Do Gay Rights Create More Or Less Larry Craigs In This World?

[ruggerson]

If same sex marriage, let's say, were to be adopted in all fifty states, hence giving young gay men and women a societally sanctioned option to create their own nuclear family, would this create more Larry Craigs and Mark Foley's or less of them?

Isn't this really what this debate is all about?

Shouldn't this be the message we should be shouting from the rooftops instead of focusing on how revulsed we are by airport restroom sex?

Shouldn't this be the lesson our candidates should be pounding into the American psyche?

How come there aren't three thousand threads indignantly demanding full equality for gays and lesbians?

We are a group of liberals/progressives, are we not?

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. What's Craig got to do with gays?

He's not gay. He said so.

[ruggerson]

4. Wait

I thought y'all kept claiming this was about the "hypocrisy".

Doesn't that involve him voting AGAINST gay rights?

[EST]

18. It's not about gay or straight--that's the spin the pukes want to

put on it, to attempt to get the sort of divisive effect they got when teamed with the fundamentalist clergy.
How I wish my fellow liberals would demonstrate the native intelligence we are known for and try to follow and quit falling for this bullshit.

Craig is a PREDATOR!! A predator is a creature who denies the rights that he, himself arrogates to himself.
Consider the BTK killer of recent tragic past. He claimed normal human rights to himself and demanded the fruits thereof but, as Craig has done for virtually every human besides himself and his narrow band of fellow berserkers, refused to consider other human beings as equals or, horrors!, even superior.

As a branch of human sexuality and relationship, the perversion that Craig suffers from does not fit either hetero or homo. He's a predator who, in other circumstances, could well graduate to other even more damaging perversions, for all I know.

I hesitate to brand him as an even more virulent form of deviant, but his record of despicable disregard for the rights and respect due to whole huge groups of humans brands him as the worst kind of bigot and the limits that kind of animal will go to are simply a vast "unknown."

He is a predator.

[Terran]

47. And you believe him?

He wouldn't admit it if he was.

[ClassWarrior]

2. If you mean closeted perverts, fewer.

If you mean gay people, the same amount.

NGU.

[iamjoy]

3. It Would Create *Fewer*

If homosexuals were widely accepted by society, you would have fewer instances and situations like we had with Mark Foley and Larry Craig.

I had another post on this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=56759&mesg_id=56768

[xchrom]

5. it won't make any difference.

there is some misunderstanding here about sexuality and how it pertains to gay folk and the dominant hetero culture.

people looking to get off under unusual circumstances won't ever go away -- gay, straight and in between.

[ruggerson]

10. I disagree

there is a lot of self loathing in a slew of gay men and women who grew up in earlier generations. It still exists in younger people, but to a far lesser extent. That self loathing is inextricably tied with society's condemnation of gay people and homosexuality. This creates closeted, fearful people who live in sham marriages and hate themselves.

Yes, there will always be people looking for anonymous thrills in public places, both gay and straight, but the bathroom "scene" for gay guys, as diminished as it may be for younger generations, was a DIRECT result of homophobia.

[xchrom]

89. yeah -- i get what you are saying -- but you couldn't be more wrong.

acceptance won't diminsh the drive for thrills -- while some of it is tied to ''self loathing'' -- not all of it is -- and it certainly isn't tied to the straight men that so many gay men have serviced through the years.

it it won't diminish the number of gay men who are not interested hetero normative anything.

the act is -- of it's nature -- subversive and defiant as much as it's an act of anything else -- that's part of where the thrill comes from.

men especially WILL NEVER stop looking for stuff like that.

[robinlynne]

6. absolutely. But the reason people like Craig still live in the dark ages

(denying their sexuality) seems to be the faux christian right way of thinking. They blindly believe.

[Totally Committed]

7. Full gay rights would probably mean we wouldn't be taling about it in these terms...

Why would full equality for ALL Americans be seen to create Larry Craigs or Mark Foleys? What created those men, and men like them is Republican HYPOCRICY, not the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Damned straight there should be about a thousand threads for gay and lesbian, sexual, and racial equality... but, in this country, today, it's a damned shame we need to demand this at all from our government. It's horrible.

Land of the free and home of the brave? --- Only if you are a rich old white guy. Shame on us!



TC

[saltpoint]

8. For what it's worth, ruggerson, my 2 cents is that Craig should be

condemned because his voting record is an abomination.

I'm cool with his being gay and I don't condemn him for the airport incident. An anonymous man seeking sex in say, Dayton or Omaha or Jacksonville, but who is not a U.S. Senator, would not be all over the news programs this week. I question the use of tax dollars to have cops sitting in stalls trying to entrap people. If citizen A wags his willie at citizen B, citizen B can accept the flirtation or not. I don't see why my tax dollars should be spent to catch people having sex when 18-year olds graduate from high schools unable to find the Missississppi River on a damn map. Use my money for something that benefits everyone and leave the entrapment projects to die.

In Berlin the police will protect gay people (likely mostly males?) from harrassment in a corner of the Tiergarten, the large public park in the center of the city even though they are quite aware that those people are there for sex. And yet the city progresses in all aspects. That's a far more evolved atmosphere than entrapment in restroom stalls in Minnesota, and a better use of people's tax revenues.

Rant over.

[peacetheonlyway]

9. Even if Gay marriage were in all 50 states

(and yes, point well made we should still demand equal rights under the law as gay citizens)...

but even if we somehow jumped over the hurdle of ignorance, hypocricy, local unevolved legislators in alabama, texas, etc. INDEED

we would still have many Craigs.


because bathroom sex with the craigs and hotel sex with other married men and women revolve around another DEADLY sin outlined by the church, infidelity / as labelled adultery.

THe gay male community have learned to have fidelity without monogamy (to have multiple sex partners but one male lover that is their primary lover) and all without serious problems.

the problem is that male or female, gay or straight, monogamy is just not realistic or possible. we are still animals in our core biological functions and it's not natural for us to stay 40 years having sex with one person. we get bored.

so craig may be still a straight man (not even interested in gay males) but bored with his wife and looking for some mastabatory help from a stranger. it's entirely possible he's not gay, but he can't find women to jack him off so he gets a guy to do it.

MY PERSONAL THEORY is that this man has a sex addiction. and it's more closely related to society saying YOU HAVE TO BE MONOGAMOUS and this alone is a violent assault against our natural tendency to be nonmonogamous like the 100's of other animal species that are NOT monogamous (I believe there are 2 or 3 species that are naturally monogamous, the penguin and some other bird races).

bottom line it's 2 factors. Churches have so much power of people and churches advocate prudish behaviour for all humans that is not our natural tendency

and #2 expression of sexual needs (especially for addicts) is not sanctioned by the government the way it is say in Holland where you can walk down a street and buy a callgirl from a window (red light districts). Europe, far advanced over the American prudish societal morays, has found a way to give sex addicts a place to get out their yaya's without hurting or being a nuisance to the rest of society.

therapy and/or stricter laws on sex perversion might also help keep these creeps off the streets and out of our kids lives. but most judges and preachers and now we see legislators are sex perverts and pedophiles so the laws never get passed and the probably close to 20% of society (male and female) that have sex addictions manifest in forms like bathroom sex and other forms like park sex. it's predominately a male phenomenon but go to a women's party or event and you'll see lots of lesbian touching etc. from married women. it's natural for women to be close to women and vice versa even if they are straight, we experience a whole continuum of sexual feelings for people and the gender lines and hetero/homo lines have long since been blurred, but our soceity is just now waking up to that blurring.

[DemBones DemBones]

82. What the .....?

"so craig may be still a straight man (not even interested in gay males) but bored with his wife and looking for some mastabatory help from a stranger. it's entirely possible he's not gay, but he can't find women to jack him off so he gets a guy to do it."

A Senator doesn't know how to get a call girl in Washington? I don't think so. He could also have a mistress if he wanted one; as Kissinger said "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." All accounts suggest that Craig wants anonymous sex with men in public restrooms, maybe in parks and other places, too.


"go to a women's party or event and you'll see lots of lesbian touching etc. from married women. it's natural for women to be close to women and vice versa even if they are straight, we experience a whole continuum of sexual feelings for people and the gender lines and hetero/homo lines have long since been blurredwe experience a whole continuum of sexual feelings for people and the gender lines and hetero/homo lines have long since been blurred, but our soceity is just now waking up to that blurring."

If you think women hugging or kissing each other on the cheek in greeting is "lesbian touching," you're way off the mark.

That's like saying hugging and kissing kids is pedophilia.

In Italy, friends always kiss each other on both cheeks, and that includes men kissing men, women kissing women, women kissing men, men kissing women. Heterosexual Italian women who are friends, or family members, may walk with their arms linked or holding hands in public. It's affection and custom, not sex. Same thing with heterosexual women who hug and kiss in the U.S. I imagine that customs vary in the U.S. In the South, people hug a lot. People, not just women. I doubt that's true everywhere in the U.S.

[Hepburn]

11. Larry Craig and Mark Foley are....

SEXUAL PREDATORS. There is NO relationship between that and being gay or gay marriage. Predators are sick perverts who pray on other people and stalk certain people and set up certain situations which turn them on sexually.

Again: This ~~ what Foley and Craig are ~~ has LESS THAN ZERO to do with being gay.

[ruggerson]

13. Get over it

Larry Craig is no more a sexual predator than your Aunt Mathilda.

You might have a point with Foley, but not with Craig.

Craig was looking for CONSENSUAL sex, which he thought he found, because the cop responded to his initial advances. Had the cop said "go away" or "leave me alone" when Craig was staring through the door, that would have been the end of it. NOt only did the cop NOT do that, but he also responded with his own foot tapping, indicating to Craig that he was about to get lucky with a consensual partner.

Craig is a sick man, probably sex addicted, in the closet, a monster who votes against his own humanity, but Craig ain't a predator, and if you think he is, you're not understanding the dynamic at work here.

[Maribelle]

17. Craig's "looking for" first involved peeking through the stall slots.

This did not involve anything consensual at all.

[ruggerson]

21. It was an advance

Again, if the cop hadn't given Craig consent signals back, the whole thing would have ended right there and Craig wouldn't have stared at him for a minute and then sat next to him. Craig thought he had scored. But, instead, the cop was only doing his job, which was a sting to find and arrest people who engage in consensual, public bathroom sex. And implicit in that sting is fooling people into thinking they've found what they're seeking.

But, again, all this is extraneous to the OP. Shouldn't we be yelling about gay rights and why they are needed NOW, instead of debating the ins and outs (pun intended) of public bathroom sex? I mean, what's the real issue here?

[Maribelle]

59. I think your are totally incorrect that Craig received signals before he stared in the stall.

All reports indicate Craig peeped first. And Craig said he did that to see if the stall was empty. After the stall next to the cop became empty, Craig went in and began his tapping thing. It was after this that the cop tapped back - - and Craig now cries "entrapment" over the tapping back.

Of course, Craig is dense to the fact that his crying "entrapment" is a dead giveaway.

[ruggerson]

60. Where did I say that he did?

You're misreading what I've written. Read it again.

[Maribelle]

61. "if the cop hadn't given Craig consent signals back, the whole thing would have ended right there ..

This is what you said:
"if the cop hadn't given Craig consent signals back, the whole thing would have ended right there and Craig wouldn't have stared at him for a minute"

and it is incorrect

[ruggerson]

66. What does the word "back" mean to you?

It means that once Craig had looked into the stall, the cop may have (we don't know for sure from the transcript) indicated to him that his advance was welcome. One assumes this was the case, because Craig continued his advance by taking a seat next to the cop. We DO know from the trancript that the cop tapped his foot back at Craig, indicating to Craig that the cop was reciprocating interest.

So, the salient fact that we know for sure is that the cop did indeed reciprocate Craig's advances. The cop wrote this himself.

No where have I written that the cop invited Craig to initiate the first advance, which is what you claim I supposedly wrote.

[Maribelle]

72. What does the phrase "and Craig wouldn't have stared at him for a minute" mean to you?

Again - what you said is totally incorect. Your parsing of what you said will never work.

[ruggerson]

77. "AND"

meaning following the initial look. The word "Back" makes it quite clear what I meant. the word "and" follows a time pattern sequentially.

Nice try.

Why I'm having a debate with someone who just dragged "THE CHILDREN" into this discussion is beyond me. You gave yourself away right there.

[Maribelle]

80. "Their next step is to call them 'child molestors' - - you're the one that dragged the children into

You are really tripping all over your own words.

[ruggerson]

84. See post #70

where you dragged "CHILDREN" into my discussion with you.

And look at the time stamp.

Now, you're compounding your bigotry with lies.

[Maribelle]

87. #70 was a response to your #54 where you brought up "child molesters"

Calling me childish names is not a very good reflection on your poor argument.

[ruggerson]

90. That was not in our discussion

YOU were the one who brought children independently into the discussion you and I were having.

Your little games ain't working, "Maribelle".

and #54, btw, was a reference to post #33 where the "Kids" element was first mentioned on the thread.

[Maribelle]

95. This is not a game, big or little.

As you go further adrift with each post, let's try to get back on subject, shall we?

The first thing Craig did was peek. He had no idea who was in the stall when he first peeked. It could have been an underaged male.

If it was and underaged male, and if it was my son - - I would be praying that I could never get my fingernails into his eyeballs.

And police are extremely concerned with this factor in the 41 arrests they made at that particular airport.

As it turned out it was a very mature male; and as Craig discovered this, his peek grew long.

Call me all the childish names you want - - you only make yourself look just that, childish.

[ruggerson]

97. Sorry but you bringing children into your discussion

is homophobic in and of itself, in that this is exactly what the rightwing does to misdirect the dialogue about equal rights.

What underlies this entire story is what homophobia continues to do to our country. What if it turns out that your son is a young gay man? Do you want him consigned to the scrap barrel of life in the U.S? Or do you want him to have the same chances and advantages of having a healthy, normal adult life that he would have if he is heterosexual?

[Maribelle]

101. Before Craig started peeking he did not know who was in the stall - - ergo the discussion.

Nothing homophobic about it.

[ruggerson]

103. Before Craig started peeking into stalls

he was a self hating gay or bisexual man who grew up thinking that he was immoral, sick, sinful or unhealthy, because that's what society taught him to think about himself. Should he have grown up long ago and told society to fuck off? Absolutely. Should he have become an ugly rightwing fascist? Absolutely not.

But, you're fooling yourself if you think this story is solely about Craig tapping his foot at strangers in bathrooms. It's about much, much more than that.

[noamnety]

22. I hope to hell I never see you on a rape jury.

Not confronting someone verbally while they spy on you in the bathroom is NOT consent. People react in different ways to that sort of thing, from fright to flight, and shock and everything in between. Unless he had a specific invitation to watch, he was being a sexual predator.

He broke the law long before any foot tapping occurred.

[ruggerson]

25. What the hell does rape have to do with it?

If you're equating consensual, gay thrill seeking sex in a public bathroom with RAPE, you and I are not on the same page at all. Craig was looking for CONSENSUAL sex. He got busted by a cop, while looking for CONSENSUAL sex.

I hope to hell you're never on a jury which has to make critical distinctions between rape and two people getting each other off in a public park or in their car, or in a bathroom.

[noamnety]

34. If you can't tell the difference between spying on a person

through a crack in the toilet door and a consensual act, you aren't qualified to be in this discussion.

[ruggerson]

36. If you can't see that

you're mimicking rightwing spew about gays, then you need to have your eyes opened.

[noamnety]

41. What "spew about gays" are you talking about?

Spying on people without their consent while they are in the bathroom makes you a sexual predator.

I wasn't aware that was a "rightwing" talking point.

[ruggerson]

54. Predator

is a term rightwingers use about gays all the time. Their next step is to call them "child molestors."

You're playing right into their hands.

[noamnety]

69. It's also a term non-right wingers use

to describe assholes who feel entitled to violate people's rights in order to get their sexual thrills without FIRST obtaining the consent of the other person.

Next up in the logic test: Nazi's peed sometimes. Cops pee sometimes. The cop must have been a Nazi.

That's the logic you are using with this crap: Rightwingers use the term predators, therefore anyone who believes peeping toms are predators are rightwingers.

[DemBones DemBones]

91. I agree with you. Craig was spying on a man

sitting on a toilet. What right does anyone have to do that? I'd be outraged if anyone did that to me.

"He was trying to see if the stall was empty"? Please. You bend down and look for feet to do that, or you pull on the door and see if it's locked. You don't look through the crack or bend down far enough to see more than feet or peer over the top of the stall. Any of those behaviors makes you a peeping Tom.

He was apparently looking for consensual sex but he was peeping first of all.

Why did he think he'd find a partner for consensual sex there? Perhaps he'd been there before or knew it was a good pick-up place. It's been a problem at that airport, men using that restroom for sex acts. That's why the cop was there.

[Maribelle]

70. "children's rights" to be shielded against predators and calling child predators pedophiles ...

is based on reality.

If gays want to cry homophobia and swear filth at parents concered by what goes on in the restrooms of national ariports, or other public places, then I can only say to them: GROW FREAKIN UP

Predators exist - and Craig was acting as a predator by peeking through the cracks of the stall.

[ruggerson]

74. Don't give me your crap about children

What about all the children that are growing up gay and lesbian? There are tens of MILLIONS of them, compared to the handful of kids that may or may not overhear consensual public restroom sex.

You are supporting rightwing crap by even bringing up children in the context of this discussion.

What about giving support to the tens of millions of gay kids and teenagers who are growing up in a society that still tells them they are unhealthy, immoral or "sinful"?

You seem to forget about them.

[Maribelle]

76. "Children's rights". When Craig first peeked through the stall-he didn't know who was in there.

Grow freakin up

[ruggerson]

78. Yeah

ignore what I just wrote about gay and lesbian kids and teenagers.

Cause the random child who might overhear adults having a sexual encounter in a stall is SO MUCH MORE FUCKING IMPORTANT than the health and well being of gay kids.

[DemBones DemBones]

86. Tens of MILLIONS of gay kids?

Come on. Are there even tens of millions of kids in the US today?

[EST]

24. What Hepburn sez---

The evidence for Craig's predatory nature is not his solicitation of anonymous sex.

His predatory stripe is the constant denying of human rights and respect for other people and groups of people.

A cat or a snake doesn't give a tinker's damn about a mouses rights or sexual identity, they just pursue their own rights and the hell with anyone else.
If you were to ask a cat about the mouse's rights, that cat would have no idea what you're talking about--kind of like Craig can't understand why it is that we care.

The restroom incident was just a way to bring him into the spotlight and keep him there.

[ruggerson]

26. That's not what she said

that's YOUR spin, not hers. And no one is disputing Craig's monstrous voting record. But many of you are playing RIGHT into the hands of the rightwing thugs, who would seek to perpetuate a world where gay people live secret, tortured underground lives.

[EST]

107. I was agreeing with Hep and contributing my additional thoughts.

I don't get your point but that's OK, we'll find each other over time.

[peacetheonlyway]

29. BINGO.. you nailed it... They are SEX ADDICTS AND PERVERTSq

and all the 'good boy" craig from the press and from WH and from GOP makes me sick.

he will prey on other victims to meet his sex addiction including probably children.

the man should be in jail. methinks his addiction is so deep rooted he is not even conscious of it.

it has nothing to do with gay, it has to do with anyone that will jack him off.

to see his smiling kids and wife there by his side made me sick. they should announce they are divorcing (and disowning him) until he gets psychological help for his addiction.

enough said. you nailed it right on the point... HE's a FUCKING PREDATOR and a nasty disgusting man. the way he was almost pushing his wife after the first conference, and she sits by his side because she thinks she cannot make as much money on her own, so she suffers by her own greed. seen it all before. same as the hillary reason she's still with clinton. put that perspective on... Hillary clinton an condoning person of a sexual predator Bill clinton.

the one thing we know about sexual predators is that they rarely get 'better'.

[gollygee]

102. Delete

self-delete

[mondo joe]

12. Eliminating "the closet" and the pressures that enforce it would make fewer Larry

Craigs in this world.

That's NOT intended to excuse Craig.

[stillcool]

14. the burden society places...

on those individuals it finds 'unacceptable', can only exacerbate the problems of that society. I have met many people who have lost their way due to an inability to just be themselves. Whether they be black, gay, a foster child, a victim of incest or abuse..it all fucks with your sense of self. The fact that you are 'other', unworthy, unacceptable, and must somehow alter, redefine, and suppress those expressions of self that bring you physical and/or mental harm, does not manifest itself in a way that is beneficial to the society that created it.

[noamnety]

15. Heterosexual marriages are legal

and women are stalked, abused, watched and video-taped without their consent, and raped on a regular basis.

Some people are just predatory assholes, and ogling someone through the crack in the stall door at a public toilet falls into the predatory asshole category. That's got nothing to do with marriage rights or equality.

[ruggerson]

16. See above

Craig is many things, but he is not a sexual predator. He was looking for a consensual thrill with a likeminded male. Instead, he found a cop pretending to be interested.

The "sexual predator" label plays right into the rightwing's homophobic lies about gays and lesbians.

[TahitiNut]

19. Uh-huh... and everyone lwfern described also looks for "a consensual thrill with a likeminded" ...

... person, huh? Those poor, misunderstood Peeping Toms!

:puke:

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with objectification of human beings.

[ruggerson]

23. yeah, but there's a huge difference

between two people objectifying each other consensually and the other things lwfern brought into the mix.

I'm addressing the Craig situation and its implications for a national debate on policy. Solely.

[TahitiNut]

27. There was NO consent to be peeped! None.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/417

[ruggerson]

32. You have no evidence with which to back that up

The cop, in his transcript, does not say he ignored Craig's gaze. He may have cruised him right back, which is far more likely, since the cop was leading a STING to entice men like Craig. Additionally, the cop writes that he tapped his foot back at Craig, telling Craig that this was a CONSENSUAL encounter. Facts are our friends.

Again, this whole "predatory" thing plays right into the rightwing's meme that "all gays are predators."

THat's not the discussion we should be having. We should be shouting to the world that Larry Craig is a hypocrite and that gays and lesbians deserve full equal citizenship NOW.

[noamnety]

37. Unless he called out "please come stare at me in the toilet"

it was NOT consent.

You are being offensive and condoning predatory actions yourself, if you are claiming that spying on someone in a public toilet is "consensual" so long as they don't tell you to stop, or so long as they "ignore" the glance, instead of, say, glaring back at the person.

You have some fucked up notions of consent.

[ruggerson]

38. You have some fucked up notions

about what being a predator is. How do you think strangers in public places find each other to engage in consensual sex? By osmosis?

Your entire argument does nothing but mimic the rightwing crap that "gays are predators". One of your friends downthread took your argument to the next logical step, linking consensual thrill seeking with child molestation.

If you don't see the moral support you're lending rightwing freaks with your arguments, I can't help you.

[noamnety]

44. Quit defending people's rights to be a peeping tom.

That is not part of "gay rights."

Shooting video up a woman's skirt in public is also not a way for "strangers in public places find each other to engage in consensual sex."

There's are actually other options for meeting people beyond "by osmosis" or violating their rights. Shocking, I know.

[ruggerson]

48. I'm not playing along with rightwing spin

about consensual public sex being "predatory." Sorry. I know you find that objectionable. But I'm far more concerned with how we get full equality for gay and lesbian citizens. And not to equate them with "child molestors" might be a good start.

[noamnety]

50. You still haven't explained

how being a peeping tom is consensual.

I guess it's easier to make your point if you pretend that didn't happen, though. Or if you pretend everyone, by default, consents to being spied on in the toilet, unless otherwise stated.

[ruggerson]

53. You're ignoring

the fact that the cop himself states that he tapped his foot in response to Craig.

Tell me, where in the trancript the cop says he avoided Craigs gaze into his stall. You can't, because he doesn't. Why do you think Craig sat down? Craig actually states "YOU solicited me" in his one moment of semi-honesty in the interview afterwards.

The FACT that we have to go on is that the cop admits, in the transcript, that he indicated to Craig that this was about to be a consensual encounter. THE COP WRITES THAT HE TAPPED HIS FOOT BACK AT CRAIG.

And again, your "Predatory" nonsense does nothing but feed rightwing stereotypes.

The discussion we should be having is not about Larry Craig's moralit, or lack thereof, but the IMMORALITY of homophobia.

[noamnety]

64. You aren't addressing the facts

Which is that he was a peeping tom.

The foot tapping is irrelevant to that, because it occurred afterwards. You need consent BEFORE you spy on someone in the bathroom. You get that concept, right?

Consent, FOLLOWED by action. Otherwise it ain't consent.

I have no clue what you are on about as to where the cops' gaze was. Eyeball direction is not consent. You do know that, right?

[Terran]

63. I'm afraid you are wrong in this case

Craig sent 'signals' to to the undercover cop, signals that any man familiar with that setting understands, and the cop responded in kind. That would have been construed as consent in Craig's mind.

You are, I think, letting your "ick factor" get in the way of understanding the nature of what went on here.

Now without knowing the person Craig is, he could be a sexual predator. But what he did, on its face, does not make him a sexual predator, or a even a pervert. He did something commonly done by millions of American men, gay and otherwise.

[noamnety]

73. He spent two minutes spying on someone in a public toilet.

All else, including signals sent by the cop, occurred AFTER that.

During that two minute time period, he exposed himself as a predator.

[Terran]

83. We'll have to disagree

I think the term 'predator' is misused.

[TahitiNut]

42. Your argument relies on inventing 'facts' ...

... and it's quite obvious that the person he was peeping was a total and complete stranger to the point that he not only didn't even know it was a cop, didn't even know the person's name, and had no consent. None.

Absence of refusal cannot be sanely regarded as consent. The stall door was closed and latched - and that's a hint. A crack in the blinds is not 'consent' to be a peeping tom.

It's a ridiculous stretch to assume that anyone who moves their foot is 'consenting.' Speaking for myself, I'd never heard anything at all about such 'rituals' and might have easily wiggled my toes or moved my foot. That's something I do quite frequently.

It's a grave error, imho, to embed this behavior in the PRESUMPTION that sexual orientation is to be assumed. It's not. It's irrelevant.

[ruggerson]

51. You're ignoring the facts, TN

the cop himself states in the transcript that he tapped his foot slowly up and down to indicate a consensual response to Craig. Re read it. The cop does this every day - it's a sting fer chrissakes, he's familiar with the actions that are used by people seeking this kind of thrill.

Re read the trancript. I'm not excusing Craig, I think restroom sex is stupid and inconsiderate, but he was looking for a CONSENSUAL thrill.

All of which ignores what the OP is about.

[noamnety]

75. You missed TN's point.

Craig had ALREADY broken the law before the foot tapping.

[ruggerson]

81. Based on the transcript

that I've read, Craig could have fought the charges and won quite handily. He didn't want to, one imagines, because he didn't want the publicity.

But, again, that ignores the point of the OP. Why are we dicussing this and not the national public policy implications? Is it because it is far more fun to scream and rant and throw around words like "predator" than it is to have a serious discussion about how rampant homophobia, and sexism for that matter, continues to erode the promise of our nation?

[noamnety]

85. I'm discussing this

because anytime people claim that they are entitled to violate people's privacy, it affects women's rights. This shit happens to women regularly, and we always have the posse of "men's rights" groups claiming they're entitled to watch women in the shower, in the toilet, in the dressing room, etc. and it doesn't "harm" women so long as they aren't physically assaulted.

The right to privacy is a civil rights issue. The rightwing, since you brought them up, is consistently on the side of denying people's rights to privacy.

[ruggerson]

88. There were no women

involved in this incident that I'm aware of.

As I've said in another thread, there are many men, both gay and straight, who view sex at times as "sport." Gay men who engage in this kind of sexual behaviour in public are able to do so, because there are OTHER gay men seeking to engage them. Consensually.

You are looking at this through the prism of women having their privacy violated, which is understandable, since that is your reference point, but that is not the dynamic of what was occurring here. Not in the slightest.

[noamnety]

92. Loss of the legal right to privacy

AFFECTS women's rights.

Good grief. Do you really feel it necessary to explain that there were no women in the men's restroom when this occurred? Did you think I was confused on that point?

If the law says people can spy on each other in public toilets, that affects women's rights.

Whether or not you view it as sport is your own business - but viewing another person in a toilet requires CONSENT. And the consent is required PRIOR to watching them.

I can't believe people aren't able to figure that out. It makes me wonder if folks here think they personally are within their rights to watch anyone they want through stall doors. You really think that's ethical?

[ruggerson]

94. I'm not interested in a discussion

about bathroom privacy rights. Truly. It does not interest me, in the context of this case. I realize that's what you're focusing on, because it has ramifications for your interest in the objectification of women. In general, I share your concerns.

But, the issue here that is being ignored is how HOMOPHOBIA underlies this entire story. IT's the issue the MSM doesn't touch, and, sadly, even at DU, many don't seem to get it.

[noamnety]

96. Even at DU a lot of people are homophobic.

I absolutely agree with that.

I think you're hurting, not helping, your case - and harming others in the process as well - by putting forth the argument that gays are somehow entitled to spy on other men without their consent, otherwise how are they ever gonna get some?

That's no different than telling me unattractive men have the right to spy on me in a locker room, because they can't get access to naked women otherwise.

You need a way to promote gay equality that doesn't depend on violating the human rights of other people. This ain't working.

[ruggerson]

100. You're putting words in my mouth

no where have I said that anyone, gay or straight, is entitled to "spy" on anyone else.

Re read the OP. That is my interest in this case. I care about what homophobia does to individuals, men and women, and to our country as a whole. To me, that is the lesson here.

Your entire argument is a diversion from my point. You are only addressing this through your own narrow prism.

[noamnety]

104. I wish you would have just said that directly.

"Craig did not have a right to spy on a man in the toilet through the stall door."

If you'd said that, instead of appearing to argue that point, the diversion never would have happened. As it was phrased though, there's no way I would let a defense of spying on people in the bathroom go unchecked.

I generally don't let homophobic comments go unchecked, or racist comments, or misogynistic comments, or any number of other offensive comments go unchallenged, even if they weren't the OP's main point. (They usually aren't.)

[ruggerson]

108. Understood

and I tend to do the same thing. But I think the discussion about this issue is being trivialized. I'd like to see the MSM really explore how gays and lesbians react to someone like Larry Craig, how gay KIDS are being treated in modern day America and how homophobia continues to erode the foundations of freedom and equality in this country. I would have hoped, at the very LEAST, that many at DU would have been interested in that discussion, hence the OP. I refuse to believe that on a progressive board, the majority of the participants think the salient point here is about bathroom stall privacy. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, that's very sad, in and of itself.

[noamnety]

20. Watching someone in the toilet is predatory.

If he'd just done the foot tapping thing, I'd possibly have a different view. Standing there watching someone on the toilet without their permission, or any signals that they've given permission, is predatory. Acting like that's normal is playing into the rightwing's homophobic lies about gays and lesbians.

[TahitiNut]

28. Agreed.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/417

[ruggerson]

30. Equating consensual thrill seeking

as stupid and inconsiderate as it may be, with being a "predator" plays right into the rightwing's meme that "gays are predators."

The discussion should be about how to formulate public policy to lessen future Larry Craigs, not joining in a Republican-like debate about how disgusting this specific person is.

[peacetheonlyway]

33. disagree....

you still don't see by the man's actions the following:

Anyone lowering themselves to ONGOING (and this is not the first time or how else would he know to go to the men's bathroom) Public sex is a SEX ADDICT.


he also showed predatory tendencies with how he peeped into the stall.

Sex addiction + predatory behaviour means that this man will strike again (and if he's like most sex addicts, it's a daily or weekly problem that has to be nurtured with victims).

BOttom line, the policy should be more than a fine as the cop said he'd have to pay, we should demand these asshole sex predators get therapy, and do time in jail.

his need to fight this legally shows that he is unconscious of his own sexual addiction.

that he is still everybit as able to do this kind of thing except perhaps perpetrated against kids. i'd be curious if his own 2 kids have stories to tell about their father. i bet they do... incest stories. i'd bet a million dollars.

[ruggerson]

35. Ah

so now, because he looks for consensual gay sex in bathrooms, you have morphed him into being a child molestor.

Do you realize that you are mimicking the exact same train of thought that rightwing republicans do?

They, too, try to equate gay or bi people, closeted or uncloseted, with child molestation.

Your argument echoes Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn. Maybe you're in the wrong party?

[peacetheonlyway]

39. no, am actually a very gay very democratic person

it's just that this story smacks of perverted sex addict in denial.

nothing more.

[ruggerson]

45. his sex addiction

is irrelevant.

We can all agree (or most of us can anyway) that having sex in bathroom stalls is stupid and inconsiderate.

But, I'm not concerned about Craig's sex habits. I'm concerned about his hypocrisy and the ongoing rightwing spin that labels gays as child molestors and reprobates (a spin you're participating in).

The argument should be that HOMOPHOBIA and SECOND CLASS CITIZENRY and the CLOSET created sad, pathetic hypocritical monsters like Larry Craig.

And one of the public policy solutions is to eradicate second class citizenry and welcome gays and lesbians into full, participatory equality in our democratic republic.

THAT'S what we should be talking about.

Not Larry Craig's morality. The immorality of homophobia.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. You're Cool ...Well Intentioned And I Respect You...

Here's the reason your argument is being rejected...

The second Senator Craig looked through a crack in a closed bathroom door he was violating the rights of the occupant...Everything that happened after that is coincidental to that behavior...

And I rather discuss how we get equal rights for all of us then to discuss arcane arguments to excuse Peeping Toms...

[Jack Rabbit]

31. The gay rights movement should create fewer Larry Craigs

Larry Craig is either in deep denial about being gay or stupid enough to think everybody else will think he's in the closet after years of rumors about his behavior being capped by getting busted for just that kind of behavior.

He should not have to be in denial about being gay or ashamed of it. A gay person should be able to follow his own evolution to where it naturally takes him. No gay person should have to seek a cheap thrill in a public restroom by soliciting a stranger of unknown sexual orientation.

[Skip Intro]

40. what are "gay rights" - ?

[ruggerson]

46. Uh, let's see

The right to marry their partner and receive the over 400 federal rights and privileges that accrue to heterosexual married couples.

The right to fight for the country of their birth, without having the government force them to lie about who they are.

The right to not be fired solely because their boss/company hates gay people.

The right to not be be evicted, solely because their landlord hates gay people.

The right to grow up in society that accepts them and encourages and promotes their well being and provides an infrastructure that supports and protects their families.

You get the gist.

[Skip Intro]

57. Why call them "gay righs" - they apply to all, or should

that is what I was trying to say...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1712727

[ruggerson]

58. Because that's the conventional term for them

It is how they are referenced in our culture. A broad array of proposed statutes which would finally end the current Jim Crow status that gays and lesbians currently labor under.

Call them human rights, civil rights, whatever. That's not the issue.

[Skip Intro]

62. ok...but,

I think the use of the term feeds into rw bs arguments that gays want "special rights." I think most Americans believe that there should be one set of rules for all, and hopefully a small set at that. Equality under the law.


Terminology may be a minor point, but I really do think it harms the movement toward equality to deem rights "gay rights" or "black rights" or "minority rights" - rights are rights, for every individual.


Probably a very minor point, but one I felt compelled to make.

[ruggerson]

68. I like the term gay equal rights

it defines what you're talking about and it is specific in its context and it debunks the rightwing "special" spin all at once.

[Terran]

49. I'm confused...

You have over 1000 posts at DU and yet you don't understand what the term "gay rights" refers to?

[Skip Intro]

56. They're human rights, not gay rights. I use the sarcasm smilie way too seldom.

[Terran]

65. Gotcha

Terran -----> :dunce:

[blues90]

52. I do know if I would call it gay rights , how about human rights

Where all people of all race and sexual preference male of female have the same set of human rights but then you would have to eliminate hate in this world first . I don;t know how this will be done although I can only hope it will .

[supernova]

55. There will always be people who have a kink

about sex in public places. I don't think that proclivity is either straight or gay. So, I think the amount of people engaging in it would remain the same.

[Terran]

67. A sexually healthy society

is about the only thing that would prevent the kind of thing that Craig did...and even then, you'd be battling the nature of male sexuality. Equal rights for the GLBT group would only be a small part of such a society.

[Orsino]

71. Given most of our Democratic candidates' official positions...

...an awful lot of us have become willing to sacrifice equality for the sake of winning elections. I don't like having to vote for the least odious rather than for the best.

Call us liberals/progressives if you want, but acknowledge that we compromise an awful lot.

[Neshanic]

99. Compromise? I would say we give away the store every election.

But that being said, I have to vote for them, the ones that carefully select words and phrases on gay rights like they handle a Ming vase.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. For The Life Of Me, I Can't Figure Out What The Hell The Craig Thing Has To Do With Gay Marriage.

I'd say you're reaching here.

[Neshanic]

98. It has nothing to do with it.

Closeted republicans are the byproduct of their blind faith to their dying party. They will alway be here, as long as there is a reuplican that stands up and points fingers at gays and says "THEM!"

Being a closeted gay republican like Craig is a spectacularly odious thing. It is repulsive on so many levels.

[DemBones DemBones]

93. Do you think Foley or Craig want to be married to men?

I don't. Foley likes young boys, Craig likes anonymous sex with men.

Legalizing same sex unions would not stop these perversions. Marriage hasn't stopped some men from having sex with other women, has it? (Or some women from having sex with other men.)

And these guys aren't interested in relationships with adult homosexuals, anyway. Foley is not even interested in adults, or at least he has a preference for young boys.

[blonndee]

106. WTF? "Anonymous sex with men" is a perversion?

Holy shit. Do you really think that any kind of sex that occurs outside a relationship is a perversion? Or is it only the gay kind?

[DemBones DemBones]

109. . . .

We weren't talking about women but yes, I feel the same way about women having anonymous sex. Humans evolved to be social animals who form relationships. Anonymous sex goes back to more primitive instincts, ignores morals, ethics, standards, societal expectations.

Of course, segments of our society are ignoring morals, ethics, standards, societal expectations in many areas of life, and many liberals are championing this, which gives the right cause to say the left has no morals. This is not good for the left.

I expect we will have to agree to disagree on this. Have a nice evening.

[yurbud]

105. it wouldn't create less Larry Craigs in the GOP, since gay-bashing is a tried and true method for

them