HuffPo to Take On Police Stings in Bathrooms

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:39:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Now that everyone has had a chance to twitter at Sen. Larry Craig's misfortune of being popped for toe-tapping in the men's bathroom at the airport, I'm glad to see some liberal blogs take note of the underlying issue....why are we paying police to hang out in airport bathrooms in the first place?

Arianna writes:

There clearly are very serious potential threats to our safety to be found in airports -- outside of bathroom stalls. Is sending Sgt. Karsnia into the men's room to spend all day trying to get other men to look at him and tap his foot really the best way to use our limited law enforcement resources?

....Since the news about Craig broke, the media focus has been on his sexual perversions -- it's time to turn the spotlight on the perverted priorities of America's law enforcement community.

HuffPo is asking for your help in gathering numbers:

More....

how much taxpayer money in total is being allocated across the country by local police to protect us from people whom the Sgt. Karsnias of the world think might, at some point, commit a crime?

We at HuffPost are working to pull these numbers together by calling local police departments all across America, since the numbers don't seem to be readily available. We'd love your help on this; please send us any figures or worthwhile information you can find (post them in the comments section below or email max-at-huffingtonpost-dot-com).

Newsweek reported that since mid-May, the Minneapolis airport bathroom sting netted 41 arrests.

the Minneapolis airport police went undercover inside that restroom in mid-May. Since then, they have arrested 41 men, including business executives and airline and airport employees, according to police reports. Several undercover cops have pulled the shift inside the stalls and at the urinals. They don't initiate contact, says airport police spokesman Patrick Hogan. Instead, they wait for a lingering glance, a head nod or that familiar foot tap. "Sometimes it does involve a considerable amount of time," says Hogan. "It's not glamorous work."

Good for HuffPo. These stings, like all vice stings, should be ended.

If the police don't have bigger fish to fry, maybe the counties should consider having fewer police and putting the salary savings towards providing health care for its uninsured residents.

Update: Check out Laura MacDonald's op-ed in the New York Times, America's Toe-Tapping Menace.

WHAT is shocking about Senator Larry Craig’s bathroom arrest is not what he may have been doing tapping his shoe in that stall, but that Minnesotans are still paying policemen to tap back. For almost 40 years most police departments have been aware of something that still escapes the general public: men who troll for sex in public places, gay or “not gay,” are, for the most part, upstanding citizens. Arresting them costs a lot and accomplishes little.

< Life, Liberty . . . | NY Times Opposes Three-Strikes Laws >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

HuffPo to Take On Police Stings in Bathrooms | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

For other perspectives, including many gay ones... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jerry on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:21:16 PM EST

Salon's article and it's letters

Those are the editor choices. I don't think I am going too far to say that the majority of the letter writers that identify as gay are opposed to unfettered restroom sex. (Now the link takes you to the ARE the editor's choices, whatever that means, but definitely not a random sample.)

But one thing this biased sample of Salon letters should put to rest is the canard spread on several websites that this is about homophobia. When many self-identifying gay letter writers (but not all of them) are saying that public restroom sex is wrong this should show that concerns about this are not about homophobia.

Jeralyn, I think you're making a faulty argument with the "bigger fish to fry." I think that we can debate priorities and budgets and cost effectiveness, but I don't think the argument that they should be doing something else entirely completely flies. There is no reason that the cops should not be able to enforce two laws at the same time, or spend time doing what they can to reduce incidence of two kinds of crimes at the same time.

We don't tell the cops, don't bother with burglaries until all robbers have been caught, and don't bother with robbers until all murderers have been caught.

I also think there is a great deal of difference between um, run of the mill, "victimless" vice crimes and engaging in sex in a public restroom.

I don't think sex in a public restroom is victimless. I don't think that everyone that it impacts is a consenting adult.

Perhaps one reason I so strenuously disagree with you, is that I think we are at a point in our culture that we do demonize men with regards to the care of children. One area that I, as a single father with daughters have been impacted is use of public restrooms. At times I have taken them into men's rooms. At times, I have had to rescue them when they called out for me from inside a women's restroom. (One of them couldn't open the restroom stall door.)

I am strongly against any activity that makes public restrooms unsafe either for children, or for their single parents of either sex.

Not About Homophobia? (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:59:37 PM EST

This whole thing is about homophobia, from mens room stings to Republican denial and antigay stance.

This is not about predatory sex. It is about consensual sex. And it seems super discrete to me.

I sympathize with your plight of being a single dad, that cannot be an easy thing, but I do not see how your children are made unsafe because of this activity.

[ Parent ]

Rights and resources should be Neutral (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Ellie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:23:02 AM EST

I don't want to see sex in a restroom from any gender-combo. That's no more homophobic or sexophobic than objecting the same space used for drug transactions makes me narcophobica.

Why should anyone who finds it creepy to be scoped through a crack in the stall-door, followed by that stranger's hand under the stall divider, have to have that objection taken seriously based on the gender of the aggressor?

Should it make a difference whether the aggressor was trolling for a same sex hookup, or, say, an opposite sex toilet voyeur who got off by sneaking into women's restrooms to catch some hot woman on porcelain action through the stall crack until advised otherwise or arrested?

These other details of Craig's alleged trawl appear to have been dropped now that the "sides" are getting entrenched to decide this with a judicial food fight in the form of a hearty label fling. (I'm still in long-weekend mode and haven't seen whether those aspects of the troll weree dropped in newer/more accurate arrest reports and Craig's plea and confession.)

Whatever the jollies sought by the trawl -- and I'd have to suspend disbelief off a bridge with a bungee to think Craig wasn't sex shopping -- this should be a call for precisely what the Republican Palace has eroded during the Bush era: applying rule of law and neutrality of justice with neutrality rather than this crony and whim based spun kangaroo crap that's become the order of the day.

I'm for keeping public spaces neutral, especially all ages areas like a restroom at an airport or a neighborhood park.

Who cares if the homophobia charge is the jerked knee here: I don't want minors in my care to have to deal with adults using less self-control than the vast majority, gay or not, would show in front of minors in their own homes.

Get a room, get in your car, a private space or some dark corner in a club: all are available around the airport. I wouldn't push restroom stings to the top of the security list, but screw people who adopt public areas for biz or pro bono sex, drugs or any other jollies.

[ Parent ]

You're hysterical. (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by manys on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:52:48 PM EST

What are you talking about? How many people do you know who have walked in on anything you wouldn't show a child? I mean the gay sex way, since I've seen many sports fans carrying on, cussing and acting like idiots in restrooms. Should anything be done about sports fans? Anything special for football fans in particular?

The simple fact is that the Craig thing reflects no risk to anybody. The point is furtive encounters and not to get caught. That's why you aren't saying, "Jeez, maybe finally we can do something about the gay-orgies-in-bathrooms problem," because they are discreet. They are better at that than you are at finding them. You, nor "minors in your care" have ever had to think about this before last week. Never. But it's easy to be offended by the merest idea of something.

[ Parent ]

: Better check in with the psychic friends network (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Ellie on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:25:16 AM EST

You, nor "minors in your care" have ever had to think about this before last week. Never. But it's easy to be offended by the merest idea of something.
Riiiight, This claim that I'm hysterical is a hoot given your descent into realm of the paranormal for your absolutist "argument".
Think what you want; your telepathy might work better if your head weren't so solidly up your ass.
I live in a downtown neighborhood with a park at its center which has sports facilities (baseball, softball, track, used by adults and kids). The public restrooms here are in a centrally located small building and used for the usual functions including quick changes and washup by people using the field. (Sorry, toilet trading isn't on the menu.)
Contrary to your absolutist claim that public sex isn't a concern, it's a huge problem around here. People who can't be bothered inviting their hookups to their nearby homes abuse the public space and have to continually be cleared out.
I share chaperone detail over my nephews (who practice track and play ball here), my cousin's kids and assorted young relatives from my spouse's immediate family.
If you're such a jerk even to imagine why slobs who can't control themselves would be pests instead of taking the extremist entrenchment that any criticism of same sex abuse of public restrooms is homophobic, then you're the reason sex dragnets are necessary, not me or mine.

[ Parent ]

Just to be pedantic halfwit... (none / 0) (#5)
by jerry on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:16:43 AM EST

I don't think it's either discrete or discreet (though I suspect you meant the latter (and I can never remember which is which myself.))

[ Parent ]

: Thanks (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:50:45 AM EST

I am a terribel speller. Spell check wouldn't have saved me on that one though.

[ Parent ]

So if I'm doing my business in an airport (none / 0) (#9)
by kovie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:39:47 AM EST

restroom stall and some creep peers through the gap and stares at me intently, I'm having consensual sex with him (or her, what have you)?

Uhuh. I sincerely hope that you're not a defense attorney.

[ Parent ]

Graffiti (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by chemoelectric on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:10:38 AM EST

You know, people've got better things to do than clean up graffiti or tend the trees in a public park, but, you know, I want it done anyway, if only because the bird song sounds sweeter that way, and I don't get as many (expensive to society) headaches.

i love your liberal, giving spirity, Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by chicago dyke on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:42:39 AM EST

but in this case you're wrong. and so are all those who worry this is only about homophobia. re read the original police report. there were complaints and arrests in the area of this bathroom before craig was arrested.

as a gay person, a highly sexually active gay person at that, i think that craig knew what this bathroom was "all about." he knew what he was doing, and who else might have been there. i could be wrong, and larry just had the misfortune to go to a place where a sting was already in operation. but i doubt it. in either case, he's still a gross pig.

to me, what makes him wrong is that he is an agressive perv forcing his kink on strangers in a public place where children often are. and busy working people, decent people. there's a time and place for "public" sex, and any gay person can easily list a number of clubs and bars where you can get some. airport bathrooms aren't on that list, we've evolved and we can have sex legally now. craig deserves to be treated like a criminal, not only because he makes the rest of us look bad, but also because in the end, it isn't that he's gay, but that he thinks forcing his sexual desires on strangers is acceptable. that's rape culture behavior, regardless of orientation.

I don't get that (none / 0) (#11)
by LarryE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:33:08 AM EST

an agressive perv forcing his kink on strangers

I'm afraid I don't see where that came from. What "forcing" are we talking about? What happened required Craig giving a signal to which the cop had to respond in order for things to proceed. No response to the foot-tapping, it stops right there. What "forcing?"

If the tapping itself is to be the "forcing," then it seems to me that anyone who has ever made a pass at another person is likewise "an aggressive perv forcing [their] kink" on another.

[ Parent ]

Peering through the door crack was unprovoked (none / 0) (#13)
by Ellie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 05:39:12 AM EST

Peering through the door came before the foot tapping; and getting a foot into a separate stall isn't easily, "accidentally" done even for a "wide-stancer".

I think making Sen. Craig some kind of martyr to homoeroticism -- which some of the arguments seem to want to do, as if something as precious as toilet trading is being threatened -- is not only farfetched but ill placed. In any case, I think he should insist on a public trial to clear his name.

Jeralyn's someone I'd want in my corner had I ever been caught wandering outside the confines of my bodice -- it could happen! -- and Arianna's righteous to ask for an accounting of security resources.

I want to see this play out because this is exactly why we should scrupulously protect rights and recourse as neutral and inalienable for all, rather than meted out depending on who you know and who you blow.

BTW, I was also wondering about the element here of the Dog that Didn't Bark: the DeLay / Cheney / Gonzo / Libby standard of reproach adopted by the Republican Palace. Dissenters, critics and the people whose government has been commandered were waved off and told to STFU until

(a) completion of the trial, conviction and sentencing process. Apparently, mysterious forces have replaced the former standard for public service of the mere appearance of impropriety. No one seems to find this odd in a regime that cogratulates itself continually for its sham moral values based regime that uses its rhetoric-based "right" to conduct horrific, open-ended extra-judicial harassment and persecution of political enemies. And ...

(b) the extended-mix Libby "martyrdom" standard of irreproachability, where the boundaries for legitimate criticism / dissent -- the right of free media and everyone in a developed democracy -- have shifted to the far outer reaches of Banana Republicanism Law-Law Land to "ecomplete xhaustion of the appeals process".

So when the Republicult follows the First Loafer's cue and wave off judgment for "history" to decide, I guess they mean that today's voters have to STFU until, er, they can shamble out of the grave in different stages of zombie putrescence like extras in the Thriller vid.

No one should be deprived of justice here but I wouldn't feed the cynical caterwauling of people who base constitutional access and application of law based on croneyism and who's in or out of the club (or closet at the club).

[ Parent ]

Peering Through the Crack (none / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:48:10 AM EST

It is not unusual if all the stall doors are closed to see if some are empty. Intent is key here. The cop was not doing the normal business on the lou, which must have been obvious to Craig. He was waiting for someone like Craig with an intent to encourage the peering not stop it, as was his intent with all his other reciprocal behavior.

A bathroom attedent or uniformed security guard would be a much better way to deal with the problem.

I still do not see how children are in any danger. That idea suggests that gay men are naturally into children or that they are some sort of perverts. Nothing in the story indicates that is remotely the case.

If it it the icky factor, a public bathroom is icky with or without gay cruising or sex. Personally I am in and out of them lickety split.

[ Parent ]

Except (none / 0) (#32)
by LarryE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:08:09 PM EST

Peering through the door came before the foot tapping

Except Craig wasn't arrested for looking through the door.

getting a foot into a separate stall isn't easily, "accidentally" done even for a "wide-stancer"

Except moving his foot into the other stall didn't occur until after the cop responded to Craig's signal. If he'd made no response, there would have been no foot-moving.

[ Parent ]

So challenge the fine / charge in a public trial (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Ellie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:06:14 PM EST

It's why we have an open, public justice system and should preserve it from croneyism. Craig's neither a hero nor a martyr here.

If he tried to use the locale for sex and got caught, he should deal with the consequences and his constituency has a right to know. If the community doesn't like resources going towards these stings, there's a process for that too.

As for restroom Cupids sputtering over people objecting for themselves AND minors in their care, it's just not a call they get to make for a shared public resource.

[ Parent ]

: Cop-out. (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by manys on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:57:32 PM EST

You're all facts and conclusions up to a point, eh? Then it's all "well he CHOSE to break the law" once you have nothing to back yourself up with. Nice authoritarian streak you got there.

[ Parent ]

If there'd been no signal (none / 0) (#56)
by jerry on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:07:08 AM EST

there would have been no response.

And if the signal wasn't a signal but just a toe tape, the response would have made no sense, and again, there would have been no hand waving.

What would you have cops do in the course of their investigations into vice crimes or any other crimes? Do you object to all undercover investigations? All that have one cop pretending to be a cohort?

[ Parent ]

Forcing is the correct terminology (none / 0) (#36)
by jerry on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:15:59 PM EST

Personally I have five senses, if you read why practitioners of restroom sex find it thrilling, one big reason is the knowledge they are doing something illicit that other people can hear, smell, feel (rumbles, vibrations), and potentially even see.

I remain astounded anyone can argue that this should be a condoned activity. If men and women have some biological need for anonymous sex that society must meet why not just legislate for sex-rooms being built in addition to restrooms?

I also find it astonishing that people that up until a week ago did not know of "the code" are today experts on the code and practice and can say that it is discreet, and that sex in restrooms only impacts consenting adults.

[ Parent ]

Just learned? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by LarryE on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:05:02 PM EST

people that up until a week ago did not know of "the code" ... and can say that it is discreet, and that sex in restrooms only impacts consenting adults

First, it has to be said as many times as necessary there was no sex in the bathroom. Nor is there any evidence of any intent to have sex in the bathroom. Evidence of intent to have sex, yes. Evidence of intent to have it in the bathroom, no.

As for the code, I learned about it over 30 years ago when it came up in a very similar situation (except the man arrested was just an ordinary person). The very fact that this code could be at least that old (and was described then as "well-known") and yet it seems so few people not directly affected knew about it is a pretty good indication that it was indeed "discreet."

[ Parent ]

I see. (none / 0) (#53)
by manys on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:00:22 PM EST

Why do you think it took the police so long to bust apart the sex ring being run out of that bathroom? With all of those bloody anuses running out of there left and right, you'd think there would be a trail for someone to follow.

Did you build that strawman all by yourself?

[ Parent ]

: Do you have a point or is your post just snark? (none / 0) (#55)
by jerry on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:03:52 AM EST

How long did it take them to bust the sex ring? What sex ring? There were complaints of sex in the restroom, they investigated, and they busted people. How is that any different from what vice cops do everyday?
Strawman? Can you be more specific as to which parts of my argument are built of straw?
I've been rude. Welcome to TL. I can see you've been here just a short time, was there a particular post here that prompted you to come in and begin your snarkfest?

[ Parent ]

Good Move Arianna! (none / 0) (#1)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:16:33 PM EST

Sounds like some police departments have way too much time on theri hands.

I'm with everyone (none / 0) (#8)
by kovie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:36:01 AM EST

who views this as the sort of behavior that one shouldn't be worried about being subjected to in a public area, gay or straight. If this isn't a chronic problem, then sure, it makes no sense to have police dedicated to such sting operations. But if it is--and I suspect that it was in this particular airport and restroom given the number of arrests--then hell yeah, the police needed to do something about it.

We're not talking about quick glances and nuanced words exchanged at the Hudson News or airport sports bar, but a grown adult peering intently into a clearly closed stall that is occupied and being used by someone else. If that's something that's happening on a regular basis in a neutral public area, it clearly qualifies for vice squad responses, including stings.

I think that it would be hard to argue that such behavior doesn't constitute illegal behavior, if done repeatedly and in prolonged manner, that warrants policing.

Something we keep forgetting (none / 0) (#10)
by LarryE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:23:48 AM EST

I've really gotten tired of this being discussed under the heading of "public sex in a bathroom."

There was no sex. There wasn't even anything genuinely public. Sen. Craig was charged with disorderly conduct for looking for sex in that bathroom, not for having it or even thinking of/proposing to have it there. It was the attempt to make a connection that was the "crime."

Something I do wonder about: The cop said Craig scoped him through the crack of the door. Did the cop have his pants down like someone normally would in that situation? If not, isn't he in effect saying to anyone who did take a peek that "I'm interested, I'm here for the same reason you are, come 'talk' to me?"

Yet another angle (none / 0) (#12)
by koshembos on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:55:33 AM EST

Basically its homophobia, redundant sting operation, etc. as the comments suggest. There is, however, another angle to this saga seen through Adriana's opening statement. You, see we are in grave danger, the terrorists are due any day now.

Well, I disagree. Terrorism is a danger, but the Bushes scared us out of our wits to believe that its the only issue on the table. That's completely and patently wrong. The terrorism danger is moderate at best (Yellow?) and we should spent our efforts on health care to all, better working conditions (US is the most productive country because worker have a shamefully short vacations and most people work uncompensated overtime), improved education (cheaper and not improved testing like no child left behind), improved infrastructure, etc.

Let the FBI deal with preventing terrorism in the US and let the rest of us do our jobs and our civil duties (including wasting some police resources).

Something needed to be done (none / 0) (#16)
by eric on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:18:56 AM EST

Well, according to the information that I have read, there were complaints about this bathroom. I don't think that there is any question that something had to be done if the activity in this bathroom was rising to the level that people were complaining.

Maybe you don't care for the undercover "sting" solution. But, at a minimum, the police had to do something. Maybe it was just posting a uniform inside. That would have worked, as well.

Wonder What (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:04:00 AM EST

The complaints were for. All I have heard about is the Criag incident, which would hardly be something to complain about.

His voting record is something to complain about though.

Personally I have been aware of public sex, albeit discreet, on the beach, in the park, on the street, in parked cars, stairwells, and probably more. It has never bothered me. If it is going on in public bathrooms I have never noticed it .

[ Parent ]

Never bothered me either..... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:11:53 AM EST

on the beach, or in a car....and I did hear something in a bathroom once, did my business and moved on...no big deal.

That being said, a bathroom attendant as you suggested at 8 bucks an hour is infinitely better than an undercover sting at 100+ bucks an hour and possible entrapment.

Stationing an undercover on the crapper is overkill.

[ Parent ]

There has got to be more to this story. (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:58:29 AM EST

How does Craig know to stare in the particular stall that the cop was occupying and not any of the others?

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah, (none / 0) (#25)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:02:04 PM EST

my guess is that at least some of the complaints were from guys focusing on their business and then and looking up and find some dude ogling them through the door crack.

[ Parent ]

If you're getting ogled.... (none / 0) (#30)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:45:27 PM EST

by all means, contact the authorities if it makes you feel better. Personally, I can handle that one myself with a simple "get lost creep".

I still don't see the need for the undercovers in the stalls, unless we're talking about master criminal oglers adept at evading apprehension.

You know me sarc...dropping a duece next to an undercover creeps me more than a perv...I can handle a perv:)

[ Parent ]

For the record, I was not trying to counter (none / 0) (#31)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:53:48 PM EST

your point.

I'm not a supporter of undercover cops entrapping dudes in public toilets for trying to find an adult, willing sex partner.

As I said the other day, while I am not surprised that having sex in a public toilet is illegal, I am surprised that not having sex in a public toilet is also illegal.

[ Parent ]

That makes two of us brother.... (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:12:15 PM EST

that was the shocker in this whole story for me...that what Craig did (or allegedly did) was illegal. Who knew?

That and the fact that Minnesota cops are pulling undercover crapper duty...that shocked me as well.

Maybe its different out there, but the NY airports are crawling with cops 24/7. If anybody was getting freaky in the bathroom, it would take all of 30 seconds to find a cop, make a complaint, and put a stop to it in NY...no undercover crapper-cops necessary.

[ Parent ]

Bad boys, Bad Boys (none / 0) (#35)
by Peaches on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:15:54 PM EST

What you gonna do?

How long before we see these stings on COPS.

Pure Entertainment, for the COPS loving audience.

[ Parent ]

Anyone have any idea how Craig knew to leer (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:18:07 PM EST

into the cop's stall and none of the others?

[ Parent ]

I imagine what probably goes unstated (none / 0) (#38)
by Peaches on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:24:10 PM EST

in the report is that when Craig ogled, what he saw was the cop strokin' his johnson.

have they no shame?

[ Parent ]

Where did you hear that? (none / 0) (#39)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:26:32 PM EST

And who would know besides Craig how many stalls he leered into, if any?

[ Parent ]

In accounts (none / 0) (#41)
by Peaches on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:39:26 PM EST

from police reports it said the Cop clearly "could see his blue eyes," peering into his stall.

[ Parent ]

Police reports eh..... (none / 0) (#42)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:46:29 PM EST

they're worth about as much as the paper in those stalls when it comes to discovering the truth in my book.

[ Parent ]

Maybe so, (none / 0) (#43)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:59:35 PM EST

but it's pretty clear - admittedly from the cop's perspective - that Craig identified the cop, among all the other bathroom users, as the dude who might be "open" for a little monkey business.

So what was the tip-off? Musta been something...

[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 0) (#44)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:06:20 PM EST

He looked lovingly back into CRaigs blue eyes? A few winks and a nod? Some unmentioned hand motions?

[ Parent ]

Just a guess..... (none / 0) (#45)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:09:09 PM EST

maybe he didn't see pants around the ankles so he knew the cop wasn't using the facilities as intended.

I know when I'm using a stall in a crowded john to roll something I pull my pants down anyway so it looks like nature's calling.

[ Parent ]

It's entrapment, (none / 0) (#46)
by Peaches on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:11:22 PM EST

But if Craig clearly shows why it was (that he peered into the stall and saw the Cop 'pullin it'), then he can no longer state he wasn't looking for anonymous gay sex.

He's caught and he knows it. He loses, even if he fights it-as would most men who are seeking anonymous gay sex, I would think. That is why the stings are effective, even if they are entrapment.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, possible entrapment, (none / 0) (#47)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:16:30 PM EST

that was my thought as well.

[ Parent ]

Not long I'm sure..... (none / 0) (#40)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:28:37 PM EST

Unless Dateline beats 'em to it:)

[ Parent ]

The Next Stall (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:38:35 AM EST

Was occupied during the peeping, according to the report. Anyway I still feel as safe in a public restroom as I did before I found out that there is secret gay signaling going on and possible gay sex happening. Never noticed someone peeping in my stall, if I did I would tell them to f' off.

Doesn't bother me and I still do not understand why parents bottom line justifying the sting is because they are afraid for their kids.

Afraid of what?

Still, better options than voyeurism available (none / 0) (#20)
by Ellie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:22:17 AM EST

Even if the next stall were briefly occupied, eyeballing is unecessary (and remains creepy). The door push and knock would suffice.

I have partial guardianship of adolescents, and no, I don't want them trolled by adults who actually do use public restrooms in travel hubs (to exploit runaways or homeless kids). Places like a sports arena or stadium, or parks with sports facilities where kids might be go as a group are also worrisome.

No one's human rights are being eroded here.

[ Parent ]

On a more humorous note? (none / 0) (#21)
by jerry on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM EST

I was never so scared as when confronted with the urinal trough at Dodger Stadium as an adolescent. Not by perverts, but by my shy bladder!

What I didn't realize then was that urinal troughs are intentionally created to get men to drink more beer. More beer, no more shy bladder.

Now what's really offputting is that I work at a manufacturing plant as an engineer. The restrooms for the assembly line workers have this very interesting foot operated wash basin, as their hands might be very greasy. The damned thing looks like either a fountain or a urinal trough Aiee! No, I haven't yet peed in the wash basin. (But I've come embarrassingly close.)

[ Parent ]

: Hah (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:36:02 AM EST

Pavlovian peeing. I imagine all bets would be off if they served beer where you work.

[ Parent ]

question is, what are we enforcing? (none / 0) (#26)
by BlueAubie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:07:21 PM EST

The central issue for police enforcement should not be about whether the sex is homo or hetero, but about sex any sex in public. Public means where children can be. I know, I know, the cons beat "for the children" to death, but let's get real, none of us want our kids going in bathroom and seeing a man giving another one a BJ. I'm liberal but I'm not that liberal.

Caveat: foot tapping is not sex. If it were hetero sex, and a woman gave him leading signals, just signals, in a public area, I agree that this is no problem and no one would take issue with it, so there is an element of homophobia here. We all meet our mates through signals initially. Craig did not commit a crime IMHO. (Even though he would have.) Once the officer tapped his foot in reply, Craig should have exited the stall and discretely asked the officer he wanted to get a room.

I don't have a problem with the money spent on law enforcement either. Firing a couple of undercover cops won't pay for health care. If you want to free up some money, decriminalize and tax certain controlled substances. It will be a watershed.

Public BJ (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:27:59 PM EST

I know, I know, the cons beat "for the children" to death, but let's get real, none of us want our kids going in bathroom and seeing a man giving another one a BJ.

I have seen a fair amount of public sex but never totally overt sex like you describe. Given what has been written about the practice which seems to go back a hundred years, I find it hard to imagine that the trollers would want to have any attention from anyone other than a like troller.

With all due respect to the responsibilities of raising a child it seems that many go pretty extreme when it comes to wanting legislation or the police to protect their child from adult buisness.

This is a big talking point in the WOD and the movement to censor the internet as well as libraries.

To justify the sting by saying that you do not want your kid to witness a gay BJ seems somewhat irrational here. The guys getting busted are far from exhibitionists in this situation.

[ Parent ]

By definition AND research they are exhibitionists (none / 0) (#29)
by jerry on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:26:25 PM EST

Having sex in a public restroom is the definition of an exhibitionist.

And by research, The Tea Room Trade, by Laud Humphreys (much of which can be read online courtesy of google), as well as various articles by practitioners in Salon and elsewhere, much of the "hotness" of restroom sex is in the danger of being exposed.

If you believe Amanda Marcotte, at LGM yesterday she was saying that "gay sex" occurs in the men's room and "straight sex" occurs in the women's room, and she claims that straight sex is a frequent issue in the women's room.
She also claims she is not bothered by it, which to be honest, I find hard to reconcile with previous statements of hers.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#57)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:55:20 AM EST

the "hotness" of restroom sex is in the danger of being exposed.

The turn on for exhibitionists is having people look at them, no danger in that just pure enjoyment.

The people you describe characterize exposure as danger. The turn is not about exposing themselves, but in avoiding getting exposed. Big difference.

[ Parent ]

Since there were complaints about restroom sex (none / 0) (#59)
by jerry on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:13:22 AM EST

what can we conclude about how well people were avoiding exposure?

That's a large part of what I don't get about the defenses for restroom sex. I keep hearing about how discreet the code is, so that only consensual sex partners are approached. And I keep hearing about how discreet the act is, apparently no one can see the legs under the stall, or hear the act, or smell the act, or feel the shaking or bumping of the stall wall. It's all so discreet!

And yet, clearly there were complaints, so people did know what was going on.

The people you describe characterize exposure as danger. The turn is not about exposing themselves, but in avoiding getting exposed. Big difference.

In theory maybe, but since there were complaints, apparently not in practice.

If there were complaints, if others were "dragged in" or "forced" into observing the act, how were those others not non-consensual participants? I'm not saying they were raped, just saying this really isn't about private consensual sex acts between consenting adults.

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#60)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:42:07 AM EST

You may have a lower threshold as to what constitutes an exhibitionist. My reading of the story and your comment about the danger of being caught does not add up to what I understand exhibitionist behavior.

It is pretty tangential in any case IMO.

[ Parent ]

I think it's actually fundamental to understanding (none / 0) (#61)
by jerry on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:11:46 PM EST

I think it's actually fundamental to understanding what is happening in the restrooms.

Cristopher Hitchens is said to be a drunk, and a neo-con apologizer, but here's a well written article on the tea room trade he wrote for Slate.

The thrills were twofold. First came the exhilaration of danger: the permanent risk of being caught and exposed. Second was the sense of superiority that a double life could give.

[ Parent ]

: OK (none / 0) (#62)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:42:48 PM EST

But as far as I am concerned that has zero to do with exhibitionism. And arguing whether or not it is seem besides the point.
And what is fundamental is not what is happening in restrooms, but in mens restrooms. IOW it is about gay sex.
If it were about high stakes hetero sexual escapades it would be featured in a glossy mag, not a police blotter.
And if it were such a problem stopping it would be simple and would not require a undercover police sting. That is just nasty and about punishing gays.

[ Parent ]

Disagree! (none / 0) (#28)
by ding7777 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:58:53 PM EST

The sex solicitation is discreet (toe tapping behind closed stall doors with suitcase barrier) because the Craig's of the bathroom world know there are undercover cops around.

How much of this stuff would be done in the open with just about everyone/anyone seeing or being solicited if there weren't vice cops around?

No more and no less I'd say..... (none / 0) (#34)
by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:14:56 PM EST

I mean if you're the type to get freaky in a public toilet, you're the type to get freaky in a public toilet whether vice cops are on the case or not.

[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#50)
by ding7777 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:24:20 PM EST

that's like saying if you're freaky enough to speed, you'll speed whether cops are there or not - and we all know that's not true.

[ Parent ]

: In plain sight vs. out there somewhere..... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:13:22 AM EST

Obviously, people who like to speed won't do it when there's a cop in plain sight, but will speed when the coast looks clear yet knowing the cops are "out there". Same for bathroom freakers.
That's why the highway patrol hides in the bushes or unmarked cars, and vice cops hide in plain clothes. They wanna make busts, not reduce or prevent the undesirable behavior.
If you wanna reduce speeding or bathroom freakin', uniformed plainly visible officers are the way to go. OTOH, if you wanna make busts, you go with the stealth tactics.

[ Parent ]