Comments on Another Toilet Cruiser Busted
It’s about protecting straight men from the treatment they meat out to straight women.
You mean "mete"?
@1: I think 'meat' is an awesome pun, deliberate or not.
@1 Damn, beet me to it.
Also yes, fitting. Though there seems to something wrong with "brand male piggishness" perhaps you were going for brash?
It's a fair point, but legality/illegality aside, I don't think many straight men are propositioning women in restrooms (that guy at Qwest Field last year aside)? I would even say (maybe wrongly?) that most women feel reasonably secure from the unwanted advances of straight men while in the powder room?
What is it with the restrooms? Find a bar somewhere to work your silver-tongued magic...
Waynesville is in one of the stixier parts of what is a pretty stixy state...
Yeah, this definitely seems like a different case than Craig's. Soliciting sex in a private location is not and should never be illegal.
On another note, it would seem that if the goal of cruisy toilet stings was really about curbing public sex, and not to shame gay men, then simply posting a policeman by the restroom for a while would be sufficient to scare away the cruisers without the hassle of arrest and trial. These aren't hardened criminals they're dealing with.
@4, i think the answer to your question should be obvious; if men and women shared restrooms, we'd see more of these types of solicitations from straight men... In fact, I'd wager it would dwarf the amount of gay solicitations EASILY.
Yeah, this is totally bullshit. While I personally find no desire to hit on guys in a bathroom, it isn't and shouldn't be illegal. If I'm simply propositioning a guy to go have sex at home (or a hotel or wherever), then it shouldn't matter if I hit on him in a bar, a grocery store line, or a bathroom. He can say no if he's not interested. He can't arrest me.
@5, re that last line - well, maybe not upon ENTERING the bathroom...
once this goes before a judge the case is over, right? there is actually no law broken. a judge would have to cite the law, and he would come up with nothing pin on this guy. isn't that how it works, even in the sticks?
Note that the crime he was accused of is solicitation of a crime against nature. This was not an arrest for a public or potentially public sex act. Welcome to North Carolina. See link below for an analysis of why these arrests continue to be made even after Lawrence.
from the above link: " Lawrence made clear that law enforcement officers may no longer arrest hetero- or homosexual people for CAN activity in private, but officers are still making CAN arrests for activity occurring in public as well as for solicitation to perform acts of CAN in public or in an unspecified place."
far as i can see, he still didn't violate this stupid law, because the place was specified, and it was a private place (which CAN allows). is the public solicitation itself the offense? if so, the law is not worded correctly for this. is any solicitation, even non-monetary, the offense? basic freedom of speech laws trump it. but that requires an appeal, i guess.
#4: That is the whole REASON we have male and female bathrooms in the first place, so men won't hit on, harass, or otherwise assault women when they have their pants down.
If there were unisex bathrooms everywhere, you bet men would harass women in them all the time, rendering them unusuable to women at all.
This why they have women-only cars in the Japan subway.
Oops, the "duh" is on me, #6.
Let the gay witch hunts begin!
"It’s clear—beyond all reasonable doubt—that Larry Craig did intend to get it on in that toilet at the Minneapolis Airport."
Wrong. As the ACLU pointed out, the law has no idea what Larry Craig's intentions were (or any of the other men arrested in the Mnpls. Airport). And even if public sex was Craig's intention, since when do we arrest someone for their intentions? A law has to be broken before someone can be arrested and charged. Larry Craig, closeted asshole that he is, broke no laws.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).