by hilzoy
Scott Lemieux is right: this is a good post about Larry Craig's arrest:
"By the cop's own admission, he (the cop) "pumped his foot slowly up and down in response." In other words, Craig asked for sex using an arcane code extremely unlikely to "alarm, anger, or disturb" -- according to the the equally arcane code defining disorderly conduct in Minnesota -- an uninitiated fellow-lavator, and the cop knew what it meant and said yes.Where's the victim?
What I find more astonishing is the definition of "disorderly conduct." By this reckoning, ten years and thirty pounds ago, I had disorderly conduct foisted upon me approximately...let's see...15,923 times.
Per week.
Give or take.
But, even if they're unwanted advances, that's the natural order of things, right? Whereas men have to be protected from the unwanted advances of men at all costs (why? because they're worried they just might succumb to a particularly persuasive piece of foot telegraphy?).
Given the constant, daily harassment women endure (come on now, don't tune out; stay with me, here) -- harassment that makes us compress our daily activities into daylight hours, that circumscribes where we go, who we go with, and even what we wear; intrusive harassment, ruin-your-day, make-you-feel-powerless/angry/depressed harassment -- the overzealous prosecution of the toe-tapper really pisses me off. It's like those sophomore discussions one has of human trafficking, in which someone invariably says "but what about the men?", and then the rest of the discussion, in some form or another, is overwhelmingly preoccupied with those minority cases. Heaven forfend we don't keep men front and center, even if it makes lousy Bayesians of us all.
Look: if there'd been groping, a physical risk, or even just a persistent advance in the face of a single "no" (which doesn't seem to have ever been uttered), I'd be supportive regardless of the gender base-rates involved. But "he tapped his foot and looked at me funny"? Please! Men! Grow a pair!"
Honestly: I loathe sexual harassment. Leaving aside the attempted rapes on the one hand and all the myriad gropings and propositions on the other, I have been stalked twice, asked by a professor (now dead) whose class I was enrolled in to spend the summer with him, had a pitcher of beer poured over my head for saying no, and so on and so forth. I even got a buzz cut once -- 1/4" long hair, max -- because some jerk grabbed my breasts, and when I pulled away he started screaming obscenities at me. I was writing a travel guide at the time, so going to restaurants and discos alone was part of my job, and since I couldn't figure out how to obtain a nun's habit, cutting all my hair off seemed like the best way to make the levels of sexual harassment drop to remotely bearable levels.
(I'm not kidding. I did this. I figured that in the split second when I was walking past someone, he would be thinking: "what on earth is that?", rather than grabbing me. It worked. Plus, ever since I since I watched the original Star Trek, I had wondered what I would look like with no hair. Now I knew.)
I only called the police once -- see "attempted rape", above -- and the charming officer who responded said, and I quote: "why don't you just head down to the beach tomorrow in a nice bikini and see if he tries again?" And much as I loathed all the rest of the sexual harassment I've encountered, I don't really see that most of it -- the cases in which I was not touched, at least -- should be illegal, as opposed to merely vile.
If it were illegal, however, I would have thought that since women are far more likely to receive unwanted advances than men, the police should focus a bit more attention on protecting us.
And one more thing:
Here's what Tucker Carlson said that he did when he was the victim of sexual harassment in a men's room:
"CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --ABRAMS: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!"
Later he amended his story, omitting the part about hitting the man's head against the stall. The first time he told it, however, he, Joe Scarborough, and Dan Abrams seemed to think it was pretty funny to hit the guy's head against a bathroom stall, and he never said that he thought there would have been anything wrong with it.
Here are some of Tucker Carlson's comments on sexual harassment when he was not the victim:
One:
"CARLSON: So it‘s basically everything related to sex that we don‘t like is now sexually harassment—is now sexual harassment. See, that‘s the problem I have with this category itself. Is I think it‘s too amorphous."
Two:
"What‘s going on here, Max, is male supervisors are so completely paranoid about being accused of sexual harassment, that when a woman flirts with them, or in any way acts female, or appealing, or cheery, or effervescent, the man is terrified of seeming like he favoring her so he pays her less. (...)If anything, we need a federal law to protect the rights of on-the-job flirters."
And on whether Congressional Democrats will be more fun than Republicans:
"CARLSON: A lot more fun? This is a group that made up the concept of sexual harassment. You look great today. Boom, I‘m charging you with a crime. Do you know what I mean? It‘s not a group I associate with fun."
Apparently, Tucker Carlson thinks that when a man grabs him, it's appropriate to shove his head against a bathroom stall, but that when a man harasses a woman it's just good clean fun. Why? Is it that same-sex sexual harassment is icky but heterosexual sexual harassment is fine? Or is it just that sexual harassment is OK as long as he's not the victim?
I think there's actually two sets of double standards here. One is obviously the male/female one. By my count, approximately 100% of the American male undergraduate student body is guilty of sending various signals "soliciting" sex on any given weekend. So that's one way of thinking about it - when men do it to women it's ok.
But there's also the gay/straight double standard. The fact that this stuff is criminalized (that the cops were LOOKING for it) is insane given that the same damn thing happens at every bar and every college party everywhere. So that's the other way of looking at it -- when gays do it, it's not ok.
The bigger point here is that I think the party who deserves the most criticism is the Minnesota airport police. We need to look more closely at crap like this -- b/c it seems outrageous to me the more i htink about it
Posted by: publius | September 02, 2007 at 02:11 AM
I think publius is right, but I'm confused: it doesn't seem to me that the "disorderly conduct" charge is even remotely about actual disorderly conduct -- it seems clear that it's a pretextual charge in the place of a solicitation charge.
I'm not sure how I feel about this legally, but I can see that it might be difficult to charge someone based on an admittedly "arcane" code of foot-tapping. The key was that Craig knew how to respond -- if this was really about "protecting" straight men from unwanted homosexual advances, you'd think there'd be a better way to go about it than a code that, by definition, most straight men aren't supposed to know.
Posted by: adam | September 02, 2007 at 02:30 AM
The Minnesota airport police were supposedly responding to complaints about activity in that restroom, so is your idea that people should just lighten up about people having sex in the stalls, or what? Is it really unreasonably prudish not to want that going on when you're trying to use the restroom? Presumably the complaints were not about toe tapping.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 02, 2007 at 02:34 AM
Sorry, backwards -- that the cop knew how to respond. I.e., I agree with publius that this is discriminatory -- as pointed out in the linked comment, the entire purpose of a code is to prevent straight men from being offended, or even noticing -- but it's something of a stretch to suggest that this is sexist. This clearly isn't about protecting men versus not protecting women -- it's about persecuting gay men, period.
That said, I'm very curious to know if this charge could possibly stick or if it's done often, in Minnesota airports or elsewhere -- aside from the obvious point that this isn't remotely close to "disorderly conduct," it seems like the burden of proof would be next to impossible. It's not as if the cop was standing on a street corner and the Senator asked him into his car.
Posted by: adam | September 02, 2007 at 02:39 AM
I don't know if you've been in an airport restroom recently, but it seems to me that between maintaining consciousness despite the smell and avoiding any heretofore-unknown diseases, I probably wouldn't notice something as tame as a gay orgy going on in the next stall. Those places aren't for prudes, nor the weak of heart in general.
Posted by: adam | September 02, 2007 at 02:46 AM
Oh, standard disclaimer applies: I am not ObWi's usual "adam" -- I believe there's another one that posts here. Based on my recollection, he might disagree with me on this issue. :)
Posted by: adam | September 02, 2007 at 02:48 AM
The sting at the airport wasn't about sexual harassment. The point of the toe-tapping and hand signals is to find someone in a receptive mood while making the invitation invisible to anyone likely to be offended by it. That part is all fine.
The problem is that, since there's no place for the happy couple to go once they've found each other, the result is sex in a public restroom, which is both illegal and unacceptable. That's why this situation is quite different from a bar or a party, and why the Minnesota police have a legitimate interest in deterring such behavior.
It's not as if the process is horribly punitive. It results in a fine and a stern warning not to do that again, more or less like a traffic ticket, except that your insurance doesn't go up. It's a big deal only if you're a Republican officeholder.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | September 02, 2007 at 02:53 AM
It does seem more like the proper charge would have been "attempted disorderly conduct." At least, I hope that what they were worried about is not that men were tapping their feet at other men (an oddly insectile mating call), but that men were having sex in the stalls and freaking people out (children especially). The cop used the same coitus-interruptus timing as in a solicitation or prostitution bust, whereas if he really wanted to make a case for disorderly conduct, he should have gotten at least to the point of sharing a stall with Craig. I imagine the high-concept guys who thought up this sting had a hard enough time convincing the cops to hang out in restrooms and flirt, and probably didn't even try to convince them to go to second base.
I think it would have been amusing to watch the cop testify that he just knew that Craig would have had sex with him then and there because of the cute way he tapped his toes, but I doubt any of these cases get that far because surely most men picked up on this charge would rather plead guilty than go to trial. Especially if the cops, who are no dummies, make sure to pick on the cruisers who look like they're in the closet.
Posted by: trilobite | September 02, 2007 at 03:04 AM
It does seem more like the proper charge would have been "attempted disorderly conduct." At least, I hope that what they were worried about is not that men were tapping their feet at other men (an oddly insectile mating call), but that men were having sex in the stalls and freaking people out (children especially). The cop used the same coitus-interruptus timing as in a solicitation or prostitution bust, whereas if he really wanted to make a case for disorderly conduct, he should have gotten at least to the point of sharing a stall with Craig. I imagine the high-concept guys who thought up this sting had a hard enough time convincing the cops to hang out in restrooms and flirt, and probably didn't even try to convince them to go to second base.
I think it would have been amusing to watch the cop testify that he just knew that Craig would have had sex with him then and there because of the cute way he tapped his toes, but I doubt any of these cases get that far because surely most men picked up on this charge would rather plead guilty than go to trial. Especially if the cops, who are no dummies, make sure to pick on the cruisers who look like they're in the closet.
Posted by: trilobite | September 02, 2007 at 03:05 AM
"So just tap your foot for me one more time, no, do it more seductively --"
"I'm not doing this."
"You'll be fine. It's not that difficult: look, it's all right here in the How to Seduce Men in Bathrooms manual."
"In the what?"
Posted by: adam | September 02, 2007 at 03:20 AM
Actually, it's not so much that there's a double standard, as that men and women have different standards.
Sure, most men react badly to being hit on by other men. And feel free, (Legal worries aside.) to hit on women. But that's not a double standard. The standard is this: It's ok to hit on, and a compliment to be hit upon by, people of the appropriate gender, while it's an insult to hit on, and insulting to be hit upon by, people of the wrong gender.
I think you'd find men very sympathetic to women who complained of being hit on by other women. Or even reacted violently to it. While, on the other hand, you won't find men complaining much if women start hitting on them out of the blue. And looking for ways to frighten them off.
Look, the fact is, evolution has given us different roles, and different drives. Women have got to get over this notion that men are just funny looking women. And visa versa, of course.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 02, 2007 at 08:10 AM
publius: The bigger point here is that I think the party who deserves the most criticism is the Minnesota airport police.
Agreed. They seem to be a little out of control. The arresting officer here - Sergeant David Karsnia – was the supervising officer in another bizarre incident where a guy claims he was “accosted, assaulted with battery, and tased at Minneapolis St Paul international airport, simply for leaving the airport by bicycle”, and then arrested and charged. (via PW).
Hilzoy: Why? Is it that same-sex sexual harassment is icky but heterosexual sexual harassment is fine?
Well, I can’t claim to speak for Carlson or my gender in general, but it’s only icky if we’re talking about men. If women are involved? Then it’s hot, not icky. ;)
Posted by: OCSteve | September 02, 2007 at 08:30 AM
I think I better clarify that. It’s not sexual harassment that guys find hot. Rather, in my experience heterosexual guys tend to think that two women having sex is hot, while two guys is icky.
Posted by: OCSteve | September 02, 2007 at 08:47 AM
Re: restroom cruising, I think this LA Times op-ed by David Ehrenstein is completely on point:
As for Carlson (who, btw, is NOT GAY, in case there was any question), my take is here.Finally, there is (IMO) so much wrong (utterly, offensively, unbelievably wrong) with Brett's 8:10 am (EDT) (and, upon preview, Steve's subsequent contribution) that I don't know where to start. Nor do I, as both a feminist and non-heterosexual male, think I could finish without leaving the posting rules a smoking pile of rubble. So instead of succumbing to early morning temptation and poisoning the well with vitriol, I'm going to link to a vid of cute kittens playing in an empty Kleenex box and walk away from this thread.
(Although it would be really interesting to see what happens if/when Jes [and perhaps even Sebastian] responds.)
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Yes it is a proper function of government to criminalize Larry Craig's conduct. Those who disagree, especially Scott Lemieux, are, based on what I've read, wilfully omitting key facts:
--Like how Craig peered into the stall through the door crack to the point where the sergeant could see that he had blue eyes.
--Like how Craig intentionally and offensively touched the sergeant's foot. In another context that could be called "battery."
--Like how Craig intentionally and offensively reached into the sergeant's stall with his hand, to the point where he could see Craig's wedding ring. In another context that could be called "assault."
--Like how there is no duty for someone in a toilet stall to indicate non-consent. I should not have to say to a leering pervert, "Go away. I'm not interested." (Compare: Does leaving my front door unlocked constitute "consent to be burglarized"?)
--Like how the "interference with privacy" charge was not "thrown out" but was dismissed as part of the plea bargain. Had Craig pleaded Not Guilty, then he would have indeed gone to trial on the Peeping Tom charge, not just the lesser Disorderly Conduct charge that is now on his record.
Bottom line: Craig was not "arrested for foot-tapping." It's inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
P.S. I am gay and not a Democrat.
Posted by: KipEsquire | September 02, 2007 at 09:12 AM
Ok, now that I've read Steve's clarification, I apologize for including him in my previous comment. And now, I really will walk away from this thread.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 09:13 AM
matttbastard: and, upon preview, Steve's subsequent contribution
Hmm. I can’t imagine you are talking about the bicyclist, so I assume it is my other remark you took offense to. I’m not sure why, and if you are done with this thread then I guess I won’t know why.
My point was on topic – in my experience heterosexual men display a double standard when it comes to gay sex. Most are just fine with the concept of two women, and uncomfortable with the concept of two men. I’ve not noticed the same bias when it comes to heterosexual women; it seems to be a guy thing only.
I really can’t understand why you would take offense to me pointing it out.
Posted by: OCSteve | September 02, 2007 at 09:30 AM
Ah. OK. Cross-posted with you mattt. Yeah, upon reading my own comment it came across as approving of sexual harassment so I knew I better clarify.
Posted by: OCSteve | September 02, 2007 at 09:33 AM
"Plus, ever since I since I watched the original Star Trek, I had wondered what I would look like with no hair. Now I knew."
Focusing on the important detail, what about the original series made you wonder what it would be like to have no hair?
Balok?
There was a character in the first movie who was a bald female (Lieutenant Ilia, the Deltan navigator), but none in the series that I recall offhand.
"By my count, approximately 100% of the American male undergraduate student body is guilty of sending various signals 'soliciting' sex on any given weekend."
By my count, it's several percentage less. When I was in college, I knew several deeply sexually confused people, of various genders, who were far too ambigiguous and unsure and frightened of their own desires and confusions to solicit any sort of sex at all at time. Some were quite repulsed at the idea of sex with anyone.
They were a small minority, but distinctly there. I've known a few people more or less still in this category in their sixties. Just for the record.
"That said, I'm very curious to know if this charge could possibly stick or if it's done often, in Minnesota airports or elsewhere"
Yes, of course, gay men have been being arrested like this around the country, in public bathrooms, for decades.
Brett Bellmore: "But that's not a double standard. The standard is this: It's ok to hit on, and a compliment to be hit upon by, people of the appropriate gender, while it's an insult to hit on, and insulting to be hit upon by, people of the wrong gender."
Congrats, Brett, you've just invented homophobia.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 09:51 AM
1. Was the cop really just hanging out in a bathroom stall all day hoping someone would start staring & suggestively tapping his feet? Seems like it must be either an extremely unusual bathroom, or an extremely inefficient use of police resources. I am a little skeptical; I wonder if the cop actually sent some sort of signal (foot tapping, toilet paper semaphore, I don't know these codes) before Craig started staring in. Maybe not. But the whole thing's bizarre--and Craig wasn't really in a position to say publicly, "dude, you totally started it."
2. I guess the basis for the sting is that while hitting on someone & trying to get them to have consensual sex isn't generally illegal, it is illegal to do it in a public bathroom. But how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were trying to have sex in the bathroom, unless they actually start doing it?
Posted by: Katherine | September 02, 2007 at 10:49 AM
publius said: 'By my count, approximately 100% of the American male undergraduate student body is guilty of sending various signals "soliciting" sex on any given weekend.'
When we're talking gender issues, is it really too much to ask that such stupid generalizations not be made? No, not everyone solicits sex from strangers, and saying that everyone does will be a convenient excuse for those who do.
Why aren't undercover cops used more to catch men harassing women? Well, I don't know, but aren't female cops rarer than male ones? Also, it may not be easy for a (probably male) police officer to say "Hi, today your job is to go out and get sexually harassed".
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | September 02, 2007 at 10:55 AM
"But the whole thing's bizarre"
Aside from nailing a U.S. Senator, as I've noted, this sort of public bathroom stakeout bust goes on all over the U.S. every day, and has for decades; I'm unclear what "bizarre" means in this context.
If people object to it, they should have been speaking out at least since Stonewall.
George Michael would thank you.
I have to confess that the one thing I've gotten out of this event is just how ignorant most heterosexual people are about gay lives (I'm particularly thinking of John Cole's touching post of astonishment that someone might associate public bathrooms and sex, and wondering if anyone really could do that).
My knowledge comes entirely from reading and friends, but it takes very little of that to be familiar with the most obvious basics, like where gay men get busted, and how, or what the hankerchief code is, or what it's like in a gay bar, or how people pick each other up, and where, or some of what goes into gaydar, and so on. (One thing I'd agree with Jes about -- and there are a fair number, really -- is that more people should read my old friend Chip Delany's stuff, although certainly The Mad Man is not reading for everyone.)
To be sure, I've always had lots of gay friends, and friends of a variety of sexualities, and have a mildly unusual amount of experience with a variety of subcultures, but not that unusually. (Maybe for West Virginia. :-))
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 11:11 AM
"Also, it may not be easy for a (probably male) police officer to say 'Hi, today your job is to go out and get sexually harassed'."
Since that doesn't stop male cops from instructing female cops to dress like prostitutes, and go out and solicit johns, so as to arrest them, every day across America, that's probably not all that hard, actually.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Context. Another easy way to get some clues about gay life is to have gay roommates, and/or to read gay newspapers now and again. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Thanks Gary for giving some context to this event. Police stings of this nature go on all the time -- they net "old gay" individuals leading strange double lives. Thanks goodness many folks can now be gay without having to frequent the stalls.
The NYT has good oped this morning describing how this works:
Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him. If the police officer hadn’t met his stare, answered that tap or done something overt, there would be no news story. On this point, Mr. Humphreys was adamant and explicit: “On the basis of extensive and systematic observation, I doubt the veracity of any person (detective or otherwise) who claims to have been ‘molested’ in such a setting without first having ‘given his consent.’ ”
As for those who feel that a family man and a conservative senator would be unlikely to engage in such acts, Mr. Humphreys’s research says otherwise. As a former Episcopal priest and closeted gay man himself, he was surprised when he interviewed his subjects to learn that most of them were married; their houses were just a little bit nicer than most, their yards better kept. They were well educated, worked longer hours, tended to be active in the church and the community but, unexpectedly, were usually politically and socially conservative, and quite vocal about it.
Obviously the researcher, Humphreys, was gay himself. There's lots more basic ed on this gay reality in the oped.
Posted by: janinsanfran | September 02, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Katherine, I think the police were responding to complaints about a specific bathroom. And the cop surely had a radio, so if there was some real crime in the airport (some Muslims praying, for example) he could very easily have abandoned the 'stake out' and helped out.
I agree that in a fair world, it would be very hard to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that public sex was intended. The state isn't completely without evidence, juries are unpredictable, however, and it's easy enough to see why an ordinary gay person (much less a Senator) would decide not to risk it.
Craig's resignation isn't so much a result of the arrest, though, as of the conduct itself. If he came before his constituents and admitted that he cruises airport bathrooms for sex -- even if he said that he wanted to have the sex in broom closets or hotel rooms -- I think the reaction amongst his base would have been much the same.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | September 02, 2007 at 11:52 AM
There is an appropriate place for creepy bathroom sex, and that is an Adult Book Store. But Truck Stops, Rest Areas, Airport Restrooms, sorry, no.
A stern lecture and a disorderly conduct charge, I think, is entirely appropriate.
For non-creepy queer meet-ups, go to some place like Boys Town in Chicago. Hell, you can take the whole family there. It is quite pleasant. But if the wife wants to go back in the restaurant to use the loo, and you are standing there on the corner smoking a fag, it is the only appropriate place for her to ask you to hold her purse. (As opposed to Bass Pro or Cabela's, where the women are more likely to give you the handbag to hold ;)
Posted by: DaveC | September 02, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I like to think that I have a strong commitment to the rights of homosexuals. I firmly believe that there should be laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. I support hate crime legislation that specifically mentions sexual orientation. I believe that gays and lesbians should have full marriage rights with all the benefits (and detriments) that implies.
I'm sad to say that my support for rights of homosexual Americans stops short of allowing them to have sex in public bathrooms, "gay culture" or no. If I've just gotten off a long flight and I'm going into the airport bathroom to freshen up, the last thing I want to see is two dudes going at it in one of the stalls. If the airport police have to run little stings to get these people to take their business elsewhere, I'm all for it.
One more thing. If Senator Craig had gone into the women's bathroom and started staring through the crack in the stall at a lady sitting on the can, he certainly wouldn't have gotten off with just a fine and a slap on the wrist.
Posted by: Chuchundra | September 02, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Add met to the camp that finds the discussion of double standards interesting but irrelevant. The cops were trying to cut down on sex in public bathrooms where taxpayers and kids can see. Period. I don't have a problem with this, either.
You can quibble about the "entrapment" aspect but these types of techniques are used to arrest johns, prostitutes, and drug dealers every day.
Posted by: heet | September 02, 2007 at 12:11 PM
There are TWO double standards: male / female AND straight / gay.
I travel a lot, and I use airport bathrooms a lot. I never knew the foot tapping code, so I never noticed anything. Now I know the code and I might notice something, but so what?
I only ask the tearoom crowd to lay off when the bathroom is so busy people are waiting for stalls. I suspect I don't need police assist on this.
What sort of cop would spend his time exchanging signals with pathetic closet cases?
Posted by: tomtom | September 02, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Amusing coverage.
Y'know, I hadn't noticed until just now that CBS News is carrying Kevin on their site.
I wonder what some of C. Hitchens' right-wing fans will make of this.
(John's cute post.) (I wanted to call it "touching," but then realized I'd have to disclaim an apparent pun.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 12:15 PM
"Congrats, Brett, you've just invented homophobia."
Ah, no, technically I just noted it's existence, and that it's not a "double standard".
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 02, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Women are generally less disgusting than men, so I doubt that there's a lot of lesbian sex going on in public women's restrooms. If there were, I'm sure that female undercover officers would be running sting operations to stop it, too.
I agree that there are plenty of double standards related to gender and sex issues, but I really don't think that was the case for the cops here. It's definitely the case for the Republican party, though. Craig should have just had sex with female prostitutes, like that decent family man, Senator Vitter.
Posted by: ThirdGorchBro | September 02, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I know they'd gotten complaints about that bathroom; I guess I didn't think it was as much of a gay Mecca as that. And you've got a sting operation, an officer well-versed in the act of foot tapping--I wonder whether Craig just randomly chose his stall to stare into. I kind of doubt it. And of the likely constituent reaction was Craig's main problem.
Gary's probably right that I'm a bit clueless...
I actually live in Boys Town. Very wholesome & midwestern compared to the NY equivalents, I must say. Or maybe I just haven't happened across the equivalent of Christopher St. yet.
Posted by: Katherine | September 02, 2007 at 12:45 PM
"Gary's probably right that I'm a bit clueless..."
I wasn't passing judgment on anyone.
However, general observation compels me to say that the gay conspiracy simply is doing a very poor job of foisting its agenda upon us, by all evidence. It's just really not living up to its reputation at all, and I'm very disappointed.
I recommend a mass subscription campaign by The Advocate, and that Dan Savage get his own prime time network tv show. We need many more tv broadcasts of Rudy in his multiple appearances in drag.
Clearly Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, Will & Grace, Ellen DeGeneres, Barney Frank, Melissa Etheridge, and all the Broadway show tunes ever written aren't sufficient to get the persuasive word out as to how attractive the Gay Lifestyle is, if so many hets don't even know about bathroom busts.
Maybe David Geffen can make some more donations.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 01:09 PM
If I've just gotten off a long flight and I'm going into the airport bathroom to freshen up, the last thing I want to see is two dudes going at it in one of the stalls.
But then, if they close the door then wouldn't it be peeping-tom for you to look just as much as for Craig to look at his prospective partner? But then you might hear them, or smell them.
There's too much ambiguity in all this. If the police are running just enough of a sting operation to maximise their revenue but not actually reduce the supply of arrestees much, then the arguments that they ought to do whatever it takes to close down the menace don't work. I don't know whether that's what they're doing or not.
There really ought to be a market for a bunch of tiny private rooms with cots inside the airport. Rent them by the hour. Sleep in one for four hours or whatever. They'd need excellent soundproofing and good ventilation. If 4 hours in one costs as much as a day in a motel they wouldn't cut down on airport motel business much. I expect they might be profitable even after the expenses of operating in an airport.
Yes, the bigger issue is not wanting to tolerate homosexuals. I don't know how that should work out. On the one hand the public has a right to want what it wants. On the other hand the homosexuals deserve some sort of rights too. I just don't know. I asked my wife how she felt the first time she got propositioned. She was 12. She was enraged. I remember how I felt the first time I got a homosexual proposition. I felt enraged. The second time too. Maybe women are better at handling unwelcome propositions because they have more experience. Possibly sex education classes should involve some roleplaying, where the kids practice getting propositioned and saying no. I just don't know.
Posted by: J Thomas | September 02, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Well, I was going to stay away from this thread, but I wanted to make sure OCSteve hadn't taken offense to my unintended slander of his good name. Having returned and read the subsequent comments, I wanted to give props to you, Gary, for your apropos contributions to the discussion (especially your deliciously deadpan 'homophobia' one-liner, which on preview appears to have completely gone over BB's manly 'do).
Gary: I have to confess that the one thing I've gotten out of this event is just how ignorant most heterosexual people are about gay lives (I'm particularly thinking of John Cole's touching post of astonishment that someone might associate public bathrooms and sex, and wondering if anyone really could do that).
[...]
(One thing I'd agree with Jes about -- and there are a fair number, really -- is that more people should read my old friend Chip Delany's stuff, although certainly The Mad Man is not reading for everyone.)
Ditto, especially the Delany shout out. I briefly mentioned The Mad Man here, although probably should have warned those readers of a more vanilla persuasion that its not for the faint of heart (especially those who'd be averse to reading about many, many graphic descriptions of men exchanging various bodily fluids.) Another essential Delany book that explores some of the more 'seedier' aspects of queer culture is Times Square Red, Times Square Blue.
Finally, a good introductory primer for those interested in further exploring (so to speak) non-normative sexual practices in general is Patrick Califia's Public Sex: The Culture of Radical Sex.
(Full disclosure: though I identify as bi, I haven't engaged in any same-sex relations for many years and my sex life (such as it may be) is about as vanilla as they come. I'm divorced, currently involved in a monogamous long distance relationship with a sweet Aussie lass [see comment re: 'sex life' - sigh], and will even admit to enjoying the missionary position.)
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 01:11 PM
On the other hand the homosexuals deserve some sort of rights too.
Well, that's mighty white of you, JThomas.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 01:13 PM
What puzzles me is why, if the goal is to simply discourage inappropriate use of the toilets, don't they simply have an attendant there, who can simultaneously be cleaning up, restocking TP, etc etc
Posted by: DMS | September 02, 2007 at 01:38 PM
"I asked my wife how she felt the first time she got propositioned. She was 12. She was enraged.
Properly so; At 12, she wasn't an appropriate subject for a proposition from anybody.
"I remember how I felt the first time I got a homosexual proposition. I felt enraged. The second time too."
Huh. I remember the first time some guy hit on me. No rage, I just thought, "Now, why don't women do that to me?" It was annoying, that way.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 02, 2007 at 01:41 PM
J Thomas:"There really ought to be a market for a bunch of tiny private rooms with cots inside the airport. Rent them by the hour. Sleep in one for four hours or whatever."
Like so? Specifics.
"Yes, the bigger issue is not wanting to tolerate homosexuals. I don't know how that should work out."
This was phrased perhaps a touch indelicately.
"I remember how I felt the first time I got a homosexual proposition. I felt enraged. The second time too. "
That's understandable, if it happened when you were young, given the homophobia that's so virulently inculcated into boys from earliest childhood, by other boys, with the endless taunts of "faggot!" and "sissy!" and "queer!," accompanied by violence or threats of it.
On the other hand, in this day and age, it's something to learn to grow out of by at least adulthood, and that society shouldn't otherwise tolerate any more than any other hateful, and often violent, bigotry. I don't have any "I just don't know" about this, I'm afraid.
"Possibly sex education classes should involve some roleplaying, where the kids practice getting propositioned and saying no."
Teaching appropriate sexual approach behavior is a useful part of sex education, sure. Of course, teaching "tolerance" of homosexuals and homosexual behavior is exactly what drives the social/religious conservatives into a frenzy.
Because it leads to "acceptance" (true, up to a point, although a few classroom platitudes don't usually actually tend to massively change people's, even kids', outlooks on strongly felt issues), and to teh mad gay conversions by the hordes of straights who can't resist teh hott hott gay sex! (Not so true: really, actual heterosexuals don't worry about this much.)
"What puzzles me is why, if the goal is to simply discourage inappropriate use of the toilets, don't they simply have an attendant there, who can simultaneously be cleaning up, restocking TP, etc etc."
Doing that permanently really would cost more money than having cops doing stings now and again.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Mattbastard, political parties that go too much against the public consensus tend to lose. We cannot give too many rights to minorities that the majority won't stand for. It doesn't work. It leads to travesties like Bush.
Ideally we would persuade the whole US public that everybody deserves their full civil rights. We don't actually have a consensus about that now. However, even with full rights we have limits. Freedom of religion obviously doesn't include the right for Kali worshippers to involuntarily kill travelers as part of their worship. Sexual freedom doesn't allow rape, or seduction of inexperienced young people except by other inexperienced young people. Etc. Since there are limits, the public has opinions about where the limits should be, and the public has opinions I personally disagree with.
Our ability to thwart the public will is limited, and our attempts to do that often backfire, as the last 6 years shows. I'd recommend acting to change the public opinion, but in the short run a big chunk of the public doesn't know and doesn't want to hear about it. So that's a long-term project.
I just don't know.
One minor thing I'll repeat -- I remember how enraged I was the first time I got propositioned, and various women have told me they felt the same way the first time they got propositioned by somebody they weren't interested in. If there was a nice safe way for young men to get propositioned and turn it down and see that nothing particularly bad happened, maybe the confirmed heterosexuals among them wouldn't feel quite so nervous about it all. I'm not clear about the details of how that could be arranged.
Also it might help to put that into movies. Just as quick throwaway scenes. Like, the hero is in the fancy restaurant about to meet the bad guy and negotiate about the heroine who's been kidnapped, and he's going to put tiny tracers on as many of the bad guys as he can, and it isn't clear whether it will turn into a whole lot of violence, and just then a suave cultured gentleman gets into his field of view and says something like "Oh, you're so handsome and so *edgy*, and I wondered, I wondered if....". And the hero calmly and politely says no, not this week, and goes on with his plans, and that's over. It doesn't need to be in any way realistic. Just, I think it might help for confirmed-heterosexual men to get the clear idea that they're supposed to be able to quietly and effectively turn down an unwanted proposition at any time. They might be less nervous about it all if they're confident about that.
Posted by: J Thomas | September 02, 2007 at 02:15 PM
BB: Huh. I remember the first time some guy hit on me. No rage, I just thought, "Now, why don't women do that to me?" It was annoying, that way.
I was 17. Happened on a Sunday afternoon at a local park notorious for public encounters and male prostitution. Dude rode up to me on a ten-speed, wearing ill-fitting trackpants that didn't flatter his overhanging belly. Looked to be about 40, with greasy, thin receding hair and a hairlip that I couldn't stop staring at. I think he thought I was a rent boy or something (I'm very slim and to this day look younger than I actually am--even more so 13 years ago). Suffice to say I politely declined his proposition.
No rage nor discomfort with regards to the the same sex aspect (of course, by then I'd already begun coming to terms with my sexuality) nor that he (apparently) mistook me for a prostitute. It was the fact that he was possibly the most all-around unattractive man I'd ever laid eyes upon that disgusted me. So, in a sense, I can relate, although my reaction was 'why couldn't he have looked like David Bowie?' Yes, at the time I was a shallow little sh*t (though would have vehemently denied being anything less than the epitome of egalitarian) and to this day feel somewhat guilty about my immediate, visceral reaction.
Still, that goddamn hairlip...
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 02:15 PM
"I remember how I felt the first time I got a homosexual proposition. I felt enraged. The second time too. "
That's understandable, if it happened when you were young ....
On the other hand, in this day and age, it's something to learn to grow out of by at least adulthood, and that society shouldn't otherwise tolerate any more than any other hateful, and often violent, bigotry.
I wasn't that young, I just hadn't had it happen before. I guess I was ugly. I didn't do anything violent or even impolite, I just felt very angry. By the third time, not so much. From my experience and the small sample of people I've discussed it with, I think it might be a common response at first, and something people get over with experience and reflection.
"Possibly sex education classes should involve some roleplaying, where the kids practice getting propositioned and saying no."
Teaching appropriate sexual approach behavior is a useful part of sex education, sure. Of course, teaching "tolerance" of homosexuals and homosexual behavior is exactly what drives the social/religious conservatives into a frenzy.
Yes, exactly. Teaching kids how to calmly say no could be presented as not "teaching tolerance" at all. And yet it could do some good. Take the early steps first....
Posted by: J Thomas | September 02, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Hilzoy,
you didn't make your point very well. Having sex in a public bathroom seems to fit the definition of "disturbing the peace." Hooking up in a public restroom, not so much. I wouldn't mind the toe-tapping, although I would be somewhat unsettled to have someone stare through the cracks between the stalls. In any case, I'm all for ordinances against sex in airport stalls. (There's an apropos quote from Nevada Barr--"I can feel a bacteria crawling up my leg.")
As for getting hit on by men--it's happened to me occasionally, especially when I lived in SF. I thought it was mostly funny.
Posted by: p mac | September 02, 2007 at 02:28 PM
If there was a nice safe way for young men to get propositioned and turn it down and see that nothing particularly bad happened, maybe the confirmed heterosexuals among them wouldn't feel quite so nervous about it all. I'm not clear about the details of how that could be arranged.
Huh?! WTF do you think teh oh-so-scary queerz are gonna do if you (as an adult) don't acquiesce to innocent flirtation - violently introduce you to the practice of fisting? There's a huge difference between being sexually propositioned by an adult when you're 12, rather than when you're (eg) 22. As Gary pointed out, it's no more appropriate for a child to be hit on by an adult of the opposite sex. I believe they call those folks 'predators'. Like HIV, the affliction is not a 'gay plague'.
The same sex angle you keep going on about is entirely irrelevant, and, I would wager, projection on your part. JThomas, when you decide to join us here on 21st century planet Earth, please feel free to engage me in discussion.
Until then, take your 'back of the bus' rationalizing and your naked (and ridiculously delusional) homophobia and kindly go f...
Hrm. Kittens.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 02:39 PM
(Apologies to the Hive Mind for the heated tone of my last comment. I'll try to uphold the 'remain civil' ethos as best possible. Kittens really do help.)
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 02:41 PM
Interesting observations. One point, someone up above suggested that while men tolerated/enjoyed/whatever the notion of lesbian relationships, the converse of women being turned on by male homosexual relationships wasn't true. This doesn't hold, I think, because a large portion of the Japanese manga market, called shonen-ai manga, is directed at women and consists of depictions of homosexual relationships between men. The reasons proposed for this are complicated, but I think the trend is strong enough to undercut that particular generalization.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 02, 2007 at 02:52 PM
1. Apropos of LJ's 2:52 pm, in my experience, the greatest proportion of m/m slash fiction writers are straight women, so make of that what you will.
2. This: . . . in my experience heterosexual guys tend to think that two women having sex is hot, while two guys is icky, while clever and pithy and a little cliche at this point, only holds true for certain values of "heterosexual male." IME, people who are genuine homophobes detest them no matter what genitals they have.
Posted by: Phil | September 02, 2007 at 03:08 PM
WTF do you think teh oh-so-scary queerz are gonna do if you (as an adult) don't acquiesce to innocent flirtation...
Usually, shrug, smile, get embarrassed, and move on. Very occasionally try to be cute and persuasive. Like heterosexual men propositioning women, only on average much more maturely and much less intrusively.
Which is the point. I think that a whole lot of heterosexual men haven't worked that out, and have no idea about it, and tend to freak out. I could be wrong. Maybe almost all heterosexual men have been repeatedly propositioned and already know to handle it maturely, not with a sock in the jaw or any other irresponsible response.
I don't know that, because the guys I'd be least sure of that about, I wouldn't consider asking. The topic never comes up. I'm not ready to bring it up.
I have the impression that the majority of the nation is homophobic, but it's only an impression I get from the media and the legislation and things like that. Maybe they're all misrepresenting the public.
Posted by: J Thomas | September 02, 2007 at 03:19 PM
"I have the impression that the majority of the nation is homophobic"
It's not, you know, as if that's a binary state.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 03:25 PM
mattbastard: speaking of kittens, there's always the LOL kind.
Posted by: xanax | September 02, 2007 at 03:48 PM
OCSteve: Adding to LJ's comment, anecdotally, a good (female) friend of mine was positively obsessed with gay male pr0n. Something as innocuous as two men kissing would (and still will) render her knickers positively sopping. Her ultimate fantasy is to watch two men having teh buttsecks. (ZOMG!) Conversely, a dyke friend of mine and her partner get off on mainstream male-on-female pr0n. And what about /fic, a genre largely written and consumed by (straight) women?
Then there's NOLA author Poppy Z. Brite*, who could be identified as a non-operative genderqueer transman (but has said in the past tha she doesn't have the stomach to go around insisting on some pedantic-sounding label), and whose books almost exclusively feature gay male protagonists.
But she (yes, she) makes no attempt to dress nor appear male (as you can see from this pic) and, as noted earlier, doesn't expect to be referred to with a masculine pronoun.
Sexual orientation isn't some binary system made up of ones and zeros, pinks and blues (as, upon preview, Gary and Phil note). Nor is gender, regardless of essentialist conventional wisdom.
*LJ, if you haven't already, I'd highly recommend you and any other Gulf Coasters here read this heartwrenching 2006 speech by Brite commemorating Banned Books Week, on how NOLA has been 'censored' by the rest of the US. Originally meant to post the link on Hil'z Katrina thread, but never got around to it.
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 04:03 PM
LOLZ! Thanks for that, Xanax.
OMG! this lovely couple is my friend Lori and her partner, Kevin, of Newmindspace!
:-D
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 04:18 PM
And upon further reading, I see that J Thomas has further clarified his position, so I will extend my originally general apology to him personally, for apparently misinterpreting his initial comments.
(Also, ObWi is the last place I ever thought a discussion on gender/queer theory would break out. Who knew Larry Craig's foot wielded so much power?)
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 04:28 PM
The last place? Surely there are laster places.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 02, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Ok, fine, Mr. Pedant. One of the last places.
(Who knew that all this time KC was really one of Gary's sock puppets. ;-))
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 04:35 PM
"Nor is gender, regardless of essentialist conventional wisdom."
Hmm, Raphael Carter's Androgyny RAQ is up again these days. This is more on the technical side.
(Hey, OCSteve! Read Raphael's The Fortunate Fall! There's an excellent skiffy recommendation for you!)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 04:36 PM
Hmm. I am against anyone having sex in any public restroom, and if the nice policeman had waited until something that ought to be illegal had actually happened, I would not have a problem with any of this. Admittedly, there's no genuinely private place in an airport, but that's just a good reason not to have sex in an airport, if I ask me.
I didn't mean to imply that there was only one set of double standards going on.
And Brett: I know a lot of guys who say: heh heh, if a woman hit on me, I'd think it was cool! Even if she didn't, you know, just ask, but grabbed me in some plainly sexual way. That may be. How would I know, not being them? But it's also irrelevant, since as far as a given instance of unwanted groping being unwanted assault goes, it's the reaction of the victim that matters. And if women see things differently, that's what counts. (Likewise, if you thought that when someone stole your wallet, that was teh hott!, that might make you disinclined to report that kind of theft, but it would in no way be an argument for not minding people who steal wallets from those of us who do not share your tastes.)
I tend to think that propositions of people who are of age -- propositions, not groping -- are things that grownups should just learn to deal with, whereas groping, absent some sort of preexisting relationship, is at best completely rude, and at worst assault.
Posted by: hilzoy | September 02, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Maybe the cop had colitis or was reading a good novel. Either might keep one nailed to the throne.
Posted by: peggy | September 02, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Mattt – I’m glad I didn’t offend you. (Really.)
LJ: This doesn't hold
Phil: IME, people who are genuine homophobes detest them no matter what genitals they have.
Maybe I should say American heterosexuals of my acquaintance? That has been my experience, although I’ll admit to leading a somewhat sheltered life. ;) But I can’t think of a straight guy I know who does not think that girl-girl is hot, while guy-guy – not so much.
Mattt: anecdotally, a good (female) friend of mine
As I say, I guess I lead a somewhat sheltered life. (Some of your links are broken BTW.)
Posted by: OCSteve | September 02, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Hey, OCSteve! Read Raphael's The Fortunate Fall! There's an excellent skiffy recommendation for you!
Thanks Gary – added to my Amazon shopping cart.
Posted by: OCSteve | September 02, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Sorry, Steve, I thought the assertion was about women and what they find interesting rather than as a point about American male heterosexuals. I'm sure that a large majority of American heterosexuals find gay sex 'icky'. Von and I started to discuss this a bit, but I got a little confused and didn't follow up. My general feeling is that 10% in any population is strongly het, another 10% strongly homosexual, while the remaining 80% are strongly (perhaps primarily?) swayed by societal strictures. Anyway, apologies if what I said came across as a slam.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 02, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Hil: Hmm. I am against anyone having sex in any public restroom (emph. added)
Which reminds me: how many hetero folks here are members of the Mile High Club? Or, under the influence of [insert preferred substance], have had chance sexual encounters in the washroom of a (non-gay) club? (With a stranger or a dedicated partner - guilty of the latter! She and I did it in a lot of public places, actually, sometimes in broad daylight.)
(Feel free to refrain from answering, especially those who post under their real names, since this is one of those TMI questions.)
;-)
OCSteve: As I say, I guess I lead a somewhat sheltered life
Fair enough. I...er, haven't. :-P
(Some of your links are broken BTW.)
Strange. They all work fine for me...?
Posted by: matttbastard | September 02, 2007 at 05:57 PM
I'm not saying, Hil, that it's a standard you like. Just that it's not a "double" standard.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 02, 2007 at 05:58 PM
J Thomas; I wasn't that young, I just hadn't had it happen before. I guess I was ugly. I didn't do anything violent or even impolite, I just felt very angry. By the third time, not so much. From my experience and the small sample of people I've discussed it with, I think it might be a common response at first, and something people get over with experience and reflection.
It's a common response among men who have been taught that to be heterosexual is a sign of manhood, and that to be homosexual is to be unmanned, and who have had no life experiences to tell them that this is pernicious nonsense.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 02, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Though the above is based on the anecdotal evidence of a fair number of people, friends, acquaintances, and others, who were the men propositioning other men, and who got an angry response from the men they propositioned - when all that was needed was a "no thanks" or even "no way".
And furthermore, I see J Thomas has already clarified his remarks: sorry, I should have read further down the thread. (I blame the kittens, or rather, one particular kitten: the small black one sitting on me and purring.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 02, 2007 at 06:11 PM
more people should read my old friend Chip Delany's stuff, although certainly _The Mad Man_ is not reading for everyone.
I'ma amazed they've been able to make a TV">http://imdb.com/title/tt0804503/">TV series out of it.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | September 02, 2007 at 06:29 PM
I sure hope Tucker Carlson doesn't go to Chris Matthews for advice. While his little "get closer to the camera, cutie" incident doesn't rival O'Reilly, it certainly was cringe producing for a this working woman who has seen co-workers similarly harassed. Tucker should probably talk to Erin Burnett rather than Chris. I bet she won't tell him to go and get a friend to beat the guy up in the bathroom.
Posted by: sab | September 02, 2007 at 10:48 PM
This story, and the discussion afterwards, has only proven to me that I know practically NOTHING about cruising. Toe-tapping? Really?
I'm so not good at subtle. I guess the good news is that I'm not that likely to get arrested.
:)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | September 02, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Unless you have Restless Leg Syndrome, in which case LOOK OUT.
Posted by: adam | September 03, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Interesting comments re anger at unwanted propositions. It's not something I personally ever felt (just some mild anxiety of "what if he makes a scene," IIRC)) but it clarifies some conversations I had w/ friends in high school and college. (male and female friends. Girls more upset than sounded warranted, guys very confused about such reactions).
I suspect the phenomenon is not confined to propositions, or homophobia. Harlan Ellison once wrote an autobiographical essay about a woman he picked up who wanted him to bind and spank her, and he seemed to think it was some kind of moral triumph that he left her tied up for her parents to find. Because, hey, she was a perv and he was normal, so he got to punish her. Or something like that. Maybe it's natural for a lot of people to get upset when anything that seemed unconnected with sex suddenly gets freighted with that connotation. Like hanging out with a friend you hadn't thought of in that way, or walking down the street in a tight shirt, or hitting. If you have a lot of tension about sex in the first place, freaking out about that would be understandable. Not that the anger is right or to be condoned (much less praised, thank you Mr. Tucker Carlson), but a normal reaction.
Posted by: trilobite | September 03, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Bizarrely, Harlan Ellison was famous for telling this story about what (if it were true - it reads like an urban legend) would have been sexual assault, at the same time as he was peddling his feminist credentials by refusing to travel to states that hadn't ratified the ERA, or something like that. My guess is that the story about tying her up and abandoning her for her parents to find was a fantasy that Ellison had after she kicked him out of the house for being an asshole: even given his habits of groping women at conventions, the assault story sounds like a bit much.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 03, 2007 at 03:28 PM
"even given his habits of groping women at conventions"
Y'know, Harlan has been going to cons since around 1953, and while he apologized for his dumb-ass act in his schtick with Connie Willis at last year's Hugos, which was called for, he has absolutely no such record of any kind of habit of "groping women at conventions," and saying otherwise is stupid, ignorant, and insupportable.
What Harlan, a man who has done many things in his life worth criticising, and worth praising, has particularly done at sf cons over the decades was spend many years making his primary concern passing the ERA, and speaking about feminism, and fundraising for NOW, and trying to get fans to not put on sf conventions in non-ERA states, back when the Equal Rights Amendment was an issue.
And he took many years of flack for "politicizing fandom" with "irrelevant ideas about feminism."
I'm certainly not going to defend everything Harlan has ever done in his life, since he's done a lot of stupid things, as well as a lot of non-stupid things, and I certainly won't defend the anecdote Trilobite refers, but the idea that Harlan Ellison, one of the most active men in the sf community in supporting feminism, with dollars, raised dollars, words, time, effort, and credibility, over decades of such effort, should be carelessly and casually tarred as some sort of serial groper, is insupportable and rather disgusting.
God help us if we start a Harlan debate here, though. Please, no.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2007 at 06:40 PM
1. Harlan Ellison never apologized for groping Connie Willis at the Hugos. He did do a little bit of mock contrition, after returning from the Worldcon to discover that his groping a writer with more Hugos that Ellison himself was being regarded with disgust rather than amusement, but when he discovered that his critics weren't impressed by his going "oh yes, I'm a bad boy" he retracted his claims to be contrite. (The words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" never appeared.)
2. While the women who came forward after Ellison groped Willis to tell their stories about being groped/pawed by Ellison at that and previous conventions may never have crossed Gary's radar, or struck him as proving Ellison has a record of groping women, they still exist. I daresay Harlan Ellison never groped Gary Farber.
3. One of the more disgusting aspects of Ellison's griping about being criticized for pawing Connie Willis on stage at the Hugos was his assertion that after all his work for equal rights, he was entitled to behave towards women any way he liked, and no one should dare condemn him for it. I see Gary is much of the same mind.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 03, 2007 at 07:19 PM
"I see Gary is much of the same mind."
Yes, spot on. I'm content to leave you with the last word there, and for people to come to their own conclusions.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2007 at 07:35 PM
At the risk of, in fact, turning this into a Harlan thread:
I was a very willing Ellison gropee, back in the day, and even I think he's a jerk.
Posted by: CaseyL | September 03, 2007 at 09:03 PM
Ellison himself has disclaimed having any common sense about women or sexual relationships. Call it a blind spot and move on. As Gary says, there's not much point in having a debate about Harlan Ellison's sex life, a subject on which far too much has already been written by the man himself.
I mentioned the story simply as an example of how squickiness can turn into hostility. I think the word "squick" was one of the great neologisms of my lifetime, as it denotes sexual discomfort WITHOUT any connotation that the discomfort is privileged. I.e., when I say that something squicks me, I am not claiming I have a right to be outraged about the conduct in question. This is very different from the righteous indignation that seems to characterize prior generations' discussion of sexual kinks.
Posted by: trilobite | September 04, 2007 at 04:43 AM
Ellison himself has disclaimed having any common sense about women or sexual relationships. Call it a blind spot and move on. As Gary says, there's not much point in having a debate about Harlan Ellison's sex life, a subject on which far too much has already been written by the man himself.
I mentioned the story simply as an example of how squickiness can turn into hostility. I think the word "squick" was one of the great neologisms of my lifetime, as it denotes sexual discomfort WITHOUT any connotation that the discomfort is privileged. I.e., when I say that something squicks me, I am not claiming I have a right to be outraged about the conduct in question. This is very different from the righteous indignation that seems to characterize prior generations' discussion of sexual kinks.
Posted by: trilobite | September 04, 2007 at 04:44 AM
Ellison himself has disclaimed having any common sense about women or sexual relationships. Call it a blind spot and move on. As Gary says, there's not much point in having a debate about Harlan Ellison's sex life, a subject on which far too much has already been written by the man himself.
I mentioned the story simply as an example of how squickiness can turn into hostility. I think the word "squick" was one of the great neologisms of my lifetime, as it denotes sexual discomfort WITHOUT any connotation that the discomfort is privileged. I.e., when I say that something squicks me, I am not claiming I have a right to be outraged about the conduct in question. This is very different from the righteous indignation that seems to characterize prior generations' discussion of sexual kinks.
Posted by: trilobite | September 04, 2007 at 04:44 AM
I.e., when I say that something squicks me, I am not claiming I have a right to be outraged about the conduct in question. This is very different from the righteous indignation that seems to characterize prior generations' discussion of sexual kinks.
Excellent point.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 04, 2007 at 06:24 AM
OCSteve reports that men think that lesbian sex is hot while everybody thinks that gay sex is icky.
I presume OCSteve has never heard of the peculiar phenomenon of "slash fiction" or "slash fanfic". (Kirk/Spock boldly go where no man has gone before.)
(And I second liberal japonicus on manga.)
Posted by: p mac | September 04, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Phil and I both already mentioned /fic. OCSteve has acknowledged his sheltered upbringing, so I think your presumption has already been confirmed.
(Helps if you read all the comments, p mac. ;-)).
Posted by: matttbastard | September 04, 2007 at 12:15 PM
So: I was under the impression that arcane signaling in a bathroom isn't itself lewd or disorderly, but rather that the signal's being a proposition to commit a crime (sex in a public place) was the grounds for the arrest.
I wonder how the Minnesota law is written.
Posted by: Ara | September 04, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Let's hear it for TypePad, putting the "tri" in "trilobite" since 4:44 a.m.
Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by: trilobite | September 04, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Craig's having second thoughts about resigning.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 05, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Dems are going after Lindsey Graham next.
Posted by: DaveC | September 05, 2007 at 01:45 AM
Dave, that's an overly broad brush you are swinging around there. More preferable would be 'Lindsay Graham is the next target'
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 05, 2007 at 01:53 AM
Michelangelo Signorile is the Democratic Party?
Gosh. How queer of us all.
You're very enthusiastic, and free, with your charges, all of a sudden, DaveC.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 05, 2007 at 01:57 AM
"all of a sudden"
Wait, I have no idea why I said that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 05, 2007 at 02:21 AM
Gee, Dave, I didn't realize you get the same memos all the kewl GOP shills do. But you forgot to find a way to work 'McCarthyism' into your (latest) smear.
Something to work on for next time.
Keep indiscriminately pouring gasoline and lighting matches; soon you won't have any bridges left to huddle underneath (yes, that was a friendly troll reference - the constant drive-by sniping is starting to *ahem* get my goat).
Posted by: matttbastard | September 05, 2007 at 07:39 AM
Mike Rogers flatly declares that he is going to continue exposing people's personal lives.
Rogers, a 40-year-old Washington fundraising consultant has done this sort of thing for quite a while, as has John Aravosis.(who I think is affiliated with Americablog)
So, no it is not all Dems, per se, but political consultants and fundraising consultants that think this is acceptable political activity. They say that they are going to continue, and I take them at their word.
Posted by: DaveC | September 05, 2007 at 10:04 AM
It's not all Dems at all, DaveC. It's not all political consultants and fundraising consultants either. In fact it's only a tiny, tiny minority of such folks. Mike Rogers and John Aravosis are much less central to the Democratic Party than, say, Pat Robertson and Sun Myung Moon are central to the Republican Party.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 05, 2007 at 10:11 AM
It's not all Dems at all, DaveC. It's not all political consultants and fundraising consultants either. In fact it's only a tiny, tiny minority of such folks.
OK, granted.
Whoever is stirring the pot, it looks like 2008 races are going to be a Crazy Train
Warning: Loud YouTube link.
Posted by: DaveC | September 05, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I'm still hoping Hilzoy will eventually answer my pertinent query: "Focusing on the important detail, what about the original series made you wonder what it would be like to have no hair?"
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 05, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Perhaps not the original series, but the first Star Trek movie?
Posted by: LizardBreath | September 05, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Yes, Gary, I think it was just poor phrasing, or a slip: "the original Star Trek" meant "the original Star Trek movie".
Posted by: KCinDC | September 05, 2007 at 04:22 PM
Yeah, I mentioned the movie possibility the first time.
But I can't discount the possibility that Balok was influential in young Hilzoy's life, which is why I ask. :-)
(The main point ever mentioned about the Deltans, which Lieutenant Ilia was, was that they're very strict about exposing sexually "immature" species to their practices. Which are apparently a lot of fun, as well as a matter of great study and intellectual depth. Hubba hubba.)
(The movie barely alluded to this, compared to other sources.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 05, 2007 at 04:43 PM