only gays are pathological enough to have sex in pulbic places, let me point out that this is a well-know location for heterosex in Minneapolis:

http://www.angelfire.com/blues/skylines/msg3.jpg

Disputo beat me to it: "Michael Buchanan" is just as outlandish with today's handle, "JefferyK."

And, oh, protect the poor innocent children! Why is it that whenever someone mentiones gay sex, someone throws pedophilia into the mix?

You're the only one who has, I think. The poster was complaining about his child having to listen to or walk in on people having sex. Presumably he would feel the same way regardless of those people's gender.

thrilled by mindless NSA sex

It might be time to retire that acronym, because when I read it, I pictured myself having hot phone sex while some donut-stuffed G-man listens in. And that was distinctly unthrilling.

Could someone please explain the precise meaning of sticking your hand under the divider and sweeping it from front to back? Or would that be breaking the code?

Reading these comments really makes me feel old (I'm 46) and avant-garde (gay friends, but 100% straight). Let me fill in some blanks:

1. I first learned about cruising-- and every other topic about sex-- via a well-thumbed copy of Dr. David Reuben's 1969 bestseller "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask)"

The book sold 20 gazillion copies-- and God knows how many people borrowed it. The book hasn't dated well (Reuben was a Freudian), but it was the first easily-accessible (every bookstore had it and even some libraries) book to present honest, sympathetic answers (if you were a straight man) to sex questions in layman's terms.

Amazingly, you can find the text of Reuben's chapter on homosexuality-- complete with his description of how cruising works-- at this link:

http://community.livejournal.com/new_gay_boys/525358.html

If you're too young to remember the book, there are other sex books, popular novels, non-fiction, newspaper and magazine articles, movies (William Friedkin's execrable CRUISING being the most popular) and web sites describing gay culture.

2. There were three reasons my friends went to public bathrooms looking for sex. First, how else are you going to find men who might be interested? Homosexuality in the 60's and 70's is a crime, so it's not like you can advertise.

Second, it provided safety. In the era before AIDS, a "Fatal Attraction" scenario-- or exposure, arrest and humiliation-- is your big concern (VD is a manageable risk). There are no names in a bathroom.

That would also, by the way, be why an older man like Larry Craig would be very reluctant to use the internet or anything but a public phone to solicit sex. They can trace those contacts (and yes, I know he helped enable that fact).

Third, some people get a kick out of quick, anonymous sex. If you're looking for a book that provides both an understanding of the mindset and a history of the laws against gay sex, get John Rechy's "The Sexual Outlaw" (his novel, "City of Night" gives a good, albeit dated, picture too).

3. Of course it sounds cloak and dagger. As I told Kevin, IT HAS TO BE. You're a criminal, according to society's laws-- you can't indulge in Noel Coward/Oscar Wilde dialog, or have some "Goofy Gophers" (the Warner's cartoons) preamble.

You need a set of signals that are unmistakable to someone looking for them and invisible to everyone else.

By the way, if you're really terrified by the idea of being cruised-- and you needn't be, because (a) you probably have been and (b) your prospective partner is too terrified to do anything (Tucker Carlson is lying)-- then keep your feet close together in the stalls and don't stand one second longer than necessary at the urinals.

4. I'm not suggesting that it's OK to have sex in public places-- much less that it should be legal. I do think it would be nice if the police would STOP ARRESTING PEOPLE who are looking for sex without saying anything or doing anything that could be considered offensive, much less illegal.

As a number of the nitwit bloggers have pointed out, it really shouldn't be a crime to tap your foot or touch someone's shoe, even if it is a coded signal.

5. At one time, there was a threadbare excuse for arresting gay men for soliciting: Sodomy was a crime. If you're trying to induce someone to participate in a criminal act, you're a criminal.

Since Minnesota's sodomy statutes (as Garance Franke-Ruta noted) have been off the books since 2001, this definitely isn't a crime. That's why Craig got charged on something hinky.

Anyone think it's a good idea for the police to arrest people for something that's not a crime? OK, then maybe they ought to stop.

6. If you're disgusted or repulsed by the behavior, you've got your indignation in the wrong place. It is gross and repulsive and sad and lonely-- but for some people, in some areas of the country, this is the best (most widely available or most emotionally comfortable) option they have to get sex.

Imagine having to live that way-- where sex with someone you meet in a restroom or movie theater or alley or parking garage is all there is to happiness. Maybe we should work on changing that set of circumstances, so people don't feel that way.

7. I know Larry Craig is fundamentally responsible for the problem. Part of me is delighted that his life has become almost as nightmarish as Michael Vick's.

But I also know people who got caught, and had their lives destroyed on a smaller scale. And there are a lot more of those people than there are Larry Craigs or Bob Allens. And if these incidents can be used to get people aware that police departments do this-- and make them stop-- it's a good thing.

On the Laud Humphreys book, a little background from sociologyland on Tearoom Trade. Humphreys gathered all his information without disclosing his academic publication plans to his informants (his PhD dissertation). Basically what he did was take down license plate numbers of men seen in public washrooms. He followed them to their cars, took down their plate numbers, and then made visits to their homes without telling them how he got their names and addresses, and then interviewed them ostensibly about some other topic. When the material was first published (I recollect it was in a magazine first - possibly Transaction), his colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis were livid over the widely perceived unethical nature of his research strategy. In fact, he was physically assaulted in the halls of his department by some of his colleagues (first person eyewitness account related to me) and eventually left the university. I believe he spent his declining years in California and never quite lost the stigma of his misuse of his respondents' trust in the course of his research. He died in 1988.

The question is, though, Should it be illegal for someone to molest/peep another's toilet stall?

All this tearoom and sex stuff is just smoke and mirrors, unrelated to the crime he pled to.

In a way, the Ehrenstein column gets at a kind of paradox.

The objective need for gays to have sex in places like a public bathroom has gone down precisely because of the success of the gay movement. That is, while the acceptance of gays has gone up both legally and socially, and the likelihood that having sex in a public bathroom might be made legal (or be unpoliced) has likewise gone up, there is less and less excuse to have sex in such a venue. Indeed, one might say that allowing it is actually counterproductive to the gay cause because it mostly enables closeted homosexuality.

Given that the public still has a legitimate demand not to be exposed to sex in public places, it's pretty hard to see why it should be made legal. Of course, under what conditions exactly it should be considered an illegal act (I'm not sure about Craig's arrest, for example) would have to be settled.

>>If you can't see the reasonable doubt in the criminality of a foot-touch, well, you aren't reasonable.

There can be reasonable doubt regarding any intent. The issue is simply this: is propositioning someone in a public bathroom to have sex in that public bathroom illegal? It is. In this case, Craig used known signals by the officer in a known cruising spot (more than 40 arrests in these airport bathrooms over the past 4 months using similar signals, etc.): foot tapping, bag placement (sorry), peeping, foot touching, hand motions under the stall -- Craig did all of this. You are trying to reduce all of this to "reasonbale doubt over a foot-touch." Sorry, try again.

I don't get these attempts to turn this into "gay-bashing hysteria" and "entrapment" -- well, other than by people who think sex in public bathrooms should be legal.

"There *aren't*."

In theory, you are correct. In reality, as matters stand in the United States today, you are flatly incorrect.

"Could someone please explain the precise meaning of sticking your hand under the divider and sweeping it from front to back?"

I doubt that it's "sweeping it from front to back." More likely, it's a "come hither" gesture or a tapping to indicate interest. To put it crudely, I suspect that it indicates: "Here's my hand; put [something] in it."

"No one whether het, hom, or bi should be propositioning anyone in a public bathroom."

Why?

Note you didn't say, "have sex with;" you said "propositioning." So I cannot go up to anyone and say, "You're cute and I'd like to go bed with you?" Inside the bathroom, that's a felony but out in the hallway, it's just fine?

I just found myself envious of men and their apparent wide choice of stalls when they go into airport restrooms.

If the intent is to curb sex in the airports' public bathrooms, perhaps they should cut down the number of private stalls in men's rooms to one or two. Maybe you don't see sex in women's public restrooms at airports because there's always a line!

You know, Craig brought this all on himself by being part of the segment of American society that has pushed to criminalize gay restroom hook-up behavior for decades. He's got nobody to blame but himself, and I don't get any liberal bloggers who either feel sorry for him or are shocked about the grounds on which he was arrested.

I doubt that it's "sweeping it from front to back." More likely, it's a "come hither" gesture or a tapping to indicate interest. To put it crudely, I suspect that it indicates: "Here's my hand; put [something] in it."

Actually, I double checked it, and it was sweeping it three times, always from the back of the stall to the front. Seems a very precise sort of gesture.

I just found myself envious of men and their apparent wide choice of stalls when they go into airport restrooms.

If the intent is to curb sex in the airports' public bathrooms, perhaps they should cut down the number of private stalls in men's rooms to one or two. Maybe you don't see sex in women's public restrooms at airports because there's always a line!

You're damned straight, sister!

Public places should be sex act-free. I'm all for spontaneity, but free-spirited behavior does and should have its limits. Public sex is simultaneously self-absorbed and insensitive.

People have a right to not to have their personal space violated in such a crude and coarse manner without their prior consent*, and that right trumps your desire to do it in the dirt, in the road, or in a bathroom stall when other people are clearly around.

* This discussion suddenly reminded me of that hilarious scene in the movie Boogie Nights, when Little Bill (William H. Macy) came upon his wife (Nina Hartley) having sex in the driveway, surrounded by a fair number of leering men.

When Little Bill asked her rhetorically, "What the fuck are you doing?", his wife just rolled her eyes in irritation and snapped, "Shut up, Bill! You're embarrassing me!"

So I cannot go up to anyone and say, "You're cute and I'd like to go bed with you?" Inside the bathroom, that's a felony but out in the hallway, it's just fine?

No, not necessarily. It depends on which hallway you're talking about, obviously. You can't say the same thing in a bar that you can in a workplace, right? The point is: setting matters. As a man, I can't walk into a woman's bathroom and start telling people I'd like to sleep with them. I'd be tossed in jail, with good reason.

Public bathrooms are an extremely "private" setting for most people, in part because individuals (in particular men) must expose themselves to use the toilet. I have no problem with a law that criminalizes unwanted sexual propositions in such a setting. Unwanted advances in a public bathroom are simply sexual harassment. Just as telling someone "You're cute and I'd like to go bed with you," in a public bathroom is sexual harassment unless the speaker is very sure their compliment is appreciated.

I agree that it is rediculous to charge someone with felony lewd conduct for discrete foot tapping or signals that are totally unknown to the public. Laws against lewd conduct are designed to prevent public acts of private sexual behavior...how is a signal that only gay men know sexual behavior?

I have compassion for gay men who were forced to have sex in places like public bathrooms because there was simply nowhere else to go in the past. That era is rapidly ending, however. Closeted gay men can now find their contemporaries on Craigslist. My sympathy is rapidly shrinking for guys like Senator Craig, who appear to enjoy the thrill of cruising bathrooms when there are much easier, safer methods for finding sexual partners.

PaulB: "So I cannot go up to anyone and say, "You're cute and I'd like to go bed with you?" Inside the bathroom, that's a felony but out in the hallway, it's just fine?"

I don't think it would be fine in the hallway, either. You'd get slapped with a sexual harassment suit in an office and probably just a look of disgust on the street.

Unless Robert's societal code system has been widely agreed upon, and you're getting clear come-hither signals.

"I have no problem with a law that criminalizes unwanted sexual propositions in such a setting"

Um.... how am I supposed to know it's unwanted unless I ask?

"Just as telling someone 'You're cute and I'd like to go bed with you,' in a public bathroom is sexual harassment unless the speaker is very sure their compliment is appreciated."

My goodness... Such an ... interesting ... definition of "sexual harassment" you have.

"As a man, I can't walk into a woman's bathroom and start telling people I'd like to sleep with them. I'd be tossed in jail, with good reason."

Assuming that you're male, you'd be tossed in jail even if you didn't tell them you wanted to sleep with them. You'll have to find a better analogy.

"I don't think it would be fine in the hallway, either."

Really? Why?

"You'd get slapped with a sexual harassment suit in an office"

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on who and how you ask.

"and probably just a look of disgust on the street."

So why shouldn't the "look of disgust" standard, which I'm personally fine with, apply in the bathroom?

"Unless Robert's societal code system has been widely agreed upon, and you're getting clear come-hither signals."

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Craig's explanation is honest. Under those circumstances, a gay man in the next stall would have thought that he had "clear come-hither signals." What's the standard then?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Craig's explanation is honest.

Oh, let's not.

I'm actually glad that this event is sparking a national discussion of harassment (sexual and police), public sexual etiquette, the history of cops targeting gay sex and similar topics, but no one is going to stop me from enjoying watching this towering hypocrite, who has worked so hard against gay rights, going, er, down.

Aside from the kerfluffle about whether Craig should or should not have been arrested for his activity, here's a question:

Why doesn't the Minneapolis airport simply replace all the stalls with stalls all the way down to the floor? Seems to be the easiest way to discourage this sort of activity.

I’m frankly surprised that the police weren’t the ones doing the soliciting in this “sting” operation like they do when they are arresting people for prostitution. It’s one thing if the guy was actually caught doing something sexual in a public place, but making these ‘secret’ gestures to solicit anonymous sex doesn’t sound much different then what people are allowed to do in a nightclub and not be arrested. Who could prove if he wasn't trying to hook up with someone and take them to a hotel or private place to actually "do" anything. Whether you are a person of power or just a regular citizen, I don’t think anyone should have been arrested based solely on the information I have heard through the reports. Besides all of that, I feel bad for anybody who has to seek sex in a bathroom.

Why doesn't the Minneapolis airport simply replace all the stalls with stalls all the way down to the floor?

It's a pain in the ass to clean. Take it from a guy who worked for a year as a janitor during college.

Me: ""You'd get slapped with a sexual harassment suit in an office"

PaulB Not necessarily. It depends entirely on who and how you ask."

Classic social psychology experiment, Clark & Hatfield (1989), looked at heterosexual sexual responsiveness in natural settings..that is, attractive men and women went into a bar and chatted up someone of the opposite sex and asked, "Will you go to bed with me tonight?" with the results that 75% of men said yes, and 0% of women said no.

"Under those circumstances, a gay man in the next stall would have thought that he had "clear come-hither signals.""

I think everyone agrees that having sex in public bathrooms is disgusting. Soliciting sex is a bit more ambiguous, but most businessmen, rushing to catch a plane, don't want some stranger waving his hand in their stall space with the "come hither" sign. It's just creepy. It's being a public nuisance.

Come hither signs are meant for display in public public places, like bars, not shared private places, like a public bathrooms.

Should it be illegal for someone to molest/peep another's toilet stall?.... Crissa at 3:18 PM

I think everyone agrees that having sex in public bathrooms is disgusting.

I thought we'd determined during the national discussion following the good senator's arrest that in fact quite a few people don't think it's disgusting, or, perhaps more accurately, find it disgusting in a good way.

I think this entire episode is a classic PIG move. This cop sounds ignorant and can't even conduct a coherent interrogation. The only crime committed here was a gay Senator taking a shit next to a pig. Craig is gay, eveyone knows it. But nothing in the transcript indicates a crime was committed. I have no clue why he panicked and pled guilty. He could have fought this and won. Classic entrapment.

Why doesn't the Minneapolis airport simply replace all the stalls with stalls all the way down to the floor?

If they don't tap their feet over there, we'll have them tapping their feet over here.

Maybe you don't see sex in women's public restrooms at airports because there's always a line!

How can I get to the front of the line?

I don't get these attempts to turn this into "gay-bashing hysteria" and "entrapment" -- well, other than by people who think sex in public bathrooms should be legal.

Exactly. This is not a gay rights issue. This is a bunch of public-bathroom-sex fetishists trying to glom their kink onto the gay rights agenda.

What Disputo said.
Seriously. It's this simple. If I'm in a bar, or even walking down the street and someone, gay or straight, comes on to me and I'm not interested I can walk away. If I'm in a stall with my pants down (something I've known to avoid whenever possible) and feet start tapping and hands start waving around me, even if they're secret signals I don't recognize, that's just plain wrong. You could say I'm a homophobe because I hesitate to take a dump in a public restroom, but you'd be wrong. I'm just a cranky old man with hemorrhoids. (Well, not that old.)

I'm hoping that at the next GOP debate that Wolf Blitzer asks for a show of hands from the candidates if they have ever had anonymous bathroom sex.

Wolf Blitzer asks for a show of hands
That's three strokes, front to back?

Read a detailed piece discussing the tendency of law enforcement to pursue same-sex public acts disproportionately. The article includes information supplied by the Department of Justice to local law enforcement departments with regards to this issue. The article can be found here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Woody Goode on August 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM said "... but for some people, in some areas of the country, this is the best (most widely available or most emotionally comfortable) option they have to get sex ..."


but for all minors, in all areas of the country, adults engaging in public sex is not an acceptable option. protecting society's innocents is far important than providing "comfort" to consenting adults ... gay, straight, bi, trans, or otherwise.

I consider myself a libertarian, but still have no sympathy for those that make public accomodations less inviting for the rest of us. this includes street walkers, even though I think prostitution should be legal, vandals or graffitti "artistes" that defile open spaces, or self defined anarchists that choose to live in Tomkins Square Park. Craig was convicted of a misdemenor after a lot of complaints about his compadres making a public bathroom a public nuisance. If Kevin and his blogger buddies want to make this the next frontier of liberal activism I don't think you're going to get much traction with the general public.

That Carlson fellow's remarks remind you of Robertson and his leg curls.

Sen. Craig: "I am not gay. I have never been gay."

It's good to see he's keeping an open mind by not ruling out the possibility of being gay in the future.