What happened to Senator Larry Craig this summer, when he solicited a sexual encounter with a stranger in an airport bathroom, is more tragic than anything else. How very very sad that anyone, hetero or homosexual, would find such an encounter to be rewarding. Not only has he been forced to resign over it, but what could he possibly have gained if that had not been a police officer in the stall next to his?It's possible he might just be a pervert, who gets off on humiliating himself and others, who wants sex with no emotional connection, and therefore stranger to stranger would be his choice anyway. That happens in homo and heterosexual people. But looking at his options, it's not hard to see how it is for people who fall on the other side of what the majority have deemed the 'right' side.
I'd love to blame Republicans for this, but I think a lot of Democrats have the same hang-ups. It's normal for most humans to desire the opposite sex; so there often has been little sympathy for those who were born with different desires. Not only no sympathy but no compassion with teeth. It's not enough for us to say too bad. What can we do about it?
My concern is when we attempt to deny homosexuals 'normal' outlets, acceptable relationships where they can be publicly who they are, when we say they are already evil, where is there to go except into perversion?
Homosexuals of strong dispositions (or with families who are ready to help them be whoever they are) will buck the tide and say tough, I am who I am and if I love Joe or Frank (for females Sally or Susie) that's my right. They will marry in whatever method they can find (at one time just a celebration with their families and friends, today in some states legal ways) and live responsible lives adopting children if they choose, having a family life such as the rest enjoy, and for those who are shocked or resentful, that's their problem! It's not how it works for all.
For weaker people, who have been taught from childhood that homosexuality is a sin, the very nature of who they are has just been condemned. They must hide their desires. They might marry someone appropriate, manage enough sex to have children even and sometimes eventually break out by leaving those families or getting involved with seedy sex which, for some, appears to be all that is left for them in society's self-righteous eyes.
I don't know that Craig would not have been a pervert whether society handled all of this more maturely and compassionately. Certainly Bill Clinton has been into perverted sex (or was) and he's no closet homosexual-- probably. But it seems to me society should do what it can to change the game for those who are born with different wiring from the majority.
I would have said that Craig was a hypocrite, but maybe he's not. Maybe he has come to believe that homosexuality is evil, that no homosexual relationship should be honored in a marital service. Maybe he believes in the conservative platform but just can't live it. How sad that such people have to hide and deny their reality, sometimes commit suicide because they can't live up to the standards of their culture.
My solution is allow all government contracts between sexual partners to be called civil contracts. Let churches separate out who they feel should have marriages before the god of their religion; and let the rest of us teach any children we might have that there are good ways to live no matter what gender we desire and airport sex isn't one of them-- even if we don't get arrested and charged with disorderly conduct!
(Photo from Eastern Oregon, in the heart of the John Day country. Life is a road, winding between mountains, into and out of valleys, and which we negotiate as best we can.)
30 comments:
Reeal love knows no boundaries Rain-except for the ones that we put on them.
I agree with that Paul. It's hard enough to find.
There was an additional element to the Larry Craig bust. I read one person's belief that he was set up all right-- by the Bush administration. Now that particular undercover officer wasn't there as a set up and it required Craig having a habit that has been deemed illegal by the morality cops, but suppose someone reported the activity with the intention of getting him arrested and out of office. Bush referred to him very recently as a traitor for standing with Democrats against Bush's desire to be a dictator. We all know the Rove department doesn't mind such dirty tricks. Just a possibility but an interesting one...
Rain,
Maybe you know something that I don't know, or maybe our definitions are different, but what was perverted about the sex Bill Clinton had? Adulterous,YES, Kinky,maybe.But perverted?
Enjoy your site very much. You are very interesting.
Thanks for the compliment on the blog, Nancy. On Clinton, I would use the same definition of perverting sexuality that got Craig in trouble. I mean what he actually did with foot tapping, brushing his foot a bit over the line and the hand thing, was that a huge deal? It was an invitation to a stranger to have sex which might seem yucky to most of us but what about it was anything different than the heterosexual guy who gives a woman the eye and wants to have sex with a stranger? Clinton would have her doing a blow job on him while he was on the phone and that kind of seems perverted to even me who has a loose definition. He wasn't a pervert as such but is Craig? I would say it's similar in the levels of distorting the real purposes of sexually loving relationships between people who are consenting and of age. Naturally that's my opinion though.
Rain, this is exactly how I feel about all this! You said it so well - much better than I could have.
I've been catching up on my blog reading - and must tell you - you always have the greatest pictures.
In a broad-brush approach, I believe one of the real problems we have developed in this society over the past generation is that far too often people, particularly influential public people, are not held to the standards they espouse. When we allow the hypocrisy of talking out of both sides of the mouth, do as I say and not as I do, etc., this is damaging to our value system on some level. It sends the wrong signals to young people, who pick up the beat and carry on the tradition.
There have been reports over the past couple of years that sexual intercourse among teens is not as prevalent as a few years ago, but that has been replaced with an explosion (pun intended) of casual blow jobs in the back seat or under the bleachers or in the family room watching TV.
amba has an interesting take (9/2/07) on this from Mark Steyne at National Review:
http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2007/09/mark-steyn-on-h.html
I read that link, Winston, and it was interesting. The whole idea that 'soliciting sex' is illegal is one that needs to be explored more. Is for instance a man giving a woman the eye or the woman smiling at a guy knowingly, are those soliciting sex? Where do we draw the line? The more I think about this, the more I find the way these guys were soliciting sex was pretty innocent and wouldn't be that offensive to anybody else as who would know what any of it meant? If the officer had his foot closer to the wall than most would, if he sat in that bathroom way longer than it would seem most would, was he soliciting someone who knew what was possible? Should sex between strangers also be illegal? Craig didn't offer money for this service which is where the morality police usually get most upset but now it's about just suggesting you'd like it?
I don't honestly know if Craig lived a life of hypocrisy or not. I know his name was on my list of those I had been told were closeted gays; so it was no big secret if even someone like me, way outside the beltway knew. I was not surprised to hear he got busted. He did have a wife but should we now judge anybody to have a spouse to have to have a 'real' marriage? Is that our business also?
Seedy sex is as disgusting to me as most Americans. It should be like we see when we watch it in the movies... right? *s*
Rain,
I have learned a lot reading this discussion about "casual sex" and whether or not Senator Craig was unfairly accused of soliciting sex from the undercover police officer.
Your thoughts about Rove possibly being behind the arrest make sense to me. He is a bad man and I wouldn't put it past him to have set this up.
I remember when the Government was trying to "Get the Goods" on Mayor Marion Berry of D.C.. They were trying to catch him using drugs.
The FBI had set up cameras and audio equipment in a hotel room where Berry was trying to seduce a woman into having sex with him.
Over and over they produced drugs for him to take and he kept insisting he didn't want them, he only wanted sex. Again, they tempted him. No dice. After wearing him down for over an hour he finally took some of the drugs and then they POUNCED!!!!!
Arrested and dragged out for taking drugs. Talk about entrapment. And he never did get any sex...
Do you think Senator Craig may have been a victim, too?
Well, Nancy, revenge is the name of the game for many in politics-- Be on my side or you are my enemy. It certainly wouldn't be out of character for the Rovians to do something like that. And I don't for a minute think Rove is out of the power game. Whether he turns up working for one of the other candidates or is giving Bush advice behind the scenes, he's still going to be in it up to his eyeballs.
Well, Rain, I sort of hope that Rove IS still involved in Republican politics, because in my opinion, he is not the genius everyone seems to think he is.
Aside from his "Dirty Tricks" like the Swift Boat caper, I think he has made quite a few mistakes. I really can't think of too many coups he has come up with. Bush' approval ratings are around 28% at the moment and that is thanks to a lot of Rove advice.
As far as the "Swift Boat" business, John Kerry should have screamed foul at the very first hint of it."How dare you question my military service? "Let's compare the President's Viet Nam experiences against my own." etc.
Senator Kerry instead went sailing and thus lost the election by default. He should have screamed "foul" and the people would have been with him. He let Rove and Co. get away with that. So Rove wasn't so smart, Kerry was complacent.
I think you are right about Rove, Nancy. He has only thought about getting elected and not how to govern once there beyond winning the next and then the next election. It's short-sighted at best and tragic at worst that who we elect as president or any official too often end up good at running for office but potentially lousy once they have to actually govern
I have been thinking that the whole Craig bathroom event has been exploited perfectly by the administration to get the attention off of Gonzales's resignation and the meltdown in the DOJ. The news cycle just loves these pecadilloes.
Great point, Robin. I had not thought of that but many have asked the question of why did it come out now where it's been out there for quite awhile. That would be so like this administration to use it when they needed it-- killing two birds with one stone as they get back at Craig for disloyalty and distract from their own crookedness.
Rain,
We had a lot of fun when Scooter Libby was sentenced and there was the possibility of a Bush pardon.
The consensus was when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon his ratings went down 50%. BUT, he had started with a 79% approval rating so he went down to 29%.
Bush was already at 28% so if his ratings went down by 50%,he would be at 14%. That would mean that he could almost get everybody who approved of him on his "Friends and Family" T Mobile cell phone account.
Whoa...hold on....have I been living in a tunnel? When/where/how was Bill Clinton into "perverted sex?" How did I miss this one? But then again... I guess that depends on one's definition of perverted sex.
Onto Craig.....sorry, can't agree on this one. While I am MOST definitely for live and let live...no matter the sexual preference...I still maintain Craig was/is a hypocrit of the highest standing.
Just my opinion.
Thanks for all the comments and it's good whether we agree or disagree that this is being discussed. The one thing to keep in mind is my original point was that we need to change our laws about marriage and teach children responsible sexual behavior regardless of their orientation. I realize for Christians, that's impossible if they see homosexuality as the ultimate sin.
Terri, in my opinion, it is not hypocritical for a gay to believe gays should not be allowed to marry. That's an opinion that you would naturally think gays would see otherwise, but it would depend on how they saw being gay. If they saw it as natural and as beautiful as any other way of being sexual, then they would likely favor gay marriage, but what if they did not? Also Craig was not elected by the people of Idaho to represent gay interests. He was representing the interests of his constituency who is probably way against gay anything.
I don't know a lot about what Craig said in public or how he presented himself other than the fact he was a closeted gay (which he still denies). Publicly, he was a conservative who did stand against Bush on issues, alongside other more moderate conservatives.
As for perversion. It was definitely a loose use of the word by me; but in my opinion what Clinton was accused of by more than a few women was that he virtually raped some of them using his power and the pressure he could apply leaving them afraid to report it. As was the case with JFK, it has been said Clinton would have sex with women he barely knew. Now is that true? I wouldn't know, but it was that to which I was referring. Also to have sex with an intern, on the job, using cigars, talking on the phone to leaders while having those acts performed on him, well, for me it's on the same level as what Craig did. Clinton also lied about it which makes sense given his marriage and the public disapproval of adultery-- even those who are somewhat liberal otherwise.
And in my opinion, neither of what Craig nor Clinton might have done (unless Clinton did force women) should be illegal. Call me way over the top liberal, but I am not in favor of very many sexual laws unless they hurt someone else. Why is soliciting, as it was described, a legal issue at all? Now if they were having sex in public after that solicitation, then I could see it for gays or straights (but I know good people, married couples who do have sex where they might get caught and find it enhances their excitement. Not my thing but I don't find it offensive in others unless I am in a position where I have to observe it-- and even then, I look the other way or leave the area.
The issue I was bringing up is that neither man was living a life that-- to me-- seems sexually mature-- as most of us would consider mature. With Clinton, it was not having just an affair but that he had sex with so many women when he could get them.
Craig pleaded guilty because he was accused of soliciting sex-- not because he actually had it. We don't know what he wanted from the undercover cop? Was he planning to masturbate right there in the stall? Was he going to meet him elsewhere? I have no idea and really don't want to know.
When a woman is groped, she considers it offensive but what if a stranger just smiles at her and says I would like to have sex with you-- is that against the law? The more I have heard about this whole thing with Craig, the more I don't understand why it was a matter for the legal system at all.
Not many of us, who are straight, would have even known what those signals meant. My husband says that now that he thinks about it, he has heard that signal but he ignored it as it meant nothing to him. Nobody did anything that was crude in following up either. We have come a long way down a legal path that makes me wonder where it ends? Should sex between two consenting adults, who are not married or even maybe knowing each other, be illegal-- anywhere, anytime any place?
And Nancy that was very funny and true. :)
This whole Craig thing is totally mystifying to me--and the incident also became a high learning curve. I didn't know about all these signals that happen in men's bathrooms--maybe women's too for all I know.
Sex without intimacy has always been puzzling for me, but I was acculturated to be monogamous--serially monogamous after I was divorced. I was often in the "alternative" life style parties when I dated the last Bob and the partner swapping simply mystified me.
I just cringe when I hear the conversation between Craig and the undercover cop. Maybe he was entrapped, though it sounds doubtful. How sad to be so staunchly on the religious right only to have this kind of behavior flaunted in public.
This isn't a political issue for me--it's just humiliating, unsafe, and tragic.
Final word from me on the subject:
"Do you believe in pre marital sex?"
"It doesn't bother me as long as they don't block the aisle,"
I think he is a total hypocrite and I think he had the best job in the world and he knew if he came out as gay in Idaho he would have lost that terrific job. Here in Cali we don't care so much if you are a gay politician, but up there it is more of big deal.
The story from the police department was that there had been complaints about men having sex in the men's rooms at the airport, that is why the police were staking out the bathroom. I don't think it was a conspiracy to get rid of Craig.
This story also shows the difference in the republican party. This guy gets arrested and the republicans want him out. Also he is the lead story for several days in a row. William Jefferson takes $100k from the FBI and then gets busted with $90k in his freezer and he is still in office with the only thing that happened was Nancy Pelosi removed him from some committees.
Hillary Clinton takes money from a Chinese fugitive and it hardly makes the news.
soooo what's your opinion on Abramoff, with all his shady deals, and his connections to Bush? I don't know anything about how well Clinton knew Hu but if you got the idea there isn't anything being said about it in the MSM, you aren't reading much these days. It's been all over it but many of the politicians take money from shady sources, sometimes knowing it and sometimes not. There have been a lot more scandals regarding that with Republicans than Democrats-- one right after another. Some get charged and some don't.
On hypocrisy, I don't know Craig well enough to know he was a hypocrite but I do know that all women don't see feminism the same way, all blacks civil rights, etc etc. It is possible Craig was but it is also possible he was just a closeted gay who saw it as evil all the rest of his party. If that was so, what makes him a hypocrite? That he didn't kill himself, resign, divorce his wife? live the way others live? Oh maybe because he didn't have that last option?
And it's no surprise that the republicans wouldn't stand behind craig after he got busted because they have a positive weirdness about sexual offenses of any sort. Even more though, they wanted him out of there anyway as he wasn't playing ball the way they wanted. They want their own guy in there and now they have a better chance to get exactly that. I read that the reason they 'forgave' Vitter from Mississippi his sexual offense was more that it's a democratic governor down there and it wouldn't give them that seat... How noble
Interesting addition to this story that Craig may not resign and it's other moderate conservatives who are urging him to stick it out. Guess we will find out in time.
Why didn't he have that last option? He could have moved to place that is more accepting of gays and lived a very happy life. Or he could have came out with the truth in Idaho and took his chances at the ballot box. After all we re-elect 97% of constituents, the old Soviet Politburo had more turnover than the US Congress and they only had one candidate on the ballot each time. But Craig chose to live a double life and cash in on the Senate gravy train.
Are you of the belief that every Republican is openly who they are? For instance do you think that ranch in Texas was purchased as anything more than a prop to make Bush seem like a Reagan? Does every person running for office owe the rest of us their sexual histories and orientations? It could be Craig was born in Idaho, loves the state and had no interest in moving. It could be that the sting in the airport was a waste of resources for a people who are obsessed with everybody following the same sexual rules they believe are correct. It could be Craig will stay in the senate, run again and win.
I have never believed a politicians sexual history was the business of anybody but their partners unless they do something that hurts others. I think Bush proves my point. So he doesn't have sex with Condoleeza, maybe... does that make him a good president? Was it any business of anybody's that FDR had a mistress? We are a culture gone nuts with this kind of stuff. Voyeurism. So if you think it's important, you keep voting for someone who is not gay and says they are purer than the driven snow sexually and see what that does for the country.
Guess it's all moot now, as it doesn't look like he's resigning. He's rescinding his "guilty" plea. Seems the man is extremely indecisive, in addition to many other things.
and i have to admit, this last maneuver of his makes him sound pretty sleazy. Not that most politicians aren't-- sad to say. Why do we always end up with the worst, not the best?
You really seem like you are looking for a fight on this one. Why are you so intent on defending Craig and making this about Bush?
I really don't care what he does in the privacy of his bedroom, but this wasn't his bedroom it was a stall at the airport, personally I don't want to have to see or hear that kind of behavior at a public place whether it is 2 men or a man and a woman. It is not the right place for that kind of activity. I am not a prude and I have had sex in bathroom stall in a bar with my wife when I was much younger, but at an airport come on. At least the bar was dark and nobody else came in. I wasn't trolling for strangers to join in.
If people want to pick up people at the airport then do it in the airplane lavatory where there is some privacy.
I would prefer my politicians tell the truth but since that is very unlikely I would prefer that they are not sleeze bags but since that is very unlikely I would at least like them to appear believable when they lie to me on camera.
I am not defending Craig. If you read the original post, I am concerned that gays have normal outlets and legal marital contracts should be part of that. It's about democrats and republicans. It's about not pushing people into hiding what should be natural. Craig did not have sex in a bathroom, which as you just verified, many heterosexual couples do. He wasn't making out in public which many heterosexual couples do. He was making some discrete signals which would offend nobody who wasn't gay as who else would know what it meant? What he would have done if they had been responded to, that might be more of an issue. I have no particular use for Craig given he's a conservative but I do believe our attitude toward homosexuality is part of the problem in this country and it should be changed. Make it okay for gays to be open about who they are and let them marry, teach them sexual responsibility, don't delight in them having bathhouse type sex as proof that they are not good and you are. (and bathhouse type sex is what Craig was after obviously) My issue was not about Craig other than he brought it up again. It was about sexuality and society.
And the few politicians who tell the truth, like say Ron Paul, they don't get very far. The American people like a show and that's why Bush did so well and still has a following. He provides them a show-- phony as fool's gold but they like the shine more than substance.
OK I think we completely agree or at least very close on our feelings toward gay people. And I know the rules are different in women's restrooms compared to Men's rooms but I would be totally offended if a guy touched me or started rubbing the divider in a restroom stall. And I am very secure in my sexuality and very comfortable around gay men, but that is just wrong behavior.
As for politicians I pretty much agree with you, but if W is such a moron and bad public speaker how can it be that people like him because he is flashy and showy?
That is way more like Bill Clinton than W. Why do you think Bill was playing the sax on Arsenio? It wasn't to show prospective voters that he could handle foreign relations.
A very small percentage of the people like Bush anymore. Most can see him for the doofus he is but he's popular with those who like what he does. It doesn't compliment the ones who like him. Have you read how he is doing in Australia. He's an idiot and if people want to vote for a wantabe cowboy who is not the real thing even, a man who has more ego than sense, well go for it. But Clinton was highly intelligent and didn't screw up our nation as Bush has. He left it in better shape than Bush will not only for how the country saw it but also other nations. Bush is a disaster and most people who still defend him just can't admit they made that kind of mistake. Clinton wasn't sexually moral if that is someone's criteria for success, they might find Bush isn't either. His wife sure isn't going on trips with him when Rice is. It'll be interesting to see what happens after he's out of office... A lot of those who talk the most about sexual purity, aren't...
As for the bathroom. What if the cop sat in there for a long time, doing nothing, had his own feet over to the edge of the stall as a discrete okay here I am? What if he was advertising something that most non homosexual men would not? I still don't condone sex in public or people advertising they are available but it isn't just gays who do that. Should they do the same thing now for bars and those who meet there and have sex the same night? If sex between strangers is the issue, then where does the legal system draw the line?
Post a Comment