Can't You Limp-Wristed Sodomites Take a Joke?

David Weigel | August 28, 2007

At 11:57, David Freddoso shares Larry Craig jokes:

"Senator Craig has withdrawn from the Romney campaign. He will now be supporting Ru Paul for President."

"The senator claimed that he only reached under the stall because he'd dropped a proposition."

"Idaho? No, Senator Craig da ho."

Eighteen minutes later, Freddoso posts:

Why is it that Republicans — Craig, Mark Foley, and David Vitter — are the ones who keep getting caught in sex scandals nowadays?... I don't buy for a second the idea that Democrats are less "repressed."... Whatever their stance on public homosexuality, they would be subject to the same pressures and potential "repression" that any Republican would theoretically feel, say, to cruise in public bathrooms.

Perhaps it's just coincidence, or maybe there is a better explanation out there.

Yes, it's a real mystery why a conservative Republican might be less open about his sexuality than a liberal Democrat.

Comments

|8.28.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Craig "leans like a homo." Thats all i got this morning.

|8.28.07 @ 2:01PM|#

Well, parse, you're not alone.

National Review writers agree with you that cruising for sex in public bathrooms is perfectly normal behavior for homosexuals, and has nothing to do with the degree of social repression they are subject to.

Yo, Fredo - can I call you Fredo? - do you covertly hit on women in isolated spots, rather than openly walking up to them in public? Why do you think that is?

VM|8.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#

Good post, David!

it's always amusing (by which I mean "pathetic" and fucking lame) watching people getting all bothered about sex - or their fantasies about homosexual sex.

*looks snickers with more than the usual contempt at the usual fucktard who consistently acts like that.

|8.28.07 @ 2:09PM|#

Barney Frank is actually a repressed conservative Republican.

Episiarch|8.28.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Hold on...I got one:

The Democrats are so busy screwing the American people that they don't need to go anywhere else for sex!

That should work for NRO.

|8.28.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Yes, it's a real mystery why a conservative Republican might be less open about his sexuality than a liberal Democrat.

I first read that as "...less open about his sexuality with a liberal Democrat."

Much funnier that way.

PapayaSF|8.28.07 @ 2:12PM|#

David, I don't think being open about sexuality really correlates very well with not getting caught in sex scandals. All other things being equal, shouldn't a politician being more secretive about sex make it less likely that he or she gets caught? So if the most secretive are the ones getting caught, it does seem a bit odd, as Freddoso wrote.

Note to self: never tap foot in a public restroom....

Jack|8.28.07 @ 2:14PM|#

The fact that you can't go ten feet in DC without tripping over a republican with a dick in his mouth is solid evidence that the man upstairs has a finely tuned sense of irony

thoreau|8.28.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Be careful the next time you try to tip a bathroom attendant. You could be making a regulated campaign contribution.

Thank you, I'm here all week! Try the waitress! Tip the fish!

|8.28.07 @ 2:19PM|#

All other things being equal, shouldn't a politician being more secretive about sex make it less likely that he or she gets caught? So if the most secretive are the ones getting caught, it does seem a bit odd, as Freddoso wrote.

Conversely, the more pressure you feel to adhere to other people's sexual norms, the more likely you are to look for release in a "scandalous" way, instead of just forming a committed relationship with someone you find attractive and sleeping with them.

|8.28.07 @ 2:21PM|#

Barney Frank is actually a repressed conservative Republican.

Late at night, Barney Frank turns off all the lights, pours himself a glass of wine, and writes a blog that argues in favor of the Iraq War by relating events in Iraq to the Lord of the Rings movies.

paul|8.28.07 @ 2:22PM|#

David, I don't think being open about sexuality really correlates very well with not getting caught in sex scandals. All other things being equal, shouldn't a politician being more secretive about sex make it less likely that he or she gets caught? So if the most secretive are the ones getting caught, it does seem a bit odd, as Freddoso wrote.

Note to self: never tap foot in a public restroom....

I think the idea is that homosexual Dems are less likely to feign heterosexuality, so there's no need for them to cover it up. When it comes to general infidelity, I'd imagine the probability is similar between both parties, but the data are granular and the sample sizes are pretty small.

|8.28.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Wait, wait...I keep forgetting. If you tap with the left foot that means you're gay or is it if you tap with the right foot?

|8.28.07 @ 2:38PM|#

David, I don't think being open about sexuality really correlates very well with not getting caught in sex scandals. All other things being equal, shouldn't a politician being more secretive about sex make it less likely that he or she gets caught? So if the most secretive are the ones getting caught, it does seem a bit odd, as Freddoso wrote.

Well, if you have to get something in secret, you tend to do it in more scandalous ways because you have to go to the black market. An open homosexual can go to the Blue Oyster Bar (that's right, a Police Academy joke) without concern. However, someone who has to hide their urges has to cruise airport bathrooms.

It's not that the likeliness of getting caught that matters, but the fact that anyone cares that they got caught. If a single politician sleeps with someone that is not their spouse (which is anyone), no one cares. If a married politician does the same, people do. The former doesn't care if he gets caught, the latter does.

|8.28.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Mo:
If a single politician gets arrested for soliciting strangers in a public restroom, does anyone care?

|8.28.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Hey thoreau,
Maybe we should redefine a word with sexual meaning ala santorum. I purpose

BICRA: The ritualized set of gestures used to solicit semi-anonymous sex in public restrooms. "The Senator didn't worry about exposure, because he always adhered to the bicra."

|8.28.07 @ 3:23PM|#

Yes, it's a real mystery why a conservative Republican might be less open about his sexuality than a liberal Democrat.

Well, everyone knows that the guys who do all the bragging are the ones who aren't getting any....

Doc|8.28.07 @ 3:31PM|#

I can only imagine what Andrew Sullivan's new hubby is having to do to keep Andy away from a computer right now.

Craig's tap dance and hand motion schtick? That's so proper tea room etiquette. That old queen know exactly wtf to do. That wasn't her first time at the rodeo. ;)

|8.28.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Frankly, I thought Craig missed the obvious (Seinfeldian) defense:

"But Officer, I was only asking for a square. You couldn't spare one little square?"

highnumber|8.28.07 @ 3:44PM|#

Where are the jokes?

|8.28.07 @ 4:04PM|#

joe, as far as I'm concerned what you are saying is "I'm willing to grant equality for homosexuals so long as they pledge allegiance to the hypocritical standards of sexuality I expect straight people to profess." Thanks for the offer, but I'm not having any. The gay activist movement I came of age in was about sexual liberation, and that's still the goal I committed to. Why don't you make a donation to the Human Rights Campaign--the activist organization for gays and lesbians so out-and-proud they don't dare put anything suggestive of homosexuality in the name of the group. They are sure to agree with you that tearoom trade is just a vanishing legacy of the closet.

Listen, if there were unisex restrooms and large numbers of women interested in engaging in casual, anonymous sex--well, then cruising for sex in public bathrooms would be perfectly normal behavior for heterosexuals as well. The reason gays do it is because we can, not because we're repressed.

Rhywun|8.28.07 @ 4:04PM|#

While I have stated elsewhere that I'm against sex in bathrooms--and "public sex" in general--I'm disgusted by this witch hunt targeting gays (or not-gays-looking-for-gay-sex, if you prefer). I was trying to eat lunch just now when one of these sting pigs came on CNN trying to defend this entrapment with lame excuses like "it's not just gays" and "it's for the children". There's nothing wrong with hooking up in a bathroom as long as you take it to a hotel room or somewhere else private. As long as Craig didn't whip it out, he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law (his wife might feel differently, but that's between the two of them).

Eugene McTaggert|8.28.07 @ 4:05PM|#

My summer vacation:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33792

|8.28.07 @ 4:16PM|#

parse,

I believe gay people should be equal citizens, period. That has nothing to do with my opninion about individuals' fetishes and tastes.

I don't have to find sex in public rest rooms to be appropriate behavior, and your oppressed minority pleading isn't terribly moving to me.

Freaking out the squares got boring for me at about age 19.

|8.28.07 @ 4:17PM|#

Rhwyun,

If people were meeting and going to a hotel room, there wouldn't have been so many complaints about the place that the police staked it out.

Rhywun|8.28.07 @ 4:23PM|#

The gay activist movement I came of age in was about sexual liberation, and that's still the goal I committed to.

What does "sexual liberation" have to offer those of us who are a little more old-fashioned and prefer not to cruise bathrooms looking for random sex? Is it some sort of "trickle down" effect? Get the public so used to depictions of sexuality anywhere and everywhere that old-fashioned gay romance goes unremarked...?

If people were meeting and going to a hotel room, there wouldn't have been so many complaints about the place that the police staked it out.

So the appropriate response to a stall-neighbor's foot-stamping and gesturing is to arrest him? How about something along the lines of... "No thanks"?

Robert|8.28.07 @ 4:55PM|#

While I have stated elsewhere that I'm against sex in bathrooms--and "public sex" in general--I'm disgusted by this witch hunt targeting gays (or not-gays-looking-for-gay-sex, if you prefer).

Yeah, I hadn't realized those bathroom police stings were still going on.

daveylee|8.28.07 @ 5:00PM|#

The charge was "lewd behavior". Having sex in such a public space would be considered lewd behavior, whether hetero or homo.

From what I've read, this type of "gesturing" usually results in some kind of "activity" in the restroom.

Now, say for instance that I'm taking my kid in to use the restroom on a layover. If I experience the sounds of someone smokin' sausage or takin it up the corn chute, chances are I'm going to complain to the airport authorities.

So, if the cops get enough such complaints that they feel a stakeout is warranted, and the undercover guy gets an allegedly blatant solicitation, then YES, an arrest is more appropriate than saying "No Thanks".

hale|8.28.07 @ 5:13PM|#

I don't think there's a whole lot of cruising happening at airport toilets; in fact, judging by craigslist there are a lot more guys out looking for casual gay sex than actually doing it. I have a female acquaintance who is a regular attendee at drag shows in her town, and as far as I've gathered from her, this stuff is pretty limited to clubs and bars. Usually ones with names like invoking mustaches, the mining industry, and so forth.

Look, there's no point in getting uptight about it; that's just how sex works when women are removed from the equation. The practicalities of reproduction (for which women have largely taken up the responsibility of bearing in mind) are the reason that we can even have something like sex, which everyone wants and which costs next to nothing, and not be doing it constantly with many of the people we meet.

Anyway, I am skeptical that exposure to the existence of sex is damaging to kids. Real trauma comes from being involved in it too early.

|8.28.07 @ 5:18PM|#

There's nothing wrong with hooking up in a bathroom as long as you take it to a hotel room or somewhere else private.

I take it you haven't been introduced to the "glory hole".

Jeez, my college removed the doors to all the stalls in the men's bathrooms because of the cruising. I had one bathroom they missed at the far end of campus that I could trot over to if I absolutely had to take a sit down. If I ever had a reason to be pissed at gay men, that would be it.

I don't give a damn about who wants to stick what in which hole but I'd like to be able to stroll into a public bathroom without having to stumble into somebody's mclovin.

No sex in public bathrooms, straight or gay. Is that to much to friggin ask?

|8.28.07 @ 5:24PM|#

... judging by craigslist there are a lot more guys out looking for casual gay sex than actually doing it. I have a female acquaintance who is a regular attendee at drag shows in her town, and as far as I've gathered from her, this stuff is pretty limited to clubs and bars.

You need to get out more.

I lived in West Hollywood for years and you can't make certain turns after certain times off of Santa Monica Blvd because of the constant cruising. Not to mention the three guys I caught in my garage and the guys my neighbor got to watch in her side yard as she drank her morning coffee.

If you know any gay people, you might want to ask about the action out there.

It would be great if I didn't have to have sex with men.

hale|8.28.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Admittedly, Austin is pretty tame. Maybe Southerners are just more repressed?

|8.28.07 @ 5:42PM|#

Male sexuality is involved here more than hetero vs homo. Parse is right: gays do anon/random sex more often because we can: male sexuality without the "brake" of female sexuality to slow it down (please no "women like sex too, u jerk" kneejerks; no one is saying women are frigid, but both natural and societal pressures make males the horndogs of humanity).
I feel that Parse maybe skipped a few meetings if he feels that the sexual liberation he/they so energetically fought for included the normalization of public sex in bathrooms, but that's not the key point either. It's a fairly simple equation:
* Gays want / do anon/random sex more often
* Closeted and/or repressed gays won't meet sex partners the normal way (i.e., tequila shots), and the truly repressed ones won't even do craigslist hookups.
* The only outlet these guys (feel they) have is the rest stop/bathroom hook-up, as the alternative is no sex.

All this adds up to male bathrooms / gay sex being a bigger public "problem" then hetero sex in bathrooms (although many a frat boy can tell you bathroom hooks-up ain't restricted to the gay set).

The "cure" for all this is for gays to be (free to be) out. This doesn't mean people of all orientations will stop having public sex, but it will cut down on the back-alley shame set a bit.

Rhywun|8.28.07 @ 5:42PM|#

The charge was "lewd behavior". Having sex in such a public space would be considered lewd behavior, whether hetero or homo.

I agree. However, stamping your foot is not lewd behavior. Reaching under the divider may or may not be; I'm not certain. In any event, it seems that the arrest occurred before what I would consider to be any lewd behavior actually happened.

that's just how sex works when women are removed from the equation

That's no excuse for ignoring common decency. It's not too great a burden to ask them to keep it in their pants long enough to get a room.

|8.28.07 @ 5:47PM|#

EB's on it. Never lived in WeHo, but in the Bay Area, and craigslist is hoppin' most of the time, and that doesn't count the local health club saunas. Not defending the public thing, but it sure as hell does happen.

EB: Don't knock it until you've tried it (kidding).

hale|8.28.07 @ 5:50PM|#

Hey, I'm not defending the people who do it, just trying to buy y'all a little peace of mind.

The words "decent," "proper," and "right" aren't in my vocabulary of argument, and y'know why? Because they don't mean that much. They're words that sound like they have a lot more consequence than they do. If making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, then agreeing its wrong - even in the hallowed and august halls of the Reason comments page - also doesn't prevent it happening.

So yeah, I'm not defending people who do that stuff. Frankly, if it were all about me, I'd find public necking a little bit gross; obviously, public fellatio is even further down that scale. However, the facts of sexuality are thus, and my say-so isn't going to change them, so why allow myself to be bothered? That's the question I'm asking you.

It's one you've gotta ask a lot in a free society.

Rhywun|8.28.07 @ 6:08PM|#

the alternative is no sex

There's always 'batin. It beats picking up a disease or a criminal record.

It's one you've gotta ask a lot in a free society.

True enough. I prefer a society with out-of-the-closet gays and the occasional toilet humping over one with neither.

Dirty Frank|8.28.07 @ 8:37PM|#

I have a female acquaintance who is a regular attendee at drag shows in her town,

Uh-huh... a female "acquaintance" eh? Suuure it was. Or did you mean acquaintance as in alter-ego? Not that there's anything wrong with that!

|8.28.07 @ 8:51PM|#

So yeah, I'm not defending people who do that stuff. Frankly, if it were all about me, I'd find public necking a little bit gross; obviously, public fellatio is even further down that scale. However, the facts of sexuality are thus, and my say-so isn't going to change them, so why allow myself to be bothered? That's the question I'm asking you.

I assumed this kind of thinking was at the heart of libertarianism, and it's what attracted me to the movement in the first place.

At the same time, if I were the owner of a business, I'd try and put a stop to boning in my bathrooms, if only to prevent myself from appearing in a newspaper article about exciting new varieties of STIs that you can catch from toilet seats.

And as a dude who's >3 on the Kinsey Scale, I have a hard time (hah!) believing that in a world where homo- and heterosexuality were seen completely equally (and, presumably, equally non-judgmentally), bathroom stalls would be regularly freely selected as venues for anonymous sex.

hale|8.29.07 @ 1:13AM|#

Uh-huh... a female "acquaintance" eh? Suuure it was. Or did you mean acquaintance as in alter-ego? Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Scratch "acquaintance," replace with "ex-girlfriend." Not that the idea of wearing a dress isn't pretty hot and something I've thought about before. Yeah.

Kevin Hayden|8.29.07 @ 7:30AM|#

I think Senators should get their sex where it doesn't smell so bad, on Craig's Lisp.

Eric Dondero|8.29.07 @ 10:42AM|#

EB, if some dude stuck his John Thomas through the "gloty hole" at your college campus, couldn't you just swat at it?

That wouldn't be assault under any definition.

And imagine the ramifications. It would only have to happen once or twice, for the word to get around on campus. Would spread like wildfire.

No man, even a gay or bi-sexual man would want his "thang" swatted under any circumstances.

I'd say that would have been the solution to your "sit down" problem in college.