Compassion for Larry Craig?

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
You're right. If he was swiping his hnad underneath the partition, he was trying to GIVE a quickie.

The laws aren't against having sex in a public restroom. I don't think many places would even word a law that way.

I don't think that his swiping his hand was an attempt to "give a quickie." From what I have read, that is a signal that men use to ask for sex....a signal of their intent.

It's interesting to me that Minnesota has a law that criminalizes someone's intent in this way. While it's true that intending to blow up a building should be a criminal act, people have to actually do something, like make plans and conspire with others and prepare for blowing up a building. Otherwise, the state falls into criminalizing thought.

In the case of Craig, why should it be a crime to ask someone for sex? That is, in effect, what he was doing, using signals. It's not clear that he was asking the man to have sex right there in the bathroom. He probably was, but how do his actions demonstrate this?

I don't know the ins and outs of the law on this, but he may be able to get his guilty plea withdrawn. The guilty plea was obviously a big mistake.....a mistake that he made apparently thinking that by pleading guilty, this would all stay quiet and no one else would know. That strategy backfired on him

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
The man pleaded guilty because he knew what he was in there to do.

I really don't see where the mass confusion of the public is coming from. Folks are saying that he actually didn't do anything and that basde upon the tape he wasn't in there to do anything.

has the whole world gone crazy? The man was in there tapping his foot and swiping his hand for the very reason the cop said. Folks been doing this for years. The officer arrested him because he did the very same thing that everyone else who goes into that bathroom to have sex does.

He can deny it all he wants. But he's had sex in that bathroom before and no doubt in others. Thus he knew exactly what to do once he got in there.

It is not coincidental that hegoes into a bathroom and as though reading a set of directions, followed the same script to have sex in a bathroom that guys have been following for decades.

Guilty as pleaded and chraged.

You are probably right that he knew exactly what he was doing, and he used signals that are well known among people who do this sort of thing.

My question is why this should be criminalized. Why should it be a crime to ask someone for sex?

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

BAFRIEND said:
i don't think he is a hypocrate if he has a homosexual orientation but is against the gay lifestyle. Are you going to tell me that there are no homosexuals out there who think that gay sex/lifestyle is wrong ?

He is no hypocrate because while he may have given into the temptation to sin, he is against the lifestyle as is proven by the way he leads his public life and by voting against gay marriage.

The problem with this argument is that you are suggesting that people should live in a way that goes against their orientation. It doesn't work for most people. It didn't work for Larry Craig, and he reportedly had sex with men for years, in bathrooms and in other places.

By expecting someone with a gay orientation to live as a married heterosexual, we set up the person to commit adultery and to risk arrest. You really can't expect people to stifle who they really are because of some people's interpretation of the Bible or because society at large scorns who they really are.

It may be that Larry Craig thinks that being gay is immoral, and he is trying to stop being gay but he backslides. Or it may be that Larry Craig thinks that he has to hide who he really is and seek out sex in bathrooms because he can't be a Republican Senator and live openly as a gay person, with integrity. Either way, it's cruel and unreasonable for the society or a political party to demand that gay people stop being themselves and try to be something they are not.

jad123 · Sep 6, 2007

RegularGuy said:
He pretends to be what he is not. He is a hypocrite.

Just for conversation sake why is he a hypocrite? Lets assume for the moment that he truly is gay. He is married and if he has an affair whether that be with a woman or a man it make him an adulterer but not a hypocrite. If he is gay, but feels that it is wrong to be gay so politically he opposes gay marriage, etc. does that make him a hypocrite?

Edit: Never mind - I just read someone post something similar.

Zaac · Sep 6, 2007

Ohioprof said:
I don't think that his swiping his hand was an attempt to "give a quickie." From what I have read, that is a signal that men use to ask for sex....a signal of their intent.

He wanted to give a quickie. According to the officer, as well as something that is a known signal to give oral sex, his intent was for the officer to place his you know what underneath the partition. That's what swiping his upturned hand meant.

It's interesting to me that Minnesota has a law that criminalizes someone's intent in this way. While it's true that intending to blow up a building should be a criminal act, people have to actually do something, like make plans and conspire with others and prepare for blowing up a building. Otherwise, the state falls into criminalizing thought.

It's solicitation.

In the case of Craig, why should it be a crime to ask someone for sex? That is, in effect, what he was doing, using signals. It's not clear that he was asking the man to have sex right there in the bathroom. He probably was, but how do his actions demonstrate this?

I guarantee that I went to any gay club and asked ten random men what it means to stick your hand underneath a partition in a bathroom like that, they could ALL tell. The intent is to do it RIGHT THERE. The upturned hand essentially means "on your knees and place it under to receive."

If he had just tapped his foot, that could have been a misconstrued action by anyone other than folks who knew what the taps meant. But he swiped his hand and that means one thing.

I don't know the ins and outs of the law on this, but he may be able to get his guilty plea withdrawn.

This is what I don't understand. On what grounds? The man plead guilty because he knew what he was in there to do and every inkling of what he did gives testimony to it. There are generally two times when you are allowed to withdraw a guilty plea: (1)coercion and (2) when you're not of sound mind to understand what was taking place.

Neither apply in this situation. He plead guilty to the lesser charge because he wanted to "make it go away" meaning he wasn't forced to do anything.

The guilty plea was obviously a big mistake.....a mistake that he made apparently thinking that by pleading guilty, this would all stay quiet and no one else would know. That strategy backfired on him

Yep. But he's already entered the plea and there is, at this point, based upon what he said on tape, and did, any reason to allow him to withdraw the guilty plea.

Especially when he is guilty.

jad123 · Sep 6, 2007

Ohioprof said:
The problem with this argument is that you are suggesting that people should live in a way that goes against their orientation. It doesn't work for most people. It didn't work for Larry Craig, and he reportedly had sex with men for years, in bathrooms and in other places.

By expecting someone with a gay orientation to live as a married heterosexual, we set up the person to commit adultery and to risk arrest. You really can't expect people to stifle who they really are because of some people's interpretation of the Bible or because society at large scorns who they really are.

It may be that Larry Craig thinks that being gay is immoral, and he is trying to stop being gay but he backslides. Or it may be that Larry Craig thinks that he has to hide who he really is and seek out sex in bathrooms because he can't be a Republican Senator and live openly as a gay person, with integrity. Either way, it's cruel and unreasonable for the society or a political party to demand that gay people stop being themselves and try to be something they are not.

But this not hypocrisy.

Zaac · Sep 6, 2007

Ohioprof said:
You are probably right that he knew exactly what he was doing, and he used signals that are well known among people who do this sort of thing.

My question is why this should be criminalized. Why should it be a crime to ask someone for sex?

That's the same thing folks ask about prostitution.

From a moral standpoint, I can give you numerous reasons for why it shouldn't be done.

But I don't think that it's something that should be dictated by law. Once you start legislating the behaviors between consenting adults, you start down a slippery slope.

UberLutheran · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
The man is gay. He can deny it, but as I said before, this whole bathroom thing is nothing new. He was in the bathroom tapping his foot and placing his hand underneath the stall door because he had successfully done it before.

Is it something for which he should be forced into resignation? Has anybody seen the rap sheets for the members of Congress? How many other congressmen are having sex with pages and have been for decades?

He was trying to get a quickie in the bathroom. Is this any different from picking someone up at a bar?

And unless kids are now walking into bathrooms looking underneath the stalls, I can't really see that angle.

Now the reason that he should resign is that he apparently is so afraid of being labeled as gay, that he would resort to this kind of behavior or possibly open himself up to outside influence in order to protect his little secret that apparently isn't that big of a secret.

The biggie for me is that he has been committing adultery. I don't trust the decision making ability or the ability to lead of any man who will cheat on his wife.

This is scary.

Zaac and I have actually just AGREED on something!
Not just a little bit, but an entire post!

UberLutheran · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
But I don't think that it's something that should be dictated by law. Once you start legislating the behaviors between consenting adults, you start down a slippery slope.

Huh???

Are you sure you're Zaac???

(What you just said is a position I would take!)

D.W.Washburn · Sep 6, 2007

jad123 said:
But this not hypocrisy.

He espouses one thing and does another. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

For what little it is worth, I think that most of us who espouse high ideals are guilty of hypocrisy in some measure.

Zaac · Sep 6, 2007

UberLutheran said:
Huh???

Are you sure you're Zaac???

(What you just said is a position I would take!)

Man I told you I'm an Independent. From a Biblical perspective and issues of right and wrong, I'm about as conservative as they come.

But from a politics and legislative perspective, I don't think that the government as it is currently structured and funded has the moral standing to to dictate what consenting adults do.

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

jad123 said:
But this not hypocrisy.

The seeking of anonymous sex while married is not hypocrisy. It's adultery, and it's not living with integrity, but it's not hypocrisy.

I think the hypocrisy has been in his votes on gay rights issues and his espousal of "family values" while he has been secretly having anonymous sex with men and committing adultery. The same is true of Vitter, who espoused "family values" in public while secretly going to a prostitute.

Of course, you could make the argument that Craig, and Vitter also, did not believe in what they were doing in secret and that they were just backsliding....committing sins that they thought were indeed sins and for which they have sought forgiveness. You could argue that they really do believe in "family values," but they were unable to practice what they preached. I think we would have to know more about each man before we could tell if this is true.

In my view, having sex with a man is not a sin, but committing adultery is a sin.

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
That's the same thing folks ask about prostitution.

From a moral standpoint, I can give you numerous reasons for why it shouldn't be done.

But I don't think that it's something that should be dictated by law. Once you start legislating the behaviors between consenting adults, you start down a slippery slope.

Wow. I agree with you here also. It must be "agree with Zaac day."

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
He wanted to give a quickie. According to the officer, as well as something that is a known signal to give oral sex, his intent was for the officer to place his you know what underneath the partition. That's what swiping his upturned hand meant.

It's solicitation.

I guarantee that I went to any gay club and asked ten random men what it means to stick your hand underneath a partition in a bathroom like that, they could ALL tell. The intent is to do it RIGHT THERE. The upturned hand essentially means "on your knees and place it under to receive."

If he had just tapped his foot, that could have been a misconstrued action by anyone other than folks who knew what the taps meant. But he swiped his hand and that means one thing.

This is what I don't understand. On what grounds? The man plead guilty because he knew what he was in there to do and every inkling of what he did gives testimony to it. There are generally two times when you are allowed to withdraw a guilty plea: (1)coercion and (2) when you're not of sound mind to understand what was taking place.

Neither apply in this situation. He plead guilty to the lesser charge because he wanted to "make it go away" meaning he wasn't forced to do anything.

Yep. But he's already entered the plea and there is, at this point, based upon what he said on tape, and did, any reason to allow him to withdraw the guilty plea.

Especially when he is guilty.

Hmmm, then you know more than I do about these signals. He was asking the guy in the next stall to put his you-know-what under the stall? Or through a hole?

Gee, Zaac, you know a lot about how guys have sex in bathrooms! I mean restrooms.

Another question.....it may be called "solicitation," but why should asking someone for sex be illegal? It makes sense that having sex in a public place like a restroom would be illegal. But why should asking for sex be illegal?

Zaac · Sep 6, 2007

Ohioprof said:
Hmmm, then you know more than I do about these signals. He was asking the guy in the next stall to put his you-know-what under the stall? Or through a hole?

Hey, I've been in bathrooms where those lil "glory holes" are too. You high tail it out of those.

Gee, Zaac, you know a lot about how guys have sex in bathrooms! I mean restrooms.

I'm just utterly floored that more people don't know about this. I've had lots of gay friends who used to talk about this stuff. I was telling someone last week that back when I used to run track in college, I remember sitting at practice with both the guys and the girls talking about this very subject and how it was going on on campus.

And when you go in a bathroom and at the bottom of the front of the stall, it clearly says "tap once to give, tap twice to receive", you know what it's talking about.

I'm just nearly flabberghasted that so few folks know about this. I heard one FOXNEWS reporter mention a website that tells you where to go for this stuff in just about every city in the country.

Another question.....it may be called "solicitation," but why should asking someone for sex be illegal? It makes sense that having sex in a public place like a restroom would be illegal. But why should asking for sex be illegal?

If it's two consenting adults, it shouldn't be. But that's just me. However, if there are statutes that say that it is illegal to solicit sex in a public facility or to loiter, then everyone has to abide by the law.

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
Hey, I've been in bathrooms where those lil "glory holes" are too. You high tail it out of those.

I'm just utterly floored that more people don't know about this. I've had lots of gay friends who used to talk about this stuff. I was telling someone last week that back when I used to run track in college, I remember sitting at practice with both the guys and the girls talking about this very subject and how it was going on on campus.

And when you go in a bathroom and at the bottom of the front of the stall, it clearly says "tap once to give, tap twice to receive", you know what it's talking about.

I'm just nearly flabberghasted that so few folks know about this. I heard one FOXNEWS reporter mention a website that tells you where to go for this stuff in just about every city in the country.

If it's two consenting adults, it shouldn't be. But that's just me. However, if there are statutes that say that it is illegal to solicit sex in a public facility or to loiter, then everyone has to abide by the law.

Hey....I'm a middle aged woman, and the gay men I know don't have sex in restrooms. So I don't know anything about this. Nor do my friends and I talk about this kind of thing. We are too busy talking about our children, our jobs, our church life, and our social justice activism.

The gay people I know live openly; they are not trying to pretend to be heterosexual, and they don't seek sex in restrooms, because they either have committed spouses or they are single. If the single people want a date, they ask someone for a date....openly, not secretly.

Zaac · Sep 6, 2007

Ohioprof said:
The gay people I know live openly; they are not trying to pretend to be heterosexual, and they don't seek sex in restrooms, because they either have committed spouses or they are single. If the single people want a date, they ask someone for a date....openly, not secretly.

It's just not something that everyone will talk about. But there apparently is a large part of the male gay community that knows that they can get "no strings attached sex" in public restrooms be they on university campuses, airports, malls, rest stops, etc.

You can go into public restrooms all over and see the "advertising."

And from folks that I have recently spoken with, this is also something that "straight" guys will do. It's anonymous, they ain't got to play any games or buy anyone dinner, and they don't have to call anyone.

Just no holes barred, noncommittal, no strings attached sex. I guess this is why you can find this behavior on just about any college campus. At that age, they don't care who they are getting their jollies with. They ae just trying to get them.

And non-college age folks in these communities know this too.

It's an entirely different subculture. And based upon what I've been told, I got to figure that every gay guy at some point has probably delved in some form of quickie sex like this.

Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

BAFRIEND · Sep 6, 2007

Well I guess the cop should have crawled under the stall and had sex with Craig, and then charged him, just so we could all get over this intent thing.

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
It's just not something that everyone will talk about. But there apparently is a large part of the male gay community that knows that they can get "no strings attached sex" in public restrooms be they on university campuses, airports, malls, rest stops, etc.

You can go into public restrooms all over and see the "advertising."

And from folks that I have recently spoken with, this is also something that "straight" guys will do. It's anonymous, they ain't got to play any games or buy anyone dinner, and they don't have to call anyone.

Just no holes barred, noncommittal, no strings attached sex. I guess this is why you can find this behavior on just about any college campus. At that age, they don't care who they are getting their jollies with. They ae just trying to get them.

And non-college age folks in these communities know this too.

It's an entirely different subculture. And based upon what I've been told, I got to figure that every gay guy at some point has probably delved in some form of quickie sex like this.

Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

The gay men I know have not said they have done this. And since I am a woman, I don't go into men's restrooms.

From the things I hear my students say, I suspect many of them probably are having sex with lots of people. But I don't work in student life or residence life, and my focus is on my students' academic development, not their sex lives. We have other people on campus who are supposed to deal with personal lives of the students.

Ohioprof · Sep 6, 2007

Zaac said:
It's just not something that everyone will talk about. But there apparently is a large part of the male gay community that knows that they can get "no strings attached sex" in public restrooms be they on university campuses, airports, malls, rest stops, etc.

You can go into public restrooms all over and see the "advertising."

And from folks that I have recently spoken with, this is also something that "straight" guys will do. It's anonymous, they ain't got to play any games or buy anyone dinner, and they don't have to call anyone.

Just no holes barred, noncommittal, no strings attached sex. I guess this is why you can find this behavior on just about any college campus. At that age, they don't care who they are getting their jollies with. They ae just trying to get them.

And non-college age folks in these communities know this too.

It's an entirely different subculture. And based upon what I've been told, I got to figure that every gay guy at some point has probably delved in some form of quickie sex like this.

Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

I like your line about "no holes barred." You of course meant "no holds barred," but the way you wrote it, it seems to apply to this kind of sexual situation, with the "glory holes."

Compassion for Larry Craig?

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency