Jesse Walker | August 29, 2007
Why would Larry Craig oppose gay
marriage even as he cruises for quickies in public restrooms?
Here's my favorite explanation so far, from an anonymous reader
quoted by one of Andrew Sullivan's guestbloggers:
The current political wars are a re-alignment. It used to be gay vs straight. But now it's the old gay culture against the new gay culture. Larry Craig cruises for sex in bathrooms, he's part of the old gay culture. His lifestyle is threated by gay marriage: more guys sitting at the boarding gate with their husbands means fewer in the airport washroom. His lifestyle is threated by gays in the military: more sailors with boyfriends on shore means fewer available underneath the dock. Craig, West, and Haggard are the death throes of the old gay culture, desperately longing for the good old days.
I read this as a clever joke, but Sullivan's stand-in takes it seriously. I'm not sure which one of us is being tone-deaf here, but I'm going to chuckle appreciatively either way.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I think it's not far off. My take, from elsewhere:
"I am going to take a stab at defending Craig against the charge of
hypocrisy: his voting actions and his bathroom actions are not at
all inconsistent, not necessarily. He may believe that
homosexuality is a sin and that it should not be condoned by law or
by culture. He may also understand that the pull of homosexual
urges is no less great than that of heterosexual urges. This
understanding may have come about from the fact that he himself
feels the pull of these urges. So he may understand why homosexuals
do what they do, but also think that it is wrong, and that it
should be relegated to the relative secrecy of highway rest areas,
public bathrooms, and the visitor center at Mt. Rushmore. In other
words, he has voted to keep gays as second-class citizens and has
himself acted like a second-class citizen, begging for it in the
can.
No hypocrisy there."
There is some merit to the argument, but I think it's more like
my old buddy Mike K getting a quickie in the port-a-potty that hot
August afternoon on the beach in San Diego at the Over-The-Line
contest. Ghastly man, as was the falling-down-wasted chick that did
him. He just grinned.
Some people just get a thrill out of that kind of stuff.
So, when we have gay marriage and homosexuality carries no more
stigma, men will become angels who no longer desire anonymous
sex?
Somehow, I don't buy it.
I think it's pathetic that the media is focusing its attention on some perverted senator while completely ignoring the nomination of Walt Kurtz to the office of Attorney General. Tsk, tsk, America, tsk, tsk.
I think the we are over simplify the whole gay thing. Instead of it being a clearcut, I'm gay you're not situation, I believe it's more of a spectrum. Think of it as degrees of bisexuality. On one end you have the mostly straight and on the other end the mostly gay. A lot of people fall in between. Think gayness as a bell curve. Perhaps Craig liked having sex with men, but was not romantically interested in men.
Uh, not a joke.
So you think the reader seriously believes that Craig opposes gay
marriage because he has an interest in increasing the number of
closeted but horny gay men?
Abdul,
"So, when we have gay marriage and homosexuality carries no more
stigma, men will become angels who no longer desire anonymous
sex?"
No, they just won't be getting as much.
I think Craig is anti-homosexual. There's nothing hypocritical about that as long as he's full of self loathing.
" . . . more guys sitting at the boarding gate with their
husbands means fewer in the airport washroom . . . more sailors
with boyfriends on shore means fewer available underneath the
dock."
Is this what you'd call a Zero-Sum Gay?
I think two things are at work here.
1. Craig is a political opportunist and came out against gay
marriage because it got him votes.
2. Craig is a degerate sex pervert who views sex and gay sex in
particular as something done for pleasure and not for love and
can't see why anyone would want to be married to another man,
especially considering the fact that you can apparently cruise the
airports for blowjobs.
Uh, not a joke.
So you think the reader seriously believes that Craig opposes gay
marriage because he has an interest in increasing the number of
closeted but horny gay men?
Personally I couldn't take seriously the notion that Craig was
consciously thinking that way per se, but I do wonder if at some
level, an unconcious one if you will, the benefits that would
accrue him by this position greased the wheels (again, if you will)
of seeing the "old ways" as the way it oughtta be and oughtta
stay.
I do think such thinking processes are real and possibly
common.
That said, I think the more banal explanation of unbridled and
unprincipled opportunism mixed with a dash of neurotic projection
much better satisfies Occam's Razor and is most likely
sufficient.
Forget Craig,
From where, by the great balls of Korshchei, did you guys come up
with that book cover image?
Do you guys use some special database containing all the jetsam of
popular culture, or are you guys dab hands with google?
Jesse Walker: What Fyodor said above.
There are additional dimensions of denial and self-loathing. And,
I've often heard older-generation gays tell me how easy my life has
been relative to theirs, which easily leads to resentment as
described by Sullivan's reader.
Abdul: I believe that the incidence of anonymous, (semi-)public sex
will indeed decrease. The incidence of casual sex will probably
remain about the same. Men are pigs, after all.
Oink!
From where, by the great balls of Korshchei, did you guys
come up with that book cover image?
Click the picture - I put in a hyperlink to the site where I found
it.
Do you guys use some special database containing all the jetsam
of popular culture, or are you guys dab hands with
google?
Are you saying Google isn't a special database containing
all the jetsam of popular culture?
I've often heard older-generation gays tell me how easy my
life has been relative to theirs, which easily leads to resentment
as described by Sullivan's reader.
That's why it's a clever joke. But I find it hard to
believe that the reader's theory was meant to be taken
literally.
tarran,
I've wondered that myself. Especially that screamingly homoerotic
'50s Russian SF movie poster they had a few weeks back.
It is married men, appearing outwardly heterosexual-- not openly
gay men-- who do it in public bathrooms and parks. Studies have
been done proving this.
They have to, they don't have the gay friends/community/gay bars to
meet people at.
"From where, by the great balls of Korshchei, did you guys come
up with that book cover image?"
"Click the picture - I put in a hyperlink to the site where I found
it."
Can't! Afraid!
(Also: At work!)
(PS: Lunch!)
I think there is a vast dichotomy between certain "bearded"
married older gays and younger gays. Is there some sort of exact
calculus about diminishing "hookup" possibilities that fosters
bitterness? Almost certainly not in most cases--but discounting
that resentment generally is a big mistake.
Take the comment in question as impressionistic as opposed to
empirical and it works well enough.
I kind of agree with Sully's guest blogger not in the zero-sum
gay argument (thanks Drew W!), but in the new gay / old gay
argument.
I went to college in the early / mid eighties and I had a roomate
who came out about five years later than he should have. Coming out
back then was still a pretty big deal even on a liberal arts
college campus; afterwards he was a much nicer and calmer fellow
and stopped getting annoyingly / assholishly drunk five times a
week. He said that he knew he was different than other boys since
he could remember and knew he was attracted to guys since before
adolescence, but he desperately didn't want to be - that he would
do anything not to be.
The cool thing was that I didn't have to him being an obnoxious
drunk all the time and I got over my squeemishness about teh ghay
in a big hurry. The downside was that I had to sit him down one
afternoon and explain that it's not cool to leave your porn out in
the common area - if I stash my Penthouses you have to stash your
Blue Boys, dude. Also, for the first few months after coming out he
was supergay, I guess to make up the all the years that he couldn't
in the past. He was supergay the way people right out of treatment
are supersober; it's all they can freaking talk about.
Nowadays, it's much less of a big deal to come out and all your
friends basically say "whatevs" and you move on.
People who are gay but don't want to be are more likely to have
anon sex in bathrooms; people who are cool with being gay are more
likely to have a boyfriend.
You know, I always thought that when people said "Republicans like Dick" they were talking about their admiration for the Vice President.
I think people on this thread may be confusing "anonymous" sex
with "screwing in the toilet" sex.
If gay guys want anonymous sex, they can go to a bathhouse or
craigslist. It's only the guys who want no trail whatsoever, fear
exposure, have no local bathhouse to go to, etc: closet cases,
often in repressive locales, who have to go *somewhere* to get laid
and end up doing it in semi-private public places where they can
linger and wait for an opportunity.
As was said yesterday, yes some people like the thrill of doing it
outside, and that applies to gay and straight alike.
But this:
"So, when we have gay marriage and homosexuality carries no
more stigma, men will become angels who no longer desire anonymous
sex?"
misses the point: no one is claiming that acceptance of
homosexuality will change male sexuality. It's that the gay ones
won't feel the need to hide it so desperately (and differently than
straight guys do).
Craig is a low budget fag that likes it in the CAN.
Shame on him to deny other fags the right to marry and not be
discrimated against.
That's the problem with the conservative movement. It's a closed
minded and hypocritical movement.
Look at the "Don't ask, Don't Tell " policy. No different than
voting anti-gay...and getting some 'beef-jerkie' in a public
restroom. That's why I hate the conservative movement.
They (conservatives) push things that even they don't believe
in
If u like it in the can...tell everyone.
Don't deny yourself a life of happiness getting it in the
can.
LARRY CRAIG closets are for clothes. Get out of
there and enjoy ur public restrooms with impunity.
"Why would Larry Craig oppose gay marriage even as he cruises
for quickies in public restrooms? "
to state that this is not logical, puts it mildly.
let's say for the sake of argument that person X *is* a homosexual
and cruises for quickies. does that mean that they must agree on
the policy issue of gay marriage? of course not.
plenty of gays oppose gay marriage, as a policy issue.
obviously, MOST gays support it, but it is not some kind of logical
inconsistency to be gay and against gay marriage.
obviously, MOST gays support it, but it is not some kind of
logical inconsistency to be gay and against gay
marriage.
I must have missed the comment where someone said it was.
Lily is right. I don't think Craig was looking for sex, he wanted to suck the guy off. It's called "being on the down low". Married, apparently straight men, who like to suck dick every now and then.
The anonymous sex point above is correct -- gay guys can get
fucked by using phone lines or Craig's list. A friend of mine can
get on the phone line and have some total stranger over at his
place to fuck him within an hour, travel time depending. Guys like
him use airports for flying and airport bathrooms for fucking,
which they can do with stranger after stranger in the privacy and
comfort of their homes.
I do have to say, bathroom fucking isn't a gay/straight thing. I
had sex with a guy in the guys' bathroom at NYU when I went to
school there for a year. While a good time was had by all who were
had, it's more fun in concept (fucking in public) than in practice
(fucking standing up in a small space with a toilet you don't want
to fall into).
Oh, crap - I meant, "guys like him use airport bathrooms for PEEING" not for fucking.
"""Married, apparently straight men, who like to suck dick every
now and then."""
How much of that need you do to be considered gay?
Amy,
Chances are pretty good that you didn't meet him in the the
bathroom, though.
Re: down low - I heard some fella on the teevee explain that he
wasn't gay or bi because he was the pitcher and not the catcher. I
think he may be confused about the meaning of some words. Also, now
whenever I hear that some athlete isn't playing because he is on
the DL I laugh.
How much of that need you do to be considered
gay?
It just needs to exceed the boy-girl sex one participates in by a
simple majority.
It's a joke but there's truth to it. Craig is in denial obviously and new gay culture is a threat to his moral code. He finds the honesty it entails objectionable. Also part of the sexual rush I'm sure he enjoys is the illict nature of his homosexual experiences.
I see some top GOP Senators are calling for his resignation. Strange priorities, A lying AG, not a problem. Maybe they would have supported Craig if he lied about it.
TrickyVic,
Specter, for one, came as close to calling for Gonzo's resignation
as he could get away with.
Rhywun | August 29, 2007, 4:44pm | #
""How much of that need you do to be considered gay?""
It just needs to exceed the boy-girl sex one participates in by a
simple majority.
I dont get that. What if you are fucking equal amounts of both.
Does that make you "A Nothing"?
There's the old Guido Theory of gay, which states "It's not Gay if
they suck YOUR dick, and if you give to THEM up the ass" Those guys
are hilarious.
I cant really even see why the endless Gay/Not Gay vs Gay Spectrum
question matters at all. He's a perv of one stripe or another. none
of the gay guys I know suck cock in public toilets. Then again,
I've never asked. Dude is just a creep.
I agree with Warren:
Warren | August 29, 2007, 12:29pm | #
I think Craig is anti-homosexual. There's nothing hypocritical
about that as long as he's full of self loathing.
Like a drug warrior, Craig doesn't realize that it's the repression
that's the problem. His homosexuality has brought him nothing but
shame, humiliation, guilt, fear, and misery. He probably thinks
he's saving poor innocents from the same fate, just like drug
warriors think they're saving inner city residents from gang
violence.
Craig, West, and Haggard are the death throes of the old gay
culture, desperately longing for the good old days.
"And therefor" the Democrat says "they need to be dragged, beaten
and publicly humiliated"
So goes the uncriticized irrational hatred the left has for
closeted gays.
Craig is a degerate sex pervert who views sex and gay sex in
particular as something done for pleasure and not for
love
Huh?
Viewing sex as something done for pleasure and not love is
degenerate?
Is it just me or did I just step into the Victorian age?
But I think I am loving the anti-gay marriage equals anti-gay
meme...Watching idiots fall over themselves is great sport.
But I think I am loving the anti-gay marriage equals
anti-gay meme...Watching idiots fall over themselves is great
sport.
Well, I'm no memeticist, but I don't see why the "X opposes gay
marriage, therefore X is probably an anti-gay bigot" inference
would be any worse off than the highly reliable "X opposes
interracial marriage, therefore X is probably a racist bigot"
inference.
That "Range" website is one of the most awesomely esoteric things I've ever seen. A whole genre of pulp I never knew existed.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245