Toilets have been getting a lot of attention this year. In the wake of Larry Craig’s arrest, police are suddenly hip to the public sex jive and are spending more time in the loo looking for trollish inhabitants.
While conservatives may laud their efforts, more liberal groups wonder if authorities aren’t acting a bit prejudicial. Michigan’s Triangle Foundation certainly thinks so – they’re investigating complaints against Clayton Township’s police departments.
“This is profiling,” said Sean Kosofsky, policy director for the organization. “Heterosexuals are never targeted in public sex stings.”
…
Township Police Chief Chuck Melki said he’s simply enforcing the law and isn’t targeting any specific group of people.“The bottom line is, we get complaints from citizens that they see men lingering in the woods, touching each other and having sex,” Melki said. “This would be a crime regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”
What about gender identity? Oh, and as for the “heterosexuals are never targeted”: most of the men arrested having sex in bathrooms are self-identified straight.
Woof
I don’t think the point is orientation, rather sex act. I don’t think too many people troll toilets for hetrosexual sex (ick).
Mr. B
Woof has a point. I know the actual issue of entrapment is a hazy one, but it’s silly to complain that men seeking men are unfairly targeted when they’re primarily the ones who cruise parks and bathrooms.
kiltnc
It’s the closet cases that are giving us out and proud folks a bad name. They need to grab their balls (sorry) and take it to their homes.
theo
What’s the big deal with sex in public? Sex is beautiful, it is the creative force of nature, and it is the first primal act that teaches us to connect with each other and with the divine.
There is no reason to try and pass, and definitely no reason to take up the antiquated morals of our puritanical ancestors for the sake of being main-stream. Our culture is changing, ride the tide or be swept under the waves.
Matt
um, yeah, kneeling in a puddle of cold pee whilst licking a nameless married buy’s balls and keeping an eye on the bathroom door is truly a beautiful thing to be celebrated and protected…
Dawster
Wood, Mr B. i’m not really a “cruisy” or outdoor person. nothing ruins sex more than fire ants and centipedes (not as kinky as one might think). but in two places i’ve lived in the south obvious “gay” profiling.
i’ve talked about it many times, on the beach, where a “gay” park was constantly being busted for drug use, prostitution, and public sex. the only thing driving that was financial donations from the local churches. EVERY old queen had a story about getting busted by blowing a super hot cop… actually blow him till he came… THEN getting arrested.
it was really the only time where i saw old-school homos get REALLY down and depressed about something… it was such a shame to be treated so poorly – used… then arrested (as they were usually upbeat and bitchy about everything else, you know?).
the discrepancy came just 3 short miles away to an open, public, 24 hour park where i have personally seen more straight sex, blow jobs, drug dealing, and people tripping on god knows what (mushrooms) and there has hardly ever been an arrest there.
there was one particular evening where i stopped on the way home to find the garage door opener (much more light at the park than at the house) and i saw a bunch of cars… kids on the beach, around the boardwalk, UNDER the boardwalk, in the cars, on the stairs in the distance, in the bushes. it was a straight blow job festival (awe… look what daddy’s little girl has become…). some of these kids were young… and drunk. the next day i found out it was senior prom night. and yet there was not one arrest.
but at the gay park, there were two arrests… one for solicitation and one for possession of pot.
straight people have hook up in public websites, they have public sex clubs, listing of places they meet for public sex, AND they have the majority of the “public” videos on xtube. so why aren’t there more straight arrests? it’s usually because they only get off with a fine.
it’s not about morals, or keeping parks clean. it’s about impending fear (i.e. Jim Naugle of Ft. Lauderdale) even though it’s statistically incorrect. i can’t stand creepy old men lurking around bathrooms, but if you’re going to make this a legal moral battle, there are a LOT of straight people having sex in public who should be treated with the same indignities as “not-gay” gay men.
kiltnc
I as former police officer I would like to say that the law is enforced equally. However, in my experience it was not. A straight couple caught in the act would just be told to go home. While the “not-gay” gay men would be ridiculed and/or charged.
As a baby faced rookie I was dropped off in a local park in civilian clothing and told by my Sgt to, “go get the rope smokers.” It was a tough time for me as I was fighting my own homosexual feelings.
I had zero gaydar and had no idea how to solicit the “rope smokers.” I did not make an arrest and in fact, the one person that spoke to me…I told him to go home. Needless to say, the Sgt never asked me to cruise the park again.
Leland Frances
Film of actual tearoom sex on PlanetOut at
http://www.planetout.com/popcornq/db/getfilm.html?11075
Click on “View now in Quicktime”
WARNING: SOOOO NOT SAFE FOR WORK. A “training film” for police, the first half is a homohating lecture so rabid it makes Fred Phelps sound like the president of PFLAG. Homo = public sex = child murder. I kid you not. Both the lecture and the explicit sex in a downtown Mansfield, Ohio, public restroom will leave your jaw on the floor.
From late 50s. Unrepresentative of the fetish in that anal intercourse seems to be more prevalent than Laud Humphrey’s famous 1970 book, “Tearoom Trade,” discussed, even with a “lookout” which was common but I don’t believe mentioned in the film.
Humphreys identified 50+ % of those he studied to be married and publicly identified as straight. A disproportionate number were Catholic and politically conservative. Plus ca change….
Triangle Foundation does some great work but its cute leader naively suggests we posit public gay sex as no more “ick making” than Quakers playing frisbee in the park. Good luck with that.
And for a legal expert, his application of the term “profiling” is waaay off. Entrapment is definitely wrong, but once ya grab the meat you can hardly plead The Vegetarian Defense. Feel free, though, to compare recipes with George Michael.
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
Yes, the 1950’s films were scripted with abnormal psychology and theology absolutely in their corner.
There was an implicit suggestion that the choice to be perverse for some meant a sideline to their heterosexual family life. Those who could not “pass” as straight lived in a gay underworld or solitary lives in small communities targetted for abuse or worse. The exceptions were of course, the major cities where they could congregate with relative obscurity.
Fast forward six decades later, and of course, there are some gay men who troll bathrooms and other inappropriate venues for sex. However, the majority of these guys are closeted self-loathing men who are often in a bearded straight marriage.
They are aware of the russian roulette they play with their lives and career, but they are hard-wired psychosexually and emotionally ill where sexual addiction is concerned.
Matt is absolutely correct about how popular false stereotypes abound about gay males….paedophilia, bathroom trollers, and otherwise dark characters not worthy of recognition but should be criminalised and prohibited from marriage or children.
One advantage of marriage equality is the reality of another “stereotype” of gay families. There are also less heterosexual women becoming beards for dominant homosexual men. We all deserve the possibility of life partnerships with individuals who share our sexual orientation.
Mr. B
Dawster, I’m not arguing that the men who are caught don’t then get mistreated by the police (especially by comparison to straight pairings who are caught). And in the past, there certainly has been gay witch hunting. However, you can give all the anecdotes you want about how many girls give blowjobs in back seats, but I will stand by this: When it comes to people trolling for anonymous sex–waiting in a park or bathroom for potential partners–the majority are overwhelmingly male. That’s just how it falls. So calling on numbers alone when it comes to fines and arrests to make a case that MSM are unfairly targeted is faulty logic.
Also, the reason entrapment is such a gray area is because the cop might get blown, but the guy doing the blowing just signed his own warrant because, unfair or not, he just had public sex and can’t argue his way out of that. The shitty part comes into play if and when he testifies that he can describe the cop’s penis perfectly and that evidence gets thrown out. The official definition of entrapment–and I know I pulled up the facts and figures way back when we were all discussing the Bob Allen case–is when an officer coerces or tricks someone into doing something illegal. So if a cop pretends to be interested in having sex for money or getting a BJ in the park, he’s actually not entrapping someone because the defendant is already looking to perform the illegal activity.
Mr. B
Oh. Also, even though those straight couples on XTube are doing something illegal (public sex), one non-homophobic reason why law enforcement targets tearoom trad might be this. The couples doing it in public are consenting adults (or teenagers humping in the backseat)–they’re getting a thrill out of doing it in public, not trying to proposition other people. The guys trolling in parks or bathrooms are often alone and looking for partners. So even though there are plenty of consenting adults sucking each other off in these places, there remains the potential for someone to either try to engage a minor (whether he knows it or not) OR to not take no for an answer. (I’m sure someone will jump in and victim-blame, but just because you’re willingly cruising doesn’t mean you want to have sex with everyone who propositions you, and sex against someone’s will is always sexual assault.)
I repeat–I KNOW this logic can be applied as a smokescreen for homophobic targeting. And gay profiling is inherently bad. But it’s an unfair argument to equate couples (of any gender) going to a place together to have sex with lone people waiting around for a stranger to have sex with. The protocol and communication necessary is just plain different, so the dangers (for the sex-having people as well as bystanders who want no part of it) are different.
Dawster
“So if a cop pretends to be interested in having sex for money or getting a BJ in the park, he’s actually not entrapping someone because the defendant is already looking to perform the illegal activity.”
but don’t they have to prove intent? in most cases in this particular florida region, the cop has his dick out and is stroking it hard. who is creating the first lewd act? the intent could have been for the “mark” to pee after walking on the beach. if a super hot guy flashes a hard dick, who here would immediately look away? you can’t prove that the guy went in there for sex. (you can assume that with loitering in the park, following people… toe tapping even.)
if a woman was hiding out in a men’s restroom fingering herself wet and pinching her nipples, would a straight man be able to resist a chance to look, or do a double take?
and THAT is overwhelming the case – if the guy seems interested, he’s busted. if a guy talks, he’s busted. if a guy glances at a hard dick and his eyes light up, he’s busted – period… all at the will of the cop that’s there.
you know, people ARE allowed to hook up with others for the intent of sex and take it behind closed doors. People can walk around saying “hey, i’m looking for sexual relations, are you interested?” as long as the statement afterwards is “let’s not do it here.” no one is ever allowed to get to that second part. there’s not a chance to say “hey, let’s take this somewhere more private” or the like.
OR it goes in the other direction… full fledge blow job… ‘swallow my cum’… that was great… you’re going to jail. there’s no “middle ground” like there is with straight people.
I also want to point out that women these days are getting bolder and more aggressive and they can be on the prowl just as much as guys. men (gay or straight) are always up for a hook up if that is their nature). there are more and more straight cruise websites, text message hook ups, and other ways that have become popular for “cruising” gals to hook up with “cruising” guys for hot anonymous sex. it’s very popular.
Mr. B
Yes, Dawster, it gets hairy when the cop’s intent and/or actual activity isn’t clear. But my point is that if someone agrees to participate in a “lewd act” (snort), unless he was tricked into doing it (that is, he didn’t know he was doing something illegal, like if he tried to buy flour from an undercover “grocer” and actually bought a sack of coke) or coerced (threatened and/or intimidated into a sex act he otherwise wouldn’t have participated), it’s not entrapment. These are adults here, and they’re choosing to have sex in the bathroom or wherever even though they know they *could* get arrested for it.
This isn’t the same as the gay bar raids of the ’50s, is all I’m saying. They’re not being arrested for having gay sex, they’re being arrested for seeking out/having sex in a public place. The issue lies in whether or not they’re being unfairly targeted over other people committing the same offense (I’m still inclined to say no) or if they’re getting less fair treatment from cops. I certainly think the latter happens, though surely some precincts are far worse about it than others.