Comments on On Larry Craig and Double Standards

I think it's the fact that the sex, were it to occur, would be occurring in a public place. It's not the solicitation per se, it's the expected outcome. I think this has been addressed in most of the 10,000 other threads on this topic ("Why isn't it illegal to hit on ladies in bars?" "Because you're not having sex in the bar.")

It doesn't sound like you understand why Craig got arrested. It wasn't coming on to a police officer that got Craig busted. It was because he was about to engage in sex in a public restroom with the officer. The sex is the illegal part. For obvious reasons, the officer was not required to actually go through with the sex act before busting Craig. He had enough evidence that Craig was attempting to have sex with him then and there to bust him. Duh.

Erica, you should have given those guys the "Tucker Carlson" treatment.

At the risk of sounding like I'm mincing words, I think a lot of different behaviors are wrapped up in this. It is, I think, illegal to harrass or stalk women as well as men, so being followed by a perv down the street should warrant legal intervention.

Likewise, it's also lewd for a heterosexual couple to have sex in a bathroom. That's not to say I haven't seen just that going on in a number of different straight-bar restrooms, but of course if Craig had been in a gay bar when he wound up being outed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is also of course true when it comes to gross come-ons. Yes, women are solicited all the time. There is a big difference between bars and bathrooms, though. The fact that Craig was caught soliciting sex in a bathroom rather than hitting on guys in a gay bar is the difference between a hypocrite and a cowardly hypocrite who seems to have gone beyond mere bashing for political ends all the way to some sort of staggering self-denial. Honestly, I pity the guy to a degree, yet his legacy is so loathesome, it's impossible not to greet his rather poetically just downfall with schadenfreude.

Hmm, yeah, I've been sexually harrassed by strange men since I was 11. I'm now 39 and it still happens. I have a trick I started using in the 80s, it still works. I wait until there's an audience, then I say in a loud voice, "Hey, George! It's been a while! You still have a VERY SMALL PENIS?????"

If unisex bathrooms were the norm, I'd expect the kind of aggressive, escalating advances such as those made by Sen Craig would be considered criminal and prosecutable. Especially if the target happened to be a cop.

Damn Erica, you must be a hottie to get all that attention. Do you have a boyfriend??? Who am I kidding, I'm a big, evil 'mo...

Josh noted that when a man does something “gay,” the burden of proof is on him to prove he isn’t gay, but when a woman does something “gay,” the assumption is that she’s “just goofing around.” Josh’s conclusion: “We take female homosexuality less seriously because we take females less seriously in general.”

Wrong. We take female homosexuality less seriously became women tend to be more sexually flexible. In general, it is true. You almost never hear of a gay man returning to women (and when you do, you certainly don't take it seriously), but you run into the opposite fairly often.

Wow, I really really wish that I could go to a cop when a man was following me down the street and saying lewd things to me as Jeremy @4 notes there *should* be a legal remedy for this. However, there isn't. Unfortunately, I've been harrassed by cops in uniform often. Thanks for bringing this up Erica.

what is the tucker carlson treatment? do they sound like the brian jamestown massacre?

Jeff @8:

"You almost never hear of a gay man returning to women (and when you do, you certainly don't take it seriously)"

it may have been inadvertent, but the idea that male heterosexuality is the default and assumed, is also part of the problem. imo.

--hipsterlite

What @1 and 2 said. Soliciting sex in an airport bathroom is a precursor to an illegal act (or, at least, we could be 99% sure an illegal act was about to follow). Hitting on women is not a precursor to an illegal act.

I think the right discussion is at what point in a sting operation can we be sure that an illegal activity is about to occur. Larry Craig in the bathroom -- 99% chance. A drug dealer offering to sell drugs to an undercover cop -- 99% chance. A man hits on you in a bar -- 1% chance. A group of men follows you off the bus and down the street -- 25%? (depends on the situation, certainly not a high enough chance to convict someone of anything).

If there were throngs of men and women arranging for anonymous sex in a particular public place through coded gesture, I'm reasonably confident that law enforcement would consider this a problem, even if exchange of money wasn't involved.

Oh, and "side note": If you want to complain about the guys who hit on you, then just do it; don't try to disguise it as a discussion of the Larry Craig scandal.

"If we go outside without an escort, we're asking for trouble." I hate how true this is, even in relatively well-behaved Seattle. And who am I kidding... I have no strategy for dealing with this except for suffering through it and waiting for the harassment to run out of steam.

Why is Craig’s alleged crime (not public sex, but merely soliciting sex in public) so much worse than the casual solicitations women are subjected to, by men, all the time?

Don't you think it's funny that if I grab a woman's ass and she punches me, she's fighting for her rights, but if a faggot grabs my ass and I punch his lights out, I'm a homophobe?

That said, I think the definition of "normal" that you're using is a little off. There are subsections of our society for whom the sort of behavior you describe is considered normal and women within those subsets have cultivated a set of reactions that help them manage those behaviors.

Outside those subsections, it's actually not normal. I didn't spend a significant amount of time around African Americans until I was in high school and the way they acted towards women was one of the hardest things for me to respond to because the sorts of things Black men said to women would've been considered, essentially, fighting words where I came from.

And just so we're clear, there are definitely Anglo communities that have similar attitudes.

But my point is that you're pitching this as "normal" and I think you need to be clear that there's an important difference between "pervasive" and "normal." There's a lot more disagreement and a lot more antagonism between men about these issues than you seem to realize.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and, bullshit.

Sex by women in ladies rooms is also illegal. It can and will get you arested.

There is no double standard here. Nobody wants you to have sex in the bathroom. There are no exceptions based on gender, sexual orientation, pro or amateur status, or Senatorship.

Don't fuck in the god damned bathroom. Don't nobody fuck in the god damned bathroom. Sheesh.

@2 - yes she does. she's just redefining the entire situation so she can pull pre-canned rant from the file.

her thinking goes "i can kinda sorta make this about how men are pigs, and then i can throw in my little anecdote that I've been wanting to write up... yes! I can totally make this work ::submit::"

I really wish someone with actual insight would post about feminist issues, because this shit is old and tired.

@ 12
"A group of men follows you off the bus and down the street -- 25%? "

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Next time it happens to me I'll be sure to take you assessment to heart and refrain from being frightened for my fucking life

@ ECB
So many people need a guy like will smiths character in Hitch. Maybe they ought to just teach a general 'how not to be a pervy asshole' class in school..

Re: Perceptions of male vs female homosexuality

I think Josh is wrong. I has nothing to do with women not being taken seriously.

I think it stems from society's view of heterosexual intercourse. Men are seen as the primary beneficiary (he who comes last); women are seen more as the victim (she who most likely doesn't come at all).

With this view, men should be able to get all of their sexual needs met by a woman. Women, on the other hand, are left unsatisfied by penetration and must look elsewhere to get their rocks off.

Then, you can throw in the idea of the stereotypical male as a dog who will fuck anything that moves. I think the idea of two dogs fucking each other blows some puritanical minds. Women, on the other hand, are seen as much more in control of their sexuality (of course, if that weren't the case, they'd be popping babies out left and right).

Before anyone bites my head off, I am talking about the views of "society", which includes a bunch of old farts who make laws (and came of age before 1970), and a bunch of people who are blindly religious (meaning their morality and world view came of age in about 1570).

@ 15" There are subsections of our society for whom the sort of behavior you describe is considered normal and women within those subsets have cultivated a set of reactions that help them manage those behaviors."

If you think that its a "subset" of society that tolerates this behavior, then you obviously have not been paying attention or don't get out much.

As for "cultivating" a set of reactions, even if I would agree with this assessment, its not appropriate to use a coping mechanisms of a marginalized group as a justification for the continued ill treatment or abuse they receive.

@18... When did I say a 25% chance of getting mugged or raped or worse meant you didn't have to be scared for your fucking life? I think if you're in a situation where someone's following you and you think there's a chance they might assault you (I just made up 25%), it's plenty reasonable to be scared shitless and to act accordingly.

But, a man following someone is not enough to charge them with attempted rape. And that was my point.

If you think that its a "subset" of society that tolerates this behavior, then you obviously have not been paying attention or don't get out much.

Ha! Based on your extensive experience in the real world, I'm sure.

That's awesome.

@23,

And, of course, you have a great deal of experience living as a woman.

Don't you think it's funny that if I grab a woman's ass and she punches me, she's fighting for her rights, but if a faggot grabs my ass and I punch his lights out, I'm a homophobe?

Yes, it's absolutely hilarious. It's especially hilarious that women are groped regularly whereas straight men are rarely if ever groped by gay men. Perhaps it's related to straight men's assumption that women can't fight back while gay men know to be careful to avoid a gay bashing.

And on Sunday night, you were pacing down the street with two friends, acting all badass about it, and you brushed against me as I walked out of whatever that pizza place is across from R Place with my ex. I said, "Oh my God, I hope Ecce Homo isn't watching."

You didn't notice. I didn't care. Good times.

And, of course, you have a great deal of experience living as a woman.

Yum. Tautology.

keshmeshi, you and I have been down this road before. You ran down a list of experiences you considered emblematic of the horrors of being a woman in today's society and I responded that I did, in fact, have extensive experience with every item on that list. At which point you punked out of the conversation. Don't keep bringing it up if you're too chickenshit to stand by it.

Meanwhile, in spite of the fact that you have no idea whatsoever what it's like to be a man, you feel free to judge our intentions.

Abstract consideration for the peanut gallery: is arrogance always the fruit of rage, or is keshmeshi just a special case?

Yes, it's absolutely hilarious (blah blah blah)

It's a quote from a movie. It seemed appropriate. But you go ahead and work yourself into a froth if that makes you feel like you're accomplishing something.

@15

Way to snag a direct quote from the ever-so brilliant The Way of the Gun without any citation.

@25

Oops. Totally missed who posted. My bad.

#27 still applies.

this is a tricky topic, because so many men have acted inappropriately towards women, and still do. as a result, some "innocent" behavior can be viewed through this lens, and it can be terrifying.

the problem is this, you must be able to prove that something illegal did or was certainly about to take place.

can you envision a case where a lone woman walking down the street passes an unknown man and welcomes his attention? where nothing illegal occurs during the exchange? or should a man never say hello to a woman he does not know?

it is easy to imagine both cases: a creepy guy's hello is frightening and unwelcome. and attractive guy's hello is returned with a smile.

at what point do we outlaw mr. creepy's behavior? i certainly think the situation described where he passes and waits is terrible. but not illegal unless we legislate it as such. having sex in a public place has already been legislated illegal. perhaps we should outlaw multiple defined unwelcome advances. but whistling from a truck? distasteful, but should this be illegal?

Men are such tramps.

REPEAT: THEY WERE IN A PUBLIC TOILET. If your supposed harrasser was peeping at you through the crack of a toilet stall and propositioning you, instead of talking to you on the street, he would also have been committing a crime. Why is this distinction hard to understand?

If Larry Craig asked to suck my dick in a bar, I wouldn't have a problem; I'd just say "no, thanks, I'm straight". In a toilet I have an expectation of some privacy.

Later I was whistled at by a guy in a truck while riding on my bike. On the bus another recent night, a young man, about 20 years old, kept talking to me (“Do you have a boyfriend?”) even after I told him I didn’t want to talk. He and his friends got off at my stop and followed me up the street.

Erica,

All of this supports the (already conclusive) argument in favor of using an automobile instead of biking or bus-ing.

@32 - only if it's a plug-in bio-diesel hybrid.

and women are such prudes; esp. for not responding to my inventive new methods of seduction like yells and whistles from my truck, my tongue and its' acrobatic displays, and my inquiries about their coupledom(i.e. whether they're getting poked regularly or not).

prudes I tell you, damn their personal space and silly notions of safety, i should be able to spread my slimy ways, it's the american way as god ordained it so..

I think people forget the big picture- Let's review:

Looking through a stall door?
Could be checking if it's occupied.

Tapping foot?
Could be listening to iPod.

Hand under stall?
Could be looking for TP.

Until this story broke in the media, how many of you straight guys out there would have even known what was going on? Anyone...? Exactly.

Did Craig ever expose himself, ala George Michael? No. Did he ask outright for sex? No. Do we even know for sure it was his intent to have sex in the bathroom...? NO. (Granted he is at the airport, so other options are slim to none, but even so that was never made explicitly clear.)

Now look at those behaviors (again, the ONLY THING he was arrested for) and compare them to the blatant advances women get everyday.

Women would be OVERJOYED if this subtle flirting was the extent of what they receive.

IT'S NOT.

AND THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

The point is that when women go in the bathroom and find women having sex, they call the cops. Those cops will make an arrest, if they can. When men go in the bathroom and find men having sex, they also call the cops too. Cops will arrest them if they can. There is no difference. You need to show men and women being treated differently before you have an example of sex discrimination.

None of this has anything to do with women being hit on the street. Nothing. It's not relevant.

Thank you, #35. And thank you ECB for raising the question that Dan's been dancing all around.


Craig's real crime, the one that got one of his GOPer buddies to call his behavior "unforgiveable" (wait, aren't those Xtians supposed to be forgving sorts?), was to be publicly, detectably homo. The written law says nothing on the matter, but the unwritten law says that if a gay guy gets caught hitting on a straight gay, he can be beaten bloody or worse.


In lieu of that, the unwritten law will settle for a good old fashioned public shaming. That's the law that Officer Karsnia was sent to the MSP stalls to enforce.


And yes, that's one helluva double standard.

What Unpaid Blogger @35 said. Thanks also to ECB for bringing this up.

if a guy played footsies with ECB in the bathroom, or put his hand under the stall, ECB or any other woman would not be overjoyed with the subtle flirting. and you seem to be forgetting these are well-recognized signals asking for sex. you might as well be asking for sex, which is hardly subtle flirting.

if the officer lied or exaggerated, well, then @35 has a point. but if the testimony is true, what happened was not subtle, it was leading to an illegal act, and there was no double-standard.